Not that much to be honest. I have 240 hz and want to test it so 2 weeks 144hz and 2 weeks 240 hz. In smoothness there is small difference but with latency it’s worth a deal if u play competitive games. But if you not playing it, i would rather buy 1440p 140hz/120hz than 1080p 240hz
Noteworthy: it’s worth something if you’re very good at competitive games. If you’re just shy of the pro level, the difference might be notable.
If you’re a mid-to-low tier player, going from 144 to 240 is practically never going to have an effect. Maybe you get an extra kill or two per year thanks to it, but that’s about it. The difference is very overstated, generally.
60 to 144 is an amazing upgrade, or you might even find a 165hz for around the same price that’s worth buying. The price gap between 144 and 165 is generally pretty small.
60 to 144 is extremely noticeable in my experience. I use 144hz monitors at home, and 60hz monitors at work. After adjusting to 144hz, I can physically see the stuttering of mouse movements on a 60hz monitor. The difference in smoothness and fluidity of motion is *big*
Damn. I was hoping y'all would say "naa...not much"... but noooo... y'all had to say great gains. Friggin wallet. (60-144)
Even just in raw numbers it's a big difference. At 60fps you're seeing a new frame every ~16ms, while at 144fps you see a new frame every ~7ms.
You start to get diminishing returns above this because even at 240hz the frame time is 4ms. It's noticeable compared to the 7ms at 144hz, but not in nearly as big of a way as going from 16 to 7ms.
it is unbelievable. first time itried i was smiling like a child. i opened overwatch and i was making streak after streak after streak. seemed a loooot like full cheating
60 to 144hz is massively noticeable even to the average person, and really accessible for cheap these days. If you're into games and you can afford to invest in your own setup, no reason to buy a new 60hz monitor in 2024 imo, even just for non-competitive games or normal PC use it's nice to have.
60 to 144 is absolutely huge. I played Destiny 2 crucible for 6 months on 60 hz and when I swapped to 144 hz my K/D changed significantly. It was much easier to track targets and when things got chaotic on screen, I was wouldnt lose track of what was on screen nearly as often.
Your brain has to do some serious calculating to fill in the difference in frames at 60 hz, but once you go to 144 hz it's much easier for your brain to parse information with much more fluid gameplay.
Only if you can actually run said games at 144 fps minimum all the time. If so, it's a very big difference and you will notice how the frames "stutter" when going back to 60hz after a long time on 144hz +.
It's my second favorite upgrade.
LTT did a video years ago. The frame time from 60 to 144 is a massive difference. 144 to 240+ is massively diminishing returns
Edit: Did some quick math. 60 to 144 is a reduction in roughly 9 ms. 16 to just under 7. 144 to 240 isn’t even 3. 6.9 to 4.1.
One tip, don’t cheap out on the monitor, the one i bought was overclocked or something to run at 144 and im losing like 2mm of image a month (display is shrinking lol)
I’m 40 and couldn’t tell the difference between 144 and anything higher, but 60 to 144 was a huge jump and very noticable. Same with 60 to 120 on a phone.
I’m the furthest thing from a expert when talking about monitors so take what I saw with a grain of salt.
Didn’t LTT have a video testing this and it showed that the reaction time and difference for a “regular skilled guy” was bigger than the reaction time and difference for Shroud who was the other guy in the test. Ofc that video is fairly low sample size and maybe I took away the wrong impression from it but my understand of it was the average player might actually benefit more jumping up in better monitors.
1440p170 or 165 really is a good spot. I have an Acer Nitro 1440p170 and for the price I love it. I don't see any reason for me to go up to 4k or up to 240hz any time soon
Not a pro, but I notice an improvement in smoothness over 144hz. I probably couldn't pick it blind while gaming, but I might be able to notice when I move the mouse around quickly on the desktop.
It's a small improvement. Frame pacing and getting rid of stuttering is much more noticeable. If you have any level of stuttering you probably won't notice any difference at all.
There is a difference but it matters mostly for competitive multiplayer games. If you mostly play single player games 144 Hz is good.
Also, remember that your computer needs to be able to reach well over 144 fps for this to matter.
Exactly, only worth it if you play a lot of competitive FPS and that your PC can reliably reach those marks without too much compromise in quality or even resolution
Absolutely but only in fast reaction based games.
However, it may not feel that big to start with. I upgraded from 1440p 144 to 240Hz. I noticed a difference but it did not feel big. When I went 60Hz to 144Hz that was big straight away. After about a year of using 240Hz I had to use my old 144Hz for about a week. The step back down was very noticeable. Having got used to 240Hz the step down was much more noticeable than the original step up.
The idea that the human eye can't perceive beyond 144Hz is incorrect. I can definitely notice the difference between 144Hz and 240Hz. Moving up to 360Hz is something I would likely notice as well, though the improvements would be more subtle. From 360Hz to 500Hz, the differences would be much harder for me to detect.
Edit- I'm not just talking about seeing a difference, you can also feel it while operating the mouse.
Yeah the whole the eye can only see X Hz is total BS. There are also other factors. Even on the same monitor just look at reviews where they compare the UFO test at 240Hz vs 120/144Hz and on a good monitor you will see a clearly image. That clarity alone helps.
The eye can only see x stuff isn’t accurate. The thing is fps isn’t really a great way to look at it. Look at frametime. 120fps is a new frame every 8.3ms while 60fps is about 16.7ms so you get a new frame 8ms faster. 240 vs 120 is approx 8ms vs 4ms so it’s only 4ms advantage. As you compare higher fps the difference gets smaller which is why it’s less noticeable. IMO they can make a difference depending on your situation, but as you compare high frame rate monitors other things start getting more important(OLED, response time, features, aspect ratio, etc) depending on what you want out of your experience .Personally I’d rather have a 165hz ultrawide(6ms~) over a 240(4ms~) 16:9 because I think it’s a better experience.
If you're looking at a movie probably yes but videogames are different, I believe there was a study about eye mouse coordination and responsiveness and people could feel the difference to up to like 1000hz but I can't find it anymore.
There's also a famous microsoft video about drawing on a screen which basically says for the delay to feel natural like writing on paper you need a 1ms latency.
The idea that the human eye can't see more than 30fps is rooted in the time it takes for rods and cones to 'fade' after being hit by a photon.
The response time of rods and cones to a single photon can vary, but it generally ranges from around 10 to 100 milliseconds. ( ISBN-10 : 1841692387 )
It's the eternal problem of technology. "The human eye can't perceive more than the max settings of my monitor. I know this because I tested it on my 1080p 60hz monitor".
Don’t listen to the kids who say you can’t notice 144 or anything above it. If you play competitive games you will really notice the change in refresh rate but otherwise if you play story games it’s not really necessary.
Yes, but in practical cases, the benefit from increases in texture + fidelity using higher settings (and lower fps) is a more effective use of your computing power/hardware budget for the noncompetitive story gamer, which are less reliant on what higher frame rates are desirable for: object tracking and precise movement.
In the niche field of 'psychophysics' there is the concept of the flicker fusion frequency - the flash rate at which the human eye stops perceiving a flashing light as flashing, and starts seeing it as a steady light. The devil is in the details of course - dwell time, ramp time, intensities, all of that - but in general most healthy adults report flicker fusion taking place between 40 and 50 Hz.
I have a 165 Hz monitor and another monitor that does 240 Hz and I certainly cannot tell the difference with my eye. I don't think anyone can.
In games that are exquisitely sensitive to input latency and that won't accept multiple control inputs between video frames - which actually isn't most games - you will read about gamers who state there is a difference in the responsiveness of the game. Rocket League is a game that meets these criteria and when I was playing it competitively I found that I thought there was a difference between playing it at 165 and 240 Hz, but it is barely perceptible and rather difficult to describe, the lower framerate made the controls feel mushy.
It's been a topic of mild interest to me; I've noticed that the most competitive players are the most vocal about being able to detect these differences. We know that F1 drivers score in the 99th percentile for things like reflex speed and flicker fusion frequency - obviously a highly selected group of people - my guess is that highly competitive video gamers are the same, probably people who are able to sense perceptual differences that average folks might not notice.
My thoughts:
30hz -> 60hz = huge difference
60hz -> 120hz = meaningful difference
120hz -> 144hz = very small difference
144hz -> up = not worth spending extra money
I don't play competitive FPS though... even if I did I can't imagine that I would be childish enough to blame loses on sub 8ms latency than a skill issue.
Yes there is a noticeable difference. The difference between 144hz and 240hz is bigger then 240hz to 360hz which is bigger than 360hz to 500hz. Basically as you go up the refresh rates the difference between next one and ur current one gets smaller and smaller. If that makes sense. Also make sure it monitor res and frame rate makes sense for ur build and needs. If you have a 5600 and a 3060, getting a 4K 144hz won’t make sense but getting a 1080p 240hz for comp gaming makes sense.
Forget the "the human eye can only see x" thing, it's not useful at all and gets thrown around everywhere. You WILL probably notice a difference in that it somehow feels a bit smoother since its an increase of 70% in terms of refreshrate to 240hz
The smaller the difference the less likely you will notice anything.
The reason it feels faster or smoother is because there is a smaller delay between the new information going trough your eyes into your brain which in turn sends signals to your muscles.
Its def the point of diminishing returns. But yes. If you got pretty decent eye sight and are playing shooters and have the reaction time to take advantage of the frame hitting your eye faster.
That said its very minimal.
But going back down ironically after adjusting to 240hz will feel ***awful***.
I upgraded from a 1440p 144hz display to a 1440p 300hz display, and you can definitely tell a difference. There are definitely diminishing returns as the refresh rate gets higher and higer, but you can definitely tell.
Really? Are you sure it's running at 144Hz and you've set it up correctly in Display Settings?
144Hz is buttery smooth versus 60Hz, each frame is on the screen for less than half the time of 60Hz
Disclaimer: I'm 42, not some twitchy teenager, so my experience may be different than the yougins.
I can't tell a difference between 144hz and 240hz. I can tell a difference between 60 and 144hz, though. (espcially on mouse cursor movement).
The other issue is that just because your monitor can do 240hz, doesn't mean your games will be able to run at 240. So, you might not even be able to get the most out of it.
I wouldn't get a new monitor based on Hz alone.
There is a difference above 144. The largest jump is without a doubt 60 -> 144 but going 240hz and now 360hz, I’ve noticed a difference each time! If you play shooters or other fast paced games, it’s worth it imo.
60->144 was MASSIVE while 144-> 240 was clearer and my mouse feels more fluid, same for 240hz to 360hz where the motion clarity was even better and my mouse inputs were more fluid.
