Why is everyone shitposting about resolution and 4K when 144Hz + 144FPS is should be what everyone is concerned about?
Like holy shit, I just bought BenQ's XL2411Z and the difference is night and day. I was already running all of my games at 144FPS for the response time benefit, but holy shit this literally pay2win. I can't believe I've been playing games without this all my life.
Other urls found in this thread:
youtube.com
youtube.com
youtube.com
twitter.com
I am not able to get up to 144. I am currently running my meme 3440x1440 at about 80fps.
144Hz isn't a meme. It's just that the 2015 batch of 1440ps at 144Hz had QC issues.
I overclocked my monitor from 60hz to 75hz and the difference is very noticeable. Now 60fps feels shit to me.
I can only imagine how 144 would look like.
I used 60hz for literally my entire life until about last month when I bought a 144hz monitor.
Now whenever I use my 60hz monitor the cursor and games just look SO fucking jagged and stuttery. I can't go back.
I skimped out and bought an AOC 144hz. it's had no problem so far and it's really smooth but Sup Forums shilled me into believing AOC is going to explode on me
144fps isn't visible in bullshots and tv ads, so it's harder to market. Also 144fps is 7 syllable s and 4K is 2, so it's not as good of a buzzword.
Yea as soon as I moved my mouse I could see the difference. Even moving the mouse around in 60hz feels like shit now.
But I don't want to get a 144hz screen without 1ms latency and those are 2expensive4me.
I have the same screen I think, had it for a year or so now. I like it allot, the only thing I didn't think about was the bezel size for if I wanted to buy a 2nd or even 3rd.
I have three monitors with the AOC being in the middle and I don't really mind the bezel. But I can see why to others it would get annoying
>Have spent my entire life playing games on 1.5 mbps internet on low-end desktops/laptops
>Enjoy my games, even though they don't run the best
It's depressing seeing you guys jerk off over fps. Just play the game and enjoy it. fps doesn't affect the game unless it's really low.
T. Tech illiterate retard
TN panels look like dogshit and 144Hz IPS panels are ridiculously expensive.
How could you say that if you haven't experienced it first hand? FPS is pretty much the few things that has a direct and appreciable impact on the quality of the gameplay.
I ran a 24 inch widescreen CRT at 160hz until 2007, at which point I bought a 120hz LCD.
I've been relentlessly raping everyone who thought 60hz was enough for years, now. Kinda sad the hilariously huge advantage is starting to become the norm...
>furfaggot makes a fucking retarded post
Really makes you think
I calibrated my display, and it looks identical to my ips monitor now.
no it doesnt
WHO /MG279Q/ HERE
Retard
>looks identical to my ips monitor now.
kek
tell me what you see in this image.
a compas like thingy
IPS is shit for gaming. its makes blacks too black and its hard to see things in games sometimes.
>a compas like thingy
then your monitor isn't calibrated correctly. you shouldn't be seeing that on a TN monitor.
>oled cant do 144hz yet
plz make it happen
>its makes blacks too black and its hard to see things in games sometimes.
then change you gamma settings
This is a stupid image to repost for a ton of reasons
>can see thing in the thumbnail but not in the expanded image
What is this wizardry?
really? on my IPS monitor this image is fully red, but on TN i'm sitting on now I can see the shape. doesn't it mean the TN is better calibrated?
doesnt make a difference.
It's a circle with a line and spikes in the center.
okay
because there are a lot of games that receive very little benefit from 60+ FPS, despite needing stronger cards.
4K and 144hz are cases of diminishing returns, where the better and better something gets, the harder it is to notice it. I'm willing to bet 90FPS and 144FPS are p difficult to tell the difference between, granted I can't test it myself without buying said monitor.
4K is only good with a fucking huge screen, the idea of it on a monitor that's less than 30 inches is stupid. You'd need a minimum 55" screen and be less than 15 feet away from it to see a visible difference.
>what everyone is concerned about?
We should be concerned about panel/image quality. Modern displays are fucking garbage.
>doesnt make a difference.
changing gamma doesnt make a difference?
Are you fucking kidding
the monitor is calibrated perfectly but it doesn't matter the blacks are just too good. its impossible to play rainbow six siege with one. (not that you'd want to play the game)
Me. It's damn great. A shame about freesync only works on 30-90Hz though.
Left is ips
High refresh rate monitors often have worse colors. I think it's a sacrifice worth making though.
>ou'd need a minimum 55" screen and be less than 15 feet away from it to see a visible difference.
That's so fucking wrong.
What resolution, according to you, is the maximum a human with good eyesight can benefit from at 24", 60cm viewing distance? FHD? QHD?
I was talking about TV's, I didn't word it very well.
For monitors, I also think it's kind of pointless because without a really large monitor, you need to be looking for the difference in resolution.
That said, 4K from FHD isn't nearly the jump that SD to HD was. It's a lot harder to tell the difference. I just feel the cost of money and power isn't even remotely worth it yet.
That's true. The jump isn't as big. The image quality is noticeably better, but yeah, still expensive.
>implying you need more than 25fps
lel i can see it on my TF TV but not on IPS monitor
Ever played a racing game or shooter with 25fps? living hell
>lcd plebs think 144fps is something to brag about
>crt elite's been enjoying 170hz since 2002
gg no re
>muh I only play multiplayer shit games like CS:GO or the latest moba shit
A good 4K setup cost around $3000 or more. 4K looks amazing most AAA titels these days are locked at 60 fps so there is literally no reason for 144FPS outside of multiplayer shit.
