144 Hz Worth it?

If siege only and you cant get 144 fps the price is not worth it. The game is not going to look 'better'. Its a luxury item so if you have the spare money go for it, if you see this as an upgrade to your performance, you're mistaken

I am using a BENQ XL2411. I have it set to 144Hz if playing CS:GO, but when playing Siege, i set it to 120Hz because my GPU can't hold a contstant FPS of 144+.

If your rig can hold a constant FPS higher than 60 (ideally above 144, or like in my case, around 120), an upgrade to 144Hz will give you a huge advantage in any fast paced game. I skyrocketed in CS:GO ranks reaching the highest ranks after upgrading to a pro monitor. Considering how huge the peekers advantage is in Siege, a 144hz monitor will only multiply that advantage even more.

The only reason to NOT use a 144Hz or 120Hz screen is if your computer can't push more than 60 FPS. Otherwise you are playing at a huge disadvantage.

Like Exhibition said, this is not going to make your game look any better. It only increases the screen refresh rate, meaning that you will see updates in the game faster than if you had a 60Hz screen. This means that if you peek a corner, you will be able to see the environment faster with a 144Hz screen compared to a 60Hz screen. You have to take into consideration that even though you more than double the speed you will update your screen, we are still talking about a small amount of time, so you need to have the reactions and aim capacity to take advantage of it,

That said, there is no pro player in any competitive shooter that would ever choose NOT to use a 144Hz screen because of how much of a disadvantage you would be at.

Although the essence of SuperJonM's message is true, he does make it seem larger than it is. The difference between 144 and 60 is not groundshaking, but it will in theory give you a minor advantage.

SuperJonM wrote:

You have to take into consideration that even though you more than double the speed you will update your screen, we are still talking about a small amount of time, so you need to have the reactions and aim capacity to take advantage of it,

Just to make it stick out more. The advantage is huge, but only if you can make use of it. Casuals should not spend money on this.

Also, the advantage is not only in peeking, but also in reading movement as it is so much smoother.

I would argue that spending that extra money on a larger screen would give you more success than the 144Hz

Yeah, size is another important aspect. Don't go for a 144Hz unless you can afford the 24-27" range. When i bought my XL2411, the step up to the 27 model was twice the pricetag. The price difference might have diminished since then and can vary from country to country.

21:9 FTW

I always wonder why people did not see that enemy until I realise they can't see that part of my screen.

Still doesn't make me any good though.

I have the BenQ XL2430T and I can say it IS a massive difference between 60 hz and 144hz especially if you hit above 75FPS you can notice it. Generaly, what I think is overlooked by everyone here, is that is does make your game look better. It makes motion a lot less choppy and blurry making the experience much more pleasant. 

It is a luxery item but one that if you have the cash  for it is really worth it. In siege you will notice the diffirence as well since you will be hitting that 75 mark. I even reach it with a GTX 760.

I do reccommend the BenQ XL2430T just because it has a feature set that other manufacturers do not offer at that price point. Im talking about a remote control dongle for controlling the monitor, an awesome and sturdy stand, non flickering backlight, and motion blur elimination by introducing flicker again like old CRT monitors (this does increase input latency).

Short story short, after using this monitor for months, I wouldnt go back to 60hz anymore. So get it is my opinion

Yeah, Psyc. I am using the XL2411Z. At the time of purchase it was THE monitor to get for competitive FPS gaming.  Back then it was the monitor used by the top Counter-Strike players as it was built with it competitive FPS as the main focus ( I think there were some cheesy promotional videos with old FPS legends like HeatoN and SpawN on Youtube about the monitor).

BenQ offers other models that are built with other game genres in focus, for example they have a model collection built for RTS gaming.

ASUS have some quality gaming screens too and i have seen some ESport events are using ASUS screens instead of BENQ (though the majority seems to still be using BENQ for their events). I think the choice comes from advertisement contracts between Esport hosts and the different sponsors they have, not because of the BenQ or ASUS is of "overall better" quality.

I went for the BenQ because all the pro players I was following at that time used it and it does have some cool extra features (BlueLight reduction, true black etc..).

Scripted? Bad Acting? Cheesy? Check

How expensive is it near you? because I paid 369 euros which was only beated by the XL2411 at 300 euros. The rest, even from other brands was more expensive :S Then again, when I bought it there was no gSync. But I dont get how they would be the same price since the Gsync module alone costs 100 euros