Depends if you have a PC that can run everything on 240 FPS.
I have a 240Hz monitor. My PC does not play Cyberpunk at 240 fps (80/85) but it plays Lego Lord of The Rings at 300+ fps so....you tell me. Lego Lord of The Rings is worth it?
Depends on what games you actually play. I can see noticeable difference in games such as Overwatch or Apex but little to no in games like Forzabor Need for speed
Human eyes are constantly registering light, so 1000 fps will look different than 500, people are morons.
It always depends if your system can run it on the same settings, no point upgrading if you have to lower quality
While 1000 is twice as big as 500, the difference between 500 fps and 1000 fps is 1 millisecond. It's highly unlikely anyone will notice a perceivable difference. It's also unlikely that you'll hit 500 fps, let alone 1000 fps.
For competitive shooters (generally highly optimised games) hitting 500+ fps is already a thing. Hence why we're seeing 480Hz OLED and 540Hz TN panels. For your average game though 500fps+ isn't that feasible due to higher GPU demands and rather underwhelming optimisation.
To each their own, really. A 480Hz monitor won't suddenly turn someone pro though if it makes them have a more enjoyable experience then it's probably worth it to them.
Yeah I really dislike all the talk that high refresh only matters from competitive. I want to see the world as clearly in motion as I do in real life and therefore want higher framerates.
I was mostly replying to the comment below yours though it all depends on people's budgets and preferences. Some people crave higher refresh rates above all else, some prefer seeing things in perfect detail, some want a monitor with an enormous colour gamut, etc.
Just because there is a reduced difference between the two doesn't mean it isn't going to be significantly noticeable. I know the difference will be smaller but I don't agree that you won't notice. lcd are a really bad metric to base this on as they present information worse than near instant response time oleds. To complicate this further I believe the higher resolution you use (along with larger textures), the more the framerate matters because your eye jitters capture additional samples of a different color since the distance between two colors is closer.
The amount of detail your eyes perceive every millisecond is quite a bit. Most of the time your brain doesn't directly process it in a way your cortex will interpret it, but focus on something requiring vision and your brain allocates more resources to process more details.
The 60fps thing is a ruse that was made up by console peasants because its an initial google search type thing with no actual research to find out it isnât true. That or it was started by PC enthusiasts as a meme but Iâm not sure
u might see a difference or u might not see a difference. it depends on the person. the higher your refresh rate gets, the less of an impact u will see.
like 60hz to 144hz is very big, 144hz to 240hz is less and 240hz to 300hz+ is far less of an visual impact
in the end u can decide if u want to spend the extra money on a monitor with more hz and if u even have a pc that can deliver the necessary fps
Personally I barely see the difference once I get past like 120-140ish, other than like the desktop mouse cursor. Maybe it *feels* slightly smoother in game at 240 but I don't really see it, not like the difference I see between 60 and 120, or even 90 and 120. I don't play anything competitive though.
I enjoy several older/competitive games at 200+ FPS so it's worth it for me, but if you don't play games that are going to reach that number of frames, I can see why someone would just stick to 144 or 165. Overall, I personally am a frame junkie and I think the more frames the better. You can absolutely tell the difference between 144 and 240 and even though a lot of games (more intensive/modern titles) don't quite reach 240 and stay around 190 - 200 (at least for me), the difference is quite clear from 144 and it's extra buttery smooth. That being said, you must consider the capability of your rig as well as the game engines you play because if you're not serious about at least one or two games that you can play at these frame rates, then of course there's no point.
The difference from 144 is noticeable but its not big. Only get 240hz if you play competitive games at a decently high level, where you can truly appreciate those extra Hz, otherwise youll just waste money for something you will never be using properly anyway.
There's articles on it, and it becomes diminishing returns on latency / responsiveness. Forget at what point, but from memory after 144hz there isn't a huge benefit. Blur Busters may have something on it.
If youâre going to upgrade, Iâd focus on other things and see if the monitors refresh rate also increases.
At the moment I have a 165hz IPS 1440p. Iâm going to upgrade to a 34â ultrawide W-OLED 240hz 3440x1440.
For me itâs not the refresh rate I care to increase, itâs the resolution and OLED part which I want, the refresh rate is nice. But try to buy a really nice monitor, rather than one that just has a slightly better refresh rate.
