>>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.
>>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
>>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.
>>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.
>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.
>>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.
>>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.
>>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.
>>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.
>>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.
>>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.
>>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.
>>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.
>>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.
>>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.
>>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.
>>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.
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.
>>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.
>>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.
>>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.
>>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.
>>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.
>>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.
>>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.
>>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.
>>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.
>>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.
>>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.
>>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.
>>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.
>>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.
>>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.
>>259061932 >Yes. That's true. It's not an industry standard as you claimed in >>259057295. That wasn't me. My first post was >>259058647 and I talked only about 1080p.
As far "industry standard" though yeah, UHDTV is in fact an "industry standard" published by the ITU. Rec. 2020 and all that were finalized and put up back in 2012. High end TVs are starting to use it, some media is starting to as well, and that's how it goes, we've all been on this ride many times before (well, those of us who aren't that young). Film intended for theater release is generally mastered at higher res then 1080p, so it's pretty trivial for them to produce high res releases and cheap easy money. Not sure what you find confusing about all this.
>>259062805 No, you have been proven objectively wrong. You obviously don't even have the slightest clue what a standard even is and probably live in BR land or some shit. You can have our table scraps in like 10 years, meanwhile the real world is moving on.
>>259060334 >A: DisplayPort-to-HDMI adaptors and DisplayPort-to-DVI adaptors are very simple and only operate one way. For instance, when a DP-to-HDMI adaptor is connected to a PC that supports DP++ (Dual-Mode) capability, the PC senses the presence of the adaptor and sends HDMI signals over the DisplayPort connector rather than DisplayPort signals. No signal conversion is performed by the HDMI adaptor. HDMI signals are merely passed through. The unique DisplayPort adaptor capability enables the PC to connect to a variety of displays via the DisplayPort connector including HDMI, DVI, and VGA. VGA adaptors are more complex and perform active signal conversion from DisplayPort to VGA. These adaptors also operate only one way. Unfortunately, HDMI does not support conversion to other display formats as does DisplayPort.
direct from the DP site.
HDMI signal is carried over DP, not sent exclusively or changed like most other conversions, it simply travels along it regularly. So DP is not limited to HDMI port range, but more accurately, the socket will only interpret HDMI. And it's still kind of bullshit because I've gotten my games to run at 75Hz before the recent catalyst update, so I don't know what exactly happened, if I changed HDMI cables or what, but it is possible.
I do. My monitor is more expensive than my stupid graphics card. It's kinda dumb, but I play a few games on medium settings to get 144 fps. The others I just play on high settings and settle with 60 fps.
Why do I do it? Because I'm a nerd who enjoys playing competitively.
>>259037037 I'm going to use this opportunity to correct myself: I recently posted that my ASUS VG 248 QE had "ghosting" problems or something of the nature. I have fixed the issue. The monitor has an option in its menu called "tracefree". Naive as I was when I first turned the thing on I went through those menu options and since "tracefree" sounds like a good thing I cranked that slider up. Turn that shit off and the ghosting was resolved. Least useful feature ever.
P.S. I don't think lightboost is helpful in any way either. Maybe my version was broken but I experimented - after fixing the "tracefree traces" problem - and without making the monitor really fucking bright I couldn't see any improvement in the demos they have on their site, flying saucers, scrolling images and whatnot. No advantage to lightboost. I have sensitive eyes and use a low brightness setting so even if there were advantages when increasing the brightness I couldn't benefit from them. So fuck lightboost, waste of time if you're like me.
Well my PC plays most if not all games at 60 fps but not more than that and because i dont have much money im not spending a lot of money on upgrades+monitor 1080p 60 fps its good enough for me until prices get lower
>>259063768 Then what was the problem originally? I never said that you'd lose quality, I was only saying that you'd still get HDMI limits, as in 60hz limitations and whatever HDMI's resolution limit is.
>>259063887 That's the point of my question, I wasn't asking if you'd magically get Displayport signals, I was asking if the same signal was being sent or a conversion took place, enabling loss of color, refresh rate, etc.
>>259063285 >Show me how 4k is an industry standard >http://www.itu.int/en/Pages/default.aspx Do you even know what "industry standards" are?
>when it isn't used for television DB-UHTV was approved in July: >http://www.techradar.com/news/television/tv/4k-tv-channels-on-the-way-as-dvb-uhdtv-standard-is-approved-1256181 You do realize that HDTV was a standard long before most broadcasting switched over? That they don't make these things up *afterwards* right?
>and isn't supported by BD. And 1080p isn't supported by DVD so HDTV must not be an industry standard too. Brilliant work as always anon!
