For the USB port colours and their meanings: Blue = SuperSpeed USB Green = Qualcomm Quick Charge Yellow = High-current or Sleep-and-Charge So the blues are normal USB 3, the Green uses the Qualcomm Quick Charge standard (for quick charging your phone), and the yellow port is high current and/or sleep-and-charge where power will be available even when the device is off.
Thanks king! I have this monitor and I've actually come back to this video specifically for your comment a couple of times now after I forget which ports do what lol
You guys need to make internal standards for monitor testing, always use the same content, test HDR with pattern images or with specific videogame scenes that you know are problematic, etc, keep it consistent so we can actually make an informed decision! BTW to answer your question, I'd much rather pay 700 for a Sony Inzone M8 with the same backlighting, same HDR capabilities, NO stand and like 1440p or even 1080p to make up for the reduced cost
I kind of agree. These semi-reviews aren’t very scientific and more reflect the presenter’s personal preferences. Hardware Unboxed / Monitors Unboxed do a better job for monitor reviews-as do Rtings, as you guys mentioned.
I feel like what gets overlooked a lot is the range of G/Freesync with monitors above 120Hz. 120 fps is smooth enough, but a jump to 165Hz means it can double frames up to 83 fps which makes quite a difference in my experience
At 144Hz things start to become less significant. The multiplayer gameplay difference between 120 and 144 is a lot bigger than 144 to 165. I don't even care about anything over that because I can't hire an electrician to install a new circuit, pay for new AC duct work, and pay $1500 for a graphics card. There comes a point where high end turns into absurd.
@@Mr.Morden I just explained why 165 or 240 isn't as useless as you say it is. If you play games around 60-80 fps because your gpu isn't an RTX 3090, having a 165Hz monitor means that your monitor is running between 120 and 160Hz, which generally means picture quality and response times are much better than when it's running at 70Hz for example, which would be the case if it's 120Hz.
2 года назад+12
@@stefafets2 If your game runs at 70Hz and you have a Gsync / Free Sync monitor with a decent VRR, the monitor will only run at those 70Hz if G/Freesync is turned on, regardless of the monitor. You can turn it off, meaning the monitor will run at full speed but would have to display frames multiple times. But this has the downside that you get stuttering and an more inconsistent frametime of the displayed frames. If you activate G/Freesync and "limit" the monitor to the games lower 70Hz refresh rate, you will get a significantly smoother experience. When it comes to input lag, it doesen't matter if the monitor runs at 70Hz or it's full 120Hz / 165Hz. The time the monitor requires to draw new pixels or to swap colors will be the same.
@ I mean I thought I worded it pretty clearly, but what you say is incorrect. It might be a feature of Freesync premium pro only or something, but at low frame rates it will frame double or even triple, not drop all the way to 48Hz for 48 fps for example.
@@stefafets2 I was talking about 144 to 165 in multiplayer games. That's a much smaller delta and at 144Hz+ a much higher rate of diminishing returns begins to appear. In multiplayer games the character models at 144 and 165 are rendered in virtually the exact same spot having little beneficial effect on actual gameplay. Honestly though I'm so used to leading off at 60Hz it's not an issue for me.
I played SplitGate which was super easy to run so it was basically locked to 240 FPS all the time, then after a few hours went back to Quake Champions where I was around 150 FPS, and it felt more choppy even though it was stable 150 as I had locked it to that so it wouldn't be jumping to higher rates, then drop a lot again. I think it's a case of you won't notice it in a side by side comparison, but if you use it a lot, you will notice going back. But is it really worth it then?
After 144hz its easy to argue diminishing returns, I'd say 165 is the sweet-spot nowadays. After that it's 90% placebo and nobody can convince me otherwise.
@@Skyflairl2p i play valorant and cs and at 240hz i can hit shot a lot better than at 144. Its an effect rather than something i can say i feel the difference
@@Skyflairl2p I can actually tell the difference. It's the feeling of the mouse movement rather than the visual difference. - How I know is when I play Apex, I'd suddenly feel some sluggishness and when I check the frames its always the culprit, with frame drops at like 170-200 being noticeable.
@@BIGBAWSYY You're talking about a completely different metric here though. Framerate =/= Refresh rate. System responsiveness is the culprit there, obviously more frames is better, but more hz past maybe 165hz is placebo at best. But hey its your money anyway, im not saying "dont buy expensive monitors" rather, don't explicitly look for refresh rate - it's generally speaking not important after what is the standard already (144-165hz)
With the current prices I think the sweet spot is 1440p 165HZ. It gives you decent refresh rate and resolution. Unless you really have the money, I wouldn’t go any higher, but maybe in the future it changes.
I bought xb271hu for like $600 1440p 165hz over 4 years ago. But it's 27 too small then I bought 32inch last year 1440p 144hz LG32gk650f for $330. It's cheap now. Might as well go 240hz.
@@thor8334 wouldn't say awful tbh but compared to 4k it's obviously bad but it's a great sweet spot for most people. I got 4k 240 odysaey neo G8mainly cuz I have the money and well just do 🤣 that's my future proof monitor
Gigabyte fi32q or the m32q is nice to. Got the fi32q for €350 from amazon in europe. 4k is nice to look at but you need a high end card above 3070ti to get the frames.
I have a 240Hz monitor, but only because I had to replace a failing monitor in the height of the pandemic shortages. My options were low-end office drone monitors, or spend more than I wanted to on a 240Hz monitor, as all of the 120/144/165Hz models were out of stock in the size I was shopping. I don't regret it, but I also wouldn't consider it an essential feature and would gladly step down to 120ish for my next monitor if all of the other specs were right.
agreed. I got a shitty VA 240hz 1080p monitor and would love to change to a 144 or 165 hz 1440p or 4k display. I wouldn't even mind going for a 1080p 240hz again but the VA panel is horrendous. The black smearing is super noticeable and the pixel response times are terrible. Biggest mistake was getting a VA... really regret it because the smearing is extremely noticeable. Looking to upgrade soon...
