Guys, why don't you game on a 144hz monitor? Are you a dirty plebian?
Too expensive for a monitor in my opinion.
Because I love this shit.
what is the difference?
>>259038772
Just about nothing. Refresh rate != frame rate. There IS a limit to what the human eye can detect with refresh rate.
>>259037420
What monitor is that and why is it awesome?
>>259038963
Refresh rate is very much the same as frame rate for a not-shit computer.
What kind of shitty toaster are you running on?
>>259038963
there might bebut it sure isn't 60fps
>>259037037
because I can't find one that has really good colours
Waiting for 240hz to be standard or at least not so expensive.
>>259038963
If you were shown information at even 10 fps you wouldn't be able to take it all in.
However being shown something for 1/1000 of a second just once you can still tell what it is.
Human eyes don't work on fps.
>>259037037
Because I work and play on the same 30" monitor, and I value view angle/color stability and more vertical resolution over deeper blacks or maximum frame rate.
My ideal display would be a 40"+ 4k IPS/PLS/*VA screen with adaptive refresh that could do at least 90Hz.
120 would be nice, and 144 would be wonderful, but diminishing returns and rising GPU-induced power bills keep me from demanding it.
Because my Chinese cartoons don't even get above 30
>>259037037
But I do, op. It's either the same one in your picture, or one that's bloody similar.I stick to 120hz though
>>259037037
Because muh IPS.
But I do
>mfw reading this post with the monitor in OP
Too busy gaming on my 120hz IPS monitor
>Developed for awesomeness
>AssCreed
They try really hard to make this monitor seem as cancerous as possible, but this thing is fucking amazing.
>144Hz
>g-sync
>1ms delay
>built-in crosshair (although huge and obstructive)
all I want is a non TN panel 1440p 120hz monitor ;___;
>>259039790
>ok
>ok
>marketing bullshit
>WHAT THE FUCK WERE YOU THINKING
>>259037037
Mostly because my pc can't run games above 120hz.
>>259037037
But I do OP.
>>259039790
It's got to be TN which means the contrast ratio is going to be ass.
>>259039790
>built-in crosshair
NSA pls
>>259037037
get out kiddo
>>259040062
>WHAT THE FUCK WERE YOU THINKING
I'd like to know as well.
There were no pictures of this crosshair feature anywhere, and once I got my hands on it, I understand why.
It could had been awesome, but they done fucked it up real good.
>>259039304
I'm thinking of rolling the dice with Seiki's next-gen 4k screens (40": 40U4SEP-G02)
> Vertical Alignment (VA) LED panel technology with 3,840 by 2,160 4K Ultra HD resolution
> 12-bit color processing and 14-bit gamma mode
> HDMI 2.0, DisplayPort 1.3, MHL 3.0, DVI and VGA standards display connections
> Picture-by-picture (x4) and daisy chain mode
> USB 3.0 hub (1 upstream and 2 downstream)
> VESA-compliant adjustable monitor stand with quick release
4k@60Hz guaranteed, 120Hz/VESA Adaptive-sync unclear but quite possible with DisplayPort 1.3 support listed
>>259039939
TN panels are better for gaming, you dumbo
>>259040440
post a pic
For now, 60 fps is enough for me.
Maybe in the future when I'm not a poorfag anymore.
>>259037037
I don't play at a level that would benefit from it so better colors and size is more important to me.
I'm okay with going 1080p@60fps and I would have to buy a new table for the monitor
>>259040378
Speaking of NSA, this thing has this little thing at the bottom, that looks like a hidden camera, it also has a light flashing inside of the monitor, even when it's turned off, you can see it through the ventilation things on top.
I'm not making this up.
>>259040491
hmm..how much for this shit?
>>259038963
Sure. According to the USAF you can detect but not individually discern a difference occurring in up to 1 in ~460 frames in a second.
>>259040391
>crt
Granpa, get off the Internet. Also, stop sniffing your crotch every 5 minutes.
>>259037037
I don't want to shell out money for a monitor when i'll probably play most games on an Occulus Rift pretty soon. Most 2d games don't have much need for higher fps anyway.
>>259039939
the korean qnix2710 1440p monitor is PLS and overclocks so fucking easy. 96Hz pretty much guaranteed and 120Hz is possible.
>>259040710
>>259037037
It would be stupid to buy a new monitor right now. Freesync/gsync are more important netter to wait to see which becomes standard and buy a supported monitor?
>>259040932
>>259041681
Holy shit
>>259041681
What game would this be useful in?
Modern games add first shot recoil to weapons that don't have a crosshair when unscoped such that even being completely accurate doesn't actually matter.
>>259041681
Is that always there or can you disable it?
>>259041847
No. That's like saying that out would be stupid to program gpgpu using opencl. NVidia sets the standards here.
>>259041037
Current 39" model is only $500.
The new DP1.3/HDMI2.0 one won't be out for a while, but speculation is that it could be notably more expensive as they shift their branding from Cheap Chinese Shit to "almost as good as Korean, we swear" shit.
Because I prefer IPS and larger panels to 120/144 hz.
>>259041921
These days it's probably useless for most games. I however remember having a piece of tape for noscoping in older versions of CS.
>>259037037
Because you get tearing at 60fps.
>>259039790
>built-in crosshair
Absolutely disgusting
>16:9
Don't tell me people actually play video games on these.
