144Hz vs 240Hz: is the next refresh-rate jump worth it?
Diminishing returns: where refresh-rate upgrades stop being obvious.
240 Hz refreshes 1.67× more often than 144 Hz — every 4.17 ms instead of 6.94 ms. Unlike the 60 → 144 jump, the 144 → 240 difference is subtle to most people and genuinely decisive only for competitive FPS players at the very top of the skill curve. It's still a real upgrade, just one with much lower marginal return per dollar and per watt.
Try this comparison with our tools
Live side-by-side at 0.1× speed. The 144-to-240 jump is subtle at real time but clearly resolvable in slow motion — whether it's worth the price premium is what the spec table below is for.
Want full controls? Open the FPS Visualiser
Side-by-side specs
| Spec | 144 Hz | 240 Hz |
|---|---|---|
| Refresh rate | 144 Hz | 240 Hz |
| Frame time | 6.94 ms | 4.17 ms (better on this spec) |
| Frames per second (cap) | 144 fps | 240 fps (better on this spec) |
| Relative motion clarity | Baseline | ~40% less blur (better on this spec) |
| Input-to-display latency | ~10-15 ms | ~7-12 ms (better on this spec) |
| GPU load vs 144 Hz | 1.0× | ~1.67× |
| Bandwidth required (1440p HDR) | 17.8 Gbps | 29.7 Gbps (DSC) |
| Noticeable upgrade? | — | Subtle for most people |
| Typical monitor price (27" 1440p) | $280-400 (better on this spec) | $400-650 |
| Ideal for competitive esports | Capable | Meaningful edge (better on this spec) |
How they differ
The human perceptual system sees the biggest benefit from each refresh-rate doubling, not each linear step. 240 Hz isn't a doubling — it's a 67% increase over 144 Hz. Motion blur reduction from a sample-and-hold LCD is correspondingly smaller: the per-frame hold time drops from 6.94 ms to 4.17 ms, about 40% less blur. Input latency savings are similar: 2-3 ms faster from display refresh alone, plus matching gains from higher engine sampling rates. The GPU cost, meanwhile, is substantial — rendering at 240 fps requires 67% more frames than 144 fps from the same scene. On 1440p with modern AAA titles, that's often the difference between needing an RTX 4070 or an RTX 4080 class card.
Verdict
240 Hz is worth it for competitive esports players (CS2, Valorant, Apex) where a 2-3 ms latency advantage translates to measurably higher K/D ratios. For everyone else, 144-165 Hz is the practical ceiling of perceivable benefit on current LCD/OLED technology, and the money is better spent elsewhere — a bigger or higher-resolution panel, better HDR, or simply a better GPU.
Check DP 1.4 for 1440p 240 HzWhich should you pick?
Choose 144 Hz
Pick 144 Hz (or 165 Hz) if you play mostly single-player games, do mixed productivity + casual gaming, or want to pair with a higher resolution (4K 144 Hz has far more perceptual impact than 1440p 240 Hz).
Check DP 1.4 for 1440p 144 HzChoose 240 Hz
Pick 240 Hz if you play competitive FPS at a high level, run a GPU capable of pushing 240+ fps in your main game at your chosen resolution, and value the 2-3 ms latency advantage.
Check DP 2.1 for 4K 240 HzRelated comparisons
Related tools
FPS Visualiser
Visualise the impact of different FPS settings on your game experience.
Use tool ➜Display Bandwidth Calculator
Check if your HDMI/DP cable supports your resolution and refresh rate.
Use tool ➜Data Read Visualizer
Visualize the massive speed difference between CPU cache, RAM, and storage.
Use tool ➜PPI & Retina Calculator
Calculate PPI and Retina distance for your display.
Use tool ➜