@@doomed.661 Bruh ,VA monitors with the exception of the G Odyssey series from Samsung are terrible. If i may suggest, fast IPS are basically better than any 240hz TN on the market right now and they don't break the bank. But my next upgrade it's gonna be a 2k 240hz OLED screen , i don't think anything can beat perfect motion clarity at such high frame rates. If you want to splurge that's what you have to buy
@@A.Froster I'm looking to upgrade to something like that as well, hopefully an Ultrawide, but it seems no one apart from LG and some other are making 38" monitors which I really like, and especially not in OLED/QD-OLED
@@A.Froster Totally agree. I made the mistake of not doing enough research in 2020 when I bought the monitor. I was looking for something 240Hz below $500 and I saw one and bought it not knowing the true drawbacks of a shitty VA panel. I have seen people say that the G Odyssey series is good for a VA panel, but honestly I don't trust VA's anymore, the smearing is something I'll never un-see and I refuse to buy into it anymore. Ill definitely being going for a fast IPS as the IPS panel is by far the most popular right now not taking into account OLED screens. I found a blur busters approved monitor and found many good reviews on the product, here it is: ViewSonic XG2431, only drawback for me personally is that its 24" and I cannot seem to find the 27" variant anywhere in Aus stores. But that's not even a huge issue and Im completely fine with that. Right now its out of stock pretty much everywhere, its listing for $500AUD.
The curve sucks, but ignoring the HDR thing, the Odyssey G7 1440p monitors I feel like are superior and cheaper at least in the US. I have had one for over 2 years and other than the curve being annoying + scanline issue, the monitor has been awesome. Stand is a bit much though on the 27" which is the one I have.
I love my G7 personally, the scanlines are noticable maybe once a week on a thumbnail but it doesn't bother me or effect the games I play so it's worth it. Will not be upgrading until it dies or 27" 240hz oled.
@@jaccckky8978 yep, thats the one, i bought the alienware, g7 and the lg 4k 144hz/166hz OC, played for 2 days straight on all of them, kept the alienware, g7 looks sooo washed out, lg was amazing tho but i only play cod thats why i didnt keep the lg.
@@jaccckky8978 yeah for the most part I love my AW. But I also hit the panel lottery and have literally almost no ips glow and no backlight bleeding at all.
There's an error in the title. Title says AOC AG274WG. Should be AOC AG274QG. Tiny slipup, as you got is right everywhere else (in-video text and description) and it's easy to fix. So no big deal, in an otherwise fine video. But you guess NEED to include the panel type in the introduction of the monitor. You tell us it's 1440p 240 Hz. But I'm 5 minutes into the video without hearing that the monitor is IPS. I paused the video and googled the monitor to find out if the monitor was VA/IPS/TN etc. Because the "wrong" panel type "makes or breaks" if this monitor is even relevant for me to consider buying. Other reviews normally include this in the beginning/introduction.
That’s why I do all my PC gaming on an LG C1. 4K, 120hz oled panel that looks gorgeous. Also has black frame insertion which is really nice. Gaming monitors are overrated and overhyped IMO. C2 can get even smaller sizes like 42 inch.
stopped at the $900 price tag. miss when short circuit wasnt just reviewing ridiculously expensive products that are barely better than something half the price edit: just looked it up and you can literally get 1440p 144hz monitors for 300 dollars less. sucks how out of touch this channel is at this point
I ordered one of these a few months back and it arrived with a defective panel (there was a whole column of pixels stuck on red). Interesting to see even a big review outlet had an issue with these.
That HDR Impressions section was odd because with how crisp the image looked from the off angle, you could almost say it was superimposed over a greenscreen. Monitor technology is such a crazy deal now, those prices included.
I have a pair of AOC 1080p monitors I bought from Walmart for $30 a piece six years ago. Other than the color calibration of one of them going off, best money I ever spent.
Intel used these monitors in their ARC Bus\Truck. They are very nice, good image and smooth. They used arms and the blinders. Very good overall, no reports of bad DP from them.
Why are we talking about this like it's new and the "thing"? These prices are absurd, when you can get Asus 1440p 270hz and Samsung 1440p 240hz for waaaaaay less. We should be talking about 1440p 360hz and 4K 240hz as high end now.
The difference of motion clarity between 30, 60, 120 and 144 fps is easier to understand if you think about the frametimes. At 30 fps a single frame takes 33 ms to update, at 60 fps 16.7 ms, at 120 fps 8 ms and at 144 fps 6.9 ms. Going above 144 fps you are reaching the point of diminishing results just because human perception starts to limit your ability to see individual frames when they are shown for just a couple of milliseconds. At 240 fps a frame is shown for 4.2 ms, which is half the time for a frame at 120 fps, but just 4 ms less in absolute value (30 fps -> 60 fps is a 16 ms difference).
Like 180hz is the max I can appreciate. The vesa pixel response rating standard can’t come soon enough. I have a 240hz “1ms” TN but even that’s a blurry mess at really fast motion.
High refresh rates aren't just for motion clarity. It's about latency, too. And those benefits extend to games not played at or beyond those framerates as well.
For those who don't know on alot of these high refresh rate monitors running at a lower hz will give you better color quality, my monitor is 177 but its 8 bit color at that setting so i run it at 120hz for 10 bit color it can also do 12 bit color at 60hz and it is a very noticeable color change
At this price point, I don't care if the monitor wouldn't directly benefit from a higher end display point standard. It would be great to see display port daisy chaining present
The difference from 30 to 60 is like the difference from 60 to 360. So it makes a huge difference for sure. So yes you do want a higher refresh rate monitor. Its the same as back in the day when people said 30fps is good enough, 120 is good but the higher the better and it does matter in competitive games, outside of those 60 fps is acceptable for most things.
Depends on the person. 120 to 144 *matters* a lot to me. 60fps is literally not good enough for me to play many games. One example you probably know is Doom Eternal. 120 wasn't enough. 144 barely is. But at least its barely. If it dips my brain can't process whats going on and it becomes massively overwhelming and MLs become unbeatbale.
@@Wylie288 You have to understand that what you are experiencing and ruining your game is the dips not the 120 fps. So if you try locking it at 120 instead of having it flactuate between 120 and 144 you should be fine. The difference is very small so im 100% thats your issue. As for 60 fps sure its way worse than 120 and 144. If you were used to 360 fps i would understand seeing 144hz barely good enough but if not its a little weird.
