Please clarify: 240hz vs 144hz monitor query

[Mr McC]

Hi folks,
I am in the process of picking parts to build my nephew's first computer. He is 12 and at the minute his sole intention is to play Fortnite. I have picked out a Ryzen 3600 and a RTX 2070 Super for use with a 1080p monitor running at 144hz, based on his need for higher framerates. He seems to think that he would be better served with a 1080p monitor running at 240hz.

I am worried that, once he outgrows Fortnite, he will have difficulties running AAA titles at 240hz. Should I be concerned about this or is it a simple matter of capping the fps via Freesync? Can this lead to other problems? In short, am I wrong to be worried about the additional demand that 240hz would place on the gpu?

Thanks very much in advance for any input.

 

[oxrufiioxo]

My brother has the AW2518HF with a 1080ti gsync works just fine and it feels smooth at anything above 100fps.


The majority of decent Freesync monitors work just fine with nvidia GPU.

 

[Athlonite]

240Hz is the max refresh rate most games wont be pushing that even with a 2070S I think what he's more worried about is input lag so if you can grab a 1080p 144Hz monitor with a low input lag then he'd probably not notice a difference

 

[Mr McC]

That was my feeling, Athlonite. I just feel that he will note very little difference between 240hz and144hz, and that 240hz might adversely affect
his performance in other games. This is the monitor I was considering:

Acer XF240Hbmjdpr 24 Inch FHD Gaming Monitor, Black (TN Panel, FreeSync, 144 Hz, 1ms, DP, HDMI, DVI)

https://www.amazon.co.uk/Acer-XF240Hbmjdpr-Monitor-FreeSync-Adjustable/dp/B01684HUJU

Then again, it is not my aspiration to become World Fortnite champ...

 

[oxrufiioxo]

Seems fine for a budget monitor.
Freesync rang is 48-144
Supports LFC
And gsync via displayport.

@Mr McC there's a newer version Acer XFA240 I would look for it.

the one you linked is 5 years old

 

[Athlonite]

sounds like you've found a winner and any game you can play with over 80~100 FPS is going to be buttery smooth at any rate whether on an 144Hz or 240Hz monitor. If you read some of the reviews you'll notice that a few say out of the box the settings a shite but one reviewer has listed his settings that apparently make it look really good so a little fiddle to make it right is hardly no reason not to buy it

 

[FordGT90Concept]

Adaptive sync is more important than 240 Hz. Only the best of the best of competitive gamers have a chance at discerning 144 Hz from 240 Hz and almost all of them have sponsorships paying for said monitor.

My concern with 240 Hz, in general, is might be a 60 Hz panel quad-pumped or a 120 Hz panel double-pumped. Meaning, the board in the panel receives the data and it sends the data to the panel but the panel isn't actually changing until 16-8 ms later when it should be 4ms. Monitors based on TV panels especially like to do that. The only legit 240 Hz monitors are going to be premium brands from Acer, Asus, Alienware, etc.


You're going to want Fast Sync enabled with G-Sync assuming this is a FreeSync panel and not a panel equipped with a G-Sync module.

 

[joemama]

Higher fps isn't gonna save him from his bad gaming skills and I don't think a 12 year old kid deserves to get such a high spec computer

 

[Mr McC]

Hi Ford.

Thanks guys, you are reaffirming what I suspected: the 144hz is plenty fast enough. Cheers for the vote of confidence on the monitor choice, I'll check out the Acer XFA240, oxrufiioxo.

The problem I am facing is that a YouTube Fornite guru has convinced my nephew otherwise (unprompted, having no prior pc knowledge, after 2 days of browsing he is asking me about the 2080ti). I want to show him this thread where he can be reassured by the tech savvy.

Am I wrong to think that it would be easier to deal with the lower fps of a game like Metro on a 144hz, as opposed to a 240hz? Does it make any difference if I use Freesync? In other words, is there an argument for buying the 240hz, would it behave in exactly the same manner as the 144hz when playing more demanding games at lower fps, or would it stress the gpu more regardless?

I already feel that enough concession has been made by remaining at 1080p but I suspect that it would be better, i.e. more realistically within the capabilities of the gpu, to display fps that are as close to the monitor's native hz as possible. That is why I have chosen the 144hz, am I wrong? Ignoring cost, which would you buy?

Apologies for all the questions, but I am trying to wrap my own head around a few things, and I am rusty.

 

[FordGT90Concept]

FreeSync and the bottom of the range makes all the difference. If it is a 48-144 Hz panel, you're not going to want it to fall below that.

That said, I'm finding out that AMD's EnhancedSync seems to be better than NVIDIA's Fast Sync because Enhanced Sync prohibits tears above AND below FreeSync range. Fast Sync only addresses above. G-Sync modules were designed, especially, to take of cases where it is below. If you do go with an NVIDIA GPU, it is important to make sure the GPU will never fall below the FreeSync minimum or it will tear.

I can think of no practical advantage of 240 Hz over 144 Hz.

