240hz vs 240 gsync Display

[paschy90]

Hello, I m a competitive rocket league player and I want to upgrade from a144hz to a 240hz Monitor.

I m playing with a gtx 1080 TI - so frame drops are a rare thing for me.

Do i really need to buy gsync? It wouldn’t hurt me to spend the extra bucks but I don t want to throw them away if gsync don t rly do something at 240hz for rocket league.

Also I read that 240hz has more input lag than the high end 144hz displays? Can someone explain? Or is this bull****?

Cheers

 

[gondo]

Input lag is measured in frames. So 2 frames of lag is larger on 60Hz comapred to 240Hz. Each frame is either 1/60 of a sec or 1/240 of a second. 4 times less lag on 240Hz compared to 60Hz.

Gsync, VSync all add a bit of lag. If you really want the least amount of lag lets take the following example. Overwatch with a 1080Ti giving you 300FPS consistently. Sync is not required since you never drop below 240FPS. Just use a software frame limiter and set it to 240FPS. No VSync problem solved.

If you are going to use the same machine to play multiple games at home for fun and drop below 240Hz then Sync would be beneficial. Also look at the resolution of the monitor. If you are gaming at 1080p stepping up to 1440P would give more real estate on screen giving you an advantage.

240Hz has less input lag than 144Hz. It's the VSync and Gsync that adds lag. VSync is the worst culprit. Gsync however can help in these situations. Lets say you gaming something like battlefield 1 and your FPS are in the 100-200 range all over the place GSync working great. You won't miss a single frame where a glare of a gun in the sun might be. Without Sync your monitor might miss a frame and you miss that important glare. This can make a difference with super competitive play. It's also easier on the eyes with the long hours of game play and super smooth play GSync provides.

The ideal scenario. 1440p 240Hz monitor with GSync. Disable Gsync and use a software frame limiter for games such as Overwatch where you can get over 240 FPS, this will minimize your lag due to no Sync of any kind. Use Gsync for games that you can't get 240FPS and also you can use the frame limiter incase your game ever goes over 240FPS. Going over 240FPS with GSync can cause it to turn off. You have to look at Freesync and GSync and how each respond to a game if you go over the monitors Hz limit. Each reacts differently.

Do some reading on Sync and going over your monitors refresh rate. With GSync it has to do with VSync getting enabled and such and NVidia has been tweaking their drivers as to how VSync and GSync work together. Gsync works below the refresh rate so your monitor changes in real time. VSync caps the refresh rate at the 240Hz. If you have GSync and hit 240FPS Vsync can get turned on automatically by the drivers. You gotta check this out. What a lot of people are doing is using a software frame limiter and setting it to 230FPS or so problem solved. No VSync required. Also if you can't hit 230FPS then just enable Gsync. Also look into fast VSync. You have some reading to do lol

 

[nikoli707]

240hz is for competitive gaming. you dont want anything kind of filter at those refresh speeds playing in a competitive environment, you want the highest possible uncapped fps. gsync/freesync is definitely a cool feature for casual aaa gaming though. save your money.

no, a quality 240hz monitor will have less lag than a 144hz 165hz 200hz monitor, all things being equal. asus wouldn't release a 240hz monitor if it wasn't as good for csgo as their 144hz montior, nobody would buy it.

 

[mlee 2500]

I thought, and maybe you can correct me, that G-Sync artificially tops out that maximum frequency somewhere in the high double digits...that apart from whatever frequency the monitor can run at, G-Sync when enabled forces you into a 30hz-60hz range of matched frames and frequency.

A quick bit of research suggests maybe I'm wrong about the top end but I really thought I read somewhere that there is a fixed ceiling for the G-Sync "protocol" regardless of monitor being used.

Input lag is measured in frames. So 2 frames of lag is larger on 60Hz comapred to 240Hz. Each frame is either 1/60 of a sec or 1/240 of a second. 4 times less lag on 240Hz compared to 60Hz.

Gsync, VSync all add a bit of lag. If you really want the least amount of lag lets take the following example. Overwatch with a 1080Ti giving you 300FPS consistently. Sync is not required since you never drop below 240FPS. Just use a software frame limiter and set it to 240FPS. No VSync problem solved.

