Your eyes aren't a stationary slow-motion camera. A pursuit photo like those rtings ones is more representative of what your eyes actually see when tracking a moving image.
Read
for details.
Slow-mo videos only really demonstrate the improvements in 'smoothness", and allow for spotting GtG artifacts. That doesn't give you the whole picture, and I'd say it's actually more misleading.
if that's true, then 144hz is the point of diminishing returns.
3 weeks ago
Anonymous
In terms of smoothness, yes, returns start to seriously diminish. Stuff like 540Hz is an absolute meme that's barely any smoother than 240, which in turn isn't massively better than 144 (although still fairly noticeable). However, in terms of motion clarity, even 1000Hz isn't enough, hence why we need low-MPRT strobing to emulate 1000+Hz of effective motion clarity without actually driving meme-tier refresh rates.
3 weeks ago
Anonymous
240 really does seem to be the "okay, i'm not paying more than like $50 to go past this" territory. 144 is the 80/20 right now.
No, I didn't buy it yet. This is where I post something inflammatory and make a lot of people respond with their opinions, which I use to judge what is a meme and what isn't.
They're still moving and would have a degree of blur applied to them if not for the fact eye tracking eliminates blur on the tracked object, but a better example would be an ad/banner on the side of a bus: it'll still be readable from the sidewalk even as the bus drives past you, unless you're genuinely fucking blind. Happy now, dumbass?
Yes, with a relatively long shutter to emulate your eye's persistence of vision.
CRTs strobe, which has it's own problems
Sure, but for gaming I'd take those few downsides over immense blur any day. Strobing is a requirement for good motion without bruteforcing ridiculous Hz+FPS, unfortunately.
I have 3 monitors: a 4k 60Hz, a 1080p 75Hz and a 1080p 120Hz
out of the 3 I'd keep the first one if I had to pick. resolution/screen real estate >>>>> refresh rate
I got a very nice 1080p 75hz IPS Samsung monitor >Gaming >Watching movies >Browsing >Programing >Lots of money saved on GPU >Lots of money saved on arbitrary bigger numbers for "gayming" monitor >Happy
Over 120 is stupid for now. You need to at least double the framerate and hold it solidly to have an appreciable difference in actual use, and 240 is not reachable unless you're playing 10+ year old games exclusively. No, esports do not count, those are for fags.
Although technically better, it's too close to actually matter at regular speed. I've got a 165Hz monitor at home and the point I really start noticing is around 90-100.
I'm still running a 10 years old 60hz monitor
I wanna buy an ultrawide curved display with a VA panel mainly for work, animu and the 4chins. However I use dark mode for everything, should I avoid VA and/or curved monitors in general?
There's basically no point in looking at anything past 144hz unless you're only playing competitive FPS or old games, because almost nothing runs at 240fps, even at 1080p.
Is the G7 Odyssey the best option for a VA for less than $500 that doesn't have too much smearing? Or are there any IPS monitors that don't have shit contrast yet?
I'm still using a 1440p@60Hz panel myself. Nothing special, just a simple Dell Ultrasharp display. It's served me well for a while now, but text is honestly not clear enough (especially Asiatic characters). I also find the so-so latency, level of ghosting/tearing, and low refresh rate to be wearing on me. I bought a decent 2160p@144Hz display, so I'm hopeful that the balanced experience will be notable. I guess the higher refresh rate may be nice, but the main thing I'm looking forward to is just the res since the PPI is not enough for errorless text with even a 25"/1440p display at 100% scaling. Needs like 150% just to be fine, but that's oppressively large, so it's not practical.
I'm using a Dell UP2516D right now, and am getting a Viewsonic XG320U. I got one for a really good price, so I'm looking forward to seeing how it is. Reportedly has a rather wide color gamut (more than comparable LG models) which will be cool to see. Decent latency performance; not amazing, but still good I guess. I've heard PureXP is good for game shit, so I can give that a go too, but even if it's no good, I can use the Freesync Premium Pro it has. I could have just gotten one of LG's displays that has better latency values, like the 27GN970-B, but I found a better deal for this, liked its color gamut specs, and found its extra features more interesting. Unfortunately, I don't see many people discuss it, but it seems compelling to me.