240hz is benfical when you actually start playing games that are fast enough to where u need the refreshing. Games like Overwatch and quake greatly benefit because you're getting almost double the refresh rate from the fast moving characters allowing for very smooth responsive gameplay experience
@@4doorsmorewhors lets put it this way. does anything in csgo that moves as fast as tracer/genji ? aside from the bullets no. even the nades have trajectory based movement thats inherently slower. so my points stands. in csgo seeing something move will most likely render literal duplicate frames cause the thing barely moved. whereas in ow EVERYTHING is moving. thus its more useful in ow than it is in slower games.
@@Clyozera bud... Double the fps=smoother image... On any game. Even if the object is moving slowly it will be SMOOTHER. Fast and smooth are two different things.
@@4doorsmorewhors bud i used the word beneficial because of diminishing returns. my points was to explain that its more usefull in some games than others thats all. u wont be benefitting as much for going from 144-240 in slower games. thats all
i upgrade my monitor from 27 inch 144hz to a 32inch 240hz and honestly speaking i do notice the difference in input since i play game such as cs, apex, valorant, warzone. HOWEVER, i would always recommend my other friends to take ANY kind of monitor as long as it is above 120hz until 170hz with non-tn panel. Then telling them the extra cash should go for a better ram, storage, graphic card, aio, motherboard or case. because 240hz probably for ppl who have a high end gaming system and want to bump up all those graphic to ultra max while maintaining high fps. especially if u using rtx 3090 in a 1440p resolution.
When I moved from my old 4K panel at 60 HZ that was more of a cinema display and I moved to a 144 HZ 1440p panel for gaming, it was a huge and I mean absolutely huge difference in gaming. Not only did gaming performance increase massively but it was just so much more fluid
I don’t know how much of an advantage 240hz refresh rate is going to give me in FPS games but if I can own in Overwatch 2 and Warzone 2 then I’m all up for it.
I love the fact that the cyberpunk PC's getting screen time instead of laying in a warehouse with an inventory number (with components gutted for other purposes).
From what i know blue ones are just usb 3.0 or 3.1 or whatever, green is for nvidia reflex to connect a mouse for ultra low latency and yellow is a fast charging port
I'm pretty sure that's for Qualcomm Quick Charge. There was even an option in the OSD menu for it in the video. I think you can use any of the blue USB ports for reflex.
Just do what my dad does and put all your allen keys in a bundle holding it together with a rubber band that's definitely from the Cold War times and when you need a certain size you just fiddle for half an hour to find the right one! (:
Needing more than 240Hz is kind of crazy. Pretty sure that's like the standard among esports players. 360Hz and above just seem farfetched and too expensive for the average esports player. Even this panel's price is too much. Also adding onto that, miniUSB and not USB-C for the remote? You can charge 900 dollars but can't bother to at least make it USB-C? Odd.
I'm basically immune to refresh rate above 60 Hz. It's a blessing and a curse at the same time. I cannot tell a difference between 60, 120, 240 or 360 Hz, which sucks because it's supposed to be a nice experience, but it's allowed me to spend less money on monitors and stuff like VR headsets, so I can get a better panel instead of a higher refresh rate
@@OMGioel I am completely unaffected by changes in refresh rate above 60 Hz. I can tell when the framerate dips below it, but anything above 60 looks IDENTICAL to me, even on a 240 or 360 Hz display. There's no extra smoothness or responsiveness. Everyone seems to agree that is how it works, so I believe it's just me not being able to experience it for some reason
@@Katoptrys Thats good. If doom eternal drops to 130s my brain cannot parse whats going on in master levels. I need to keep a solid 144, and even then its very overwhelming visually. Want to trade problems?
AOC 24G2U 23.8' 1080p 144hz 1ms IPS Freesync bought this for €219 (euro) back in covid era and it is simply amazing! of course at that time I was using my puny GTX 1050 Ti (because covid) but even now that I upgraded to a used GTX 1060 6GB (160 euro) I still don't get that high fps in games LOL! the only games I can go 144fps easily is CS:GO/Overwatch/LoL but other games like Cyberpunk2077/Spiderman/SIFU/NFS:Heat I am just happy with just over 60fps which is still playable! maybe down the line I might spend more euros and upgrade to something better like a GTX 1080 (300 euro) depends on what I find at that time :)
I think both monitors mentioned are bad for that price. for just $100 more you can get the 34" QD-OLED from Alienware. Then you don't have to wory about dimming zones. On a side note, I learned nothing about this monitor that I would not have learned by reading the spec sheet on it at Bestbuy. Unless LTT is planing on becoming an advertising company you really need to standardize your process.. You should not be giving your opinion about the monitor you should be showing the viewer what is good and what is bad. In this way the viewer can make an informed choice as to wether or not they should buy that monitor. Should I save up and buy this thing or should I limp my current monitor along a little further till something better comes out. maybe my monitor just died and i need to know what the min i can pay now and still get what I need untill my finances get betting so that I can buy what I want. That is what a reviewer is there for. Otherwise you just a commercial for me to skip waiting for Linus's next video.
My gigabyte m27q x was a bit more than £400 for 1440p 240Hz and great colours. Would not spend over double the price for middling HDR and built in GSync
Considering i use a 144Hz monitor and didn't notice Skyrim was running at only like 55fps until i randomly pulled up the Nvidia controll panel thing about 70 hours in, i DEFINATELY need one.
900 USD for a 144 or 240hz monitor with the only real benefits I see being the resolutions or the fact it probably has a good ips panel. It can't be just me that thinks that is just.. so... stupid. Its so high priced I could get something like the Samsung g9 neo or other ultra wides for the same price, or get literally two mid range (if you would call it that) LG 240hz 27 inch IPS monitors for the same price. I'm just shocked.
I have a Monitor from this Brand 1440p 165 Hz and I Like the osd Puck. I mostly use it to Change the brightness to Not disturb my wife when sehr already sleeps. There are programmable hotkeys for the osd so that ist nice.