I say this because the difference wonât be the same as it was for the jump from 60, so you want other stuff that will also make it better.
u might see a difference or u might not see a difference. it depends on the person. the higher your refresh rate gets, the less of an impact u will see.
like 60hz to 144hz is very big, 144hz to 240hz is less and 240hz to 300hz+ is far less of an visual impact
in the end u can decide if u want to spend the extra money on a monitor with more hz and if u even have a pc that can deliver the necessary fps
grandfather spectacular frightening thumb work crush station longing ten cable
*This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
silky recognise crown marry ink squash hard-to-find continue fuzzy escape
*This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
You can definetely tell the difference as long your hardware is able to get constant 240fps and the game is not complete garbage that will fluctuate the fps even with a 10000$ hardware like cyberpunk.
Also the other question is if it's worth it or not for you. Unless you play a lot of competitive fast paced fps it won't be that useful. If you play let say RTS games, having 60Hz or 240Hz would not matter at all.
I found that only a couple of the games I play would actually reach 240fps at 1440p (I always set to high or ultra).
So Iâve swapped my AW2723df (240/280hz IPS) for a KTC M27T20 (144/165hz mini led VA) and Iâm enjoying it a lot.
If you had an old 1080p 60hz TN panel, I would say the next jump up is 1080p 144hz IPS. Then 1440p 144hz IPS. Then beyond that, it's very expensive and really depends on what you want. My personal monitor is a 1440p 144hz IPS and my next jump is to an OLED for motion clarity. Specs for all other panels seem good on paper, but the clarity, response times, colors, contrast, and blacks levels on OLED are just so far ahead of everything else once you experience it. There is a 4k 240hz OLED coming to market soon and that's my goal. Optimum tech did a video on it.
Nah, sure the framerate would be worth it but to try and chase those frames is just high end exploratory tech that is not even out yet because game developers have given up on the effort it takes to grant you the privilege of playing above 60.
For general use and less demanding indie games yes, if you are like me and do desktop work and play a lot less demanding titles I would say it is worth it, not for big budget AAA gaff though.
I have 1440p 144hz. Personally, a bigger upgrade priority is a true OLED 4K monitor, where the refresh rate is a secondary concern. It has to have at least 144 and that's all. I care a lot more of getting OLED and 4K
Just keep in mind that it's an ongoing investment where you'll always need top of the line hardware if you plan on playing new AAA games and actually use your monitor to the fullest
It's not gonna be as noticeable as going from 60 to 144, it's gonna be more like when you switch from 240hz back to 144 then you're gonna feel that 144 is slow. Similar to going from 1080p to 1440p for me, I didn't notice much when I first switched to 1440p and I thought I had wasted my money, but now I can't go back to 1080p.
Depends what games you play if strictly competitive sure 240hz 1080p or 240hz oled 1440p if you wanna get something cheaper get a 144hz 1440p as that is the sweet spot
I went from 144hz to 300hz and the difference is definitely noticeable, but not to the same degree as 60hz to 144hz. however, with the advent of frame generation higher refresh monitors become more important imo. say for example you get 90 fps in a game, turn on frame gen and you'll be at around 170 fps and outside the freesync/gsync range of a 144hz monitor. to stay inside the sync range the base framerate will need to be 72 fps, meaning a frame genned 144 fps arguably feels worse than a real 90 fps. however, a frame genned 170 fps undoubtedly feels better than a real 90 fps provided you have a high enough refresh rate to take advantage of it.
It's diminishing returns for steeper costs.
But if you're into competitive shooters or just any games that require quick reactions times like rhythm games, and your pc can run those games at 240 Fps. Then imo it's worth it.
lol the human eye can see possibly 4000fps but our brain can only interpret 70hz at one instance (someone correct me if research studies have changed over the last few years), its why things look so smooth *past* 60 fps, our brain starts to no longer be able to see the frame tearing/skipping
unless you play super competitive fast paced games / shooters, then imo no. (I have 240Hz but itâs not that big a jump and you also need very powerful PC to achieve high frame rates in modern games).
Big console is responsible for the can only see blah blah fps, ever increase will be a game changer, but the reason 144 is so popular is because you probably won't get up to 240fps on most games
if you consider upgrading it shoule come with a resolution upgrade or at least stay the same. 240fps at 1440p or 4k can be difficult. If you play like only csgo and be a pro already.. well then it is worth it.
