I'm so behind on Monitor's

[Tv Controls you]

I just bought my monitor a year ago exactly almost.
It's a beautiful 24' screen 3 ms responce time asus gaming monitor.
60hz

I pick up a crutchfield magazine that was sent to me and I'm looking at a 240hz monitor :O .
My monitor was cheap as it was like 2 weeks before the first release of mainline 120 hz.

To make a long story short is their any advantages with these screens?
Will it even be noticeable?
If I was to plug an xbox 360 into it would it perform worse since its made for 60hz screens?

[Skiz]

You're behind? I still have my two Dell LCD 19" 1905FP's. They aren't even widescreens. I bought them around 7 years ago and they still look like new. Great color. No dead pixels.

I almost wish one of them would go tits up so it would force me to go buy two new widescreens.

I was a mouse click away from buying two Acer 24" screens a couple of days ago and talked myself out of it. When I do decide to do it I'll also purchase a mount like this (http://www.slashgear.com/gallery/misc.php?do=printimage&i=23150).

[Expeto]

You get a better performance from the new monitor, but probably it will be like flac and mp3, everybody knows flac is better but just few can hear the difference.

But I'm not really a xbox360 expert

[Tv Controls you]

You get a better performance from the new monitor, but probably it will be like flac and mp3, everybody knows flac is better but just few can hear the difference.

But I'm not really a xbox360 expert

Your talking to an audiophile :P, I'm not as picky with video, but I do prefer top quality.

[lea88]

You do not need a 240Hz monitor. Even at 120Hz, the motion flow is so smooth it feels artificial and you start getting over it. I still use my monitor at 60Hz for the best results in movies and tv shows

[tsiparamai]

Yeah, 60mhz is about the limit of how fast people's eyes refresh anyway. Though, 60mhz might be a limit, 120mhz should be more than enough for you never to know a difference.

[Appzalien]

I read an actual artical in a PC Magazine where they laughed at the monitor makers for making 240hz models. There is actually no benifit past 120hz, thats the max that any person can detect by eye (its actually somewhere between 60 and 120). The article chided them for wasting money on a selling gimmic rather than actually fixing other weaknesses of their monitor lines like ms response times and color quality (they cheat when advertising specifications for response times by using grey to grey response times to make them seem faster, even though grey to grey is usless to a gamer). They also hinted that they suspected the monitors were not really 240hz just advertised that way and were actually 120's rebranded. The only way you could benifit from a 240hz monitor is if you wanted to film it with a 35mm movie camera. The camera could capture the extra hertz and show a less flipant picture on the screen but with CG the way it is that would be stupid.

[Skiz]

I read an actual artical in a PC Magazine where they laughed at the monitor makers for making 240hz models. There is actually no benifit past 120hz, thats the max that any person can detect by eye (its actually somewhere between 60 and 120).

Not necessarily true. (http://reviews.cnet.com/8301-18438_7-10243372-82.html)

[Appzalien]

I read an actual artical in a PC Magazine where they laughed at the monitor makers for making 240hz models. There is actually no benifit past 120hz, thats the max that any person can detect by eye (its actually somewhere between 60 and 120).

Not necessarily true. (http://reviews.cnet.com/8301-18438_7-10243372-82.html)

Don't tell me you bought one?

[Skiz]

No, I didn't. I don't even know why you'd ask that.

I was merely correcting your error.

[tesco]

No, I didn't. I don't even know why you'd ask that.

I was merely correcting your error.
I don't think there was any error in his post.
Your article supports the idea that one cannot tell the difference between 240hz, 120hz, and 60hz. :)