144 or 240 hz?

[XxXMadJermey333XxX]

I play Quake Live and I am looking for an upgrade since I play on 75 HZ.

[76561199683733982]

240hz or more

[smokerob79]

GPU running it???

[r.linder]

No reason not to get 240Hz if your system can handle it and you can afford it

[A&A]

You don't need more than 240Hz

[Kerozen1973]

It depends your budget but 144hz is enough.

[Reaper]

Depends if you can actually tell the difference between 144 and 240 Hz. Everything above 120 Hz is so smooth that you won't be able to tell much difference.

You literally have to play it frame by frame just to tell the difference. Video shows 144 vs 240 vs 500 Hzs.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=DC7mT7QqOAA

[Mr Keefy]

Back When I played Quake Live 125FPS was the perfect framerate, not sure if that's the case still.
Playing games at 240Hz with 240FPS Gsync looks great though, usually only older games for my system with a 6700XT Halo master chief collection Counter strike 2 etc

[Butterman']

Go for 240hz, you won't regret it

[Trout]

if you want to save some money or you care about a larger display/higher resolution, you can just go for a 144hz display. past 120hz there are diminishing returns that you can only notice with frame-by-frame playback

Ursprünglich geschrieben von Mr Keefy:

Back When I played Quake Live 125FPS was the perfect framerate, not sure if that's the case still.

the standard has been 250fps for the longest time now. footsteps turn out janky (won't make the game unplayable but they don't play reliably every time) and sometimes you are going to hit your head trying to go up jump pads, but the game feels much smoother overall, including mouse input and movement. servers might run a similar tickrate, i think? don't quote me on that

[skOsH♥]

I have played at 60hz, 120hz, 144hz, 165hz, and 240hz

60 to 120 is noticeable

120 to 144 isn't very noticeable

165 looks just as smooth as 240hz if the type of display is better

Anything over 240hz isn't needed for most games because the game would need to be running at least 240+fps, so values like 360hz, 480hz, 500hz, would need 360fps, 480fps, 500fps, and these would need to be the lowest fps values. Meaning, if you had a 360hz monitor, the game you're playing should have a minimum frame rate of 360 fps and can run it at 360 frames and above

Otherwise then the monitor is not worth purchasing


I would at least go for 144hz for casual gaming, 165hz - 185hz for basically any gaming, and I guess if you want to try to be a pro at a fast esport, then go for 240hz or higher

[Rod]

I can tell you from experience that 240hz is the bare minimum. 144hz VA IPS is garbage and full of blur and smear even 240hz has it. I had to overclock my vg259qm to 280hz and its very good now.


Ideally 480hz OLED if you have the money.

[r.linder]

Ursprünglich geschrieben von Rod:

I can tell you from experience that 240hz is the bare minimum. 144hz VA IPS is garbage and full of blur and smear even 240hz has it. I had to overclock my vg259qm to 280hz and its very good now.


Ideally 480hz OLED if you have the money.

That depends on the individual display and its settings like overdrive, not the refresh rate, I have an LG 32GP850-B running 180Hz and there aren't any issues like that.

Also have a cheap IPS 144Hz display from Acer that was also fine when configured correctly, but an ASUS ROG STRIX monitor that ASUS literally took off the market and scrubbed from their website completely because of how bad it was for this, regardless of display settings.

The VG259QM has the least amount of overshoot with Overdrive set to '120'
https://www.rtings.com/monitor/reviews/asus/tuf-gaming-vg259qm#test_1425

[Rod]

Ursprünglich geschrieben von r.linder:

Ursprünglich geschrieben von Rod:

I can tell you from experience that 240hz is the bare minimum. 144hz VA IPS is garbage and full of blur and smear even 240hz has it. I had to overclock my vg259qm to 280hz and its very good now.


Ideally 480hz OLED if you have the money.

That depends on the individual display and its settings like overdrive, not the refresh rate, I have an LG 32GP850-B running 180Hz and there aren't any issues like that.

Also have a cheap IPS 144Hz display from Acer that was also fine when configured correctly, but an ASUS ROG STRIX monitor that ASUS literally took off the market and scrubbed from their website completely because of how bad it was for this, regardless of display settings.

The VG259QM has the least amount of overshoot with Overdrive set to '120'
https://www.rtings.com/monitor/reviews/asus/tuf-gaming-vg259qm#test_1425

So you can see txt while dragging fast on a 144hz ips? Thats not even possible purely based on the tech only oled can do that. This is what i mean by blur and smear our standards are totally different im comparing them to high refresh oleds with basically a perfect image.


All other tech bar oled cant do it no matter how high the refresh rate goes as per the linus 500hz video.

[r.linder]

Ursprünglich geschrieben von Rod:

Ursprünglich geschrieben von r.linder:

That depends on the individual display and its settings like overdrive, not the refresh rate, I have an LG 32GP850-B running 180Hz and there aren't any issues like that.

Also have a cheap IPS 144Hz display from Acer that was also fine when configured correctly, but an ASUS ROG STRIX monitor that ASUS literally took off the market and scrubbed from their website completely because of how bad it was for this, regardless of display settings.

The VG259QM has the least amount of overshoot with Overdrive set to '120'
https://www.rtings.com/monitor/reviews/asus/tuf-gaming-vg259qm#test_1425

So you can see txt while dragging fast on a 144hz ips? Thats not even possible purely based on the tech only oled can do that. This is what i mean by blur and smear our standards are totally different im comparing them to high refresh oleds with basically a perfect image.


All other tech bar oled cant do it no matter how high the refresh rate goes as per the linus 500hz video.

I honestly don't see crazy smear at 180Hz, just very slight blurring with very fast motion, which is nothing. But the LG display I have is better quality than what most people are using.

OLED is in a class of its own in terms of responsiveness but they don't have very good longevity as they use organic compounds prone to degradation. They look great, but they don't look great forever.

[_I_]

do not get a display that uses ulmb (ultra low motion blur)

they have a low quality cheap panel and use stupid tricks to hit higher refresh rates
where it overdrives the color change and flickers the backlight on for 1ms while the pixel is close to the correct color during each refresh cycle

it just makes the image very dim since the backlight is not on constantly or more of the time

with a good panel, you should still set the backlight to around 75% to extend its backlight lifespan
most displays and tvs do not have good cooling for the backlighting and they will burn out an led or more in a few years at 100%