• Hardware

  • 60hz vs 144hz vs 240hz Gaming Monitors Experience

I own the

ASUS ROG Swift PG258Q

ASUS ROG Swift PG27UQ

BenQ EX3203R

First,

Here is the catch whether on 144hz or 240 hz on Gsync hardware modules ( not Gsync compatible which are basically freesync ) the major advantage of having a Gsync hardware module monitor over a FreeSync (1 or 2 ) is support variable overdrive which allows the response time overdrive to be dynamically changed according to the current refresh rate. This eliminates ghosting at high frame rates and pixel overshoot at low frame rates. Therefore, the ghosting being displayed will not be displayed.

Second,

Whether the human eye can detect 240fps and more is a long lasting debate. However assume that you have a 144hz vs 240hz monitor , if the full 144fps being hit on 144hz and the full 240fps being hit on 244hz

Time Frame ( Time it takes the frame to be displayed)

1/144 × 1000 = 6.94 ms on the 144hz monitor

1/240 × 1000 = 4.167 ms on the 240hz monitor

Delta Increase in frame time: (6.94- 4.17)/4.17 = 66 %

Which is much lower compared to the jump from 60 to 144hz

1/60 × 1000 = 16.67 ms

(16.67 - 6.94) / 6.94 = 140 %

Nevertheless , the lower frame time that 240hz compared to 144hz ( 6.94 ms vs 4.17 ms) is perceived by a lower input lag which is detected by the eye , but the lower the delta difference in frame time ( 144hz vs 240 hz case) the less the perceive difference. The ghosting and pixel shooting impact will sure increase on none Gsync hardware modules monitors.
Interesting, when will we have ULMB/lightboost (backlight strobing) with calibrated colors? 120hz LB looks way smoother, can glance some words of a text at insane smooth scrolling speed, almost the same as moving a paper in real life compared to regular 240hz (only on LCDs). Most ULMB monitors have this pinkish hue when it is enabled. I also remember playing TW3 with it as its much clearer (not smoother) than 240, let alone reaching that fps.
Tech Guru wrote
1/144 × 1000 = 6.94 ms on the 144hz monitor

1/240 × 1000 = 4.167 ms on the 240hz monitor
From my experience, and I have a lot of monitors and other random computer parts, you won't feel the difference below 5ms.
Hemorrhoids wroteInteresting, when will we have ULMB/lightboost (backlight strobing) with calibrated colors? 120hz LB looks way smoother, can glance some words of a text at insane smooth scrolling speed, almost the same as moving a paper in real life compared to regular 240hz (only on LCDs). Most ULMB monitors have this pinkish hue when it is enabled. I also remember playing TW3 with it as its much clearer (not smoother) than 240, let alone reaching that fps.

Sadly VRR is disabled when ULMB is enabled on Gsync Monitors . Some highend TVs (Sony X930E for example) uses PWM at 960Hz to dim the backlight, starting at 17/50 backlight setting, but at that frequency it is not noticeable , how ever it decrease its flicker frequency to 120hz ( newer 2019 models like the X950G or Samsung Q90R decrease its flicker frequency up to 60hz). Having a higher PMW frequency will lead to less colors being washed out when using BFI (strobing) & a flicker free experience ( less colors wash).
VincentKeyboard wrote
Tech Guru wrote
1/144 × 1000 = 6.94 ms on the 144hz monitor

1/240 × 1000 = 4.167 ms on the 240hz monitor
From my experience, and I have a lot of monitors and other random computer parts, you won't feel the difference below 5ms.
It depends on end gamer / user eyes sensivity to detecting very lowe frame time. For me for example , I can detect it but the difference is not shaking compared to the jump from 60hz to 144hz. It is all out how the human brain perceive motion (some are less sensitive & are more sensitive). Therefore , there is no general rule of thumb causing the long lasting debate of 144hz + monitors benefit.
Tech Guru wrote
VincentKeyboard wrote
Tech Guru wrote
1/144 × 1000 = 6.94 ms on the 144hz monitor

1/240 × 1000 = 4.167 ms on the 240hz monitor
From my experience, and I have a lot of monitors and other random computer parts, you won't feel the difference below 5ms.
It depends on end gamer / user eyes sensivity to detecting very lowe frame time. For me for example , I can detect it but the difference is not shaking compared to the jump from 60hz to 144hz. It is all out how the human brain perceive motion (some are less sensitive & are more sensitive). Therefore , there is no general rule of thumb causing the long lasting debate of 144hz + monitors benefit.
Try scrolling down this thread on a 60hz monitor vs a 120hz screen on Firefox which is weak on compositing. It's a much more pleasant experience on 120hz.

