I recently bought a 27" Odyssey G7 and that thing is amazing. I had a 144hz 1ms tn before it, and yeah the change from 60 to 144 is very much noticiable than from 144 to 240.
This said, if you are on a budget, I’d recommend going for a 144 hz if you still stuck with 60 hz. 60 hz on pc should be heresy if you can afford a better one.
They won’t make you godlike though, so dont expect miracles at the end of the day, you are the one playing, not the screen.
Long story short, if you have the money go for a 240. If you want roughly the same experience without the price then 144 is the one.
There isn’t a huge difference between 144 and 240 but it’s still noticable and worth it if you can afford it.
That’s not really true at all.
It’s not just about aiming. It’s also about timing and positioning and a high refresh rate helps a lot with that.
For example, blocking an enemy Rein’s shatter is a lot easier with a higher refresh rate, since you can see the movement and animations more fluidly.
A high refresh rate lets you react faster, make better decisions, dodge better. You just see way more fluid animations on the screen.
Are you… quoting a meme… unironically?
Just a reminder to anyone looking to get a high refresh rate monitor, response time is more important than the refresh rate.
240hz doesn’t automatically mean its good/best for FPS gaming. The more reliable stat to look at is the response time.
My experience from owning AW2721D monitor.
That is a very inaccurate way of saying it. The human eye sometimes skips single frames at 90hz, that does not mean that it doesn’t notices any difference between 90hz and 240hz, beside the latenzy
That’s not too true, response time is nice but not all that important.
Let’s just look at all the delays in the entire chain from input to output. Your mouse already has some delay, even a cable mouse has a few milliseconds delay, most gaming mice have around ~10ms delay, some a bit less, some a bit more. (And even if a mouse would have no delay somehow, USB and polling rate alone can already add up to 2ms of delay.). Then we have the input lag from the game:
I play with 3000mhzRam, an I79700K, and a gtx1070 on all low settings, 103pov, and 75% render scale. I have a delay of 7ms, especially on better graphic settings and a less good PC this can be much higher through. On default setting my latency was 13ms.
So now from input to output, it’s already at least 18ms delay, even with a 1ms monitor. The difference between a 1ms and 4ms monitor (which is the highest I sometimes see with gaming monitors) is from 18 to 21ms. Now consider the reaction time of your body, which is for a physical response of at least 150ms if you are super fast. To be fair you can’t really add reaction speed into it like that, I wanted to give it as a comparison through. In addition, the 60frames alone already have an average delay of 8.3ms.
Even if we remove reaction speed and ignore the reaction speed of the mouse, the latency of the game and framerate is already more than quintupled compared to the different delay of gaming monitors.
Now compare the delay alone from a 240hz monitor to a 60hz monitor, there are other benefits, I just discuss the delay here. The max. delay of a 60hz monitor is 16.7ms, the max delay of a 240hz monitor is 4.17ms. This is only the maximum delay, the average delay of 60hz is 8.3ms and from 240hz 2.09ms.
That’s an average difference of 6.2 milliseconds.
So even if latency would be the most important thing:
I (besides some extremely rare exceptions) have never seen a 24-27inch sized gaming monitor with more than 4ms latency, which means the latency difference from going from 60hz to 240hz is more than doubled compared to the pure latency the monitor itself has.
The average delay of 144hz is 3.5ms, so the difference of 60hz to 144hz is already 4.8ms on average.
As long as your computer is capable of it, upgrading from 60hz is always more worth it than purely upgrading the latency itself. Of cause both is nice, but framerate is more important
My problem is pixel reponse time. My 240hz monitor has noticeable more ghosting and inverse ghosting than my 144hz monitor. Which is from what I have read is due to g2g response time.
IPS panels while having amazing colours are significantly worse in terms of g2g response time than my cheap 144hz TN panel.
You get a clearer image on the TN panel against fast moving targets which is absurdly important in Overwatch.
Not saying my new panel is bad but quite frankly my old panel, at least for Overwatch in terms of pure competitive advantage is better. Even if it is slightly worse in terms of overall system latency. The AW2721D is insanely good in terms of latency.