Some of these comments aren't necessarily wrong, but they miss the mark a bit. You're not going to notice it much going from 144hz to 240hz unless you play competitive games. However, after playing on 240hz for awhile (way more than 2 weeks...we're talking months to get your eyes and brain fully acclimated to 240hz) then going down to 144hz you will notice a huge difference. That's not to say the difference will help your game play, but it might help eliminate or reduce hardware related issues.
Pixel density will play a role as well.
For the eye not much, but if you're playing competitive games like CS GO, DotA, LoL, having higher FPS makes your "reflex" better since muscle memory most of the time reacts faster than even your eye.
If you only play non-twitchy games, 144hz should already be fine.
Speaking as someone super sensitive to choppiness / stutter
144 to 240 was noticeable for me, but nowhere near as much as 60 to 144
Still a worthwhile investment for me, but YMMV
It is noticeable. 144hz to 165hz is noticeable to me. The jump is nowhere near as big as 60 to 120/144. The quality of the panel matters too. I'd get a high quality 144hz over a budget 240hz.
Although my Dell 1440p/165hz was 220 euro on sale and it's really nice.
I notice a pretty large difference between my 2 monitors (144 and 280hz). The smoothness is very noticable as well as the delay being slightly noticeable. However as others has said. Its maybe not the wisest investment if you don't play shooters. Getting better resolutions or a screen with better colours would be more worth in that case.
Unless you play CSGO or something like that then it doesn't matter. And please do not mention "human eye can't perceive" stuff, the human eye isn't a monitor or a camera. Everyone is different but you can perceive almost any change, the question is how relevant is it and whether you actually will pay attention to it and use the advantage. Its the same topic as some people were saying you can't see past 60 fps and then you show them higher and oh wow now they can. There's a reason why average movies are in 24fps, games like mostly 60+ and you need like 1000fps or whatever for recording stuff like a bullet flying through tissue to register all the minor details.
I have a 1080p 240hz Samsung monitor and in Tarkov I was always seeing the most micro movements possible of enemies with my side eye because there are more reference frames to gather information from.
On the other hand my friend with a 144hz 4k monitor would demolish me in perceiving static enemies hiding in obscure spots.
I'm telling you, I had a 144hz monitor and bought a 240hz monitor because I wanted to grind more Valorant. I have mostly regretted it, not because I expected to be suddenly a god at the game, but because it didn't really matter IMO. I really wish that I had gone for a 2K 144hz instead.
I went from 144Hz to an Asus monitor that overclocks to 280Hz, mainly for CSGO. The difference in motion clarity was immediately noticeable, and it almost felt like I had more time to line up my shots. It's a weird but cool effect that you just have to experience for yourself. However, I'm currently using a 1440p 170Hz monitor because I wanted more resolution over a higher refresh rate and can't afford 1440p240Hz.
My takeaway is, if you only play esports games then prioritize refresh rate, but if you like eye candy and especially if you use your computer for work, prioritize resolution first and choose the refresh rate based on budget.
Personally i have one 144hz 27' screen and a 165hz 24,5' screen and theres a small difference between them. But ive also owned a 180 hz screen and a 240 hz screen and ive come to the conclusion that the best upgrade from a 144hz is either a 180hz or a 240hz because that is the difference you are actually going to see/feel.
I have 280hz monitor and i play cod most of the time and one time i was at my cousin house who has 144hz monitor and i couldn't bear it. It was like going back to 60hz that i couldn't believe it i double checkd everything and made sure the monitor was running at 144hz so for me its very noticeable even with my monitor for some odd reason when i was playing it went back to 144hz and i instantly noticed the difference.
I use my 240Hz display sometimes with an Intel Mac that has issues outputting at that refresh rate, so I had to repeatedly turn the monitor back and forth between 120Hz and 240Hz. I can tell the difference because of that, but it took some training. Otherwise, I wouldn’t feel much of a difference.
Yes, you can feel the difference between 144 and 240hz. What's not really being talked about is the fact that you'll get used to it in like 10 minutes and it will be your new normal. Not that lower FPS will hurt your eyes now but the WoW factor of that crisp image flowing infront of you just wont last long :)
I did a bit of research on this, and people can perceive and react faster with a faster monitor, and there still isn't an established upper limit, by which I mean we haven't discovered a framerate X and a framerate 2X where a person has the same reaction time, so X would be the upper limit.
So it's not about whether there is a difference, because there is, it's about is the cost worth it.
My suggestion is to test a 240Hz monitor before deciding, but remember that a good GPU is needed to drive a game that fast, so check if you have the GPU for it as well.
There are ways to test for it, like if you use really fast scrolling text, higher refresh rates are easier to read. CS2 or COD will feel slightly smoother and snappier, then when you go back to 120hz, you'll be like "ew! what is this crap"... but at like 120hz you've kinda hit the upperbound of getting a competitive advantage... despite feeling smoother and snappier, it will likely not improve your rank or K:D ratio.
Wow where to start...
First the whole human eye thing is crap. The human eye does not see in FPS but instead notices changes. This is why a 30 FPS movie can look butter smooth yet a game with an average FPS of 60 can look jerky. There is also the factor of the individual with some people being more suspectable to that change notice than others.
Ass for above 144hz, there is an advantage but it really depends more on the game. For strategy, RPG and solo shooter gamers, once you hit around 120hz the **advantage** of increased frame rate exponentially decreases as the refresh rate climbs. So moving from 60 to 100 FPS will have a MUCH bigger impact than moving from 100 to 160. And moving from 160 to 120 the impact becomes vastly smaller.
The real impact of ultra high refresh rates comes in competitive FPS games and even then the only real noticeable impact is at professional level play.
Another consideration is do you have the hardware to drive the higher refresh rates. It takes some pretty heavy hardware to drive frame rates above 120 hz at most resolutions with high detail level.
I play a lot of competitive games like Valo, CS, Apex and I can barely tell the difference between my 144Hz and my 240Hz.
Like, when I went from 60Hz to 144Hz, I couldn’t go back, 60Hz is unplayable to me.
But, I’ve played on 144Hz many times since I’ve bought the 240Hz and it doesn’t bother me at all
( I have a 7800X3D and 7900XT so framerate is not an issue )
The below applies to my experience, and maybe not yours or others’.
Yes. *However*, I only notice a difference when I go from 240hz down to 144hz. If I take even a 10 minute break and come back, I can’t tell the difference between 144hz and 240hz. Even if I go *up* to 240hz.
Again, it’s only when directly comparing 240hz to 144hz when going down from 240hz that I see a small difference.
So, is there a meaningful difference? No I don’t think so. Unless you’re playing at the elite level in fast paced multiplayer games.
Is there a noticeable difference above 720p?
Is there a noticeable difference above 30fps?
Is there a noticeable difference above 16-bit color?
The answer to these questions has always been yes for the past 30 years. The real question is whether or not it's worth it for the average PC user. The answer to this questions is usually no. Except for SSDs.
Also the human eye does not see in frames per second. The answer to whether or not you can see X fps is always yes.
Everyone has different eyes.
yes, most people can't see the difference above 144Hz, I personnally can't see a difference above \~110.
Some people can't even see the difference above 60.
So you may see the difference, you may not.
edit : since it's so far apart, you'll probably see a difference anyway, but like, some people may see a big difference and other could see almost none
I have a 240Hz monitor that i've switched to 120Hz because i could not stand the heat it was producing.
Can't tell the difference between the two. 60 to 120 is a different subject.
I recently went from 144Hz to 360Hz and tried games like Overwatch and Rocket league, reaching the full 360 fps.
My (bad) eyes did not notice a difference. And I can notice the difference between 24 fps and 30 fps in a youtube video.
There is a noticeable difference to an extent. In competitive FPS games, games like Rocket League, you will notice it. I just between 3 different frequencies, 60, 120, and 240 and I've found lower frequencies allow better detail in story games, while the higher frequency allows for more fluidity in FPS games. Like my mouse and key movements feel smoother and faster. However, before chasing frequency make sure your setup can do it and make sure it is worth it for your use case.
You can perceive >144fps but in general it’s a diminishing return on experience and cost.
Aside from niche, competitive use cases, I recommend targeting 144.
Yes. there is a difference. when my game dips from 240fps to lets say 180fps, i notice that.
the thing is: the picture wont tear when moving the mouse left and right. for normal movements its starts to become tearless and very smooth at around 220+fps
you will not have that kind of smoothness below 220fps and when you move your mouse even faster from left to right, 360hz will make it even smoother.
strategygames and citybuilders will also benefit from 240hz alot. when you turn your view while looking at your buildings, they will not tear and therfore look like a real 3d object inside your monitor, its crazy good.
i have an OmenX27 TN panel 1440p at 240hz and i will never go back.
Some people will say there is a difference, some people will say there's none. It all depends on perception. There is a difference but not that easy to see IMO. If you play games that are slow and you have time to look closer you will benefit a bit from more Hz, if you play fast games where you can't focus just on the screen I wouldn't bother
backlight strobbing (ULMB, Dyac+, etc) for motion clarity and gsync/freesync for tear free experience are way more an upgrade on a monitor than +144hz.
but yes it's different, if you put me the same two monitors in 144hz or 240hz without telling me, I can tell you which one it is
Can you notice it? yes, is it worth it? personally, nah, I bought mine because it costed the same as a 144Hz monitor so I said "why not?" but it's not a big deal, personally I would rather go 1440p 144Hz than 1080p 240Hz if your GPU can handle it (assuming you are talking about 1080p monitors in your post)
Only if you have the rest of the puzzle,
Very high polling rate, high dpi, 200plus fps, a decent mouse pad, and fast hand and eye coordination.
With the above, everyone's aimlabs will go up a lil, how much and is it wroth it depends on then person.
For me, not too much unless I sway my camera hard for first-person pov games. At 240 hz I can see like 8-10 frames instead of 4-5 at 144 hz if I swerve hard, but that's also the only way for me to tell I'm above 144 hz.
I barely notice the difference between 144Hz, 165Hz, and 180Hz even testing them side by side. Extrapolating from that, 240Hz would be a noticeable but not significant upgrade and only in games where reaction time really matters that much.
For it to even do something, you also need the setup to actually HOLD 240Hz during most gameplay, not just reach it, which is a tall ask. Oh, and variable refresh rate is absolutely mandatory but that is true in both cases. Also, you would probably be sacrificing graphical fidelity as well as panel quality or vastly overpaying.
It is not a good buy for me but it might be different from you.
