1 00:00:00,400 --> 00:00:06,480 240 Hz monitors like this one didn't even exist just a few short years ago, 2 00:00:04,960 --> 00:00:10,559 but now there's a ton of them on the market, including for the first time 3 00:00:08,160 --> 00:00:15,040 ever, ones that feature IPS panels rather than the conventional TN. So 4 00:00:13,440 --> 00:00:18,800 today, we're going to see if Lionus and a couple of other hardcore gamers around 5 00:00:16,800 --> 00:00:24,240 here can tell the difference between the esports gold standard, a cheaper 6 00:00:20,960 --> 00:00:26,560 alternative, and two IPS type newcomers, 7 00:00:24,240 --> 00:00:30,400 and how their opinions stack up against more objective measures. Right after 8 00:00:28,720 --> 00:00:34,160 this message from our sponsor, Smart Deploy. Smart Deploy allows IT 9 00:00:32,320 --> 00:00:38,239 departments to reimage unlimited computer models from one golden image. 10 00:00:36,399 --> 00:00:42,170 Search their library for your models and grab your exclusive offer at 11 00:00:39,840 --> 00:00:51,200 smarteploy.com/inus. 12 00:00:51,200 --> 00:00:56,559 It is amazing how different the colors 13 00:00:54,800 --> 00:01:01,039 can look from one display where presumably they're all after the same 14 00:00:58,239 --> 00:01:06,000 result and another. This is kind of trippy actually. 15 00:01:03,280 --> 00:01:12,799 Whoa. I'm going to start with viewing angles. 16 00:01:09,760 --> 00:01:15,920 You know, TN's have gotten a lot better 17 00:01:12,799 --> 00:01:17,680 from the side. This is definitely a TN, 18 00:01:15,920 --> 00:01:21,600 but the viewing angles are actually not bad. 19 00:01:20,000 --> 00:01:25,840 Even from top down, like if I was standing behind someone gaming at their 20 00:01:23,200 --> 00:01:28,320 chair, like that's fine. It's not until you get low and look up at it that you 21 00:01:27,200 --> 00:01:36,400 go, "Oh, yeah, there's the color inversion. That's a TN panel." So, at home, I have the Zei 2546 22 00:01:33,600 --> 00:01:39,759 240 Hz monitor, and I love it. If I was anywhere but staring directly straight 23 00:01:37,920 --> 00:01:43,360 at it, it's a piece of garbage. I can't tell if it's just the coating that's 24 00:01:41,280 --> 00:01:46,479 hurting this one. The darker colors are just kind of disappearing and kind of 25 00:01:44,640 --> 00:01:49,759 approaching a mid gray. Kind of feel like as a gamer, I don't 26 00:01:48,159 --> 00:01:53,520 really care about viewing angles too much. I'm gonna be playing a game 27 00:01:51,680 --> 00:01:58,479 hardcore on this, right? So, I'm going to be centering off 28 00:01:55,680 --> 00:02:01,280 again. No contest. Number two is clearly the TN panel. 29 00:01:59,680 --> 00:02:04,960 I'm going to be very disappointed if this is like mine. 30 00:02:03,520 --> 00:02:08,319 I'm going to give worst viewing angles to this one, mostly because it's just so 31 00:02:06,640 --> 00:02:11,360 dim in the first place. I don't think it actually shifts that much more compared 32 00:02:10,000 --> 00:02:16,400 to this one. But this is a lot brighter, a lot easier to look at. I'm pretty impressed with three and 33 00:02:14,400 --> 00:02:20,239 four. I think they have pretty exceptional 34 00:02:18,000 --> 00:02:24,239 viewing angles where the the quality of the color and the light isn't 35 00:02:21,440 --> 00:02:27,599 drastically changing the further over I get. 36 00:02:25,120 --> 00:02:31,599 That's not a TN panel. And that's not a TN panel. To my eyes, monitor number 37 00:02:30,000 --> 00:02:35,440 three here, even though it has the best colors facing it dead on, has a greater 38 00:02:33,840 --> 00:02:40,480 color shift and a greater brightness reduction compared to our other nonTN 39 00:02:37,680 --> 00:02:46,160 panel here. So, I uh rated that one number two for viewing angles. 