Thread replies: 11
Thread images: 1
Thread images: 1
File: monitor.jpg (191KB, 1200x500px) Image search:
[Google]
191KB, 1200x500px
TLDR - What is a good refresh rate for a monitor that allows me to run games in the highest fps possible (without screen tearing) so that input latency is reduced to a minimum?
I’m looking for a new desktop monitor to include with the desktop that I will be building this summer. Currently, I am using a high end gaming laptop with a 60hz monitor. While my graphics card has the capability to run games at extremely high frame rates, my monitors refresh rate limits this capability. If I run games in high fps then I have really bad screen tearing. Alternatively, if I use v-sync or any other means to limit my frame rate to my screens refresh rate then I have high input latency. While the limited frame rate isn’t a problem for most games, I do have a problem with a few games because of the limited frame rate causing high latency during gameplay. The main games I am concerned about are games like OSU or fast reaction games in which low latency is extremely beneficial for gameplay. I recently set my fps to unlimited while playing OSU, and my input latency dropped from 17ms to sub 1ms. This showed dramatic improvement in my gameplay because the reactions to my input felt almost instant. However, I also experienced the usual screen tearing I get when doing this which degrades visual quality and therefore gameplay quality.
My main question is that if I were to buy a 120hz, 144hz, or 240hz monitor, would I be able to run relatively games in high or unlimited fps without experiencing screen tearing like I do on my 60hz monitor? The monitor will likely be paired with an NVIDIA 1080 or 1080TI and a high end Intel processor (so those won’t be limiting factors in performance). If anyone has any experience with the new 240hz monitors that are compatible with things like G-Sync and free-sync, I would also like to hear your experiences with them as well. Thanks.
>>
A 144 will be plenty. I can't tell the difference between 120 and 144 anyways, so going for 240 will be a waste of money in my opinion.
I run my 144 at 120 strobed though, makes all the difference.
>>
fuck off dude, this isn't the consumer advice board and it definitely isnt the video games board
>>
Also, your brains processing lag is like 150-200ms, minimum, so I doubt shaving 16ms really improved you that much, its just placebo.
>>
>>60019465
Perhaps a more upboat friendly aggregator would better suit your needs
>>
>>60019436
I usually roll my eyes when people tell people to go back to /v/ on this board, but I legitimately think /v/ would better answer your questions
>>
>>60019476
I did a bunch of tests using human benchmark
High refresh rate and 1ms latency monitor + windows + Caffeine = 160ms reaction time
Without high refresh rate (still 1ms lag), adds 20ms
On Linux, compositing isn't as fast so adds like 10-20ms
Alcohol adds like 10-20ms
Using a touchpad instead of mouse adds 200ms
Given that with minimal hardware delay, my reaction time was at 160ms, I imagine humans can get as low as 140 or even 100ms if they are good removing all of the hardware delay
20ms is kinda a big deal, it's a greater than 20% improvement in reaction time
It's bigger than the difference between 30fps and 60 fps, for example
(Note: yes more than one person has noticed that higher refresh rate improves reaction time more than what would mathematically make sense for it to do, as 60hz -> 120hz saves 8ms vs 20ms reaction time)
>>
Ignore the fuckhead casual gamers in this thread.
You will need G-sync/freesync monitors. No, your laptop does not support these technologies. Yes, you will feel 240 if you know what too look for. It is a 100% increase in frame timing over 120. Prepare to shell out serious cash.
http://blurbusters.com
>>
will gsync go to waste if I'm too dumb to notice tearing? I've literally never experienced tearing. On PC that is
>>
>>60023013
Your aim will improve because the screen tearing alters how input is shown on the monitor. You may not notice tearing because you don't know what to look for.
>>
>>60023082
makes sense
Thread posts: 11
Thread images: 1
Thread images: 1