pretty sure I wasn't being sarcastic. As far as I know nobody makes movies or tv shows at anything above 60fps, so anything above 60hz for a TV is just marketing bs, and anything above 120hz for a tv (2*fps) is definitely marketing bs.

Gonna segue a bit here hope no-one minds.

I have an XL2420T atm. Unless there are any problems, are there any reasons I should bother upgrading to a 144hz/greater monitor? I still want to stay in the 24" screen range.

Not until you have hardware that can run games at 1440p, the main attraction of these monitors is the increased size and resolution.
edit: sorry misread your post, no personally I don't think 120 - 144 is worth it

Isn't 24" still 1080p? I was just wondering if it was worth upgrading to a 144hz from a 120 or if it won't be noticeable.

tangyy stop my head hurts

#22
DVI DL bandwidth is limited.
Also if you don't care about colour and resolution you probably shouldn't be looking at a 1440p IPS panel.
Just get a cheap 144Hz 1080p TN panel and overclock it. It'll look like garbage, but it'll be faster and way cheaper.

#25
Yes, depending on who you ask input lag is either the time from when the GPU sends the signal to the monitor until the pixels start changing or until they have finished changing. Marketing obviously prefers the former. They will also use numbers they pulled out of their asses. Read reviews, they use the latter so you don't have to worry about gtg either, you get the bottom line in one measurement result.

@Everyone arguing about eyes/brains refresh rate:
You are analog. You don't have a refresh rate. You don't have a clockrate.

#29
No.

165Hz = 165FPS = a frame every 6ms. Add in the 4ms refresh rate and you have 10ms delay (doesn't include any other input lag the monitor may have).

144Hz with 1ms refresh rate would be 6.94ms + 1ms = ~8ms delay.

So a 2ms total difference. But with 144Hz (unless you use lightboost), you are going to be experiencing screen tearing, which is completely eliminated with Gsync or freesync.

I'd much prefer 10ms + zero motion blur to 8ms with motion blur.

so a few things here. 144Hz is divisible by 24 which is quite nice because certain media when it plays back at a refresh that isn't divisible 24 just doesn't look right. 1080p on Dual Link DVI should support ~200Hz with relative ease, and higher if you have a heavy gauge cable that's 6ft or less.

Now the reason most manufacturers don't do this
1. Their's very little demand, and nearly no games can put up these kinda of numbers, and a good chunk of the ones that can have to be frame capped / ran in vsync cause they don't work a good example would be what happens to skyrim's physics.
2. Power Usage
3. The more you raise the refresh rate of a LCD monitor the higher your gamma is which completely fucks colors and contrast. Plus anyone who says they don't care about contrast is a LIAR it's hard as hell to track/flick to people when contrast is awful.

https://i.imgur.com/gKqKce5.jpg (I don't play on 240Hz just as an FYI their's all sorts of issues you hit after ~200Hz I haven't gone over)

I'll be posting a guide about this within the next couple months.

No, you can have higher resolutions at 24". Also you'll notice the difference between 144Hz and 120Hz, but I don't know if anyone could justify spending $200-$300 unless they don't have light boost and REALLY want to use lightboost.

Yeah I forgot to mention the multiples of 24. It's the main reason why 120Hz looks smoother when playing movies. On 60Hz one frame is displayed 3 times, the next only 2 times, then 3, then 2 and so on. It looks awful. Use anything other than x*24 and you lose that advantage again. Hard to sell 140Hz if it looks worse than 120Hz at first glance.
So 144Hz is the default pick.
Why 144 and not 168 or 192 or even 240Hz? Well, that's where #38 forgot a tiny little detail: Manufacturers actually have to comply with specifications. DVI allows a clockrate from 25 to 165MHz. With "normal" LCD timings you're looking at 170-180MHz for 144Hz, with reduced ~160MHz. So 144Hz is tight, 168Hz is not officially possible.

Of course you can overclock it and at home with cables way shorter than the 15 feet / 4.6m that spec was going for you can get away with far higher clocks.

I believe what you are talking about is the screen tearing that happens when the FPS and input source are out of sync. When the screen refreshes in the middle of a frame transition that is when you get motion blur and screen tearing. The only real ways to resolve that are to sync your FPS to refresh rate. In the case of multiples of 24, that would probably only apply to 24 FPS content such as a DVD. And in that case, 144Hz would actually be a multiple of 24, and it would take 5 screen refreshes, then on the 6th refresh there would be a new frame. 120Hz would work fine as well because it is also a multiple of 24.

I'm really not sure why or how it would be possible that 120Hz would look better than a 144Hz monitor for 24p content? Is there something I'm mising?

Most Bluerays however are 60FPS, so 120Hz may be better for viewing bluerays as the screen would refresh twice for every 1 frame of the movie.

It's not always practical to sync FPS with the monitors refresh rate however. V-sync can be used in most games, but in games like TF2 causes an insane increase in input lag, so much input lag that I literally could not rocket jump for shit with it enabled. That is kind of where G-sync and freesync come in. They sync the FPS with the monitors refresh rate so it is always at a 1:1 ratio, so there should never be any screen tearing. I assume G-sync can sync with media content to sync the frames and refresh rate, so in that case the "odd" 165Hz refresh rate wouldn't be a problem, as long as you run G-sync at all times, and it would probably clock your monitor automatically to 60Hz when viewing HD content for example.

1. It's not screen tearing. Media players should be using Vsync.
2. I wrote 140. Maybe I should've written 139 so it's more obvious. I was answering the question "Why 144Hz, not some other number?". And indeed, 24p content works well on 120 and 144Hz, not so much on 60Hz or 140Hz.
3. Blu-rays of movies that were filmed in 24p will be either 24p, 25p or 30i. Definitely not 60p.
4. Thank you for explaining G-Sync and Vsync. But that wasn't the question. It was "Why 144Hz". I never complained about 165Hz Gsync.

Bad news team.

$1,199.98 USD

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b3ImK3WMBm4

even more bad news
just like every other 1440p 144hz monitor it seems to suffer from a bunch of problems (according to overclock.net)

#35
>165Hz = 165FPS = a frame every 6ms. Add in the 4ms refresh rate and you have 10ms delay

No, this isn't how the average latency of fixed refresh rates work (it's half the frametime), and it's also not how color response time works (which is much more nuanced).

In reality the latency you're looking at will be more like 3+2.5ms or around 5ms.

Of course cable bandwidth and small vblank intervals increase latency towards the bottom of the panel if you're vsynced, but if you're running double buffered non-vsynced output, high ingame framerates will dramatically reduce the effects that this has. I'm on linux and use compton with vsync disabled and it results in, on the bottom of my screen, the titlebars of windows that I'm moving being ahead of the mouse cursor, which is separately buffered from the rest of the screen by the GPU.