My point is 240hz is overkill when even the best eyes won't even tell the difference beyond 200hz, maybe not even always beyond 144hz.
It's basically like making phone screens beyond 500 DPI.
VincentKeyboard wrote
Tech Guru wrote
VincentKeyboard wrote From my experience, and I have a lot of monitors and other random computer parts, you won't feel the difference below 5ms.
It depends on end gamer / user eyes sensivity to detecting very lowe frame time. For me for example , I can detect it but the difference is not shaking compared to the jump from 60hz to 144hz. It is all out how the human brain perceive motion (some are less sensitive & are more sensitive). Therefore , there is no general rule of thumb causing the long lasting debate of 144hz + monitors benefit.
Try scrolling down this thread on a 60hz monitor vs a 120hz screen on Firefox which is weak on compositing. It's a much more pleasant experience on 120hz.

My point is 240hz is overkill when even the best eyes won't even tell the difference beyond 200hz, maybe not even always beyond 144hz.
It's basically like making phone screens beyond 500 DPI.
I guess the difference between 120 and 240 is significant on CRT/OLED, most LCDs (not the fake 1ms gtg response) are too slow to show it (blur) except the benefit of reducing the entire chain lag.
Tech Guru wrote
Hemorrhoids wroteInteresting, when will we have ULMB/lightboost (backlight strobing) with calibrated colors? 120hz LB looks way smoother, can glance some words of a text at insane smooth scrolling speed, almost the same as moving a paper in real life compared to regular 240hz (only on LCDs). Most ULMB monitors have this pinkish hue when it is enabled. I also remember playing TW3 with it as its much clearer (not smoother) than 240, let alone reaching that fps.

Sadly VRR is disabled when ULMB is enabled on Gsync Monitors . Some highend TVs (Sony X930E for example) uses PWM at 960Hz to dim the backlight, starting at 17/50 backlight setting, but at that frequency it is not noticeable , how ever it decrease its flicker frequency to 120hz ( newer 2019 models like the X950G or Samsung Q90R decrease its flicker frequency up to 60hz). Having a higher PMW frequency will lead to less colors being washed out when using BFI (strobing) & a flicker free experience ( less colors wash).
Oh nice! I always thought the color wash was due to black frame insertion & the pixels are too slow to fully stabilize ON again between each black frame, red pixels being fastest. Light strobing is used to reduce blur enough for high refresh rate, using it at 60hz will look-like double image at high speed (to our eyes) as 60hz without trailing is too slow for our eyes, in fact the blur kinda helps at 60 for achieving motion smoothness. The backlight is lagging in strobe after the image has been displayed after the black frame, which leaves the slowly turning off pixels time to turn off before the eyes can see (by turning off and delaying backlight), black frame to reduce pixel overdrive (clears the surrounding pixels faster as opposed leaving them on).

I never tried the latest higher end TVs, do you notice any skewing on horizontal scrolling of an image, image tilt? I used ufotest at medium speeds to measure.
2 months later
Quick Hint

Assume You Have 60hz & 144hz displays but your graphic card is outputting 48fps on both.

Frame Time on 60Hz Screen 1/60 ×1000 =16.67ms
Frame Time on 144Hz Screen 1/144× 1000 = 6.94ms

48fps Case on Both Screens

You need to wait 16.67ms for each frame to displayed on 60hz screen

You need to wait 6.94ms for each frame to be displayed on 144hz screen

Conclusion

Even you are below the monitor refresh rate the higher the refresh on display will create less stutter.

