Blur Busters Forums

Wanted to know what are the negative, if any of overclocking a 144hz to a 165hz xb271hu? Its marketed like that, as long as it doesn't effect game smoothness, input lag, then I'm okay with it!

You get slightly worse pixel response, which translates to a minor increase in motion blur. However, because of the higher refresh rate, you also get somewhat smoother motion (if your game can actually run at 165FPS).

The motion blur increase is minor enough as to not be noticeable though, unless you take pursuit camera photographs and examine them. So I woudln't worry about it.

On the other hand however, if your games actually don't run at 165FPS, then there's not much reason to use 165Hz. I have a very similar monitor that uses the same IPS panel (XG2703-GS) and I use 144Hz the majority of the time, and I only enable the 165Hz OC when I play CS:GO, which is the only game where I want 165FPS. For pretty much everything else, I use 144Hz and usually cap to 120FPS or lower anyway (depending on the game) and use g-sync. But for high-FPS competitive games that can reach 165FPS, the 165Hz overclock mode is a nice option.

That's actually a nice suggestion with using 144 hz and gsync + 120 FPS cap if game can't handle. In theory isn't 165hz and 120 fps also the same or why do you exactly drop your refresh rate in the first place? Is 144hz 120 fps less input lag/more smoothness vs 165hz 120 fps?!

Currently Fortnite is easy 165hz at all low settings so I just cap at 162, but for Apex, its not the case at all, fps jumps all over the place, I may just cap at 120 FPS same as you cos that's usually the range I get in fights.

GFresha wrote:In theory isn't 165hz and 120 fps also the same [...]?

165Hz has a slightly faster scanout than 144Hz; 6.1ms vs 6.9ms. That delivery speed difference (0.8ms) probably isn't very appreciable in practice though, especially with the slight hit to motion blur on this specific panel (I can see the slightly worse 165Hz overdrive by eye in TestUFO tests, myself).

Yes, the quick frame transport (QFT) effect is why 60fps @ 240Hz GSYNC has less input lag than 60fps @ 144Hz GSYNC (assuming both had identical absolute latency -- to the point where scanout latency becomes the differentiator). The faster transmission of refresh cycles leading into lower scanout latency as seen in www.blurbusters.com/scanout

If your target is a lower frame rate (e.g. 60fps capped games), with the fastest Frame Transport effect -- you want to configure your monitor at its highest refresh rate.

However, obviously some monitors' overclocked refresh rates have worse ghosting, so sometimes you want to slightly back down a bit to the highest ghost-free Hz. For example 60fps at 144Hz GSYNC for emulators versus 60fps at 165Hz GSYNC for emulators. There is a sub-millisecond difference in scanout latency for 144Hz versus 165Hz, combined with a noticeable ghosting improvement -- that it can be worthwhile to back the overclock slightly if your priority is reduced ghosting. It's a case-by-case decision (visual preference).

RealNC wrote: ↑

05 Apr 2019, 18:34

You get slightly worse pixel response, which translates to a minor increase in motion blur. However, because of the higher refresh rate, you also get somewhat smoother motion (if your game can actually run at 165FPS).

The motion blur increase is minor enough as to not be noticeable though, unless you take pursuit camera photographs and examine them. So I woudln't worry about it.

On the other hand however, if your games actually don't run at 165FPS, then there's not much reason to use 165Hz. I have a very similar monitor that uses the same IPS panel (XG2703-GS) and I use 144Hz the majority of the time, and I only enable the 165Hz OC when I play CS:GO, which is the only game where I want 165FPS. For pretty much everything else, I use 144Hz and usually cap to 120FPS or lower anyway (depending on the game) and use g-sync. But for high-FPS competitive games that can reach 165FPS, the 165Hz overclock mode is a nice option.

I generally keep mine at 144 as well.