Please clarify: 240hz vs 144hz monitor query

[cucker tarlson]

240hz panels do not reduce gtg times compared to 144hz,but tend to produce less overshoot

 

[Papahyooie]

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.

That "fighter pilot" BS that has been spouted for years is just that. The study that is cited concludes that reaction time is a function of age. In fact, fighter pilots were actually slower than non-pilots because they are trained to assess and act rather than act on reflex. Even in the US Navy study that tested only pilots, the reaction times ranged from 150ms to 450ms depending on color, light level, etc. Moreover, those tests determined reaction time to see where a dot would appear from a black screen. The point of higher hz monitor is not to see things happen faster. Network latency is going to have FAR more of an impact than refresh rate, in competitive online games. The point is *smooth* motion, because it improves tracking performance. A dot appearing in a random place on a black screen is not analogous to shooter games (which is where high fps matters most.)

Studies:

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=3&ved=0ahUKEwjOp-216c_JAhVE6x4KHYQmCBQQFggsMAI&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.sajip.co.za%2Findex.php%2Fsajip%2Farticle%2Fdownload%2F53%2F51&usg=AFQjCNEsZ4Ii_VmFTBVKKc8NP2VnBae2Cg&sig2=LhM93Bv-k5UQdXLkXtxBKA

https://apps.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a178485.pdf

LTT (Yea I know, some people hate him, but it's relevant) video showing slow motion capture of various skill level players testing the difference.

All that being said, yes, it's absolutely a trade-off and you should make the decision consciously. But making that decision based on myth and bad information is not making the decision consciously.

 

[kapone32]

The way I see 240hz is for people to justify getting a high end card to play at 1080P. A 144hz monitor is plenty in my opinion for 99% of the non professional gamers.

 

[Cheeseball]

Unless your 12-year old nephew has a K/D of at least 5.00 and Solo win percentage of 30%+ (basically Nick Eh 30 competitive-level) in Fortnite, I don't think he needs a 240 Hz monitor.

With that being said, you can push 180+ FPS on Fortnite with a RTX 2070 Super on competitive graphics settings (not maxed out). An iPad Pro can run the game at 120 FPS on it's fixed semi-medium settings.

 

[Vayra86]

That "fighter pilot" BS that has been spouted for years is just that. The study that is cited concludes that reaction time is a function of age. In fact, fighter pilots were actually slower than non-pilots because they are trained to assess and act rather than act on reflex. Even in the US Navy study that tested only pilots, the reaction times ranged from 150ms to 450ms depending on color, light level, etc. Moreover, those tests determined reaction time to see where a dot would appear from a black screen. The point of higher hz monitor is not to see things happen faster. Network latency is going to have FAR more of an impact than refresh rate, in competitive online games. The point is *smooth* motion, because it improves tracking performance. A dot appearing in a random place on a black screen is not analogous to shooter games (which is where high fps matters most.)

Studies:

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=3&ved=0ahUKEwjOp-216c_JAhVE6x4KHYQmCBQQFggsMAI&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.sajip.co.za%2Findex.php%2Fsajip%2Farticle%2Fdownload%2F53%2F51&usg=AFQjCNEsZ4Ii_VmFTBVKKc8NP2VnBae2Cg&sig2=LhM93Bv-k5UQdXLkXtxBKA

https://apps.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a178485.pdf

LTT (Yea I know, some people hate him, but it's relevant) video showing slow motion capture of various skill level players testing the difference.

All that being said, yes, it's absolutely a trade-off and you should make the decision consciously. But making that decision based on myth and bad information is not making the decision consciously.

The figher pilots are supposed to be slower, yet Linus shows upwards of 200ms response times for the 'average' people in the test. Your conclusions seem a little bit strange IMO. I've seen that exact same test already and draw the opposite conclusions. And also: about a 25-35ms gain when switching from 60hz to 240hz. So there is a gain towards high refresh, and I won't deny that at all. But the BIGGEST gain is going from 16ms to 8ms refreshes (ie 60 >120). After that you only stand to gain half of that, and only in a best case scenario.

This really isn't all that bad or flawed of a test. Scientific, no. But pretty decent to get insight. A big miss however, and that reveals this LTT piece as an advertorial for 240hz, is that they don't test the comparison to 120-144hz. Which is precisely our subject.

When its about perceived smoothness, take a gander at this, too.

