Monitor high refresh rate

Is it a meme or real?
Only reply if you have played on both a 144hz and a a 60/75hz monitor.

I could buy the Asus VG245H for 100 bucks less.
However it only offers 75hz refresh rate max. and it won't support LFC I guess.
Also haven't found anything about overclocking possibilities.

But I could pay 100 bucks more and go for the ViewSonic XG2401.

I cannot decide.
Is the refresh rate only advantageous if you actually hit 144fps or is the effect already noticeable with lower fps?

I also assume once you have adapted to 144hz monitors, you cannot go back anymore.
So, console gayming will be not an option anymore.

Other urls found in this thread:

testufo.com/#test=photo&photo=toronto-map.png&pps=960&pursuit=0&height=0
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Screen_tearing
youtube.com/watch?v=LCbTRSv9sQ8
twitter.com/AnonBabble

There is no advantage over getting 120-144Hz monitors over regular 60Hz.

It'll look nicer and smoother, sure, but it's not like you'll play your video games any better. You're as shit as you are a person.

Stop going into long winded discussions about it. It's a gigantic waste of money for memes.

>muh thinkpad

Don't listen to retards OP, better specs is just that BETTER.

>no advantage
>itll look nicer and smoother
>no advantage
okay.

Yes its a meme isnt it. Do you have one?
Most people who use the meme card are those who cant afford the things so use it as an excuse.
Yes they are worth it, I have 1440p 144hz and a 1080 60hz next to it. the difference between them is vast.

This

Your graphics card will throttle and skip frames anyways.

144hz user here. I love it and could never imagine going back to 60hz. You notice a difference in everything you do.

Well, it has a drawback though.

If you also do own a console, you will never play that again.

why?

Dude, I could feel that 75Hz is WAY better than 60Hz, so 120Hz ~ 144Hz should be smooth as fuck.

>all my life useing shitty 59Hz ~ 60Hz 14ms monitors
>use superior 75Hz 1ms for the first time

It sure felt good, my man.

what is the maximum refresh rate achieved even in experimental/lab conditions?

Too bad I'm a poorfag and can't afford a 144 HZ IPS display

It feels smoother. However if you get used to it 60hz looks like torture.

I know it's vidyagaems bullshit but the difference between low input delay + 144fps on pc compared to a regular HD TV is very noticeable when playing rocket league. Yeah, not everyone will be playing a console on a standard TV but the average person definitely will be.

Nah 75hz is good enough. What kind of game are you going to get a constant 120 fps on?

I got a 144hz monitor now, used to have a 95hz crt as my first one, then "upgraded" to a LCD 60hz screen.. and now this. i could not imagine going back to 60hz. the difference is that great.

High refresh monitors do nothing if you can maintain the fps for them. Assuming you can maintain 144 fps and not just average or peak 144 fps. 144hz on its own is mostly pointless. The improvement in motion clarity isn’t much. The biggest thing a 144 fps on a 144hz monitor offers you is less input lag.

Gsync and freesync help with tearing if you can’t maintain 144hz. They don’t improve motion clarity or any other BS some people parrot.

ULMB from Gsync or certain monitors with strobes are the best upgrade you can do for motion clarity. A Test to show this testufo.com/#test=photo&photo=toronto-map.png&pps=960&pursuit=0&height=0
You cannot read the street names with 144hz monitor. You really need 120hz strobe to read the street names.

There isn’t any real downside to a strobe. Only possible cons are:
-Some retards like their monitors overly bright and a strobe generally won’t allow for that.
-Older or poorly made games may have issues with trying to lock the FPS at 120.
-Poor quality monitors will show issues. Crosstalk from the strobe, flicker, etc.

Overall I would have no problem using either a 60hz or 144hz monitor. They are both vastly inferior to a 120hz ULMB monitor.

Indeed, too bad.

Ah, I hate these decisions.

159 bucks: 75hz, freesync 40-75hz, no LFC

259 bucks: 144hz, freesync 48hz-144hz, LFC

He's probably going to play competitive no-fun-allowed games.

Like? Quake live? Does anyone even play that anymore

minecraft xD

>Only reply if you have played

I've got a 144Hz monitor, if I try really hard, I might be able to tell, but 60Hz is plenty smooth enough. I wouldn't recommend it.