Stutter= Time of wait needed for each frame to be displayed.
Tech Guru wroteQuick Hint

Assume You Have 60hz & 144hz displays but your graphic card is outputting 48fps on both.

Frame Time on 60Hz Screen 1/60 ×1000 =16.67ms
Frame Time on 144Hz Screen 1/144× 1000 = 6.94ms

48fps Case on Both Screens

You need to wait 16.67ms for each frame to displayed on 60hz screen

You need to wait 6.94ms for each frame to be displayed on 144hz screen

Conclusion

Even you are below the monitor refresh rate the higher the refresh on display will create less stutter.

Stutter= Time of wait needed for each frame to be displayed.
Very nicely explained.
Tech Guru wroteQuick Hint

Assume You Have 60hz & 144hz displays but your graphic card is outputting 48fps on both.

Frame Time on 60Hz Screen 1/60 ×1000 =16.67ms
Frame Time on 144Hz Screen 1/144× 1000 = 6.94ms

48fps Case on Both Screens

You need to wait 16.67ms for each frame to displayed on 60hz screen

You need to wait 6.94ms for each frame to be displayed on 144hz screen

Conclusion

Even you are below the monitor refresh rate the higher the refresh on display will create less stutter.

Stutter= Time of wait needed for each frame to be displayed.
Well theoretically you are right but in practice each frame from you example will be displayed 3 times on a 144hz monitor even if you update the first frame at 6.94ms you need to display in 3 times this makes the total time of each frame 20.82ms which is basically the same thing with extra lag and tearing
DNA wrote
Tech Guru wroteQuick Hint

Assume You Have 60hz & 144hz displays but your graphic card is outputting 48fps on both.

Frame Time on 60Hz Screen 1/60 ×1000 =16.67ms
Frame Time on 144Hz Screen 1/144× 1000 = 6.94ms

48fps Case on Both Screens

You need to wait 16.67ms for each frame to displayed on 60hz screen

You need to wait 6.94ms for each frame to be displayed on 144hz screen

Conclusion

Even you are below the monitor refresh rate the higher the refresh on display will create less stutter.

Stutter= Time of wait needed for each frame to be displayed.
Well theoretically you are right but in practice each frame from you example will be displayed 3 times on a 144hz monitor even if you update the first frame at 6.94ms you need to display in 3 times this makes the total time of each frame 20.82ms which is basically the same thing with extra lag and tearing

This Validates my point -Digital Foundry

https://youtu.be/4sP6H1lK6XI
As much as i like to have a conversation about technical/ scientific matters boy do i hate linking me to videos or other non scientific inaccurate stuff as proof i wouldnt reply here if i wanna be linked to a video to watch man if you are knowledgable in these matters can you please summarize in your own words.

Anyway in my book low fps on high refresh rate is trash, this is one of the reasons Gsync lowers your monitors refresh rate to match fps it's a better experience
DNA wrote
Tech Guru wroteQuick Hint

Assume You Have 60hz & 144hz displays but your graphic card is outputting 48fps on both.

Frame Time on 60Hz Screen 1/60 ×1000 =16.67ms
Frame Time on 144Hz Screen 1/144× 1000 = 6.94ms

48fps Case on Both Screens

You need to wait 16.67ms for each frame to displayed on 60hz screen

You need to wait 6.94ms for each frame to be displayed on 144hz screen

Conclusion

Even you are below the monitor refresh rate the higher the refresh on display will create less stutter.

Stutter= Time of wait needed for each frame to be displayed.
Well theoretically you are right but in practice each frame from you example will be displayed 3 times on a 144hz monitor even if you update the first frame at 6.94ms you need to display in 3 times this makes the total time of each frame 20.82ms which is basically the same thing with extra lag and tearing
That frame will scanout to the display earlier, which means that you still get lower input latency.

With variable refresh rate, the issue of duplicate frames lasting for a multiple of a fixed interval is solved. The display is still refreshing at maximum refresh rate - that is, it is performing each scanout at 1 / (refresh rate), rather than lowering the refresh rate (and increasing scanout time).

With any talk of high refresh rate on modern panels, the default assumption is that variable refresh rate is provided, not absent.