I think this one shines light on what is really happening. LCD panels refresh without black frame insertion. Once you add that, you can gain DOUBLE the motion clarity of what you'd be able to get with a 4ms refresh on a regular 240hz panel. I speak from experience. I have that EIZO 240 Turbo in front of me. And its pretty glorious, on a VA. Motion is impeccably smooth as long as frames are locked to 120. So under the hood I am really getting 120 frames, but each one is interjected by a black frame, and the output result is a 240hz refresh. Of which half the frames are black. The big bonus is consistency. Its much easier to lock at 120.

Smooth motion is exactly the point, it lies in other characteristics than just refresh rate and as pointed out, we get used to an FPS range too, which takes some time. The bottom line is that 240hz TN without strobe is the poor man's way to achieve high smoothness. A VA with strobe is a better way because the other display characteristics are generally stronger - except if your focus is being top of the leaderboard I guess. Strobe does increase the input lag.

So I'm not dismissing anything, its just a choice of evils with accompanied price tag and you kinda do get what you pay for.

But, no need to drag this on further, we've said our piece OP can probably figure out what matters most to him now.

 

[JackCarver]

The statement that TN panels in general have bad picture quality isn't true since a while now. There are tests out there where you can read that latest TN panels have a really good picture quality and they are the fastest in response time. But also VA and IPS panels are really good in response time nowadays. The question if 144Hz is enough or not depends also on the use time of the monitor. Most users use their monitors way longer than their CPU/GPU. So if you upgrade later your CPU/GPU and you are now able to play your games in 240 FPS a 240 Hz Monitor would make sense.

 

[Vayra86]

The statement that TN panels in general have bad picture quality isn't true since a while now. There are tests out there where you can read that latest TN panels have a really good picture quality and they are the fastest in response time. But also VA and IPS panels are really good in response time nowadays. The question if 144Hz is enough or not depends also on the use time of the monitor. Most users use their monitors way longer than their CPU/GPU. So if you upgrade later your CPU/GPU and you are now able to play your games in 240 FPS a 240 Hz Monitor would make sense.

It is highly unlikely that game engines will ever focus on achieving 240 fps. In many games you are going to be limited by the actual game; hell even over 60 FPS is not always possible. In addition, 240 FPS relies more heavily on CPU than GPU. GPU power can be scaled up easily. CPU grunt is stalling. Also games get heavier to run over time, its the same as saying 'this a 4K card'. Its not, see you in one or two years.

 

[Papahyooie]

The figher pilots are supposed to be slower, yet Linus shows upwards of 200ms response times for the 'average' people in the test. Your conclusions seem a little bit strange IMO. I've seen that exact same test already and draw the opposite conclusions. And also: about a 25-35ms gain when switching from 60hz to 240hz. So there is a gain towards high refresh, and I won't deny that at all. But the BIGGEST gain is going from 16ms to 8ms refreshes (ie 60 >120). After that you only stand to gain half of that, and only in a best case scenario.


View attachment 142844

This really isn't all that bad or flawed of a test. Scientific, no. But pretty decent to get insight. A big miss however, and that reveals this LTT piece as an advertorial for 240hz, is that they don't test the comparison to 120-144hz. Which is precisely our subject.

When its about perceived smoothness, take a gander at this, too.

View attachment 142845

I think this one shines light on what is really happening. LCD panels refresh without black frame insertion. Once you add that, you can gain DOUBLE the motion clarity of what you'd be able to get with a 4ms refresh on a regular 240hz panel. I speak from experience. I have that EIZO 240 Turbo in front of me. And its pretty glorious, on a VA. Motion is impeccably smooth as long as frames are locked to 120. So under the hood I am really getting 120 frames, but each one is interjected by a black frame, and the output result is a 240hz refresh. Of which half the frames are black. The big bonus is consistency. Its much easier to lock at 120.

Smooth motion is exactly the point, it lies in other characteristics than just refresh rate and as pointed out, we get used to an FPS range too, which takes some time. But, no need to drag this on further, we've said our piece The bottom line is that 240hz TN without strobe is the poor man's way to achieve high smoothness. A VA with strobe is a better way because the other display characteristics are generally stronger - except if your focus is being top of the leaderboard I guess.