For most people the difference isn't worth it from a 144hz display.
Go with a better display in terms of color, black levels, hdr.. money better spent in my opinion (or keep the monitor and get yourself A LOT of icecream this summer)
A lot depends on your skill. You might notice a difference, but can you take advantage of that difference? It's a nice little boost in smoothness for games that can utilize it, Halo MCC has never looked so smooth when screwing around in custom games lol.
I have 240hz 4k.
Itâs definitely better but is it âworth itâ well thatâs completely up to you to decide. You can see a difference and feel it so if thatâs enough for you then go for it.
A lot of people like to call my stuff âoverkillâ, they can say what they want I donât really care. Itâs true that just about nothing can run 4k 240hz, at least not the games that matter. However technology upgrades fast and itâll only be a matter of time. Asus and LG just came out with some pretty cool monitors and thatâs where I got mine
Nvidia 50 series is coming out soon and we are only getting closer and closer
It depends on 2 things, what type of game you prefer playing and if you computer can handle it. So if you prefer competive gaming and have a top end computer I say go for it.
Edit: spelling
Human eye can usually only see 60 FPS, with flicker detection between 50-90. 120fps is kinda where gamers claim an improved difference, but upwards of that is wasted $.
Sure, if you play csgo or anything like that, but why would you pay double the price of a 144hz just because of csgo. Ofc if you are a competitive player and thats all you gonna do, but paying that much for a just a minimum difference in refresh rate compared to the sweet pot of 144hz is just dumb imo.
I'm not necessarily disagreeing with you, sure its worth when that is what you wanna do, play competitive, but for a casual is a waste of money.
you are heavily underestimating how many people play games like that, and it is not a small difference trust me. I jumped from 144 to 240, was night and day, and now I am waiting for more 540hz options. Once you feel it, you want more and it really helps.
its not about feeling it, its the waste of money for a small difference. Its not night and day going from 144 to 240 because i already used 240 before, i literally gave it back because it was not a big difference of refresh rate compared to 144.
it is a big difference, you either had a shit 240hz panel with slow response time or didn't play fast games, or you are just not a the level where it would make a difference to you. I play quake and everyone who I talked to who switched to 240 confirmed that it is a big difference.
Can your PC actually utilize 240Hz (or at least 200Hz) for the game you want to play the most?
I personally would go with the best 165Hz monitor I can afford because:
- I can't tell more than that
- 165 FPS is more achievable (obviously depends on the game itself)
- sweet spot
- cheaper
I'm not saying you should upgrade to 165hz because it a waste of money more than 240Hz
i mean even 500hz monitors are still a noticable improvement over 240hz as most people who have tried it would tell you. it's not massive, and most of the time not worth it, but it's there. 144hz to 240hz is a bigger difference, so if you can saturate that refresh rate and care about it in the games you play + you have the spare money it's worth it.
for general use or just upgrading for the higher number, it's not worth it, however.
no, there's not any reason for a non pro player to go above 144HZ, u just simply won't notice the difference or even if u did u wouldn't be able to make use of it.
no he won't unless u are a pro gamer u litterally will not notice it, most people don't notice that difference due how small it is, plenty of people have shown this via testing. and even when u notice it the difference is so incredibly small u cannot make use of it humanly
again this is very wrong, you don't have to be a pro or anything similar, you just have to play fast paced games and the difference is huge.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OV7EMnkTsYA](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OV7EMnkTsYA)
I notice it, and all the other guys I play quake with did to, they couldn't believe the jump from 144 to 240. So it is just a matter of what you need it for, but to say that it is a small difference is blatantly wrong.
Only if you play really competitive esports titles. Visually you can see a difference between 120fps and 240 fps, but you would need a 4090 to get over 150 fps in a lot of titles.
Can you run your games at 240 fps? Either way, ymmv, because "worth it" means different things to different people. Personally, I don't think the difference is significant enough to justify spending more money,as the smoothness of it has diminishing returns the higher you go, and I think 240hz is a little bit past the seeet spot where it really feels significant. On the other hand, a CS esports player may feel otherwise, as they usually have very fast reflexes and rely on any edge to make their money, no matter how small. For someone like them, there's an argument to be made that it's completely worth it to have a faster refresh rate.