>>259037037
I do. I'm waiting for the GTX 880 so my games will actually run at 144fps while on max.
>>259041921
CS weapons have terrible accuracy if you move at all but still it would probably be easier aiming no scope with AWP
>>259042318
What are you saying?
>>259042617
It's like playing at 40fps on a 60Hz screen. You'd need a 120Hz monitor to not get tearing at 60FPS.
>>259042105
You can disable it and there are some other crosshairs to choose from also, all in that same awful size though.
>>259041921
I'd had loved a tiny standard crosshair as a feature, just to have a consistent crosshair between multiple games.
Also, what is this thing in the pic, can someone tell?
I'm getting paranoid
>>259041681
Seems to be the colors are gude too
I have another question though, when you play for several hours, is it easy on your eyes?
In comparison to your previous monitor / a laptop monitor
I find that my 2009 Laptop with an absolute dirt cheap shit screen seems to be less stressing than most older Desktop LCDs
Now I recently built a decent PC, so I'm wondering if newer LCDs are better
>>259039464
This guy is kewl, cuz he has same GPU as me
But then is a pleb cuz he doesnt have a 4790k like me.
>>259042905
My FS2333 has one of those. You can have it detect the amount of light and adjust the screen brightness.
>>259042889
So you agree that owning a higher hz monitor is superior then?
>>259037037
Not enough of a benefit between 120Hz to 144Hz to justify the cost.
>>259043505
Oh, that's nice then.
I don't have to be paranoid about fapping anymore.
It's just that I don't remember this kind of feature being mentioned anywhere, and then there's the constantly flashing leds inside of the monitor when it's turned off.
>>259042889
That shouldn't be a problem, I'm pretty sure you will be able to switch to 72fps, which I'd prefer over 60hz anyways
Oh and if you want to use it for 3D you'll also have 72hz (for each eye seperately)
I haven't actually compared 3D on 120hz vs on 144hz though, it might just be a minor difference
>>259043281
So far it's been easy on my eyes, even when playing and browsing for hours straight.
Colors are nice for a TN panel, but can't compete with IPS monitors.
>>259037037
Because my 120 Hz monitor is the best for its price/size.
>>259044358
Which one?If you have a BenQ monitor, it's inferior to ASUS and AOC.
>>259039241
>240hz
>standard
What game that does not run on a toaster reaches 240fps?
Because there aren't any 144Hz 30"+ 4K IPS monitors yet.
Until then, i'm happy with my current 30 incher.
>>259044495
Turning off sngle settings can often bump fps by 30-40.
>>259043537
He's saying you need an integer multiple of 60 to not get screen tearing.
>>259044464
BenQ XL2720T for 330 6 months ago.Not for that price.
>>259044495
I think it's to be able to play smoothly in 3D, so you can play 3D but still at 120hz
Then again there's indeed not much software for that anyways and yeah for new games to support this you'd probably need a beast of a machine
>>259037037
i'm perfectly fine with my 75hz
>Guys, why don't you game on a 144hz monitor?
Because I don't play any games competitively right now where high frame rate matters, only one I do much MP in is SupCom and before that EVE. My PC is also my workstation for graphics design and such. So Resolution + Color > refresh. I'm waiting for 5k+ displays with 10-12 bit/channel (Rec 2020) for my next refresh, and if that means staying on 60 Hz I'm fine with that.
Sure, all else being equal if those displays are 100 Hz or 120 Hz or 144 Hz then great, I'd even pay a tiny premium, but it's by far the least important part of a monitor to me.
We're in sight (harhar) though of the end of display advancement for human eyes. Can't wait for wearable displays with retinal scanning displays that exceed the resolution, dynamic range, and refresh of the human visual system. Hopefully within a decade and that'll be it, no more differentiation between mobile/desktop, awesome everywhere, normal use/VR/AR. Shit has so much potential.
>>259037037
Because free/2$ crt at 60hz is smoother.
Enjoy your "144hz", OP.
>>259037037
I have the Gsync VG248QE. 144hz, no screen tearing, no input lag, shit is so cash. Gsync is seriously the best thing to happen to monitors in a long long time.
Looking for a new monitor. Show me the best one at 100 to 150$
because i'm part of the accurate color master race, IPS. i've read about that one popular 140 fps monitor having lighting problems anyways so i'm good.
quality > quantity.
>>259038963
Pilots shown still images of airplanes were able to discern and identify the aircraft type at 520 fps. Average was 350-400
>>259045169
>if that means staying on 60 Hz I'm fine with that.
As far as I know, 4K monitors are pretty much limited to 30 fps and I don't think 5K will break that limit any time soon.
>>259045328
>CRT at 60 hz
That's absolutely disgusting. The CRT flicker below 90 hz is unbearable.
>>259045328
60hz CRT is not smoother than 144hz LCD. If you think so, you must have never tried them side by side.
Sure, CRT's are still amazing, but if you have a 144hz monitor, it most likely also supports lightboost. If you go 120hz + lightboost, it's VERY similar to how oldschool CRT's look and feel.
>>259045626
lol that's fine 4K is ridiculous anyways
Right now 1080p 144hz is the best you can get for your gay ming needs
>>259045626
There are plenty of 4k@60Hz screens right now on DisplayPort 1.2.
DP 1.3 next year will up support to 4k@120 Hz.
Also, WTF is 5k? Assuming typo, not assburgers.