40 00:02:42,400 --> 00:02:48,640 I'm going to choose four as my first, 41 00:02:46,160 --> 00:02:53,280 three as my second, then one, and then two. Best color reproduction I feel is kind 42 00:02:51,360 --> 00:02:58,000 of obvious. I hope it's obvious. Number four just seems truer to life, which is 43 00:02:55,920 --> 00:03:01,120 a bit weird because it's a game, but if life were a game, I I imagine it would 44 00:03:00,160 --> 00:03:04,800 look more like that. I like the na more natural look, but 45 00:03:03,200 --> 00:03:08,800 that might just be the choice of color temperature on number three. Four looks 46 00:03:06,720 --> 00:03:14,400 a little overwormed to me. So, I'm going to rank the colors. Uh, one, three, 47 00:03:13,280 --> 00:03:19,599 four, two. Best color reproduction has got to be number three. One thing that you can see 48 00:03:17,680 --> 00:03:24,400 on both of the TN panels, though, is the sleeves and the gloves are both green on 49 00:03:22,080 --> 00:03:28,239 this one. They're both yellow on this one. And then we look at one of the 50 00:03:26,159 --> 00:03:33,360 IPS's, and lo and behold, they're supposed to be green and brown. Oops. 51 00:03:31,840 --> 00:03:37,040 There's just something about number two that makes it look really cheap. If life 52 00:03:35,519 --> 00:03:41,120 were a game, I feel like I'm a bit blind. I have cataracts. 53 00:03:39,040 --> 00:03:46,480 You can really tell in the green in the barrel. This one is just like has blue 54 00:03:44,319 --> 00:03:51,440 in it as well. This just seems like grayish with a tinge of green. The third 55 00:03:48,720 --> 00:03:56,799 one is is definitely calibrated to a colder temperature than the one on the 56 00:03:53,440 --> 00:04:00,319 right. The one on the right, I find the 57 00:03:56,799 --> 00:04:03,360 green looks a bit better, but it's 58 00:04:00,319 --> 00:04:04,400 close. Brightness and dynamic range. I'm 59 00:04:03,360 --> 00:04:09,280 have to going to have to go somewhere where I have both shadows and highlights 60 00:04:06,879 --> 00:04:13,439 in view. This one definitely loses some detail down here in the shadows compared 61 00:04:11,280 --> 00:04:17,040 to our TN. The problem though is that some of these gaming monitors go out of 62 00:04:15,120 --> 00:04:20,720 their way actually to boost detail in the shadows. So that it's not 63 00:04:18,479 --> 00:04:24,960 necessarily a strong indication of their dynamic range. What I can do that's not 64 00:04:22,880 --> 00:04:28,960 dependent on that, however, is look at black portions of the mini map compared 65 00:04:26,720 --> 00:04:34,160 to the brightest areas of the sphere. hard. Counter-strike is designed to not 66 00:04:31,919 --> 00:04:38,160 really have really dark areas so that it's more competitive. There's no areas 67 00:04:35,600 --> 00:04:42,800 you can go and just hide. So, it's not immediately apparent which one has 68 00:04:39,759 --> 00:04:44,320 crazier dynamic range. I feel like 69 00:04:42,800 --> 00:04:48,639 number four is doing a little bit better job resolving the detail uh inside of 70 00:04:47,040 --> 00:04:55,040 this window. I can see that a little bit more. Whereas here, it just kind of looks dark. So, I'm going to give the 71 00:04:52,160 --> 00:05:00,560 edge to four on this one. Then three, and then two. Deepest blacks but dimst. 72 00:04:58,720 --> 00:05:06,240 It's a lot of points off for that. This surprises me, but I think this TN 73 00:05:04,160 --> 00:05:09,600 is actually better than that IPS in terms of 74 00:05:08,080 --> 00:05:14,240 the difference between the brightest brights and the darkest darks range. I'm 75 00:05:11,440 --> 00:05:19,520 giving it to number four. The reason I bought a 240 Hz monitor is not for 76 00:05:16,080 --> 00:05:21,360 color, not for uh brightness. It's for 77 00:05:19,520 --> 00:05:27,199 information getting inside my my eyeholes. I mean, even when I was gaming 78 00:05:24,080 --> 00:05:28,880 at with a 120 Hz monitor, never felt 79 00:05:27,199 --> 00:05:31,600 like the input lag was what I was missing. It was the clarity. 