WEBVTT 00:00:00.400 --> 00:00:06.480 240 Hz monitors like this one didn't even exist just a few short years ago, 00:00:04.960 --> 00:00:10.559 but now there's a ton of them on the market, including for the first time 00:00:08.160 --> 00:00:15.040 ever, ones that feature IPS panels rather than the conventional TN. So 00:00:13.440 --> 00:00:18.800 today, we're going to see if Lionus and a couple of other hardcore gamers around 00:00:16.800 --> 00:00:24.240 here can tell the difference between the esports gold standard, a cheaper 00:00:20.960 --> 00:00:26.560 alternative, and two IPS type newcomers, 00:00:24.240 --> 00:00:30.400 and how their opinions stack up against more objective measures. Right after 00:00:28.720 --> 00:00:34.160 this message from our sponsor, Smart Deploy. Smart Deploy allows IT 00:00:32.320 --> 00:00:38.239 departments to reimage unlimited computer models from one golden image. 00:00:36.399 --> 00:00:42.170 Search their library for your models and grab your exclusive offer at 00:00:39.840 --> 00:00:51.200 smarteploy.com/inus. 00:00:51.200 --> 00:00:56.559 It is amazing how different the colors 00:00:54.800 --> 00:01:01.039 can look from one display where presumably they're all after the same 00:00:58.239 --> 00:01:06.000 result and another. This is kind of trippy actually. 00:01:03.280 --> 00:01:12.799 Whoa. I'm going to start with viewing angles. 00:01:09.760 --> 00:01:15.920 You know, TN's have gotten a lot better 00:01:12.799 --> 00:01:17.680 from the side. This is definitely a TN, 00:01:15.920 --> 00:01:21.600 but the viewing angles are actually not bad. 00:01:20.000 --> 00:01:25.840 Even from top down, like if I was standing behind someone gaming at their 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 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 00:01:33.600 --> 00:01:39.759 240 Hz monitor, and I love it. If I was anywhere but staring directly straight 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 00:01:41.280 --> 00:01:46.479 hurting this one. The darker colors are just kind of disappearing and kind of 00:01:44.640 --> 00:01:49.759 approaching a mid gray. Kind of feel like as a gamer, I don't 00:01:48.159 --> 00:01:53.520 really care about viewing angles too much. I'm gonna be playing a game 00:01:51.680 --> 00:01:58.479 hardcore on this, right? So, I'm going to be centering off 00:01:55.680 --> 00:02:01.280 again. No contest. Number two is clearly the TN panel. 00:01:59.680 --> 00:02:04.960 I'm going to be very disappointed if this is like mine. 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 00:02:06.640 --> 00:02:11.360 dim in the first place. I don't think it actually shifts that much more compared 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 00:02:14.400 --> 00:02:20.239 four. I think they have pretty exceptional 00:02:18.000 --> 00:02:24.239 viewing angles where the the quality of the color and the light isn't 00:02:21.440 --> 00:02:27.599 drastically changing the further over I get. 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 00:02:30.000 --> 00:02:35.440 three here, even though it has the best colors facing it dead on, has a greater 00:02:33.840 --> 00:02:40.480 color shift and a greater brightness reduction compared to our other nonTN 00:02:37.680 --> 00:02:46.160 panel here. So, I uh rated that one number two for viewing angles. 00:02:42.400 --> 00:02:48.640 I'm going to choose four as my first, 00:02:46.160 --> 00:02:53.280 three as my second, then one, and then two. Best color reproduction I feel is kind 00:02:51.360 --> 00:02:58.000 of obvious. I hope it's obvious. Number four just seems truer to life, which is 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 00:03:00.160 --> 00:03:04.800 look more like that. I like the na more natural look, but 00:03:03.200 --> 00:03:08.800 that might just be the choice of color temperature on number three. Four looks 00:03:06.720 --> 00:03:14.400 a little overwormed to me. So, I'm going to rank the colors. Uh, one, three, 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 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 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 00:03:26.159 --> 00:03:33.360 IPS's, and lo and behold, they're supposed to be green and brown. Oops. 00:03:31.840 --> 00:03:37.040 There's just something about number two that makes it look really cheap. If life 00:03:35.519 --> 00:03:41.120 were a game, I feel like I'm a bit blind. I have cataracts. 