It's insane that consoles haven't moved much past 60hz. I'm used to 165hz on all monitors and when I see the 30/60hz on new consoles it makes me borderline nauseous
Assuming no syncing, I would assume that higher is always better, since it improves your chance of displaying a more up-to-date frame. I wouldn't necessarily expect it to look smoother though.
So you seem very confused in your description. That 360hz monitor uses QD-OLED technology from Samsung, which is now on it's third iteration. This has a triangle arrangement of RGB pixels (though the pixels are a lot closer than they were diminishing the issue, though it's still there for sure at 1440p), which can cause fine elements such as text to show fringing. It uses a quantum dot color filter, and blue OLEDs, which causes it to have amazing colors. Then there is W-OLED from LG, like the Corsair display you have, this uses white OLEDs with a normal color filter with originally an RWGB sub-pixel arrangement, making text somewhat blurry. This sub-pixel arrangement ads an extra white-subpixel to the subpixel arrangement (this is the color filter) to help boost brightness, as OLED technology doesn't get so bright. These have since moved in their latest panels (31.5 4k/240 and 27 1440p/480) to an RGWB which improves the text clarity. However the downside of this white pixel is that it washes out the colors, it just doesn't look quite as good. (measured in color volume, or rec.2020 accuracy can show this too albeit not as accurately) These are 2 distinct technologies, neither are there to succeed the other. For you, I would obviously go for motion performance from 480fps over the pretty colors, however soon there will be QD-OLED 500hz panels (announced at CES) If you played the Asus with VRR, there really shouldn't be a difference because the refresh rate would actually be the same. It's a TN panel, so motion performance should be really good, however there is inherently around 1ms of extra motion blur on the ASUS compared to an OLED. On the other hand, you have 10fps more at the engine cap so that could be the difference. p.s I would love you to test the QD-OLED, and specifically comment on how good you feel the ELMB works for that monitor, no one talks about.
A big misconception about monitors is that the monitor instantly changes the entire image upon refresh, leading to this idea that going faster than framerate is pointless. Actually, it 'scans out' the image from top to bottom continuously (you can see this at 0:38 if you go frame-by-frame, look at the monitor on the right). As soon as the scanline has reached the bottom, it immediately goes back to the top and starts again, there is no pause between cycles. It's scanning out the image data as soon as it arrives through the cable to minimize latency; It takes the duration of a refresh cycle for all the data to be sent - there is nowhere near enough bandwidth to send it all instantly. If you have v-sync off, the GPU is allowed to change the contents of the framebuffer while the monitor is still scanning out the image (rather than waiting to sync with monitor's vertical scanout), so it'll suddenly start scanning out the contents of the next frame, and you'll see screen tearing. This is ideal for minimizing latency, and the faster your monitor is, the earlier the scanline will have covered the entire height of the monitor, giving you the full new image earlier. Even for playing at 20fps, going from 60hz to 144hz makes a huge difference in feel, monitor is very important!
VRR allows higher refresh rate monitors to exactly match it's refresh cycle to the amount of fps produced. If the fps is stable and within the VRR range, the higher refresh rate monitor is always better.
A faster scan line with a lower brightness dip, creates a more stable image even at the desktop. The high contrast and lack of backlight makes the issue more pronounced on OLED's. Slower pixels makes the cycle more incandescent like, which can be preferable at lower refresh rates for visual comfort. I feel the difference when I disable overdrive on my 165hz monitor.
I avoid any "gaming" monitor that don't have a black frame insertion mode. 240hz with BFI active, looks a lot smoother and multiple times less blurry in motion than 360hz without BFI, maybe even less blurry or equivalent to 480hz without BFI (and that would require the game to run at 480FPS which is not realistic, 240hz BFI only require 240FPS and the result is better anyway) And there's a few monitors out there with 500hz+ with BFI, that would makes even the fastest mouse flicks looks crystal clear while doing it, no blur at all.
Its very easy to explain. Your PC cant generate frames super stable. The time between frames are never the same, so all the frames never line up being ready to be displayed when the monitor is ready to "refreash" .. So many frames generated are useless, as a new frame is generated before its even displayed. And sometimes there are no new frame generated before the monitor refresh, so the same frame will be showned 2 refresh time, and this is what you see as "not smooth" The more times a monitor refreshes pr second, the more likely it is that a frame generated will be displayed and not go to waste. I know there is more ways to look at it, because of v-sync on or off, but even with v-sync off, there are truth to the way i said of looking at it. But with todays amazing g-sync/freesync, it is stupid not to use it on high refresh monitors.. for sure on 200+ hz Said in another way, 150 fps can look and feel more smooth then 200 fps, if the 150 fps are generated more stable, and only have a few "wasted" frames generated, and the 200 fps are generated super unstable. This is also why you shouldnt look at max or even avg fps in tests.. focus on getting the best minimum fps, that will look/feel better.
I just wanted to say that I got the MZ1 wireless when it first launched. At the time, I gave it a lot of time, but it just felt too small and didn't work for me. But I kept it around and kept giving it a chance once awhile, before having to put it away. Recently though, something FINALLY clicked and the mouse feels like aimbot for me in CS2 and Valo. I had to adjust my grip a lot, but I am at my aiming peak currently due to this mouse. Thank you for this wonderfdul creation, Zy, and I encourage others to not give up on the mouse too quickly.
So much love for the MZ1 in this comments section. Glad you guys are enjoying it! And thanks for continuing to give it a chance... it was so hard to convince people it would take time to adjust to a new shape in the beginning, so yeah, as you say, please don't give up on mice too quickly. Give them at least 2 weeks, possibly 3 if it's a really new shape!
monitor enthusiasts also claims that you still get the response time advantage of the display by using high refresh monitor with lower fps. (so they recommend to not lower hz if you don't reach fps if you want latency advantage. If you want better motion clarity lowering hz + enabling BFI would do the trick)
I think it would've been a better test if you used the same monitor but just changed the hertz/lowered it, instead of adding panel variance and different display types into the equation. I mean OLEDs are known for looking more juddery due to their instant pixel transition. I'm not saying your findings are incorrect btw, I'm just leaving feedback.
@@RocketJumpNinja Yeah. Blur Busters does a good article on it. My understanding of it was that the display is updating faster still despite having the same framerate.
Currently using an AOC E2270SWHN and have been for the past 5 years, going to be upgrading to an AW3423DWF in the next week or so, super excited. Can't really imagine what it'll be like since the specs practically make my current monitor look like it was a craigslist freebie.
144hz is playable, slight delay, 180-200fps is fine, around 200fps input lag feels fine, around 300fps, hard to tell any higher in game, except if moving your mouse in windows desktop at 480hz or higher
I’ve tried all kinds of monitor refresh rates. I’ve been using 144hz for almost 10 years. Just now I decided to get a 240hz OLED for the first time, the smoothness is there but I can beeeeaaarly notice it, we also have 360hz at work where I can only notice the mouse on desktop and not gaming. 60 to 144 is godlike, 144 to 240 is “ok” but 240 to 360 you just need to be competitive to really take advantage of. 500hz is simply overkill.
Forgetting about hz for a sec, the 0.03 Ms response on some oleds makes games feel so much smoother I actually = it to extra fps. I had some demanding game I was playing at 3840x1600 ultrawide at 90fps and going to a 4k Oled at 83 fps was smoother, equivalent to 100fps on the 1ms fast ips. It is crazy.