How well a monitor manages blur reduction and anti-ghosting is arguably more important than plain FPS/Hz, but at the same time, most of the displays that feature such tech are usually higher Hz monitors...unless you count OLEDs and CRTs specifically, but once more, most of them that are marketed for 'gaming' will be higher Hz. So, the argument is a bit moot.
I'm using a 10yo 1080p@75Hz@27" LCD IPS monitor without any issues, it has one dead pixel, everything else werks just fine. I genuinely do not understand why people upgrade monitors so often when they just werk. Feels good that I can go 5-10 years without upgrading my mid-grade GPUs/CPUs and still get 60FPS on 1080p in any AAA vidya.
60hz is fine for me.
Those images are misleading as fuck.
elaborate
The videos
are a better illustration of the effects.
Your eyes aren't a stationary slow-motion camera. A pursuit photo like those rtings ones is more representative of what your eyes actually see when tracking a moving image.
Read
for details.
Slow-mo videos only really demonstrate the improvements in 'smoothness", and allow for spotting GtG artifacts. That doesn't give you the whole picture, and I'd say it's actually more misleading.
if that's true, then 144hz is the point of diminishing returns.
In terms of smoothness, yes, returns start to seriously diminish. Stuff like 540Hz is an absolute meme that's barely any smoother than 240, which in turn isn't massively better than 144 (although still fairly noticeable). However, in terms of motion clarity, even 1000Hz isn't enough, hence why we need low-MPRT strobing to emulate 1000+Hz of effective motion clarity without actually driving meme-tier refresh rates.
240 really does seem to be the "okay, i'm not paying more than like $50 to go past this" territory. 144 is the 80/20 right now.
my monitor from 23 years ago doesn't have this problem
(need good 60hz motion for 60fps locked games btw)
CRTs strobe, which has it's own problems
I dont need 144hz for browsing LULZs
smoother scrolling that doesn't give you eye cancer
I guess your eye cancer already metastasized to your brain
>smooth scrolling
you mean this garbage?
>he scrolls with a mousewheel
lmao
sir what do you scroll with
C-e and C-y
75hz is the bare minimum standard now
144Hz is the minimum.
*for gayming
there is no minimum to autism, you either have it or you dont.
guess what
Is the difference only noticeable in slow motion? I can’t think of any scenarios especially gaming where slow motion is normally used.
They all look so stupid below 144Hz.
I don't but 60hz is completely fine for most people
motion blur only matter to gaymers.
wrong board manbabby
works on my machine
I lock my 144hz laptop to 60hz for battery life btw
I lock my 60hz laptop to 48
human eye can only see hz in multiples of 30
human brain can't see more than 576i @ 25fps
Okay? 48 and 60 is the only option on my latop, dont care
OP got a new 144hz monitor, he doesnt like it and he created this thread to cope with his sadness
No, I didn't buy it yet. This is where I post something inflammatory and make a lot of people respond with their opinions, which I use to judge what is a meme and what isn't.
4k monitors with high refresh rate used to be rare and expensive.
real life has motion blur, why do zoomlets want LESS realism?
objects you track with your eyes don't have blur albeit
if they did, you wouldn't be able to read signs while driving
the signs are coming towards you, not moving left to right.
who looks at road signs just as they are about to pass you by?
try again
They're still moving and would have a degree of blur applied to them if not for the fact eye tracking eliminates blur on the tracked object, but a better example would be an ad/banner on the side of a bus: it'll still be readable from the sidewalk even as the bus drives past you, unless you're genuinely fucking blind. Happy now, dumbass?
The ones I track do get blurry. I have never been able to id birds while they are flying.
With those rtings tests do they use a moving camera that tracks the logo on screen?
Yes, with a relatively long shutter to emulate your eye's persistence of vision.
Sure, but for gaming I'd take those few downsides over immense blur any day. Strobing is a requirement for good motion without bruteforcing ridiculous Hz+FPS, unfortunately.
>Yes, with a relatively long shutter to emulate your eye's persistence of vision.
Do they have a page describing their setup or something?
https://www.rtings.com/monitor/tests/motion/black-frame-insertion
https://blurbusters.com/motion-tests/pursuit-camera/
Because it's a video game, homosexual.
Realism in video games is boring. Look at Milsims for a good example.