If you are going to use the same machine to play multiple games at home for fun and drop below 240Hz then Sync would be beneficial. Also look at the resolution of the monitor. If you are gaming at 1080p stepping up to 1440P would give more real estate on screen giving you an advantage.

240Hz has less input lag than 144Hz. It's the VSync and Gsync that adds lag. VSync is the worst culprit. Gsync however can help in these situations. Lets say you gaming something like battlefield 1 and your FPS are in the 100-200 range all over the place GSync working great. You won't miss a single frame where a glare of a gun in the sun might be. Without Sync your monitor might miss a frame and you miss that important glare. This can make a difference with super competitive play. It's also easier on the eyes with the long hours of game play and super smooth play GSync provides.

The ideal scenario. 1440p 240Hz monitor with GSync. Disable Gsync and use a software frame limiter for games such as Overwatch where you can get over 240 FPS, this will minimize your lag due to no Sync of any kind. Use Gsync for games that you can't get 240FPS and also you can use the frame limiter incase your game ever goes over 240FPS. Going over 240FPS with GSync can cause it to turn off. You have to look at Freesync and GSync and how each respond to a game if you go over the monitors Hz limit. Each reacts differently.

Do some reading on Sync and going over your monitors refresh rate. With GSync it has to do with VSync getting enabled and such and NVidia has been tweaking their drivers as to how VSync and GSync work together. Gsync works below the refresh rate so your monitor changes in real time. VSync caps the refresh rate at the 240Hz. If you have GSync and hit 240FPS Vsync can get turned on automatically by the drivers. You gotta check this out. What a lot of people are doing is using a software frame limiter and setting it to 230FPS or so problem solved. No VSync required. Also if you can't hit 230FPS then just enable Gsync. Also look into fast VSync. You have some reading to do lol

 

[nikoli707]

no, gsync is good up to the top end of the monitors refresh rate.

 

[gondo]

Gsync will work up to the max of the monitor. So 240Hz is fine.

You have different options with the driver. You can enable Gsync with VSync on or off. Or you can Use Gsync with Fast Sync. Or you can ignore all that, just use plain old Gsync and cap off the max FPS at 230Hz or something using a program frame limiter. That's the hardcore gamers, hackers, way of doing it.

VSync has lots of lag so that's why Fast Sync was developed. I guess NVidia uses it as a way to advertise they are better than VSync compared to AMD. In the end as far as I know, and I'm not too much in the loop, you just enable Freesync or GSync and use the frame limiter program and make sure VSync is disabled in your game. That'll minimize your input lag.

Some games have a built in frame limiter. Or you can use something like Riva Tuner.

 

[kevin_dorland]

240hz is for competitive gaming. you dont want anything kind of filter at those refresh speeds playing in a competitive environment, you want the highest possible uncapped fps. gsync/freesync is definitely a cool feature for casual aaa gaming though. save your money.

no, a quality 240hz monitor will have less lag than a 144hz 165hz 200hz monitor, all things being equal. asus wouldn't release a 240hz monitor if it wasn't as good for csgo as their 144hz montior, nobody would buy it.

That's quite some misinformation right there. Gsync is no 'filter' and it adds no input lag what-so-ever if configured properly. It does make everything more consistent and gets rid of all microstuttering (at 200+fps/hz you'll not see much tearing, but you will see microstuttering. You won't probably even notice you have it unless you try 200+hz Gsync).

Explanation: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F8bFWk61KWA&t=964s

As long as you can *NOT* run the game at twice your refreshrate (good luck with 480fps capped outside of CSGO), Gsync is the better option when you cap fps at 2 fps below your refresh rate. Just watch the videos, read up on Blurbusters.com

I'm currently testing a 240hz Gsync panel which supports Gsync from 40-240 herz and trust me: anything 144hz or higher with gsync is the smoothest thing you've ever seen or felt in-game, by a mile. And that's not exaggerated in this case.