Well adjusted backlight strobing tech > high refresh rate monitors, and it even saves you a ton of GPU and CPU power. Keep in mind that a 360hz OLED has much less blur than an equivalent LCD/LED monitor, as every individual pixel has vastly superior response times. The endgame will be if there will be someday OLED panels, not prone to burn-in, that feature backlight strobing, since a big portion of the perceived motion blur soley comes from the "sample and hold" tech.
kinda regret getting the AQDP, 480hz sounds good on paper but these things on the market with DP1.4 are kinda bad. I'm running HDMI2.1 so it doesn't look nearly as bad but still, there are issues like fake 4k resolution appearing and terrible color performance compare to qd-oled. not to mention g-sync having problems in some games when running 1440p@480hz. I ended up using the aw3225qf a lot more than the aqdp for its better color and stability. once rtx 5000 series releases there will be full bandwidth dp2.1 ports which can run 4k 240 or 2k 480 without DSC, the next refresh of monitors with full bandwidth dp2.1 ports(not the sony inzone ones) might be able to improve stability and color performances.
cant relate, I tried both qd-oled and woled.. let me tell you this, yes the qd oled felt more popping but you can crank the saturation bit in the woled and it will look better.. the ELMB with oled at 240hz is crazy good. and to me the 27inch is the sweet spot for comp(pvp) games. the blackscreen from alt tabbin can be annoying ye but its not a deal breaker tbh. All and all tho I say just wait for a better monitor with dp 2.1 and maybe a glossy finish
Unless I'm missing something, it makes total sense that a higher refresh rate would make a difference when you're comparing it to a 240Hz monitor on a 250fps game. Those 10 extra frames are roughly 4% more frames.
Buying the ASUS ROG 1440p 480hz monitor was the best choice I've ever made. Some boomer shooters like Ion Fury and Dusk can push 1000 fps on my PC. Can't wait until we can see that in real time.
What's the brighest your room normally gets? QD-OLEDs don't handle light very well, turning blacks into purples, which is why I'm more leaning towards W-OLED. Unfortunately I'm looking at 360Hz monitors right now, since the 480Hz ASUS PG27AQDP is too expensive at the moment, but 360Hz W-OLED literally doesn't exist right now.
a higher rate of refresh, meaning more refreshes per second should mean getting a more recent image? a higher frames per second rate, meaning more frames generated per second should mean a more recent image? seems pretty logical for it to go both ways, that being said i've tried higher refresh rate monitors with worse performance due to specs, so can't always say
For sure there is definitely a benefit with higher Hz monitor even with lower fps in game. 240Hz is becoming a new standard for a reason. Really to me a minimum I'd use, but higher definitely something I care and especially OLED with proper response time as I can't stand LCD it's just slow and worse tech. Now if we could get a new Quake that is coded properly for higher fps that'd be great.
I"ve always said that and realized it was better, just never said anything because everyone else was so confident about being right by matching frames. I figured it out on cyberpunk launch when I got 40 frames on my 240hz and it felt so good.
@@keppycs Nah it's the TN panel that makes it feel great. I was still getting 200-400 FPS in FPS games or Fortnite even. Cyberpunk was just terrible at launch, but still felt good on a 240hz monitor. That was my old pc tho, I've since upgraded and now at 360hz.
Comparison is kinda unfair. 240hz display is bigger size, hence the distance you can see in movement between frames is bigger, looks like it skips more. If you were to downsize image from display on the right size to size that of opposing one then image should look similiar. If you have 15,4 laptop 144hz it looks and feels smoother than 27 inch 144hz, since you can't see all that well that distance between objects from one frame to another. Also I would add, that if you play TAC-fps 240hz is fine, since the movement in those games is not so frantic and you very seldomly have to turn around 90 degrees quickly. Still the more you can get, the better. For faster games like Unreal T or Quake I would say 360hz(or higher) is something to aim for, since you could really use that extra frames when turning and spotting enemies. I am currently sitting @170-1440p with BFI and I still can clearly see that doubling this framerate easily would bring me advantage in those 90 degree turns.
I think you are VASTLY overselling the diminishing returns of going above 240hz. Sure, bigger number = better, but you're going from ~ 4,2 ms(240 Hz) to 2,8 ms(360 Hz) or to 2,1 ms (480 Hz) Even at 540 Hz you're only 2,3 ms faster than 240Hz, that's not worth it, in my opinion at least. That being said, if anyone who reads this wants to buy a 360+ Hz monitor, don't let me stop you, especially if you think it's with it.
Unrelated, but I found that even with an LG c3 @ 120hz, 240/241 fps cap in ql/qc produces a very smooth image. As long as the fps is exactly double, it's very smooth. It would also likely work with 480 fps too. Would need a different game to test with though. I would bet that 500hz and 250fps would be smoother than that experience, but still worth mentioning anyway. Anybody who can run double the fps of the monitor's refresh rate should try it.
I'll do that test with the 480hz and 540hz if I still have it! If I can still see the difference, I'll let you know. As said though, diminishing returns, it'd be just out of interest, not need.
@@AdrianLassie Way beyond. You need 1 frame/refresh per pixel to fully minimize stroboscopic stepping and image persistence based eye tracking motion blur. And on fast paced games, that puts you easily in the 5 digits range.
@@RocketJumpNinja It would be interesting to have robot who will react instant when he sees enemy like for testing the difference between 144hz and 360hz reaction time...
I'd be curious to see your work and playstation once you're done renovating it, because I read a comment of yours under a bad seed tech video, it was talking about the fractal terra, you said a mini itx pc was not enough for your workflow, why?
More info on everything monitors please! :) For example what's ur Quake & Apex opinion on 24.5" 1080p vs 27" 1440p? I have 240hz 1080p 24.5" and wonder if my eyes would benefit from 1440p 27" in shooters with far away distances (battlefield / battle royales), cuz the enemy in the distance isnt one pixel anymore but maybe two pixels. But then I wonder if the bigger size monitor would change my skill in faster paced shooters... Such kinda stuff would be very interesting to hear about, cuz we poor users cant afford to test all those different types of monitors. You are one man with experience and are capable of explaining it to us. In search for the affordable sweetspot. 😁
I have tried playing at differrent hz from 60 to 360. Suffice to say, I find it too overkill, 240hz at best but 144/165 is the sweet spot. Sure there's an advantage to higher refresh rates but its meager at best at least for me. It's like the argument of 4k/8k polling rate in mouse peripherals. For good gaming monitors, I always find monitors with the best motion clarity and although this might sound like an endorsement. The viewsonic XG2431 is just the best overall. Even blur blaster rated them very highly.
You sure it's not better to go the conventional way and cap your FPS to 4 FPS below refreshrate for Gsync to work to avoid tearing, jitter? To me those always made a much bigger deal than potential 1ms latency reduction.
I had all sync tech off for this testing. And yeah I've just had issues with G-Sync so I gave up on it (maybe because I've had G-Sync compatible monitors mostly and it causes the windows to flash/flicker, super annoying).
