144hz vs 240hz

[masterfalcon3000]

Currently i do have AOC ag241qx 1440p 144hz
Specs : gtx 1080 -i7 8700K

before you answer please read the results number that i found that could help to answer

i was thinking to upgrade from 144hz 1440p to 1080p 240hz , so i found the input lag between 60hz - 144hz - 240hz , this is the average time of input lag test for [Acer XB272 and Asus PG258Q ] on overwatch using 1200 FPS camera using 1000Hz polling rate logitech mouse with red lamb connected to left click


Display refresh rate

60hz can display new image every 16 ms

144hz can display new image every 7 ms

240hz can display new image every 4 ms



Input lag

60hz with 70 FPS = 28 ms

144hz with 154 FPS = 18 ms

240hz with 250 FPS = 14 ms





I do see alot of twitch and youtube pro players that have 240hz monitor with High end specs they can't get stable 240 Fps in game like fornite , in the important moments like fights they always get 140 to 200 fps , So i think with 240hz if you can't get the stable 240 Fps the game will be laggy , with my 144hz when my fps drops below 144 i feel the game is little bit lagging


When i upgraded from 60hz to 144hz i could see a huge difference , and the difference between 144hz and 60hz is 10 ms [Display refresh rate]
so how am i able to see the difference between 60hz and 144hz ?
Am i understanding something wrong ?



So does it really worth the 500$ that i'm going to spend from 1440p 144hz to 1080p 240hz , i mean it's just 3 to 4 ms between 144hz and 240hz unless you are a robot can see the difference , So does it really worth to spend that amount of money ? i don't want to burn money as the GPU i bought upgraded from gtx 1060 to gtx 1080 i always play competitive and put every thing on low , my 1060 was able to get +150 stable FPS also the gtx 1080 almost the same as 1060 in low settings , so in my case 1060 or 1070 was the sweet sport for my case



If you were me what would you do ?

Source ; https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mzts7ss97MY



Thanks in advance

 

[Gam3r01]

No, no reason to spend that money.
1440p 144Hz is a great combo, 240Hz is more gimmicky than anything else.
Go ahead and do this: https://www.humanbenchmark.com/tests/reactiontime/
Tell me, do you really think 4-8ms can make any difference to a human?

 

[masterfalcon3000]

No, no reason to spend that money.
1440p 144Hz is a great combo, 240Hz is more gimmicky than anything else.
Go ahead and do this: https://www.humanbenchmark.com/tests/reactiontime/
Tell me, do you really think 4-8ms can make any difference to a human?

my average 170 to 220 ms

Can the 240hz player see the 144hz player first ?

 

[Gam3r01]

The 240Hz player has .0042 seconds between frames.
The 144Hz has .0069 seconds between frames.
So technically the 240Hz player could see you 2.7ms sooner. It would take the average player 200-300ms to even respond.
So realistically, no, you both appear at the same time to a human.

Additionally, you have to take into account tick rate and latency on servers. Some games have "peekers advantage" where they will see you first due to server latency, refresh rate is not important.

 

[masterfalcon3000]

The 240Hz player has .0042 seconds between frames.
The 144Hz has .0069 seconds between frames.
So technically the 240Hz player could see you 2.7ms sooner. It would take the average player 200-300ms to even respond.
So realistically, no, you both appear at the same time to a human.

Additionally, you have to take into account tick rate and latency on servers. Some games have "peekers advantage" where they will see you first due to server latency, refresh rate is not important.

When i upgraded from 60hz to 144hz i could see a huge difference , and the difference between 144hz and 60hz is 10 ms [Display refresh rate]
so how am i able to see the difference between 60hz and 144hz ?
Am i understanding something wrong ?

 

[Gam3r01]

What you noticed isnt really the response time, just the refresh rate.
60 to 144 is a big difference, but it levels off.

 

[rich.h.sohn]

Go to www.blurbusters.com

Honestly going from 60 to 144 is like 1 to 8.

144 to 240 is going from 8 to 10.

Theres an improvement but not significant and I doubt it will improve you play.

I went from 27inch dell 144 gsync to a 25 inch 240 /1080p Alienware. I prefer the 144 for the screen realstate and 1440p.

 

[jordypops]

I have a 240hz screen but I also have a 120hz display on my laptop. The 240hz does feel a bit smoother and I do perform a little better on it but if I was to buy a screen id go for a more cost effective 144hz panel, especially as I have a 1080ti and an i7 8700k to drive the 240hz, in e sports games like overwatch it's great but in other titles it's gonna be a stretch for any hardware. The difference over 100hz compared to 60 is night and day, it helps so much with aim and tracking, 60 feels so stuttery in comparison

 

[t99]

I think these only really make much of a difference At the absolute highest levels of play. When you have the top .01 to .05% of players and skill is pretty much even the smallest things can make a difference. I bet the best players will win against the other 99%+ even if they played at 60fps on a 60hz display.

If you never play AAA games and don't care about seeing them in a higher resolution, it can't hurt anything, but don't go broke over it. I think it's a waste of money right now based on what you have, but that also depends on how good you are.

Are you better than at least 98% of players? If not maybe try getting near that point before spending so much for minor advantages.

If you are good at something, you will be good regardless. Give me a 200$ guitar and cheap amp and I'm going to make it sound better than the a less experienced player who has a 1500$ guitar and 1,000$ amp.

 

[thejaq]

144hz is a very nice sweet spot. And it's fairly easy to maintain those frames at 1440p on 1080+ cards under moderate to high settings. I personally prefer the consistency of 120 to 140 fps compared to some of the large variations you'll see with Max fps above 200.

As for competitive advantage 99.99% of gamers are better off practicing the fundamentals of gaming than spending any effort or money optimizing performance beyond about 100hz / fps. Literally take time off work and practice aim and learn game sense before chasing extreme fps for a competitive advantage.

 

[Yogi2367]

I mostly play World of Tanks (WoT). I found the escalation from 60Hz to 144Hz to be tremendously helpful, with a caveat. That being as long as your ping times hold to be excellent.
In my "tanking" career, I found that I could could only take my successful progression so far at 60Hz. At 144Hz the game allowed me better successful practice opportunities, and subsequent competitive success.
Installing better GPUs let me max out the games adjustments so things like draw distance now start to give an advantage.
Moving to 240Hz didn't do a darn thing for me. Although untested, and unproven, I suspect the issue at this point is ping time. My average ping, from my computer to the server and back is 23 ms, and I think that "lag", for lack of a better description, is the limiting factor. Any advantage, however small, offered by 240Hz is sucked up by the lag.

 

[cateatsfish]

Be reasonable. No pro player cares for 2-3 ms lag.

If You like sharp images take a strobed monitor.
120 FPS strobed vs 144/240 FPS non strobed THAT is like night and day.

 

[William Henrickson]

If I set my 240hz monitor to 144hz, I notice a big difference in clarity and smearing and input lag.
The testufo.com looks so much better set on the 240hz vs 120hz.
I'm not sure statistics and numbers can describe the difference IRL.

On the other hand, I only paid $369 for the monitor, and wouldn't have considered it at the normal price.