I have a 240hz, coming from a 60hz. I do see the improvement when using Photoshop or scrolling down a webpage and that's it, that's all that thing does. In games anything above 60 looks basically the same
A stable 75hz is all I've needed for 4 years, but that said for FPS games I know I would benefit from up to 120hz. Any more and you're definitely in a seriously pro level category where the finest of margins add up.
i got a Acer Predator X27??? and its 27", 4K, Gsync Ultimate, 144hz, 4ms response time, and pro level color accuracy. It cost me $1,300 2 years ago, but god damn i love this display and will be rocking it until it pukes
I didn't realize how much I was missing until I switched over to a 1440p monitor that supports 165hz two weeks ago. I can never really go back to gaming on 60hz ever again.
Oh yeah 60hz hurts my head and eyes nowdays I just can’t do it had a 240hz benq monitor though for years now. Before that had a Alienware 120hz and man I remember thinking this is like cheating when I got the 120 haha . The 240 though I guarantee if you play with it for a while then step down to a 144 you will notice the difference it’s not so bad it’s unplayable at all like going to 60 from 120 but it is a difference that you can feel
tbh I find the idea that anything over 144Hz leads to any measurable increase in overall win rate to be kinda sus, hell I'm not even convinced if over 60Hz does
Not everyone is neurotypical. capping framerates to 130 makes a game like Doom Eternal completely unplayable chaos my brain cannot parse well enough to see. Where as 144hz is enough where I feel very overwhelmed, but can at least understand most of whats going on. 240hz would be a god send.
Definitely not spending my 900 on this, I don't play competitive titles at all, so I want a 42-48 inch 4k oled 60-120 hz, and excellent HDR performance. I work from home for a small business msp as well, so being able to display up to 4 remote 1080p displays in full res and scale is also really nice.
1440P NON ultra wide is in a weird space right now. The HDR just isn't justified with the lacking of LD zones and their are much cheaper options for IPS at 165hz
Ok I get that these videos aren't meant as reviews, but please at least do the Blur Busters test with a pursuit camera on gaming monitors. It would only take a few minutes during the shoot. Without any objective testing to inform the viewer, it's hard to see Short Circuit as anything more than a channel for advertisements.
So this only applies to non varible refresh rate? non v sync monitors? I understand what you are saying about a locked 60 having to pick 60 frames out of say 100, and not being evenly consistent. Makes sense.
It depends. At 4K in games like AC Odyssey, Forza Horizon 5, and CB 2077 I can’t max out the frame rate of my 144HZ display even with a binned and over clocked 3080.
Yes. It is. There, saved you a video
I honestly think 165hz is enough
@@justryan5697 if you have the build that runs 240+ then why settle for 165hz?
@@CRUMB. money that is another 900
@@CRUMB. you're right... but in the context of the video I don't think you "need" more than 165hz
If ur a tryhard and don’t have a job and all u do is play games competitively AND have the pc to run 240hz it’s definitely worth It.
For the USB port colours and their meanings:
Blue = SuperSpeed USB
Green = Qualcomm Quick Charge
Yellow = High-current or Sleep-and-Charge
So the blues are normal USB 3, the Green uses the Qualcomm Quick Charge standard (for quick charging your phone), and the yellow port is high current and/or sleep-and-charge where power will be available even when the device is off.
Thanks king!
I have this monitor and I've actually come back to this video specifically for your comment a couple of times now after I forget which ports do what lol
green is for nvidia reflex support. you plug the mouse into that one.
You guys need to make internal standards for monitor testing, always use the same content, test HDR with pattern images or with specific videogame scenes that you know are problematic, etc, keep it consistent so we can actually make an informed decision! BTW to answer your question, I'd much rather pay 700 for a Sony Inzone M8 with the same backlighting, same HDR capabilities, NO stand and like 1440p or even 1080p to make up for the reduced cost
Yes i think ltt lab will do this. Short circuit is primarly unboxing and initial impressions.
That's what RTings and/or the upcoming Lab data dumps are for, you should always cross-reference data across multiple places anyways.
I kind of agree. These semi-reviews aren’t very scientific and more reflect the presenter’s personal preferences.
Hardware Unboxed / Monitors Unboxed do a better job for monitor reviews-as do Rtings, as you guys mentioned.
ShortCircuit is always first impressions, not a full review.
This isn’t GamersNexus or Hardware Unboxed mate, it’s just ltt
I feel like what gets overlooked a lot is the range of G/Freesync with monitors above 120Hz. 120 fps is smooth enough, but a jump to 165Hz means it can double frames up to 83 fps which makes quite a difference in my experience
At 144Hz things start to become less significant. The multiplayer gameplay difference between 120 and 144 is a lot bigger than 144 to 165. I don't even care about anything over that because I can't hire an electrician to install a new circuit, pay for new AC duct work, and pay $1500 for a graphics card. There comes a point where high end turns into absurd.
@@Mr.Morden I just explained why 165 or 240 isn't as useless as you say it is. If you play games around 60-80 fps because your gpu isn't an RTX 3090, having a 165Hz monitor means that your monitor is running between 120 and 160Hz, which generally means picture quality and response times are much better than when it's running at 70Hz for example, which would be the case if it's 120Hz.
@@stefafets2 If your game runs at 70Hz and you have a Gsync / Free Sync monitor with a decent VRR, the monitor will only run at those 70Hz if G/Freesync is turned on, regardless of the monitor.
You can turn it off, meaning the monitor will run at full speed but would have to display frames multiple times. But this has the downside that you get stuttering and an more inconsistent frametime of the displayed frames.
If you activate G/Freesync and "limit" the monitor to the games lower 70Hz refresh rate, you will get a significantly smoother experience. When it comes to input lag, it doesen't matter if the monitor runs at 70Hz or it's full 120Hz / 165Hz. The time the monitor requires to draw new pixels or to swap colors will be the same.
@ I mean I thought I worded it pretty clearly, but what you say is incorrect. It might be a feature of Freesync premium pro only or something, but at low frame rates it will frame double or even triple, not drop all the way to 48Hz for 48 fps for example.
@@stefafets2 I was talking about 144 to 165 in multiplayer games. That's a much smaller delta and at 144Hz+ a much higher rate of diminishing returns begins to appear. In multiplayer games the character models at 144 and 165 are rendered in virtually the exact same spot having little beneficial effect on actual gameplay. Honestly though I'm so used to leading off at 60Hz it's not an issue for me.