How would you possibly get the opposite conclusion from the video? It clearly shows that every single player hits more often, and/or is more consistent, with higher framerates. There is no other conclusion to be drawn. Yes, there is diminishing returns going from 144hz to 240hz, as opposed to 60 to 144. If you want to see 144hz put into the mix, watch part two (which includes another interesting conclusion that the "worse" you are at a game, the more the refresh rate helps you, which is probably directly relatable to a 12 year old...) . But the difference is there, objectively. There IS a difference between 144hz and 240hz, even if you deem it "too small" of a difference. The FACT is that there is a difference. It's only peoples' OPINIONS as to whether it's a big enough difference.

If your opinion is that it's not enough of a difference, then I have no argument. That's your prerogative. But people, a lot of times, present their opinions on this matter as fact, when it quite simply is not. THAT'S what I'm getting at. The OP should not make his decision based on misinformation.

Black frame insertion is good for smooth movement, yes. But you also lose the ability to overdrive the framerate above the refresh rate. (I.e, run 300 fps into a 144hz monitor) This is important because game framerate is VERY important for input lag (probably even more important than the actual refresh rate, as you can see if you watch part two of LTT's video.) You should always be running your highest possible framerate, even if your monitor doesn't go that high. Of course, I mean minimums... you want to cap your framerate at your "minimums" if that makes sense, regardless of your monitor's refresh rate. If your computer can render 200fps minimum and 240 average, you want to cap your framerate at 200fps, even if your monitor only supports 144hz. This helps with input lag, while keeping it consistent. (I.e, you don't want to cap your fps at 240 in that case, because then when it drops below that to its 200 minimum, the input lag will be inconsistent.) So... black frame insertion does indeed create visually smooth picture. It looks very nice. But it's only a tool to increase smoothness when you either don't care about competitiveness, OR if your minimum frames that your computer can render also line up with the refresh rate of your monitor. (I.e, if your computer can only do 120fps minimums in a game, then turning on black frame insertion will earn you some extra smoothness for free.) If you can do more than 120fps, you should not be capping your fps to 120 in order to turn on black frame insertion. Not if you want to be competitive.

 

[JackCarver]

Right not every engine supports it. But competitive multiplayer shooter often support to disable FPS limiting at all. In my beloved Hunt: Showdown I have a limit at 120 FPS, but truly have problems to reach it with my RTX 2080 ;-)
But there is also an option to disable it at all, so I think with a faster card you would get there 200+ FPS if you want. In single player games, that's another thing...

 

[GorbazTheDragon]

A number of games that are popular competitively now are perfectly capable of being run at 240fps minimums on existing hardware (Some notable exceptions would be Overwatch which usually maxes out in high 100s, and league of legends is coded like rubbish so it barely runs above 144)... Like I said earlier you need to focus on the specific game in these cases. A competitive player doesn't (or shouldn't) care about whether some AAA games they play casually are going to be running perfect 240hz, but they should care about it on the title they intend to play competitively.

I don't think the contrast of VA panels is enough to excuse their generally terrible pixel response times. And within sRGB any TN worth it's salt will perform fine... Of course if we are talking HDR we should not be looking at TNs but this clearly isn't a focus here. Ideally of course we would all be running microLED/OLED panels for competitive gaming at up to 1kHz variable refresh rate, but the monitor market has stagnated the most out of all the PC component markets so we have to deal with making stupid, unnecessary tradeoffs...

 

[Vayra86]

Gotta agree with you guys these are good points. And OP did say prime concern was Fortnite, too. I concede

I also think we did shine light on the nuances of 240hz's merit, which was, at least, my goal here

 

[Cheeseball]

A number of games that are popular competitively now are perfectly capable of being run at 240fps minimums on existing hardware (Some notable exceptions would be Overwatch which usually maxes out in high 100s, and league of legends is coded like rubbish so it barely runs above 144)...

Did they limit Overwatch's FPS now? I remember getting 180+ FPS on a GTX 1070 (mix of medium and high settings) at 1080p. Around 120+ FPS all on Ultra. A 2070 Super would eat it alive.

Also it might be better to lock the framerate of League, especially if you're a good Riven player. LOL.

 

[Papahyooie]

Did they limit Overwatch's FPS now? I remember getting 180+ FPS on a GTX 1070 (mix of medium and high settings) at 1080p. Around 120+ FPS all on Ultra. A 2070 Super would eat it alive.

Also it might be better to lock the framerate of League, especially if you're a good Riven player. LOL.

The max cap on OW is 300 fps. However, it's insanely CPU bound. I had a whole big thread about it a couple years ago. Quad cores basically can't get over 120fps, no matter what graphics card you have. With a quad with hyperthreading, or six+ core CPU, you can get into the low 200s. I've never seen a machine that was able to reach 300 fps though.

