Overclock.net banner

41 - 60 of 445 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
576 Posts
Guys i dont know if it is worth it , i am between this or a 24' dell 1440p 165hz(oc) tn panel 1ms , gsync (and yes its cheaper!). I know that the difference from 144 to 240 wont be as high as 60 to 144 due to diminishing returns. But upgrading to 1440p means less fps and bigger deepdowns. What do you guys suggest?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
573 Posts
Only available for pre-order right now, but the Asus is currently 50% more than the Benq (£210/$270).

Gsync and ROG price gouging at its finest - neither of which someone gaming at minimum detail and 300fps needs.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
98 Posts
Personally i think Asus is testing the market with the PG258 - this is a "deluxe" e-sports monitor, would people who play exclusively those games pay such a price premium?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
197 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kalimera View Post

Personally i think Asus is testing the market with the PG258 - this is a "deluxe" e-sports monitor, would people who play exclusively those games pay such a price premium?
I've already put my payment down for this monitor on NCIX, so yes.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,217 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by leonman44 View Post

Guys i dont know if it is worth it , i am between this or a 24' dell 1440p 165hz(oc) tn panel 1ms , gsync (and yes its cheaper!). I know that the difference from 144 to 240 wont be as high as 60 to 144 due to diminishing returns. But upgrading to 1440p means less fps and bigger deepdowns. What do you guys suggest?
I have the Dell, get the Dell if you want to save $, get a sharper image and more desktop space, and a fantastic gaming experience at 165hz. 240hz is more or less e-peen. The difference will be small and unless you have them side by side you won't care. 240hz wont get you more frags or win you games it'll just barely give you less blur during motion. If blur is the enemy then there is no alternative to either a CRT or LCD + Strobing at least until we get high refresh OLEDs.

All i know is i won't ever be going down to a 24" 1080p monitor or a 1080p display in general. The pixel density of 24" 1440p is too good. I don't have issues running any competitive game at 160 fps locked on a gtx 1080. If you want to run things on ultra yeah you'll have problems, but if you're conservative with your graphics settings you'll get the benefits of 1440p and high hz. People looking for eye candy shouldn't even be looking at TN monitors anyway. The only people that buy these monitors should be those who are interested in either smoother gameplay or need it for serious competitive stuff.

If you're in the former group looking for smoother gameplay then you really only need to hit about 100 fps with gsync and you won't care much past that in non fps games at least. If you are trying to play competitively you shouldn't even be running high graphics settings as they usually hinder your ability to see enemies by making everything pretty and glittery. I usually drop all settings in fps titles except for texture quality, i want those to be crisp, and then depending on whether or not i have gpu power to spare i'll turn on a little bit of AA to smooth out edges.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
646 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by leonman44 View Post

Guys i dont know if it is worth it , i am between this or a 24' dell 1440p 165hz(oc) tn panel 1ms , gsync (and yes its cheaper!). I know that the difference from 144 to 240 wont be as high as 60 to 144 due to diminishing returns. But upgrading to 1440p means less fps and bigger deepdowns. What do you guys suggest?
1080p vs 1440p is entirely personal preference based on what you value more.

The fps hit going to 1440p is generally very noticeable - if you are someone who can feel the difference (and is bothered by it) between, say, 120fps and 80, you might not be crazy about 1440p if your most played games suffer this type of difference. You can lower the graphic settings at 1440p to increase fps to try to match what you get at 1080p, but then you're basically choosing between more graphical fidelity or a sharper image - again, something that is personal preference. You could always just run 1080p on a 1440p monitor and deal with the blurriness of upscaling - personal preference on whether running a non-native resolution bothers you.

You should also take into consideration what tier of gpu you buy and how often you upgrade it. If you generally buy, say, midrange and upgrade every other generation or so, 1440p may not be a great choice.

You should think about what kinds of games you play - are they easy to run stuff like Overwatch/CS where you're going to have high fps no matter what, or more graphically intensive?