>What kind of game are you going to get a constant 120 fps on?

airforce pilots were able to perceive fast moving objects visible only for 1 frame on a screen all the way up to 300fps

144hz is only halfway to what might be the beginning of the limits of human visual perception.

If you're playing something like CS:GO, RL, Overwatch or some other fast game, I'd recommend it. If you're playing other casual games, I'd still recommend it, but not as strongly if money is an issue.

with my 2x1080s quite a few.

> What kind of game are you going to get a constant 120fps on

Not all of us use our integrated thinkpad graphics

No, like CS:GO, Overwatch. Games that has too much going on too fast. These monitors are aimed for that people (mostly), because the graphics aren't too fancy, so they can easily reach 200fps with everything cranked up to max with a decent GPU even in 4k, and at 144Hz, they can see a bit more information that might save the game.

I do play Quake, and started to play CSGO again.

Money is not an issue.

The question for me is whether the upgrade is worth the extra 100bucks.

It is

Even movies look a bit smoother because its a multiple of 24

Is that Xonotic?

yep

it's not as big of a difference as i would've hoped desu. i have a 1440p 144hz monitor and it's not a huge difference at all. slightly smoother, yes, but not twice as smooth (noticeably).

fuck Sup Forums for making t.b.h correct to desu.

Definitely worth it then

If money isnt an issue go for 144hz , depending on gpu either go for one with free or gsync

Unless you play exclusively slow stuff like Overwatch the difference will be night and day.
>mfw playing Cloudbuilt at 120fps

After switching to 144 hz I can't go back to old motion blur while trying to move the camera in any game that requires spotting enemies. I almost forgot how good it was on CRTs, now I can actually see something while moving the camera nonstop. I know it's a side effect, but it turned out to be much more important for me than HFR.

You can tell a pretty big difference just from looking at the mouse cursor on the screen, in games it's way better too, tracking enemies with automatic weapons is su much easier.

>get used to playing Dirty Bomb at 144hz
>one day everything suddenly looks like it's sloshing through molasses
>stat fps
>constant 144+
>at some point realize that for whatever reason the monitor has been reset to 60hz

I guess maybe if you want to play stuff mostly for fancy graphics and don't care that much about performance I could understand not caring about 144hz. Personally I usually just turn everything down to achieve high FPS as I care more about having a smooth performance than anything else.

>2016 AD
>does not have a freesync capable monitor

It's worthwhile in my opinion. You don't necessarily have to hit 144Hz for it to be noticeable either, if you've got an eye for high framerates every bit helps.I actually upgraded to a 1440p 165Hz G-Sync monitor from my old 1080p 144Hz, and while I'm rarely running shit at 165fps, it's nice to have the added headroom for whenever I can consistently achieve it.

Lol I have a 1080, stay poor

you're going to get diminishing returns, It depends principally on how much you care about it and if you play twitch shooters.

I've had the same 120hz monitor for almost 10 years now (Samsung 2233rz). It makes a huge difference and I will probably never by another sub-100hz monitor for myself again

I don't play twitch shooters and my experience is essentially like this >now I can actually see something while moving the camera nonstop

it's real.
Had 100hz CRT for 7 years
IPS 60hz for 5 years.
And now have 144hz IPS for a year.

120-144 is so beautiful to look at. I'd sacrifice graphical fidelity for frames. You feel it immediately in fps games with a quick look side to side. 60 becomes ugly. I feel higher frame rate is easier on the eyes if you have a problem with headaches, maybe thats just me

Honestly I don't think they're worth the money but they definitely give you a huge advantage on "gayming". So much it's actually unfair.

This is actually a lie, at least for first-person games. You get used to the smoothness and stop noticing it after a while, but it's a massive advantage when it comes to precision and aim correction.

60 at 144hz still better than at 60hz, not to mention how delay changes.

yeah you get used to it, but the moment you try to go back playing anything is hell
even desktop feels sluggish

visually no, I disagree. There may be something to your argument in regards to input delay but I can't confirm that

I have ordered the one with 144hz refresh rate now through amazon.

If it is shit/with dead pixels, I am gonna return it.

