The price on this keeps dropping. I ordered it used back when it was £390 for a used one and £410 for a new one. This has
24 comments
jordantr
13 Aug 17#1
Seems like a good price. Feel the need of higher frequency monitor, but can't justify going from 1440p ips back to 1080p, and 1440p high refresh monitors still too expensive :-)
daniielnayylor to jordantr
13 Aug 17#2
For £70 more you'd be better off with this...
pheyshunt1 to daniielnayylor
13 Aug 17#5
That's 144hz, this is 240hz
SBIAC to pheyshunt1
13 Aug 17#7
The extra size and pixels (distance from screen depending) will have a noticeable benefit to the things you look at on the screen. Unlike the difference between 144hz and 240hz which you will need specialised equipment to even measure
jordantr to daniielnayylor
13 Aug 17#10
As it said a bit expensive :-) though £550 for gigabyte gtx 1080 xtreme waterforce didn't look that bad :-) it's just a mind games how I can justify upgrading GPU every two years, but not monitor for 5 years for the same money :-)
SBIAC
13 Aug 17#3
I would like to test someone by having them tell me which monitor is running at144hz and which is 240hz. On average they would be right 50% of the time
pete_l to SBIAC
13 Aug 17#4
It is never about the real-world performance, any benefits of which are almost all imaginary. it is about having bragging rights among your geeky friends - right up until the middle of next week, when someone else gets something that is faster / thinner / bigger or made by Apple. You are absolutely right - nobody could ever tell the difference. But possessing something like this sets you up as a "serious" gamer. At least in your own mind.
pheyshunt1 to pete_l
13 Aug 17#6
I've owned both. There is a noticeable difference.
EagleUK to pheyshunt1
13 Aug 17#8
Have to agree too
plath
13 Aug 17#9
beautiful panel if i had the money i'd get it for 240hz in csgo. never seen it this low.
have to stick with 144hz atm though. :[
notos
13 Aug 17#11
240Hz... Is there an AMD card that can pump out those frame rates on new games?
I have a cheapy AOC 75Hz freesync and it's great so can only imagine how slick this monitor would be
southernorth to notos
13 Aug 17#13
AMD's new set of high-end GPUs - VEGA - come out tommorow. They would definitely be able to run some games at 240fps/hz. Overwatch, CSGO, DOTA 2 and LoL would run at 240fps+ on VEGA
pheyshunt1 to southernorth
13 Aug 17#14
My R9 290 ran at above 240 hz, so does my Gtx 1050 2gb on csgo. VEGA isn't even needed, but is better.
southernorth to pheyshunt1
13 Aug 17#15
CSGO isn't exactly a new, or particularly demanding game though especially if you play at super low res to get extra fps.
pheyshunt1 to southernorth
13 Aug 17#16
yeah, my point, that you don't need vega to get 240fps on them.
southernorth to pheyshunt1
13 Aug 17#18
You would struggle to get 240fps+ at 1080p max settings on AMD gpu's atm
Joshimitsu91 to southernorth
14 Aug 17#19
I have a AMD R9 290 and I get 300+ fps easily on "high" settings (everything up but AA).
CS:GO isn't particularly GPU demanding, and given that you would only need a 120/144/240Hz monitor for CS:GO or something similar...
Anyone thinking they need high refresh for The Witcher 3 clearly hasn't understood.
And to everyone saying you can't tell the difference, changing to a monitor like this is night and day different for CS:GO. Don't comment on something you have no knowledge of, you just look like an idiot.
southernorth to Joshimitsu91
14 Aug 17#21
Did you just call me an idiot or someone else? Your reply wasn't very clear and I didn't mention the benefits of 60hz+ monitors at all in my post.
Joshimitsu91 to southernorth
14 Aug 17#23
No sorry that was directed at those who were saying that.
michaeljb
13 Aug 17#12
I'm MLG professional CSGO player, like all professionals I'll stick to my tried and true 60hz panel. Everyone in the biz knows 144hz and up are a scam purely designed to take money from suckers.
EagleUK to michaeljb
13 Aug 17#17
I don't know if this is sarcasm or you are serious...
If you are serious you don't know what you are talking about :smile:
krisosbornenet
14 Aug 17#20
I must say I used to believe the whole anything above 60Hz is pointless scenario but I just recently purchased a Predator X34a and a GTX1080 to go with it. That's a 100Hz (overclocked) ips 21:9 panel if you're not familiar. Anyway, having tried both 60Hz and 100Hz I can clearly see the difference. It is genuinely smoother although I will say it is pretty subtle.
The other thing to consider is the fact that gsync is disabled once the fps exceeds the monitor refresh so I'm more than happy with around 60 to 80fps in PUBG at 3440 x 1440 but playing Rocket League for example I have to cap my fps to stop tearing so I imagine older games like Counter Strike would be the same. It's a no brainer that higher refresh is better than lower. Whether I'd pay £££ for anything over 100/144 though, probably not. If rather have the extra width which has proved to be very useful when spotting someone to the side of the screen where I would normally not see on a 16:9.
thorinsowtercroll
14 Aug 17#22
I've owned a 120hz panel for a few years and loved how much smoother the gameplay became if I could reach the requirements of fps output. I can honestly say there's noticeable differences between 60hz and 120 however, I have not seen 144 or 250 but can't imagine the difference to be as great or beneficial
pheyshunt1 to thorinsowtercroll
14 Aug 17#24
I've owned both 144hz and 240hz. Going from 60hz to 144hz is amazing. Basically the feeling of going from 60 to 120hz I guess. Eventually you get used to it and 60hz looks very choppy. Going to 240hz restores the amaze factor of going up, slightly. Eventually again you get used to it and 144hz looks a bit choppy.
![Fresh Breakfast Meat Box (Using code) @ Campbells Meat [Haggis / Lorne Sausage / Bacon / Black Pudding & More]](/images/topics/208684_1.jpg)
![[Xbox One] Q. u. b. e: Director's Cut on Deals with Gold](/images/topics/208716_1.jpg)
Opening post
This has
24 comments
You are absolutely right - nobody could ever tell the difference. But possessing something like this sets you up as a "serious" gamer. At least in your own mind.
have to stick with 144hz atm though. :[
I have a cheapy AOC 75Hz freesync and it's great so can only imagine how slick this monitor would be
CS:GO isn't particularly GPU demanding, and given that you would only need a 120/144/240Hz monitor for CS:GO or something similar...
Anyone thinking they need high refresh for The Witcher 3 clearly hasn't understood.
And to everyone saying you can't tell the difference, changing to a monitor like this is night and day different for CS:GO. Don't comment on something you have no knowledge of, you just look like an idiot.
If you are serious you don't know what you are talking about :smile:
The other thing to consider is the fact that gsync is disabled once the fps exceeds the monitor refresh so I'm more than happy with around 60 to 80fps in PUBG at 3440 x 1440 but playing Rocket League for example I have to cap my fps to stop tearing so I imagine older games like Counter Strike would be the same. It's a no brainer that higher refresh is better than lower. Whether I'd pay £££ for anything over 100/144 though, probably not. If rather have the extra width which has proved to be very useful when spotting someone to the side of the screen where I would normally not see on a 16:9.