>being yuropleb
>GTX 760 windforce costs about 230€ everywhere
>check amazon USA
>239 dollars which is about 179€
>proceed to checkout
>Custom duty of 60€
FUCK YOU AMERICA AND FUCK YOU EUROPE
>>259037037
because TN monitors are fucking disgusting
I can never go back after tasting dat IPS panel smoothness and colors
when they make one that can run shit at >60 fps without looking all blurry I'll upgrade
>>259045438
>Gsync is seriously the best thing to happen to monitors in a long long time.
I guess, I wish it was just a general industry standard though rather then nvidia only shit. It's not much good if it's some special feature rather then just a normal thing that's everywhere. It doesn't even make sense to be greedy over, it's not a money spinner. As a result it's going to get replaced sooner rather then later. GG nvidia, you made a graphics version of firewire.
>>259045328
>using crt at all
>using it at headache inducing shitty 60hz
absolutely disgusting.
>>259045969
>1080p
The best resolution for gaming is 1920 by 1200.
>>259045873
If the human eye can't see 60fps, then how come it can see 60hz refresh rate on a crt?
Checkmate, fedorafags.
>>259046119
my 16:10 nigga
>>259046037
It's the same with everything.
Games are $1 = 1€ too.
>>259046119
how so
>>259046035
>Assuming typo, not assburgers.
Yup.
But how much will does 60Hz affect the price of the 4k's. Last time I checked, they were incredibly unreasonable and not worth it at all.
That said, I'm probably far behind on monitor tech.
>>259046497
Because 16:9 is awful for playing games, and 1200p gives you enough detail while being a manageable resolution for your graphics card.
>>259045897
Lightboost just makes the colors even worse.
what's the point if the human eye can't see past 60 fps?
>edgelit
>>259046056
>IPS
>smoothness
Are you retarded? IPS panels are the exact opposite of smooth.
>>259037037
Because I'm currently enjoying my 34" monitor
All off those 3440x1440http://www.lg.com/us/monitors/lg-34UM95-P-ultrawide-monitor
>>259038963
It's not about human stability, it's about the rate of information being summed into a rate that can't be processed anywhere else. Don't get all your knowledge from Wikipedia, refresh rate is what separates you from being able to tell your first double jumps from your last mistake.
>>259046654
>It's awful because it's awful
alright
and 1920x1200 requires more power to run you idiot
Someone describe the perfect screen on which to play video games.
>>259046689
Then adjust them again. I managed to get my monitor to be like 90% like my old Samsung SyncMaster 957MB, which I loved and had for ages.
>>259047140
Have you ever played video games on 16:9? There isn't enough height and too much pointless space on the sides.
It's like playing a video game through a letterbox.
>>259047005
>>259045626
>As far as I know, 4K monitors are pretty much limited to 30 fps and I don't think 5K will break that limit any time soon.
DisplayPort 1.3 (plus various other hacks like tiling) will fix the bandwidth issue entirely and enable higher resolution and color depth while keeping at least 60 Hz.
>>259046035
>Also, WTF is 5k? Assuming typo, not assburgers.
Not a typo. "5k" is one informal naming of a doubling of 2560x1600, technical reference is WHXGA. A lot of you guys purely talk in terms of 4k, doubling 1080p, but that's for TVs (and initial screens that share production lines). Computer monitors aren't restricted that way, and can have many different aspect ratios and resolutions. Standards have been defined all the way up to QUHD, 15360x8640, though that's of doubtful value outside of massive projection systems or perhaps very specialist applications (like a large xray imager). Still, engineers have thought ahead.
For me 4k isn't very interesting, too small to be a useful jump over what we've got right now. 5k is about the minimum I'd want, and really full 16:10 8K (WHUXGA) in a 32" would be perfect since I could have double PPI for sharp details and fonts combined with lots of workable area. That though is likely a long way off, in the mean time I'd settle for less.
>>259047194
IPS 1440p 27" with 144hz and G-Sync.
It will never happen though.
>>259047227
Nothing can fix the colors man. Lightboost just makes the monitor about 40% dimmer for just a little less blur. Calibrated it as close to my IPS monitor as I could and it's still way off.
>>259041921
The only one I can think of is Killing Floor since weapons are accurate without aiming, but after a while you don't even need the crosshair
>>259037037
I bought one last monday. The difference to 60hz is huge. Everything is so much smoother. I use TN for my chinese cartoons.
I experimented with lightboost, made everything too dark for for my opinion.
>>259047420
Is it a BenQ monitor?
Whats a good, but cheap 1080p monitor?
>>259047005
How is a single 780 handling it? I found that 2x R9 280x slightly OCed is still able to run just about everything on ultra at 60 hz without drops.
>>259047658
I only play ss13 and dwarf fortress
fuck if i know.
>>259047609
BenQ
>>259047578
Yeah. The color yellow does not seem to adjust at all. If you turn the constrast and brightness to 100% it looks almost the same as 10%. The other colors sort of change, so I was able to calibrate it to get blacks and darker colors to show up.
>>259047609
60hz or 120/144?
>>259047846
I've heard BenQ blows when it comes to colors. I don't think there's anything you can really do.
>>259047373
>For me 4k isn't very interesting, too small to be a useful jump over what we've got right now. 5k is about the minimum I'd want, and really full 16:10 8K (WHUXGA) in a 32" would be perfect since I could have double PPI for sharp details and fonts combined with lots of workable area. That though is likely a long way off, in the mean time I'd settle for less.