I've never noticed much visually going from 165 to 240, but I can definitely feel a difference in inputs. Playing siege and csgo for reference
I played SplitGate which was super easy to run so it was basically locked to 240 FPS all the time, then after a few hours went back to Quake Champions where I was around 150 FPS, and it felt more choppy even though it was stable 150 as I had locked it to that so it wouldn't be jumping to higher rates, then drop a lot again. I think it's a case of you won't notice it in a side by side comparison, but if you use it a lot, you will notice going back. But is it really worth it then?
After 144hz its easy to argue diminishing returns, I'd say 165 is the sweet-spot nowadays. After that it's 90% placebo and nobody can convince me otherwise.
@@Skyflairl2p i play valorant and cs and at 240hz i can hit shot a lot better than at 144. Its an effect rather than something i can say i feel the difference
@@Skyflairl2p I can actually tell the difference. It's the feeling of the mouse movement rather than the visual difference. - How I know is when I play Apex, I'd suddenly feel some sluggishness and when I check the frames its always the culprit, with frame drops at like 170-200 being noticeable.
@@BIGBAWSYY You're talking about a completely different metric here though. Framerate =/= Refresh rate. System responsiveness is the culprit there, obviously more frames is better, but more hz past maybe 165hz is placebo at best.
But hey its your money anyway, im not saying "dont buy expensive monitors" rather, don't explicitly look for refresh rate - it's generally speaking not important after what is the standard already (144-165hz)
Can you guys check out more “great value for the price” products?
YEAH MORE BFB CON
With the current prices I think the sweet spot is 1440p 165HZ.
It gives you decent refresh rate and resolution. Unless you really have the money, I wouldn’t go any higher, but maybe in the future it changes.
I bought xb271hu for like $600 1440p 165hz over 4 years ago. But it's 27 too small then I bought 32inch last year 1440p 144hz LG32gk650f for $330. It's cheap now. Might as well go 240hz.
some 1440 165 are the same price as the samsung odyssey line.. the G7 is a very good price for 1440 240. far better then this aoc one
1440 p is awful imo, went for the 4K 144hz 28 inch odeyssy and it’s shocking how sharp it is next to my 27gl850
@@thor8334 wouldn't say awful tbh but compared to 4k it's obviously bad but it's a great sweet spot for most people. I got 4k 240 odysaey neo G8mainly cuz I have the money and well just do 🤣 that's my future proof monitor
Gigabyte fi32q or the m32q is nice to. Got the fi32q for €350 from amazon in europe. 4k is nice to look at but you need a high end card above 3070ti to get the frames.
How does Jackery not have Halloween-themed ads this month with Jackery-o-lanterns? They've already got the color scheme going for 'em.
I have a 240Hz monitor, but only because I had to replace a failing monitor in the height of the pandemic shortages. My options were low-end office drone monitors, or spend more than I wanted to on a 240Hz monitor, as all of the 120/144/165Hz models were out of stock in the size I was shopping. I don't regret it, but I also wouldn't consider it an essential feature and would gladly step down to 120ish for my next monitor if all of the other specs were right.
agreed. I got a shitty VA 240hz 1080p monitor and would love to change to a 144 or 165 hz 1440p or 4k display. I wouldn't even mind going for a 1080p 240hz again but the VA panel is horrendous. The black smearing is super noticeable and the pixel response times are terrible. Biggest mistake was getting a VA... really regret it because the smearing is extremely noticeable. Looking to upgrade soon...
@@doomed.661 Bruh ,VA monitors with the exception of the G Odyssey series from Samsung are terrible. If i may suggest, fast IPS are basically better than any 240hz TN on the market right now and they don't break the bank. But my next upgrade it's gonna be a 2k 240hz OLED screen , i don't think anything can beat perfect motion clarity at such high frame rates. If you want to splurge that's what you have to buy
@@A.Froster I'm looking to upgrade to something like that as well, hopefully an Ultrawide, but it seems no one apart from LG and some other are making 38" monitors which I really like, and especially not in OLED/QD-OLED
@@A.Froster Totally agree. I made the mistake of not doing enough research in 2020 when I bought the monitor. I was looking for something 240Hz below $500 and I saw one and bought it not knowing the true drawbacks of a shitty VA panel. I have seen people say that the G Odyssey series is good for a VA panel, but honestly I don't trust VA's anymore, the smearing is something I'll never un-see and I refuse to buy into it anymore. Ill definitely being going for a fast IPS as the IPS panel is by far the most popular right now not taking into account OLED screens. I found a blur busters approved monitor and found many good reviews on the product, here it is: ViewSonic XG2431, only drawback for me personally is that its 24" and I cannot seem to find the 27" variant anywhere in Aus stores. But that's not even a huge issue and Im completely fine with that. Right now its out of stock pretty much everywhere, its listing for $500AUD.
I might place a preorder around Christmas time to see if it drops in price.
If I had to choose between 10-bit 144 Hz vs 8-bit 240 Hz, I would take 10-bit color any day.
Without a shadow of a doubt, I'd do the same. It makes for a far more well rounded package.
@KML III Lovely, thank you very much.
hdr is useless
The inzone is the obvious pick between the two. Bad stands (and it is most certainly bad) can be worked around without much trouble
Yeah you can get a monitor stand using vesa mounts for like $20 on Amazon
The Nerdforge PC in the background is awesome!!
The curve sucks, but ignoring the HDR thing, the Odyssey G7 1440p monitors I feel like are superior and cheaper at least in the US. I have had one for over 2 years and other than the curve being annoying + scanline issue, the monitor has been awesome. Stand is a bit much though on the 27" which is the one I have.
I love my G7 personally, the scanlines are noticable maybe once a week on a thumbnail but it doesn't bother me or effect the games I play so it's worth it. Will not be upgrading until it dies or 27" 240hz oled.
Just buy aw2721d when discount
@@jaccckky8978 yep, thats the one, i bought the alienware, g7 and the lg 4k 144hz/166hz OC, played for 2 days straight on all of them, kept the alienware, g7 looks sooo washed out, lg was amazing tho but i only play cod thats why i didnt keep the lg.
Love my g5 34" curved not a single issue
@@jaccckky8978 yeah for the most part I love my AW. But I also hit the panel lottery and have literally almost no ips glow and no backlight bleeding at all.
had to check my play speed settings. he sounds like he just drank 5 cups of coffee and had somewhere to else to go to.