I have 3 monitors: a 4k 60Hz, a 1080p 75Hz and a 1080p 120Hz
out of the 3 I'd keep the first one if I had to pick. resolution/screen real estate >>>>> refresh rate
>Do people actually still use 60Hz monitors?
Yes. it just works.
> be me
> use mame/fba
> every game is 60hz
works on my machine.
My work laptop can only export 4k at 30.
the real question is if anyone has motion blur enabled, ever.
I got a very nice 1080p 75hz IPS Samsung monitor
>Gaming
>Watching movies
>Browsing
>Programing
>Lots of money saved on GPU
>Lots of money saved on arbitrary bigger numbers for "gayming" monitor
>Happy
Dump model name so I can check for 1440p version. And that nobody in this thread gets hurt as well.
Samsung T350 24"
Over 120 is stupid for now. You need to at least double the framerate and hold it solidly to have an appreciable difference in actual use, and 240 is not reachable unless you're playing 10+ year old games exclusively. No, esports do not count, those are for fags.
144Hz seems more like the diminishing return point, at least according to those videos above.
Although technically better, it's too close to actually matter at regular speed. I've got a 165Hz monitor at home and the point I really start noticing is around 90-100.
i have a 240 and dont notice a difference from my 60hz when playing games. i only see a difference in my mouse cursor.
Perhaps the games you're playing are all locked to 60.
I'm still running a 10 years old 60hz monitor
I wanna buy an ultrawide curved display with a VA panel mainly for work, animu and the 4chins. However I use dark mode for everything, should I avoid VA and/or curved monitors in general?
Yes. GTG smearing on VA is abysmal.
Yes. I don't play games so why would I waste money on a higher refresh rate monitor?
it makes the desktop smoother.
It's totally fine for me.
There's basically no point in looking at anything past 144hz unless you're only playing competitive FPS or old games, because almost nothing runs at 240fps, even at 1080p.
Is the G7 Odyssey the best option for a VA for less than $500 that doesn't have too much smearing? Or are there any IPS monitors that don't have shit contrast yet?
The only monitors with good contrast that aren't OLED or VA MiniLED are very expensive monitors for professionals in multimedia.
I use 60hz monitor still I dont see any reason to get higher I dont play modern goyslop games
I'm still using a 1440p@60Hz panel myself. Nothing special, just a simple Dell Ultrasharp display. It's served me well for a while now, but text is honestly not clear enough (especially Asiatic characters). I also find the so-so latency, level of ghosting/tearing, and low refresh rate to be wearing on me. I bought a decent 2160p@144Hz display, so I'm hopeful that the balanced experience will be notable. I guess the higher refresh rate may be nice, but the main thing I'm looking forward to is just the res since the PPI is not enough for errorless text with even a 25"/1440p display at 100% scaling. Needs like 150% just to be fine, but that's oppressively large, so it's not practical.
What model did you pick?
I'm using a Dell UP2516D right now, and am getting a Viewsonic XG320U. I got one for a really good price, so I'm looking forward to seeing how it is. Reportedly has a rather wide color gamut (more than comparable LG models) which will be cool to see. Decent latency performance; not amazing, but still good I guess. I've heard PureXP is good for game shit, so I can give that a go too, but even if it's no good, I can use the Freesync Premium Pro it has. I could have just gotten one of LG's displays that has better latency values, like the 27GN970-B, but I found a better deal for this, liked its color gamut specs, and found its extra features more interesting. Unfortunately, I don't see many people discuss it, but it seems compelling to me.
I don't need more than that to code.
i cant afford more.
A good 60hz monitor has less motion blur than even a mid-range 165hz monitor
How well a monitor manages blur reduction and anti-ghosting is arguably more important than plain FPS/Hz, but at the same time, most of the displays that feature such tech are usually higher Hz monitors...unless you count OLEDs and CRTs specifically, but once more, most of them that are marketed for 'gaming' will be higher Hz. So, the argument is a bit moot.
I'm using a 10yo 1080p@75Hz@27" LCD IPS monitor without any issues, it has one dead pixel, everything else werks just fine. I genuinely do not understand why people upgrade monitors so often when they just werk. Feels good that I can go 5-10 years without upgrading my mid-grade GPUs/CPUs and still get 60FPS on 1080p in any AAA vidya.