Everyone says playing on a monitor is better because it has better response time, I play in a plasma where the motion blur does not exist and the image is crisp even at 30 fps, it is worth to get a monitor or better still with my giant plasma?
>>342791129
You can check the input lag online. That is the important part.
I got a 2ms monitor
it's great.
>>342791129
but anon, 30 fps is way too low to matter.
>30fps
>>342791324
you have to look up response time on tv's
monitor have that listed
>>342791472
>2016
>STILL thinking response time has ANYTHING to do with input delay
How in the fuck do you retards even survive?
Yeah mi pc its not great, still rocking my 750ti to date.
what l read is that Plasma are like CRT in motion and the image its crips even in low fps.
l try a LCD IPS monitor and the image was a litle bit blurred in motion
>>342791792
you have to play rock band to understand
slow response time can throw off your timing
>>342791809
IPS screens have ghosting problems
oled is the best, but very expensive
>>342791994
that would be input lag.
response time its more like how much motion blur you get with things in motion.
>>342791994
Response time is not a measure of input delay, you fucking retard.
>>342792128
wrong. input lag is from the controller to the console
response time is how fast the image changes. if the image changes too slow. it looks like you didn't hit the box at the right time
>>342792418
>wrong
>has no idea what he's talking about
Go google it you fucking dumbass.
would you peole play vn games like Denganropa in a giant TV?
>>342793667
speak in proper english pedro
>>342794042
Sorry my dear gringo
>>342791129
I have one of each, but I play games on the monitor and shitpost/watch stuff on the tv.
Get something 144hz so you can kill yourself for thinking 30 was ever acceptable
I find that the backlights on a lot of the newer "ultra thin" monitors's suck. The black levels make all sorts of dark images washed out.
>>342791129
>Crisp
That is from resolution, not frame rate. I've seen gorgeous/crisp 1440p displays that did not support any higher than 30 FPS. Was terrible.
A while back I got a 1ms response time 144hz monitor.
I'm going to put something to bed, the human eye can see beyond 60 fps but not much more.
First off the one thing everyone will be able to see is the difference in ghosting, at 120-144fps ghosting is practically nonexistent even when rapidly turning around or spinning, everything remains crystal clear. Which is definitely advantageous in shooters and other games where being a second faster or so than your opponent matters.
30 fps feels stiff and floaty response wise to me and blurs a lot, meanwhile 60 feels great and still blurs but much less, and 90 feels even better and suffers no blur at all, but honestly I couldn't notice any real difference between 90 and 120/140. 90 seemed to be the point of diminishing return.
I can at least see and feel a difference at 90, no clue how companies like Ubisoft and random people on here argue otherwise.
I cant for the life of me understand why people want to play games sitting at a desk on a tiny monitor, especially console games.
>>342796902
>The human eye can see beyond 60 Fps
Of course it can. Only shitposters say otherwise.
>>342796902
I only have a 980ti and would rather play at 60-70 with everything maxed out than lower settings to get 120+
l just read that my panny plasma have 2.0 ms response time. Pretty good for a 50"
>>342796902
>the human eye can see beyond 60fps but not much more
gonna have to stop you there. adrenaline levels impact your eyes' relative "refresh rate" and influence how much you can see in a single second. next time you're in a tense situation, wave your hand in front of your face and slowly calm down. you'll notice the difference.
>can't see beyond 30fps
Never let this meme die.
Play CSGO at 30fps, then play it at 150.
>>342791129
>plasma
I'm a little jelly, m8
>>342798609
>response time
>relevant for video games