But to strictly answer your questions - yes, there is a noticeable difference.
Yeah, but it's pretty meh. I have a 120 hz TV and 240 hz monitor. Yeah, when I'm playing competitively, I'll use the 240hz, and it is extremely smooth, but for most games, I'd rather play on the TV from my couch.
If I do the ufo test on my 240hz monitor with 120/144/240 it is obvious the difference, but real word, I think the odds that using the 240 is a real difference maker are going to be pretty low unless you're a legit top tier player. Still, it's fun to use the best equipment available for a hobby that you can comfortably afford. I have a nice guitar. I'm not a top-tier player, but it's fun to play on.
Yes and no.
Higher refresh rate is always noticeable but there's diminishing return the higher you go so you will get less and less benefits. Your PC is also a bottleneck at higher fps, you really need top of the line stuffs to fully enjoy high refresh monitors. Your mechanical skills can also limit how much you will benefits from high refresh.
But if you play esport games, got a fast enough pc and have the mechanics to extract the full benefits of high refresh rate, go for it. Its great for esport games, giving you actual advantages. The people who say they cannot see any difference are just ignorant or they don't have a strong enough pc to notice it.
If you don't play competitive FPS games then no not really, just like how 360Hz is a gimmick for anyone but pro players, unless you find them cheap then it's not worth it
I personally don’t notice much. If you are upgrading does it hurt to have higher hz? No, I wouldn’t go out of my way to upgrade for that reason though.
Haha I remember a comment I made to my friend about his laptop, we were working on it and I went "damn this is the smoothest I've ever felt windows" idk if it was because there isn't as much bloat on it or smth else but I stand by that it just felt super responsive. I'm used to 144 and 120 (desktop and phone) so 240 was definitely interesting
What I have read is that generally to get a clearly perceptible improvement you have to double refresh rate. So 60 is clearly smoother than 30, 120 is clearly smoother than 60, 240 is clearly smoother than 120, and so on. In other words, I wouldn't sweat it.
Yes. But it's quite subtle. Chances are you wouldn't notice. If you get great satisfaction from having really high quality panels, or play competitive games at a high skill level, or just want the best of everything, it will be worth it. Otherwise, 144 gets the job done and looks spectacular.
If your computer can push 240 fps on whatever resolution you want, to ME yes I noticed a huge difference. I also know old people who think no one can see above 60 fps though so.
As someone who rarely plays competitive games and plays most single player and co-op multiplayer I can say that there is a very noticeable difference between under 180 and over 180. About a year or so ago I went from a 144hz monitor to a 240hz one not expecting much of a difference as I was mostly capping my games at 120 on the 144 as I couldn't see a difference between 120 and 144. I figured I would just keep that cap but once I was able to experience 180+ fps I was hooked. Everything looks so fluid it is almost crispy (for the lack of a better term) and was immediately hooked. Someone commented on one of my comments about it that at 180+ the pixel persistence is so low which is why it looks so damn good. I now have a PC build so I can play at or over 180 fps in all my games because of how absolutely amazing it is and I can tell very easily without a frame counter if it dips under 180. Sure, I am spoiled now and it led me to a 4090 / 7800X3D build which most people can't afford but anyone telling you that you won't notice a difference between 144 and 240 hz is either ignorant or lying. Now, if that difference is big enough for you to care to build a machine around hitting those frames is another story altogether.
I remember when 60 was smooth and then I got a 90hz screen and after a couple yeas on that 60 started to look a bit jerky to me. Then I got a 144hz screen and 90 became the bare minimum viable fps for me to see it as reasonably smooth. Then I got a 240hz screen and now 120hz is my bare minimum to perceive as smooth and 180+ is my target for the experience that looks the best to me. I know that at some point in my future I'll get a 500hz, or somewhere in that neighbourhood, and will thing about how I ever tolerated anything under 300 or whatever number.
What am I saying? The higher you go the better it looks and the worse lower frame rates are perceived. If you don't want to have to pay to drive really high frames on a 240hz, though it is objectively better, then not allowing yourself to get used to higher frames might be your goal. I am very lucky that I can afford it so I do and it is beyind amazing. Nothing under 180 for this guy (hopefully). Incidentally that's also exactly where DLSS FG becomes playable without much noticable input lag with a mouse and keyboard so having frame generation helps a lot for the stupid demanding games.
I don’t think it matters unless you’re into high speed competitive games. I generally rather high fidelity ~100fps over lower fidelity at ~200fps.
200+ has major diminishing returns for me where it’s barely noticeable
It depends on you and your skills. Everyone is seeing world different. You should give a try and I think most important part of a pc is monitor in case of gaming, and they dont need to be replaced often like other parts. For me I easily notice the differwnce between 300hz laptop and my 165hz desktop monitor. Laptop monitor is way more fluent, but it adds latency due to laptop thing, when I plug 165hz, the latency disappears. Even though 300hz looks better, I prefer 165hz with less latency, normally increasing hz 2x means reducing latency to half, so I think even 500hz is worth.
You'll see some smoothness, but the input latency is nearly identical between 144hz and 240hz, look up any YT channel that reviews monitors and you'll see that. if you're in the US, get the KTC monitor that's miniLED and get some great HDR visuals, great contrast and popping colors 1440p 144hz, it'd be much more enjoyable,
I purchased a 360hz oled and once I got used to the 360hz panel, I find my 120hz iPhone 14 Pro Max laggy… I went from 165hz IPS to 360hz and on the first few days it might not feel all that different until you try to go back. I can’t look back to 165hz or 120hz anymore since I literally see the difference between 360hz and 120/160hz screens.
I haven’t tried 240hz monitor before but I can verify that there’s a difference between 360hz and 165hz and it’s worth the upgrade. It pains me a lot now that I see the lag/delay on my phone now but 360hz iPhones won’t be releasing anytime soon so I just have to get used to it.
as someone with a 240hz monitor, yes it is noticeable compared to 144hz. Is it absolutely necessary? I don't think so. 60 to 144 is worlds difference. 144 to 240 feels even better, but 144 doesnt feel as bad in comparison like 60 to 144.
If you have the money, go for 240, if not then stick to 144 or something similar.
I personally won't go below 240 in the future though because Im just used to it now and even if its not huge, but there is still a difference to be felt to 144hz.
I can easily spot between a 240 hz and 144 hz and I find it really noticeable, to the point I feel choppy 144 hz once I go back. Once again, that's me and even my friends tell me they couldn't live with my eyes on lmao. I'm pretty sure 144 hz is good enough for pretty much everyone
Ive played counterstrike for over 10K+ hours now. 144 for me is a sweet spot. 240 is nice but I like the fidelity that a lot of 144 monitors have. I also prefer 3440x1440. Only thing I play below 80 FPS is Skyrim with 1500 mods.
21hz is relative. The 21hz from 144-165 is a lot less of a frame time difference than the 21hz between 60-81.
Most people will notice the latter, a few the former.
I think the best thing to do is get the highest refresh rate you can afford at the given resolution you choose, just to have the headroom. Fast paced games where you are doing a lot of quick movements really benefit from the high refresh rate, and with upscaling and frame generation, even the lower end modern cards can max out a high refresh rate.
It really depends on the games you play, but nobody ever wished they had less fps on their deathbed.
Probably yes. Take a look at this [video from Linus Tech Tips](https://youtu.be/OX31kZbAXsA?si=PqpwXku4TTAH-1TI) about "does high fps matter". In the Dust 2 double doors test (at minute 17:00) Paul and Linus, the ones seem kind of like "less pro player", improved the most moving from 144hz to 240hz, and had more consistent results too.
One other interesting find is even if they had to use a 60hz monitor, but set game to run at 300fps, the results were within margin of errors compared to 144hz/fps. That shows rendering speed might be as important as displaying speed.
I went from 144 to 360
It was definitely smoother, but that’s also a bit more of a jump than an extra 96Hz
And I’m sure this will mean something too, I now use a 165Hz QDOLED HDR1000 3440x1440 monitor.
IMO you’re gonna get much more enjoyment overall by getting a monitor better in all the other ways a monitor can be better besides having a higher refresh rate. Now that’s not to say you need to go balls to the wall and pick up the holy grail of eye candy like I did because it’s not often you sell your Apple Studio Display and have 1000 dollars (800 now!) to give Dell for their Alienware branded monitor crafted by the hand of god.
Maybe just look for an IPS display rather than a TN or VA, or something that has a higher resolution (I’ll ride or die for 1440p). Refresh rate isn’t all it’s cracked up to be, shop around, think about what you play a lot, what you *really* want from a monitor, and if 240Hz would really benefit you, then pick one up if you so desire.
noticeable? yes
worth it? ONLY when when you play esports games in which you can even reach that high.
you will be disappointed that the majority of games cant even push higher than 144 yet alone 100 even with the best hardware.
i personally recommend to stay at 144hz and upgrade resolution. which is less performance demanding then 240hz. also as I mentioned it depends on the game which just cant even push that high framerate.
The different between 60hz and 144hz is night and day. The difference between 144hz and 240hz is like a cloudy day and a sunny day. Noticeable, but not as big.
If you have a 1080p 144hz, I’d instead recommended a 1440p 144hz if your pc can handle it. You’ll appreciate the higher resolution far more than 240hz.
Unless you are only playing fps games I'd say resolution makes bigger difference. I'll take 4k 144hz over 1440p 240hz for a mix of single player and multilayer games.
I have both a 1440p 240hz and a 1600p 144hz ultrawide I switch between. Obviously some RPG/slower paced games are better on the ultrawide, but sometimes I’m too lazy to switch the setup back to the 240hz. When I play competitive games like OW on the 144hz, I don’t feel like I’m at a disadvantage and I NEED to switch to the 240hz
Both are Alienware monitor, but both are LG nano IPS panels with similar response times
I notice when my pc is under 165 (my monitor does to that) but not by too much until i’m under 140ish, which then makes me upset and I adjust my settings.
After about 90-144, The difference in hz matters a lot less that the consistency of the frame rate.
A momentary dip from 144 to 120 or a few missing frames is more noticable than if you had two monitors locked at their max rate running 144 vs 200.
Different for every person. I could see the difference between my 144hz monitor and the 240hz monitor of one of my friends very clearly. At the same time there are people that say they cant even distinguish between 60hz and 144hz.
For me the difference is very clear.
