I'm building a new desktop after years of using a small laptop, but I don't know what resolution/refresh rate I should choose to build for and I obviously can't build it until I figure this out. Is there a way I can compare how they all look? It's not coming through on videos, and I don't have a Microcenter nearby.
>I'm building a new desktop after years of using a small laptop, but I don't know what resolution/refresh rate I should choose to build for and I obviously can't build it until I figure this out. Is there a way I can compare how they all look? It's not coming through on videos, and I don't have a Microcenter nearby.
TL;DR but that bird looks stupid
PROVIDE MORE INFORMATION
BUILD SPECIFICS
YOUR GOAL FOR THE BUILD
okay, i'll be 100% honest
>reading PDFs from libgen
>watching videos
>video chat
>office suite, mostly Excel
>programming, but only just starting
>Honey Select 2
>Koikatsu
>Sims 4 Wicked Whims
>Skyrim with sexlab mods
>openAI Whisper tool, maybe
>maybe use a DAW but probably not
I will be judged for speaking the truth.
let's analyze this
PDFs from libgen
videos
chat
suite, mostly Excel
, but only just starting
4K for reading clarity, probably 32GB RAM for excel and programming stuff, otherwise nothing notable here, unless you're going to be compiling huge programs on a daily basis, as then you'd want a high MT score
Select 2
these are unoptimized and require a legitimate GPU to run well, even at 1080p, so 4K would require a 6800XT/4070 or better
>>Sims 4 Wicked Whims
this is probably lightweight
with sexlab mods
this is also going to require a fast GPU
Whisper tool, maybe
you'll probably want CUDA but maybe AMD is fine. VRAM is not actually a big deal for this apparently and maxes out at ~10GB with the largest size
use a DAW but probably not
high ST and MT for the CPU, 32GB+ RAM and at least 1TB of a fast SSD like the 990 pro or sn850x, but if you're not a professional, this is honestly not that important, i'd say
the only question is whether to go to 4k/144 because, like, hentai is better when it's smoother, right? the problem there is that you'd then need to buy either a 7900xtx or 4090.
no reason to go beyond 1080p 60fps although you might as well get a higher refresh rate monitor anyways, just get one that has the appropriate free/gsync feature.
1080p, 120hz, 1ms, 125fps, curved
>resolution
Depends on display size. You'll need to tell us what you're looking for. Good rule of thumb is 24" for 1080p, 27" for 1440p, and 32" for 2160p.
>refresh rate
120Hz or higher if you're gaming. 60Hz is fine for everything else although higher is nice if you have the budget.
I'm almost certain I don't want something larger than 27". I don't understand why someone would want that much light blasting into their eyes.
If you want to program and 27'', definitely get a 1440p monitor. Other than that it depends on your budget, 60Hz is fine if you don't know anything else.
It takes me a while to get used to 60Hz from 144Hz again when I have a game where the physics crap out at over 60.
>It takes me a while to get used to 60Hz from 144Hz again when I have a game where the physics crap out at over 60.
this is weird
It's similar to playing vidya on the PC at 60fps and then playing a console game, although the difference is even more noticeable.
60 fps is fine for a controller, FPS games are pretty great at 100 FPS+. But if you've never experienced it just stick with 60Hz.
You not only have to pay more for a high refresh rate monitor but the other hardware has to support it as well.
Not weird at all. I switched between the two once a blue moon. It's mostly just about your current "normal". When you switch from 60hz to 144hz there will be a noticeable difference, things feels smoother, but after a while novelty just wears off. Same for vice versa but not smooth. Long term same experience, short term noticeable. What you don't want is what
says, 144hz screen but you can't afford the spec 100% of the time. It maximizes the difference and you just get the shitty experience. Either don't or go all the way.
This is why I say 1%/0.1% low is all that matters. Average never matters. It has a low that's above your monitors refresh rate, or you don't buy it.
Resolution is ez pz, just don't go below 100 PPI for any screen size. That's when games become so blocky you have to crank up AA to the max which can be more resource intensive than using a higher resolution with higher PPI. Essentially 1080p is ok up to 21 inches but anything more than that will require higher resolutions to stay 100+ PPI.
However refresh rate is a HUGE YMMV kind of thing. If you have a high CFFF you legitimately get very unfair advantages in terms of motion clarity especially when you bunny hop like a crackhead. However if you have a low CFFF then anything beyond 60 Hz could be a placebo. Would be nice if stores did a "try before you buy" with monitor refresh rate.
What is this graph saying?
Basically min/max human CFFF measurements or what point does a flashing light source look continuous. Some people have such high CFFF that they can see cheap chinese LEDs turning on and off at 120Hz and thus even 120Hz monitors would appear blurry to them during movement. CPU/RAM requirements get pretty pricey after 100 FPS though especially once you involve 1% FPS (arguably more important than average FPS).
>1% FPS (arguably more important than average FPS).
no argument, simply a fact
>CPU/RAM requirements get pretty pricey after 100 FPS
For games or desktop usage?
Everything really. x265 demands some serious blood sacrifices if you want 100+ FPS encoding 1080p.