@@RocketJumpNinja Strange, never experienced those myself. Maybe worth giving another try, especially with the 540hz monitor you have now? That one has a Gsync module so it should be as good as it gets.
that is the old way, the modern way is g-sync with fps cap, but also v-sync on (which only engages past the refresh rate) and having reflex on too, this should decrease latency because the frame buffer is always ready to push the next frame (see gamer's nexus interview with nvidia "framerate isn't good enough"), I suppose YMMV depending on the game though.
Thats why I dropped dyac setting on 360hz zowie monitor for adaptive sync+vsync+fps cap. Sadly cant use dyac with adaptyve sync. That would be perfect blur/tearing free expierence
You think a CRT monitor at 120 hz is good for competitive fps? I have a dell crt that has a Mitsubishi aperture grille tube that can do 1024x768 120hz or 1280x960 100hz
What's your take on frame drops? If you have a consistent 160 fps then having a higher refresh rate monitor makes sense to me. But that's not how most games behave in practice, and if you vary between say 150-200 fps, then in my experience locking the monitor to 144hz rather than as high as possible keeps the frames more consistent, and that feels way nicer. But my experience is limited to a 144hz monitor that can be overclocked to 165hz, I've never actually used 240hz+.
I had the LgGl27b850 which was the rolls Royce of monitors in 2018. I have never ever bought and enjoyed a monitor more than that one and all the extra bells and whistles don't have the same impact. I have a 240 hz OLED now and aside from the criminally underutilized HDR there is little to no benefit on gaming.
i wonder if it causes issues like flickering or screen tearing, and what would happen if u use 480hz monitor on 300 fps capped games like Apex, will it still be better than 360hz
How about 100hz monitors? Are they same as 120/144? Because I know it's an upgrade from 60hz. My budget is tight and the difference between 100 and 144/165/180 is 100$
Maybe worth it to only rent such a camera for this sort of side-by-side test. Or maybe a collaboration with one of those slow-mo channels that have such equipment already.
I think I looked up rent, they're super expensive and I would need to time all these monitors and other things with that hiring, so yeah just a bit much for not much gain. Would be cool though for sure. Maybe one day, we'll see.
Switched through a number of 240hz monitors through the years (both 1080 and 1440p) got a 1440p 360HZ OLED this year and it felt really nice, less like it was super smooth and more like I just focused on the game, things just...existed "correctly" almost. However from testing through my other monitors (IPS/VA) the extra contrast of the VA seemed to feel almost more impactful, I wonder if that's in my head or is something real, is that why OLED's feel extra clean? (ofc Pixel Response makes a huge difference but there's almost...black magic in them) I'd love to test a 4k 240/480 1080p duel mode monitor so that I could return back to the 24" size that I prefered for shooters and had the 32" for casual/sim/movies. Really enjoy this kind of off the cuff content though, thanks for always making bangers and keeping us informed!
Interesting. See I'm switching away from VA after using OLED, I can't see any advantage to VA. I recently went back to my Samsung 32" 240hz VA and was like "ok no, I don't wanna play on this anymore"... and while 540hz was nice, it's TN, I'll take the lower hz to get OLED. Within reason of course, not gonna drop below 240hz these days. So this 360hz OLED is just... so good. Like I'm actually happy with this. Can't wait to test 480hz just to see if that feeling changes. And glad you're liking these kinds of videos! Since redoing my setups I've been learning so much. Got a lot to share because I'm actually starting to play really well again, despite being older, so yeah more to come!
@@RocketJumpNinja Oh absolutely, i'll take OLED (QD in my case) over VA any day of the week, my Samsung G7 27" was one of my fav monitors of all time, the really tight curve just...got me which I really didn't expect but trying to go back to it now, as much as I still enjoy the curve, OLED just feels connected to me, I did get a chance to try a 480HZ TN but good god those things...I hesitate to say "trash" but...y'know what I mean, it's certainly not nice for the eyes. They are fast but everything else is...I'll pass, there's something about these colours that contrast that even though I'm not as compettitive as I once was so i'm not cranking the Digital Vibrance, things sort of pop anyway. I'd be VERY interested to hear your thoughts on 480 vs 360 OLED as I can't imagine it feeling *that* much smoother but I'd love to know, even if you don't end up making a video on it, a comment would be wonderful! I always feel fresh after a setup redo, sometimes it's just because I got tired or "lax" or over comfortable in my setup and stopped pushing as much as I thought I was, i hope this works out well for you. Being older is just another word for legendary btw, keep killing it :D
@@WhiteRobin1 Definitely, as they say, a change is as good as a holiday, it's important to keep changing/pushing. I'll never be as competitive as I used to be either, but I can be smarter about how I compete now, which means I can probably actually become better anyway. I'm pretty confident, despite being more "legendary", I can play better than I used to. I've seen stints of crazy zone type play in my games lately, so it's in there somewhere... just gotta bring it out more. That's what the videos will be about!
Any thoughts on OLED vs a more typical panel TN/IPS? I know it obviously improves color accuracy/vividness alongside motion clarity but is the extra motion clarity really something you notice compared to say a TN panel with backlight strobing (eg: Zowie Dyac or other brand equivalent). Currently got an older 240Hz Zowie monitor which seems fine for most games I play but interested to know if OLED really makes that much of a difference for games specifically?
I need your help.. I have 19x9.5 hands and use relax claw or fingertip grip (hybrid I think). I Have VV3 Pro and GPX 2. I rly love both of these mice and cant pick one of them.. I play valorant and spectre divide, sometimes “The fianls”. Somedays i feel better with GPX 2, somedays with VV3 Pro. Cant chooooose( Also heard that logitech updated their sensor and now it’s the same level like vv3 pro - im not sure
The Price gap between 144hz and 240hz is way less than 240hz and 360hz so I'd get a 240hz. Though I prefer other qualities over just refresh rates so perhaps a higher quality 144hz monitor
Yeah I've been working on it a bit... usually I just go for rocket and rail because they make for the best highlights, but I keep losing LG battles, like it's a huge weakness in my game, so decided I'm gonna get better at it. Haven't got to the aim trainer part or anything, but definitely focusing on it more when I do play.
I just play with my old Quake clan mates, it's more just chatting and having fun, doing funny stuff. We ranked up to Masters once, I've done Diamond and Platinum because as an artist type, I love doing cool looking banners, so needed the badges. I don't know if I trust Apex ranked to show actual skill, they need to overhaul that system. If I ever make my game, I'll make sure it has a good skill based ranked mode.
I need to buy a new monitor and will do so after christmas money arrives I currently have a 1080p 144Hz IPS 23.8 inches monitor from ASUS I mostly play Overwatch 2 and at maximum settings at 1080p I get 320-330 FPS (I have a 6750xt and a ryzen 5 5600) My friends are telling me to upgrade to 1440p and while I'm at it, get a higher refresh rate. We saw together that 1440p 240Hz monitors at 24 inches cost around 250 euros, which is okay for my budget Seeing this video is making me reconsider my target for buying. Should I keep 1080p and maximize on refresh rate so I can get more and more FPS while playing? Or should I do a compromise and upgrade to 1440p but having a slightly reduced refresh rate (but still better than what I have right now)? I mostly play online FPS. Let me know your thoughts on this
Just ordered an 34" 240hz oled ultrawide, would have gone for 36hz but they dont exist yet, think 240hz is more than enough for 99% of people. Currently on an 165hz ips ultrawide and while i like it i wanna see what all that oled talk is about.
