Tfw fell for the 144hz meme

>tfw fell for the 144hz meme
This isn't worth it at all holy shit

>meme
K gen z.

The point is 144hz display with gsync. So you get the benefits of gsync with 144hz.

>fell for the 8gb meme

Then you must have shit for eyes. Going to 60hz after having experienced 144hz is such a laggy pos.

ebig beit

asking seriously - should I get a low end TN 1080p 144Hz display or a low end 1440p IPS 60Hz one? I only game moderately

>le emperor's new clothes

>paying a premium for proprietary shit
lol no

Anything 75-100hz you notice decent upgrade

144 If you play a lot of fps or multiplayer games

neither. IPS it is

>proprietary
It's a standard that multiple manufacturers support, dumbass.

>Retard that hasn't changed his 144Hz to 144Hz in Windows.

Not saying there's no difference, it's just that the difference isn't worth the extra cost

TN is an eyesore if you intend to use the panel for anything else than text, then IPS

>I only game moderately
The only reason for these refresh rates in this application is gaming.
TN is better just flat out.

Are you dumb or do you not realize people used to overclock CRT's to 90Hz or higher for gaming? 60Hz has always been shit, look at old Quake forums, there's people whining about getting 50-60fps instead of 90.

>forget to 'xrandr --output DP-0 --mode 2560x1440 --rate 165' in .xinitrc
>Brother uses computer briefly.
>OMG WHY IS YOUR MOUSE SO SLOW
>Its set at 60HZ

As far as I'm concerned 60HZ is the new 30HZ. The difference is night and day.

This
>get used to 144Hz desktop browsing
>switch back to 60Hz
>mouse feels like laggy shit, scrolling Sup Forums feels stuttery
Literally every study on motion says that 72-90Hz is when humans see something as smooth motion. It's why they pushed 72Hz for 3D and Oculus is pushing 90hz for VR. The only reason cheap monitor manufacturers got away with 60Hz is because of sample and hold, so normies don't notice the slowness. Try 60Hz on a CRT monitor, it literally rapes your eyes.

>overclock CRT
>60Hz on a CRT monitor, it literally rapes your eyes
You kids are too young to have even used a crt.

>tfw fell for the wait for volta meme

Not if they had cheap ass parents and hand me down computer equipment.

You've convinced me to update my current displays to 144Hz. Any models recommendations?

And what video-card do i need to use 2*4k@144Hz?

I have a CRT actually, at its max resolution of 1280x1024@60Hz it's literally unusable. I can bump it up to 69Hz but it's still not perfect. 1152x864 and 1024x768 are much easier on the eyes and much better for gaming.

what people? everyone that had money switched to flat screen monitors as soon as they were available. the only people that were using CRTs were poorfags.

now, in every thread there's some fuckwad claiming that CRTs were preferred for gaming. that's a load of shit. as early as 2004/2005 the average gayming kiddie's set up would have a flat screen monitor.

>everyone that had money switched to flat screen monitors as soon as they were available

No they fucking didn't, the first few years of flat screens looked like fucking ass.

Stuck at 59HZ with massive ghosting, you could literally draw shit on the screen moving the mouse around.

there are no 144hz 4k panels currently available.

Nvidia just released one at CES.

yes, they did. i was dumb enough to piss away my youth on cs 1.6/css and like i said by 2004/2005 only poorfags were still using CRTs. i stuck with mine until 2007 not because i wanted to, but because i was a poorfag.

So what's the point in buying 144hz for browsing if no 4k available?

This is straight up historical revisionism. Computer Gaming World and PCGamer routinely shit on LCD's n 2004-5. This is an article form 2006 when prices were coming down, notice how submissive and defensive it is. "Yeah, LCD's are slower, and have shit blacks, but they're lighter and brighter! Your game will look like blurry garbage but at least LAN parties will be more convenient!" LCD's had a horrible reputation among enthisast PC gamers until Nvidia came out with their 120Hz LightBoost monitor.

There isn't a point. 144hz is a meme.

Forgot pic.

You have to enable it moron.

lol

kek who the fuck still went to LAN parties in 2006?

