BenQ XL2411Z vs XL2430T for CS:GO

[manky2]

Hello,
I'm interested in buying a 144hz monitor for playing CS:GO. I currently have a samsung 60hz 1080p 5ms monitor. I have been looking at the XL2430T for a while now and am prepared to buy it, but noticed that Aria PC now have a £25 off deal on the BenQ XL2411Z.

What is the difference between the two monitors? What would I get by spending the extra £80 on the XL2430T?

Thanks.

 

[DasHotShot]

A 144Hz monitor for CSGO is pointless. I wouldn't spend the money if that is the only shooter you play much.

 

[RCFProd]

A 144Hz monitor for CSGO is pointless. I wouldn't spend the money if that is the only shooter you play much.

Exactly the opposite. 144Hz for Counter Strike is a must.....

Monitor: Asus VG248QE 144Hz 24.0" Monitor ($249.99 @ Micro Center)
Total: $249.99
Prices include shipping, taxes, and discounts when available
Generated by PCPartPicker 2015-04-09 09:07 EDT-0400

Very good value for a good 144Hz monitor.

 

[manky2]

That's the complete opposite on what everyone else is saying. Especially as CSGO is a very easy game to get high FPS and is already very smooth.

 

[manky2]

I also like the feature where you can brighten up dark areas around a map. How well does it work?

 

[manky2]

A 144Hz monitor for CSGO is pointless. I wouldn't spend the money if that is the only shooter you play much.

Exactly the opposite. 144Hz for Counter Strike is a must.....

Monitor: Asus VG248QE 144Hz 24.0" Monitor ($249.99 @ Micro Center)
Total: $249.99
Prices include shipping, taxes, and discounts when available
Generated by PCPartPicker 2015-04-09 09:07 EDT-0400

Very good value for a good 144Hz monitor.

I have looked at that monitor, but I can get the BenQ for even cheaper than the ASUS one, which comes with many features that I like.

 

[RCFProd]

I'd say you're just fine with the BenQ XL2411Z.

Looks like a great monitor and a fine design aswell.

 

[DasHotShot]

A 144Hz monitor for CSGO is pointless. I wouldn't spend the money if that is the only shooter you play much.

Exactly the opposite. 144Hz for Counter Strike is a must.....

Monitor: Asus VG248QE 144Hz 24.0" Monitor ($249.99 @ Micro Center)
Total: $249.99
Prices include shipping, taxes, and discounts when available
Generated by PCPartPicker 2015-04-09 09:07 EDT-0400

Very good value for a good 144Hz monitor.

Would explain why better players tend not to use 144Hz and play on lower resolutions right?

 

[RCFProd]

What's your point?

High FPS and fast response time is key in such games.

 

[DasHotShot]

My point is you can't utilize the 144 FPS in CSGO. It changes nothing compared to a standard 1080p 60hz panel. SO THERE IS NO NEED AND I WOULD NOT RECOMMEND GETTING ONE.

Recommending someone spend $300 to gain absolutely no advantage at all, and that is assuming he is say nova4 or higher, is really bad advice imo.

If he is lower standard that that, it is more effective to roll the money up and fire it into the sky on a rocket as you will gain more pleasure that way.

If he was gonna play loads of brand new shooters and high tempo games, perhaps it would give him an edge. Just not in old source engine based counter strike.

 

[manky2]

Well everyone else agrees that 144hz monitors are great for CS, so I am afraid your point is invalid. Anyway I agree with RCFProd and went ahead and bought the monitor, so yeah.

Thanks for your opinion! But I have to disagree with the minority...

 

[DasHotShot]

Well, one day you will buy a game which uses the Hz properly and love it. Till then enjoy the wasted money!

 

[RCFProd]

Well, one day you will buy a game which uses the Hz properly and love it. Till then enjoy the wasted money!

I'm sure Counter Strike Global Offensive uses 144Hz effectively actually. Any reason you think why this is not the case?

 

[DasHotShot]

Well, one day you will buy a game which uses the Hz properly and love it. Till then enjoy the wasted money!

I'm sure Counter Strike Global Offensive uses 144Hz effectively actually. Any reason you think why this is not the case?

Having used a 60, 120 and 144 for that game and experienced it making a minute difference from 60 to 120 and absolutely and completely no difference from 120 to 144.

I am coming at this from a real world perspective...If he wanted to blow 1000 dollars on a CPU to get higher frames in CS would you sit here and tell him "do it, it makes a big difference", when actually he only gains 5-10fps at very best?

This is the same, by spending hundreds of dollars he is getting near to no improvement AT ALL for his money. To me that represents shockingly bad value for money.

Obviously it will be a little different, just nowhere near 300 dollars different

 

[GreekDude97]

Well, one day you will buy a game which uses the Hz properly and love it. Till then enjoy the wasted money!

I'm sure Counter Strike Global Offensive uses 144Hz effectively actually. Any reason you think why this is not the case?

Having used a 60, 120 and 144 for that game and experienced it making a minute difference from 60 to 120 and absolutely and completely no difference from 120 to 144.