Hello zy, great video just wanted one suggestion from you I want a monitor for best gaming experience specially fps, my options are a 400hz 1080p zowie xl2566x+ (a fast tn panel with dyac) and gigabyte aorus FO27Q3 which is an oled with 360hz and 1440p
I have an Asus pg248qp it's fastest response time lcd monitor and it has ulmb2 so combination of them are so amazing OLED has instant response time but they have higher motion blur compares to ulmb2 strobed or dyac 2 strobed lcd monitor. BFI on oled cuts the refresh rate half, make them dim unplayable dim and at tone of input lag. so strobed lcd will be always better than oleds
Arent theese things quite obvious ? /actually/ and there is more, for fps games motion clarity is very big factor, for this you need lowest possible latency with least possible frame persistance(this is why 500hz lcd seems better even with same engine framerate, yes its actually displaying the same frame twice sharp which is simply better than one time more bulrry) , thats also why 120hz crt beats for fps most lcd up to 240hz refresh rate when it comes hw related aim ability. To image quality later there are other factors like 360hz 1080p(bes with oled due to latencies) takes actualy peak possible raw hw capacity of dp or hdmi cable, everthing above needs compression resulting into lesser image quality (even very hardly noticable), thats why it seems to be sweetspot for now. (as y ou actually mentioned)
Guys I have 350 fps with frame drops to 180-200 sometimes in DM (CS2 game) Should I still buy 240 hz monitor (currently I have 144 hz) My PC: RTX 3060 intel core i5 13400f RAM 32 fb 3200 mhz
Did you actually know that already? Because I didn't. And I wasn't even looking to test that, it's just something I was like "Wait, is that? It is? No way... I better test this properly."
@@RocketJumpNinjayeah it's common knowledge. If you put frames generated by your GPU and monitor refresh cycles on a timeline you will notice, that the higher refresh rate is, the sooner a "fresh" frame can be displayed by a monitor at any given point in time
@RocketJumpNinja Well, to the same extent that higher refresh rate monitors utilize better mouse movement with higher polling rates, this just seems logical to me. I’ve been waiting for years for people to stop saying, 'You can’t see the difference between X and Y'... There are several factors at play here: Monitor refresh rate/response time has a significant impact. Frames per second also contribute to the perception of smoothness. Mouse polling rate is crucial when you’re actually moving the mouse. It’s the same scenario as when people accidentally set their mouse to 125Hz on a high refresh rate monitor and then complain about 'choppy' screen transitions. When they’re standing still in-game, everything looks fine, but when they move the mouse, the polling rate limits how often the position updates on the screen. It’s just that moving the mouse reports at the polling rate you set it to, regardless of your monitor refresh rate or in-game FPS. These factors all interplay to create the experience, and understanding them helps clarify why higher refresh rates and polling rates make such a difference. p.s. i am receiving asus pg27aqdp in few days. actually hyped about it.
@@MarioWizzz yeah see I figured that we're at such high rates now, unless you're actually getting enough FPS, you won't get an advantage. But I know that even if you're not hitting 8000hz with 8k polling rate, you still get the benefit of the lower latency... however, that's not something easily noticed (if at all possible). Combine that understanding with my tests on the same PC with 240 vs 360hz not seeming much better, I was like "Ok so it doesn't matter with monitor refresh rates". But now seeing them next to each other, I see it actually does make a difference. Had I not done the other test, I probably would've been more aware/open to the logic, but I was basing my opinion on unfinished practical testing. So yeah here we are, thought I'd share for others because they might have believed the same thing I did after my videos on it. Hope the PG27AQDP goes well for you!
@@RocketJumpNinja Its great that you shared this because a lot of people probably believed the same thing about diminishing returns at high refresh rates. Your tests are a good reminder that sometimes the logic only gets us halfway - when practical testing fills in the gaps. I hope the new monitor goes well for you too!
I need 500Hz monitor for smooth Windows cursor experience.
Playing solitaire must be amazing.
true
@@RocketJumpNinja minesweeper e-sport; counterstrike is like a child's birthday, when you have to disarm 100 bombs in minesweeper.
Refresh rate is one of those things that u don’t realized makes such a big difference until u go back down
60hz is equivalent to a ball mouse at this point, yeah.
It's insane that consoles haven't moved much past 60hz. I'm used to 165hz on all monitors and when I see the 30/60hz on new consoles it makes me borderline nauseous
Assuming no syncing, I would assume that higher is always better, since it improves your chance of displaying a more up-to-date frame. I wouldn't necessarily expect it to look smoother though.
Exactly.
So you seem very confused in your description. That 360hz monitor uses QD-OLED technology from Samsung, which is now on it's third iteration. This has a triangle arrangement of RGB pixels (though the pixels are a lot closer than they were diminishing the issue, though it's still there for sure at 1440p), which can cause fine elements such as text to show fringing. It uses a quantum dot color filter, and blue OLEDs, which causes it to have amazing colors.
Then there is W-OLED from LG, like the Corsair display you have, this uses white OLEDs with a normal color filter with originally an RWGB sub-pixel arrangement, making text somewhat blurry. This sub-pixel arrangement ads an extra white-subpixel to the subpixel arrangement (this is the color filter) to help boost brightness, as OLED technology doesn't get so bright. These have since moved in their latest panels (31.5 4k/240 and 27 1440p/480) to an RGWB which improves the text clarity. However the downside of this white pixel is that it washes out the colors, it just doesn't look quite as good. (measured in color volume, or rec.2020 accuracy can show this too albeit not as accurately)
These are 2 distinct technologies, neither are there to succeed the other. For you, I would obviously go for motion performance from 480fps over the pretty colors, however soon there will be QD-OLED 500hz panels (announced at CES)
If you played the Asus with VRR, there really shouldn't be a difference because the refresh rate would actually be the same. It's a TN panel, so motion performance should be really good, however there is inherently around 1ms of extra motion blur on the ASUS compared to an OLED. On the other hand, you have 10fps more at the engine cap so that could be the difference.
p.s I would love you to test the QD-OLED, and specifically comment on how good you feel the ELMB works for that monitor, no one talks about.
How does 1440p look on these QD-OLED 4K monitors? I want the 32" size but they only make 27" models for that specific resolution
A big misconception about monitors is that the monitor instantly changes the entire image upon refresh, leading to this idea that going faster than framerate is pointless.
Actually, it 'scans out' the image from top to bottom continuously (you can see this at 0:38 if you go frame-by-frame, look at the monitor on the right). As soon as the scanline has reached the bottom, it immediately goes back to the top and starts again, there is no pause between cycles.
It's scanning out the image data as soon as it arrives through the cable to minimize latency; It takes the duration of a refresh cycle for all the data to be sent - there is nowhere near enough bandwidth to send it all instantly.
If you have v-sync off, the GPU is allowed to change the contents of the framebuffer while the monitor is still scanning out the image (rather than waiting to sync with monitor's vertical scanout), so it'll suddenly start scanning out the contents of the next frame, and you'll see screen tearing. This is ideal for minimizing latency, and the faster your monitor is, the earlier the scanline will have covered the entire height of the monitor, giving you the full new image earlier.