Wait a minute, are these 144 Hz and 240 Hz panels even the same tech? Is the 144 Hz VA/IPS and the 240 Hz TN? If so, another reason to forget the 240 Hz because TN color reproduction and viewing angles aren't great.


Acer XFA240 is a TN. My concern is that I'm not finding the stated bottom of the FreeSync range for it.

A similar priced monitor with 30-144 Hz range:

NX-EDG24 — nixeus

www.nixeus.com

Framerates vary wildly between games and settings. It's more about getting what you can afford and is reasonable then trying to pair things up.

 

[Sybaris_Caesar]

I'd read some reviews tbh. Particularly from tftcentral or hardware unboxed. Keep particular notice on overdrive and overshoot on different framerates.

Outgrowing Fortnite and getting bad artifacts on lower fps is concerning facet of owning high refresh monitor. Look at recent ViewSonic VX2758-2KP-MHD and Asus VG27AQ review by Hardware Unboxed. In 140 fps range all is fine but horrible in lower fps, even only high as 120 for the ViewSonic one.

And current 240hz are TN and some VA. I'd wait until 240hz IPS market matures somewhat.

 

[oobymach]

The price between the 2 is like double, and 240 is noticeably better than 144. On a 240hz display everything looks perfect all the time, there is no ghosting (unless you enable fast response time/overdrive) and in Doom my refresh or whatever is 5ms @ 1080p native resolution. @ 360hz that can go as low as 3.6ms which is insane, but a 240 is my recommendation.

 

[joemama]

is there an argument for buying the 240hz, would it behave in exactly the same manner as the 144hz when playing more demanding games at lower fps, or would it stress the gpu more regardless?

Monitors won't affect the gpu's performance

 

[Sybaris_Caesar]

Monitors won't affect the gpu's performance

But people can become unsatisfied with lower fps and/or some monitors show artifacts in lower fps since monitor hz is now tied with the advent of freesync and g-sync.

 

[GorbazTheDragon]

First thing to consider is whether the game can actually be run at 240hz+ stable. If you are constantly dipping under 200 FPS I don't really think a 240hz panel will give you any advantage. Some games you have to run really well tuned CPU and memory settings to be able to get the minimums up past 144hz (overwatch is a good example).

I personally play competitive stuff like R6 Siege and CSGO at 180+ FPS (CSGO runs minimums over 250fps) on my 144hz panel but AAA stuff I just turn up the settings and let it run at <100FPS, there no real loss driving the fast panel at a lower framerate relative to having a slower panel.

That said, from my experience playing with a friend's rig, I think the difference between 144 and 240 is not particularly big... It's definitely not going to be significant compared to player skill.

 

[cucker tarlson]

Above 120hz look at pixel response times and overshoot not just frequency

 

[bug]

Hi Ford.

Thanks guys, you are reaffirming what I suspected: the 144hz is plenty fast enough.

At the same time, give a 12yo a monitor that runs "only" 144Hz and you'll never hear the end of it

 

[Vayra86]

Stick to 144hz.

90% of 240hz is placebo and the remaining 10% is whatever you get accustomed to. Its simply not necessary and the higher refresh has drawbacks: more FPS variance within native refresh = more GPU heat and noise at full tilt, a more difficult to achieve stable FPS; or put differently, you will NEVER hit 240hz consistently, even the games themselves will be holding you back. Also the G2G response is only sufficient on TN. Any other panel tech will ghost and smear like madness in at least a few color transitions. VA always smears a bit, but very consistently in a few black to 'dark' transitions, its easy to get used to. Or not, in that case focus on IPS.

Focus on other monitor qualities instead. VA over TN any day of the week, yes even for competitive play. Any 4ms panel is responsive enough and you won't notice differences between 1ms and 4ms input lag rated panels. You simply don't. We already take more than 100ms to even respond to anything, like catching something that falls down all of a sudden. A 12 yo is not going to be Esports-pro competitive and if he/she was, this topic would not exist in the first place.

So. VA or IPS should be the focus, then any panel that can do 120-144hz and if you still want to go deeper you can look at different VAs and IPSes for color accuracy and contrast, white uniformity etc. And only AFTER THAT worry about full Free- and Gsync support with a good refresh range. The reason for that is that any high refresh panel already suffers very little from tearing, after all, it can feed many more new frames per second (or: refresh the same frame!) so you're at least half as likely to notice. Additionally, with enough performance, you can just run a 144hz panel at fixed FPS in many cases, or close to it, which removes tearing as well.

There is a LOT of marketing bs floating around about gaming monitors, be wary. And educate your sibling instead of going with that flow, it will be of great benefit in the long run. Every super feature and option is there to distract you from the fact its still overpriced but inferior display technology, with lots of tricks to make it work. This super high refresh is the prime example of that.

If you are spending around 350-400 on a panel it better be 1440p, 144hz and Freesync/Gsync compatible VA or IPS. Any less, and you're overpaying. If you are spending no more than 200-250, then look at fast TN with decent quality. Its still a good budget choice for high refresh gaming.