That said I actually still have the quality Iiyama CRT here, which I could use. But its electricity hungry and as far as I can remember it was really straining for my eyes.

That's the only drawback I can think of.

Once you go bl...144hz you can never turn back.

>I feel higher frame rate is easier on the eyes if you have a problem with headaches, maybe thats just me
Same, I used to just start feeling weird and perform poorly in games after playing too much on 60hz, but on 144hz I can easily stay the whole day playing and do just fine.

60FPS won't necessarily be synchronized with 60hz. 144hz guarantees that you will always have the latest possible frame on your screen.

>visually no
visually yes, ever tried scrolling text at 144hz? or webpages?

That's not 60hz. That's 144hz. Your desktop environment and most web browsers can handle that, try playing a game fullscreen capped at 60, there is no visual difference

not a meme, big difference in games

Is it really guaranteed though? Or just on average, you get better responsiveness. To be precise

>Iiyama CRT

Just got a 1050ti and can't connect it anymore because it doesn't have a DVI-I output.

Now I have to use my TV as a monitor while my great Iiyama CRT rots away :(

there is no visible tearing at 60fps 144hz, I keep it at 72 fps though where it's possible in heavy games. Tearing happens only if fps drops down to 20 from 60-70 instantly and back.

at 60hz tearing is unbearable even if fps is 60 capped

>no fun allowed

>near the end of 2010+6
>not using water cooled 8k panel @1Mhz for CS1.6
It's like you not even trying.

both, most 144hz monitors have input lag of less than 4ms

Personally I can easily tell the difference between 60hz and 120hz.

I can't tell the difference beween 120hz and 144hz.

I know that I can do this as a blind test because while I normally keep my monitor at 120hz, I have had a few times when driver updates have reverted it to 60hz without me knowing. Every time that happened, it was immediately obvious to me that something was wrong.

While I would never buy a monitor less than 120hz since I have the option, I can still enjoy playing consoles on a 60hz TV.

I have looked up the listed 1050Ti cards and they all have DVI outputs, atleast the ones sold in Europe.

Your wording is kinda incorrect
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Screen_tearing

>Screen tearing is a visual artifact in video display where a display device shows information from multiple frames in a single screen draw

>The artifact occurs when the video feed to the device is not in sync with the display's refresh rate

why don't you keep it at 144? pixel response changes as well on some models with refresh rate
up to 3-4ms fluctuations if I remember right
native panel refresh rate is always better

> water cooled
scrub git gud and get yourself some liquid helium cooled superconducting shit

>What kind of game are you going to get a constant 120 fps on?
The most popular games hit 120fps like nothing. Battlefield 1, Overwatch, CSGO, Minecraft. It's usually the more underground shit that is harder to hit 120fps on.

yes, technically it happens
but you can't see it=> it doesn't matter=>no need to enable vsync or other crap

some programs just aren't set up to redraw at variable rates. Your monitor will refresh and display the next frame, but a given program may only redraw every 1/30 of a second and there is nothing you can do about it.

>native panel refresh rate is always better
Naw. If you're watching 60fps on a high framerate monitor it'll appear smoother in 120hz mode than 144hz mode because the frame timing will be consistent with the monitor in 120hz mode.

Yes, but mine has DVI-D, which doesn't send an analog signal, so a DVI to VGA adapter would be useless. I'm either buying a 400 eurobucks digital to analog converter or I'm shit out of luck.

uh what
are you talking about fixed frame rate?
it's rare these days, and can usually be unlocked somehow
the only games that glitch at HFR with this unlocked are a couple of crappy/broken console ports

youtube.com/watch?v=LCbTRSv9sQ8

ya. For example, I wrote a game using allegro window library and I fixed the frame rate in code, based on a timer. No high rate monitor will make it smoother, it is locked in code. Now this is usually NOT what you should do in enterprise software, but I was just fucking around.

In some cases it can be easier from an engineering perspective to have your program do things at set intervals between frames (physics updates, AI computations, etc.). That's why some programs are fixed, and others aren't

Difference is HUGE, if you have the money just go for it. With a 1080 you will pull 100fps + for most games and for csgo/quake its an even bigger improvement. Just beware that going back to 60hz after using a 144hz will look like shit.