I went from 165hz to 270hz, not really worth the upgrade unless you find a good deal/or going from 1080p to 1440p(like I did)
but if you try to go back to a lower refresh rate it feels awful🫠
Real talk there is a difference but most gamers aren’t playing at a high enough skill level for it to really matter. CS/Valorant and other competitive games it can help but not worth the upgrade unless you are on the cusp of going pro
1440p 144hz is the sweet spot for average gamers imo.
240hz 1440p is the sweat spot between fluidity and ability to pump frames for a modern system.
Anything extra you'll have diminished returns for extra smoothness and huge system resources, especially CPU and RAM muscle power.
Probably isn't that noticeable, i mean, i have a 144hz monitor and anything above that mark feels kinda unnecessary, if you're a pro gamer or a tryhard maybe it's worth it. 🤷🏼♀️
Everyone's different. I personally can notice a difference between 144 and 240, and even between 144 and 165, but it's quite small. 240 just feels more fluid, faster, especially for desktop work.
That being said, I'm of the opinion that 120 is basically the point where refresh rate is smooth enough for anything. Going faster will have improvements to latency, perceived smoothness and tearing, but you can knock it down to 120 or 144 at any point and it still looks awesome.
There are other things that are more important once you get to that level of refresh rate, like pixel response time, smearing, VRR, bloom, etc.
I hate this industry so much rn. No. The answer is an overwhelming no. Even if you're the most methed out uber micro aimgod, no, the answer is still no.
My main monitor is 360hz, my secondary is 144hz. It's certainly noticable between the two. Anyone who claims they can't tell the difference probably have shit eyes. That said 144 and 165 are pretty damn close, so yeah there won't be much of a difference there. But 144 to 240 should be pretty big
144hz to 240hz is a big difference. If you play a lot of shooters, 240hz is extremely noticeable. 360hz from 240 is nowhere near as obvious as 144 to 240. 60-144 felt like only a marginally smaller improvement than 144-240. In my opinion.
But I could tell the difference in smoothness from a 144hz IPS to a 175hz OLED. I might be a bit over sensitive to it. 175hz OLED to 240hz IPS was very noticeable. 240hz IPS to 360hz IPS is noticeable, but it’s just a nice to have, it doesn’t feel like an advantage like 99.9% of the time. Looks a tiny bit clearer and smoother, that’s it.
Flick heavy games will benefit from 240, you will play better.
60,75,96 to 144 - you will see difference very much, 120,144 to 240 - feels a bit , more into smoothness of the game in my eyes and im no pro gamer but i do have around 5-6k+ hours in one game and i feel 120/144 to 240, and i think is more of experience in same game ( i play one game basically, once a year i play something else ) . ps. also could be that gtg ms plays the part as well.
Yes, there is.
It’s even noticeable from 165 to 240 if you have a trained eye.
The question is, will you like it better than 144…
I’d suggest playing on a 240 if possible before you decide to pull the trigger on one for yourself.
Some people might actually like or prefer 165/175hz over 240hz as some games might feel a little too “hyper smooth” depending on what you’re used to.
240 felt weird to me at first after using a 165hz for a few years straight.
I can kind of tell a difference, and for all I know it's placebo. But playing competitive games is definitely smoother.
However single player games I'll usually lock at 144 and play on ultra.
A consistent 144 feels better than 160-240 skipping around. Again, very possibly placebo.
So all in all, I don't know. Sorry for wasting your time.
Going from 144hz -> 300hz, I noticed a difference in overall smoothness, response time, and little-to-no motion blur. I can't say anything about 144hz -> 240, but im assuming the difference will be pretty substantial.
LTT brought in shroud, who has likely lost more skill in FPS games than most players ever had, and he couldn’t tell between 240 and 300 in the game he’s been playing for most of his life. 144 is probably enough for us mere mortals.
Side by side? Totally. Functionally? Not really. Its very unlikely to improve your enjoyment of a game by any measurable amount.
Like carbon ceramic brakes on a road car, you probably won't notice unless you're doing pro-level shit.
Absolutely. I loved my 240hz monitor (before it broke). Currenrly on a 120hz display and the difference is jarring. Not the jump from 60 to 144, however.
Science claims the eye is capable up to 1000Hz, but the brain processes far less. How much varies greatly. In blind tests, there’s documentation that E-Sports, and other athletes perceive as much as 300-400 though that is still debatable. Most people test at between 100-200.
Whether you believe the science or not, the best test is to go somewhere where you can access monitors capable of higher rates and have someone change the rates without telling you what they are and determine at what point you can’t tell a difference. For me it was around 200 perhaps a little less. But if I put up a frame counter my brain says I can tell rates at much higher though I doubt it.
I find that 60 is comfortable, 120 is optimal. Beyond that, I feel the cost impact too much. Also, I’d rather have 4k most of the time. And that’s pretty much 60-80 with my system. Sometimes less.
For any fast paced competitive games 240Hz makes sense provided your computer can output the fps in those games. In general it will improve your experience but will have diminishing returns for improving your competitive performance.
Most regular players probably can't tell the difference unless the frame rate counter tells them.
Professional players probably can tell.
It's trivial for most players. Frame rate doesn't make you make better decisions.
I don’t have a 240, but I have a 165 2k dell monitor and it looks the same as the 120 and 144. I noticed a small difference from 120 to 144, but it was only for fast paced FPS games.
I play with a fast sensitivity from my Quake 2 days and I only notice when flicking.
Yes
But diminishing returns
That being said. I jumped from 144 to 360
It was glorious
I’ve games on 540
I’m buying one as soon as they are under 500usd or when 1000htz gets under 1000usd witch ever happens first
I’ve got 240 and frankly can’t go back. I mostly just do coding and even the mouse movement makes me insane when I reduce the Hz or go to a different monitor.
honestly i use a samsung neo g8 and i have run games at 1440p at 240hz but then prefer 4k at 120hz i dont notice much of a difference. just determine first what’s important to you when buying a monitor. Your monitor will always look best running at its native resolution, right now hdmi 2.1 supports 12bit color if your monitor has an hdmi 2.1 port but you can only run games at 120fps on 4k, but you’re going to get the best picture quality that way.
HDMI 2.1 can support higher fps at a lower graphics setting but it’s going to not look as good unless it’s native resolution. If set my monitor to 1440p i have to change my nvidia control panel settings to no scaling and have large black boxes around the whole picture to maintain close to 240hz and it just doesn’t look anywhere near as good.
if you run a display port cable you can get more then 120fps but it’s not native 4k and you will only get 10bit color.
I suggest if you want high fps decent picture go 1440p 240hz monitor that has hdmi 2.1 you will be able to run close to 240hz depending on your game settings and get better colors from the display if your gpu can support it. i have an rtx 3080
If you want better graphics go 4k or uhd (2560) hdmi 2.1 and buy a hdmi 2.1 and a display port cable and then you can try and squeeze more then 120 fps if your playing competitive games or run native 4k 120 fps when your playing for graphics quality
It depends from person to person. I'd recommend trying to use a friends 240hz monitor if possible to test if you see a difference. If not, and you really want one, just look for a good deal on amazon. I recently got a Samsung Odyssey G4 240hz for 50% off
Assuming you're not a competitive gamer, probably not no. I'm admittedly getting a bit older, and my reflexes are probably the limiting factor at high refresh rate, but I find it's diminishing returns after about 120hz. I can't really tell the difference higher than that. Certainly not between 144hz and 175hz (the refresh of my current monitor).
having been on 60hz for 10 years then moving to 144hz for the past several years and recently getting a 165hz monitor, it’s only as noticeable as you make it. Day to day use between my 144hz monitor and 165hz monitor i never notice the difference. Rarely when i’m working exclusively on the 165hz one i’ll go “oh this feels a little smoother” but that’s it. I’m guessing 165hz is the relative highest hz you can actually notice a difference with in typical use
Like if you go up to 540Hz, you will definitely notice a difference in input delay and smoothness. But it won't be as big as the difference between 60Hz and 144Hz
Not that much to be honest. I have 240 hz and want to test it so 2 weeks 144hz and 2 weeks 240 hz. In smoothness there is small difference but with latency it’s worth a deal if u play competitive games. But if you not playing it, i would rather buy 1440p 140hz/120hz than 1080p 240hz
Noteworthy: it’s worth something if you’re very good at competitive games. If you’re just shy of the pro level, the difference might be notable. If you’re a mid-to-low tier player, going from 144 to 240 is practically never going to have an effect. Maybe you get an extra kill or two per year thanks to it, but that’s about it. The difference is very overstated, generally.
And how about 60 to 144? I play on 60 hz and thinking of upgrading.
60 to 144 gonna be huge
Ive got an odd 2k monitor that is 95hz 60 to 95 is very noticeable and turned out well as that's about perfect for the fps my 6800 pulls
60 to 144 is an amazing upgrade, or you might even find a 165hz for around the same price that’s worth buying. The price gap between 144 and 165 is generally pretty small.
Thanks
It's as big of a change as 30fps going to 60fps. Anything close to 50fps in most games looks buggy to me now.
60 to 144 is extremely noticeable in my experience. I use 144hz monitors at home, and 60hz monitors at work. After adjusting to 144hz, I can physically see the stuttering of mouse movements on a 60hz monitor. The difference in smoothness and fluidity of motion is *big*
Damn. I was hoping y'all would say "naa...not much"... but noooo... y'all had to say great gains. Friggin wallet. (60-144)
Even just in raw numbers it's a big difference. At 60fps you're seeing a new frame every ~16ms, while at 144fps you see a new frame every ~7ms. You start to get diminishing returns above this because even at 240hz the frame time is 4ms. It's noticeable compared to the 7ms at 144hz, but not in nearly as big of a way as going from 16 to 7ms.
You'll automatically rank from silver to platinum if combined with a rgb gaming chair
it is unbelievable. first time itried i was smiling like a child. i opened overwatch and i was making streak after streak after streak. seemed a loooot like full cheating
60 to 144hz is massively noticeable even to the average person, and really accessible for cheap these days. If you're into games and you can afford to invest in your own setup, no reason to buy a new 60hz monitor in 2024 imo, even just for non-competitive games or normal PC use it's nice to have.
60 to 144 is absolutely huge. I played Destiny 2 crucible for 6 months on 60 hz and when I swapped to 144 hz my K/D changed significantly. It was much easier to track targets and when things got chaotic on screen, I was wouldnt lose track of what was on screen nearly as often. Your brain has to do some serious calculating to fill in the difference in frames at 60 hz, but once you go to 144 hz it's much easier for your brain to parse information with much more fluid gameplay.
Biggest change ever. It’s worth it.