>>259063802 I figured as much but I can't carry around a desktop and I can't afford one better than this. My main concern is that I can play BF4, BF3 and at least medium to low settings on new games that come out in the next year or so.
>>259064009 There is no color loss between HDMI or DisplayPort even if you use the actual port without an adapter. The only difference is DisplayPort has higher bandwidth, allowing higher resolutions and refresh rates.
>>259063514 >Asus ROG laptop to game on while I'm in college
Imagine the looks you will get when you drag that monstrosity out of your bag in a lecture, while anyone smart is using a 2lb netbook that is just as good for working on and has 5 times the battery life.
>>259064863 aren't you fags too busy dismantling your country so you become even less relevant and installing big brother cams everywhere to work on new technology? maybe if you're confused you could ask your local "bobby". hahaha.
>>259064697 You're not getting the point here. You have the definition of standard right, but what the anon is referring to is that 4K, let alone 1080p is not very common in the average home. Most people have 720p TVs still, and even if they have 1080p, they're not using 1080p all the time yet. Most of the people I know still rent DVDs, me included because I have a PS3 but don't care much for blu-ray.
4K won't be a common thing for at least a decade, if that.
>>259065390 >Most of the people I know still rent DVDs, me included >2014 >RENTING MOVIES, ON DVD Holy fuck this is great, it's like you're a living parody. There aren't even any physical rental places left in like 200 miles of me anymore, they've all gone out of business because they're entirely obsolete. Everyone gets video over the internet or via Amazon/Netflix in the total boonies. Like 92%+ of American TVs are HDTVs, there is barely anyone left without one since they aren't even made anymore and non-digital broadcasts were ended by law years ago.
Redbox is huge here, because most movies aren't even on Netflix now, it's all indie flicks and movies that came out 5+ years ago. Sure, amazon prime is good but some people don't want to pay 100 bucks a year to watch movies here. Redbox is a dollar a day, rent your movie, pay $1 and return it
Can't I use a 60 Hz monitor with a 144 Hz one while running Strobelight? Or does every monitor have to be 144 Hz or it fucks with refresh rate? I have been having hard time trying to get a VG248 and VE228 to play nice with each other.
I'm waiting for the 27" 144hz 1080p benq monitor with gsync to come out, should be before the end of the year I think. I'm also ordering a new PC when the new nvidia cards come out, so I'm letting everything come together before I get ahead of myself. Hopefully the 780ti equivalent/successor releases earlier in the lifespan of the new cards.
Because my options were to go cheap for 120hz 24" FHD monitor that lacks even a displayport connection and much more, or to buy a korean 1440p 27" IPS monitor FOR EVEN LESS thats reliably capable of at the very least 96hz.
I'll take a tiny bit of ghosting with the higher res, bigger screen, better colors and cheaper price.
A 144hz gayming monitor is great at gaming - and blows at everything else. An IPS monitor, especially a better one is good at everything, including gaming - not great, but still good.
So to get an expensive ass TN monitor for my main one sounds extremely unwise considering the amount of time I spend using the monitor NOT for gaming. (and I dont even watch movies on a monitor, I have a TV for that)
>>259071456 My colors are fine on my 144hz monitor, the difference I see between my laptop's IPS panel and my 24" TN is negligible. I really don't see the big deal with muh IPS. Now higher resolution I would like, but 1080p is fine for me right now.
Playing with a refresh rate that syncs up perfectly with your monitor would mean games like Rez and Katamari Darmacy could become really popular really fast.
Most of the problem with werid and zany games is that the resolution and refresh rate they're displayed at actually clash with what you're supposed to be feeling. Namely, Killer 7 and Katamari Darmacy.
But with indie games on the rise, maybe with efficient programming the devs could make it so you can get exactly the intended experience you were meant to.
>Family all thinks im some big hotshot computer guy >"you should get a job at the comuter store anon, you must really know your stuff, your like sheldon from the big bang theory, lol" wttttfff >see this thread >have no idea what people are saying. may as well be speaking in moon runes
>>259065078 I don't plan to use it like that. Just where I'm living, it's not feasible to have a desktop. I might set up somewhere on campus at times as there's a couple hour wait for my ride to be done with classes.
Is it bad for a gaming laptop, though I know. I know... >gaming >laptop
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective parties. Images uploaded are the responsibility of the Poster. Comments are owned by the Poster.
This is a 4chan archive - all of the shown content originated from that site. This means that 4Archive shows their content, archived. If you need information for a Poster - contact them.
If a post contains personal/copyrighted/illegal content, then use the post's [Report] link! If a post is not removed within 24h contact me at firstname.lastname@example.org with the post's information.