For me, I typically always buy a gtx x70 tier card and upgrade every or every other generation. I greatly value high fps/hz - even for singleplayer games - and find some genres like FPSs to be almost unplayable at anything below 80 or 90. I cannot stand running a non-native 1080p on a 1440p monitor - even on the 24in panels. I do play lower end stuff like Overwatch, but generally play a wide variety of stuff that range from low to very high graphical intensity. For me, 1440p isn't a logical choice even if it does look very nice. If I could afford it, I would probably just buy a high end gpu setup every generation and then go 1440p in order to get a framerate that would be comparable to 1080p.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
15,714 Posts
So 1920x1080p 250hz is equal to 2560x1440 144hz.... Vram usage excluded
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
576 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by Malinkadink View Post

I have the Dell, get the Dell if you want to save $, get a sharper image and more desktop space, and a fantastic gaming experience at 165hz. 240hz is more or less e-peen. The difference will be small and unless you have them side by side you won't care. 240hz wont get you more frags or win you games it'll just barely give you less blur during motion. If blur is the enemy then there is no alternative to either a CRT or LCD + Strobing at least until we get high refresh OLEDs................
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ickz View Post

1080p vs 1440p is entirely personal preference based on what you value more.

The fps hit going to 1440p is generally very noticeable - if you are someone who can feel the difference (and is bothered by it) between, say, 120fps and 80, you might not be crazy about 1440p if your most played games suffer this type of difference. You can lower the graphic settings at 1440p to increase fps to try to match what you get at 1080p, but then you're basically choosing between more graphical fidelity or a sharper image - again, something that is personal preference. You could always just run 1080p on a 1440p monitor and deal with the blurriness of upscaling - personal preference on whether running a non-native resolution bothers you............
Yeah , i am looking for the smoothest gameplay guys , i want my game come close to reality and i would say that i am pretty sensitive on fps differences and screen tearing thats why i vsync my monitor (ips 75hz oc) , gsync will be a huge benefit for me anyway! I had a 144hz 1080p tn panel for a couple of days , the picture quality was bad in desktop but in gameplay was sharper/brighter and the 1ms brought me a smoother gameplay and more fast one. I could still notice the difference from 120 to 144 so i dont know where my eyes stops feeling the difference.
I am ready to sucrifice some of my picture quality to get the smoothest gameplay as possible but no much of it , i always play on ulti and thats what bothers me on 1440p , in BF1 i had fps problems , i could reach 120 but had noticable drops to 90 (only in huge maps) so in 1440p that could be 60fps , men thats a nightmare.... I really feel bad giving more money for a 1080p monitor and still be at 1080p....
mad.gif


So here is the deal: 1) get the 24' 1440p , enjoy the resolution upgrade , some games will reach 144fps , play the heaviest lets say about 80 and drops to 60?. (i will keep this monitor for at least 6 years)
2) get the 24.5' 1080p , stay old tech for +4-5years , some games will reach 240fps , play the heaviest at 120 and have drops as low as 90fps . (next upgrade 4k for sure)

*i would like to upgrade my 980ti to the upcoming 1080ti but clearly i dont have the budget for both monitor and gpu , so next gpu upgrade is more likely in 1 year*
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
98 Posts
If you want a "sharper" looking game at 1080p, you can always use DSR/VSR and set it at 1440p or even 4k. Looks almost as good as the real thing.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
576 Posts
New video guys!!!!


I was expecting better from this display , the dude clearly showed a higher input lag about 16ms input lag when his non gaming monitor had 10ms which is unexceptable for a e-sports display and the difference from 144hz to 240hz isnt that noticeable.
So for me isnt worth the 600-650euros price tag i will just go 1440p 165hz and give just 500euros!!
redface.gif
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
106 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by leonman44 View Post

New video guys!!!!


I was expecting better from this display , the dude clearly showed a higher input lag about 16ms input lag when his non gaming monitor had 10ms which is unexceptable for a e-sports display and the difference from 144hz to 240hz isnt that noticeable.
So for me isnt worth the 600-650euros price tag i will just go 1440p 165hz and give just 500euros!!
redface.gif
His input lag tool (leo bodnar input lag tester) uses hdmi and limited to 60hz. It's just useless for modern monitors.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
576 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by ruimfine View Post

His input lag tool (leo bodnar input lag tester) uses hdmi and limited to 60hz. It's just useless for modern monitors.
Thats good to know! I am trying to find out from other dudes that used the 240hz benq but even they are pro players they all keep saying that theres not a big difference , they can just game at 144hz again
eh-smiley.gif
The problem is that you sacrifice x2 gpu power for such a small difference, i really though that it could be the future and i love smoothness above all but it doesnt seems like that
mad.gif
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
106 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by leonman44 View Post

Thats good to know! I am trying to find out from other dudes that used the 240hz benq but even they are pro players they all keep saying that theres not a big difference , they can just game at 144hz again
eh-smiley.gif
The problem is that you sacrifice x2 gpu power for such a small difference, i really though that it could be the future and i love smoothness above all but it doesnt seems like that
mad.gif
I have XL2540. I measured input lag. It's ok. It's almost the same as other 144hz monitors. And yes there is no a big difference. What GPU power? This monitor is aimed for fps esports.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
576 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by ruimfine View Post