There's an error in the title. Title says AOC AG274WG. Should be AOC AG274QG.
Tiny slipup, as you got is right everywhere else (in-video text and description) and it's easy to fix. So no big deal, in an otherwise fine video.
But you guess NEED to include the panel type in the introduction of the monitor. You tell us it's 1440p 240 Hz. But I'm 5 minutes into the video without hearing that the monitor is IPS. I paused the video and googled the monitor to find out if the monitor was VA/IPS/TN etc.
Because the "wrong" panel type "makes or breaks" if this monitor is even relevant for me to consider buying. Other reviews normally include this in the beginning/introduction.
144hz for me is more than enough. at this point what i really need is better panel tech, rather than higher resolution and refreshrate.
That’s why I do all my PC gaming on an LG C1. 4K, 120hz oled panel that looks gorgeous. Also has black frame insertion which is really nice. Gaming monitors are overrated and overhyped IMO.
C2 can get even smaller sizes like 42 inch.
That's why I'm only considering mini-LED screens now...
stopped at the $900 price tag. miss when short circuit wasnt just reviewing ridiculously expensive products that are barely better than something half the price
edit: just looked it up and you can literally get 1440p 144hz monitors for 300 dollars less. sucks how out of touch this channel is at this point
yeah this is true, like who is gonna buy this? it's just really overpriced even compared to other 27 inch 1440p monitors
There are also great 240Hz monitors with less than half the price.
@@TheDestroyerPlays I checked and you can literally get 240hz 1440p for 600 dollars
They're sponsored, they only do 'reviews' of products that companies send them, maybe not always pay them but still
@@filedotnix that's still a lot! i got mine for 230 euros, its 1080p tho but if all you want is 240hz then it's there
I ordered one of these a few months back and it arrived with a defective panel (there was a whole column of pixels stuck on red). Interesting to see even a big review outlet had an issue with these.
That HDR Impressions section was odd because with how crisp the image looked from the off angle, you could almost say it was superimposed over a greenscreen. Monitor technology is such a crazy deal now, those prices included.
I have a pair of AOC 1080p monitors I bought from Walmart for $30 a piece six years ago. Other than the color calibration of one of them going off, best money I ever spent.
Intel used these monitors in their ARC Bus\Truck. They are very nice, good image and smooth. They used arms and the blinders. Very good overall, no reports of bad DP from them.
Suggestion: PLEASE mention the panel type (IPS/VA). This is one of the most important specs and belongs in every monitor review.
Curved panels are VA. Flat panels are IPS. This is a general rule of thumb. So id say it’s IPS
Why are we talking about this like it's new and the "thing"? These prices are absurd, when you can get Asus 1440p 270hz and Samsung 1440p 240hz for waaaaaay less.
We should be talking about 1440p 360hz and 4K 240hz as high end now.
Surprised they didn't review the 274qzm. It's the same 1440p 240hz but has hdr 1000 instead of 600.
The difference of motion clarity between 30, 60, 120 and 144 fps is easier to understand if you think about the frametimes. At 30 fps a single frame takes 33 ms to update, at 60 fps 16.7 ms, at 120 fps 8 ms and at 144 fps 6.9 ms. Going above 144 fps you are reaching the point of diminishing results just because human perception starts to limit your ability to see individual frames when they are shown for just a couple of milliseconds. At 240 fps a frame is shown for 4.2 ms, which is half the time for a frame at 120 fps, but just 4 ms less in absolute value (30 fps -> 60 fps is a 16 ms difference).
Like 180hz is the max I can appreciate.
The vesa pixel response rating standard can’t come soon enough. I have a 240hz “1ms” TN but even that’s a blurry mess at really fast motion.
I have a 1440p and its 165hz and it's great price for performance
Agreed. I'm using ultra wide 1440p 165hz, even my 11 year old daughter has had 1440p 165hz Acer Predator for 5 years now
High refresh rates aren't just for motion clarity. It's about latency, too. And those benefits extend to games not played at or beyond those framerates as well.
For those who don't know on alot of these high refresh rate monitors running at a lower hz will give you better color quality, my monitor is 177 but its 8 bit color at that setting so i run it at 120hz for 10 bit color it can also do 12 bit color at 60hz and it is a very noticeable color change
everyone talking about high refreshrate and 4K. and here i am with my old 1080p 60hz monitor, happy as ever
Thanks Lew from Unbox Therapy!
At this price point, I don't care if the monitor wouldn't directly benefit from a higher end display point standard. It would be great to see display port daisy chaining present
Yellow usb is ussually charge/sleep and charge. Green is qualcomm quick charge if I'm not mistaken
Yep, I think you're right.
The difference from 30 to 60 is like the difference from 60 to 360. So it makes a huge difference for sure. So yes you do want a higher refresh rate monitor. Its the same as back in the day when people said 30fps is good enough, 120 is good but the higher the better and it does matter in competitive games, outside of those 60 fps is acceptable for most things.
Depends on the person. 120 to 144 *matters* a lot to me.
60fps is literally not good enough for me to play many games. One example you probably know is Doom Eternal. 120 wasn't enough. 144 barely is. But at least its barely. If it dips my brain can't process whats going on and it becomes massively overwhelming and MLs become unbeatbale.
@@Wylie288 You have to understand that what you are experiencing and ruining your game is the dips not the 120 fps. So if you try locking it at 120 instead of having it flactuate between 120 and 144 you should be fine. The difference is very small so im 100% thats your issue. As for 60 fps sure its way worse than 120 and 144. If you were used to 360 fps i would understand seeing 144hz barely good enough but if not its a little weird.
240hz is benfical when you actually start playing games that are fast enough to where u need the refreshing. Games like Overwatch and quake greatly benefit because you're getting almost double the refresh rate from the fast moving characters allowing for very smooth responsive gameplay experience
Every game is the same, when you double the fps you get smoother gameplay.
@@4doorsmorewhors lets put it this way. does anything in csgo that moves as fast as tracer/genji ? aside from the bullets no. even the nades have trajectory based movement thats inherently slower. so my points stands. in csgo seeing something move will most likely render literal duplicate frames cause the thing barely moved. whereas in ow EVERYTHING is moving. thus its more useful in ow than it is in slower games.