Also, for WHUXGA current and even the next cable standards aren't really enough either, we'd probably want silicon photonics and in turn cheap optical links to make that happen. Back when Intel was demoing LightPeak, before it became the copper based Thunderbolt, I'd hoped we had that just around the corner but they seem to have backed off for another few years unfortunately. We're probably going to have wait a while for 100 Gbps links even though it's on roadmaps.
>>259047697
Good man
>>259039790
>above 60hz screen
>advertising with a game that can't do above 60hz
TOP LEL
>>259044464
>new BenQ Z series + blurbuster utility
>inferior to shitty Lightboost hack screens
TOP LEL
>>259047373
As a 2560x1600 bro, I have never heard of this and am highly skeptical.
I think 16:10 will sadly die with the 4k generation, and that 5120x3200 is almost certainly never gonna happen.
I'm so smart I designed my monitor to run at 75Hz under 720P conditions.
Now I can't tell what the fuck is going on 5 meters away from me on my 21'' monitor.
>>259047194
http://gaming.eizo.com/products/foris_fg2421/
VA panel with 120Hz + non-pwm backlight strobing.
>>259037037
But I already do, and it's glorious.
>>259037037
Are there any other game genres that a TN panel is good for except shootans?
>>259047609
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16824014300
http://www.amazon.com/BenQ-GW2750HM-27-Inch-LED-lit-Monitor/dp/B007HSKSP0
Because my computer is garbage and 144hz monitors are 2expensive4me
>>259048204
Wouldn't you need to use an upscaler to attach composite/component cables?
>>259047857
60hz assuming its cheaper
Because I'm playing at 4K. It's more future proof than 61Hz and will get more optimization and support from the industry.
![baby-spoon-feed[1].jpg](https://i.imgur.com/aTyoeR9.jpg "baby-spoon-feed[1].jpg")
>>259047794
>>259048329
thanks
>>259048332
hey man it only costs $150 bux to make a smart epc with about 4 gigs of ram and an entry level video card
what the fuck are YOU doing with your money that calls your computer garbage
>>259048334
Why would I ever need to attach composite/component in the first place?
>>259037037
because most games can't render above 60fps anyway.I want one for counterstrike, but I don't know which monitors are lagless
>>259048558
To play more than just PC games. How are you going to play any console games on that?
>>259037037
Can't I just get 120hz?
this 144hz sounds like marketing trash
>>259048228
Shooters, RTS, ASSFAGGOTS, Shoot'em'up, racing and rhythm games.
It might help in MMO's if they are fast paced and/or you are panning around a lot with the camera.
>>259048381
22EA63 costs like $140, had great colours for the price and most of them overclock to at least 75 hz.
>>259048642
Any console worth playing can be emulated.
I keep my 144hz asus screen at 120hz. Too much tracing at 144
>>259042889
That's stupid. You can not get tearing if you use V-sync with triple buffering at any refresh rate your monitor supports. Just use a program to force it. G-sync works as a replacement for that.
>>259047989
DP 1.3 will bring VESA compression as well.
~3:1 bandwidth savings, with each line compressed independently for cheap implementation logic.
26Gbps * 3 could do roughly 8k@24b@96 Hz.
>>259037037
As a tech ignoramus: There is no benefit of having a 120 hz monitor if you cant actually run the game on 120fps, right?
>>259048228
It's awesome with anything that moves since you get that glary smoothness feel
>>259049123
correct
>>259048416
>More future proof
>4k
Nigga that word doesn't even apply to this. However let me break it down to you like this. There currently isn't a big difference in detail between 1080p and higher resolutions. I run a higher resolution. I can tell you this first hand. However you can tell the difference easily between 60 and 120hz. So you are guaranteed to be able to get full advantage of 120hz. Not true of 4k. At least not anytime soon.
Of course with a higher resolution you get less aliasing, but there is AA for that.
>>259049123
Pretty much. However even if you can still only get 100fps, you can just set it to 100hz and the smoothness will still be very noticeable compared to 60hz.
>>259049478
Why set it to 100? Why not just let it get 100fps?
>>259049123
Not entirely.
Tearing and motion blur is drastically reduced even is your framerate is inconsistent.
And no vsync means significantly less input delay.
Refreshrate = Framerate is mandatory though if you have a strobing backlight display.
>>259048191
>As a 2560x1600 bro, I have never heard of this and am highly skeptical.
Wat. This is all standard stuff, literally, the standards and naming have existed for years and years. 4K was defined long before any products were actually created outside of labs, same with the rest. You can read about stuff like Rec. 2020 or others at organizations like the International Telecommunication Union and so forth. If you don't follow any of that fair enough, most people don't follow any of it either and it probably doesn't directly affect you until products exist. It's not just a real thing though it's an old thing.
As far as 16:10, I'm hoping it survives at least on the high end. It still seems to be popular for graphics design work and other higher end displays, and Apple also continues to push it hard and like it or not they've definitely got the money and volume to make it happen. Their high end notebook is 2880x1800 remember, they could have gone 16:9 when they made that but they didn't. If they, NEC, Eizo, and some of the others can keep up some volume, well it's not out of the question.
>>259049123
>the game
Realize that some older games or stylized modern games can easily do 120Hz even at high resolutions.