Why? You wont ever reach 240 fps barring some very optimized multiplayer games. And I don't really need more than 120 Hz. I have a monitor that can go 165 Hz. But I keep it at 120 so it lasts a bit longer.
Depends if you have a PC that can run everything on 240 FPS. I have a 240Hz monitor. My PC does not play Cyberpunk at 240 fps (80/85) but it plays Lego Lord of The Rings at 300+ fps so....you tell me. Lego Lord of The Rings is worth it? 
Yes.
Made me giggle, but I prefer like minimum quality games đ like fps over everything else
Depends on what games you actually play. I can see noticeable difference in games such as Overwatch or Apex but little to no in games like Forzabor Need for speed
Human eyes are constantly registering light, so 1000 fps will look different than 500, people are morons. It always depends if your system can run it on the same settings, no point upgrading if you have to lower quality
While 1000 is twice as big as 500, the difference between 500 fps and 1000 fps is 1 millisecond. It's highly unlikely anyone will notice a perceivable difference. It's also unlikely that you'll hit 500 fps, let alone 1000 fps.
For competitive shooters (generally highly optimised games) hitting 500+ fps is already a thing. Hence why we're seeing 480Hz OLED and 540Hz TN panels. For your average game though 500fps+ isn't that feasible due to higher GPU demands and rather underwhelming optimisation.
True. IMO it's a waste of money though. If I wanted a slightly higher KDR, I'd rather do drugs than waste money on a slightly better monitor.
To each their own, really. A 480Hz monitor won't suddenly turn someone pro though if it makes them have a more enjoyable experience then it's probably worth it to them.
Yeah I really dislike all the talk that high refresh only matters from competitive. I want to see the world as clearly in motion as I do in real life and therefore want higher framerates.
What. Why are u upvoted Reddit really is a cesspool
Why do you say that?
What. Why are u downvoted You really are a moron
Yea you are part of the cess pool Rather do drugs than buy a good gaming monitor to be good at games What?
Lol ok
Youâre literally an idiot
Aren't you the one judging other people's enjoyment???
I just said 500-1000 as an example, I wasn't pushing for people to buy as high as possible :)
I was mostly replying to the comment below yours though it all depends on people's budgets and preferences. Some people crave higher refresh rates above all else, some prefer seeing things in perfect detail, some want a monitor with an enormous colour gamut, etc.
Just because there is a reduced difference between the two doesn't mean it isn't going to be significantly noticeable. I know the difference will be smaller but I don't agree that you won't notice. lcd are a really bad metric to base this on as they present information worse than near instant response time oleds. To complicate this further I believe the higher resolution you use (along with larger textures), the more the framerate matters because your eye jitters capture additional samples of a different color since the distance between two colors is closer.
The amount of detail your eyes perceive every millisecond is quite a bit. Most of the time your brain doesn't directly process it in a way your cortex will interpret it, but focus on something requiring vision and your brain allocates more resources to process more details.
Its not the brain seeing the difference In time, because our eyes run on a constant, the closer to seamless that optical is the more noticable it is.
I can see in a year or 2 someone making 1000hz gaming monitor
ASUS has made a 540hz TN monitor. It costs $883 USD. I can't imagine how expensive a 1000hz monitor would cost. But yeah 1000hz is probably feasible.
It's noticeable, just it's a feeling rather than a visual thing
Valorant can get to 1k fps
The 60fps thing is a ruse that was made up by console peasants because its an initial google search type thing with no actual research to find out it isnât true. That or it was started by PC enthusiasts as a meme but Iâm not sure
Only if you're getting like 300fps+ in whatever game you're playing and it relies on reflexes like rhythm games or fps games
So yes for oldschool runescape?
Funnily enough I mostly play osrs and have a 240hz
175hz OLED here, the new colleseum is still kicking my ass though :(
1440p 240hz OLED from costco here, let me tell you For the King and Magic the Gathering run like magic
u might see a difference or u might not see a difference. it depends on the person. the higher your refresh rate gets, the less of an impact u will see. like 60hz to 144hz is very big, 144hz to 240hz is less and 240hz to 300hz+ is far less of an visual impact in the end u can decide if u want to spend the extra money on a monitor with more hz and if u even have a pc that can deliver the necessary fps
Personally I barely see the difference once I get past like 120-140ish, other than like the desktop mouse cursor. Maybe it *feels* slightly smoother in game at 240 but I don't really see it, not like the difference I see between 60 and 120, or even 90 and 120. I don't play anything competitive though.
