Should I get a 144hz monitor for my first PC build?
Is it worth the money?
>falling for marketing
left motion blur on
right motion blur off
Don't get me wrong 144Hz is better if you have powerful pc but that pic is just wrong.
>>336338245
Only if your PC is capable of running modern games at framerates above 60.
Are you really drop the cash to be able to even push 144hz? Get a 120hz panel and a 980
>>336338415
The image is conveying the fact that motion blur is necessary to simulate the smoothness of a 144 Hz monitor in 60 Hz.
Watch a film recorded at 48 frames per second and pause it during an action scene. You'll notice that each frame looks significantly less blurred than a frame of a traditional, 24 frames per second film. The same applies to the upgrade from 60 fps to 144 fps footage, which is why people prefer 144 Hz screens for watching sports and similar fast-moving video.
Video games are rendered frame-by-frame, rather than being filmed, so they don't naturally have motion blur. That's why 30 fps gameplay can look much choppier than 24 fps film, unless motion blur is simulated as a graphical effect.
The only way to make a 60 fps game look smoother on a 60 Hz monitor is to enable motion blur effects, sacrificing the clarity of each frame.
>>336338415
How else are they going to show a higher frame rate in a still picture?
>>336338245
I'd go 1200/1440p over fps
>>336338245
Yeah.
>>336338245
post specs
its not worth if the only thing your pc can do is toast bread
>>336338245
yes.
>>336339367
This anon is completely correct is you plan on watching movies or tv then yes if its all about games then no
2560x1440p 144Hz 1ms monitor here. Fucking love it.
>>336342253
do you need to get 144hz to really see the difference or is it also when you get more than 60fps?
>>336338245
if you play a lot of fps, driving and fighting games; yeah, i'd definitely recommend 144hz
otherwise; eh, it's not as important
also, remember that it is only worthwhile if you can play the game at a steady 144fps
I already have an IPS panel with 60hz
Should I get a 1080p 144hz screen? Which should I go with? Massdrop is having a drop for 300 bucks for one that seems pretty good.
>>336342860
Yes. The human eye can only see in differences of 84fps
>>336342860
you need 100+ to see the real difference
Getting Acer x34 soon, really excited.
>>336342860
Hz and fps are basicly the same in a way. To see 60 fps you need a 60 Hz, to see 144fps you need 144 fps.
So yeah. But I only really run 144 Hz for CSGO.770 2gb
My last monitor lasted 7 years, so I just wanted a top of the line monitor, instead of buying a new in 2-3 years. And I doubt 4k will be worth paying for, for several years, where 1440p is much easier to achieve, so is 144fps in 1440p, with the new line of gfx coming out.
Get a 144Hz if you play games where fps matters a lot, like shooting games, if you play action, rpg's, mmo's etc, 60 fps is enough.
>>336342872
>spouts his memes and doesn't have 144hz monitor
>>336343137
>doesn't give an actual counter-argument, instead just shitposts
yes, i do have a 144hz screen
>>336343128
4k 60fps = 1440p 144fps
But i'm in same boat got my IPS144hz with same reasoning, we have to suffer sub 100 fps for another videocard gen.
>>336338245
use your tv
buying monitor is a new meme
>>336343075
>>336343128
so what gpu can give me 100+ fps with a 1440p resolution?
what about that oled 120hz 4k screen from dell for 5000$ will that be the best screen out there?
>>336343251
>120hz 4k
Lmao
>>336343236
If you did you would know what a bliss it is to use on desktop, and how movies look and and general better feel in games with better response times, in any games.
Not to mention you do not need vsync at this refresh rate at any fps - no tearing.
>>336338415
You can't turn off motion blur caused by pixel transition or persistence.
>>336339367
There isn't any content for 144Hz, but 144Hz is still better for 24/48fps contrnt.
If your GPU is good enough, definitely.
And get a screen with anti-tearing (Free/G-Sync) as well, it's great.
>>336343362
what about it
>>336343492
No one uses DP 1.3 yet.
>>336343251
No GPU is going to get you above 70fps at 4k except for in a few select games
>>336343251
>oled 120hz 4k
nobody knows how well they fixed burn-in
but on paper it is amazing
no GPU can run 4k at 120fps, no gpu can run 4k at 60 fps yet
>>336343251
I guess it depends on game. My 770 2gb can run some gaames 60fps at 1440 being at max-ultra, while a game like Dark Souls 3, i need to run it in a window at 1080p, being all low settings and I still see fps drops. Meanwhile I raid in WoW with a full UI, ultra settings and see 60 fps on most fights, and some at 40+.
A 970 4gb should be a good deal.
will we jump 2k resolution or will it become the norm before 4k? or will we jump it and go to 4k because there are no 2k tvs
>>336343632i'm so happy i jumped from 770 to 390 last october just for new screen
>>336343751
2K is 1080p.
Let's settle this /v/...
144hz or 120hz with motion blur reduction?
>>336338245
If you have the cash to get an appropriate GPU+CPU as well, go for it.
>>336338245
If you want to be an elitist who paid more for nothing, sure.
>>336343842
>with motion blur reduction
??
>>336343842
motion blur reduction kills brightness ->colors
You may as well buy TN then.