Unless you're planning on only ever playing cowwadoody 201X exclusively, there is likely benefit for some subset of games you might enjoy.
>>259049679
V-sync only really causes input lag without triple buffering.
>http://www.anandtech.com/show/2794/3
>>259049791
I'm perfectly convinced that various standards bodies have tables of resolutions that people might theoretically ever want to support, but I don't see the industry ever bothering to support almost any of them.
Fewer overlapping feature points are cheaper to develop and thus more profitable.
>>259048898
>DP 1.3 will bring VESA compression as well.
There's no magic in the compression world, it's a hack that's useful some but not all of the time. Fundamentally there is display stuff that just is not losslessly compressible, though I guess in practice most of the time it may work pretty well, and probably better then nothing. I don't consider it a true replacement for just having enough bandwidth however, but I know engineering is the art of the possible. If we always waited for perfection we'd never get anywhere.
>>259049229
haha i get it it's pseudo charm, not actual charm but you're being sarcastic so it's supposed to be cute
>>259037037
I have 1280x1024@75hz
>>259047658
>>259047005
1x 780 seems to do good.
I never measure frames anyways, because 60 a good number.
>>259050242
>I'm perfectly convinced that various standards bodies have tables of resolutions that people might theoretically ever want to support, but I don't see the industry ever bothering to support almost any of them.
Not sure what you mean by "support" here anon. As long as the bandwidth is there and someone wants to manufacture it then it'll be "supported", the resolution definitions don't need anything else. Every takes into account scaling. The only times it would get weird is with some non-defined resolution or with non-square pixels, but anyone could use anything from the tables if they wanted to, just a matter of money.
>Fewer overlapping feature points are cheaper to develop and thus more profitable.
Only in low margin mass manufacturing. The other approach is to use these sorts of things as a differentiator that allows them to charge much more then the cost to increase. Again, Apple, NEC, Eizo and so on all show this approach can be extremely profitable. They don't go after 80% of the market but they make lots and lots of money. Most people don't demand 16:10 (sadly) or hardware integrated calibration support or whatever, but those that do are willing to pay good money for it.
Obviously this is all speculation, who knows. But I don't think it's wild optimism either, I think 16:10 has enough attraction with enough of the market to justify continuing smaller scale production.
Why are VA panels so uncommon? they seem like an extremely effective compromise.
>>259037420
>2414H
Enjoy your poorly manufactured monitor with errors such as pc recognizing it as a TV
>not wanting an objectively superior IPS panel
>>259051418
I can only assume because of retards like this
>>259051732
>>259051732
muh 34" IPS monitor
>>259051921
VA and TN are shitI gave away a samsung 2233rz to my mum, 120hz is overrated
IPS is silky smooth 60hz and nice colours.
feels good on the eyes
>>259051418
IPS has gotten cheaper, TN has gotten faster. VAs have ended up in an uncomfortable middle ground, jack-of-all-trades-master-of-none territory. Those who pay the most (usually for display quality) want IPS or something better, the small savings of VA is irrelevant, those who want the absolute highest refresh go TN, and those who just want the cheapest possible go cheap ass TN. That's most of the market, in an industry that runs heavily on mass manufacturing or high margins. I've got a few VA displays and they were a decent enough idea at the time, but nowadays I don't know if I'd bother.
>>259052063
As a 2233rz I feel like a subhuman being.
Sure it's 120hz, but at what price?
>>259052063
>nice colours
>abysmal glow
>no contrast
>>259041385
>buying korean shit that has input lag out the ass
>>259052286
>abysmal glow
uh?
I've had an eizo foris fs2333 (23") and now LG lg 34UM95-P (34") IPS monitors and i can't say it "glows" in a negative way.
it's really gentle on the eyes.
>>259051436
>using HDMI
>>259052070
Also LCDs last a good long while, so somebody who wants more display quality but is also cheap can likely find very good IPS screens used with a bit of hunting. Just looking at some manufacturer refurb places right now I see some still very nice (but now a few years old) screens that I wouldn't hesitate to recommend for a lot of non-pro people that are like 40-60% off list. I don't think I'd choose VA new over a very high end IPS refurb usually when they're the same price.
>>259052070
>>259052757
fair enough
although I wish there was more of a market for compromises, like cherry mx browns in keyboards (not sure how apt the analogy is but whatever)
I'm aiming to get a p2314h for general use and gaming anyway, so ips is fine for me, just wonder what a VA would be like
>>259050547
Yes, I am aware of the pigeon-hole principle, and never even tried to claim it was lossless.
Go read the whitepaper, the compression scheme is probably much better than you think:
> http://www.vesa.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/VESA_DSC-ETP200.pdf
Also, please be a little more reasonable about the state of silicon photonics.
Even carrier-grade communications with optical transceivers in the tens of thousands of dollars struggle to pass 10 Gbps per channel, with 2.5 Gbps being vastly cheaper.
Putting 10+ optical channels for a monitor to get something like 8k@120+Hz will not be economical anywhere in the next decade, given even best case scenarios for a new materials science breakthrough.
>>259052286
>>abysmal glow
>>no contrast
IPS can be used in bad screens just like anything, it's not a magic bullet by itself. Shop harder if you care. If you don't then why worry?
>>259051091
Are you plugging the Wii U into that screen? If so, how do you get the audio from it?
I've got a question.