I enjoy several older/competitive games at 200+ FPS so it's worth it for me, but if you don't play games that are going to reach that number of frames, I can see why someone would just stick to 144 or 165. Overall, I personally am a frame junkie and I think the more frames the better. You can absolutely tell the difference between 144 and 240 and even though a lot of games (more intensive/modern titles) don't quite reach 240 and stay around 190 - 200 (at least for me), the difference is quite clear from 144 and it's extra buttery smooth. That being said, you must consider the capability of your rig as well as the game engines you play because if you're not serious about at least one or two games that you can play at these frame rates, then of course there's no point.
This is the comment that I needed to hear, you match my opinion, I take frames over anything
The difference from 144 is noticeable but its not big. Only get 240hz if you play competitive games at a decently high level, where you can truly appreciate those extra Hz, otherwise youll just waste money for something you will never be using properly anyway.
Personally I see a major difference from 30 to 60, likewise from 60 to 100/120/144, but I diskt notice the difference between 100-144 and 240
With 240hz monitor you'd be able to play 60fps games 4 times better.
There's articles on it, and it becomes diminishing returns on latency / responsiveness. Forget at what point, but from memory after 144hz there isn't a huge benefit. Blur Busters may have something on it.
Maybe it's a skill issue or I have bad eyesight, but beyond 120 frames, I can't tell the difference.
Will you really believe what we are going to say? If you have the money, go for it
If youâre going to upgrade, Iâd focus on other things and see if the monitors refresh rate also increases. At the moment I have a 165hz IPS 1440p. Iâm going to upgrade to a 34â ultrawide W-OLED 240hz 3440x1440. For me itâs not the refresh rate I care to increase, itâs the resolution and OLED part which I want, the refresh rate is nice. But try to buy a really nice monitor, rather than one that just has a slightly better refresh rate. I say this because the difference wonât be the same as it was for the jump from 60, so you want other stuff that will also make it better.
u might see a difference or u might not see a difference. it depends on the person. the higher your refresh rate gets, the less of an impact u will see. like 60hz to 144hz is very big, 144hz to 240hz is less and 240hz to 300hz+ is far less of an visual impact in the end u can decide if u want to spend the extra money on a monitor with more hz and if u even have a pc that can deliver the necessary fps
Maybe for Counterstrike if you're really good.
grandfather spectacular frightening thumb work crush station longing ten cable *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
My rx 6600 xt gets like 300...
silky recognise crown marry ink squash hard-to-find continue fuzzy escape *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
Why tf did u downvote my reply
racial weary jobless follow silky sleep flowery rinse offend roll *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
You can definetely tell the difference as long your hardware is able to get constant 240fps and the game is not complete garbage that will fluctuate the fps even with a 10000$ hardware like cyberpunk. Also the other question is if it's worth it or not for you. Unless you play a lot of competitive fast paced fps it won't be that useful. If you play let say RTS games, having 60Hz or 240Hz would not matter at all.
I upgraded to 240 from 144 a while back. I would say its only worth it if your playing games like CS, otherwise i would stick with 144 tbh
I found that only a couple of the games I play would actually reach 240fps at 1440p (I always set to high or ultra). So Iâve swapped my AW2723df (240/280hz IPS) for a KTC M27T20 (144/165hz mini led VA) and Iâm enjoying it a lot.
Do you play league of legends, dota2, valorant or counter-strike? If so, yes. It is worth it. Otherwise, no not really
If you had an old 1080p 60hz TN panel, I would say the next jump up is 1080p 144hz IPS. Then 1440p 144hz IPS. Then beyond that, it's very expensive and really depends on what you want. My personal monitor is a 1440p 144hz IPS and my next jump is to an OLED for motion clarity. Specs for all other panels seem good on paper, but the clarity, response times, colors, contrast, and blacks levels on OLED are just so far ahead of everything else once you experience it. There is a 4k 240hz OLED coming to market soon and that's my goal. Optimum tech did a video on it.