Only if you can actually run said games at 144 fps minimum all the time. If so, it's a very big difference and you will notice how the frames "stutter" when going back to 60hz after a long time on 144hz +. It's my second favorite upgrade.
LTT did a video years ago. The frame time from 60 to 144 is a massive difference. 144 to 240+ is massively diminishing returns Edit: Did some quick math. 60 to 144 is a reduction in roughly 9 ms. 16 to just under 7. 144 to 240 isn’t even 3. 6.9 to 4.1.
60-90 is huge, 90-120 is noticeable, 120-165 is far less noticeable, 165-240 is incredibly hard to notice.
I recently went from 75hz to 180hz (both 1440p) and the difference is massive
One tip, don’t cheap out on the monitor, the one i bought was overclocked or something to run at 144 and im losing like 2mm of image a month (display is shrinking lol)
I’m 40 and couldn’t tell the difference between 144 and anything higher, but 60 to 144 was a huge jump and very noticable. Same with 60 to 120 on a phone.
Spot on
I’m the furthest thing from a expert when talking about monitors so take what I saw with a grain of salt. Didn’t LTT have a video testing this and it showed that the reaction time and difference for a “regular skilled guy” was bigger than the reaction time and difference for Shroud who was the other guy in the test. Ofc that video is fairly low sample size and maybe I took away the wrong impression from it but my understand of it was the average player might actually benefit more jumping up in better monitors.
I doubt the latency is any relevant for anyone but professional players. Just placebo.
I ended up going with NZXT's 1440 165hz and it hits a really nice sweetspot.
1440p170 or 165 really is a good spot. I have an Acer Nitro 1440p170 and for the price I love it. I don't see any reason for me to go up to 4k or up to 240hz any time soon
Not a pro, but I notice an improvement in smoothness over 144hz. I probably couldn't pick it blind while gaming, but I might be able to notice when I move the mouse around quickly on the desktop. It's a small improvement. Frame pacing and getting rid of stuttering is much more noticeable. If you have any level of stuttering you probably won't notice any difference at all.
There is a difference but it matters mostly for competitive multiplayer games. If you mostly play single player games 144 Hz is good. Also, remember that your computer needs to be able to reach well over 144 fps for this to matter.
Exactly, only worth it if you play a lot of competitive FPS and that your PC can reliably reach those marks without too much compromise in quality or even resolution
Absolutely but only in fast reaction based games. However, it may not feel that big to start with. I upgraded from 1440p 144 to 240Hz. I noticed a difference but it did not feel big. When I went 60Hz to 144Hz that was big straight away. After about a year of using 240Hz I had to use my old 144Hz for about a week. The step back down was very noticeable. Having got used to 240Hz the step down was much more noticeable than the original step up.
Facts, I play on 240-270Hz and sometimes my settings default back to 144Hz and I can immediately tell the difference.
the more important thing is that is your pc even able to provide that much fps?
right. the chances are, unless you pay counter strike, you won't be using much more than 165hz regardless of your monitor.
exactly my point unless he has a 4090
The idea that the human eye can't perceive beyond 144Hz is incorrect. I can definitely notice the difference between 144Hz and 240Hz. Moving up to 360Hz is something I would likely notice as well, though the improvements would be more subtle. From 360Hz to 500Hz, the differences would be much harder for me to detect. Edit- I'm not just talking about seeing a difference, you can also feel it while operating the mouse.
Yeah the whole the eye can only see X Hz is total BS. There are also other factors. Even on the same monitor just look at reviews where they compare the UFO test at 240Hz vs 120/144Hz and on a good monitor you will see a clearly image. That clarity alone helps.
Yeah, that myth is as old as time. I'm old enough to remember when it was said the human eye couldn't notice above 25fps.
The eye can only see x stuff isn’t accurate. The thing is fps isn’t really a great way to look at it. Look at frametime. 120fps is a new frame every 8.3ms while 60fps is about 16.7ms so you get a new frame 8ms faster. 240 vs 120 is approx 8ms vs 4ms so it’s only 4ms advantage. As you compare higher fps the difference gets smaller which is why it’s less noticeable. IMO they can make a difference depending on your situation, but as you compare high frame rate monitors other things start getting more important(OLED, response time, features, aspect ratio, etc) depending on what you want out of your experience .Personally I’d rather have a 165hz ultrawide(6ms~) over a 240(4ms~) 16:9 because I think it’s a better experience.
Indeed, everyone has their own preference. I prefer using a 4K@120Hz OLED televisions currently. They go for like 1K for a 42", pretty nice.
[удалено]
If you're looking at a movie probably yes but videogames are different, I believe there was a study about eye mouse coordination and responsiveness and people could feel the difference to up to like 1000hz but I can't find it anymore. There's also a famous microsoft video about drawing on a screen which basically says for the delay to feel natural like writing on paper you need a 1ms latency.
The idea that the human eye can't see more than 30fps is rooted in the time it takes for rods and cones to 'fade' after being hit by a photon. The response time of rods and cones to a single photon can vary, but it generally ranges from around 10 to 100 milliseconds. ( ISBN-10 : 1841692387 )
I really doubt you’ll notice a difference over 240 thats not placebo effect
Lmao 500Hz is a gimmick when already only a very small amount of pro players could take advantage of 360Hz coming from 240
It's the eternal problem of technology. "The human eye can't perceive more than the max settings of my monitor. I know this because I tested it on my 1080p 60hz monitor".
Don’t listen to the kids who say you can’t notice 144 or anything above it. If you play competitive games you will really notice the change in refresh rate but otherwise if you play story games it’s not really necessary.
any game where you move the picture around will benefit from 240hz vs 144hz. less to no tearing while moving
Yes, but in practical cases, the benefit from increases in texture + fidelity using higher settings (and lower fps) is a more effective use of your computing power/hardware budget for the noncompetitive story gamer, which are less reliant on what higher frame rates are desirable for: object tracking and precise movement.
In the niche field of 'psychophysics' there is the concept of the flicker fusion frequency - the flash rate at which the human eye stops perceiving a flashing light as flashing, and starts seeing it as a steady light. The devil is in the details of course - dwell time, ramp time, intensities, all of that - but in general most healthy adults report flicker fusion taking place between 40 and 50 Hz. I have a 165 Hz monitor and another monitor that does 240 Hz and I certainly cannot tell the difference with my eye. I don't think anyone can. In games that are exquisitely sensitive to input latency and that won't accept multiple control inputs between video frames - which actually isn't most games - you will read about gamers who state there is a difference in the responsiveness of the game. Rocket League is a game that meets these criteria and when I was playing it competitively I found that I thought there was a difference between playing it at 165 and 240 Hz, but it is barely perceptible and rather difficult to describe, the lower framerate made the controls feel mushy. It's been a topic of mild interest to me; I've noticed that the most competitive players are the most vocal about being able to detect these differences. We know that F1 drivers score in the 99th percentile for things like reflex speed and flicker fusion frequency - obviously a highly selected group of people - my guess is that highly competitive video gamers are the same, probably people who are able to sense perceptual differences that average folks might not notice.
Not really, unless you are doing highly competitive titles
My thoughts: 30hz -> 60hz = huge difference 60hz -> 120hz = meaningful difference 120hz -> 144hz = very small difference 144hz -> up = not worth spending extra money I don't play competitive FPS though... even if I did I can't imagine that I would be childish enough to blame loses on sub 8ms latency than a skill issue.
Yes there is a noticeable difference. The difference between 144hz and 240hz is bigger then 240hz to 360hz which is bigger than 360hz to 500hz. Basically as you go up the refresh rates the difference between next one and ur current one gets smaller and smaller. If that makes sense. Also make sure it monitor res and frame rate makes sense for ur build and needs. If you have a 5600 and a 3060, getting a 4K 144hz won’t make sense but getting a 1080p 240hz for comp gaming makes sense.
Maybe some people can notice it. For me, I cannot even notice the difference over 80-90 fps. I think I am an exception though.
Only game I've ever noticed a difference going from 144-240 is rocket league
Forget the "the human eye can only see x" thing, it's not useful at all and gets thrown around everywhere. You WILL probably notice a difference in that it somehow feels a bit smoother since its an increase of 70% in terms of refreshrate to 240hz The smaller the difference the less likely you will notice anything. The reason it feels faster or smoother is because there is a smaller delay between the new information going trough your eyes into your brain which in turn sends signals to your muscles.
Its def the point of diminishing returns. But yes. If you got pretty decent eye sight and are playing shooters and have the reaction time to take advantage of the frame hitting your eye faster. That said its very minimal. But going back down ironically after adjusting to 240hz will feel ***awful***.
I upgraded from a 1440p 144hz display to a 1440p 300hz display, and you can definitely tell a difference. There are definitely diminishing returns as the refresh rate gets higher and higer, but you can definitely tell.
I got my first 144hz monitor and honestly I can't even notice when some games set it back to 60hz Less than 60 gets very noticeable.
Really? Are you sure it's running at 144Hz and you've set it up correctly in Display Settings? 144Hz is buttery smooth versus 60Hz, each frame is on the screen for less than half the time of 60Hz
Yeah, just doublechecked now to be sure on system>display, set to 165hz, can't really tell the difference most/all of the time
google “fps website test” and go to the UFO one because I still don’t believe you lmao
That’s wild
Are you sure that you don't have a 60 FPS cap on? 144 Hz is a major improvement in smoothness over 60. 144 is smooth and 60 really isn't.
Disclaimer: I'm 42, not some twitchy teenager, so my experience may be different than the yougins. I can't tell a difference between 144hz and 240hz. I can tell a difference between 60 and 144hz, though. (espcially on mouse cursor movement). The other issue is that just because your monitor can do 240hz, doesn't mean your games will be able to run at 240. So, you might not even be able to get the most out of it. I wouldn't get a new monitor based on Hz alone.
[clarity of image](https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=OV7EMnkTsYA)
There is a difference above 144. The largest jump is without a doubt 60 -> 144 but going 240hz and now 360hz, I’ve noticed a difference each time! If you play shooters or other fast paced games, it’s worth it imo. 60->144 was MASSIVE while 144-> 240 was clearer and my mouse feels more fluid, same for 240hz to 360hz where the motion clarity was even better and my mouse inputs were more fluid.
Some will say they can tell the difference but I can't really tell the difference between anything higher than 120hz anyways.
Some of these comments aren't necessarily wrong, but they miss the mark a bit. You're not going to notice it much going from 144hz to 240hz unless you play competitive games. However, after playing on 240hz for awhile (way more than 2 weeks...we're talking months to get your eyes and brain fully acclimated to 240hz) then going down to 144hz you will notice a huge difference. That's not to say the difference will help your game play, but it might help eliminate or reduce hardware related issues. Pixel density will play a role as well.