80 00:05:30,240 --> 00:05:38,400 Kind of feel like lowest motion blur and lowest input lag kind of too similar for 81 00:05:37,120 --> 00:05:43,199 me to tell. I don't know. They're all so close. If I 82 00:05:40,240 --> 00:05:46,560 had to guess, I'd say one one like both tied and maybe these two are a little 83 00:05:45,039 --> 00:05:51,280 bit behind, but it would it wouldn't be by much. You know, one thing that might 84 00:05:48,720 --> 00:05:56,080 make this a little easier. Is this cheating? 85 00:05:53,440 --> 00:05:59,440 This one somehow feels more responsive. I'm surprised. I thought I wouldn't be 86 00:05:57,360 --> 00:06:02,160 able to tell. Maybe it's just it's bigger, so it feels like things are 87 00:06:00,800 --> 00:06:07,199 moving faster. Wow. I can't believe I didn't even notice two. I was so busy just 88 00:06:05,280 --> 00:06:11,440 completely focusing on like what the pixels looked like. I missed that these 89 00:06:08,960 --> 00:06:14,720 two are 27 in and these two are 24 in displays. 90 00:06:12,080 --> 00:06:17,840 Oh yeah, I felt three was faster or something. It might just be some motion 91 00:06:16,319 --> 00:06:21,600 smoothing or or some kind of interpolation that I don't know what it 92 00:06:19,440 --> 00:06:25,759 was, but I'm going to give it the edge. Uh, it's not my job to explain these 93 00:06:23,680 --> 00:06:30,479 things. It's everyone else's. And now, lowest motion blur. I don't know if it's 94 00:06:27,919 --> 00:06:36,720 just the brightness being so different, but that one feels smoother. I'm going 95 00:06:33,680 --> 00:06:40,560 to have to rank this one, that one, and 96 00:06:36,720 --> 00:06:42,800 then this one so far. So, 312 for lowest 97 00:06:40,560 --> 00:06:49,039 motion blur. For motion blur, number three is definitely the worst, but it 98 00:06:45,280 --> 00:06:52,560 surprises me how close my one IPS over 99 00:06:49,039 --> 00:06:54,880 here is to my two TN's over here. This 100 00:06:52,560 --> 00:06:58,960 first one's so much more contrasty that I feel like because of the high 101 00:06:56,400 --> 00:07:02,240 contrast, I'm able to kind of tell the information even in motion a little bit 102 00:07:01,039 --> 00:07:06,160 better. And so, I don't know if it's actually clear or if it just has the 103 00:07:04,160 --> 00:07:11,599 perception of being clearer uh thanks to its higher contrast. But I think I'm 104 00:07:09,360 --> 00:07:18,720 going to give the edge to the first one. I'm going to go in order. 1 2 3 4. So, 105 00:07:14,720 --> 00:07:22,080 which monitor would I buy? That is a 106 00:07:18,720 --> 00:07:25,199 really hard one for me to choose. I feel 107 00:07:22,080 --> 00:07:27,919 like performance-wise, like in game, I 108 00:07:25,199 --> 00:07:34,639 would be better off with number one, maybe number two. But number 109 00:07:32,560 --> 00:07:39,919 four, number four just looks a lot better in 110 00:07:37,199 --> 00:07:47,360 almost every aspect. That it's bigger, the color is better. It's still pretty 111 00:07:43,599 --> 00:07:49,199 fast feeling, but 112 00:07:47,360 --> 00:07:54,080 I feel like if I want to win at games again, I kind of want to go with number 113 00:07:51,599 --> 00:07:58,000 one. I take number three. It keeps more detail in the actual concentric circles 114 00:07:56,240 --> 00:08:02,319 that exist in this little mini map here compared to this one. and it doesn't 115 00:08:00,560 --> 00:08:07,440 lose any of the highlights. It's got more true-to-life looking colors right 116 00:08:03,919 --> 00:08:09,280 out of the box, but its motion blur is 117 00:08:07,440 --> 00:08:14,960 not the best, but I'm not the most competitive gamer, so that's why I would 118 00:08:11,120 --> 00:08:16,800 take this one. Bigger, looks better. 