Even for playing at 20fps, going from 60hz to 144hz makes a huge difference in feel, monitor is very important!
Confirmed 20+ years ago with CRTs, just sad we had to wait this long to get back to something similar
VRR allows higher refresh rate monitors to exactly match it's refresh cycle to the amount of fps produced. If the fps is stable and within the VRR range, the higher refresh rate monitor is always better.
that transition from quake to apex was flawless
Totally intentional and definitely not just a lucky cut that I went with.
A faster scan line with a lower brightness dip, creates a more stable image even at the desktop. The high contrast and lack of backlight makes the issue more pronounced on OLED's.
Slower pixels makes the cycle more incandescent like, which can be preferable at lower refresh rates for visual comfort. I feel the difference when I disable overdrive on my 165hz monitor.
I avoid any "gaming" monitor that don't have a black frame insertion mode. 240hz with BFI active, looks a lot smoother and multiple times less blurry in motion than 360hz without BFI, maybe even less blurry or equivalent to 480hz without BFI (and that would require the game to run at 480FPS which is not realistic, 240hz BFI only require 240FPS and the result is better anyway)
And there's a few monitors out there with 500hz+ with BFI, that would makes even the fastest mouse flicks looks crystal clear while doing it, no blur at all.
Its very easy to explain. Your PC cant generate frames super stable. The time between frames are never the same, so all the frames never line up being ready to be displayed when the monitor is ready to "refreash" .. So many frames generated are useless, as a new frame is generated before its even displayed. And sometimes there are no new frame generated before the monitor refresh, so the same frame will be showned 2 refresh time, and this is what you see as "not smooth"
The more times a monitor refreshes pr second, the more likely it is that a frame generated will be displayed and not go to waste.
I know there is more ways to look at it, because of v-sync on or off, but even with v-sync off, there are truth to the way i said of looking at it. But with todays amazing g-sync/freesync, it is stupid not to use it on high refresh monitors.. for sure on 200+ hz
Said in another way, 150 fps can look and feel more smooth then 200 fps, if the 150 fps are generated more stable, and only have a few "wasted" frames generated, and the 200 fps are generated super unstable. This is also why you shouldnt look at max or even avg fps in tests.. focus on getting the best minimum fps, that will look/feel better.
frametimes, 1% lows and 0,1% lows play a huge part in that too.
I just wanted to say that I got the MZ1 wireless when it first launched. At the time, I gave it a lot of time, but it just felt too small and didn't work for me. But I kept it around and kept giving it a chance once awhile, before having to put it away. Recently though, something FINALLY clicked and the mouse feels like aimbot for me in CS2 and Valo. I had to adjust my grip a lot, but I am at my aiming peak currently due to this mouse. Thank you for this wonderfdul creation, Zy, and I encourage others to not give up on the mouse too quickly.
So much love for the MZ1 in this comments section. Glad you guys are enjoying it! And thanks for continuing to give it a chance... it was so hard to convince people it would take time to adjust to a new shape in the beginning, so yeah, as you say, please don't give up on mice too quickly. Give them at least 2 weeks, possibly 3 if it's a really new shape!
@@RocketJumpNinja We need an MZ1 Plus size (Wider) 😄
@@AtlantisTuckz also lightweight version sub 40 g
monitor enthusiasts also claims that you still get the response time advantage of the display by using high refresh monitor with lower fps. (so they recommend to not lower hz if you don't reach fps if you want latency advantage. If you want better motion clarity lowering hz + enabling BFI would do the trick)
I think it would've been a better test if you used the same monitor but just changed the hertz/lowered it, instead of adding panel variance and different display types into the equation. I mean OLEDs are known for looking more juddery due to their instant pixel transition.
I'm not saying your findings are incorrect btw, I'm just leaving feedback.
240hz is cheap these days and the higher response times for non-OLED is also a benefit.
What you are describing is a faster scannout time.
What's a "scan out" time? Is that like where if you slow it down enough, you can literally see monitors drawing from top to bottom?
@@RocketJumpNinja Yeah. Blur Busters does a good article on it.
My understanding of it was that the display is updating faster still despite having the same framerate.
Currently using an AOC E2270SWHN and have been for the past 5 years, going to be upgrading to an AW3423DWF in the next week or so, super excited. Can't really imagine what it'll be like since the specs practically make my current monitor look like it was a craigslist freebie.
144hz is playable, slight delay, 180-200fps is fine, around 200fps input lag feels fine, around 300fps, hard to tell any higher in game, except if moving your mouse in windows desktop at 480hz or higher
The biggest gamechancher for me when i buy my 2546k was DyAc+, comming from a 144hz monitor.
ULMB 2 + Gsync Pulsar is going to be a game changer for strobing tech. Especially once it comes to OLED some day but that's probably far off
I’ve tried all kinds of monitor refresh rates. I’ve been using 144hz for almost 10 years. Just now I decided to get a 240hz OLED for the first time, the smoothness is there but I can beeeeaaarly notice it, we also have 360hz at work where I can only notice the mouse on desktop and not gaming. 60 to 144 is godlike, 144 to 240 is “ok” but 240 to 360 you just need to be competitive to really take advantage of. 500hz is simply overkill.
I'm really surprised you didn't know this already. But I'm glad you're sharing your knowledge and letting other people know.
Forgetting about hz for a sec, the 0.03 Ms response on some oleds makes games feel so much smoother I actually = it to extra fps. I had some demanding game I was playing at 3840x1600 ultrawide at 90fps and going to a 4k Oled at 83 fps was smoother, equivalent to 100fps on the 1ms fast ips. It is crazy.
Well adjusted backlight strobing tech > high refresh rate monitors, and it even saves you a ton of GPU and CPU power. Keep in mind that a 360hz OLED has much less blur than an equivalent LCD/LED monitor, as every individual pixel has vastly superior response times. The endgame will be if there will be someday OLED panels, not prone to burn-in, that feature backlight strobing, since a big portion of the perceived motion blur soley comes from the "sample and hold" tech.
OLED doesn't have a backlight to strobe
I wouldnt be surprised if they announce a 540Hz OLED next month
For ces 520hz oled, 600hz tn are the latest confirmed monitor configurations
@@jon-eg6be thats wild
Just got the MZ1 wireless on Black Friday, really enjoying it
Always good to hear, thanks for trying it out!
kinda regret getting the AQDP, 480hz sounds good on paper but these things on the market with DP1.4 are kinda bad. I'm running HDMI2.1 so it doesn't look nearly as bad but still, there are issues like fake 4k resolution appearing and terrible color performance compare to qd-oled. not to mention g-sync having problems in some games when running 1440p@480hz. I ended up using the aw3225qf a lot more than the aqdp for its better color and stability. once rtx 5000 series releases there will be full bandwidth dp2.1 ports which can run 4k 240 or 2k 480 without DSC, the next refresh of monitors with full bandwidth dp2.1 ports(not the sony inzone ones) might be able to improve stability and color performances.
cant relate, I tried both qd-oled and woled.. let me tell you this, yes the qd oled felt more popping but you can crank the saturation bit in the woled and it will look better.. the ELMB with oled at 240hz is crazy good. and to me the 27inch is the sweet spot for comp(pvp) games. the blackscreen from alt tabbin can be annoying ye but its not a deal breaker tbh. All and all tho I say just wait for a better monitor with dp 2.1 and maybe a glossy finish
@@drizzlydr4ke yes, dp2.1 with glossy coating is gonna be great. samsung is working on faster qd oleds i'd go for qd over woled for the next one
Unless I'm missing something, it makes total sense that a higher refresh rate would make a difference when you're comparing it to a 240Hz monitor on a 250fps game. Those 10 extra frames are roughly 4% more frames.
