Are you part of the 144Hz G-Sync/Freesync master race?
what is the point if going 144 hz, when 95% of the games don't support 60+ fps, shit, not even 30 in console ports' case. Even if some games do support, you need a brutally expensive pc to run them 144 fps.
So please explain what is the point.
95% is an exaggeration. All games that require reactions had 60+fps support for me.
And, considering the topic at hand, 144Hz is useful because 60+fps is better than 60fps. 60+fps also does not require a brutally expensive PC, I'm doing it with a fucking 6970.
I have an ROG swift and kind of regret it.
I miss just being able to run a game with no issues at 1080p@60hz maxxed with a 980ti.
Now i'm constantly fiddling with settings and AA settings to make sure I'm getting 80fps+ and it's a chore.
Are you actually retarded? Learn how resolutions and framerates work.
If couldn't run csgo with rock solid 144 fps I would probably feel the same. Other games in my opinion are fine with 60 fps since screen tearing is non existent with 144hz monitor at those frame rates.
Yes I am, 60 fps is for plebs, imagine CSGO at anything under 144 fps
For some reason g-sync doesn't work the way I thought it would.
People were claiming they couldn't sense frame-rate drops, and that there was NO stuttering.
It mostly depends on the games though, games like BF4 and Ryse are silky smooth, and games like asscreed and blops3 are stuttery messes no matter what I do.
I just expected g-sync to be this revolutionary technology, and all it really does is get rid of screen tearing, which you're correct, there's very little of at 144hz anyways.
The difference between 60hz and 144hz is very much in your face. Going from 60hz in Quake 3 to 144hz is amazing, the motion is much more fluid and my aim has actually improved. For fun I compared com_maxfps 60 to com_maxfps 125 and the difference was enormous.
I've never seen 120 FPS or 144 FPS. I wish there was some sort of computer store/event near me where I could test it out, but I'm not gonna take the plunge unless I can actually see the difference before I buy.
Here's another game you won't be getting 144fps in. Looks like I'm winning.
I'd really love a 1440p 120/144fps monitor, but I only have a 770, and the monitor itself would be 600-900 dollars. So I'm looking at a 1500 dollar investment to do that.
For now I've got a nice 1080p/60fps monitor and a card that runs anything I want.
It's not THAT big of a deal, but I think it's worth the money personally
Things are just way more smooth, look at the difference between 30fps and 60fps on your 60hz monitor, it's kind of like that
strobing with 120+ Hz at a solid matching framerate beats the everloving shit out of variable syncing, which still can't be used simultaneously on any display with strobing.
> strobing at Hz = fps >>>>>> no strobing, v-sync at Hz=fps >>> variable-sync at fps<Hz > v-sync judder on 120/144Hz > tearing from fps>Hz > v-sync judder on 60Hz > tearing with fps<Hz
it's awesome, isn't it? i was coming from a laptop with a 630m
Why do you think it's wrong? Solely the anecdotal evidence? Because I hope you realize in that case that it's pretty stupid to say one piece of evidence is wrong solely because the other piece of (wrong by definition) evidence goes against it. You need something else.
Listen up scrublords. CSGO global elite here.
Unless you are competitively playing FPS multiplayer (CS, Quake, UT, TF2 etc) DON'T bother with 144 Hz.
I used to have 60 Hz Dell IPS and switched to 144 Hz TN just for CSGO. It was absolutely worth it for me, but in singleplayer games I prefer to have nice graphics (which means fps way below 144) and better colors.
>Two games prove it wrong. I can't be arsed to post more
Ah, so nothing. Note, I'm not asking for more anecdotal evidence.
>That's a really retarded assumption.
Again, why? You keep claiming shit without evidence.