I am coming at this from a real world perspective...If he wanted to blow 1000 dollars on a CPU to get higher frames in CS would you sit here and tell him "do it, it makes a big difference", when actually he only gains 5-10fps at very best?

This is the same, by spending hundreds of dollars he is getting near to no improvement AT ALL for his money. To me that represents shockingly bad value for money.

Obviously it will be a little different, just nowhere near 300 dollars different

You obviously don't know anything about CS, so don't misinform people. 60 and 144Hz in CS is like day and night. I've played this game for over 8 years now, I know what I'm talking about.

 

[DasHotShot]

Firstly, I have played since before you even knew what a PC was (from CS 1.0), so don't insult me. Also I doubt you are "Supreme" rank, I could be wrong.

Secondly, it would make a huge difference to a pro or extremely high level player. The balance of the discussion and the whole point I was making was, spending $300 for smoother looking gameplay is utterly pointless.

It was advice to not spend the money on something which will soon be obsolete, with affordable 1440p Gsync monitors faling in price.

Would you not say Gsync/Freesync is FAR better than just plain fixed refresh?

The only time I argued that it makes no difference, was when I tried to make a point about getting value from this. Reading it back it does look like I am saying it makes no difference either way and that is incorrect.

Bad wording on my part there, I accept that.

 

[Falkentyne]

Hello,
I'm interested in buying a 144hz monitor for playing CS:GO. I currently have a samsung 60hz 1080p 5ms monitor. I have been looking at the XL2430T for a while now and am prepared to buy it, but noticed that Aria PC now have a £25 off deal on the BenQ XL2411Z.

What is the difference between the two monitors? What would I get by spending the extra £80 on the XL2430T?

Thanks.

Seems like no one even answered your question. This thread turned into a flame war over gsync and crap.

There is no real difference between XL2411Z and XL2430T except some hardware changes. The panel is the exact SAME panel. It's in fact, the same panel as the Asus VG248QE, also. (m240hw01 v8 or something).

The differences between the two panels is:
1) XL2430T does not have Nvidia 3d vision 2 (2d Lightboost mode and 3d gaming removed)
2) XL2430T adds some extra gamer profile settings and a color vibrance setting (default value seems to be bad, people suggested lowering it by 1).
3) XL2430T has displayport and the S-switch. XL2411Z does NOT have either. XL2420Z has displayport and the S-switch.
4) In XL2430T, Strobe duty and strobe phase have been renamed to Intensity and Area, and are now changeable in the OSD instead of having to go into the service menu to change them. They are still accessible in the service menu, and the single strobe option is still there.

5) On all of the AU Optroncs M240 panels, gamma decreases as refresh rate increases and some color fidelity is lost. This does not affect the XL2720Z (which is a different AU panel, and 27").

Which to get? XL2411Z is entry level, and you don't get the DP connector or the very handy S-switch. Only get it if you are really strapped for cash. Otherwise, personally I'd get the XL2430T *OR* the XL2420Z (with version 4 firmware, if you can order it from Benq's own webshop), whichever monitor is cheaper, get it.

 

[Joel_4444]

Firstly, I have played since before you even knew what a PC was (from CS 1.0), so don't insult me. Also I doubt you are "Supreme" rank, I could be wrong.

Secondly, it would make a huge difference to a pro or extremely high level player. The balance of the discussion and the whole point I was making was, spending $300 for smoother looking gameplay is utterly pointless.

It was advice to not spend the money on something which will soon be obsolete, with affordable 1440p Gsync monitors faling in price.

Would you not say Gsync/Freesync is FAR better than just plain fixed refresh?

The only time I argued that it makes no difference, was when I tried to make a point about getting value from this. Reading it back it does look like I am saying it makes no difference either way and that is incorrect.

Bad wording on my part there, I accept that.

You seem to be quiet bad, wow you are supreme? Gz to you! Global is easy btw.

And BTW; Gsync, freesync are both useless functions in CS:GO, they even make the game worse.

 

[SilenceFiction]

My point is you can't utilize the 144 FPS in CSGO. It changes nothing compared to a standard 1080p 60hz panel. SO THERE IS NO NEED AND I WOULD NOT RECOMMEND GETTING ONE.

Recommending someone spend $300 to gain absolutely no advantage at all, and that is assuming he is say nova4 or higher, is really bad advice imo.

If he is lower standard that that, it is more effective to roll the money up and fire it into the sky on a rocket as you will gain more pleasure that way.

If he was gonna play loads of brand new shooters and high tempo games, perhaps it would give him an edge. Just not in old source engine based counter strike.

If you would actually know what you're talking about (like you say you do), then you would know that its a subjective thing, not everyone can feel a difference on 60 FPS and above, guess you are one of those guys, cause everyone else tells you that they CAN feel a difference.

Now about the Gsync/Freesync subject:
Vsync - the purpose of this is:
1) To lock the GPU output to the display's refresh rate so your GPU won't overwork for no gain.
2) To prevent screen tearing (I've never used Vsync and I have never had screen tearing once in my life. Gaming for almost 20 years now).
Gsync/Freesync - Since Vsync has a problem with stutter (let's say you are playing CSGO locked on 60FPS but suddenly it drops to 59FPS it will instantly lock it to 30FPS until your GPU can produce 60FPS again.), Nvidia came up with Gsync (and AMD shortly afterwards came up with Freesync) it resolves the stutter problem. If your FPS drops below 60 it will not lock to 30 with Gsync/Freesync. Basically means Vsync with no lag and no stutter.
So after understanding that, there is no point comparing higher refresh rate with Gsync/Freesync, these are 2 different features and each of them improves in its own way.

