Crt monitor vs 240hz monitor

[Exodias]

I'm looking at something like a 240hz monitor for example the asus pg258q and seeing would it compete a crt monitor at 200hz?

 

[juanrdp]

The Hz on the CRT and on a LCD are two very diferent things.
On a CRT the refresh rate is very important because you could see the flickering on low-med refresh rates, on a LCD that didnt't happend and the refresh rate is important "only" to refresh the displayed image more times per second, to get an improvement you need to get more that 60-100 fps (and up to 240 fps in that case)

Btw, 240Hz rates even FullHD for a LCD need very powerfull card with HDMI 2.0 or Display port 1.2 but well, to reach 200+ fps on FullHD (on moder games) that the least of your problems because you need +1200€ in GPUs xD

 

[RCFProd]

The Hz on the CRT and on a LCD are two very diferent things.
On a CRT the refresh rate is very important because you could see the flickering on low-med refresh rates, on a LCD that didnt't happend and the refresh rate is important "only" to refresh the displayed image more times per second, to get an improvement you need to get more that 60-100 fps (and up to 240 fps in that case)

Btw, 240Hz rates even FullHD for a LCD need very powerfull card with HDMI 2.0 or Display port 1.2 but well, to reach 200+ fps on FullHD (on moder games) that the least of your problems because you need +1200€ in GPUs xD

People buying 240Hz monitors are most likely more interested in playing light eSports titles anyways. Don't need high-end GPU for 240 fps in CS:GO.

 

[Exodias]

Ok so we are saying GPU leads fps. If I have a gtx 1080ti and play a game on low resolution, I will have potentially 200+ fps possibly? On top of this would streaming a game put further load or an overload on something's Ike a gtx 1080ti.

Another point is, crt has almost 0 input lag however a TN panel still needs time to draw the screen which is about 4ms on 240hz correct? So 4ms to do that and on top of that a display lag or default lag due to the digital monitor still will not be as fast as a crt?

The Hz on the CRT and on a LCD are two very diferent things.
On a CRT the refresh rate is very important because you could see the flickering on low-med refresh rates, on a LCD that didnt't happend and the refresh rate is important "only" to refresh the displayed image more times per second, to get an improvement you need to get more that 60-100 fps (and up to 240 fps in that case)

Btw, 240Hz rates even FullHD for a LCD need very powerfull card with HDMI 2.0 or Display port 1.2 but well, to reach 200+ fps on FullHD (on moder games) that the least of your problems because you need +1200€ in GPUs xD

 

[Exodias]

The refresh rate having no ghosting at 240hz will show the screen faster, but getting 100 percent no ghosting is the first issue. The second issue is the monitor still will have input lag that the crt has almost 0

 

[juanrdp]

Ok so we are saying GPU leads fps. If I have a gtx 1080ti and play a game on low resolution, I will have potentially 200+ fps possibly?

Yes, on games is usually the main limiting factor but then its another wall on some games (like CS:GO) that is that the CPU could limit the fps you get. You will need a powerfull Gpu AND a depending the game a powerfull CPU to get that fps.

On lower settings/resolution probably a 1060/1070 will be enought.

On top of this would streaming a game put further load or an overload on something's Ike a gtx 1080ti

No specially in the GPU (althought some drivers and im thinking in nvidia discard part of that load in the gpu) but mainly in the CPU and yes, streaming would lower the fps you get.

Another point is, crt has almost 0 input lag however a TN panel still needs time to draw the screen which is about 4ms on 240hz correct?

The CRT have almost 0 display lag (the input lag adds non related factors like your pc lag in the middle) that is where due technology the LCDs are worse.

But depends on the concrete monitor, it's not depending on the refresh rate but on the hardware of the monitor and in part on the technology of the pannels, you could have a 60Hz monitor with a really low imput lag ot a 240Hz one with a higher imput lag. You will need to see a review of each monitor to known and compare the display lag.

For example the AOC G2460 with 144Hz have near 30ms of display lag while the ASUS VP239 with only 60Hz have 10ms

And 4ms is really low, most of the best monitors i known are slightly under 10ms i think that you take the grey time that most monitor declare as the response time, for example the ASUS VG248QE state "144Hz 1ms", but is 1ms of grey to grey time, it's still 7ms of response time (and is may the faster screen i've seen) and you are talking on 23ms of imput lag (and, again as far as i known it was the faster monitor i've seen)

default lag due to the digital monitor still will not be as fast as a crt?

No, it's due technlogy issues. The CRT have almost 0 time conversing between the analogic signal and the ray guns that send electrons to the screen while any digital screen have hardware in the middle that need time to process the signal.

 

[Exodias]

Ok so we are saying GPU leads fps. If I have a gtx 1080ti and play a game on low resolution, I will have potentially 200+ fps possibly?

Yes, on games is usually the main limiting factor but then its another wall on some games (like CS:GO) that is that the CPU could limit the fps you get. You will need a powerfull Gpu AND a depending the game a powerfull CPU to get that fps.

On lower settings/resolution probably a 1060/1070 will be enought.

On top of this would streaming a game put further load or an overload on something's Ike a gtx 1080ti

No specially in the GPU (althought some drivers and im thinking in nvidia discard part of that load in the gpu) but mainly in the CPU and yes, streaming would lower the fps you get.

Another point is, crt has almost 0 input lag however a TN panel still needs time to draw the screen which is about 4ms on 240hz correct?

The CRT have almost 0 display lag (the input lag adds non related factors like your pc lag in the middle) that is where due technology the LCDs are worse.

But depends on the concrete monitor, it's not depending on the refresh rate but on the hardware of the monitor and in part on the technology of the pannels, you could have a 60Hz monitor with a really low imput lag ot a 240Hz one with a higher imput lag. You will need to see a review of each monitor to known and compare the display lag.

For example the AOC G2460 with 144Hz have near 30ms of display lag while the ASUS VP239 with only 60Hz have 10ms

And 4ms is really low, most of the best monitors i known are slightly under 10ms i think that you take the grey time that most monitor declare as the response time, for example the ASUS VG248QE state "144Hz 1ms", but is 1ms of grey to grey time, it's still 7ms of response time (and is may the faster screen i've seen) and you are talking on 23ms of imput lag (and, again as far as i known it was the faster monitor i've seen)

default lag due to the digital monitor still will not be as fast as a crt?

No, it's due technlogy issues. The CRT have almost 0 time conversing between the analogic signal and the ray guns that send electrons to the screen while any digital screen have hardware in the middle that need time to process the signal.

I would like to see a test between a oc CRT at 200-250hz with low input lag. VS a new LCD monitor. Basic timer check..

 

[Exodias]

Looks like the pg258q was reviewed by tft central and received overall display/input lag of 4.6 ms.. which is amazing for a 240hz monitor on gsync.