Blur Busters Forums

Notty_PT stop hiding, come back to us. I know you sometimes read this forum. You could not leave us.

DrUninstall wrote: ↑

27 May 2020, 06:40

Obviously this thread is not going to hold up forever as reaching 240fps on most games is becoming more and more accessible.

Why are you thinking it's necessary to get 240 FPS? Did you read my comment where FPS lower than Hz seemed better?

75hz peasant here trying to decide on first fast monitor. i can get 240fps easily steady with 5820K and 1070 8 GB if i uncap frame rate in overwatch. does that mean ill get 240 stable on an actual 240hz monitor?
also in apex legends i get steady 144 so i guess i would cap that game to 144 on the 240hz monitor.

ugh, now im scared to buy 240hz because some games i can run 240fps, but SOME i can only run 140 steady, so i dont want the lower fps ones to look bad... in terms of ghosting and overshoot

kofman13 wrote: ↑

27 May 2020, 12:29

i can get 240fps easily steady with 5820K and 1070 8 GB if i uncap frame rate in overwatch. does that mean ill get 240 stable on an actual 240hz monitor?

If you get steady 240 fps now then you will get steady 240 fps on any other monitor, monitors don't change how much fps you can get unless you get a higher resolution monitor.

fowteen wrote: ↑

27 May 2020, 12:40

kofman13 wrote: ↑

27 May 2020, 12:29

i can get 240fps easily steady with 5820K and 1070 8 GB if i uncap frame rate in overwatch. does that mean ill get 240 stable on an actual 240hz monitor?

If you get steady 240 fps now then you will get steady 240 fps on any other monitor, monitors don't change how much fps you can get unless you get a higher resolution monitor.

haha bro good to see you in all of the threads i ask questions about. I am just in search of a monitor that will handle capped 144fps games well too....

MaximilianKohler wrote: ↑

27 May 2020, 01:49

2. I was wanting to get a MBR (motion blur reduction) monitor, but it sounds like I'd just be trading blur for stuttering. And according to the The Amazing Human Visible Feats Of The Millisecond 144hz monitors may be preferable to 240hz monitors for MBR? And since 240hz reduces motion blur more than 144hz, it's probably best for now to just get a 240hz monitor for reduced motion blur.

To be clearer, higher refresh rates provide better headroom for low-Hz strobing.

120Hz strobing on a 240Hz panel has less strobe crosstalk than 120Hz strobing on a 144Hz panel. The extra refresh rate headroom reduces strobe crosstalk.

There are pros/cons.
For low latency-priority strobing, use 240Hz strobing at 240Hz.
For low crosstalk-priority strobing, strobe at a Hz well below max Hz.

MaximilianKohler wrote: ↑

27 May 2020, 01:49

3. I might need to change my mouse DPI from 500 to 1600 and then drop ingame and windows sensitivity in order to decrease stuttering?

Don't adjust WIndows sensitivity, always keep it in center setting!

The rule of thumb for smooth strobed mouseturns (ULMB, ELMB, DyAc) is the High-Middle-Low rule:
- High DPI in mouse drivers
- Middle sensitivity setting in Windows Control Panel
- Low sensitivity setting in Video Game Settings

If mouse arrow is still too fast in Windows, you will want to dynamically change your DPI when you exit your game.

MaximilianKohler wrote: ↑

27 May 2020, 01:49

I don't see that mentioned in your mouse guide https://blurbusters.com/faq/mouse-guide, so maybe you would want to update/add it?

Agreed. The mouse guide is written by a guest writer, and dates back to year 2014. But yes, it does need to be updated with strobe-optimized mouse-dpi.

MaximilianKohler wrote: ↑

27 May 2020, 01:49

I still don't understand why the OP (and others) say 144hz > 240hz. EDIT: from the last few comments that were submitted while I was type this, it sounds like it may just be false?

Context. It's not necessarily false but it is a very complex "depends" situation; that also is cognizant of different human pickinesses as well as technological factors.