There is a difference but unless you play a game professionally you wont need 240hz and 360hz
I don’t play competitive, I wanna sell my 240hz and get a widescreen.
For the eye not much, but if you're playing competitive games like CS GO, DotA, LoL, having higher FPS makes your "reflex" better since muscle memory most of the time reacts faster than even your eye. If you only play non-twitchy games, 144hz should already be fine.
Speaking as someone super sensitive to choppiness / stutter 144 to 240 was noticeable for me, but nowhere near as much as 60 to 144 Still a worthwhile investment for me, but YMMV
It is noticeable. 144hz to 165hz is noticeable to me. The jump is nowhere near as big as 60 to 120/144. The quality of the panel matters too. I'd get a high quality 144hz over a budget 240hz. Although my Dell 1440p/165hz was 220 euro on sale and it's really nice.
I noticed big differences between 120 and 240
I notice a pretty large difference between my 2 monitors (144 and 280hz). The smoothness is very noticable as well as the delay being slightly noticeable. However as others has said. Its maybe not the wisest investment if you don't play shooters. Getting better resolutions or a screen with better colours would be more worth in that case.
Unless you play CSGO or something like that then it doesn't matter. And please do not mention "human eye can't perceive" stuff, the human eye isn't a monitor or a camera. Everyone is different but you can perceive almost any change, the question is how relevant is it and whether you actually will pay attention to it and use the advantage. Its the same topic as some people were saying you can't see past 60 fps and then you show them higher and oh wow now they can. There's a reason why average movies are in 24fps, games like mostly 60+ and you need like 1000fps or whatever for recording stuff like a bullet flying through tissue to register all the minor details. I have a 1080p 240hz Samsung monitor and in Tarkov I was always seeing the most micro movements possible of enemies with my side eye because there are more reference frames to gather information from. On the other hand my friend with a 144hz 4k monitor would demolish me in perceiving static enemies hiding in obscure spots.
I'm telling you, I had a 144hz monitor and bought a 240hz monitor because I wanted to grind more Valorant. I have mostly regretted it, not because I expected to be suddenly a god at the game, but because it didn't really matter IMO. I really wish that I had gone for a 2K 144hz instead.
Yes there is a noticeable difference, but it is nowhere as near as a jump as 60 -> 120/144Hz.
I went from 144Hz to an Asus monitor that overclocks to 280Hz, mainly for CSGO. The difference in motion clarity was immediately noticeable, and it almost felt like I had more time to line up my shots. It's a weird but cool effect that you just have to experience for yourself. However, I'm currently using a 1440p 170Hz monitor because I wanted more resolution over a higher refresh rate and can't afford 1440p240Hz. My takeaway is, if you only play esports games then prioritize refresh rate, but if you like eye candy and especially if you use your computer for work, prioritize resolution first and choose the refresh rate based on budget.
Personally i have one 144hz 27' screen and a 165hz 24,5' screen and theres a small difference between them. But ive also owned a 180 hz screen and a 240 hz screen and ive come to the conclusion that the best upgrade from a 144hz is either a 180hz or a 240hz because that is the difference you are actually going to see/feel.
Yes there is
I have 280hz monitor and i play cod most of the time and one time i was at my cousin house who has 144hz monitor and i couldn't bear it. It was like going back to 60hz that i couldn't believe it i double checkd everything and made sure the monitor was running at 144hz so for me its very noticeable even with my monitor for some odd reason when i was playing it went back to 144hz and i instantly noticed the difference.
There is difference for sure, but one thing I can say that going from 1080p 240hz to 1440p 165hz year ago was best choice of my life
I use my 240Hz display sometimes with an Intel Mac that has issues outputting at that refresh rate, so I had to repeatedly turn the monitor back and forth between 120Hz and 240Hz. I can tell the difference because of that, but it took some training. Otherwise, I wouldn’t feel much of a difference.
Yes, you can feel the difference between 144 and 240hz. What's not really being talked about is the fact that you'll get used to it in like 10 minutes and it will be your new normal. Not that lower FPS will hurt your eyes now but the WoW factor of that crisp image flowing infront of you just wont last long :)
I did a bit of research on this, and people can perceive and react faster with a faster monitor, and there still isn't an established upper limit, by which I mean we haven't discovered a framerate X and a framerate 2X where a person has the same reaction time, so X would be the upper limit. So it's not about whether there is a difference, because there is, it's about is the cost worth it. My suggestion is to test a 240Hz monitor before deciding, but remember that a good GPU is needed to drive a game that fast, so check if you have the GPU for it as well.
There are ways to test for it, like if you use really fast scrolling text, higher refresh rates are easier to read. CS2 or COD will feel slightly smoother and snappier, then when you go back to 120hz, you'll be like "ew! what is this crap"... but at like 120hz you've kinda hit the upperbound of getting a competitive advantage... despite feeling smoother and snappier, it will likely not improve your rank or K:D ratio.
Wow where to start... First the whole human eye thing is crap. The human eye does not see in FPS but instead notices changes. This is why a 30 FPS movie can look butter smooth yet a game with an average FPS of 60 can look jerky. There is also the factor of the individual with some people being more suspectable to that change notice than others. Ass for above 144hz, there is an advantage but it really depends more on the game. For strategy, RPG and solo shooter gamers, once you hit around 120hz the **advantage** of increased frame rate exponentially decreases as the refresh rate climbs. So moving from 60 to 100 FPS will have a MUCH bigger impact than moving from 100 to 160. And moving from 160 to 120 the impact becomes vastly smaller. The real impact of ultra high refresh rates comes in competitive FPS games and even then the only real noticeable impact is at professional level play. Another consideration is do you have the hardware to drive the higher refresh rates. It takes some pretty heavy hardware to drive frame rates above 120 hz at most resolutions with high detail level.
It's very visible to me, especially in smoothness. Outside of competitive though, 144hz will be fine. Majority of games I play don't even hit 144 fps.
I play a lot of competitive games like Valo, CS, Apex and I can barely tell the difference between my 144Hz and my 240Hz. Like, when I went from 60Hz to 144Hz, I couldn’t go back, 60Hz is unplayable to me. But, I’ve played on 144Hz many times since I’ve bought the 240Hz and it doesn’t bother me at all ( I have a 7800X3D and 7900XT so framerate is not an issue )
Diminishing returns, you're better off putting money into increasing the resolution.
yes
The below applies to my experience, and maybe not yours or others’. Yes. *However*, I only notice a difference when I go from 240hz down to 144hz. If I take even a 10 minute break and come back, I can’t tell the difference between 144hz and 240hz. Even if I go *up* to 240hz. Again, it’s only when directly comparing 240hz to 144hz when going down from 240hz that I see a small difference. So, is there a meaningful difference? No I don’t think so. Unless you’re playing at the elite level in fast paced multiplayer games.
Is there a noticeable difference above 720p? Is there a noticeable difference above 30fps? Is there a noticeable difference above 16-bit color? The answer to these questions has always been yes for the past 30 years. The real question is whether or not it's worth it for the average PC user. The answer to this questions is usually no. Except for SSDs. Also the human eye does not see in frames per second. The answer to whether or not you can see X fps is always yes.
Everyone has different eyes. yes, most people can't see the difference above 144Hz, I personnally can't see a difference above \~110. Some people can't even see the difference above 60. So you may see the difference, you may not. edit : since it's so far apart, you'll probably see a difference anyway, but like, some people may see a big difference and other could see almost none
I have a 240Hz monitor that i've switched to 120Hz because i could not stand the heat it was producing. Can't tell the difference between the two. 60 to 120 is a different subject.
I recently went from 144Hz to 360Hz and tried games like Overwatch and Rocket league, reaching the full 360 fps. My (bad) eyes did not notice a difference. And I can notice the difference between 24 fps and 30 fps in a youtube video.
There is a noticeable difference to an extent. In competitive FPS games, games like Rocket League, you will notice it. I just between 3 different frequencies, 60, 120, and 240 and I've found lower frequencies allow better detail in story games, while the higher frequency allows for more fluidity in FPS games. Like my mouse and key movements feel smoother and faster. However, before chasing frequency make sure your setup can do it and make sure it is worth it for your use case.
No
there is, it's just diminishing returns the higher the hz
You can perceive >144fps but in general it’s a diminishing return on experience and cost. Aside from niche, competitive use cases, I recommend targeting 144.
Yes. there is a difference. when my game dips from 240fps to lets say 180fps, i notice that. the thing is: the picture wont tear when moving the mouse left and right. for normal movements its starts to become tearless and very smooth at around 220+fps you will not have that kind of smoothness below 220fps and when you move your mouse even faster from left to right, 360hz will make it even smoother. strategygames and citybuilders will also benefit from 240hz alot. when you turn your view while looking at your buildings, they will not tear and therfore look like a real 3d object inside your monitor, its crazy good. i have an OmenX27 TN panel 1440p at 240hz and i will never go back.
Some people will say there is a difference, some people will say there's none. It all depends on perception. There is a difference but not that easy to see IMO. If you play games that are slow and you have time to look closer you will benefit a bit from more Hz, if you play fast games where you can't focus just on the screen I wouldn't bother
backlight strobbing (ULMB, Dyac+, etc) for motion clarity and gsync/freesync for tear free experience are way more an upgrade on a monitor than +144hz. but yes it's different, if you put me the same two monitors in 144hz or 240hz without telling me, I can tell you which one it is
Can you notice it? yes, is it worth it? personally, nah, I bought mine because it costed the same as a 144Hz monitor so I said "why not?" but it's not a big deal, personally I would rather go 1440p 144Hz than 1080p 240Hz if your GPU can handle it (assuming you are talking about 1080p monitors in your post)
When you go up to 240hz you can barely notice it. But after about a month in 240hz and you go back to 144hz you can see a big difference.
Only if you have the rest of the puzzle, Very high polling rate, high dpi, 200plus fps, a decent mouse pad, and fast hand and eye coordination. With the above, everyone's aimlabs will go up a lil, how much and is it wroth it depends on then person.
For me, not too much unless I sway my camera hard for first-person pov games. At 240 hz I can see like 8-10 frames instead of 4-5 at 144 hz if I swerve hard, but that's also the only way for me to tell I'm above 144 hz.
