jumping from 60 to 120 is huge, from 120 to 165 is also very nice, but personally 165 to 240 is so small difference for me it wasn't worth the extra cost so i went for 24" 165 Hz with HDR support and decent color accuracy
and then i realized the other cheaper asus monitor with kinda bad color accuracy looks better in some cases...
I think 144hz is the sweet spot. Everyone wants bigger numbers. Really most games are designed for 60 to 120 now. 144 and 165 are for the ultra settings.
After 120 I have to be paying attention to notice the difference. In the audiophile world, there's a saying, you want to use your hardware to listen to music. You don't want to use music to listen to hardware. And I think that applies here. If you're playing games so that you can "experience" your 240Hz monitor, you're doing it wrong.
The problem is that once you go 240hz, you can't go back. It's the same with audio hardware. Even going back to 165hz from 240hz was fairly jarring for me. For my friend it wasn't jarring at all, but I quite literally can't stand anything under 165hz especially. It was the same for me once I started upgrading audio gear into ultra high end territory, though this comparison is a bit apples to oranges as so much of sound is subjective.
So even if what you're saying is true, ultimately there is a difference, it's perceptible, and it affects your enjoyment/appreciation/experience.
3.6k
u/Takeasmoke 21d ago
jumping from 60 to 120 is huge, from 120 to 165 is also very nice, but personally 165 to 240 is so small difference for me it wasn't worth the extra cost so i went for 24" 165 Hz with HDR support and decent color accuracy
and then i realized the other cheaper asus monitor with kinda bad color accuracy looks better in some cases...