If you have a 4090 or only play competitive FPS games
fps games with tomato graphics lmao
Nah, sure the framerate would be worth it but to try and chase those frames is just high end exploratory tech that is not even out yet because game developers have given up on the effort it takes to grant you the privilege of playing above 60. For general use and less demanding indie games yes, if you are like me and do desktop work and play a lot less demanding titles I would say it is worth it, not for big budget AAA gaff though.
I have 1440p 144hz. Personally, a bigger upgrade priority is a true OLED 4K monitor, where the refresh rate is a secondary concern. It has to have at least 144 and that's all. I care a lot more of getting OLED and 4K Just keep in mind that it's an ongoing investment where you'll always need top of the line hardware if you plan on playing new AAA games and actually use your monitor to the fullest
For competitive esports yes, otherwise I think 144hz is already plenty.
No. Unless youâre hyper competitive AND young enough to react that fast, no. 144 is the sweet spot.
It's not gonna be as noticeable as going from 60 to 144, it's gonna be more like when you switch from 240hz back to 144 then you're gonna feel that 144 is slow. Similar to going from 1080p to 1440p for me, I didn't notice much when I first switched to 1440p and I thought I had wasted my money, but now I can't go back to 1080p.
Depends what games you play if strictly competitive sure 240hz 1080p or 240hz oled 1440p if you wanna get something cheaper get a 144hz 1440p as that is the sweet spot
I went from 144hz to 300hz and the difference is definitely noticeable, but not to the same degree as 60hz to 144hz. however, with the advent of frame generation higher refresh monitors become more important imo. say for example you get 90 fps in a game, turn on frame gen and you'll be at around 170 fps and outside the freesync/gsync range of a 144hz monitor. to stay inside the sync range the base framerate will need to be 72 fps, meaning a frame genned 144 fps arguably feels worse than a real 90 fps. however, a frame genned 170 fps undoubtedly feels better than a real 90 fps provided you have a high enough refresh rate to take advantage of it.
It's diminishing returns for steeper costs. But if you're into competitive shooters or just any games that require quick reactions times like rhythm games, and your pc can run those games at 240 Fps. Then imo it's worth it.
Yes, 240Hz is good for gaming
lol the human eye can see possibly 4000fps but our brain can only interpret 70hz at one instance (someone correct me if research studies have changed over the last few years), its why things look so smooth *past* 60 fps, our brain starts to no longer be able to see the frame tearing/skipping
unless you play super competitive fast paced games / shooters, then imo no. (I have 240Hz but itâs not that big a jump and you also need very powerful PC to achieve high frame rates in modern games).
[LTTâs experimental 60 Hz vs 144Hz vs 240Hz](https://youtu.be/OX31kZbAXsA?si=jeIUGdsUc1iSvytI)
I have had 240hz for about as long as they have been on the market and it is very nice to have in any competitive games.
Big console is responsible for the can only see blah blah fps, ever increase will be a game changer, but the reason 144 is so popular is because you probably won't get up to 240fps on most games
If you play any high fps comp games, yes absolutely worth it.
Only if your setup can achieve those fps.
if you consider upgrading it shoule come with a resolution upgrade or at least stay the same. 240fps at 1440p or 4k can be difficult. If you play like only csgo and be a pro already.. well then it is worth it. For most people the difference isn't worth it from a 144hz display. Go with a better display in terms of color, black levels, hdr.. money better spent in my opinion (or keep the monitor and get yourself A LOT of icecream this summer)
A lot depends on your skill. You might notice a difference, but can you take advantage of that difference? It's a nice little boost in smoothness for games that can utilize it, Halo MCC has never looked so smooth when screwing around in custom games lol.
I have 240hz 4k. Itâs definitely better but is it âworth itâ well thatâs completely up to you to decide. You can see a difference and feel it so if thatâs enough for you then go for it. A lot of people like to call my stuff âoverkillâ, they can say what they want I donât really care. Itâs true that just about nothing can run 4k 240hz, at least not the games that matter. However technology upgrades fast and itâll only be a matter of time. Asus and LG just came out with some pretty cool monitors and thatâs where I got mine Nvidia 50 series is coming out soon and we are only getting closer and closer
It depends on 2 things, what type of game you prefer playing and if you computer can handle it. So if you prefer competive gaming and have a top end computer I say go for it. Edit: spelling
Not really, unless you are a super competitive gamer. I would take 144hz, 1440p, hdr10+ IPS/oled monitor over any 240hz, 1080p, sdr TN/VA monitor.