@@Clyozera bud... Double the fps=smoother image... On any game. Even if the object is moving slowly it will be SMOOTHER. Fast and smooth are two different things.
@@Clyozera The reason people buy 240hz displays is to have a SMOOTHER image. Not to play csgo.
@@4doorsmorewhors bud i used the word beneficial because of diminishing returns. my points was to explain that its more usefull in some games than others thats all. u wont be benefitting as much for going from 144-240 in slower games. thats all
i upgrade my monitor from 27 inch 144hz to a 32inch 240hz and honestly speaking i do notice the difference in input since i play game such as cs, apex, valorant, warzone. HOWEVER, i would always recommend my other friends to take ANY kind of monitor as long as it is above 120hz until 170hz with non-tn panel. Then telling them the extra cash should go for a better ram, storage, graphic card, aio, motherboard or case.
because 240hz probably for ppl who have a high end gaming system and want to bump up all those graphic to ultra max while maintaining high fps. especially if u using rtx 3090 in a 1440p resolution.
When I moved from my old 4K panel at 60 HZ that was more of a cinema display and I moved to a 144 HZ 1440p panel for gaming, it was a huge and I mean absolutely huge difference in gaming. Not only did gaming performance increase massively but it was just so much more fluid
I don’t know how much of an advantage 240hz refresh rate is going to give me in FPS games but if I can own in Overwatch 2 and Warzone 2 then I’m all up for it.
I love the fact that the cyberpunk PC's getting screen time instead of laying in a warehouse with an inventory number (with components gutted for other purposes).
gonna stick with my 27" odyssey G7 until 2nd or 3rd gen QD-OLED panels
Small number of dimming zones can be worse than 1, when going over with mouse and you see areas lighting up so clearly
Those external control pucks are a godsend for a multi-monitor setup, because the control nipple is too far from the bottom of the monitor.
Headphone stand on the side is a pretty neat feature... until it breaks...
Yellow is usually high powered and green usually means faster data (3.1) vs a normal (blue) usb port
No, green is Qualcomm Quick Charge, and yellow is indeed high current USB, or sleep-and-charge USB.
From what i know blue ones are just usb 3.0 or 3.1 or whatever, green is for nvidia reflex to connect a mouse for ultra low latency and yellow is a fast charging port
I'm pretty sure that's for Qualcomm Quick Charge. There was even an option in the OSD menu for it in the video. I think you can use any of the blue USB ports for reflex.
Just do what my dad does and put all your allen keys in a bundle holding it together with a rubber band that's definitely from the Cold War times and when you need a certain size you just fiddle for half an hour to find the right one! (:
Needing more than 240Hz is kind of crazy. Pretty sure that's like the standard among esports players. 360Hz and above just seem farfetched and too expensive for the average esports player. Even this panel's price is too much. Also adding onto that, miniUSB and not USB-C for the remote? You can charge 900 dollars but can't bother to at least make it USB-C? Odd.
I forgot this dude's name but his reviews on this channel are so nice and in depth.
I'm basically immune to refresh rate above 60 Hz. It's a blessing and a curse at the same time. I cannot tell a difference between 60, 120, 240 or 360 Hz, which sucks because it's supposed to be a nice experience, but it's allowed me to spend less money on monitors and stuff like VR headsets, so I can get a better panel instead of a higher refresh rate
what do you mean by "immune"?
@@OMGioel I am completely unaffected by changes in refresh rate above 60 Hz. I can tell when the framerate dips below it, but anything above 60 looks IDENTICAL to me, even on a 240 or 360 Hz display. There's no extra smoothness or responsiveness. Everyone seems to agree that is how it works, so I believe it's just me not being able to experience it for some reason
@@Katoptrys good for your wallet but i hope you're not bus or 30tonne lorry driver : P
@@Katoptrys Thats good. If doom eternal drops to 130s my brain cannot parse whats going on in master levels. I need to keep a solid 144, and even then its very overwhelming visually. Want to trade problems?
AOC 24G2U 23.8' 1080p 144hz 1ms IPS Freesync bought this for €219 (euro) back in covid era and it is simply amazing!
of course at that time I was using my puny GTX 1050 Ti (because covid) but even now that I upgraded to a used GTX 1060 6GB (160 euro) I still don't get that high fps in games LOL!
the only games I can go 144fps easily is CS:GO/Overwatch/LoL but other games like Cyberpunk2077/Spiderman/SIFU/NFS:Heat I am just happy with just over 60fps which is still playable!
maybe down the line I might spend more euros and upgrade to something better like a GTX 1080 (300 euro) depends on what I find at that time :)
I think both monitors mentioned are bad for that price. for just $100 more you can get the 34" QD-OLED from Alienware. Then you don't have to wory about dimming zones. On a side note, I learned nothing about this monitor that I would not have learned by reading the spec sheet on it at Bestbuy. Unless LTT is planing on becoming an advertising company you really need to standardize your process.. You should not be giving your opinion about the monitor you should be showing the viewer what is good and what is bad. In this way the viewer can make an informed choice as to wether or not they should buy that monitor. Should I save up and buy this thing or should I limp my current monitor along a little further till something better comes out. maybe my monitor just died and i need to know what the min i can pay now and still get what I need untill my finances get betting so that I can buy what I want. That is what a reviewer is there for. Otherwise you just a commercial for me to skip waiting for Linus's next video.
My gigabyte m27q x was a bit more than £400 for 1440p 240Hz and great colours. Would not spend over double the price for middling HDR and built in GSync
Looks like I'm still going to have to wait on that monitor upgrade
How has this guy got 2.2 million subs thats crazy
Today for those that play online fps and appreciate extra clarity definitely good choice.
Just waiting for OLED to catch up... LCD is so meh.
Considering i use a 144Hz monitor and didn't notice Skyrim was running at only like 55fps until i randomly pulled up the Nvidia controll panel thing about 70 hours in, i DEFINATELY need one.
I HAVE NEVER BEEN SO EARLY FOR LMG CONTENT OMG IM FREAKING OUT YAYYYY AHHHHH
900 USD for a 144 or 240hz monitor with the only real benefits I see being the resolutions or the fact it probably has a good ips panel.