I have XL2540. I measured input lag. It's ok. It's almost the same as other 144hz monitors. And yes there is no a big difference. What GPU power? This monitor is aimed for fps esports.
I have a 980ti clocked at 1570/8002 that its slightly better than the stock retail 1080 according 3dMark and in Tomb rider i scored 11fps more than stock 1080. Its enough to play the heavy games at 120fps and lighter at 240. I had a 144hz monitor but i wanted more, i am sensitive enough i could still notice the 120vs144 thats why i was looking for the 240hz but if this how far as it goes i will go 1440p 144hz(in heavy games fps will go 60-80 so no that good for that gpu) and enjoy both.

*what gpu power? I thought that you were saying about my card , sorry. In order to play at 240hz it means that you need 240 fps , you simply need twice the gpu power from 120 which is a lot to spend in somewhere that it doesnt worth it when with that gpu power you can do 1440p 144hz/144fps and have a clearly benefit.

As i said before i will buy this one if its worth it otherwise just 1440p/144hz
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
225 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by ruimfine View Post

His input lag tool (leo bodnar input lag tester) uses hdmi and limited to 60hz. It's just useless for modern monitors.
This is potentially not true, you can't just discard the fact it's slower on the leo bodnar. It's still good and a legitimate test for comparing monitor A to monitor B over hdmi, but for a true signal delay result it's obviously not as accurate due to the input. Monitors such as the XL2420 have around 10ms over HDMI when placed in the middle, which matches the Dell as per the video... so unless it's faster over Display Port for whatever g-sync reason, then I fully expect TFTCentral results to show signal delay of around 5-7ms, up from the usual 1-2ms of other competitive gaming monitors.

We'll see soon enough! I hope I'm wrong though, as I wanted to ditch this PG248Q! :)

*edit* http://www.tftcentral.co.uk/reviews/asus_rog_swift_pg258q.htm - It's lower than the leobodnar suggests but still higher than ASUS' other offerings (albeit barely).
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
576 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by justnvc View Post

This is potentially not true, you can't just discard the fact it's slower on the leo bodnar. It's still good and a legitimate test for comparing monitor A to monitor B over hdmi, but for a true signal delay result it's obviously not as accurate due to the input. Monitors such as the XL2420 have around 10ms over HDMI when placed in the middle, which matches the Dell as per the video... so unless it's faster over Display Port for whatever g-sync reason, then I fully expect TFTCentral results to show signal delay of around 5-7ms, up from the usual 1-2ms of other competitive gaming monitors.

We'll see soon enough! I hope I'm wrong though, as I wanted to ditch this PG248Q! :)

*edit* http://www.tftcentral.co.uk/reviews/asus_rog_swift_pg258q.htm - It's lower than the leobodnar suggests but still higher than ASUS' other offerings (albeit barely).
Nice alalytical review , seems preatty good and in the pics actually 144 vs 200 had a decent decrease in motion blur but 200 vs 240 didnt seem to have any improvement.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
573 Posts
Using the recommended overdrive settings to limit overshoot:

Dell S2716dg


Asus PG278q (3 years old)


Asus PG258q - the "fastest" monitor in the World


TN has had its day. Can we move to OLED already.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
98 Posts
Response times are just a part of what makes a monitor look "fast", not everything.

For example, from TFTCentral's UFOTest for the PG258:



There is a noticeable difference in motion clarity between 144Hz and 240Hz in this test.

Also, 240Hz looks much much better in the PG258 in comparison to the AOC AG251.

 

·
Registered
Joined
·
576 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kalimera View Post

Response times are just a part of what makes a monitor look "fast", not everything.

For example, from TFTCentral's UFOTest for the PG258:



There is a noticeable difference in motion clarity between 144Hz and 240Hz in this test.

Also, 240Hz looks much much better in the PG258 in comparison to the AOC AG251.

I saw that , can you see any difference at all from 200 to 240? Yeah thats why we buy this awful tn panels , we need this response times + input lag lower than the ips ones otherwise its useless and the highest g2g is unexceptable you might be able to see it actually x8 times more than lower value and x2.5 times more than average g2g... That are not numbers for a low tight timing competitive gaming monitor..... :/
 
41 - 60 of 445 Posts
Top