119 00:08:14,960 --> 00:08:22,160 If the colors on this one weren't so bad, I would give it number two, but 120 00:08:19,599 --> 00:08:26,639 it's going to sit in three. I'm going to give two to the other IPS display. I do 121 00:08:24,080 --> 00:08:30,240 like the size. Size matters to me. And number four is going to be this one. My 122 00:08:28,720 --> 00:08:35,440 overall preference is definitely the first one. It's the brightest. It's got 123 00:08:32,080 --> 00:08:37,519 the best color. Um the viewing angles 124 00:08:35,440 --> 00:08:42,560 weren't great, but as someone who's playing shooters competitively online, 125 00:08:40,159 --> 00:08:47,200 like I don't need someone to be able to see from far angles. I'm looking 126 00:08:43,760 --> 00:08:48,959 straight on. I prefer 24 in. Uh for 127 00:08:47,200 --> 00:08:52,720 competitive gaming, you want to be like right up in there. And 27 is actually a 128 00:08:51,120 --> 00:08:55,440 little bit big. Like most competitive shooters use 24-in monitors as 129 00:08:54,800 --> 00:09:01,040 preference. I'm going to price them by my preference. I'm going to say the two 27 130 00:08:58,880 --> 00:09:04,640 in are 500 and 550. And I'm going to say I like this one better. I think that's 131 00:09:02,480 --> 00:09:09,200 the more premium one. And then these two, this is easily a better gaming 132 00:09:07,600 --> 00:09:14,399 experience. It's just so much brighter. I'm going to go 400 345. 133 00:09:13,279 --> 00:09:20,320 Final answer. Okay, pencils down. I'd be surprised if the 27in ones were 134 00:09:17,839 --> 00:09:26,080 cheaper than the 24in ones. So, I guess might as well start at the highest ones. 135 00:09:22,240 --> 00:09:29,200 I would price the third monitor at 550. 136 00:09:26,080 --> 00:09:32,080 I think this is probably the cheapest. 137 00:09:29,200 --> 00:09:34,399 And then this one a bit more than number two. 138 00:09:32,640 --> 00:09:40,480 Yeah, that one's the most expensive. This one? Yeah, that one's the cheapest. 139 00:09:37,920 --> 00:09:42,080 What? This one? This one? 140 00:09:41,519 --> 00:09:48,399 Most expensive? This one? This one? I guess I'm just surprised that this is uh more expensive 141 00:09:46,560 --> 00:09:53,680 because it's a TN panel. How much is it? 142 00:09:50,160 --> 00:09:55,839 550. Sometimes 500. 143 00:09:53,680 --> 00:09:58,959 It's also the oldest one. Oh, this is a cascading domino effect of wrongness. 144 00:09:57,839 --> 00:10:04,959 Now, the Zawi is this one. Oh, yay. I bought the right monitor. 145 00:10:03,120 --> 00:10:10,240 Yay. I'm not an idiot. Well, you're kind of an idiot. 146 00:10:07,680 --> 00:10:13,920 I'm happy. I thought I was going to be revealed to be a And I kind of 147 00:10:11,839 --> 00:10:18,480 am, but to the level that I thought I was. Even though I got the pricing wrong 148 00:10:16,240 --> 00:10:22,800 based on what has the most value to me, I can definitely see the value of this 149 00:10:20,640 --> 00:10:27,360 one for a certain type of customer. And now that I know the difference between 150 00:10:24,240 --> 00:10:29,440 these is a h 100red rather than $50, it 151 00:10:27,360 --> 00:10:32,959 becomes a much less clear-cut decision. Even though I still do give the nod to 152 00:10:31,279 --> 00:10:38,720 this one, both empirically and in terms of my my overall feel. And we're back. 153 00:10:36,399 --> 00:10:42,480 Okay, so the guys didn't exactly agree on everything, but there were some 154 00:10:40,320 --> 00:10:47,360 common trends. Basically, everyone agreed that the TN panels had the least 155 00:10:44,640 --> 00:10:52,399 