>TN panels
This. Mostly this, you can't fake HZ. Besides it requires a shitload of processing power to achieve stable 120+ and consoles simply can't.
You're fucking stupid and should consider removing your presence from this board.
I'll probably continue playing on 720 @ 60 until I can't anymore.
>4K from FHD isn't nearly the jump that SD to HD was.
Yea it is just look at the numbers you retard.
1920x1080 against 3840x2160. That's like saying a game on low settings looks like a game on ultra but how would you know?
>t. Somebody who was never used a 144hz monitor.
You realize there's perfectly good IPS monitors on the panel featuring 144hz right, retardo ?
I did but you never used a 4K monitor :^)
>mfw this thread
I thought you guys were joking at first, but holy fuck you're serious about 144 fps being "night and day" compared to 60. Wasn't it established the human eye can't see past 60 or is there something im missing? Either way, thank fuck I can transition from 60 fps to 30 without giving a shit.
People seem to be more or less sensitive to that shit. Look at audiophiles for example. It's all has a very minor impact on my enjoyment of shit for the most part. 60 is fine for action games or fighters 30 is fine for anything turn based or slow. Resolution barely matters.
144 fps is only usesful in cs:go.
150 fps is about the limit of what the average human can discern.
>I overclocked my monitor from 60hz to 75hz
y-you can do that?
Not that user but can you please educate me on what the differences are from say a pc at 60 fps or a console at 30? Assume both have equal graphics, only difference would be the fps.
Yup though your results will vary, for example I only managed to get my monitor to go from 60hz to 66hz.
It mainly affects the time between you pressing a button and something happening on screen, which is to say how responsive the game is. It also affects how smooth animations look.
Thanks, user.
2k is the middleman no one cares about.
It's 1080p or 4K or go the fuck home.
Yep. Overclocked my QNIX 1440p monitor to 96hz, never going back. What few FPS games I play these days like KF2 are smooth as fuck.
In a nutshell: the difference higher framerates make is that you'll start to experience what is known as the eye fedora meme. When you start wear eye fedoras, you can no longer enjoy video games anymore without your eye fedoras. Also, the buyer's remorse you'll feel will force you to shill your eye fedoras on Sup Forums. It's the meme that keeps on memeing.
its just red
i dont get it
>Wasn't it established the human eye can't see past 60 or is there something im missing?
What the fuck.
i bought 144hz g-sync monitor and it's great
I'll wait for 144hz 2160p. Display port 1.4 is close, it will be commonplace by 2020.
because ant-sized 1440p screens are fucking shit compared to a big 4k
we will have 120hz 4k panels soon
4k60 - 2016/7
4k120 - 2018
27 inches is Detroit tier
I did the same and noticed nothing.
Px277 is cheap
shitty stand though
>144Hz + 144FPS
more like 144Hz + 288FPS
fuck vsync
120hz + lightboost or 144hz?
Underrated post
I've been using a 42 inch 3D TV but I want to just do a multi monitor setup to keep it uniform.
What's a cheap 1080p 120/144 monitor?
Who gives a shit about 4k and 1million FPS when my anime still streams at 540@20.
Lucky to get 720@30 on a recently aired TV show, let alone 720@60
Gimme 720@60 as the universal minimum, THEN I'll think about getting something that can display more than 1080@60.
you aren't going to get games shitting frames in less than 7 milliseconds anytime soon. the whole time spent copying the final data to the display buffer is taking most of that time already, even in c.
not that guy, but if you're willing to drop the cash on 4k, be my fucking guest
is that why its 144hz, i thought there might be a reason
1 frame displayed every 6.9ms?
I have a 39" 4K monitor that I sit ~2 feet away from. The difference of course is like night and day compared to a 1080p TV of the same size at that distance.
I think a lot of the time people think 4K is pointless because they can't think above 27" monitors. 4K really starts to shine when you use big 39 inch+ displays, because at that size you get right around 110PPI, which is the same pixel density as a 1440p 27" monitor, so you get the same clarity as 1440p but in a much bigger size.
Also, it really isn't that expensive for what it is. You can get a 40" 4K AMH / Crossover / Wasabi monitor for $450-650 if you shop around.
It may look like overkill, but once you use one you will never want to go back to an ant size 22-27" monitor ever again. It's the perfect size.
I got 32" at about 10-15 foot distance when I'm laying in bed and I can notice anything less than 720.
4k's a meme because who the fuck wants to sit point blank to a TV?
You can't see fullscreened shit unless you're moving your entire head around.
And who the hell wants to window everything, that's ugly as sin.
>assfaggots
opinion discarded
>You can't see fullscreened shit unless you're moving your entire head around.
I was worried about this before I got my 4K display, but it's not true. 39" at about 2 feet away is just the right sweet spot for enveloping almost your entire vision yet not forcing you to move your head around. If it was any bigger, say 42", you would have to move your head a bit, but 39" is nearly perfect.
Check out these videos if you don't believe me:
youtube.com
youtube.com
youtube.com
These aren't my images, but I have the same model display. AMH A409U. Would buy again.
me. It's great. I've even heard that you can update it's firmware to move the freesync range up to 90-144 if you need it. I'm going to try that when I get a better card and the warranty is done
You are making due with what little you have, thats great, but not everyone is so easily content.