Is it really worth the extra money going higher than 1080p 60fps on a rig?
>>52044703
>What's it worth /g/
More worth than your pathetic life.
Sorry, Merry Christmas.
>>52044703
only a competitive fps game like CSGO benefits from higher fps than your refresh rate due to reduced input latency, there's no other benefit to it except for maybe reduced screen tearing
>>52044703
I'ma tell you this right now OP. The aanswer is two things and bare with me because the whskiy did too.
It is probably, most likely, maybe NOT worth it. Spend the extra money though if you want.
Why? Simple... If you don't, you'll always wonder how much awesomer it'd be if you'd had spend it. So if you have the expendable income now.. just buy your stupid overpriced rig and enojoy 1000fps at 8k or whatever.
After a while I guarantee that you'll be all like: "why did I spend so much money on all this" and then you'll sell a grapgic card ro two or something.
However now you'll never feel that WHAT IF feeling of having a super awesome fast rig because you'll know what it felt like and you'll know firsthand it wasn't worth it so in a sense it's worth it to do it once, just to feel it man.
At least that's what happened to me.
I went $3500 on a system 4 years ago and have never upgraded it since. If anything I sold a video card because I don't gane as much anymore. I do like the system because it's still fast as fug after all this time. vbut I wouldn't spend that much againl.
I love you OP. Merry christmas gnight
No, do it in a couple of years.
>>52044748
If anything, "competitive gaming" is the one thing that a >60fps refresh rate DOESN'T help. If you go from 60fps to 144fps, that means you go from one frame every 0.0167 seconds to 0.0069 seconds, or a difference of a thousandth of a second. The typical reaction time to visual stimuli for humans is 0.25 seconds, or roughly 250 times longer than the difference in those refresh rates.
That said, I recently splurged on an Asus PG279Q (which is IPS and 144Hz), the video DOES look smoother in games that support those refresh rates (it's not a drastic difference, but it's fairly noticeable), but the benefit is entirely in the visual appeal. People who think high refresh rates will benefit their "competitive" gaming are retarded and any performance gain following a change from 60Hz to 144Hz is at best due to a placebo effect. You can't buy skill.
I specifically bought an overkill monitor though because I spend all my time at my computer so why not. If you wanted to save some money, I'd go with a higher resolution (the general consensus seems to be that 2560x1440 is best for gaming due to how resource-hungry 4k is) over a higher refresh rate, since the difference there is MUCH more noticeable. I'd also highly recommend an IPS panel, which will look better than any TN panel regardless of refresh rates
>>52044916
Wait, I don't understand
It's double the standard framerate displayed @2x faster so everything happens within the timing for a 60fps second. There's more detail in the same amount of time.
dumb frogposter
>>52044990
It's OVER double the framerate, and the result is slightly smoother-looking animation, but the difference between 60hz and 144hz is 0.0097 seconds. it's far too small for human reflexes. Competitive gaming is the last thing it's useful for, but that's nonetheless what it's primary selling point is because "competitive gamers" are largely dumb upper-middle-class teenagers who are easy to manipulate.
>>52044703
No. The difference is pretty much undetectable.