For example, there are those nitpicky situations where some 240Hz panels have overdrive that is a tiny bit worse (like literally only 1% worse) than 144Hz panels. Especially on the date when this thread was originally posted more than a year ago. Most people could not see those differences, but some could. The 240Hz benefits outweighed the ultra-slightly worse overdrive that was found on many panels. For some people, it is a very noticeable problem, and for others, it is not noticeable. Also there are many other complex interacting factors. It's best not to make assumptions based on only my replies, as there are many different contexts. Just as a person might see tearing more clearly than others, others see stutters more clearly than others, and yet others sees overdrive issues more clearly than others.

The reasons indicated are separate from the reasons I wrote recently. This is a very long, very old thread, with over one hundred replies, so it's easy to lose track, get confused, and see things out of context.

This thread has outlived it usefulness, and my recommendation to newbies is to ignore this thread -- because lots of things have changed since the original date that this thread was posted on. But, it remains, because a few still see some flaws. This thread is more trouble than it is worth for new readers.

I will put a big red disclaimer box, or move this thread to the Off Topic forum, because it's a "nit pick" thread that highlights overdrive flaws on many early 240Hz panels (completely unrelated to things like stutter flaws).

See LCD Motion Artifacts and LCD Overdrive Artifacts. Things can simultaneously improve/worsen at the same time. For example, motion blur may reduce but overdrive artifacts might become worse. Or that colors improve but ghosting become worse. Or ghosting improves but colors become worse. And sometimes the differences are literally like 1% differences to some people, while for others they scream like it's a 2x-worse difference. And know the VSYNC ON versus VSYNC OFF wars -- lag versus tearing -- sometimes people are much more sensitive to tearing than the lag or vice versa (even for offline games where lag is not important). There are literally dozens of different warring preferences.

MaximilianKohler wrote: ↑

27 May 2020, 01:49

Is there a good link that explains those variables in an easy-to-understand way?

Not really, but my most famous Blur Busters Advanced Explainers / Articles are in the Area51 category, www.blurbusters.com/category/area51-display-research/

But they only barely scratch the surface of the complexity of display nuances.

I continue to write more. But one thing at a time. It almost feels like that there is not enough hours in my lifetime to explain it all, so I have to cherrypick the best Blur Busters battles.

MaximilianKohler wrote: ↑

27 May 2020, 01:49

I've read the "Motion Blur Reduction FAQ" you linked, and I don't recall it being explained there

Additional articles (many of them) need to be written just to explain the nuances of the display universe.

MaximilianKohler wrote: ↑

27 May 2020, 01:49

(and looking at it again, you basically agreed with me: "100fps at 120Hz can look better than 120fps at 120Hz")

That's kind of out of context.
For VSYNC ON, 120fps at 120Hz looks definitely better than 120fps at 120Hz.
For VSYNC OFF, 120fps at 120Hz looks smoother (if you prefer smoother) but has that tearline problem (if you hate that more)

So, correct clarification is "For a person using VSYNC OFF, and hates lingering/vibrating/stationary VSYNC OFF tearlines, 100fps at 120Hz can look better than 120fps at 120Hz for this specific person". Context is critical.

MaximilianKohler wrote: ↑

27 May 2020, 01:49

The other links you put at the end seem very technical and/or don't seem like they would answer the question of why 240hz would only be good at 240+ FPS (according to my tests it seems the opposite is true - which I understand now is due to the specific divisor/multiple instead of "lower").

Again, this thread has outlived its usefuless for most newbies although this thread still remains for advanced users who have lots of familiarity with many display nuances, and are wondering why a small subsection of population (Remember: happy users don't post, so forum posts are disproportionately overweighted with dissatisfactions).

I am going to action on downgrading this thread because it just confuses too many users needlessly with a mix of outdated info / unclear info / confusing info in the middle of useful information.

Notice added:

Chief Blur Buster wrote:CONFUSING / PARTIALLY OUTDATED THREAD NOTICE

This is an old forum thread that is confusing to new users. Majority of 240 Hz users are happier with 240 Hz than 144 Hz especially on many more recent panels.

Different users are famously picky about different aspects of monitors (sensitivty to stutters, sensitivity to tearing, sensitivity to colors, sensitivity to overdrive artifacts) where sometimes "Everything else but one improves on an early 240Hz panel, etc, etc." There are users sees that one aspect worsen especially on an early/older panel. This thread is typically one of these things.

