Go Back   OC3D Forums > [OC3D] Graphics & Displays > Screens and Displays
Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
 
  #11  
Old 22-10-18, 04:07 PM
The Zealot The Zealot is offline
Newbie
 
Join Date: Jul 2016
Location: London, UK
Posts: 17
Edit: sorry guys, I forgot to notice the date of the thread first. :P

If you play multi-player FPS like Battlefield V, you're handicapping yourself if your refresh rate isn't as high as possible. While our reflexes are different from person to person, I don't think there's any doubt that the best players refuse to play at less than 144 Hz. So playing these games at 60 or 70 Hz is an unfair disadvantage to you.

But if you're not into that (I'm not), then enjoy the beauty that a higher resolution brings, especially if the panel is not TN, and you get better colour fidelity from your monitor. You should also try to go for a FreeSync 2 monitor while you're at it, it's a great standard.

Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 22-10-18, 04:20 PM
Avet's Avatar
Avet Avet is offline
OC3D Elite
 
Join Date: Dec 2016
Posts: 1,130
Ideally it is 1440p at 144Hz. But it depends on what games you play. If you are into single player adventures, RTS, RPG you would want higher res. Anything with PvP higher FPS is a must.

I recently played on friend's Predator XB241H (1080p, G-Sync, 144Hz). OMG! It is smooooth. 144Hz, G-Sync/FreeSync at any resolution is a game changer. It is definitely worth the money. Completely different experience than 60Hz at any res.

Word of advice. Calibrate your monitors. A guy came and calibrated mine for 15 Euros. You can't believe how off were stock colors.
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 22-10-18, 04:31 PM
g0ggles1994's Avatar
g0ggles1994 g0ggles1994 is offline
OC3D Crew
 
Join Date: Jan 2016
Location: I was hoping you could tell me.
Posts: 944
Don't worry about it mate, we've had much older threads return from the dead

In relation to your post, I get that about FPS games, to be honest. I haven't played a multiplayer FPS since Zombies on the first Black Ops, I've never been a big fan of them. Thinking about it, the only PvP game I even play online is Mario Kart and I do play a lot of Splatoon 2 but that's a TPS so take it as you will.

In relation to this thread though, due to the limitations regarding my wallet I went for a pair of iiyama G2530HSU-B1's. Still on 1080p but they've got FreeSync 48-75Hz which doesn't sound like much but are a huge improvement over my old bog-standard Asus monitors. The difference FreeSync makes is insane.
__________________
Ryzen 1700X @ 3.6GHz | MSI X370 Gaming Pro Carbon | Corsair H100i v2 | 16GiB Corsair Vengeance LED Blue
ASUS RoG Strix Vega64 8GiB | 240GB Corsair Neutron GTX | 1TB HGST | Corsair RM850 CableMod | Phanteks Enthoo Pro M TG
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 23-10-18, 09:21 AM
looz's Avatar
looz looz is offline
OC3D Elite
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: Finland
Posts: 1,498
As an anecdote: I had 1920*1200 for almost 10 years, got a 4k60 monitor and then bought a 1080p144 alongside it for gaming since really I got into CS.

I ended up selling the 4k monitor since 60Hz felt rather poor for any use, and as such it ended up sitting idle most of the time.

Recently I bought a 1440p165 G-sync monitor and I feel it's the sweet spot, and I doubt I need to upgrade from this in a long time. 4K isn't much of an advantage over 1440p in my opinion, but 1080p feels somewhat cramped.

Out of those two options I'd definitely opt for 144Hz, the responsiveness is much more noticable in the long run.
__________________
i7 8700k - 16GB - 2060 FE - 512GB 970 & 850 EVO - AKG K702
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 23-10-18, 09:43 AM
Warchild Warchild is offline
OC3D Elite
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: Norway, Oslo
Posts: 5,435
Quote:
Originally Posted by looz View Post
As an anecdote: I had 1920*1200 for almost 10 years, got a 4k60 monitor and then bought a 1080p144 alongside it for gaming since really I got into CS.

I ended up selling the 4k monitor since 60Hz felt rather poor for any use, and as such it ended up sitting idle most of the time.

Recently I bought a 1440p165 G-sync monitor and I feel it's the sweet spot, and I doubt I need to upgrade from this in a long time. 4K isn't much of an advantage over 1440p in my opinion, but 1080p feels somewhat cramped.

Out of those two options I'd definitely opt for 144Hz, the responsiveness is much more noticable in the long run.
yeah, 4k just doesnt interest me. I just love the smoothness of 120+fps. I'm at a point where I will even sacrifice visual performance to get the framerates higher.

Seeing 60fps and less in action annoys me now.
Reply With Quote
  #16  
Old 23-10-18, 09:46 AM
looz's Avatar
looz looz is offline
OC3D Elite
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: Finland
Posts: 1,498
Yup, on the exact same boat. As long as I can have decent textures and ambient occlusion, everything goes.
__________________
i7 8700k - 16GB - 2060 FE - 512GB 970 & 850 EVO - AKG K702
Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old 23-10-18, 09:47 AM
Avet's Avatar
Avet Avet is offline
OC3D Elite
 
Join Date: Dec 2016
Posts: 1,130
Quote:
Originally Posted by Warchild View Post
yeah, 4k just doesnt interest me. I just love the smoothness of 120+fps. I'm at a point where I will even sacrifice visual performance to get the framerates higher.

Seeing 60fps and less in action annoys me now.
I agree. 4K is still only for architects, engineers, graphic designers, photo/video editors who really benefit from screen realestate.
Reply With Quote
  #18  
Old 23-10-18, 09:54 AM
Warchild Warchild is offline
OC3D Elite
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: Norway, Oslo
Posts: 5,435
Quote:
Originally Posted by Avet View Post
I agree. 4K is still only for architects, engineers, graphic designers, photo/video editors who really benefit from screen realestate.
That is a very valid point, and probably why we will not see 4K mainstream for a long time. I see no demand in it at all.
Reply With Quote
  #19  
Old 23-10-18, 10:07 AM
Avet's Avatar
Avet Avet is offline
OC3D Elite
 
Join Date: Dec 2016
Posts: 1,130
Quote:
Originally Posted by Warchild View Post
That is a very valid point, and probably why we will not see 4K mainstream for a long time. I see no demand in it at all.
It is not the problem of demand. It would become mainstream if it didn't cost more than a car. Makers are just not there in the manufacturing process to offer it for the mainstream price. SSDs were as rare, as are 4K 144Hz monitors in rigs now, just a few years back.
Reply With Quote
  #20  
Old 23-10-18, 12:21 PM
Warchild Warchild is offline
OC3D Elite
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: Norway, Oslo
Posts: 5,435
Quote:
Originally Posted by Avet View Post
It is not the problem of demand. It would become mainstream if it didn't cost more than a car. Makers are just not there in the manufacturing process to offer it for the mainstream price. SSDs were as rare, as are 4K 144Hz monitors in rigs now, just a few years back.
It doesnt cost as much as we believe. They already proved that some monitors were supplied as 4k panels but were limited to whatever said product was sold as.

It was cheaper to produce that way.

e.g. 4k panel added to a monitor that is sold as a 3440x1440p ips Gsync screen.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump










All times are GMT. The time now is 02:30 PM.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.