• Gosexual@alien.topB
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      10 months ago

      Because they probably switched from 60Hz to 144Hz at first and thought that 240Hz would be similar difference in upgrade, realized it’s not, and now have to have a reason for overspending.

      • aesthetically-@alien.topB
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        10 months ago

        I dont quite agree with that. While the jump from 60Hz to 144Hz was definitely an extreme change, 144Hz to 240Hz was extremely noticeable and very beneficial. Specifically I got mine for only about $50 than a 144Hz, so I wouldn’t call that overspending for a considerable jump in quality

        • bjv2001@alien.topB
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          10 months ago

          Yeah the jump from 144hz to 280hz for me was incredibly noticeable and made the experience in fps games I play far more enjoyable. Sure its less of a boost than 60->144hz but a 67% increase is nothing to scoff at.

    • bunkSauce@alien.topB
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      10 months ago

      As an owner of a 240 Hz TN panel, I find switching to my 140 Hz very noticeable… but only for competitive gaming.

      For instance in rocket league when I switch, my muscle memory seems to feel a bit delayed. My timing is always just a bit different. It isn’t something I noticed until I gamed at 240 Hz for months. But it is definitely there, and it definitely affects my performance.

      All that said, my monitor isn’t expensive… I have that 1080p 240 Hz for competitive, and my 4k 140 Hz TV for all my pretty and relaxed games