New users vising this thread now, may wish to skip this thread and research more recent up-to-date information

This very old thread is now being retired for a good reason: From traffic statistics, 98.5% to 99% of Blur Busters readers are forum lurkers -- typically, mainstream readers that often get confused by partially outdated information in older Blur Busters threads.

Please start a new thread if you have a new discussions. A great example is that you photographs/tests showing your 240Hz monitor is worse than the 144Hz monitor; those are welcome discussions to criticize specific models of 240Hz monitors for a 240Hz monitor that you have in your posession. Stuff like that is welcome!

There are indeed situations of "Three things improved, one thing worsened" or those "I noticed eight things better, but two things worse" or such. That are legitimate discussions, but this thread is too heavy in useless baggage that confuses the average mainstream Blur Busters forum lurker.

There are many display debates going on simultaneously. TN versus IPS. LCD versus CRT. LCD versus plasma. VSYNC ON versus VSYNC OFF. Blur reduction ON or OFF. Variable refresh ON or OFF. Meritworthy topics but display technologies (especially other than 60Hz) is changing very quickly, so threads become outdated quickly. Better VRR technology. New sync technology. Improved blur reduction. Latency fixes to a sync technology. LCD motion blur fixes. IPS-vs-TN speedups. New refresh rates such as 360 Hz. Faster GPUs keeping up with refresh rates.

Yes, occasionally, even information posted by me (Chief Blur Busters) 5 years ago, can get out of date too. Blur Busters tries its best to keep information up to date, but display technology changes really fast in these "Better Than 60Hz" stratospheres. Information posted a few years ago may be missing information, and even Blur Busters webite articles may be partially out of date, but the vast majority are carefully written in a way to be far still more relevant than this thread. We'll keep updating continuously.

This thread is useful reading for experienced/advanced users who don't get confused by this thread (by understanding why each of the >100 posted their replies), those who already understand these nuances and want to connoisseur over the tiny details. But, technically, I now recommend new users (240Hz non-owners) to begin asking questions pretending this specific thread never existed -- research more recent reports about 240Hz issues instead, and research based off that information instead of this older info.

When this thread was created, fewer 240Hz monitors existed, 240Hz IPS did not exist, and 360Hz wasn't even announced.
TL;DR: Today's best 240Hz options is better.

This thread is the metaphorical equivalent of "Don't upgrade to a 47" widescreen high-def TV from your 19" analog CRT television, because there's too much video compression on Netflix and too much LCD motion blur", creating too many unnecessary distractions not applicable to majority, wild goose chases, and red herrings, for a users simply researching upgrading to 240Hz.

MaximilianKohler wrote: ↑

27 May 2020, 10:23

DrUninstall wrote: ↑

27 May 2020, 06:40

Obviously this thread is not going to hold up forever as reaching 240fps on most games is becoming more and more accessible.

Why are you thinking it's necessary to get 240 FPS? Did you read my comment where FPS lower than Hz seemed better?

As necessary as getting less FPS than HZ.

1000WATT wrote: ↑

27 May 2020, 08:09

Notty_PT stop hiding, come back to us. I know you sometimes read this forum. You could not leave us.

I am here

My life changed a lot in the last months. I moved from my old city aswell. Right now I don´t even have a rig, using a cheap laptop and a playstation 4!

I agree with Chief, this thread is very old and it reflected my personal impressions in that time. Right now there are so many more models, from TN to IPS, so my opinion could be completly different. When I started this thread I tested like 90% of the available 240hz monitors on the market. Right now I can say I only tested out 10% or less with so many more models appearing everyday. I don´t want this thread to confuse anyone!

Also I will not be able to test more monitors as I don´t even have a gaming PC right now and no plans of getting one soon (lack of time, priorities etc), plus the hardware prices keep going up and this turned on a very expensive hobby (new motherboards prices are crazy, so are GPU prices and even PSU prices are higher now). Still enjoy reading the forums and hope you all having fun with your monitors I´m a fully console part time gamer now, aka a "pleb". Hope everyone is doing great!

Cheers