1080p/240hz TN freesync is this a good buy for $300?

hell no.

why not?

Im hijacking this fucking thread
amazon.com/Acer-XF250Q-Cbmiiprx-FREESYNC-Technology/dp/B07G3GRFSZ
or
microcenter.com/product/510224/acer-kg251q-245-quot

note that the sale on microcenter may end before Im ordering stuff so consider them both at normal price ($10 difference)

>24 inches

It's a monitor for ants. I always see for like 500 dollars off and I can't care less because it's not 27 inches.

Attached: 1557158556026.jpg (1024x576, 413K)

1440p 144hz IPS is a whole grade above 1080 244hz TN. You can see from how they have such a difference in cost.

27 is too big for me

Acer made 1 type of monitor that can do 240 hz, and only enabled it on some of the monitors. However, they fucked up and gave them the same product number, so the only way to find the 240 hz ones is to look for the icon on the cardboard (when you plug it in, it will only claim to go as high as 60hz, or 85 hz, whatever, but that is if you have the resolution set to “1080p”, if you scroll down and set it to “1920x1080”, it will give you the option to set it to 240 hz).

Best monitor right here

Attached: Screenshot_20190715-201531_Amazon Shopping.jpg (1439x2418, 1.06M)

Why?

>TN
>gaming branding
>good buy
Never.

is it proper freesync

>240hz
why the fuck does anyone need to see in twice the speed that was considered the absolute maximum you needed back in the crt days when you could have any refresh rate you wanted?

is it for some meme 3d shutter glasses or something? thats the only legitimate reason i can imagine.

nobody can see the difference between 2k and 4k either unless your screen is an entire fucking wall i am legitimately upset at you monitor retards

>gaylienware 240hz for $300
Where

It's also dubious to claim if people can successfully differentiate between 120, 144 and 240 Hz. What's more, I doubt the exact millisecond response time count isn't that big of a deal either. Five and one ms doesn't seem like something you'd notice unless someone tells you.

It used to be like $700. The price has tumbled to the point where it is starting to be a good deal for the quality of the monitor, assuming you want something with its specs. I don't because 24 inch is too small. I'm on a 21 inch now nland I frequently find myself leaning forward to read small print. I'm going for 27 inch next.

1080p? Nah. 144hz is still fucking great. I'd go for 144khz ultrawide or 2k, IPS.

>1440p

Too taxing for my 1060 6g. I'm better off getting a god tier 1080p monitor.

It's noticeable but there are diminishing returns from increasing that to where it's pointless to lose money or other features just to get 240hz instead of 144hz (not to mention many games are framerate limited or simply won't reach 200 unless you have a good rig and love playing on low settings)

The resolution thing though you have to be legally blind not to notice on a large display. You can differentiate between 200 and 400ppi and you won't have to approach the display from a really close distance. It's not that noticeable with graphics and pictures for sure, but text is a clear giveaway. The only way in which it's hard to differentiate is if said displays are considerably smaller than the average.

If you have the gpu horsepower, that's a good deal. If not, a 144hz 1080p of the same version would do grand (I don't look at monitors regularly so I don't know many models nor specs)

im in the market for a 1440p 144hz but i want one that actually has good max brightness and actually looks good and I can't see that from specs alone . i assume the cheapest ones are shit and the most expensive ones are overpriced gaymen shit but i have no ida whats inbetween and even if there is anything
please reccomend something

does true IPS 144hz really exist?
isn't true IPS always 60 max 75

>I'm going for 27 inch next.
Don't unless you have some of the best GPUs money can buy. For that size 1440p is recommended. But if you're not planning on gaming with it, go for it. But don't get a TN.

how often will you be using it for gaming that benefits from the 240hz vs just as a general monitor/games that don't really benefit from 240hz?

it might be better to gamble on a 144hz ips. for what it's worth i thought my 144hz 1440p ips solved everything (couldn't stand TN angles once i finally noticed them) until i played Outlast and realized that all ips have an insane amount of noticeable glow in actual dark games.

You aren't good enough at video games for 240Hz to matter.

>$300
>1080p
>meme refresh rate

I got a 1440p korean monitor for $300 CANADIAN back in 2013. Sure the refresh rate isn't suitable for professional CS:GO gaming, but I barely play games and am happy with 60fps.

Colour accuracy, viewing angles, eyestrain, etc. Small TN panels are okay, but the viewing angle issues become a real problem at 24''+. TNs tend to be faster (GTG response time, not refresh rate), so they do make sense for 1080p FPS gamers on budgets who are satisfied with with smaller panels.

Yes. I don't think that you understand how display technologies work. Note that AHVA and PLS panels are essentially IPS panels, but produced by AU Optronics and Samsung, respectively. AHVA panels work like IPS panels, not AU's older VA panels.

youtu.be/Kqw_BeFa-hk
youtu.be/JIu5hBTYTqg

Man don't tell me what to do I just met you. I just to game with consoles on a big as fuck TV at 720p and it was fine. 27 inch at 1080p will be good for me as a person who likes to lean back with a controller.

>TN
no, I wouldn't spend $5 on that

what's a good 4k hdr monitor that isn't retardedly expensive? gonna use it for 3d rendering.

Got something similar by Viewsonic not too long ago. It's well worth it! You don't even need vsync or adaptive refresh at that rate since the tearing happens too quick to really be noticed.

Have you ever actually used a TN for a significant length of time?

for at least 5 years, I'll never go back, its dogshit

I can only speak for Siege, but resolution is more important than refresh rate, as pixel peeking is sich a big deal in Siege. Above 144Hz, you have diminishing returns anyway, and I don't think that Siege is optimized enough to run at static 240fps, no matter your GPU.

>27 inch at 1080p will be good for me as a person who likes to lean back with a controller
I don't think so. You can see the pixels.
guidingtech.com/32502/should-you-buy-27-inch-1080p-monitor/

on 1080p 22" you can still see the pixels, I cant believe low-dpi was ever acceptable

1440p 144hz is much better than 240fps meme on 1080p.
Only to go for 240fps is if you are one of those dumb kids who think that you will make it into eSports.
If you aren't in top ladder of your game then you will never become pro, top ladder meaning top 0.2% like being global elite in CSGO or challenger in LoL.

>TN
It's a good deal if they pay you to get it off them you dumb shit. Enjoy your distorted colors on the sides when watching it from a fixed position and your meme placebo 240 gorillion hz that's barely any diffrent from 120hz due to diminishing returns.

>on 1080p 22" you can still see the pixels
I mean, you can if you're eyes are right next to the monitor, but 27", 1080p and a standard viewing distance is another story.

Nigger go for 24" 1440p 144Hz

Anything smaller than a 34" Ultrawide is too small.

1080p should be 26.9" or 27" or text will be too small.
don't even try smaller ones.

Yes

Pasting from different thread.

I'm looking to buy a new 1080p monitor, I've been stuck with a 23" 1600x900 since forever. I would like a bigger monitor, what's the upper size limit for a 1080p monitor before they get too blury? I was looking at 27" models.

Ryzen 5 2600, RX 570

27 is the absolute limit.

Seems like someone overspent for their IPS monitor.

ULTRA MEGA SUPER EPIC GAYMING

Read the thread as well and that seems like the consensus. Thanks.

What ultrawide monitor should I buy?

I was thinking about 29WK600 or 29WK500, but heard they have backlight bleeding. It is for work. No films and stuff.

Attached: 29wk500.jpg (1000x1000, 97K)

get your eyes checked

>it is for work
so spend more and get a 3440x1440