 

[Suzuki@1473780084@1473780163]

Hello,

GSync is not groundbreaking, nor is FreeSync, they're both cash grabs. There's also Adaptive VSync, which people seem to forget. On the topic of 144 Hz in CS:GO. It will not make you a better player, and it will not make you be able to respond faster, those are two myths. However, it will minimize ghosting because it's not updating as quickly (LCD's don't refresh, that's adapted from CRT's), and helps you when you're turning quickly, because instead of the blur on all 60 Hz panels, regardless what they're marketed as in terms of pixel response time. That is all a higher refresh rate does in an LCD. There are pro players in various games that can push 40 FPS on a 60 Hz panel, and maintain highest ladder/ranks. And there are players with high refresh rate displays, that are at the very bottom. The key to climbing is by staying consistent. Much like the argument against mouse acceleration, which literally 99% of competetive as well as "hardcore" gamers get wrong. If you constantly change up your sensitivity in CS:GO for instance, you won't stay consistent, it's things like that alongside playing more that will make you a better player, not what panel you use. 60 Hz is plenty fast for fast motion already, just not as good at it like the 120 and 144 Hz panels are.


Sorry for replying to an old thread, but basically everybody gets this wrong.



All the best!

 

[solly123]

Unlike DasHotShot who I doubt has any experience whatsoever with counter strike, I actually own and have played the game, and therefore can answer your question with real knowledge, not some assumption based on nothing.
1. Pro players use 144hz as it literally makes your game twice as smooth...
2. There is a massive difference when you go from 60hz to 144hz, and one you will not be able to go back to 60hz from.
3. Both monitors are really nice, but I would go with the XL2411Z as its a bit cheaper than the other which has some extra features, but nothing that important.
Hope this helped. (DasHotShot talks like he knows nothing about the game, no supreme would think 144 hz is pointless lol..

 

[kalvick]

A 144Hz monitor for CSGO is pointless. I wouldn't spend the money if that is the only shooter you play much.

I know this thread is super old and you already bought your 144hz but I had to give my opinion anyway.

I recently upgraded to 144hz and it is now impossible to go back, best investment I got for cs:go. Forget a new mouse/mousepad/skins - 144hz will provide the biggest upgrade for you.

It won't instantly make you pro but hitting shots is a lot easier now and the game feels so much less laggy in general. Just my 2 cents...

 

[manky2]

A 144Hz monitor for CSGO is pointless. I wouldn't spend the money if that is the only shooter you play much.

I know this thread is super old and you already bought your 144hz but I had to give my opinion anyway.

I recently upgraded to 144hz and it is now impossible to go back, best investment I got for cs:go. Forget a new mouse/mousepad/skins - 144hz will provide the biggest upgrade for you.

It won't instantly make you pro but hitting shots is a lot easier now and the game feels so much less laggy in general. Just my 2 cents...

Haha!
I was just watching YouTube and then "Pop!" a email saying someone replied to my 144hz post xD Made me laugh!

But yeah I got the XL2411Z and I love it! The smoothness is increadible and makes using the 60hz monitors at school horrible haha.

 

[Johan Kryger Haglert]

Would explain why better players tend not to use 144Hz and play on lower resolutions right?

All your posts here is crap. It's not insults and it doesn't matter that you've used a PC for long, you may still be wrong and are wrong and telling you that you are wrong isn't an insult, it's stating a fact.

Sure spectator e-sport gaming is also a place to market your product but you don't see people at Dreamhack play CS:GO on 60 Hz monitors do you?
Also since you've been around for so long I'm sure you're aware of the fact that people wanted the lower latency and higher refresh rates of CRT monitors back then too (another reason would be that the physics of the Quake engine was slightly different at 100 FPS I think.)

The reason people use lower resolution is that some prefer to play at 4:3 rather than a wider aspect ratio which cut down FOV but make everything wider on a wide-screen monitor which they feel make it easier to see their targets (they trade off viewing angle for "zoom"/gain on the targets for possibly better aim but less situation awareness), additionally this put the radar closer to the middle of the screen which may give them better awareness of what happen on the radar while focusing on what happen in front of them too.

I don't know how aim is calculated and if the resolution is part of that or not, if it happen completely on the server and have nothing to do with what you actually see on the screen then lower resolution is just bad because it make it harder to know whatever it will count as a hit or not whereas more detail would help see where the edge/difference is. As for bigger targets simply having a bigger viewing area will give the same result, in the end there will be a limit set by the width of your eyesight though and a distorted image like the 4:3 one on a 16:9 screen will of course always be able to fatten up the targets and make them take up more of your view.

Anyway that's what it's really about, it's unlikely having less details and accuracy and it's definitely not having as low FPS and Hz as possible.