I got a 60hz monitor and a 670.
I run BF4 @ 60hz without aa/2xmsaa (high settings). I don't think it'll ever get higher if i use v-sync.
If i buy a 144hz monitor and disable v-sync.
Will i be able to run the game at at least 100 + hz without tearing?
OR, will it tear if i disable v-sync if i do not reach the max amount of fps for my monitor?
Sorry if i made it difficult to understand the question.
>>259044495
>>259044952
Fuck 3D. Almost every game on PC is scalable in that it can run at 240hz and not change anything. It'll just look smooth as hell.
Also it's a long wait but seeing as they exist now I'd rather not get this middle of the road stuff out of impatience. Rather just wait for the 240hz to be cheaper.
>>259045328
>Anonymous 08/21/14(Thu)18:12:54 No.25
Any respectable CRT monitor can do around 144Hz.
>>259052070
>VAs have ended up in an uncomfortable middle ground, jack-of-all-trades-master-of-none territory.
> Completely discarding the benefits of blacker blacks.
>>259053258
good question.
i just got it, so eh. i guess using headset/splitter.
>>259053418
But you need to drop resolution.
>>259053534
I am not a nigger.
>>259048204
Master race reporting.
"Non-PWM Backlight strobing" is a nonsense.
It has PWM for the strobing, obviously, but backlight intensity is not made by PWM.
>>259053258
I remember now, I have a capture card (avermedia live gamer) that is inside my pc
i just keep my headset connected to my pc and have the audio pass off on the pc then output hdmi signals to monitor.
>>259053849
Wouldn't PWM hurt your eyes either way? I don't get why people like it so much.
>>259054124
PWM is negative actually. But backlight strobing is good. It can induce headache for people sensitive to that, but it greatly reduces motion blur. Which is the main advantage of 120Hz screens really.
What is a good hotas to play star citizen and elite dangerous with? I dont want to spend a massive fuckload of money so is the Saitek X-55 a good compromise?I have heard that they have a high failure rate and so on
>>259052939
>although I wish there was more of a market for compromises, like cherry mx browns in keyboards (not sure how apt the analogy is but whatever)
Keyboards aren't subject to the same economy of scale requirements. It's possible to do far more niche runs. Anything that involves major silicon fabbing though tends to want to congregate around as few standards as possible, usually with a very high end and very low end, and even those often tend to squeeze together until something disruptive comes along. When your physical matter inputs (silicon, some metals, electricity) cost pennies/dollars but the facility itself costs billions that's just the economics. Winners win big, losers lose big.
>I'm aiming to get a p2314h for general use and gaming anyway, so ips is fine for me, just wonder what a VA would be like
I've got a very high end IPS, a solid older VA, and it's a compromise panel. Noticeably worse color and viewing angles then the IPS, but noticeably better then TN. It's got fewer features too but that's not the fault of the panel.
The thing is though that like 6-8 years ago a good big IPS was like $1000+ and the *VA could be half that or less. Now looking around and big IPS displays can be found for sub $500, even sub $400. They don't have as many features either but they've got good panels and calibrate alright, if not perfectly. VAs aren't made as much though so their prices haven't dropped as much either. When saving $600-800, that's significant even for a prosumer, particularly if it's a secondary display. But when saving only $100-200? For something used constantly for many years? Eh. Inclination is to just spring for the IPS, or if I wanted high refresh get that.
>>259053258
there's a headphone out plug on the back
Because I prefer 4K and I can't get a monitor with both.
>>259054318
But flickering hurts my eyes.
>>259054930
Why would you even get a 4k monitor now? Its not like movies are coming out with it and if you are planning on 4k gaming you better have a titan sli setup with a liquid nitrogen cooled hyper overclocked cpu ready.
>>259053041
>Also, please be a little more reasonable about the state of silicon photonics.
Not sure where you thought I was unreasonable anon, thought I was pretty clear in saying that I don't see it happening commercially for a long, long time. I said that back during the LightPeak stuff I was hopeful but that was years ago and it obviously didn't work out at that point.
Still, Intel's continued to be busy with demos. They demoed a 100 Gbps silicon photonics fiber link at IDF Beijing this year, and for datacenters talked about 1.6 Tbps MXC last year. I think they still claim Thunderbolt is on track for 100 Gbps by 2018, though I haven't followed it closely and maybe the schedule has slipped. Since the cables have the brains though rather then being dumb they'd presumably be really expensive, even more so then copper ones.
Still, there's no real hope for screens with high enough res to need that before 2018 either I suspect. I'm not basing plans around it or anything, I just think it's promising looking forward.
>>259037037
I bought the EVO monitor not too long ago for all my gaymen needs and I've been really happy with it.
>>259055165
Don't use backlight strobing then, or a monitor with PWM backlighting regulation.
Wow, problem solved.
>>259055669
>solution 3
>get a fucking CRT
Simple.
>>259055661
>tfw have the same monitor
Feels really good, I don't even play fighting games
>>259055352
planned build
I'm going to SLI two of those video cards, but PPP doesn't show that
>>259037037
>why don't you game on a 144hz monitor
Which one should I get then?
>>259053884
Yeah I've been having troubles looking for a screen to play the wii U on. I bought it and then realised that my 14" CRT isn't good enough.
>>259037037
But I do, Anon. I have that exact monitor.
