Is 144hz a gaymen meme?

Is 144hz a gaymen meme?

Other urls found in this thread:

humanbenchmark.com/tests/reactiontime
winwin.rs/monitor-24-benq-xl2411z-led-1920x1080-fullhd-1ms-dc12m-1-144hz-hdmi-dvi-dl-1193008.html
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mental_chronometry
google.com/search?q=human reaction time
twitter.com/NSFWRedditGif

I have that monitor and it was worth every Rappen. Can never go back to 60hz.

Is the QC really that bad as they say it is?

yes. pretty sure 60hz is good enough.

I just know that there are zero issues with mine. If you're worried about that stuff you can always buy at a retailer that lets you test the monitor beforehand.

nope
lol

Why is Dell the only company that makes gaming monitors that look like normal monitors and not gaymur shit? The s2716dg is pretty much equivalent to that Asus one (144hz 1440p TN panel g-sync) without the ugly base the Asus one has.

if the human eye can only see 24hz then why not make 24hz monitors??

is this the asus pg279q?

Gonna buy that in a few weeks, 120hz+ really does make a difference, everything is much smoother.

No. Especially with ULMB if you're a CRTfag. Also you avoid the 3:2 judder you get with 60hz monitors when watching movies and shows.

>TN

Is overclocking your monitor a meme? I just bumped my 60hz to 74hz but my gpu a shit so cant really see the difference yet

No but unless you're gaming and need that edge in speed, you won't need it

>lard-ass fatsos in front of PC cases with windows, glowing LEDs and TN monitors
>champions

Let's look at this matter with a brain, shall we?
A 60Hz monitor means it's refreshed 60 times within a second. That means you would need to have a reaction time smaller than the time it takes to refresh the screen in order for a 144Hz monitor to matter.

humanbenchmark.com/tests/reactiontime

This site says most people have a roughly 300miliseconds response time, the very best people have 100-150ms reaction time.

At 60Hz, the screen is updated 60 times within a second, so, 1s/60 = 0.016s = 16 miliseconds. Extra information is just going to get wasted, you're not going to react fast enough, anyway.

60Hz already has a refresh rate that is more than enough to provide information for you to succeed at your gaymes. Enjoy the placebo.

I ain't about all 'o dat math 'n shit.

When you get a 1440p monitor, do you get 144hz and that G-Sync shit or what?

It might not help you react faster, but it certainly looks smoother.

>placebo

have you even experienced 144hz before?

I can easily notice the difference between a 50 Hz and a 60 Hz. Am I spiderman?

Fun Fact - Your eyes and brain do not perceive the world in frames.

It's not a meme

Once you've seen 144hz you can't go back.

Once you've seen TN though, you want to burn your eyes out

This.

Don't buy a TN.

winwin.rs/monitor-24-benq-xl2411z-led-1920x1080-fullhd-1ms-dc12m-1-144hz-hdmi-dvi-dl-1193008.html
This is one of the most popular online technology retailers in my country and this is cheapest 144hz monitor they have. The price in euros is around 285€. For that kind of money, you can get an entry level gayming™ pc here...

why not just 72Hz

It is a meme, they're already bringing out 165Hz and 240Hz monitors.

Unless you're a professional competitive CSGO player it will be completely useless to you. But more important than the refresh rate is the input lag. Some of these 120Hz+ meme monitors have bad input lag, so you're actually worse off in many cases than a 60Hz monitor.

nice memes :^)

>Unless you're a professional competitive CSGO player it will be completely useless to you.
No, it's going to be completely useless for any professional gaming because humans don't react fast enough to cope with screen changes at 60Hz. It's just going to look nice.

Explain

wat if im pro mlg ???
mothafuckas

Assuming two people have the same reaction speed, the one who sees the information first will process and react to that information first. That's why those ms from response time, refresh rate, and ping matter.

Yeah, since the average reaction time is 200ms, there is literally no difference between playing at 5 fps and playing at 144 fps

This is just fucking stupid

this.

it's not about reaction times. Having 144Hz monitor reduces tearing so it's almost non existent any more, gaming feels smoother even at lower fps.

