I Paid Extra for a 240Hz Monitor and Now I Regret It

I’ve been grinding ranked games in Marvel Rivals lately, and with my freshly built PC, I figured it was the perfect time for a monitor upgrade. I splurged on a 240Hz monitor, believing it’d give me a competitive edge. Turns out, it was more of a money-waster than a game-changer.

It’s Still Too Early for 1440p 240Hz

Since my old monitor was a 24-inch 144Hz 1080p IPS model, and I was quite happy with it, it only made sense to get a direct upgrade across all specs. I picked a 27-inch 240Hz 1440p IPS model, the LG 27GR83Q-B. It’s worth noting that the monitor is currently on sale for $297, but I paid $400 due to local VAT and customs fees, which apply to all other monitors where I live as well.

Unfortunately, I quickly learned that running games at 1440p is significantly more demanding, so reaching anywhere close to 240 FPS in most games (outside of older esports titles) requires high-end hardware. I have no intention of dropping over $3000 on a new RTX 50 Series GPU just to get closer to my monitor’s maximum refresh rate.

My new mid-range PC has perfectly respectable performance for 1440p, as it’s powered by an RX 6800 XT and Ryzen 7 7700. However, it just isn’t powerful enough to run anything outside of older or lighter esports games at anything close to 240 FPS.

I’m getting around 100–120 FPS in Marvel Rivals at the lowest settings and about 70–90 FPS in Indiana Jones and the Great Circle, which isn’t even close to my monitor’s 240 FPS maximum. A 140Hz (or, rather, 180Hz because 144Hz 1440p is hard to find nowadays) 1440p monitor could’ve done the same job just as well, and I would’ve saved over $100.

Although modern frame generation like AFMF 2 could take me closer to 240 FPS in some games, the generated frames just don’t look and feel like real rendered frames. Plus, the additional input lag outweighs all the positive effects of higher FPS in competitive games. FSR upscaling is a more viable solution, but it still doesn’t provide a frame rate boost anywhere close to frame generation.

240Hz Is Overrated

Okay, so I don’t just play the latest games. I’m still active on Battlefield V, a game that was released in 2018, so my rig is more than capable of running it at a steady 240 FPS. It’s a fast-paced FPS, so I should be able to notice the benefits when I’m diving with a bomber airplane, flicking as a sniper, or rapidly moving my camera around as an assault.

While I can feel the 240Hz refresh rate as opposed to 144Hz, it’s not nearly as noticeable as I expected it to be. I am quite sensitive to changes in frame rate and I think I can tell the difference between something like 80 and 85 FPS, but the difference in-game hasn’t matched my expectations. Who knows, perhaps a mouse with an 8,000Hz polling rate is the second part of the equation that’ll make the difference more perceivable. It’s also nice to know that I’m getting the benefits of 240Hz, even if I can’t always feel it.

If you previously used a 60Hz monitor and upgraded to something like 144Hz or more, you know first-hand what a huge difference the added motion smoothness makes. However, 240Hz doesn’t provide that same kind of gap.

In fact, unless you’re a pro gamer who plays at a competitive level, it’s possible that you won’t even notice the difference between 144Hz and 240Hz at all. I know this is hard for many of us to admit, so I suggest trying a super-high refresh rate monitor yourself if you find an opportunity.

Many budget gaming monitors on today’s market have refresh rates like 160Hz and 180Hz instead of 144Hz, which further narrows the difference for those upgrading to a new monitor.

I Missed Out on a Multi-Monitor Setup or Ultrawide

Instead of paying extra for 240Hz, I could have gone with a dual-monitor setup to boost my productivity or, better yet, three cheaper 1080p models for the ultimate triple-monitor gaming and productivity setup. Another excellent choice would be a curved ultrawide monitor, like the enormous 34-inch KOORUI 34E6UC, which does an even better job of immersing you in a game by providing a wide field of view.

Another feature that I would’ve noticed more than the jump to 240Hz is superior HDR. My model only supports DisplayHDR 400, which is quite limited in its effectiveness, as it lacks local dimming and doesn’t get bright enough. A mini-LED panel with many local dimming zones and DisplayHDR 1000, like the AOC Q27G3XMN, would have provided significantly deeper blacks and better contrast compared to my washed-out IPS panel.

My New Monitor Is Old

Like many other pieces of tech, monitors are constantly evolving and improving over time. While newer doesn’t always mean better, it does open the door to more modern features and better specs. We’re still at the start of 2025, so the year is likely to see numerous fresh and exciting monitors with better panel technologies, more features, and lower prices.

Instead of waiting a few more months to see what new monitors would be released (like the HP Omen 34C G2, which was announced at CES), I opted for the LG 27GR83Q-B, a monitor that’s been available since August 2023. While it’s not a bad monitor by any means, it’s already one and a half years old, and it’s only a matter of time before newer and better models take its place in the $300 price bracket

New Monitors Keep Getting Cheaper and Better

Since monitor technology improves so quickly and prices are continually decreasing, it makes sense to develop a long-term purchasing strategy and consistently upgrade within a specific price bracket. From a value perspective, it’s often better to buy a $200 monitor every three years than a $600 monitor every seven to nine years. Even if you’re in higher price brackets and are looking at OLEDs, the same principle of maximizing value over time applies.

Thanks to economies of scale and more efficient manufacturing, monitor prices are trending downward. A good example of this is the manufacturing costs of 55-inch 4K OLED TVs, which dropped from over $1,200 in 2015 to under $600 by 2017. With 240Hz OLED monitors already available in the $400 range (Cooler Master Tempest GZ2711), we’re likely only a few years away from OLED monitors in even more budget-friendly price brackets, potentially under $300.

While the LG 27GR83Q-B is a great monitor for competitive games, I’ve realized that I’m not the target audience for it, even though I play competitive games. I can’t even run most games at 240 FPS, and when I do, the difference isn’t all that noticeable.

In hindsight, I would have preferred saving a few bucks with a 180Hz monitor or investing in a different feature, like an ultrawide display or superior HDR. Instead, I traded a more enjoyable single-player experience for a marginal edge in competitive games. If you find yourself in a similar situation, don’t hesitate to explore different options that’ll better suit your needs.