Playing CS on a 2004 LCD monitor would have been a horrible experience.

inb4 op forgot to turn it on in the windows settings
windows defaults to 60hz even with a 144hz screen connected

inb4 op can't get 144fps

Titan V or a 1080ti, 4k is hard

Literally coming out this year. That's the only reason I haven't got a 4k monitor, they're all slow trash.

t. poorfag

Actually I partially take that back, didn't realize that DP1.2 can go up to 4k/75Hz and some monitors can overclock to 75Hz easily. That's not as bad as 60 but I'm still content waiting for 120Hz displays.

For browsing/programming purposes dpi more important than speed. So when choice is between them - you definitely should pick 4k.
But 4k@144Hz sounds pretty cool for me.

reminder to turn off goysync and turn on ulmb instead

If you had money you bought a triniton based CRT with a flat display that did 120HZ in like 2000-2002 and it was still better than whatever flat screen piece of shit was coming out at the time for $500.

POORFAG BEGONE

I'm satisfied with playing shootan games at 120Hz.

>tfw brown eyes so can't see past 60hz

get IPS instead or OLED if you can afford it. had a 120hz TN panel monitor in 2012 because i was into gaming back then. the 120hz was smooth but the colors sucked so much. gladly i stopped the manchild gaming and got a real IPS 60hz monitor. stop being a gayman and get a real monitor and a real os

my golden words for today. bye faggets

Sounds like you have a shit CRT. If it doesn't at least support 1600x1200@85Hz you should throw it in the garbage.

there was a very small group of people that were still buying CRTs at that point in time, and an even smaller group that would buy premium CRTs.

everyone knew it was a transition period and they were just waiting for a good enough deal on a flat panel to make them switch. when i finally switched in 2007 i was among the last to do so, and again, that was due to being a poorfag and not preference.

For stuff like editing, sure higher resolutions are a bigger benefit. You you haven't used Sup Forums until you've scrolled down a thread at 144fps. Web browsing is dramatically better at high refresh rates. On sample and hold displays higher refresh rates mean less motion blur, so moving text/pictures are easier to see.

>being so insecure that you base your hobbies and possessions on how "adult" they are

That was also true but there were a few years where there weren't any good LCD replacements regardless of price.

whats next?

This, rear projection TV's and plasma TV's were better than LCD TV's, and high end CRT monitors were better than LCD monitors. LCD has always been a shit technology, it's only real advantage is really it's lightness and thinness make it good for laptops and other portable devices. Interpolation, aka the "Soap Opera effect," was literally invented to mitigate the horrible blurring on LCD's, and Overdrive was used to mitigate the horrible ghosting. Even the manufactures had to spend years figuring out how to work around the severe technological limitations of LCD.

Why would I pay extra money just to have my mouse and scrolling move more smoothly? Sounds retarded.

It's objective fact that LCD's in 2004/2005 were trash. If anyone sincerely thought that being an early adopter of LCD's over CRT was a good idea they got scammed, sorry. It has nothing to do with poorfags or richfags. Again, just read any gaming or TV article from 2004, they all thought LCD's were cheap trash. Most high end consumer electronics fans bet on plasma, LCD's were always a transition technology.

You can buy a DIY 4k/120Hz panel right now that supports 540p/480Hz. I can't imagine playing a game at 540p, but it's an interesting prototype.

Except LCDs had better contrast and that along with the cheaper price was why they took over so fast.

Overclock that shit to 75Hz at least faggot, PC's weren't meant to be used at 60Hz.

It is retarded until you get used to it.

Bird in a cage syndrome.

Better contrast means fuck all when they have less colors and can't properly display black. High end professional CRT's still had a place in the industry for years since there was no LCD monitor that could even come close.

>Better contrast means fuck all
Typing user.

there is something wrong with your eyes, or you play very low paced games

my games run at 20-40 fps, some are simply locked at 30 or 60
yeah, that monitor will surely improve my experience

but seriously, who is the target audience for those? apart from counterstrike what games can hit that limit withtout the need of quad SLI setup?

it's a Nvidia standard
the actual, freely usable, license free industry-standard is freesync

Are you so ignorant that you think standards are free? You think something like the HDMI standard is free?

Graphics cards can push games at pretty high framerates nowadays. Especially if you lower the graphics settings a bit.

>tfw fell for 16GiB RAM meme

Honestly 4k is a much bigger meme if you wanna upgrade, you dont need 4k for a screen, 144Hz or even 120 do give the feeling of future

You get better response times, no glow, and theyre cheaper. Given the image quality and viewing angles of IPS, that's hardly flat out.