 

[GorbazTheDragon]

VA/IPS panels have been pretty crap for gaming in my experience... Decent TNs are plenty capable within sRGB and just because you are getting an IPS/VA doesn't mean the colour/contrast is better than a good TN. Pixel response times have 0 bearing on input lag, they mostly create a lot of ghosting, which is the main thing I dislike about VA and IPS panels, they are consistently worse than TNs in that aspect. Viewing angles are irrelevant for a gaming monitor, so another advantage of VA/IPS panels down the drain.

 

[Papahyooie]

144hz may be "fast enough" but having a 240hz panel won't hurt other, more demanding games that he can't run at 240hz. They just won't run at 240hz, they'll run at whatever framerate his computer can handle.

That part is fact.... people saying that 240hz is "placebo" or 144hz is "fast enough" are spouting opinions. The idea that the human eye can't see above x number of fps has been debunked time and time again.

 

[mbeeston]

if you're getting a gaming monitor, do NOT go for VA, i bought a gigabyte aorus gaming cv27q and within 4 hours i had a headache from the ghosting and smearing. VA's are more for colour sensitive work if anything. "outgrowing fortnite" is kinda a non-issue with this decision though, there will always be e-sports titles and if he focuses on those, the 240hz panel would serve him better for longer and freesync would compensate for lower fps if he goes for AAA titles, although most just go back too esports titles when they finish a AAA game anyway.

 

[Vayra86]

VA/IPS panels have been pretty crap for gaming in my experience... Decent TNs are plenty capable within sRGB and just because you are getting an IPS/VA doesn't mean the colour/contrast is better than a good TN. Pixel response times have 0 bearing on input lag, they mostly create a lot of ghosting, which is the main thing I dislike about VA and IPS panels, they are consistently worse than TNs in that aspect. Viewing angles are irrelevant for a gaming monitor, so another advantage of VA/IPS panels down the drain.

I will say one VA is certainly not the other and they pop up everywhere, so yes, there are certainly a bunch of crap ones too.

It really depends on where you want to put the emphasis, but TN really doesn't hold a candle to any half decent iPS or VA in image quality. Its certainly not the ugliness it used to be though, I agree. Also, any TN above 24 inch has some pretty nasty contrast shift going on. It got better, but it still is there and usually on the vertical plane.

A big bonus for a VA panel is haviing BFI/strobe built in. It will massively reduce the smearing and boosts perceived g2g to 2~1ms. Motion clarity is perfect then. Those however are not quite as common.

But the main reason to pick VA is static contrast. It has 3x (better panels 5x) as much of it as any TN or IPS can achieve, and that is noticeable. Deep blacks upon bright whites, very crisp picture and no bleed or glow. If your gaming cave is a dim lit room, definitely VA. If its brightly lit, IPS fits the bill because the glow is going to turn nearly invisible that way.

144hz may be "fast enough" but having a 240hz panel won't hurt other, more demanding games that he can't run at 240hz. They just won't run at 240hz, they'll run at whatever framerate his computer can handle.

That part is fact.... people saying that 240hz is "placebo" or 144hz is "fast enough" are spouting opinions. The idea that the human eye can't see above x number of fps has been debunked time and time again.

Its not about perception its about what you do with the information you receive. We can't really process it so fast. Always consider the response time of trained fighter pilots - 50-100ms. So when that new frame comes up, you're still using perhaps 10-20 frames to even respond to that information. Diminishing returns is the key word here. Upwards from 100 FPS this kicks in bigtime. We also get accustomed to a certain FPS (range) and comfortable with it - and thát is the placebo part. If you've done 240hz and grown used to it, going back will feel like 'going back' at first. Then after some time, you won't be able to tell a difference again. Its a bit misleading for our brain.

It all really depends on how much you care, and perhaps should care about having such a high refresh. It DOES go at the expense of other monitor qualities especially within the same budget. There is a trade off. Make it consciously.

Note that almost all double blind tests between 120 and 240hz that I could find do not prove there is a competitive gain except among Esport pros (and even then its minute, at best) and also that the vast majority can't pinpoint which panel is what.

 

[mbeeston]

Note that almost all double blind tests between 120 and 240hz that I could find do not prove there is a competitive gain except among Esport pros (and even then its minute, at best) and also that the vast majority can't pinpoint which panel is what.

that's because they know it's a test and it takes your focus AWAY from the game so you don't see every frame as if you were playing and focusing on it normally. i still don't know why anyone takes those tests seriously when the methodology is flawed.

 

[Vayra86]

that's because they know it's a test and it takes your focus AWAY from the game so you don't see every frame as if you were playing and focusing on it normally. i still don't know why anyone takes those tests seriously when the methodology is flawed.

Regardless, the onus is on the 240hz versions to actually prove they provide an advantage, not the other way around

Marketing, fellas.

But if you WANT to believe 240hz is better, then you will, right?

 

[mbeeston]

Regardless, the onus is on the 240hz versions to actually prove they provide an advantage, not the other way around

Marketing, fellas.

But if you WANT to believe 240hz is better, then you will, right?

considering i had a 144hz monitor and i just bought a 240 hz 1440p display and CAN tell the difference between 120 and 200fps on it, yes.