No I have no clue who would actually need 240 Hz but ASUS is working on the PG258Q, a 24.5 Inch monitor with 1920x1080 resolution and Gsync Module.

Couldn't have said it better Hilbert 😀

+1 with that opinion. I see this as a step towards the 120Hz 4k displays .. can't wait to see those pop up!

Asus already have a 4K 144Hz prototype TN panel. 🙂

price range?Asus Rog monitors is too expansive.can buy 40 inch 4k led tv in price of some of Asus monitors.

price range?Asus Rog monitors is too expansive.can buy 40 inch 4k led tv in price of some of Asus monitors.

The 40" LED TV have more input lag, doesn't have the real high refresh rate but yeah I agree Rog monitors is to expensive when you might be able to get cheaper monitors that's almost the same for cheaper.

Fun fact, Sony had 240Hz Playstation monitor years ago, even if in 3D mode.

This has to be one of the ugliest monitors I've ever seen. That monitor stand just... just doesn't work.

Fun fact, Sony had 240Hz Playstation monitor years ago, even if in 3D mode.

Fun fact, like all TV high refresh rates, those are extrapolated and not actual refresh rate.

24inch fail, matt fail, 1920x1080 fail.

24inch fail, matt fail, 1920x1080 fail.

The monitor is geared toward the competitive fps scene. Most CS:GO pros play at sub 1080p resolution, they also play in extremely bright environments (at lans) and they don't have space for anything more than 24 inches in those environments, nor do they want it. When I played CS:GO I would switch back to my 24 inch BenQ TN monitor from my 27" XB270HU because it severely impacted my play.

Asus already have a 4K 144Hz prototype TN panel. 🙂

oh that will be my next upgrade from my Asus vg248qe then 🙂

This is good I always get headaches unless the refresh rate is a multiple of 60 so 240hz would make sense for me, I remember switching up my monitor to 144hz and even to this day I can't handle it, feels like my eyes are melting but if I set it back down to 120hz I have no issues whatsoever, I imagine 3D would be alot better at 240hz as well instead of 60 per eye you get 120 per eye.

The monitor is geared toward the competitive fps scene.

This. It's not for me. I'm definitely not interested in a sub 27", sub 1440p monitor no matter the features. My dream monitor would be a ~27-30" 1440p 144Hz+ IPS G-SYNC but, and especially without backlight bleed. I would have gone for one of those ASUS/Acer 27" ones if it wasn't for that.

My 4k 43" sony android tv says it 1000hz but its actually just 120hz, but they wont say its actually just 120hz anywhere, to many company's lie, but least i knew what i was buying before hand, i do proper research 🙂

at one time I thought who the hell can get 144 fps to justify a rog swift and I bought one :P But who the hell gets 240 fps? hmm 1080p 1080 sli might work out, wonder how it would look like... but that monitor alone is asking for the highest grade components, that's gonna kill your wallet.

CS:GO on a GTX980 at low settings, which pretty much every pro plays at.

Does G-Sync even work at that high fps?

Yeah, it's actually partially why it's G-Sync to begin with. It has variable over-drive.

CS:GO on a GTX980 at low settings, which pretty much every pro plays at.

I think that even my 280X can do 240fps on low in CS so no biggie in the gpu department.

at one time I thought who the hell can get 144 fps to justify a rog swift and I bought one :P But who the hell gets 240 fps? hmm 1080p 1080 sli might work out, wonder how it would look like... but that monitor alone is asking for the highest grade components, that's gonna kill your wallet.

I get 280fps in Quake III @1080p:rpg:

You mean to tell me anyone can really tell the difference? 240? Because 120/144 clearly wasn't moving fast and smooth enough. :3eyes:

You never know until you try it. We may bash 240hz, but once we try we may never go back to 144hz.

True. I'm going to go out on the limb anyways and say 240hz is just a stupid and unnecessary refresh rate for gaming. I'm calling it now. 🤓 1080p is yesterday's news. It's dated and going away. No one except the most extreme FPS geek will want to pay extra so they can sacrifice all the eye candy for pure speed. The difference is going to be negligible from running at 120/144. How much smoother can smooth be? The jump from 30hz to 60hz is huge. The jump from 60 to 120/144 is also dramatic. I don't think the jump to anything past that is going to be nearly as noticeable though. (our eyes are only so good) This is like going from a 1440p phone screen to a 4K phone screen. Twice as good (pixel density) but is it really twice as clear looking? Clearer, but certainly much less dramatic a difference than the jump from 720p to 1440p on a phone. I don't think hardware will ever get here (or need to). For people who want all the eye candy (99%+ of us), I doubt, in the future, any (at the time) hardware will ever be able to push (at the time) AAA games at 240 frames per second @ (at the time) high resolutions with all the eye candy maxed. Not at 1440p now, not at 4K tomorrow, and not at 8K which is coming this year. Also, not 20 years from now when we are running 30K. 🤓 I just don't see us ever running 240hz for gaming purposes. Ever. There just comes a point (with all things) when more is stupidly unnecessary and I think we already hit that with 120/144. Or, I'll be running a 480hz monitor in 10 years. I want to be that wrong. 🙂

You never know until you try it. We may bash 240hz, but once we try we may never go back to 144hz.

Agreed, I don't know where the marginal improvement in experienced smoothness starts to plateau for the hardcore or competitive scene but I have a feeling it's at least at a few thousand Hz.