And for those retards saying that there is no difference going from 60Hz to 144Hz because you just can't see it, I have one thing to say: Going from 60Hz to 144Hz makes very little difference, you barely notice it. But, after using my 144Hz monitor for 2 years, going back to 60Hz makes a massive difference. It's hard to notice when you go to 144Hz, but very easy when going to 60Hz from 144Hz.

What a dumb argument, of course you need 25 ish fps to see continuous motion, but that doesn't mean it's going to matter for your gayming performance.

>Reaction time
It's to make games look smoother you dunce

It will you mongoloid. If average reaction time is 200ms, then playing at 30fps vs 144fps will add up to a reaction times of ~233ms and ~207ms. That 25ms faster reaction time in most FPS games makes a difference of one bullet.

>No, it's going to be completely useless for any professional gaming because humans don't react fast enough to cope with screen changes at 60Hz. It's just going to look nice.
This assumes that everyone has the same reaction speed and that having a higher speed interface (monitor included) would not favor the person with a higher reaction speed as he will get information that needs to be reacted to sooner.

Think of it like having old sluggish brakes which take longer to react to stomping on the brakes compared to modern electronic/hydrolic braking systems which respond instantaneously. If you have to stop your car before hitting an unexpected car pulling out in front of you who has a better chance of being successful?

Human eye can see a lot more, but you don't notice a difference on anything beyond 60Hz.

nice bait

No one is going to have a reaction time smaller than 100ms. Add that to delay between frames at 60Hz, and you have 116 ms reaction lag tops. Add that to the delay between frames at 144Hz, and you have a 107ms reaction lag tops. Most people have 200ms reaction times, so you're looking at the difference between a 216ms and a 207ms response time, which are all pretty meaningless differences.

>implying you're a superhuman who can perceive more than 100 frames per second
You literally can't see a difference

It's not a matter of literally observing each frame, the display is simply noticeably smoother on 144hz.

You should try it sometime.

>No one is going to have a reaction time smaller than 100ms.
[citation needed]
And even if that is true (which I know it isn't as the average reaction speed, IIRC my Psych undergrad class, is 75ms) that doesn't have anything to do with polling time which is how often you get/respond to information.

Nice try but average reaction time is 260ms

Humanbencmark, google it

>>No one is going to have a reaction time smaller than 100ms.
>[citation needed]
>And even if that is true (which I know it isn't as the average reaction speed, IIRC my Psych undergrad class, is 75ms) that doesn't have anything to do with polling time which is how often you get/respond to information.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mental_chronometry
google.com/search?q=human reaction time

>The temporal sensitivity and resolution of human vision varies depending on the type and characteristics of visual stimulus, and it differs between individuals. The human visual system can theoretically process 1000 separate images per second but is not noticeable to the untrained eye after about 150 and sequences at higher rates are perceived as motion.
>modern PC gaming monitors can display 144 Hz through 240 Hz. 240fps is also around the limits of perceivable smoothness.

i have and it became second nature really quick. the benefit of having more frames was irrelevant to me and going back to 60fps wasn't a problem. gsync was more important to me than 144hz and thats why my future upgrade are 4k/60fps/freesync monitor + vega GPU.

listen i know you want to circlejerk over how good 144hz is but no one is going to respect your opinion if you can't respect the opinion of others, the whole "ill never go back 2 60hz ugh" meme is so childish.

>Nice try but average reaction time is 260ms
That's traveling both from the sensory organ + assimilation/decision making + traveling to the reacting organ(s).

>The human visual system can theoretically process 1000 separate images per second
If we translate that to tech = 1khz or far, far faster than 60hz.
>is not noticeable to the untrained eye after about 150
So even the untrained eye can notice a difference between 60hz and 120hz or 144hz.

That's nice to have but doesn't really address the questioned claim (No one is going to have a reaction time smaller than 100ms).

>google.com/search?q=human reaction time
Shifting the burden of proof. Not a valid citation.

>seeing your opponent sooner will not help you

Oh, okay.

>en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mental_chronometry
Only includes reactions that involve decision make/mental reaction. I'm looking for it but I remember seeing or reading a study about reflect memory cutting down reaction time as it effectively short-circuits the reaction process. I'm looking for it.

>Only includes reactions that involve decision make/mental reaction.
You mean like in gaming?