Min/max human visual processing range basically. The latter is what lets some soldiers see bullets flying in the air specifically sub-sonic ammunition below 1,000 FPS and avoid getting killed by snipers.
It's impossible to know what "diminishing returns" are for a random person. Huge genetic variance regarding how fast humans can process temporal information.
you're claiming that 100ppi is all anybody needs, and that anything above 60Hz could be placebo?
When it comes to monitors, absolutely. 200-300 PPI is mostly reserved for tablets/laptops since that matches the DPI commonly used by printers on things like magazines. As for refresh rate you're basically on your own. Maybe 60+ Hz will be a placebo or maybe only 400+ Hz will be a placebo, no way to know except buying the fucking things and trying them out which stores won't let you do because they would rather all they gaymers mindlessly buy 144Hz monitors because they think it sounds ebin.
Not anymore now that monitors have VRR. AFAIK v-sync will cripple you back to 30 FPS when enabled on a 60Hz monitor if your frame rate drops down to 50 FPS. With VRR this isn't supposed to happen anymore.
>no way to know except buying the fucking things and trying them out which stores won't let you do because they would rather all they gaymers mindlessly buy 144Hz monitors because they think it sounds ebin.
You could solve this problem by buying a super high refresh monitor and just test yourself how fast you can go before it's just not possible to see any benefit, and then you genuinely know. This really is stupid, though, because returning stuff is always annoying, and they could pull some kind of "oh, sorry, we can't accept for x, y ,z reasons" and then you're stuck with some embarassing GAMER monitor you don't want. lol
IDK, I usually see people say stuff like 90 or 120 being the point of diminishing returns. I think 144 is a good minimum to aim for as it gives you a cushion just past that diminishing return point.
>AFAIK v-sync will cripple you back to 30 FPS when enabled on a 60Hz monitor
no it just caps at 60fps. It's actually just fine if you're not a sperg about CS:GO. Although VRR is certianly superior.
v-sync will stutter like crazy during FPS dips. 50 FPS at 60Hz vsync is worse than 30 FPS at 30Hz vsync IMHO. Having to worry about your 1% FPS never dropping below your monitor's refresh rate is such a pain. VRR is a fucking godsend for those of us who aren't part of the wealthy elite with 4,000MHz CL14 RAM kits.
You seem knowledgeable. What determines the 1% low anyway? How can it be maximized?
I think CPU cache and RAM determine 1% low. This is why the 7800X3D is at the top of 1% low charts while not even remotely having the highest ST score. It's beating the 14900K at 1080p while having like 21% lower ST, according to TPU.
Mainly your CPU and how good your RAM kit is. Green in picrel is going to shred in 1% low. CPU is the tricky part since higher end GPUs demand more compute horsepower else they get bottlenecked. Basically it's better if your GPU is hitting 80-90% while your CPU is cruising at 50% because the opposite means it's waiting for your CPU which can cause brutal 1% FPS dips. Intel got a lot of flack for releasing a 6C/6T i5 a couple of years ago, anything less than 8 threads just isn't meant to be used for more than low end graphics cards. However like
mentioned a big ass L3 cache seems to be an insanely good shortcut for good 1% low FPS.
I can't technically explain it further than that but VRR has made a day/night difference for me and I no longer give a flying fuck about 1% low FPS unless it dips really low like below 40 FPS. There's something about v-sync that makes it better to cap it at 30 Hz when your low 1% FPS is dogshit at 60Hz.
AVG is determined by the raw compute performance of your CPU and GPU. the 1% LOW is determined by your memory amount and speed; cache, RAM, and VRAM. You want to have more than necessary, and for it all to be as fast as possible. Buy more than enough RAM, choose, X3D CPUs, and buy GPUs with more than enough VRAM. Undervolt and overclock all of this. You want the AVG and 1% LOW to be as close as possible, and this is how you do that.
t. made this up
tbh the 1% low thing isn't as big of a deal now that VRR is a thing. Now with the X3D CPUs you don't have to worry about getting 1337 RAM kits anymore. intel users will remain the biggest suckers when it comes to PC gaming.
Might you happen to know if a system designed to maximize 1% lows has benefits outside gaming?
It would improve stutters system-wide, whatever that means.
>a system designed to maximize 1%
that's basically synomous with just having excess capability. There's no type of part that will improve 1% lows as opposed to averages. It has more to do with graphics settings in game. Focusing on 1% lows just means if you have a game than can run at 120fps, but will noticably dip to 75fps, then you're better off just capping the framerate at 75 (or 60 if you don't have VRR monitor) and it'll be a smoother experience than 120 with dips to 75.
Capping framerate improves 1% low as well.
>v-sync will stutter like crazy during FPS dips.
I've never had this issue except when playing shadow of a tomb raider on my PC that barely met the system requirements and even then it was only in one particular demanding section.
t. GTX970 in 2023
what do they mean by uniform vs edge?
63Hz vs ~500Hz?
You will not use it, it will collect dust
You have been warned
nowadays you need 4k 144hz for everything, if you have anything less than this you're a pleb and can't even fully appreciate computing