FHD 390Hz (current) vs QHD 240Hz vs 4K 240Hz?

[Napalmo0]

Hi all,

I currently have a Acer Nitro XV252QFbmiiprx 24,5 inch monitor (1080p 360/390Hz, 0.5ms).
I've been looking to upgrade my current monitor to either QHD 240Hz or 4K 240Hz, however, I am not sure which of those to pick. For gaming it's mainly for CS:GO (and CS2 soon), and besides gaming it's also for work.

Option 1 (QHD 240Hz): Samsung Odyssey G6 G650 S27BG650EU - 27 inch, VA-panel, curved display 1000R, 240 Hz, 1 ms, - €300

Option 2 (4K 240Hz): Samsung Odyssey Neo G8 S32BG850NU, 32 inch, VA-panel, 240 Hz, 1 ms - €750

Is 4K really worth it? Or, looking at the price, is the 4K too much (in price) in comparison to the QHD one?

My specs: i5 13600K
AMD Radeon RX 6700 XT 12GB
16 GB RAM

Thank you in advance.

[ld.dante]

the human eye can only see 20 fps, so it doesnt matter.

[[DOH] Mick]

Originally posted by ld.dante:

the human eye can only see 20 fps, so it doesnt matter.

Knew this rubbish statement was coming lol.
I have a Benq 360hz but think the 240hz is a better choice.
For fps games 1080p is perfect but if you want to play single player games and watch films go with 4K.

[t4z]

You would just about get the 1440p 240HZ to work in most games. So I'd recommend that if youre not planning on getting a new graphics card any time soon.

From my experience, 4K is better than 1440p but not hundreds of Euros better. Get the cheaper 1440p one

[Napalmo0]

Thanks guys. I guess I will get the 1440p then.
I don't watch any movies, nor will I be using my console on the monitor.

I could upgrade my GPU though, but I think that might just be throwing money away as it's just for CS:GO/CS2.

[Admiral]

As an owner of Asus 1440p IPS 170 Hz 1mS 27 inch monitor I'd say it's the sweet spot between HD and 4K. The extra desktop space is really handy in my opinion and games look somewhat better in 1440p compared to 1080p.

32" 4K monitor might be a little too small @ native resolution regarding desktop use. Everything is so tiny that you can barely read any text. If you are going 4K, I'd suggest 36" which is a way better option for 4K resolution.

Samsung Odyssey G6 should grant you pretty good bang for the buck in 1440p land.

[Napalmo0]

Originally posted by Svägä-Täm:

As an owner of Asus 1440p IPS 170 Hz 1mS 27 inch monitor I'd say it's the sweet spot between HD and 4K. The extra desktop space is really handy in my opinion and games look somewhat better in 1440p compared to 1080p.

32" 4K monitor might be a little too small @ native resolution regarding desktop use. Everything is so tiny that you can barely read any text. If you are going 4K, I'd suggest 36" which is a way better option for 4K resolution.

Samsung Odyssey G6 should grant you pretty good bang for the buck in 1440p land.

Do you know the difference between the G6 and G7? I can get the G7 for about €30 more. As far as I can see, the G7 has an OLED panel where the G6 does not. Is that the only difference and is that worth it?

Also, I can get the G6 in 32" instead of 27" for about €30 more as well. Would that be the better option?

[Renos]

Originally posted by Napalmo0:

Hi all,

I currently have a Acer Nitro XV252QFbmiiprx 24,5 inch monitor (1080p 360/390Hz, 0.5ms).
I've been looking to upgrade my current monitor to either QHD 240Hz or 4K 240Hz, however, I am not sure which of those to pick. For gaming it's mainly for CS:GO (and CS2 soon), and besides gaming it's also for work.

Option 1 (QHD 240Hz): Samsung Odyssey G6 G650 S27BG650EU - 27 inch, VA-panel, curved display 1000R, 240 Hz, 1 ms, - €300

Option 2 (4K 240Hz): Samsung Odyssey Neo G8 S32BG850NU, 32 inch, VA-panel, 240 Hz, 1 ms - €750

Is 4K really worth it? Or, looking at the price, is the 4K too much (in price) in comparison to the QHD one?

My specs: i5 13600K
AMD Radeon RX 6700 XT 12GB
16 GB RAM

Thank you in advance.

in my opinion I think QHD 240hz is a better option.
with the lack of optimization or games that even run well hitting 240fps at 4k to make the most out of the monitor on modern games is gonna be a struggle unless you are rocking top the line hardware.

[DatHappyB0T]

Originally posted by ld.dante:

the human eye can only see 20 fps, so it doesnt matter.

the human eye is able to see hz in a spectrum we dont know how high it is ..... but on 20 fps the brain creates a "fluent" picture for the head wich is getting more fluent and the delay between the pictures does decrease with higher fps even on low hz screens the fps in a higher number decreases the input lag stop talkin nonsense and stop showing how dumb you can be with your verbal ♥♥♥♥

[Admiral]

Originally posted by Napalmo0:

Originally posted by Svägä-Täm:

As an owner of Asus 1440p IPS 170 Hz 1mS 27 inch monitor I'd say it's the sweet spot between HD and 4K. The extra desktop space is really handy in my opinion and games look somewhat better in 1440p compared to 1080p.

32" 4K monitor might be a little too small @ native resolution regarding desktop use. Everything is so tiny that you can barely read any text. If you are going 4K, I'd suggest 36" which is a way better option for 4K resolution.

Samsung Odyssey G6 should grant you pretty good bang for the buck in 1440p land.

Do you know the difference between the G6 and G7? I can get the G7 for about €30 more. As far as I can see, the G7 has an OLED panel where the G6 does not. Is that the only difference and is that worth it?

Also, I can get the G6 in 32" instead of 27" for about €30 more as well. Would that be the better option?

G7 would be a better choice if it only costs 30€ more.