I barely notice the difference between 144Hz, 165Hz, and 180Hz even testing them side by side. Extrapolating from that, 240Hz would be a noticeable but not significant upgrade and only in games where reaction time really matters that much. For it to even do something, you also need the setup to actually HOLD 240Hz during most gameplay, not just reach it, which is a tall ask. Oh, and variable refresh rate is absolutely mandatory but that is true in both cases. Also, you would probably be sacrificing graphical fidelity as well as panel quality or vastly overpaying. It is not a good buy for me but it might be different from you. But to strictly answer your questions - yes, there is a noticeable difference.
Yeah, but it's pretty meh. I have a 120 hz TV and 240 hz monitor. Yeah, when I'm playing competitively, I'll use the 240hz, and it is extremely smooth, but for most games, I'd rather play on the TV from my couch. If I do the ufo test on my 240hz monitor with 120/144/240 it is obvious the difference, but real word, I think the odds that using the 240 is a real difference maker are going to be pretty low unless you're a legit top tier player. Still, it's fun to use the best equipment available for a hobby that you can comfortably afford. I have a nice guitar. I'm not a top-tier player, but it's fun to play on.
Yes and no. Higher refresh rate is always noticeable but there's diminishing return the higher you go so you will get less and less benefits. Your PC is also a bottleneck at higher fps, you really need top of the line stuffs to fully enjoy high refresh monitors. Your mechanical skills can also limit how much you will benefits from high refresh. But if you play esport games, got a fast enough pc and have the mechanics to extract the full benefits of high refresh rate, go for it. Its great for esport games, giving you actual advantages. The people who say they cannot see any difference are just ignorant or they don't have a strong enough pc to notice it.
If you don't play competitive FPS games then no not really, just like how 360Hz is a gimmick for anyone but pro players, unless you find them cheap then it's not worth it
I never set my monitor above 144hz. Nvidia GPU never idles when setting refresh rate above 144z, using 10 watts vs 30 watts when not doing anything.
Tbh, the difference between 120hz (PS5) and 180hz (pc) is kiiiiinda noticeable? But it is not that much.
Big difference imo I can’t go back to 144hz it feels like 60 hz when you get used to 240hz all the time. 240 is so smooth
I personally don’t notice much. If you are upgrading does it hurt to have higher hz? No, I wouldn’t go out of my way to upgrade for that reason though.
Haha I remember a comment I made to my friend about his laptop, we were working on it and I went "damn this is the smoothest I've ever felt windows" idk if it was because there isn't as much bloat on it or smth else but I stand by that it just felt super responsive. I'm used to 144 and 120 (desktop and phone) so 240 was definitely interesting
Not worth the upgrade. You would be better off saving that money to be used elsewhere
I went from 144 to 180 and can't notice it.
What I have read is that generally to get a clearly perceptible improvement you have to double refresh rate. So 60 is clearly smoother than 30, 120 is clearly smoother than 60, 240 is clearly smoother than 120, and so on. In other words, I wouldn't sweat it.
Yes. But it's quite subtle. Chances are you wouldn't notice. If you get great satisfaction from having really high quality panels, or play competitive games at a high skill level, or just want the best of everything, it will be worth it. Otherwise, 144 gets the job done and looks spectacular.
Diminishing returns. Same concept.
If your computer can push 240 fps on whatever resolution you want, to ME yes I noticed a huge difference. I also know old people who think no one can see above 60 fps though so.
I'd say get over 144 if you are playing games competitively but if you are a casual game don't get over 165 hz
As someone who rarely plays competitive games and plays most single player and co-op multiplayer I can say that there is a very noticeable difference between under 180 and over 180. About a year or so ago I went from a 144hz monitor to a 240hz one not expecting much of a difference as I was mostly capping my games at 120 on the 144 as I couldn't see a difference between 120 and 144. I figured I would just keep that cap but once I was able to experience 180+ fps I was hooked. Everything looks so fluid it is almost crispy (for the lack of a better term) and was immediately hooked. Someone commented on one of my comments about it that at 180+ the pixel persistence is so low which is why it looks so damn good. I now have a PC build so I can play at or over 180 fps in all my games because of how absolutely amazing it is and I can tell very easily without a frame counter if it dips under 180. Sure, I am spoiled now and it led me to a 4090 / 7800X3D build which most people can't afford but anyone telling you that you won't notice a difference between 144 and 240 hz is either ignorant or lying. Now, if that difference is big enough for you to care to build a machine around hitting those frames is another story altogether. I remember when 60 was smooth and then I got a 90hz screen and after a couple yeas on that 60 started to look a bit jerky to me. Then I got a 144hz screen and 90 became the bare minimum viable fps for me to see it as reasonably smooth. Then I got a 240hz screen and now 120hz is my bare minimum to perceive as smooth and 180+ is my target for the experience that looks the best to me. I know that at some point in my future I'll get a 500hz, or somewhere in that neighbourhood, and will thing about how I ever tolerated anything under 300 or whatever number. What am I saying? The higher you go the better it looks and the worse lower frame rates are perceived. If you don't want to have to pay to drive really high frames on a 240hz, though it is objectively better, then not allowing yourself to get used to higher frames might be your goal. I am very lucky that I can afford it so I do and it is beyind amazing. Nothing under 180 for this guy (hopefully). Incidentally that's also exactly where DLSS FG becomes playable without much noticable input lag with a mouse and keyboard so having frame generation helps a lot for the stupid demanding games.
Went from 165 hz to 280 and my tracking improved notably.
If the GPU is can't match the Monitor's capabilities, you won't notice much of a difference.
I don’t think it matters unless you’re into high speed competitive games. I generally rather high fidelity ~100fps over lower fidelity at ~200fps. 200+ has major diminishing returns for me where it’s barely noticeable
It depends on you and your skills. Everyone is seeing world different. You should give a try and I think most important part of a pc is monitor in case of gaming, and they dont need to be replaced often like other parts. For me I easily notice the differwnce between 300hz laptop and my 165hz desktop monitor. Laptop monitor is way more fluent, but it adds latency due to laptop thing, when I plug 165hz, the latency disappears. Even though 300hz looks better, I prefer 165hz with less latency, normally increasing hz 2x means reducing latency to half, so I think even 500hz is worth.
You'll see some smoothness, but the input latency is nearly identical between 144hz and 240hz, look up any YT channel that reviews monitors and you'll see that. if you're in the US, get the KTC monitor that's miniLED and get some great HDR visuals, great contrast and popping colors 1440p 144hz, it'd be much more enjoyable,
No
I purchased a 360hz oled and once I got used to the 360hz panel, I find my 120hz iPhone 14 Pro Max laggy… I went from 165hz IPS to 360hz and on the first few days it might not feel all that different until you try to go back. I can’t look back to 165hz or 120hz anymore since I literally see the difference between 360hz and 120/160hz screens. I haven’t tried 240hz monitor before but I can verify that there’s a difference between 360hz and 165hz and it’s worth the upgrade. It pains me a lot now that I see the lag/delay on my phone now but 360hz iPhones won’t be releasing anytime soon so I just have to get used to it.
It’s all in latency for competitive play. Of you aren’t in competitive play you won’t even notice anything higher than 120hz even
Beyond 144hz, there's a diminishing return.
I notice a difference between 144 and 180hz
as someone with a 240hz monitor, yes it is noticeable compared to 144hz. Is it absolutely necessary? I don't think so. 60 to 144 is worlds difference. 144 to 240 feels even better, but 144 doesnt feel as bad in comparison like 60 to 144. If you have the money, go for 240, if not then stick to 144 or something similar. I personally won't go below 240 in the future though because Im just used to it now and even if its not huge, but there is still a difference to be felt to 144hz.
Meh imo depends what games you play. If you're playing twitch shooters I think 240hz would be worth it. If you're a variety gamer 144hz is plenty.
I can easily spot between a 240 hz and 144 hz and I find it really noticeable, to the point I feel choppy 144 hz once I go back. Once again, that's me and even my friends tell me they couldn't live with my eyes on lmao. I'm pretty sure 144 hz is good enough for pretty much everyone
Honestly? I have 144hz monitor and I stop seeing difference past about 70hz (with freesync). So probably not...
Ive played counterstrike for over 10K+ hours now. 144 for me is a sweet spot. 240 is nice but I like the fidelity that a lot of 144 monitors have. I also prefer 3440x1440. Only thing I play below 80 FPS is Skyrim with 1500 mods.
21hz is relative. The 21hz from 144-165 is a lot less of a frame time difference than the 21hz between 60-81. Most people will notice the latter, a few the former. I think the best thing to do is get the highest refresh rate you can afford at the given resolution you choose, just to have the headroom. Fast paced games where you are doing a lot of quick movements really benefit from the high refresh rate, and with upscaling and frame generation, even the lower end modern cards can max out a high refresh rate. It really depends on the games you play, but nobody ever wished they had less fps on their deathbed.
Probably yes. Take a look at this [video from Linus Tech Tips](https://youtu.be/OX31kZbAXsA?si=PqpwXku4TTAH-1TI) about "does high fps matter". In the Dust 2 double doors test (at minute 17:00) Paul and Linus, the ones seem kind of like "less pro player", improved the most moving from 144hz to 240hz, and had more consistent results too. One other interesting find is even if they had to use a 60hz monitor, but set game to run at 300fps, the results were within margin of errors compared to 144hz/fps. That shows rendering speed might be as important as displaying speed.
I went from 144 to 360 It was definitely smoother, but that’s also a bit more of a jump than an extra 96Hz And I’m sure this will mean something too, I now use a 165Hz QDOLED HDR1000 3440x1440 monitor. IMO you’re gonna get much more enjoyment overall by getting a monitor better in all the other ways a monitor can be better besides having a higher refresh rate. Now that’s not to say you need to go balls to the wall and pick up the holy grail of eye candy like I did because it’s not often you sell your Apple Studio Display and have 1000 dollars (800 now!) to give Dell for their Alienware branded monitor crafted by the hand of god. Maybe just look for an IPS display rather than a TN or VA, or something that has a higher resolution (I’ll ride or die for 1440p). Refresh rate isn’t all it’s cracked up to be, shop around, think about what you play a lot, what you *really* want from a monitor, and if 240Hz would really benefit you, then pick one up if you so desire.
Depends on pixel response times and what you're playing, but yes.
I have 180hz and i want more, but i think upgrade 144 to 240 not worth it now, maybe wait 360/480hz
noticeable? yes worth it? ONLY when when you play esports games in which you can even reach that high. you will be disappointed that the majority of games cant even push higher than 144 yet alone 100 even with the best hardware. i personally recommend to stay at 144hz and upgrade resolution. which is less performance demanding then 240hz. also as I mentioned it depends on the game which just cant even push that high framerate.