 

[nikoli707]

240hz is for competitive gaming. you dont want anything kind of filter at those refresh speeds playing in a competitive environment, you want the highest possible uncapped fps. gsync/freesync is definitely a cool feature for casual aaa gaming though. save your money.

no, a quality 240hz monitor will have less lag than a 144hz 165hz 200hz monitor, all things being equal. asus wouldn't release a 240hz monitor if it wasn't as good for csgo as their 144hz montior, nobody would buy it.

That's quite some misinformation right there. Gsync is no 'filter' and it adds no input lag what-so-ever if configured properly. It does make everything more consistent and gets rid of all microstuttering (at 200+fps/hz you'll not see much tearing, but you will see microstuttering. You won't probably even notice you have it unless you try 200+hz Gsync).

Explanation: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F8bFWk61KWA&t=964s

As long as you can *NOT* run the game at twice your refreshrate (good luck with 480fps capped outside of CSGO), Gsync is the better option when you cap fps at 2 fps below your refresh rate. Just watch the videos, read up on Blurbusters.com

I'm currently testing a 240hz Gsync panel which supports Gsync from 40-240 herz and trust me: anything 144hz or higher with gsync is the smoothest thing you've ever seen or felt in-game, by a mile. And that's not exaggerated in this case.

blurbusters has a page on variable synv on vs off and they came to the conclusion that at 144hz+ csgo environment that you want it off.

 

[Wassup Rocker]

Yeah, on last informations I add the "pros" of Fast monitors (blurbuster) agreed (and also the pro fps games players) that for theses kind of games (where faster the monitor the better), you do not want gsync enabled. that maybe not new for you, i think the reason is sometimes somehow gsync will miss a frame to be more consistent, frame that theoretically (and apparently in practice too) could have helped you win.


I don't know if it still the case for gsync 240hz, you should really go read about it in blurbuster forums and after a bit of reading ask nicely what you didn't understood.


about the input lag thing, i was one of the guy defending that on the internet, simply because i red a ton of reviews, and people like the tft central guy and other made professional tests of input lag, and (not at all a question of frame like the first answer said), they found out with their settings, that input lag (and input lag only, 240hz is still faster and smoother in an other way) was a bit longer on theses news 240hz tn panels they tested.


it could (but shouldn't) be a miss setting or something, but i would actually not be amazed it's not.
input lag, and other measurements of the "fastness" of a monitor have also a lot to do (other than the pixels themselves abilities to switch from a color to an other the shorter, just for information the 1ms is for GtG but for other color switch for now on the market there is no monitor that can make better than 5ms, it's characteristic itself of the TN film and nothing better is available for now) with the little motherboard of the monitor and how it communicate with the panel.


If i don't mistake theses motherboard are not made by Panel manufactures, but buy reseller (i.e. asus, benq, acer etc..). So they may not achieve the best as possible for exemple for precisely input lag. Some motherboard may communicate the info from the gpu fastest or in a more efficient way than other. Or the tester missed a setting, while it's possible I also doubt it.


TL;DR : Go to see on blurbuster forums. And for the passionate gamer that want / are willing to wait before buying a 240hz monitor, I think there is a windows of clarification about all theses stuff that will be fully available in less that one year. Recently MSI announced for this summer the first "0.5ms GtG" 240hz panel. So there is improvement (or seems to) made and maybe it's worth to wait a little to see who is the fastest of the fastest.


For now I would theoreticaly if I was in your position trust Zowie by BenQ that somehow are the first choice of all competitive gamers, and that is the brand that shown the best result about input lag of all times on testers list.


But again maybe now the 240hz technology is too fresh to provide all the answers. Go see blurbuster


Edit : after a bit of reading, about gsync nothing changed with 240hz compared to 144hz. 240hz without gsync it still faster somehow, simply because if all is maxed out (unlimited fps), the monitor can start to draw the next frame on top on the first frame.


So you may see (let's say in a fps game, same comparaison can be done with rocket league) first the head or the feets of an enemy with gsync off, but the image can be a bit "blurry of some sort". Gsync will eliminate this problem, so you'll experience less "microsluttering/micro tearing", image will be more clear and maybe even the experience feel smoother, but for example let's say in csgo if someone is fast picking from a corner you have in view, the guy with gsync off can have some miliseconds advantages on the guy with gsync on. i think it's why 0 pro's use gsync and so 240hz doesn't change anything to this.