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 00:03:44.319 --> 00:03:51.440 in it as well. This just seems like grayish with a tinge of green. The third 00:03:48.720 --> 00:03:56.799 one is is definitely calibrated to a colder temperature than the one on the 00:03:53.440 --> 00:04:00.319 right. The one on the right, I find the 00:03:56.799 --> 00:04:03.360 green looks a bit better, but it's 00:04:00.319 --> 00:04:04.400 close. Brightness and dynamic range. I'm 00:04:03.360 --> 00:04:09.280 have to going to have to go somewhere where I have both shadows and highlights 00:04:06.879 --> 00:04:13.439 in view. This one definitely loses some detail down here in the shadows compared 00:04:11.280 --> 00:04:17.040 to our TN. The problem though is that some of these gaming monitors go out of 00:04:15.120 --> 00:04:20.720 their way actually to boost detail in the shadows. So that it's not 00:04:18.479 --> 00:04:24.960 necessarily a strong indication of their dynamic range. What I can do that's not 00:04:22.880 --> 00:04:28.960 dependent on that, however, is look at black portions of the mini map compared 00:04:26.720 --> 00:04:34.160 to the brightest areas of the sphere. hard. Counter-strike is designed to not 00:04:31.919 --> 00:04:38.160 really have really dark areas so that it's more competitive. There's no areas 00:04:35.600 --> 00:04:42.800 you can go and just hide. So, it's not immediately apparent which one has 00:04:39.759 --> 00:04:44.320 crazier dynamic range. I feel like 00:04:42.800 --> 00:04:48.639 number four is doing a little bit better job resolving the detail uh inside of 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 00:04:52.160 --> 00:05:00.560 edge to four on this one. Then three, and then two. Deepest blacks but dimst. 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 00:05:04.160 --> 00:05:09.600 is actually better than that IPS in terms of 00:05:08.080 --> 00:05:14.240 the difference between the brightest brights and the darkest darks range. I'm 00:05:11.440 --> 00:05:19.520 giving it to number four. The reason I bought a 240 Hz monitor is not for 00:05:16.080 --> 00:05:21.360 color, not for uh brightness. It's for 00:05:19.520 --> 00:05:27.199 information getting inside my my eyeholes. I mean, even when I was gaming 00:05:24.080 --> 00:05:28.880 at with a 120 Hz monitor, never felt 00:05:27.199 --> 00:05:31.600 like the input lag was what I was missing. It was the clarity. 00:05:30.240 --> 00:05:38.400 Kind of feel like lowest motion blur and lowest input lag kind of too similar for 00:05:37.120 --> 00:05:43.199 me to tell. I don't know. They're all so close. If I 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 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 00:05:48.720 --> 00:05:56.080 make this a little easier. Is this cheating? 00:05:53.440 --> 00:05:59.440 This one somehow feels more responsive. I'm surprised. I thought I wouldn't be 00:05:57.360 --> 00:06:02.160 able to tell. Maybe it's just it's bigger, so it feels like things are 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 00:06:05.280 --> 00:06:11.440 completely focusing on like what the pixels looked like. I missed that these 00:06:08.960 --> 00:06:14.720 two are 27 in and these two are 24 in displays. 