EDIT: Also, it's one of the very few games that can benefit greatly from increased RAM speeds. Some people have gotten 10+% increases at high framerates just by getting faster RAM.

 

[GorbazTheDragon]

Did they limit Overwatch's FPS now? I remember getting 180+ FPS on a GTX 1070 (mix of medium and high settings) at 1080p. Around 120+ FPS all on Ultra. A 2070 Super would eat it alive.

Also it might be better to lock the framerate of League, especially if you're a good Riven player. LOL.

From what I've seen it's a real pain to get minimum framerates up in Overwatch, gets CPU bound with minimums around 150. Needs well tuned memory (b-die ) to get them up.

Locked framerate in League won't really help the fact that it seems to stutter universally in certain fights... I generally get well over 200, but in chaotic lategame fights it really tends to get bad (I know people with both high end intel and AMD systems who get drops <60 regularly, haven't got that bad myself though).

CS:GO loves zen 2 cache, I've yet to see it drop under 250 on my 3600... R6 Siege is quite good as well in terms of stability, but also a case of liking well tuned memory. BF3/4 were quite easy from what I recall... No trouble to get to the 200fps cap on 4c8t parts.

 

[Papahyooie]

Apparently the OW League equipment doesn't even hold 240hz.

https://www.reddit.com/r/Competitiveoverwatch/comments/9rzs4x

 

[GorbazTheDragon]

Apparently the OW League equipment doesn't even hold 240hz.

Reportedly there were some league tournaments which were also played with PCs that couldn't hold 60 fps stable recently (and not the irregular stuttering I was mentioning earlier)... With top 10 teams as well...

 

[Mr McC]

Thank you all so much. I am not sure we have resolved the issue, I am not sure that anyone could, but I certainly have a lot to consider, including a number of points that never would have occurred to me. The decision won't be made for a few months yet, and it is clear that I need to become better informed about certain aspects, but you have all helped me a lot, and whatever the choice in the end, it will be based on a better understanding of the issues at play, thanks again.

 

[bug]

Thank you all so much. I am not sure we have resolved the issue, I am not sure that anyone could, but I certainly have a lot to consider, including a number of points that never would have occurred to me. The decision won't be made for a few months yet, and it is clear that I need to become better informed about certain aspects, but you have all helped me a lot, and whatever the choice in the end, it will be based on a better understanding of the issues at play, thanks again.

Ideally you (or your nephew) should go into stores and try out 144 and 240Hz monitors first hand. That should tell you all you need to know.

 

[Vayra86]

Ideally you (or your nephew) should go into stores and try out 144 and 240Hz monitors first hand. That should tell you all you need to know.

So much this. Always look at the models you want to buy and if you order online make sure the return policy is hassle free after tryout.

Not in the least because display lottery is also a real thing.

 

[GhostRyder]

Thank you all so much. I am not sure we have resolved the issue, I am not sure that anyone could, but I certainly have a lot to consider, including a number of points that never would have occurred to me. The decision won't be made for a few months yet, and it is clear that I need to become better informed about certain aspects, but you have all helped me a lot, and whatever the choice in the end, it will be based on a better understanding of the issues at play, thanks again.

I have both a 144hz screen and a 240hz screen (Though the resolutions are different (1440p 144hz vs 1080p 240hz both Freesync).

Here are my Screens:
HP Omen 240hz
Acer XG270

This is just my opinion on the matter but if you are asking me whether is makes a huge difference, the answer is no. I can tell the difference in the game I play (Apex Legends, Battlefield, league of Legends and a few other shooters) and in my book the different form 60 -144 is huge, but the jump to 240 from 144 is small. You also need to know that its hard no matter what game it is (Save for a game like CS GO) to push beyond 144hz even with a very high end GPU like the 2080ti as most games are not optimized well enough to handle that range. Really, the big difference is making sure you get a good monitor with Freesync (Or GSync, but now that Nvidia supports Freesync I say just go for that) and a low 1ms response as that will be the best experience as that keeps the game smooth. With an RTX 2070 Super I would not worry, you have a good Freesync range and that's going to keep things smooth which is really what you want most of all in a shooter like Fortnite. I know most streamers and pros are starting to lean on 240hz displays but its not a necessity for shooters beyond 144hz as the difference is very small.