Are you part of the 144Hz G-Sync/Freesync master race?
>>324044172
anything past 60 isn't worth it, too hard to run
>>324044172
More like placebo race
g-sync and freesync are memes
144hz is god tier although i use 120hz because it works better with lightboost
>He fell for the 144hz meme
I have a monitor that supports it, but my graphics card doesn't.
There is literally nothing wrong with well done motion blur at 60fps though
>>324044172
60Hz with FreeSync here, can't get anything higher than that until new monitors and graphics cards come out and support DP1.3.
It's actually harder to run 1080p at 144fps than it is 4k60. Only a retard would choose 1080p.
>>324045295
>>324046128
Oh well.
>>324046178
>not even SLI
You aren't getting either of those in any remotely demanding game
what is the point if going 144 hz, when 95% of the games don't support 60+ fps, shit, not even 30 in console ports' case. Even if some games do support, you need a brutally expensive pc to run them 144 fps.
So please explain what is the point.
>>324046128
What, 4k requires quite a lot more pixels to be processed.
>>324046634
95% is an exaggeration. All games that require reactions had 60+fps support for me.
And, considering the topic at hand, 144Hz is useful because 60+fps is better than 60fps. 60+fps also does not require a brutally expensive PC, I'm doing it with a fucking 6970.
>>324046128
4K60: 8.3 Mpixels/frame x 60 frames/second = 498 Mpixels/second
1080p144: 2.1 Megapixels/frame x 144 frames/second = 302 Mpixels/second
I have an ROG swift and kind of regret it.
I miss just being able to run a game with no issues at 1080p@60hz maxxed with a 980ti.
Now i'm constantly fiddling with settings and AA settings to make sure I'm getting 80fps+ and it's a chore.
>>324046640
>>324047403
Are you actually retarded? Learn how resolutions and framerates work.
>requires over 500 dollars in gpu alone
not worth it
>>324047602
Explain what we have wrong then.
>>324045521
we will get him on the 165hz meme too
>falling for pc marketing
wow ur so smrt
>>324047507
If couldn't run csgo with rock solid 144 fps I would probably feel the same. Other games in my opinion are fine with 60 fps since screen tearing is non existent with 144hz monitor at those frame rates.
>>324044172
Yes I am, 60 fps is for plebs, imagine CSGO at anything under 144 fps
>>324048307
Or any fast paced FPS like Quake, Tribes, UT or similair.
60 is good for me.
I know above that makes a difference but it's too subtle for me to care
>>324048096
For some reason g-sync doesn't work the way I thought it would.
People were claiming they couldn't sense frame-rate drops, and that there was NO stuttering.
It mostly depends on the games though, games like BF4 and Ryse are silky smooth, and games like asscreed and blops3 are stuttery messes no matter what I do.
I just expected g-sync to be this revolutionary technology, and all it really does is get rid of screen tearing, which you're correct, there's very little of at 144hz anyways.
ITT: Poor fags and console babbys don't know about variable frame rate & screen tearing
>>324047602
Ho boi
feels good mate
>>324046634
that's what gsync/freesync is for. it makes everything smooth as fuck even on lower framerates. you have to see it to believe it
ulmb@120hz or gsync@144hz?
>>324048432
The difference between 60hz and 144hz is very much in your face. Going from 60hz in Quake 3 to 144hz is amazing, the motion is much more fluid and my aim has actually improved. For fun I compared com_maxfps 60 to com_maxfps 125 and the difference was enormous.
>>324046178
obsessive compulsive disordered?
I've never seen 120 FPS or 144 FPS. I wish there was some sort of computer store/event near me where I could test it out, but I'm not gonna take the plunge unless I can actually see the difference before I buy.
>>324049843
Overclocked you dipshit. That's not even the acronym for obsessive compulsive disorder.
>>324048419
You didn't play those games a decade ago I see
>>324048698
Here's another game you won't be getting 144fps in. Looks like I'm winning.
>>324050172
>Actually trying to prove a point with anecdotal evidence like that instead of just giving real arguments for why it's harder to run
Wew lad.
>>324048698
>>324050172
I'd really love a 1440p 120/144fps monitor, but I only have a 770, and the monitor itself would be 600-900 dollars. So I'm looking at a 1500 dollar investment to do that.
For now I've got a nice 1080p/60fps monitor and a card that runs anything I want.
>>324049921
It's not THAT big of a deal, but I think it's worth the money personally
Things are just way more smooth, look at the difference between 30fps and 60fps on your 60hz monitor, it's kind of like that
>>324050292
>thinking performance can be calculated
>thinking calculations matter more than real world performance
Kill yourself lad
>>324048432
The difference is so blatant that even the mouse on the desktop looks silky smooth compared to 60.
>>324050768
It's more proof than anecdotal evidence, that's for sure.
If you can't explain it, then that's fine. Just don't expect people to believe your bullshit then.
>>324048307
For some reason csgo looks absolutely horrific at 60 fps compared to other games.
>>324044172
strobing with 120+ Hz at a solid matching framerate beats the everloving shit out of variable syncing, which still can't be used simultaneously on any display with strobing.
> strobing at Hz = fps >>>>>> no strobing, v-sync at Hz=fps >>> variable-sync at fps<Hz > v-sync judder on 120/144Hz > tearing from fps>Hz > v-sync judder on 60Hz > tearing with fps<Hz
>>324049038
I just built my first PC with a literally identical setup. Everything except our HDDs are the same, it's truly fucking incredible
>>324051181
>a retarded calculation that is proven wrong by actual games
>more proof than actual real world evidence
Literal retard.
>>324051678
it's awesome, isn't it? i was coming from a laptop with a 630m
Why would I? Our eyes can't see pat 4fps anyways
>>324051819
>>a retarded calculation that is proven wrong by actual games
Yeah, the anecdotal evidence. i.e. worthless.
>>324051226
Anything under 200 is shit. When I'm DMing with 150-170fps its jaggy as fuck.
>>324051884
Not as worthless as a wrong calculation.
>>324052414
Why do you think it's wrong? Solely the anecdotal evidence? Because I hope you realize in that case that it's pretty stupid to say one piece of evidence is wrong solely because the other piece of (wrong by definition) evidence goes against it. You need something else.
Listen up scrublords. CSGO global elite here.
Unless you are competitively playing FPS multiplayer (CS, Quake, UT, TF2 etc) DON'T bother with 144 Hz.
I used to have 60 Hz Dell IPS and switched to 144 Hz TN just for CSGO. It was absolutely worth it for me, but in singleplayer games I prefer to have nice graphics (which means fps way below 144) and better colors.
>>324052583
Two games prove it wrong. I can't be arsed to post more. I have no idea why you think you can calculate framerate. That's a really retarded assumption.
>>324052854
>Two games prove it wrong. I can't be arsed to post more
Ah, so nothing. Note, I'm not asking for more anecdotal evidence.
>That's a really retarded assumption.
Again, why? You keep claiming shit without evidence.
>>324052731
>educated opinions on /v/
that's new
>>324052951
Because every game is different. You're an idiot. I'm done replying to you.
>>324053135
>Because every game is different.
Finally something that's more than anecdotal, how though?
>I'm done replying to you.
Just as you start lol.