HOLY, ill be honest ive been waiting for a monitor video from you for a bit now, since the new nutty stuff has released
Yeah I didn't think I would care, was happy with 240hz OLED, but turns out it was worth looking into!
Buying the ASUS ROG 1440p 480hz monitor was the best choice I've ever made. Some boomer shooters like Ion Fury and Dusk can push 1000 fps on my PC. Can't wait until we can see that in real time.
I think around 180hz is where I'm like, "damn, this is smooth". Beyond that is a luxury, but one I'd rather have than not in comp fps.
The specifications of the monitors also matter, they should be the same with the only difference being the refresh rate.
Yeah I would've thought OLED had the advantage over TN, no?
@@RocketJumpNinja The newer tn panels have like 1-2 ms response time while oleds have under 1ms
Thanks, RJN, makes me feel better about getting a monitor for CSGO after saving for many years just for valve to drop CS2 and tank my FPS to sub 100.
Haha you're welcome! And sorry to hear Valve hates you. I'm sure you're a nice person and it's nothing personal.
What's the brighest your room normally gets? QD-OLEDs don't handle light very well, turning blacks into purples, which is why I'm more leaning towards W-OLED. Unfortunately I'm looking at 360Hz monitors right now, since the 480Hz ASUS PG27AQDP is too expensive at the moment, but 360Hz W-OLED literally doesn't exist right now.
a higher rate of refresh, meaning more refreshes per second should mean getting a more recent image?
a higher frames per second rate, meaning more frames generated per second should mean a more recent image?
seems pretty logical for it to go both ways, that being said i've tried higher refresh rate monitors with worse performance due to specs, so can't always say
If i remember good on Nvidia, when you clone image on 2 screen, same rez, same refresh, there is a slight more delay than on a single screen output.
For sure there is definitely a benefit with higher Hz monitor even with lower fps in game. 240Hz is becoming a new standard for a reason. Really to me a minimum I'd use, but higher definitely something I care and especially OLED with proper response time as I can't stand LCD it's just slow and worse tech. Now if we could get a new Quake that is coded properly for higher fps that'd be great.
I"ve always said that and realized it was better, just never said anything because everyone else was so confident about being right by matching frames. I figured it out on cyberpunk launch when I got 40 frames on my 240hz and it felt so good.
40 fps is really quite low. Perhaps you're not particularly frame rate sensitive?
@@keppycs Nah it's the TN panel that makes it feel great. I was still getting 200-400 FPS in FPS games or Fortnite even. Cyberpunk was just terrible at launch, but still felt good on a 240hz monitor. That was my old pc tho, I've since upgraded and now at 360hz.
love your videos man, just straight to the point, fluffing out the video for 10 15 minutes
Talking about OLED and “ lasting” it doesn’t mix my friend, I got unlucky and my MSI burned from playing Apex
do a track ball review, they are pretty interesting
Comparison is kinda unfair.
240hz display is bigger size, hence the distance you can see in movement between frames is bigger, looks like it skips more.
If you were to downsize image from display on the right size to size that of opposing one then image should look similiar.
If you have 15,4 laptop 144hz it looks and feels smoother than 27 inch 144hz, since you can't see all that well that distance between objects from one frame to another.
Also I would add, that if you play TAC-fps 240hz is fine, since the movement in those games is not so frantic and you very seldomly have to turn around 90 degrees quickly. Still the more you can get, the better.
For faster games like Unreal T or Quake I would say 360hz(or higher) is something to aim for, since you could really use that extra frames when turning and spotting enemies.
I am currently sitting @170-1440p with BFI and I still can clearly see that doubling this framerate easily would bring me advantage in those 90 degree turns.
I think you are VASTLY overselling the diminishing returns of going above 240hz.
Sure, bigger number = better, but you're going from ~ 4,2 ms(240 Hz) to 2,8 ms(360 Hz) or to 2,1 ms (480 Hz)
Even at 540 Hz you're only 2,3 ms faster than 240Hz, that's not worth it, in my opinion at least.
That being said, if anyone who reads this wants to buy a 360+ Hz monitor, don't let me stop you, especially if you think it's with it.
Upgrading refresh rate is not about latency, however 2ms is a nice improvement nevertheless.
@slaw1448 what is it about then?
@@MentalCrusader it's about motion clarity
Unrelated, but I found that even with an LG c3 @ 120hz, 240/241 fps cap in ql/qc produces a very smooth image. As long as the fps is exactly double, it's very smooth. It would also likely work with 480 fps too. Would need a different game to test with though.
I would bet that 500hz and 250fps would be smoother than that experience, but still worth mentioning anyway.
Anybody who can run double the fps of the monitor's refresh rate should try it.
At what point is the difference in frequency stops being noticeable?
I'll do that test with the 480hz and 540hz if I still have it! If I can still see the difference, I'll let you know. As said though, diminishing returns, it'd be just out of interest, not need.
Probably at 1000hz.
@@AdrianLassie Way beyond. You need 1 frame/refresh per pixel to fully minimize stroboscopic stepping and image persistence based eye tracking motion blur. And on fast paced games, that puts you easily in the 5 digits range.
@@RocketJumpNinja It would be interesting to have robot who will react instant when he sees enemy like for testing the difference between 144hz and 360hz reaction time...
blurbusters has been saying for years that 1000hz should be around the limit for eye test noticeability
I'd be curious to see your work and playstation once you're done renovating it, because I read a comment of yours under a bad seed tech video, it was talking about the fractal terra, you said a mini itx pc was not enough for your workflow, why?
More info on everything monitors please! :)
For example what's ur Quake & Apex opinion on 24.5" 1080p vs 27" 1440p?
I have 240hz 1080p 24.5" and wonder if my eyes would benefit from 1440p 27" in shooters with far away distances (battlefield / battle royales), cuz the enemy in the distance isnt one pixel anymore but maybe two pixels. But then I wonder if the bigger size monitor would change my skill in faster paced shooters... Such kinda stuff would be very interesting to hear about, cuz we poor users cant afford to test all those different types of monitors. You are one man with experience and are capable of explaining it to us. In search for the affordable sweetspot. 😁
I have tried playing at differrent hz from 60 to 360. Suffice to say, I find it too overkill, 240hz at best but 144/165 is the sweet spot. Sure there's an advantage to higher refresh rates but its meager at best at least for me. It's like the argument of 4k/8k polling rate in mouse peripherals. For good gaming monitors, I always find monitors with the best motion clarity and although this might sound like an endorsement. The viewsonic XG2431 is just the best overall. Even blur blaster rated them very highly.
You sure it's not better to go the conventional way and cap your FPS to 4 FPS below refreshrate for Gsync to work to avoid tearing, jitter?
To me those always made a much bigger deal than potential 1ms latency reduction.