If you buy a G-Sync (hardware module) monitor, it means you will almost certainly have an Nvidia GPU connected to it (unless an upgrade to AMD was the obvious choice for someone at some point in time).

If you buy any gaming monitor on the market nowadays, it more likely than not has VESA Adaptive Sync which works with both Nvidia & AMD GPUs.
Hemorrhoids wrote
VincentKeyboard wrote
Tech Guru wrote
It depends on end gamer / user eyes sensivity to detecting very lowe frame time. For me for example , I can detect it but the difference is not shaking compared to the jump from 60hz to 144hz. It is all out how the human brain perceive motion (some are less sensitive & are more sensitive). Therefore , there is no general rule of thumb causing the long lasting debate of 144hz + monitors benefit.
Try scrolling down this thread on a 60hz monitor vs a 120hz screen on Firefox which is weak on compositing. It's a much more pleasant experience on 120hz.

My point is 240hz is overkill when even the best eyes won't even tell the difference beyond 200hz, maybe not even always beyond 144hz.
It's basically like making phone screens beyond 500 DPI.
I guess the difference between 120 and 240 is significant on CRT/OLED, most LCDs (not the fake 1ms gtg response) are too slow to show it (blur) except the benefit of reducing the entire chain lag.
Almost no 240Hz monitor ships with response times that are higher than 4ms. This is why, until very recently, all of them have used TN panels.

The assertion that most LCDs are too slow to handle their refresh rates rarely applies anymore - budget monitors using VA panels ARE slow in certain transitions (which shows as black smearing), but TN and IPS panels are not slow at all. Many actually hit their targets fully, particularly the G-Sync (hardware module) displays.

LCD's issue with motion blur is sample-and-hold - there is no strobing (by design) like CRT. Even with zero response time, a constantly backlit LCD will still show motion blur due to eye-tracking. Same for OLED.

Extremely high refresh rates are the true solution. Backlight strobing is a temporary solution at lower refresh rates. However, the problem of synchronizing the strobing with variable refresh intervals, while maintaining brightness and not causing flicker, requires serious engineering to solve. ASUS has an ELMB monitor available, but I haven't seen reviews that tackle how well it's implemented (or not).
yasamoka wrote
DNA wrote
Tech Guru wroteQuick Hint

Assume You Have 60hz & 144hz displays but your graphic card is outputting 48fps on both.

Frame Time on 60Hz Screen 1/60 ×1000 =16.67ms
Frame Time on 144Hz Screen 1/144× 1000 = 6.94ms

48fps Case on Both Screens

You need to wait 16.67ms for each frame to displayed on 60hz screen

You need to wait 6.94ms for each frame to be displayed on 144hz screen

Conclusion

Even you are below the monitor refresh rate the higher the refresh on display will create less stutter.

Stutter= Time of wait needed for each frame to be displayed.
Well theoretically you are right but in practice each frame from you example will be displayed 3 times on a 144hz monitor even if you update the first frame at 6.94ms you need to display in 3 times this makes the total time of each frame 20.82ms which is basically the same thing with extra lag and tearing
That frame will scanout to the display earlier, which means that you still get lower input latency.

With variable refresh rate, the issue of duplicate frames lasting for a multiple of a fixed interval is solved. The display is still refreshing at maximum refresh rate - that is, it is performing each scanout at 1 / (refresh rate), rather than lowering the refresh rate (and increasing scanout time).

With any talk of high refresh rate on modern panels, the default assumption is that variable refresh rate is provided, not absent.

If you buy a G-Sync (hardware module) monitor, it means you will almost certainly have an Nvidia GPU connected to it (unless an upgrade to AMD was the obvious choice for someone at some point in time).

