I actually looked into that thread some time before I ordered the Y27GQ, but completely forgot about it until now. Of course I can only answer this questions with the very limited point of view of having one monitor for two days, compared to Notty's experience of trying several ones over the course of two years. However, much of what I am about to say is also true for my previous 144hz monitor. This is also not a simple question, so bear with me.BlurBoss wrote:Methanhydrat, that's a great review! Thank you very much for that. Lenovo Y27gq-25 is amazing monitor indeed! It doesn't come close to long awaited heavily advertised "1ms" LG 27GL850 in terms of picture quality and motion handling. I'm going to try out Lenovo Y27gq-20 next week. I really miss OSD crosshairs on that monitor and ULMB. Maybe at least future HP Omen X27 would have that? Vega said that they are using the same panel, but I see listings on another site are different:
Lenovo Legion Y27GQ - 27” 1440p 240Hz 0.5ms G-SYNC
HP Omen X27 - 27” 1440p 240Hz 1ms 90% DCI-P3, HDR, FreeSync 2
Methanhydrat, since you play Rainbow Six: Siege at 120 Hz and Quake Live at ~237 Hz (you enabled G-Sync, right?) do you see increased lag in R6 compared to QL? Any disadvantages sticking with 120 Hz mentioned in this thread viewtopic.php?f=2&t=4914 ? Please keep us posted, I would really love to read about your thoughts on the monitor in 1 week, 1 month and 1 year (or 6 months:)).
To be honest, the discussion was actually a little surprising to me. Maybe I am missing something, but for me, wanting 240hz primarily for the reduced input lag is actually a non-starter to begin with. Let's assume a variable refresh rate, so we can use the term refresh rate basically synonymously with frame rate. Then it is of course true, that theoretically the total input lag should be lower when having a higher refresh rate, because you are probably getting frames from the game engine that include more recent input information in shorter intervals. So with 240hz vs 144hz, you can get a new frame every ~4.2ms instead of every ~6.9ms, which would amount to an identical difference in total input lag, provided everything else (including the input lag of the monitor itself) stays the same.
This means, that the entire discussion is only about the ~2.8ms difference per frame of the total input lag, because all other parts of the total input lag are actually mostly unaffected by the refresh rate. Even though this is an oversimplification and there are some complex interactions between the refresh rate and what is visible on the screen, it can even in theory not be much more than that. So for the refresh rate to be relevant, these ~2.8ms actually have to be a significant chunk of the total input lag that is occurring in all the many different layers of software and hardware that are involved in you moving the mouse to something happening on the screen. And even then you actually have to be sensitive enough to even notice the difference.
I am really sensitive to input lag myself, up to a point where I don't even find certain games enjoyable when the input is not responsive enough. And in the vast majority of cases, it is the game itself that is causing the most significant part of the delay. If, for example, a game engine is collecting the input in a separate thread, and is always only one frame late in synchronizing the input data with the main thread, we are already talking about a bigger difference in felt input lag than the entire theoretical difference between 144hz and 240hz. And this is in addition to a lot of visual trickery modern games may do, that might cause input changes to not actually affect the very next frame that is displayed.
Now, I think the discussion was actually a little more broad and about the question of whether 240hz really help you to aim better. And I think this is true, but I would say mainly because of the higher precision and image clarity and less because of the input lag. And how big this effect really is, is probably also highly subjective.
So, to make a long answer short, I think that I do feel less input lag in 240hz Quake Live compared to 120hz Rainbow Six: Siege, but the difference is so minor, that I am not sure I could distinguish it reliably in a "blind" (:D) test. I also don't think it is relevant for the question of whether 240hz is worth it, because in my opinion the benefits lie somewhere else entirely.
Personally, I am after high refresh rates for two reasons: smoothness and motion clarity. These are visual properties that, albeit not being entirely unrelated, do not have anything to with input on their own. The fact that I cannot reach 240hz in most games does not really bother me, because I see it more as a potential than something that I have to reach every time. For me, the beauty of having variable refresh rates, such as with G-Sync, is that I can work with the maximal performance I get out of a game. When beginning a new game, I just have to play around a little to determine which frame rates my PC can handle reliably and then just use a corresponding frame rate lock to ensure that everything is stable. Provided they use proper engines, this leads to input lags that feel very consistent between the games, despite potential differences in frame rates. So if a game runs really well, I am happy that I can enjoy something buttery smooth, otherwise, if it is not too bad, I will just settle for something a little less amazing.
To reiterate something that I said before, one of the reasons I really like this monitor is that even though the low reaction times really shine on high frame rates, they also increase motion clarity on lower ones.
Regarding the HP Omen X27 I am also kind of curious. Posts from when it was announced make it seem as if it is using the same panel, but I could actually find very little information about it at all.