I had all sync tech off for this testing. And yeah I've just had issues with G-Sync so I gave up on it (maybe because I've had G-Sync compatible monitors mostly and it causes the windows to flash/flicker, super annoying).
@@RocketJumpNinja Strange, never experienced those myself.
Maybe worth giving another try, especially with the 540hz monitor you have now? That one has a Gsync module so it should be as good as it gets.
Ok will do. Been meaning to get to that actually, just so busy with all these other videos.
that is the old way, the modern way is g-sync with fps cap, but also v-sync on (which only engages past the refresh rate) and having reflex on too, this should decrease latency because the frame buffer is always ready to push the next frame (see gamer's nexus interview with nvidia "framerate isn't good enough"), I suppose YMMV depending on the game though.
Thats why I dropped dyac setting on 360hz zowie monitor for adaptive sync+vsync+fps cap. Sadly cant use dyac with adaptyve sync. That would be perfect blur/tearing free expierence
Is there a point of future proofing OLED monitor? Burning and all of that
thanks asus for allowing this video. monitors are waaay over priced imo, don't go over board!!
You think a CRT monitor at 120 hz is good for competitive fps? I have a dell crt that has a Mitsubishi aperture grille tube that can do 1024x768 120hz or 1280x960 100hz
What's your take on frame drops? If you have a consistent 160 fps then having a higher refresh rate monitor makes sense to me. But that's not how most games behave in practice, and if you vary between say 150-200 fps, then in my experience locking the monitor to 144hz rather than as high as possible keeps the frames more consistent, and that feels way nicer. But my experience is limited to a 144hz monitor that can be overclocked to 165hz, I've never actually used 240hz+.
LOL this is a very good ad for Asus, they should just give you one man. (Not saying you're bias btw).
I had the LgGl27b850 which was the rolls Royce of monitors in 2018. I have never ever bought and enjoyed a monitor more than that one and all the extra bells and whistles don't have the same impact. I have a 240 hz OLED now and aside from the criminally underutilized HDR there is little to no benefit on gaming.
My wireless MZ1 that I have had for 4 months has started double-clicking on 8ms and 12ms debounce. I ordered it from amazon. What do you recommend?
This issue could be simmilar to Digital audio, were need to use 2x sampling rate or more to reproduce the analog audio?
i wonder if it causes issues like flickering or screen tearing, and what would happen if u use 480hz monitor on 300 fps capped games like Apex, will it still be better than 360hz
How about 100hz monitors? Are they same as 120/144? Because I know it's an upgrade from 60hz. My budget is tight and the difference between 100 and 144/165/180 is 100$
Maybe worth it to only rent such a camera for this sort of side-by-side test. Or maybe a collaboration with one of those slow-mo channels that have such equipment already.
I think I looked up rent, they're super expensive and I would need to time all these monitors and other things with that hiring, so yeah just a bit much for not much gain. Would be cool though for sure. Maybe one day, we'll see.
Switched through a number of 240hz monitors through the years (both 1080 and 1440p) got a 1440p 360HZ OLED this year and it felt really nice, less like it was super smooth and more like I just focused on the game, things just...existed "correctly" almost. However from testing through my other monitors (IPS/VA) the extra contrast of the VA seemed to feel almost more impactful, I wonder if that's in my head or is something real, is that why OLED's feel extra clean? (ofc Pixel Response makes a huge difference but there's almost...black magic in them) I'd love to test a 4k 240/480 1080p duel mode monitor so that I could return back to the 24" size that I prefered for shooters and had the 32" for casual/sim/movies. Really enjoy this kind of off the cuff content though, thanks for always making bangers and keeping us informed!
Interesting. See I'm switching away from VA after using OLED, I can't see any advantage to VA. I recently went back to my Samsung 32" 240hz VA and was like "ok no, I don't wanna play on this anymore"... and while 540hz was nice, it's TN, I'll take the lower hz to get OLED. Within reason of course, not gonna drop below 240hz these days. So this 360hz OLED is just... so good. Like I'm actually happy with this. Can't wait to test 480hz just to see if that feeling changes.
And glad you're liking these kinds of videos! Since redoing my setups I've been learning so much. Got a lot to share because I'm actually starting to play really well again, despite being older, so yeah more to come!
@@RocketJumpNinja Oh absolutely, i'll take OLED (QD in my case) over VA any day of the week, my Samsung G7 27" was one of my fav monitors of all time, the really tight curve just...got me which I really didn't expect but trying to go back to it now, as much as I still enjoy the curve, OLED just feels connected to me, I did get a chance to try a 480HZ TN but good god those things...I hesitate to say "trash" but...y'know what I mean, it's certainly not nice for the eyes. They are fast but everything else is...I'll pass, there's something about these colours that contrast that even though I'm not as compettitive as I once was so i'm not cranking the Digital Vibrance, things sort of pop anyway. I'd be VERY interested to hear your thoughts on 480 vs 360 OLED as I can't imagine it feeling *that* much smoother but I'd love to know, even if you don't end up making a video on it, a comment would be wonderful!
I always feel fresh after a setup redo, sometimes it's just because I got tired or "lax" or over comfortable in my setup and stopped pushing as much as I thought I was, i hope this works out well for you. Being older is just another word for legendary btw, keep killing it :D
@@RocketJumpNinja damn, and here I was thinking about trading in my acer 390hz for a used G7 just to have the 1440p experience
@evmadic I mean it's good, but ... yeah after playing on 360hz OLED at 1440p, I'm pretty done with VA 1440p 240hz.
@@WhiteRobin1 Definitely, as they say, a change is as good as a holiday, it's important to keep changing/pushing. I'll never be as competitive as I used to be either, but I can be smarter about how I compete now, which means I can probably actually become better anyway. I'm pretty confident, despite being more "legendary", I can play better than I used to. I've seen stints of crazy zone type play in my games lately, so it's in there somewhere... just gotta bring it out more. That's what the videos will be about!
Any thoughts on OLED vs a more typical panel TN/IPS? I know it obviously improves color accuracy/vividness alongside motion clarity but is the extra motion clarity really something you notice compared to say a TN panel with backlight strobing (eg: Zowie Dyac or other brand equivalent). Currently got an older 240Hz Zowie monitor which seems fine for most games I play but interested to know if OLED really makes that much of a difference for games specifically?
Zy will you try 8000hz op1 8k on 500hz monitor? I want to hear your opinion,
Got the pg27aqdp, it's great
companies acting like the hz coming out they pocket, like put the 500hz in the monitor bro
Will there ever be a 32" 1440p OLED?
I need your help.. I have 19x9.5 hands and use relax claw or fingertip grip (hybrid I think). I Have VV3 Pro and GPX 2. I rly love both of these mice and cant pick one of them.. I play valorant and spectre divide, sometimes “The fianls”. Somedays i feel better with GPX 2, somedays with VV3 Pro. Cant chooooose( Also heard that logitech updated their sensor and now it’s the same level like vv3 pro - im not sure
The Price gap between 144hz and 240hz is way less than 240hz and 360hz so I'd get a 240hz. Though I prefer other qualities over just refresh rates so perhaps a higher quality 144hz monitor
i see you stepped up ur tracking))
Yeah I've been working on it a bit... usually I just go for rocket and rail because they make for the best highlights, but I keep losing LG battles, like it's a huge weakness in my game, so decided I'm gonna get better at it. Haven't got to the aim trainer part or anything, but definitely focusing on it more when I do play.
question unrelated to video but do you play ranked on apex and if so what's your rank? you seem to never show it in videos
I just play with my old Quake clan mates, it's more just chatting and having fun, doing funny stuff. We ranked up to Masters once, I've done Diamond and Platinum because as an artist type, I love doing cool looking banners, so needed the badges. I don't know if I trust Apex ranked to show actual skill, they need to overhaul that system. If I ever make my game, I'll make sure it has a good skill based ranked mode.