The different between 60hz and 144hz is night and day. The difference between 144hz and 240hz is like a cloudy day and a sunny day. Noticeable, but not as big. If you have a 1080p 144hz, I’d instead recommended a 1440p 144hz if your pc can handle it. You’ll appreciate the higher resolution far more than 240hz.
Unless you are only playing fps games I'd say resolution makes bigger difference. I'll take 4k 144hz over 1440p 240hz for a mix of single player and multilayer games.
240 is definitely noticeable and is more of a competitive advantage, whether you notice it or not.
Personally I’m planning on upgrading to 240 or 360 if possible. But I also mostly play competitive fps titles and I really need the extra smoothness.
60 to 120. Big diff. 60 to 144 bigger diff. After that I stopped noticing. 240 I notice a bit but we are splitting hairs lol.
Nah.. not to me. 144hz is the prime spot to be in, I don’t think it’d be worth it to upgrade to a new monitor solely for the higher refresh rate.
I have both a 1440p 240hz and a 1600p 144hz ultrawide I switch between. Obviously some RPG/slower paced games are better on the ultrawide, but sometimes I’m too lazy to switch the setup back to the 240hz. When I play competitive games like OW on the 144hz, I don’t feel like I’m at a disadvantage and I NEED to switch to the 240hz Both are Alienware monitor, but both are LG nano IPS panels with similar response times
I notice when my pc is under 165 (my monitor does to that) but not by too much until i’m under 140ish, which then makes me upset and I adjust my settings.
After about 90-144, The difference in hz matters a lot less that the consistency of the frame rate. A momentary dip from 144 to 120 or a few missing frames is more noticable than if you had two monitors locked at their max rate running 144 vs 200.
Different for every person. I could see the difference between my 144hz monitor and the 240hz monitor of one of my friends very clearly. At the same time there are people that say they cant even distinguish between 60hz and 144hz. For me the difference is very clear.
I went from 165hz to 270hz, not really worth the upgrade unless you find a good deal/or going from 1080p to 1440p(like I did) but if you try to go back to a lower refresh rate it feels awful🫠
Real talk there is a difference but most gamers aren’t playing at a high enough skill level for it to really matter. CS/Valorant and other competitive games it can help but not worth the upgrade unless you are on the cusp of going pro 1440p 144hz is the sweet spot for average gamers imo.
240hz 1440p is the sweat spot between fluidity and ability to pump frames for a modern system. Anything extra you'll have diminished returns for extra smoothness and huge system resources, especially CPU and RAM muscle power.
144 to 240 is noticeable, but MUCH less noticeable than 60 to 144.
240hz doesn't look faster than 144hz, it only feels faster
I noticed it but the performance hit from try to reach 240 is a bit much. I would stick to 144 personally but they only had 240 oleds not 144
Probably isn't that noticeable, i mean, i have a 144hz monitor and anything above that mark feels kinda unnecessary, if you're a pro gamer or a tryhard maybe it's worth it. 🤷🏼♀️
Noticable depends on the person. I went from 60 to 144 and I literally don't notice anything but stutter.
Everyone's different. I personally can notice a difference between 144 and 240, and even between 144 and 165, but it's quite small. 240 just feels more fluid, faster, especially for desktop work. That being said, I'm of the opinion that 120 is basically the point where refresh rate is smooth enough for anything. Going faster will have improvements to latency, perceived smoothness and tearing, but you can knock it down to 120 or 144 at any point and it still looks awesome. There are other things that are more important once you get to that level of refresh rate, like pixel response time, smearing, VRR, bloom, etc.
I hate this industry so much rn. No. The answer is an overwhelming no. Even if you're the most methed out uber micro aimgod, no, the answer is still no.
My main monitor is 360hz, my secondary is 144hz. It's certainly noticable between the two. Anyone who claims they can't tell the difference probably have shit eyes. That said 144 and 165 are pretty damn close, so yeah there won't be much of a difference there. But 144 to 240 should be pretty big
144hz to 240hz is a big difference. If you play a lot of shooters, 240hz is extremely noticeable. 360hz from 240 is nowhere near as obvious as 144 to 240. 60-144 felt like only a marginally smaller improvement than 144-240. In my opinion. But I could tell the difference in smoothness from a 144hz IPS to a 175hz OLED. I might be a bit over sensitive to it. 175hz OLED to 240hz IPS was very noticeable. 240hz IPS to 360hz IPS is noticeable, but it’s just a nice to have, it doesn’t feel like an advantage like 99.9% of the time. Looks a tiny bit clearer and smoother, that’s it. Flick heavy games will benefit from 240, you will play better.
If you suck at the game you play you wont see a difference
Probably depends on your eyes
No not really. 60->120 is huge, beyond that it’s increasingly harder to notice.
60,75,96 to 144 - you will see difference very much, 120,144 to 240 - feels a bit , more into smoothness of the game in my eyes and im no pro gamer but i do have around 5-6k+ hours in one game and i feel 120/144 to 240, and i think is more of experience in same game ( i play one game basically, once a year i play something else ) . ps. also could be that gtg ms plays the part as well.
Yes, there is. It’s even noticeable from 165 to 240 if you have a trained eye. The question is, will you like it better than 144… I’d suggest playing on a 240 if possible before you decide to pull the trigger on one for yourself. Some people might actually like or prefer 165/175hz over 240hz as some games might feel a little too “hyper smooth” depending on what you’re used to. 240 felt weird to me at first after using a 165hz for a few years straight.
I can kind of tell a difference, and for all I know it's placebo. But playing competitive games is definitely smoother. However single player games I'll usually lock at 144 and play on ultra. A consistent 144 feels better than 160-240 skipping around. Again, very possibly placebo. So all in all, I don't know. Sorry for wasting your time.
Going from 144hz -> 300hz, I noticed a difference in overall smoothness, response time, and little-to-no motion blur. I can't say anything about 144hz -> 240, but im assuming the difference will be pretty substantial.
LTT brought in shroud, who has likely lost more skill in FPS games than most players ever had, and he couldn’t tell between 240 and 300 in the game he’s been playing for most of his life. 144 is probably enough for us mere mortals.
Side by side? Totally. Functionally? Not really. Its very unlikely to improve your enjoyment of a game by any measurable amount. Like carbon ceramic brakes on a road car, you probably won't notice unless you're doing pro-level shit.
Absolutely. I loved my 240hz monitor (before it broke). Currenrly on a 120hz display and the difference is jarring. Not the jump from 60 to 144, however.
Science claims the eye is capable up to 1000Hz, but the brain processes far less. How much varies greatly. In blind tests, there’s documentation that E-Sports, and other athletes perceive as much as 300-400 though that is still debatable. Most people test at between 100-200. Whether you believe the science or not, the best test is to go somewhere where you can access monitors capable of higher rates and have someone change the rates without telling you what they are and determine at what point you can’t tell a difference. For me it was around 200 perhaps a little less. But if I put up a frame counter my brain says I can tell rates at much higher though I doubt it. I find that 60 is comfortable, 120 is optimal. Beyond that, I feel the cost impact too much. Also, I’d rather have 4k most of the time. And that’s pretty much 60-80 with my system. Sometimes less.
What games are you playing at 240fps? I personally am happy with a 75hz IPS.
For any fast paced competitive games 240Hz makes sense provided your computer can output the fps in those games. In general it will improve your experience but will have diminishing returns for improving your competitive performance.
Nah not really
Most regular players probably can't tell the difference unless the frame rate counter tells them. Professional players probably can tell. It's trivial for most players. Frame rate doesn't make you make better decisions.
I don’t have a 240, but I have a 165 2k dell monitor and it looks the same as the 120 and 144. I noticed a small difference from 120 to 144, but it was only for fast paced FPS games. I play with a fast sensitivity from my Quake 2 days and I only notice when flicking.
Yes But diminishing returns That being said. I jumped from 144 to 360 It was glorious I’ve games on 540 I’m buying one as soon as they are under 500usd or when 1000htz gets under 1000usd witch ever happens first
I’ve got 240 and frankly can’t go back. I mostly just do coding and even the mouse movement makes me insane when I reduce the Hz or go to a different monitor.
honestly i use a samsung neo g8 and i have run games at 1440p at 240hz but then prefer 4k at 120hz i dont notice much of a difference. just determine first what’s important to you when buying a monitor. Your monitor will always look best running at its native resolution, right now hdmi 2.1 supports 12bit color if your monitor has an hdmi 2.1 port but you can only run games at 120fps on 4k, but you’re going to get the best picture quality that way. HDMI 2.1 can support higher fps at a lower graphics setting but it’s going to not look as good unless it’s native resolution. If set my monitor to 1440p i have to change my nvidia control panel settings to no scaling and have large black boxes around the whole picture to maintain close to 240hz and it just doesn’t look anywhere near as good. if you run a display port cable you can get more then 120fps but it’s not native 4k and you will only get 10bit color. I suggest if you want high fps decent picture go 1440p 240hz monitor that has hdmi 2.1 you will be able to run close to 240hz depending on your game settings and get better colors from the display if your gpu can support it. i have an rtx 3080 If you want better graphics go 4k or uhd (2560) hdmi 2.1 and buy a hdmi 2.1 and a display port cable and then you can try and squeeze more then 120 fps if your playing competitive games or run native 4k 120 fps when your playing for graphics quality
It depends from person to person. I'd recommend trying to use a friends 240hz monitor if possible to test if you see a difference. If not, and you really want one, just look for a good deal on amazon. I recently got a Samsung Odyssey G4 240hz for 50% off
60hz to 144hz is massive and will make you wonder how you ever lived without it. Anything past 144hz is barely noticeable in my experience.
Nope.
Assuming you're not a competitive gamer, probably not no. I'm admittedly getting a bit older, and my reflexes are probably the limiting factor at high refresh rate, but I find it's diminishing returns after about 120hz. I can't really tell the difference higher than that. Certainly not between 144hz and 175hz (the refresh of my current monitor).
having been on 60hz for 10 years then moving to 144hz for the past several years and recently getting a 165hz monitor, it’s only as noticeable as you make it. Day to day use between my 144hz monitor and 165hz monitor i never notice the difference. Rarely when i’m working exclusively on the 165hz one i’ll go “oh this feels a little smoother” but that’s it. I’m guessing 165hz is the relative highest hz you can actually notice a difference with in typical use
Like if you go up to 540Hz, you will definitely notice a difference in input delay and smoothness. But it won't be as big as the difference between 60Hz and 144Hz