motion blur and input delay, with the LG coming in third. To validate their 156 00:10:49,680 --> 00:10:56,560 experiences, we set up a pursuit camera, which helps visualize motion blur, but 157 00:10:54,560 --> 00:11:02,000 with the element of human perception taken out of the equation. You can see 158 00:10:59,120 --> 00:11:06,720 that the ASUS and the BenQ are way more clear. Just look at the alien's eyes and 159 00:11:04,000 --> 00:11:10,560 the white dots on the ship. However, both of these monitors are using 160 00:11:08,240 --> 00:11:16,320 backlight strobing to get that result. Here's what the ASUS looks like with Elm 161 00:11:12,959 --> 00:11:18,560 turned off. While the LG apparently 162 00:11:16,320 --> 00:11:23,519 doesn't have such a feature at all. The participants also generally agreed that 163 00:11:20,480 --> 00:11:26,480 the IPS panels, the LG and the Acer had 164 00:11:23,519 --> 00:11:30,800 superior viewing angles, color accuracy, and brightness, although the BenQ did 165 00:11:28,720 --> 00:11:36,640 pretty well here too, according to David. And again, our test this time 166 00:11:33,600 --> 00:11:38,959 with Calman color checker agreed. Except 167 00:11:36,640 --> 00:11:44,399 the Ben Q is actually the least accurate. Sorry, David. Which basically 168 00:11:41,519 --> 00:11:49,360 gives us two competing recommendations depending on you and your priorities. If 169 00:11:46,800 --> 00:11:55,519 you're buying a 240Hz monitor purely for motion performance just to click heads, 170 00:11:52,079 --> 00:11:58,000 then the BenQ Zawi XL 2546 is still the 171 00:11:55,519 --> 00:12:02,480 reigning champ. But if you also use your monitor for watching videos and movies 172 00:11:59,920 --> 00:12:07,600 or playing sightseeing games, then the bigger, more color accurate IPS models 173 00:12:05,040 --> 00:12:14,240 are more well-rounded. But then there's price. At 20% cheaper 174 00:12:11,440 --> 00:12:18,639 than the BenQ or the Acer, the LG really starts to emerge as kind of a 175 00:12:16,000 --> 00:12:23,760 no-brainer. Unless, of course, you're strapped for cash and you're really 176 00:12:20,399 --> 00:12:29,519 impressed by the ASUS's full range ELMB 177 00:12:23,760 --> 00:12:31,120 for another $55 off. Wow, it sure is a 178 00:12:29,519 --> 00:12:35,680 great time to be a high refresh rate gamer. and it's a great time to check 179 00:12:33,680 --> 00:12:40,240 out the drop control keyboard featured heavily in our recent blind key switch 180 00:12:37,760 --> 00:12:44,560 challenge video. It's got a solid CNC aluminum frame, built-in switch plate, 181 00:12:42,320 --> 00:12:48,959 RGB lighting, and QMK firmware for customizability. It has hot swappable 182 00:12:46,880 --> 00:12:55,360 key switches and comes with Cherry MX, Kale, or Halo switches. And it weighs in 183 00:12:51,519 --> 00:12:57,600 at a pretty hefty 964 grams. Buy it 184 00:12:55,360 --> 00:13:02,480 today at drop.com. Ah, and you can buy a hoodie like this 185 00:12:59,360 --> 00:13:03,839 at ltstore.com. Haka. If you like this 186 00:13:02,480 --> 00:13:08,720 video, give it a thumbs up, get subscribed, and hit us up in the comments with all those commenty things 187 00:13:06,800 --> 00:13:11,440 you'd like to say, including suggestions for products that you want to see us 188 00:13:10,079 --> 00:13:16,399 cover in the future. And if you're looking for something to watch right now, how about the investigation we did 189 00:13:14,399 --> 00:13:21,200 on whether or not 240 Hz actually matters compared to 144 or 60 Hz. We did 190 00:13:19,680 --> 00:13:24,720 an awesome collaboration with Shroud and other pro gamers. So, check it out right 191 00:13:23,040 --> 00:13:29,279 here in the middle of the screen, wherever it's I don't know, over here. 192 00:13:26,399 --> 00:13:29,279 Bye-bye.