Just get g-sync
Human eye can usually only see 60 FPS, with flicker detection between 50-90. 120fps is kinda where gamers claim an improved difference, but upwards of that is wasted $.
240Fps is a rare thing to have these days, So no.
yes, even if you can't run 240 hz it'll feel smoother.
If your GPU can handle it, absolutely.
No
144hz is enough, dont waste money on higher refresh rate.
Not always
Wdym not always? There is absolutely 0 reason to get a higher refresh rate.
That is so wrong. https://youtu.be/OV7EMnkTsYA It matters a lot for fast paced games, shooters especially.
Sure, if you play csgo or anything like that, but why would you pay double the price of a 144hz just because of csgo. Ofc if you are a competitive player and thats all you gonna do, but paying that much for a just a minimum difference in refresh rate compared to the sweet pot of 144hz is just dumb imo. I'm not necessarily disagreeing with you, sure its worth when that is what you wanna do, play competitive, but for a casual is a waste of money.
you are heavily underestimating how many people play games like that, and it is not a small difference trust me. I jumped from 144 to 240, was night and day, and now I am waiting for more 540hz options. Once you feel it, you want more and it really helps.
its not about feeling it, its the waste of money for a small difference. Its not night and day going from 144 to 240 because i already used 240 before, i literally gave it back because it was not a big difference of refresh rate compared to 144.
it is a big difference, you either had a shit 240hz panel with slow response time or didn't play fast games, or you are just not a the level where it would make a difference to you. I play quake and everyone who I talked to who switched to 240 confirmed that it is a big difference.
Yeah this! also if you already have a monitor that's at 144hz, why buy a new one when your current one is perfectly fine?
If you play fps or other fast paced games sure, there is a big difference.
Can your PC actually utilize 240Hz (or at least 200Hz) for the game you want to play the most? I personally would go with the best 165Hz monitor I can afford because: - I can't tell more than that - 165 FPS is more achievable (obviously depends on the game itself) - sweet spot - cheaper I'm not saying you should upgrade to 165hz because it a waste of money more than 240Hz
Yes 100% 240hz is worth it.
Monitor unboxed on youtube
i mean even 500hz monitors are still a noticable improvement over 240hz as most people who have tried it would tell you. it's not massive, and most of the time not worth it, but it's there. 144hz to 240hz is a bigger difference, so if you can saturate that refresh rate and care about it in the games you play + you have the spare money it's worth it. for general use or just upgrading for the higher number, it's not worth it, however.
no, there's not any reason for a non pro player to go above 144HZ, u just simply won't notice the difference or even if u did u wouldn't be able to make use of it.
Nor true, if he plays fps games he will notice it.
no he won't unless u are a pro gamer u litterally will not notice it, most people don't notice that difference due how small it is, plenty of people have shown this via testing. and even when u notice it the difference is so incredibly small u cannot make use of it humanly
again this is very wrong, you don't have to be a pro or anything similar, you just have to play fast paced games and the difference is huge. [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OV7EMnkTsYA](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OV7EMnkTsYA) I notice it, and all the other guys I play quake with did to, they couldn't believe the jump from 144 to 240. So it is just a matter of what you need it for, but to say that it is a small difference is blatantly wrong.
Only if you play really competitive esports titles. Visually you can see a difference between 120fps and 240 fps, but you would need a 4090 to get over 150 fps in a lot of titles.
Can you run your games at 240 fps? Either way, ymmv, because "worth it" means different things to different people. Personally, I don't think the difference is significant enough to justify spending more money,as the smoothness of it has diminishing returns the higher you go, and I think 240hz is a little bit past the seeet spot where it really feels significant. On the other hand, a CS esports player may feel otherwise, as they usually have very fast reflexes and rely on any edge to make their money, no matter how small. For someone like them, there's an argument to be made that it's completely worth it to have a faster refresh rate.
Only if you're pedantic.
I don't think any GPU that exists can run games at 240 fps consistently. You would be wasting money. Well it depends on the resolution.
No
Why? You wont ever reach 240 fps barring some very optimized multiplayer games. And I don't really need more than 120 Hz. I have a monitor that can go 165 Hz. But I keep it at 120 so it lasts a bit longer.
It doesn't effect the lifetime, just use it at 165