60Hz vs 144Hz vs 240Hz BTFO
considering 240hz reduces screen tearing even more than 144hz, it's a no brainer to get
16.7ms vs 6.9ms frametimes are worth it. 6.9ms to 4.2ms frametimes are not worth it.
most 3D engines don't even run on 60FPS+
you have to go back
csgo runs 999 fps
overwatch as well
I play neither quake or csgo.
>based on my arbitrary standard
A 9.8ms reduction is far from a 2.7ms reduction
They do, just not with ultramax settings
>a bigger number is bigger
thanks dad
You still haven't said why one is arbitrarily "worth it" and the other isn't. What about a 5ms reduction? 4? 8?
It's not worth it because it's a $500 monitor. A $220~ 144hz is worth it over a $140~ 60hz, but the price for the 240hz monitor is ridiculous.
If you don't play quake, why are you on the tech board?
I have 120hz monitor. I don't see the reason to go any higher.
For FPS games then anything above 60fps is playable (preferably 90+ for competitive games) and anything above 30 fps for non-fps games.
I'm master in overwatch and global elite in cs:go if that counts for anything.
he's here for the t-shirt
Wait, people think having lower frame times or higher refresh rates improves aim? I have a 144 Hz panel but only because I really like the smoothness of it, I am under no illusions that it improves my gameplay or anything.
Which monitor you got bro, can you link?
Off the top of my head, it seems possible that a player could happen to react to something a fraction of a second sooner if presented with that thing in an "earlier" frame. The timing is dwarfed by human reaction speed and response times of other peripherals, but those always apply. The difference is when you first become aware of information to which you can react. Am I missing something with that impression?
Sounds great theoretically but I have no actual evidence to say it makes a measurable difference.
Personally I know the weakest part of my FPS play is aim. I used to be a half-decent sniper back in the UT2004 days but otherwise I can only really compete in team games that focus more on strategy and team synergy than aim. I've gotten a 144 Hz monitor, a very highly regarded mouse, sorted out my sensitivity, etc. and still can't aim for shit. I have accepted this fact and no amount of money splashing will change it.
That's still based on your arbitrary decisions of "value".
Depends on the person. Some people swear it's a huge performance improvement, some say it changes nothing.
It's noticeable no matter how much fps you gain m8
While it might be true that you won't be able to tell them apart in isolation, when compared side to side you will get blown away
That image.
wut the fuck are you even talking about? do you do open heart surgery with robots? does refresh trigger you that much?
And yet the best players in 'competitive' CS:GO are BRs that play on CRTs and 60Hz North Korean brand LCD monitors that sit on plastic chairs.
Tell me, do you also eat gamer fuel while you wear your gamer glasses to play on your gamer keyboard with gamer mouse and look at your gamer monitor running off your Gamer Edition: GPU and gamer CPU i7 ultra-mega-hyperthreaded with gamer RAM on your gamer Motherboard all connected via GAMER cat6 ethernet cable? If any of that sounded retarded to you, that is how you sound to normal rational adults. Stop typing dumb shit.
>My eyes are highspeed photography cameras
>I am a robot
Neither of these two statements are true, faggot.
everything above 30hz is placebo
How many modern releases even support 60Hz anymore?
>This much impotent rage
>Making shit up and crying on Sup Forums
Jesus christ get help kid
All that which was typed in no manner whatsoever indicated 'impotent rage', do you perchance have autism? Explains why you need 'at least 90 fps'.
Why so mad though?
>thinking framerate=refresh rate
these videos are funny.
you can't tell the difference between a 144hz and a 240hz monitor if you're using a 60hz monitor. you don't have the necessary refresh rate
sir pepe, please don't punch me!!!
DELET