High refresh rates have existed long before it became a thing in gaming, so no.

the jump from 60hz to 144 is just as noticeable, so no

you're joking, right?

even moving the cursor across the screen you can notice the difference between 60hz and 144hz. typing in notepad you can notice the difference.

144hz is not a placebo.

>You mean like in gaming?
Not necessarily. There are numerous areas for a reflex memory to form over days of "exercising it." For example, you hear the rattle of your gun's ammo running out and by reflex you hit the key to reload without thinking about it. Or you see a flash of red and reflexively hit the button to apply a heal kit/bandage.

>t. someone who has never owned a 144hz monitor

> There are numerous areas for a reflex memory to form over days of "exercising it."
You mean like an athlete responding to a firing gun? It's all in there in the article.

I just want a 24" 4k 120hz ULMB IPS

>can't have 144hz because displayport literally isn't fast enough

>You mean like an athlete responding to a firing gun?
Yes that's one but also slightly different. Reaction time increases with each task associated to it. So while the memory reflex of pushing off from a block with your feet at the sound of a gun is taking the short cut, it's also competing with cognitize reaction (which is slower but still faster than the memory reaction) trying to make sure the launch is both legal and in the appropriate manner, ie. the start of his or her running form (for example there are two different types of starting forms between using blocks or not as well as using different angles based upon which lane you start in and where on a corner you are). In other words, the stimulus will initiate the memory reflex faster if there was less attempt by the brain to regulate it after its started.

Kind of like throwing a ball. Once you get the reflex memory on how to throw a ball you can "overthinkit" interrupting the reflex memory's response or "clutter it" with trying to make subtle adjustments to change it from a straight throw into a curve or a sinker (which can also form their own reflex memory if MY memory serves me).

No, there is a noticeable difference.

It's not all about raw reaction time.

By your logic, playing at 15fps (66.7ms per frame) would be fine for someone with naturally amazing (100ms) reaction time, but that obviously isn't going to be the case.

The reason ths isn't the case, is that unlike reaction tests, you're reacting to more than just a single frame of information. For example, you can't judge a trajectory, estimate speed, or predict a position, with just a single frame; you need multiple, and the more frames you have, the more accurate your judgement can be, and the more sure you can be of it.

>For 1, 2, 3 and 4 frames:
30fps: 33ms, 66ms, 99ms, 133ms
60fps: 16ms, 33ms, 48ms, 66ms
144fps: 7ms, 13ms, 20ms, 27ms

>For 50, 100, 200 and 400 milliseconds of time
30fps: 1f, 3f, 6f, 12f
60fps: 3f, 6f, 12f, 28f
144fps: 7f, 14f, 28f, 57f

At 144fps, you're taking just under half as long to see the same number of frames, or for any given timeframe, seeing a little over twice as many frames.

One of the areas this is crucially important is when making adjustments to your own aim, as you're already primed to react (you know when you moved your hand), so this amplifies the significance of any time it takes for you to receive information from your monitor. This means any delays quickly add up to much more than the normal human reaction time, giving the person with the faster monitor a clear advantage.

i overclocked my monitor from 60 to 72 and that feels nicer. so yeah 144 must be great

I have a 144Hz screen, and a 60Hz screen. I game on both.

144Hz is nice. Very nice! Addictively nice! But so far, I can go back to gaming on my 60Hz screen just fine.

Worth the price? IMHO... no. If you are rich, and you can afford it with ease, go for it. If not, then 60Hz is still smooth.

>panning muh screen in dota
>text still readable while scrolling
it is nice i tell you. tho it's like buying a mech keyboard during the filco only era. it will get more affordable over time.

Should i swtich from my u2311h ips dell monitor to some 144hz tn? Its not about getting better at games, but im really curious how smooth it might look, but im really concerned about the colors.
wat do Sup Forums?

My Phillips also looks pretty normal, but I agree that Dell looks the best

120hz = looks reasonably smoother than 60hz
60hz = still decent, very smooth
< 60hz = fuck that shit its horribly janky

High quality TN (i.e. BenQ) screens have good colour, though the viewing angles are not as good as IPS. Test first before buying.

what about the BenQ XL2411Z?

Very good screen. I have one! I would say that colour accuracy and viewing angles are indistinguishable from a decent IPS.