@RocketJumpNinja i see. pretty cool
I need to buy a new monitor and will do so after christmas money arrives
I currently have a 1080p 144Hz IPS 23.8 inches monitor from ASUS
I mostly play Overwatch 2 and at maximum settings at 1080p I get 320-330 FPS (I have a 6750xt and a ryzen 5 5600)
My friends are telling me to upgrade to 1440p and while I'm at it, get a higher refresh rate. We saw together that 1440p 240Hz monitors at 24 inches cost around 250 euros, which is okay for my budget
Seeing this video is making me reconsider my target for buying. Should I keep 1080p and maximize on refresh rate so I can get more and more FPS while playing? Or should I do a compromise and upgrade to 1440p but having a slightly reduced refresh rate (but still better than what I have right now)?
I mostly play online FPS. Let me know your thoughts on this
Great video. Thanks.
Just ordered an 34" 240hz oled ultrawide, would have gone for 36hz but they dont exist yet, think 240hz is more than enough for 99% of people. Currently on an 165hz ips ultrawide and while i like it i wanna see what all that oled talk is about.
Be sure to enable HDR to actually benefit from the bigger color space and higher peak brightness! ^-^
@@keppycs i will thanks
is been a year since i got a 144hz and now anything below 90fps doesnt look good for me :(
Hello zy, great video just wanted one suggestion from you I want a monitor for best gaming experience specially fps, my options are a 400hz 1080p zowie xl2566x+ (a fast tn panel with dyac) and gigabyte aorus FO27Q3 which is an oled with 360hz and 1440p
I Believe optimum tech has made a vid abt this topic
Meanwhile console players:
"-YoUr EyEs CaN't SeE aBoVe 24 FpS It'S sCiEnCe CoNfIrMeD""
i would still get the 240 and cap it 165 as the latency would be less than on a 144hz monitor
I wish that there were more focus on VRR flicker on oleds, its quite annoying.
You need to try 480hz its so good. Since you like 1440p going for that 480hz 1440p sounds so dumb but we got it now.
So what is better if the game can't run over 240? Windows cursor is more smooth?!
I have an Asus pg248qp it's fastest response time lcd monitor and it has ulmb2 so combination of them are so amazing OLED has instant response time but they have higher motion blur compares to ulmb2 strobed or dyac 2 strobed lcd monitor. BFI on oled cuts the refresh rate half, make them dim unplayable dim and at tone of input lag. so strobed lcd will be always better than oleds
And then you plug in a 75 hz CRT and realize nothing is as clear still.
Arent theese things quite obvious ? /actually/ and there is more, for fps games motion clarity is very big factor, for this you need lowest possible latency with least possible frame persistance(this is why 500hz lcd seems better even with same engine framerate, yes its actually displaying the same frame twice sharp which is simply better than one time more bulrry) , thats also why 120hz crt beats for fps most lcd up to 240hz refresh rate when it comes hw related aim ability. To image quality later there are other factors like 360hz 1080p(bes with oled due to latencies) takes actualy peak possible raw hw capacity of dp or hdmi cable, everthing above needs compression resulting into lesser image quality (even very hardly noticable), thats why it seems to be sweetspot for now. (as y ou actually mentioned)
u need a 20 inch crt for the smoother experience
288hz CRT.
I’m a story gamer and only need 120hz. Sigh, please make it more affordable 😢
Ultrawide OLED only goes to 165Hz / 185Hz. So I dont really have that problem.
I'm used to 165hz and 240hz. i can run 360hz in the games i play, but I want 500hz+ someday, but i will start with 360hz OLED😆
What about ghosting
answer is 2b 180hz
Huawei phones can do super slow motion up to 8000fps.
You've been duped
you need properly working 144 hz minimum. mine is almost dead iam losing frames and it feels like 70 hz in fights and fps are above 300
crt is missing here
Guys I have 350 fps with frame drops to 180-200 sometimes in DM (CS2 game)
Should I still buy 240 hz monitor (currently I have 144 hz)
My PC:
RTX 3060
intel core i5 13400f
RAM 32 fb 3200 mhz
Idk i just can't stand it in my head to not play on a locked stable fps lower than the monitors Hz, maybe a habit i got from csgo
Optional
Anything above 240hz is overkill imo.
I knew it.
What do you mean "borrowed" you the monitor? 😂
Im still on 1920x1080 144hz
I play on 600 hz refresh rate 0.01 ms response time plasma tv
0:45 no shit sherloick
Did you actually know that already? Because I didn't. And I wasn't even looking to test that, it's just something I was like "Wait, is that? It is? No way... I better test this properly."
@@RocketJumpNinjayeah it's common knowledge. If you put frames generated by your GPU and monitor refresh cycles on a timeline you will notice, that the higher refresh rate is, the sooner a "fresh" frame can be displayed by a monitor at any given point in time
@RocketJumpNinja Well, to the same extent that higher refresh rate monitors utilize better mouse movement with higher polling rates, this just seems logical to me.
I’ve been waiting for years for people to stop saying, 'You can’t see the difference between X and Y'... There are several factors at play here:
Monitor refresh rate/response time has a significant impact.
Frames per second also contribute to the perception of smoothness.
Mouse polling rate is crucial when you’re actually moving the mouse.
It’s the same scenario as when people accidentally set their mouse to 125Hz on a high refresh rate monitor and then complain about 'choppy' screen transitions. When they’re standing still in-game, everything looks fine, but when they move the mouse, the polling rate limits how often the position updates on the screen.
It’s just that moving the mouse reports at the polling rate you set it to, regardless of your monitor refresh rate or in-game FPS. These factors all interplay to create the experience, and understanding them helps clarify why higher refresh rates and polling rates make such a difference.
p.s. i am receiving asus pg27aqdp in few days. actually hyped about it.
@@MarioWizzz yeah see I figured that we're at such high rates now, unless you're actually getting enough FPS, you won't get an advantage. But I know that even if you're not hitting 8000hz with 8k polling rate, you still get the benefit of the lower latency... however, that's not something easily noticed (if at all possible). Combine that understanding with my tests on the same PC with 240 vs 360hz not seeming much better, I was like "Ok so it doesn't matter with monitor refresh rates". But now seeing them next to each other, I see it actually does make a difference. Had I not done the other test, I probably would've been more aware/open to the logic, but I was basing my opinion on unfinished practical testing. So yeah here we are, thought I'd share for others because they might have believed the same thing I did after my videos on it.
Hope the PG27AQDP goes well for you!
@@RocketJumpNinja Its great that you shared this because a lot of people probably believed the same thing about diminishing returns at high refresh rates. Your tests are a good reminder that sometimes the logic only gets us halfway - when practical testing fills in the gaps.
I hope the new monitor goes well for you too!