It can't be just me that thinks that is just.. so... stupid. Its so high priced I could get something like the Samsung g9 neo or other ultra wides for the same price, or get literally two mid range (if you would call it that) LG 240hz 27 inch IPS monitors for the same price. I'm just shocked.
I have a Monitor from this Brand 1440p 165 Hz and I Like the osd Puck. I mostly use it to Change the brightness to Not disturb my wife when sehr already sleeps. There are programmable hotkeys for the osd so that ist nice.
That thing is 900 dollars?! I got the Odyssey G7 32” for half that price and that’s also 1440p 240hz and has 10bit color
I have a 240hz, coming from a 60hz. I do see the improvement when using Photoshop or scrolling down a webpage and that's it, that's all that thing does. In games anything above 60 looks basically the same
27in 4K 120hz with a glossy panel from a reputable company is my dream
While it’s not that small, the LG C2 does that beautifully. OLED panel and can be 42 inches.
Odyssey Neo G8 is 32inch 240hz 4k 1000nits. The oddysey 8 is 4k 165hz I believe for about 700 dollars.
A stable 75hz is all I've needed for 4 years, but that said for FPS games I know I would benefit from up to 120hz. Any more and you're definitely in a seriously pro level category where the finest of margins add up.
i got a Acer Predator X27??? and its 27", 4K, Gsync Ultimate, 144hz, 4ms response time, and pro level color accuracy. It cost me $1,300 2 years ago, but god damn i love this display and will be rocking it until it pukes
I love how the character on the box is just t posing lolz
I didn't realize how much I was missing until I switched over to a 1440p monitor that supports 165hz two weeks ago. I can never really go back to gaming on 60hz ever again.
Oh yeah 60hz hurts my head and eyes nowdays I just can’t do it had a 240hz benq monitor though for years now. Before that had a Alienware 120hz and man I remember thinking this is like cheating when I got the 120 haha . The 240 though I guarantee if you play with it for a while then step down to a 144 you will notice the difference it’s not so bad it’s unplayable at all like going to 60 from 120 but it is a difference that you can feel
damn took you this long? sad lol
If so much of the closing argument was around the broken panel, why would you not reshoot that bit again, you already reshoot trying the display
Nice review bro
Yo I just got this monitor for $260 and thought AOC was some rando company. I had no idea it was $900 2 years ago, and now I'm hyped.
This monitor is £425 brand new on Amazon UK now. Think that's a much fairer price tbh...£900 is crazy!
tbh I find the idea that anything over 144Hz leads to any measurable increase in overall win rate to be kinda sus, hell I'm not even convinced if over 60Hz does
Not everyone is neurotypical. capping framerates to 130 makes a game like Doom Eternal completely unplayable chaos my brain cannot parse well enough to see. Where as 144hz is enough where I feel very overwhelmed, but can at least understand most of whats going on.
240hz would be a god send.
Tracking targets in competitive FPS is so much easier on 240Hz, if you have the mechanical skill.
Yellow USB typically means Power Delivery >500mA
I have a Acer Predator 27” 1440p 270Hz monitor and honestly it’s perfect
Definitely not spending my 900 on this, I don't play competitive titles at all, so I want a 42-48 inch 4k oled 60-120 hz, and excellent HDR performance. I work from home for a small business msp as well, so being able to display up to 4 remote 1080p displays in full res and scale is also really nice.
1:40 this may be a revolutionary idea… try throwing away some of the Allen keys
Usually yellow usb ports deliver power even when device is off.
i got a dell monitor for 230 euros on sale 1080p, 24.5 inch and 240hz!
1440p 144hz seems to be the standard and best way to experience online gaming while 4K 60hz is for story driven/ non reactionary titles.
1440P NON ultra wide is in a weird space right now. The HDR just isn't justified with the lacking of LD zones and their are much cheaper options for IPS at 165hz
Better to wait half a year for upcoming 27" and 32" oled panels. Along with the picture quality, it could be 240hz or 1440p, maybe both.
Frames win games, end of. HDR is just nice to have.
In local dimming test, please, turn OFF the light. If not, the test does not matter. Regards.
When I bought mine I didn't know my cpu couldn't do 240hz so it's still sitting in the attic somewhere until I upgrade to a newer generation.
Ok I get that these videos aren't meant as reviews, but please at least do the Blur Busters test with a pursuit camera on gaming monitors. It would only take a few minutes during the shoot. Without any objective testing to inform the viewer, it's hard to see Short Circuit as anything more than a channel for advertisements.
Can’t wait for the market to move up in refresh rate and standards so we can buy a 4K 240Hz oled for 800 bucks, i’d say 4 years from now
I notice a good difference between 120 and 240, UFO test or in a game. But I've been on high refresh monitors for a long time now.
@3:12 He says he has small hands and stuffs his thick fingers into the stand 😂
You can't ask for a better review than that.
The mini-USB is so users don't plug in random stuff, cause people rarely have them around anymore
It would be kinda cool if you researched a bit to tell us what the diferent usb ports do, not just point them out and go whatever
144Hz is all I need since I run 4k on an RTX3080FE.
Recently got a 180hz ultrawide, 180hz is perfectly fine for me haha, then again I've never experienced 240hz
AOC has zero dead pixel warranty, but 900$ 😳
I remember when short circuit use to be short
144, 165 is the sweet spot imo. 240 is really only necessary if you want to try to go pro.
i thought the thumbnail was unbox therapy 😂
Given a lot of content is made for 60hz, ideally you want to be in a refresh rate that is a multiple of it, like 120/180/240/600...
For resolution density (ie 720 to 1440, or 1080 to 4k, not 720 to 4k) it makes sense, but for refresh rates? Please explain your logic.
@@gasracing4000 if the game is locked to 60 fps, you will have to do uneven frame counts to get the rate to the screen, and that looks quite juddery
So this only applies to non varible refresh rate? non v sync monitors?
I understand what you are saying about a locked 60 having to pick 60 frames out of say 100, and not being evenly consistent. Makes sense.
@@gasracing4000 pretty much
240hz diminishing returns? That's just stupid. Nothing to call but just stupid.
It depends. At 4K in games like AC Odyssey, Forza Horizon 5, and CB 2077 I can’t max out the frame rate of my 144HZ display even with a binned and over clocked 3080.