>Given the image quality and viewing angles of IPS
Pointless and possibly a negative for the application.

gayming aside:
it hurts to operate the desktop at 60Hz after having witnessed 144Hz.

I bought a 1440p/165Hz/G-Sync monitor and was fairly underwhelmed by it overall. Ended up returning it and buying a 4K TV instead, which had a far bigger impact on my gaming enjoyment. I find having a huge screen to sit in front of much more immersive than a tiny monitor. I'm sure those new 65" 120Hz monitors will be the best of both worlds if you have $10k to spend.

This is a good reason NOT to get a 144hz monitor. I use 60hz monitors at work and regularly use my laptop. I don't want to feel that pain whenever I'm away from my desktop.

More Hz means more NPCs

mfw I have about half of that crap

>not wanting smoother mouse movement

Anything over a 100Hz is probably meme territory. Basically with a 120Hz refresh you see twice the information as 60Hz but does it necessarily improve your gaming performance or experience? Maybe. What is easier to control? A car going 60 MPH or 120 MPH? Seeing faster movement and visual data can actually be a disadvantage for a lot of people. How many frames are being rendered is also important. If you are only rendering 60 FPS then 120Hz refresh isn't being very useful. If you are rendering 250+ FPS then whether you have a 60Hz screen or 120Hz screen you will be getting more up to date information anyway. I personally prefer using 85Hz on my CRT screen for gaming. It is kind of a sweet spot between 60Hz choppiness and 120Hz smoothness (and the low latency CRT provides of course). I am not an expert on new monitors but last I checked they still aren't as good as a CRT for gaming. Higher input latency, ghosting, bad colors etc. Real competitive gaming died with CRT monitors. Will there ever be another FPS title as good as Quake III? Not a chance. -oldschool gamer

>tfw fell for the 4k meme
feelz good

I have 2 60hz and 144hz monitor at home. I would not just buy it for a more fuild mouse movement. Only important for muh gaymans

>tfw fall for the 4k meme
>games don't support it
>windows 10 scaling doesnt support it

>If you are only rendering 60 FPS then 120Hz refresh isn't being very useful.
To be fair you do get less input lag running 60fps@120Hz than 60fps@60Hz. This is because the scanout speed of the monitor is still running at 120Hz, so even if the game is updating every 16.7ms, the monitor is updating every 8.3ms. So as soon as the frame is rendered it can be thrown up on the screen.

Don't make fun of my mouse you fucking asshole. The g600 has plenty of actual non-gaming applications.

>fall for 4k meme
>only 4k things to watch are shitty netflix originals

HDMI isn't free
However DisplayPort is free
USB is free
>all standards you have to pay for

Define "standard" you inbreed

A standard requiring a license doesn't make it proprietary champ. That was the point.

VESA Adaptive Sync/Freesync is open, while Gsync isn't. Gsync relies on a proprietary hardware module in the monitor.

That is true. It's debatable how beneficial that is though.

Did you fucking enable it on your OS? Neither windows or linux run at 144hz by default, you have to configure it.

>it's literally unusable
because you find the flicker annoying or because of the frame rate itself?

Because of the flicker mainly. It was just an analogy to show that 60Hz is typically under the "line" where humans start seeing smooth or uninterrupted motion. If you use a 100+Hz monitor and get used to it, going back to 60Hz is tough, the mouse feels laggy. People only tolerate 60hz monitors because sample and hold hides the slowness of it.

you mean people """tolerate""" 60hz on lcds because they don't flicker like crts and it's the flickering that bothers them and not the frame rate itself.

You can probably hit higher refresh rates using a lower resolution like 800x600. Surely you can at least hit 85. My CRT can do 140Hz at 800x600.

I know? I think you misread my post, I could only achieve 69Hz at 1280x1024, but could achieve much higher at lower resolutions like 1024x768.

You are guaranteed to pay out the ass for a 4k 144Hz monitor. If I were you I'd rather get a 75Hz freesync display or 120Hz. The lag difference between 120 and 144 is all but impossible to discern and 240 is pure lol. I mean if you have the money to throw at it go for it but through personal experience once you hit triple digit refresh it drastically drops off in usefulness. Motion is pretty damn fluid around 90-100 FPS.

ok I understand now and yea I wouldn't use

>not wanting to see more A-10s
cuck