>>336342860
Fluid gameplay will only improve with more hz as long as your GPU can handle it. However, there is also a slightly noticeable difference between, for example, 144hz/144fps and 144/300fps. In this case fluidity will ve no different but you will notice more accuracy when aiming or such since the frame displayed on the screen resembles with less delay whats happening in real time. I think its called frame latency or something like that...
>>336338245
If you hate screen tearing as much as I do, then yes.
>>336343935
There are some monitors (Asus ones I think, google "lightboost") that have a feature that make the backpanel (the one that gives constant white light) strobe and the same rate as the one that displays the picture, effectively reducing unintended motion blur caused by the screen (this is only a significant issue at high refresh rates)
Unless you play arena FPS there really is no point.
>>336344115
No, having 300 fps on a 144Hz screen is called having disgusting screen tearing.
Going anywhere above your monitor's refresh rate is a waste.
>>336342253
Which one do you have and can you even hit 144fps with current single gpu solutions out there?
>>336343751
4k is 2k
>>336343842
>Better refresh rate without shitty effect or worse refresh rate with shitty effect
Everyone swears by it but I wonder how much of it is purchase rationalization or whatever.
I'm not saying 144hz isn't good. I don't know.
Maybe this august I'll get one tho. I'm just scared it'll end up being a waste of money.
>>336342860
I've seen CS:GO players praise 75hz and claim that it is way more bearable than 60hz.
But I personally couldn't see the difference so fuck.
>>336344627
Its difference was really noticeable at games like Tribes or UT
>>336344554
I know how you feel. The only reason I got a 144Hz is because my previous (60Hz) monitor died so I figured I might as well upgrade at the same time. And I made the right choice. Running games at 144 fps is a new experience altogether. Kind of like spending your whole life playing on console then switching to PC and finding out about 60Hz.
And the good thing is that, unlike 60Hz, you barely feel fluctuations bewteen 100 and 144Hz.
You can tell there's a difference, but it's not bothersome.
Wait for HDR monitors
>tfw spoiled my eyes with 144hz.
>60 fps seems like actual shit now.
It can be quite annoying and gotta love how shitty console ports break down when played in 144hz, looking at you empty wasteland explorer 4.
>>336344382
I got a BenQ XL2730Z. With my 770 2gb, and only some games do I hit 144 fps with. Most games I just run 60fps. But it's more for the future and when I get a better gfx, which I plan on buying next year.
>>336338245
yes but be aware that you need a breddy gud pc to run modern games at 144 fps. I can run most of the games at 100~ fps with gtx 970 meme card and i5-3570k (3.4 Ghz)
I'm pretty sure a huge chunk of people want to get 144hz monitors for FPS games or some other competitive games, many of which don't require a powerful graphics card to hit 144fps.
So whenever the subject is brought up I don't get why /v/'s instinct is to claim that you need a powerful card to utilize it.
>>336345529
*at 1080p resolution
>>336338245
Everything is a balancing act.
> TN - pixels can change fully at >120Hz, but colors shift when you move relative to the display
> IPS - perfect positional color stability, but slower pixel transitions, and uniform greyish glow in dark rooms for pixels not directly in front of you (usually corners)
> VA - good black levels, OK pixel speed, OK color accuracy/positional stability
TN panels are the most suited for high-Hz/fps use, but their colors are pretty shit the rest of the time, and god forbid you try to use them in portrait mode, where each eye will see the same pixels with different colors.
Other than that, if you want high motion clarity, make sure:
> monitor does at least 120 Hz. 144 is a little nicer but not really necessary and hard to distinguish from 120.
> monitor does strobing/LightBoost/ULMB. (CRITICAL)
> your PC can drive content at the resolution/refresh rate of the monitor. (CRITICAL)
Motion clarity only works when each frame is unique and shown brightly for a brief subset of the whole nomimal frame time (7-8ms for 120-144Hz).
The other important thing to know is that nobody has made adaptive/free/g-sync displays that can do strobing at the same time, so don't expect to be able to use variable syncing to cope with low-fps games and still get motion clarity.
It's kind of an all-or-nothing thing.
right now 4k and 144hz are both gimmicks with not enough support to justify the amount of extra spend you'll need to make use of them
literally nothing wrong with 1080p 60fps for games
>>336346075
I don't know about 4k but most games support high frame rates.
>>336346075
144hz isn't like 4k
Most everything supports it and it doesn't cost much extra to have it
>>336338245
Just make sure it has adaptative-sync so you still have a bonus if you can't fully exploit the refresh rate.
I'm still using my GD245HQ from 6 years ago, one day I'll upgrade
>>336338245
Depends on what you play. If you like shooters a lot and are competitive about them then you'll probably appreciate it a lot. If you mostly play MMOs or RTS games then there's not really a point unless you really like the smoothness.
I have one, its awesome. Only real drawback is the amount of games that have so much of their physics shit tied to the framerate and cap at 60 (Dark Souls, Todds games, etc.) But its great for everything else that doesn't have a cap, and is damned near impossible to imagine going back for fast paced games once you've had one for a short while.
>>336345760
>2010 the post
you should check what was going on for the last couple years with monitor tech
>>336338245
three proper 4:3 60hz ones with small bezels.
