why is 144hz not standard yet?
ITS THE CURRENT YEAR
>>51976751
ITS 2001
WHY ISNT 200HZ AND NO INPUT LAG STANDARD
>>51976811
>800x600
>>51976901
the shitbox in OP's pic is like 2K+
>>51976938
>OP
the guy you quoted, whatever
you're a faggot
>>51976751
because of lazy ass chinks
>>51976901
>thinking CRTs were limited to 800x600
This is how I know you are underage.
>>51977009
>640x480
i can do this all day, if it triggers you
>>51976751
Because it isn't a multiple of 60 or 50, thus a retarded refresh rate.
120fps is objectively the best, as you can play 60, 30 and 24fps video without any added motion jitter.
so is this right? if a monitor is 60hz and you have a a powerful gpu that gets say 80fps in a game you will only "experience" 60fps???
>>51977471
yes
>but ur eyes cant even see that much
>>51977662
>vision is in frames
>>51976751
144hz is already outdated gramps, we 200hz now.
>>51977783
Ive had 200hz on my crt for 10 years.
>>51977783
thats the thing, 200hz should be the high end 144hz should be standard, and 60hz be throw it in the trash tier
but for some reason its a step down and 200hz is just some SUPER ULTRA give me your savings tier
No idea
>>51976751
because 60hz is a few cents cheaper to produce
as a person whos using a 144hz gsync monitor
they're all placebo.
Which CRT monitor has 200hz?
>>51976811
You do realize that the FWP-900 can't do 200hz at any decently high res at all? I can only do something like 75Hz at its max supported res, if even that.
>>51977943
>as a person whos using a 144hz gsync monitor
playing minecraft
>>51977425
>240hz
>>51977662
Human vision isn't measured in frames.
human eye can't see past 3.5 GB ram
>>51977862
What kind of a slav you want senpai
>>51978905
I'd happily accept 240Hz as the natural progression if need be.
Anything more than that would be deminishing returns for sure though.
>>51977425
>as you can play 60, 30 and 24fps video
Very few videos have any of those.
(No, 23.976 isn't 24.)
>>51983736
1/1.001 format coversions drop a frame only every minute. That's if the monitor's refresh rate isn't off by 0.01 of a frame per second anyway.
24/1.001 is closer to 24 than you think.
Can anyone recocommend a good Monitor?
>>51976751
Because most high end monitors still use IPS for better color quality and nearly zero of them have 144hz
VN panels have 144hz no problem
If you want a IPS monitor with 144hz be prepared to pay at LEAST $500
>>51977425
>>51983736
>>51983993
Variable refresh rate should make all this moot anyway.
They're not standard because they're expensive as shit. They're not cheaper because people are still dumb enough to buy them.
>>51986051
Try more like $700-1400.
Most of them have G-Sync driving the price up dramatically.
>>51986439
Not right now, those ASUS g-sync ones are 500-700 right now
>>51977987
They all did once you lower the resolution. My 21 inch sony could so 200hz at 800*600 but fuck that. 1280*1024 @ 100hz was so fast and smooth though. Battlefield 2142 just never felt as good when I switched to lcd. But back then no one questioned the superiority of flat screens