00:06:12.080 --> 00:06:17.840 Oh yeah, I felt three was faster or something. It might just be some motion 00:06:16.319 --> 00:06:21.600 smoothing or or some kind of interpolation that I don't know what it 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 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 00:06:27.919 --> 00:06:36.720 just the brightness being so different, but that one feels smoother. I'm going 00:06:33.680 --> 00:06:40.560 to have to rank this one, that one, and 00:06:36.720 --> 00:06:42.800 then this one so far. So, 312 for lowest 00:06:40.560 --> 00:06:49.039 motion blur. For motion blur, number three is definitely the worst, but it 00:06:45.280 --> 00:06:52.560 surprises me how close my one IPS over 00:06:49.039 --> 00:06:54.880 here is to my two TN's over here. This 00:06:52.560 --> 00:06:58.960 first one's so much more contrasty that I feel like because of the high 00:06:56.400 --> 00:07:02.240 contrast, I'm able to kind of tell the information even in motion a little bit 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 00:07:04.160 --> 00:07:11.599 perception of being clearer uh thanks to its higher contrast. But I think I'm 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, 00:07:14.720 --> 00:07:22.080 which monitor would I buy? That is a 00:07:18.720 --> 00:07:25.199 really hard one for me to choose. I feel 00:07:22.080 --> 00:07:27.919 like performance-wise, like in game, I 00:07:25.199 --> 00:07:34.639 would be better off with number one, maybe number two. But number 00:07:32.560 --> 00:07:39.919 four, number four just looks a lot better in 00:07:37.199 --> 00:07:47.360 almost every aspect. That it's bigger, the color is better. It's still pretty 00:07:43.599 --> 00:07:49.199 fast feeling, but 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 00:07:51.599 --> 00:07:58.000 one. I take number three. It keeps more detail in the actual concentric circles 00:07:56.240 --> 00:08:02.319 that exist in this little mini map here compared to this one. and it doesn't 00:08:00.560 --> 00:08:07.440 lose any of the highlights. It's got more true-to-life looking colors right 00:08:03.919 --> 00:08:09.280 out of the box, but its motion blur is 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 00:08:11.120 --> 00:08:16.800 take this one. Bigger, looks better. 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 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 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 00:08:28.720 --> 00:08:35.440 overall preference is definitely the first one. It's the brightest. It's got 00:08:32.080 --> 00:08:37.519 the best color. Um the viewing angles 00:08:35.440 --> 00:08:42.560 weren't great, but as someone who's playing shooters competitively online, 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 00:08:43.760 --> 00:08:48.959 straight on. I prefer 24 in. Uh for 00:08:47.200 --> 00:08:52.720 competitive gaming, you want to be like right up in there. And 27 is actually a 00:08:51.120 --> 00:08:55.440 little bit big. Like most competitive shooters use 24-in monitors as 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 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 00:09:02.480 --> 00:09:09.200 the more premium one. And then these two, this is easily a better gaming 00:09:07.600 --> 00:09:14.399 experience. It's just so much brighter. I'm going to go 400 345. 00:09:13.279 --> 00:09:20.320 Final answer. Okay, pencils down. I'd be surprised if the 27in ones were 00:09:17.839 --> 00:09:26.080 cheaper than the 24in ones. So, I guess might as well start at the highest ones. 00:09:22.240 --> 00:09:29.200 I would price the third monitor at 550. 00:09:26.080 --> 00:09:32.080 I think this is probably the cheapest. 00:09:29.200 --> 00:09:34.399 And then this one a bit more than number two. 00:09:32.640 --> 00:09:40.480 Yeah, that one's the most expensive. This one? Yeah, that one's the cheapest. 00:09:37.920 --> 00:09:42.080 What? This one? This one? 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 00:09:46.560 --> 00:09:53.680 because it's a TN panel. How much is it? 00:09:50.160 --> 00:09:55.839 550. Sometimes 500. 00:09:53.680 --> 00:09:58.959 It's also the oldest one. Oh, this is a cascading domino effect of wrongness. 00:09:57.839 --> 00:10:04.959 Now, the Zawi is this one. Oh, yay. I bought the right monitor. 00:10:03.120 --> 00:10:10.240 Yay. I'm not an idiot. Well, you're kind of an idiot. 