No idea about 240 but I bumped to a 165 and it’s light and day. It didn’t work originally and I couldn’t tell any difference and was disappointed. Then I changed some settings in the monitor after googling why it wasn’t working. Instantly even just cursor movement on the desktop was like butter. Noticed it in game immediately and made snapping way smoother. I’d guess most hitscan players will bump at least 200-300 SR performance wise by changing, and will also develop aiming skills faster. The people who say there’s little or worse yet no difference I question if we’re the same species lol but I guess everyone is different senses wise. Since I only did the bump from 60 to 160 I’m not sure if and where it stopped making a difference or if even higher refresh rate would improve experience more. But I’m very happy with it as is which even before the monitor upgrade I could not say about my game experience
Ghosting is for sure a problem and one reason why I think it isn’t that necessary to upgrade from 144hz to 240hz, I just tried to show that the pure response time from the monitor barely matters since there are so many other factors with a much higher response time
PS: The Monitor the most Overwatch pros use has a latency of 4ms, but 240hz. This pretty much shows the priority
As others have mentioned, 60 → 144 is the main jump. FPS games are practically unplayable at 60. I consider 144 the standard as they are not at all expensive. There is marginal improvement from 144 to 240. You likely wouldn’t notice unless you’re specifically looking for it. There are even faster monitors available, but those come at a cost which the everyday gamer likely can’t afford and doesn’t need.
I refuse to pay 300% markups for a new card.
So pickings are a bit slim for me.
“BuT iM pLaYiNg FiNe At SixTy”
People constantly throw this out while completely failing to realise just how much their aim is being gimped by shoddy framerates. It’s absolutely unplayable below 60. I’d cringe at 90, but call that the minimum.
TFW y’all talking about 240hz and I’m happy when I can get a consistent 40 lool
“happy” isn’t the point. This is a competitive game and the discussion is about where framerate no longer has a bothersome drawback.
As for what a person can perceive and react to. The nerves in your eye can fire between 300-1000 a second. It’s debatable that “you” can see 1000 fps but you can perceive 200-300 fps with repeatable consistent results.
As for what fps an eye is at… it’s an organ/sensor they don’t work at hz!. It’s like saying your mercury thermometer is only 30fps…
So yea not only are you wrong on the level of what a person can see. You think your eye has a hz lol.
True stuff here, but players need to consider the sweet spot in terms of performance and utility, and most importantly their budgets.
Is playing hitscan in 16:9 FPS games the only thing you do? If yes, then a 240hz monitor a great splurge purchase. But you better already have an excellent gaming rig to drive it at ultra settings, otherwise the performance kinks will take away from that buttery smooth reality you want to have with it. You really don’t want to cheap out playing at lower settings just because your computer can’t handle it. First make sure you have a gaming computer that can run smoothly at ultra settings, then you can invest in that nice 240hz screen.
For my part, I use the Alienware AW3418DW which is 100Hz native, 34" ultrawide, 3440x1440 resolution and most games are 21:9 (except Overwatch of course). It’s glorious. Sure I have the black boxes on the sides for Overwatch but for most other games I play at 21:9 the immersion is fantastic. I also use it for work where the 3440x1440 resolution is absolutely essential. Oh the latest version is now the AW3420DW which looks even better and is cheaper than my original from 2 yrs ago.
That’s my take. Shop those post-Christmas sales well my friends.
60 - 144/165 was a world of a difference for me. I don’t really care about going 240 from 165 at this point. It’s rather ridiculous for someone to tell me it’s a placebo to go from 60 to 120+, or that it’s negligible. In a game as fast paced as OW, it’s abundantly clear how big of a difference it was for me too.
Definitely understand where you are coming from, however, in competitive FPS games you actually want to put settings to low regardless if your computer can handle more or not. Not only does it increase performance (mainly decreasing FPS drops), but also reduces visual clutter. For everything else, it is far better to have higher resolution and better looks.
It depends on what you want to get out of your experience in competitive FPS games. Some might prefer fidelity and all the sparkly, shiny effects because they aren’t too concerned with maximizing a competitive advantage, even if they’re raising their FPS with better hardware.