>>259038963
Awww.... your rig can't hit 120+ fps? What a shame.
git gud scrub, keep making up false information to try to validate your plebeian equipment
>>259049289
>At least not anytime soon.
4K is already a standard amongst high end TVs and the movie industry is supporting it with remastered releases, too.
Games will not get optimized for 120Hz, you won't achieve it with any new graphically or computationally intense release.
I'm sure you are aware that 120FPS are harder to achieve than 4K res as modern GPUs didn't increase clock rates but went with more simultaneous processing capability.
The extremly high PPI values displays can achieve relative to what is in use also spreak for the easy switch to 4K.
>>259056340
what the fuck
>>259051436
>using HDMI to connect a PC to a monitor
lel
>>259057401
what's the problem with HDMI?
>>259057295
First off that doesn't mean 4k has a bigger impact than 120hz. It doesn't for games. Secondly where are these mass rereleases of films you're talking about? And does the difference really matter.
Thirdly you can with relative ease get 120hz with modern GPUs. I know people who do so.
>>259054930
I want to play with 4K a little but all the good websites that have support for images and video are being occupied by artfags
>>259057401
what's the best interface then? VGA?
kek
>>259057401
>HDMI
Never again, holy shit.
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B00B2HH7G0/
Should I buy this?
>>259057973
>I am so retarded that I only know of HDMI and VGA
kek and lel.
>>259057801
You shouldn't be using it to hook up a PC unless it's a laptop.
HDMI is for TVs. There's a reason why your GPU gives you underscan/overscan menus when you use HDMI. You should be using DVI or DisplayPort, because those are meant for monitors and correctly display the image almost 100% of the time and can go over 60hz. Plus why do you need audio on a monitor? The speakers are almost always shit in them anyways.
>>259057973
>not knowing what displayport is
seriously?
>>259057295
4k isn't even readily available.
Even HD isn't the base standard, media has barely reached 720p.
>>259058221
Alright, thanks for your answer anon. I already suspected it but I was looking for confirmation on why HDMI was shit for desktop monitors.
>>259058275
>media has barely reached 720p.
Where the fuck do you get your media? What you wrote was true like 6 years ago but it's been a long time since everything BD was 1080p.
Isn't DVI-D limited to 1920x1200?
Actually the human eye can't see past 60 Hertz, 144 is actually dangerous for you since the screen discharges a vastly superior electrostatic due to the excessive amount of Hertz
>>259037420
Nice, the bezel is the best part. I just wish monitors in the future have no bezel at all.
>>259057810
>where are these mass rereleases of films
Too lazy to shorten but you could have googled yourself:
http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=sr_nr_p_n_format_browse-bi_mrr_0?rh=n%3A2625373011%2Ck%3A4k%2Cp_n_format_browse-bin%3A2650305011&keywords=4k&ie=UTF8&qid=1408643613&rnid=2650303011
>Thirdly you can with relative ease get 120hz with modern GPUs
Because you run several years old games on hardware that almost doubled in transistor density every 2 years - or the game was a visually dumbed down console port or indy trash to begin with. It's like saying you can decompress a file (movie) faster or with less relative performance requirement than a PC from 2005 - doesn't come at a surprise as the algorithm didn't become more demanding over night.
If I buy an HDMI to displayport adapter, will I be able to squeeze out the same signal from my video card, or am I simply buying a connection substitute?
>>259057295
Nigger im on a single 770 and I can hit 144fps on ultra in BF4 no problem.
>>259058502
I mean it's not like HDMI is shit, it's just not good for monitors. For example I hooked up my PC via HDMI to my asus monitor and I had to overscan to get it to fit to the panel. I just switched to DVI at that point, then bought a 144hz monitor.
>>259058747
No, that's single link DVI. You need a dual-link DVI cable to get higher than 60hz and higher than 1200p resolution.
>>259058798
>this b8
>>259058647
Even on TV there are only a handful of HD channels. The majority are still 'standard' definition.
>>259058905
>assumptions AND moving the goalposts in a single post
Nice one.
>>259058747
>Isn't DVI-D limited to 1920x1200?
Single link is, but Dual Link (which is more expensive and has tighter cable reqs) did 2560x1600 fine. How did you think all those screens were driven back in the early 00s?
These days though I don't know that you'd find anything without DP instead, which is much better in a lot of ways (including not having the clock signaling requirements DVI did). So it's a non-issue, we've got standardization in the PC world on something good happily. Too bad TV ended up on HDMI.
>>259059047
The source will still be HDMI.
>>259059257
I'm browsing monitors and all I can find are HDMI and DVI-D interfaces. Can't find a single "DisplayPort" one.
>>259059047
So yes, if I buy a Displayport to HDMI, I'll be getting the same signal, but the reverse does not work so well, I'm reading.
Buying an HDMI to Displayport is redundant as you'll be getting the same socket signal that of an HDMI.
>>259059415
It's not redundant because the whole point of the adapter is to be able to use a DisplayPort-only display.
>>259041103
About that, an airforce pilot was able to correctly identify what model a plane that was flashed for 1/200th of a second
>>259059178
>Even on TV there are only a handful of HD channels. The majority are still 'standard' definition.
Oh boy. First
>Even on TV
>implying broadcast TV isn't always the worst dogshit
They always bandwidth starve everything and are commonly using bad sources too (many places still are using old MPEG2 digital tapes). Broadcast is irrelevant, but no one expects much from it anyway.