Fox and the grapes: the post.

if you show twice as many frames the latest each frame can possibly be and still show is cut in half.

High-Hz monitors with strobing backlights are absolutely not a meme.
High-Hz monitors without strobing are not quite meme-tier, but they're pretty crippled.
Variable-sync is semi-meme as well, since it can't be used concurrently with strobing.

The main advantage of 120+Hz displays is that strobing can be used without most people being able to perceive flicker or get eye strain from it, although a small percentage still do.

Also, bigger/closer monitors have more flicker perception problems at the same Hz, since motion sensing nerve ganglia in your retina get progressively more sensitive from your central field of vision to your outer peripheral vision.

What we really need are 240+ Hz strobing monitors, but that's not happening anytime soon due to LCD being somewhat shit and even DP 1.3/1.4 not having enough bandwidth to do that at respectable resolutions and color depths.

>strobing backlight
Is that the ULMB or something else? Because I've got that a ULMB mode on my monitor and it's absolute shit-tier.

I guess you can blink LEDs thousands of times a second. Response time starts to play a role in this quite quickly.

It's not a meme for fuck's sake.
People were choosing 60Hz when it was the best IPS option, but now you don't have to choose between IPS and 144Hz at 1440p.

I am content with 60fps at 3840x2160 for the time being since I mostly play top down RTS and RPG games.

Haven't tried refresh rates over 60Hz, highest refresh rate I've ever experienced was the HTC Vive's 90Hz but that is not easily comparable with a monitor.

>strobing backlights are absolutely not a meme
it kills brightness and contrast as far as I know

It's not placebo, it's not necessary. A nice feature to have but not every piece of software supports it and you have to drive those framerates fine. Also lower picture quality for its price.

>is it a meme or real
Ask a proper question you retard.

I get above 200 frames a second at 2560x1440 resolution in any game I want to play at high frame rates(competitive shooters) as long as I dial down visual settings. Overclocked GTX 1080.

Or perhaps people who play those actually have a lot of fun because of the competition?

You can get IPS type "1440p" 144Hz monitor but it will have worse response times over TN.

Does yes for brightness yes but the improvement in motion clarity due to low persistence is pretty amazing. If you play in a dark room, it's amazing. ULMB quality varies a lot.

I get almost exactly 144 in overwatch because it doesn't support overclocked GPUs other wise I'd be up at 150-155 with a stock 6600k/2133 ddr4/1060 6gb. I also hit 144 in WoW. 120s in DooM(I play the campaign again and again autistically I love it). Um that indy racer game redout. I also have no problem going over 60 in most AAA which shows a significant different on the new monitor.

This is all with a $190 144hz monitor, and a $600 upgrade to 1060/6600k from 6970/2500k.

Not to mention how much nicer normal desktop usage is. I'll be buying another 144hz for my second monitor because they're so cheap now. Dat smooth cursor

>yes
>yes
>amazing
>amazing

i gotta stop posting from a phone

>seeing something 1/120th of a second faster
>when your reaction time is about 1/5 to 1/4 of a second
>massive advantage

Not a meme at all for games but opinions are going to vary wildly based on individual ability to perceive and react to information flashing before you quickly. People that are slow and shitty at video games are likely going to keep perpetuating the fallacy that high refresh rates are a placebo. They are bad and this isn't up for debate. Don't listen to them if you aren't completely shit at video games.

Personally I have a harder time seeing a difference once I'm up over 115-120 FPS or so but I don't doubt that some people are able to appreciate even higher FPS. The jet pilot report should be a benchmark for what is humanly possible.

I use mine for retroarch + black frame insertion

Being a shitty 120hz monitor sure it's darker, but god

damn it looks so good in motion though.

120hz will look a lot better.
It won't make you any better at csgo.
That is all.

The human eye can only see 24 fps per second.

Imo dont buy it yet, also it wont help you much in csgo.

Wait until 4k hdr 3ms ips 25inch for under $300 is a thing before buying i think

You understand neither reaction time and the overhead caused by monitor signal processing, response time and refresh rate or the benefits of a low persistence, low latency display with high frame rate.

>Wait until 4k hdr 3ms ips 25inch for under $300 is a thing before buying i think
>not waiting for 240hz 1080p hdr