240Hz vs 360Hz: the bleeding edge of refresh rate

Bragging-rights territory: real, measurable, and relevant to almost no one.

360 Hz refreshes 1.5× more often than 240 Hz — every 2.78 ms versus 4.17 ms. This is the bleeding edge of consumer monitors, and the perceptual gap is the smallest on the entire ladder. The improvement is genuinely measurable in lab tests and matters to top-tier esports professionals, but for the overwhelming majority of players it's well past the point of diminishing returns.

Try this comparison with our tools

Live side-by-side at 0.1× speed. Even slowed 10×, the 240-to-360 difference is hard to spot — the clearest possible illustration of diminishing returns.

240 FPS / 240 Hz4.17 ms / frame
360 FPS / 360 Hz2.78 ms / frame

Want full controls? Open the FPS Visualizer

Option A
240 Hz
Wins 2 of 8 compared specs
Option B
360 Hz
Wins 4 of 8 compared specs

Side-by-side specs

Spec240 Hz360 Hz
Refresh rate240 Hz360 Hz
Frame time4.17 ms2.78 ms (better on this spec)
Frames per second (cap)240 fps360 fps (better on this spec)
Relative motion clarityBaseline~33% less blur (better on this spec)
Input-to-display latency~7-12 ms~6-10 ms (better on this spec)
GPU load vs 240 Hz1.0×~1.5×
Realistic resolution1080p / 1440p (better on this spec)1080p
Who benefitsSerious competitors (better on this spec)Pro / aspiring-pro esports

How they differ

At these rates, per-frame hold time drops from 4.17 ms to 2.78 ms — about a third less motion blur — and display latency improves by roughly 1-2 ms. The problem is feeding the panel: sustaining 360 fps requires a full 50% more frames than 240, and in any demanding title that means a top-end GPU running at low settings and competitive resolutions (typically 1080p). The benefit is real only when you can actually hit 360 fps consistently; otherwise the panel idles below its potential and the upgrade does nothing.

Verdict

360 Hz is for professional and aspiring-professional esports players with the GPU and the game (CS2, Valorant, Overwatch at 1080p) to sustain 360 fps. For everyone else, 240 Hz is already deep into diminishing returns, and 144-165 Hz remains the practical sweet spot. Spend the difference on resolution or a better GPU instead.

Visualise 240 vs 360 FPS motion

Which should you pick?

Choose 240 Hz

Pick 240 Hz unless you're a serious competitor — it's already at the edge of human perceivability and far easier to actually drive at full rate.

Compare 165 Hz vs 240 Hz

Choose 360 Hz

Pick 360 Hz only if you play competitive FPS at a high level, run at 1080p with a top-tier GPU, and can consistently sustain 360 fps in your main game.

Related comparisons

27-inch 1440p vs 32-inch 4K
The gaming sweet spot versus the productivity king.
Read comparison ➜
1080p (1920×1080) vs 1440p (2560×1440)
The most common upgrade path for a mainstream desktop monitor.
Read comparison ➜
1440p (2560×1440) vs 4K (3840×2160)
The GPU-cost trade-off that defines most high-end desktop builds.
Read comparison ➜
4K (3840×2160) vs 8K (7680×4320)
The resolution jump where physics finally outpaces human vision.
Read comparison ➜
30 FPS vs 60 FPS
The most dramatic frame-rate doubling — and the heart of every console performance-mode debate.
Read comparison ➜
60 Hz vs 120 Hz
A clean 2× doubling — the high-refresh tier that current consoles and phones target.
Read comparison ➜
60 Hz vs 144 Hz
The refresh-rate upgrade that most people notice more than a resolution bump.
Read comparison ➜
120 Hz vs 144 Hz
The small step between console high-refresh and the PC gaming standard.
Read comparison ➜
144 Hz vs 240 Hz
Diminishing returns: where refresh rate upgrades stop being obvious.
Read comparison ➜
165 Hz vs 240 Hz
Where the mainstream high-refresh sweet spot meets the esports tier.
Read comparison ➜
Flat vs 1500R
The most common curve on modern gaming monitors and how it compares to a traditional flat panel.
Read comparison ➜
1500R vs 800R
The difference between a mild modern curve and the most aggressive wrap in consumer displays.
Read comparison ➜
Flat vs 800R
The widest gap in consumer monitor geometry: no curve versus the most aggressive one on sale.
Read comparison ➜
Flat vs 1000R
The curvature Samsung markets as matching the natural eye, and how it reads against a traditional flat panel.
Read comparison ➜
1500R vs 1000R
The mild mainstream curve vs the Samsung-popularised "eye-matching" radius.
Read comparison ➜
1000R vs 800R
The immersive but liveable curve vs the full-wrap specialist.
Read comparison ➜
Flat vs 1800R
The mildest curve on sale today vs a traditional flat panel, when the difference barely registers.
Read comparison ➜
1800R vs 1500R
The original mild curvature vs the modern mainstream default, and where the extra 300 mm of tightness shows up.
Read comparison ➜
1800R vs 1000R
The subtlest consumer curve vs the radius Samsung markets as matching the human eye, the first real curvature step.
Read comparison ➜
1800R vs 800R
The gentlest curve you can buy vs the most aggressive, two completely different panels in disguise.
Read comparison ➜
24-inch monitor vs 27-inch monitor
The two diagonals every desk decision starts with.
Read comparison ➜
27-inch monitor vs 32-inch monitor
From the mainstream sweet spot to the desktop centrepiece.
Read comparison ➜
34-inch ultrawide (21:9) vs 27-inch 16:9
The cleanest argument for going ultrawide.
Read comparison ➜
32-inch 16:9 vs 34-inch ultrawide (21:9)
Two big monitors with opposite shapes.
Read comparison ➜
IPS vs VA
Color accuracy versus contrast depth.
Read comparison ➜
OLED vs IPS
Infinite contrast versus color consistency.
Read comparison ➜
TN vs IPS
Raw speed versus visual quality.
Read comparison ➜