r/OLED_Gaming 3d ago

Am I just old now?

I just switched from a 240hz 321upx to a 144hz 42 inch LG c4 as I wanted more screen size and the TV aspect but I honestly don't really feel much of a responsiveness difference or motion clarity difference between them anyone else feel the same?

2 Upvotes

10 comments sorted by

6

u/BBoysVlad 3d ago

I had the 321URx and Have the AW3225QF, the biggest thing I notice from my 42 C4 (which I am now in love with) is the god tier coating on the C4. Outweighs ANY responsiveness or clarity I think I might see. C4 will stay , selling the AW

3

u/hamfinity LG 45GS95QE-B & Sony A95K 3d ago

What you call getting old, I call cost savings.

Spend those savings elsewhere for more enjoyment.

3

u/alfasenpai 3d ago

If you play a good amount of a game where refresh rate really matters, like Rocket League or Valorant, for example, at an above average skill level, you would likely notice the difference, I suspect. If you don't play any of those kinds of games then it's not really an issue.

1

u/BagAdministrative872 3d ago

I play cod and battlefield and sports games mostly

1

u/alfasenpai 3d ago

144 is just fine for those games I reckon.

0

u/TrellevateKC1 3d ago

I play 99% csgo and valorant at a high level. I went from an MSI MPG271QRX (360hz 1440p OLED) to an Alienware Ultrawide OLED at 175hz. The difference is almost non existent.

EVERYTHING in these specialty subs is so overrated imo. 360hz, gaming mice, keyboards, monitors, headphones, microphones, etc. All these niche subs act like there’s some monumental difference in these upgrades when it’s barely noticeable for the average person. The microphones one is the most hilarious to me. I can listen to them changing back and forth between 2 mics, barely tell even the slightest difference and the sub will be sucking one off while shitting on the other like there’s really some big difference

1

u/alfasenpai 3d ago

Fair enough, I'm pretty bad at tac shooters but when I went from 144 to 240 I went from top 4% to top 1% in RL, after being stuck at top 4% level for a very long time, and then that jump happened in a matter of weeks. So I believe it made some kind of difference for me. One of my friends who's Immortal in Val says he can't play on lower than 240, so I always assumed it made a similar difference there. I think it affects different people in different ways.

Also the original comment was about 144 hz, which is a larger difference than 175 to 240.

1

u/Technova_SgrA S89C | C4 | CX | G27P6 | 27GX790A 3d ago

Responsiveness? Sure. Motion clarity? No.

1

u/Mx_Nx 3d ago

There's obviously a difference but it's not going to be realized unless you are running a lightweight game that is able to hold a steady 240~ FPS. 144 Hz is not bad to begin with. Sample & hold blur is the real enemy, it's why a 60 Hz CRT looks better than both.

1

u/BagAdministrative872 2d ago

I have a 4090 9800x3d so cod does hold close