If you buy any gaming monitor on the market nowadays, it more likely than not has VESA Adaptive Sync which works with both Nvidia & AMD GPUs.
well yea sure it will scan earlier but you still need to wait for 3 redraws with the same image even if you move your mouse well for my eyes at least i can feel more input lag on high refresh rate low fps especially when moving mouse left to right.

as for gsync yea that is another topic but its pretty smart to actually scanout a frame at the full refresh rate and then wait for the next frame to refresh the screen well there you are eliminating redraws which is a huge advantage in how the game feels which is my point i can play at 80fps gsync but i can't stand to look at 80fps gsync off at full refresh rate.
DNA wrote
yasamoka wrote
DNA wrote
Well theoretically you are right but in practice each frame from you example will be displayed 3 times on a 144hz monitor even if you update the first frame at 6.94ms you need to display in 3 times this makes the total time of each frame 20.82ms which is basically the same thing with extra lag and tearing
That frame will scanout to the display earlier, which means that you still get lower input latency.

With variable refresh rate, the issue of duplicate frames lasting for a multiple of a fixed interval is solved. The display is still refreshing at maximum refresh rate - that is, it is performing each scanout at 1 / (refresh rate), rather than lowering the refresh rate (and increasing scanout time).

With any talk of high refresh rate on modern panels, the default assumption is that variable refresh rate is provided, not absent.

If you buy a G-Sync (hardware module) monitor, it means you will almost certainly have an Nvidia GPU connected to it (unless an upgrade to AMD was the obvious choice for someone at some point in time).

If you buy any gaming monitor on the market nowadays, it more likely than not has VESA Adaptive Sync which works with both Nvidia & AMD GPUs.
well yea sure it will scan earlier but you still need to wait for 3 redraws with the same image even if you move your mouse well for my eyes at least i can feel more input lag on high refresh rate low fps.
Probably due to queuing when using V-Sync with framerate < refresh rate.
as for gsync yea that is another topic but its pretty smart to actually scanout a frame at the full refresh rate and then wait for the next frame to refresh the screen well there you are eliminating redraws which is a huge advantage in how the game feels which is my point i can play at 80fps gsync but i can't stand to look at 80fps gsync off at full refresh rate.
It's probably the only way - the monitor is still receiving data at a pixel clock that permits the highest refresh rate. Increase the blanking interval and you get the display to wait before scanout. End the blanking interval and start sending the current frame's actual pixels and the display will, naturally, scanout that frame at its chosen (e.g. maximum) refresh rate. There is a sizeable advantage in scanning out a frame as quickly as possible onto a display as it (1) lowers total chain input latency and (2) allows for backlight strobing across more of the display at the same time without trying to achieve a tradeoff between input latency (waiting for entire scanout to ~ finish before strobing) and crosstalk (strobing a portion of the display that has not yet settled into the target pixel luminance).
5 days later
DNA wrote
Tech Guru wroteQuick Hint

Assume You Have 60hz & 144hz displays but your graphic card is outputting 48fps on both.

Frame Time on 60Hz Screen 1/60 ×1000 =16.67ms
Frame Time on 144Hz Screen 1/144× 1000 = 6.94ms

48fps Case on Both Screens

You need to wait 16.67ms for each frame to displayed on 60hz screen

You need to wait 6.94ms for each frame to be displayed on 144hz screen

Conclusion

Even you are below the monitor refresh rate the higher the refresh on display will create less stutter.

Stutter= Time of wait needed for each frame to be displayed.
Well theoretically you are right but in practice each frame from you example will be displayed 3 times on a 144hz monitor even if you update the first frame at 6.94ms you need to display in 3 times this makes the total time of each frame 20.82ms which is basically the same thing with extra lag and tearing
No need to validate things in a theoratical way , I always go the hardware method live testing bymyself.

If your FPS are below 60 FPS, then there could be stuttering, but it would be less on the 120hz monitor, because each refresh missed does not add 16.7ms to the frame, and instead adds 8.3ms to the delay, reducing the stuttering. The only time you may gain a little stuttering is if you have v-sync on and above 60 FPS and below 120 FPS, but you also gain FPS for more response, this has a little bonus and a little disadvantage too.

In short:
With v-sync and 60 FPS, they are the same
With v-sync and less than 60 FPS, 120hz is better.
With v-sync and over 60 FPS, 120hz can be better, but can be worse in ways. The higher the FPS, the more it is better.
Without v-sync, 120hz is always better.