But if you play other games, you really should consider gsync advantage on lower fps.

 

[mlee 2500]

Yeah, on last informations I add the "pros" of Fast monitors (blurbuster) agreed (and also the pro fps games players) that for theses kind of games (where faster the monitor the better), you do not want gsync enabled. that maybe not new for you, i think the reason is sometimes somehow gsync will miss a frame to be more consistent, frame that theoretically (and apparently in practice too) could have helped you win.


I don't know if it still the case for gsync 240hz, you should really go read about it in blurbuster forums and after a bit of reading ask nicely what you didn't understood.


about the input lag thing, i was one of the guy defending that on the internet, simply because i red a ton of reviews, and people like the tft central guy and other made professional tests of input lag, and (not at all a question of frame like the first answer said), they found out with their settings, that input lag (and input lag only, 240hz is still faster and smoother in an other way) was a bit longer on theses news 240hz tn panels they tested.


it could (but shouldn't) be a miss setting or something, but i would actually not be amazed it's not.
input lag, and other measurements of the "fastness" of a monitor have also a lot to do (other than the pixels themselves abilities to switch from a color to an other the shorter, just for information the 1ms is for GtG but for other color switch for now on the market there is no monitor that can make better than 5ms, it's characteristic itself of the TN film and nothing better is available for now) with the little motherboard of the monitor and how it communicate with the panel.


If i don't mistake theses motherboard are not made by Panel manufactures, but buy reseller (i.e. asus, benq, acer etc..). So they may not achieve the best as possible for exemple for precisely input lag. Some motherboard may communicate the info from the gpu fastest or in a more efficient way than other. Or the tester missed a setting, while it's possible I also doubt it.


TL;DR : Go to see on blurbuster forums. And for the passionate gamer that want / are willing to wait before buying a 240hz monitor, I think there is a windows of clarification about all theses stuff that will be fully available in less that one year. Recently MSI announced for this summer the first "0.5ms GtG" 240hz panel. So there is improvement (or seems to) made and maybe it's worth to wait a little to see who is the fastest of the fastest.


For now I would theoreticaly if I was in your position trust Zowie by BenQ that somehow are the first choice of all competitive gamers, and that is the brand that shown the best result about input lag of all times on testers list.


But again maybe now the 240hz technology is too fresh to provide all the answers. Go see blurbuster


Edit : after a bit of reading, about gsync nothing changed with 240hz compared to 144hz. 240hz without gsync it still faster somehow, simply because if all is maxed out (unlimited fps), the monitor can start to draw the next frame on top on the first frame.


So you may see (let's say in a fps game, same comparaison can be done with rocket league) first the head or the feets of an enemy with gsync off, but the image can be a bit "blurry of some sort". Gsync will eliminate this problem, so you'll experience less "microsluttering/micro tearing", image will be more clear and maybe even the experience feel smoother, but for example let's say in csgo if someone is fast picking from a corner you have in view, the guy with gsync off can have some miliseconds advantages on the guy with gsync on. i think it's why 0 pro's use gsync and so 240hz doesn't change anything to this.


But if you play other games, you really should consider gsync advantage on lower fps.

Interesting...I need to check out Blur Busters apparently. I'm a little different then the typical Gamer oriented, Monitor Consumer/Enthusiast, in that I don't play First Person Shooters, or even games that require rapid response....nor am i looking for a competitive edge form my monitor.

I play strategy games, mostly turn based (like XCOM or Total War) and just want them to look Beautiful and Not Stutter when there are massive amounts of discrete elements in play, or I scroll 3D maps at very high resolutions.

GSYNC has helped me quite a bit here I believe, making a lower FPS more tolerable and in turn allowing me to crank up the resolution. Regardless, 60hz, the best you're really going to do with 4K monitors today without tinkering, is just on the edge of acceptable to me and I'm looking forward to even a small bump in the future....75 or 90hz perhaps. I don't know that I need or would even notice much higher then that though, and certainly don't want the GPU overhead associated with it.