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 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 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 00:10:20.640 --> 00:10:27.360 one for a certain type of customer. And now that I know the difference between 00:10:24.240 --> 00:10:29.440 these is a h 100red rather than $50, it 00:10:27.360 --> 00:10:32.959 becomes a much less clear-cut decision. Even though I still do give the nod to 00:10:31.279 --> 00:10:38.720 this one, both empirically and in terms of my my overall feel. And we're back. 00:10:36.399 --> 00:10:42.480 Okay, so the guys didn't exactly agree on everything, but there were some 00:10:40.320 --> 00:10:47.360 common trends. Basically, everyone agreed that the TN panels had the least 00:10:44.640 --> 00:10:52.399 motion blur and input delay, with the LG coming in third. To validate their 00:10:49.680 --> 00:10:56.560 experiences, we set up a pursuit camera, which helps visualize motion blur, but 00:10:54.560 --> 00:11:02.000 with the element of human perception taken out of the equation. You can see 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 00:11:04.000 --> 00:11:10.560 the white dots on the ship. However, both of these monitors are using 00:11:08.240 --> 00:11:16.320 backlight strobing to get that result. Here's what the ASUS looks like with Elm 00:11:12.959 --> 00:11:18.560 turned off. While the LG apparently 00:11:16.320 --> 00:11:23.519 doesn't have such a feature at all. The participants also generally agreed that 00:11:20.480 --> 00:11:26.480 the IPS panels, the LG and the Acer had 00:11:23.519 --> 00:11:30.800 superior viewing angles, color accuracy, and brightness, although the BenQ did 00:11:28.720 --> 00:11:36.640 pretty well here too, according to David. And again, our test this time 00:11:33.600 --> 00:11:38.959 with Calman color checker agreed. Except 00:11:36.640 --> 00:11:44.399 the Ben Q is actually the least accurate. Sorry, David. Which basically 00:11:41.519 --> 00:11:49.360 gives us two competing recommendations depending on you and your priorities. If 00:11:46.800 --> 00:11:55.519 you're buying a 240Hz monitor purely for motion performance just to click heads, 00:11:52.079 --> 00:11:58.000 then the BenQ Zawi XL 2546 is still the 00:11:55.519 --> 00:12:02.480 reigning champ. But if you also use your monitor for watching videos and movies 00:11:59.920 --> 00:12:07.600 or playing sightseeing games, then the bigger, more color accurate IPS models 00:12:05.040 --> 00:12:14.240 are more well-rounded. But then there's price. At 20% cheaper 00:12:11.440 --> 00:12:18.639 than the BenQ or the Acer, the LG really starts to emerge as kind of a 00:12:16.000 --> 00:12:23.760 no-brainer. Unless, of course, you're strapped for cash and you're really 00:12:20.399 --> 00:12:29.519 impressed by the ASUS's full range ELMB 00:12:23.760 --> 00:12:31.120 for another $55 off. Wow, it sure is a 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 00:12:33.680 --> 00:12:40.240 out the drop control keyboard featured heavily in our recent blind key switch 00:12:37.760 --> 00:12:44.560 challenge video. It's got a solid CNC aluminum frame, built-in switch plate, 00:12:42.320 --> 00:12:48.959 RGB lighting, and QMK firmware for customizability. It has hot swappable 00:12:46.880 --> 00:12:55.360 key switches and comes with Cherry MX, Kale, or Halo switches. And it weighs in 00:12:51.519 --> 00:12:57.600 at a pretty hefty 964 grams. Buy it 00:12:55.360 --> 00:13:02.480 today at drop.com. Ah, and you can buy a hoodie like this 00:12:59.360 --> 00:13:03.839 at ltstore.com. Haka. If you like this 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 00:13:06.800 --> 00:13:11.440 you'd like to say, including suggestions for products that you want to see us 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 00:13:14.399 --> 00:13:21.200 on whether or not 240 Hz actually matters compared to 144 or 60 Hz. We did 00:13:19.680 --> 00:13:24.720 an awesome collaboration with Shroud and other pro gamers. So, check it out right 00:13:23.040 --> 00:13:29.279 here in the middle of the screen, wherever it's I don't know, over here. 00:13:26.399 --> 00:13:29.279 Bye-bye.