>there are only a handful of HD channels. The majority are still 'standard' definition.
Where exactly do you live? Seriously. SD got entirely phased out years ago here, there isn't even a single channel left of it, let alone a "majority."
>>259059415
What exactly are you trying to do? Are you trying to convert an HDMI port to DP or a DP port to HDMI? Either way it's still going to be limited to that of HDMI, because in each scenario 1 end of the connection is using HDMI.
>>259059734
You can't claim it's an industry standard when the industry doesn't use it.
>>259059561
I'm aware, it's just the signal between both channels is not versatile.
If an hdmi signal is outputted you won't be getting a display port signal from the other end, but the vice versa works, and encouraging display port isn't bad, it's just if you're a consumer and own a HDTV or something another, chances are it doesn't come with a display port, enabling you with very few options regarding refresh rate and other benefits for the computer centric device, Displayport.
Is VGA @ 1920x1080 as awful as it sounds?
>>259059408
Not sure what and where you're browsing so can't help you with that. Older screens used DVI though which is still fine, DP -> DVI adapters are cheap, or most video cards still include a DVI port or two also. Just don't use HDMI.
>>259060048
You can't use anything over 60hz on an hdmi cable, period.
If you use an HDMI to DP adapter, it is still limited to HDMI's limits.
If you use a DP to HDMI adapter, it is still limited to HDMI's limits. Aka 60hz.
You don't just magically gain 120hz capability by using an adapter
>>259059914
>You can't claim it's an industry standard when the industry doesn't use it.
But the industry does use it. It's the standard. All BD, all standard Internet video, and all broadcast in first world countries (the ones that actually matter commercially). I'm genuinely sorry if you depend purely on broadcast in some shithole that is still on SD or have such a bad netlink that you are forced to still use SD downscales for internet video, but that doesn't change what the industry standard is now.
>>259060161
The difference between VGA and displayport is minimal. You won't notice it unless you do very specific comparisons of the two.
>>259060394
>internet video
Is 720p, not 4k.
>BD
Is not 4k.
4k is not an industry standard. The industry has barely caught up to HD.
>>259060732
>is 720p
most videos on youtube are 1080p now
>>259059192
We can go by benchmarks if you want. Before you complain about the site, you can pick any other, the results are the same.
Oh man, just look at all those stable 120FPS.
http://www.tomshardware.com/charts/2014-vga-charts/04-Metro-Last-Light-1080p,3596.html
We can of course being to look at console ports with visually dated games that look identical to previous titles in the series and will see a much better result:
http://www.tomshardware.com/charts/2014-vga-charts/16-Battlefield-4-1080p,3608.html
Or how about we pick a game that is not graphically demanding at all and use this to push our 120Hz agenda:
http://www.tomshardware.com/charts/2014-vga-charts/08-Dirt3-1080p,3600.html
But look, what's this? It's stable 60+ FPS at 4K:
http://www.tomshardware.com/charts/2014-vga-charts/17-Battlefield-4-2160p,3609.html
http://www.tomshardware.com/charts/2014-vga-charts/09-Dirt3-2160p,3601.html
Do you know what's best? 4K@60 is possible on shitty cards where your 1080p@120 are are limited to very expensive high end ones. Guess what the future mass market and developer focus will be?
Enjoy your screen while it lasts.
Is my computer to toaster to add another Monitor to it? Speccy here
i barely play videogames as it is
im happy with my ASUS VH238H, GTX 660 and FX-8120.
>>259060971
>being so poor that you can't afford SLI
lel
>>259060971
Why would you need 4k when you can run at 1440p 120hz?
What's the point if it's still 60hz.
btw, not everybody runs 1 GPU
What about these new "ultra-wide" displays?
I saw a 25' ultra wide from LG that seems pretty good.
But I'm scared of playing games with shitty black bars or that new resolution being TOO taxing.
>>259037037
I'm still waiting for the right successor to this
>>259037037
Still waiting for 200hz screens.
>>259061606
I wish more monitors allowed this type of 3D. I don't want to buy a $100 kit just for 3D
>>259060732
>Is 720p, not 4k.
>goalpost shifting
I responded to >>259058275 where you said "media has barely reached 720p" which is entirely, ludicrously wrong. 1080p has been normal for a long time now, and my first 720p show is from 2006, and everything shifted to at least 720p within a year or so after that.
4K has only just started to get going, of course that's not close to universal yet. It'll take 4-5 years probably, just like in the past. But all the parts are industry standards and coming together on time, and the normal progression is happening. Manufacturing is ramping up, software codecs are getting updated (HEVC), etc. It's not going to be in <$400 cheap boxes for a long time, but it's rapidly dropping into high-end territory too. Media will follow hardware penetration, with some early adopters, a large middle rush, and then some late ones trickling in, just like always.
>>259061740
Let's look at that post.
>4k isn't readily available
Yes. That's true. It's not an industry standard as you claimed in >>259057295.
The only person shifting goalposts here is you.
>>259061532
A garbage gimmick to charge you more money for LESS pixels. It's a fucking scam, full stop, and you get to enjoy black bars for most stuff on the sides which looks way worse.
>>259060870
except that youtube has a maximum bitrate per video so 1080p ends up looking like less than 720p quality and 720p looks like SD.
do a side by side comparison of a normal 1080p video and a youtube 1080p video and youtube looks like ass.
