Monitor Refresh Rates

>>61931253
man id stick with a 1080p monitor at 60 hz i have a really nice acer 27 inch that i paid 170 for,60hz is way more reasonable imo
Acer S271HL i think
your build is pretty slick too my bro

>>61931280
cheers my man was going for something reasonably priced but not expensive as fuck that can still run games like csgo and pubg at at least high if not very high graphics, just need a good monitor in $300-$450 price range to finish her off

>>61931253
You could prob get away with it if you like playing games on medium settings.
I still wouldnt bother, 144hz is way overrated, you only really see a diffrence in fps games.
t. owner of 144hz with 1080

>>61931385
Does a 144hz require a better gpu then? And if i did use one am i going to be forced into using medium settings because of that? Only ever used 60hz

>>61931419
You need a good CPU and a good GPU. Also hitting 144fps in every new game at ultra is literally impossible regardless of hardware. Unless you just play CSGO you will need to spend a decent amount of money. 1080p/144 is a bit more reasonable but for 1440p/144 there's no such thing as overkill.

>>61931253
dude SICK build, 144hz is worth it if you HATE the jaggy feeling of low fps. Even browsing the web, 60hz aint enuff. Try overclocking your current monitor to 70hz and you can see a difference even though its only 10 more frames. Imagine how smooth 144hz+ is. Also bro, depends what gayming you do. If you play Dotes and CSGO you should think highly of 144hz. If you play games you can only reach 60 in exclusively then fuck son, don't buy 144hz.

will running a game at say 60fps look exactly the same on a 60hz and 144hz monitor though? Or will the 144hz require more power just to run in general

Have also heard that 60hz can look terrible after playing on 144hz,especially with fps games where the motion blur is noticeable, and you'll never be able to watch a panning shot in films or at the cinema the same way again

And based on my build above^ would it be worth it to get a 1080p 144hz for games like PUBG (even though it is poorly optimized at the moment) and other fps if i plan to pay them frequently?

>>61931786
>for games like PUBG (even though it is poorly optimized at the moment) and other fps if i plan to pay them frequently?
Firstly, kys, secondly, absolutely no. With your GPU, CSGO is the only game you can handle at 144hz.

>>61931763
thanks my man
>>61931810
why the shit does everyone on /v/ and /g/ hate pubg? I know it's in early access and the devs lied about microtransactions (only for fucking vanity items though) but it is a great game still and is getting better with every update

What about a 120hz pleb? I think i should be fine with dropping from ultra settings to very high/high if i can reach 90-100 fps doing so

File: 34600452[1].jpg (78KB, 680x649px) Image search: [Google]

78KB, 680x649px

>>61931763

>>61931786
The hz value is just how many frames per second your monitor will display to you. 60 FPS in game will have your monitor output 60 FPS to your eye sockets.

If you were to have a 60hz monitor but your gaym is outputting 90, your monitor would only display 60 of those 90 frames every second.

Basically, in short:
>will running a game at say 60fps look exactly the same on a 60hz and 144hz monitor
Yes
>would it be worth it to get a 1080p 144hz for games like PUBG ... and other fps
Not with your graphics card.

>>61931385
>You only notice a difference
I notice a difference in every game I play. It still blows me away.

I just run a 1600x900 @ 80Hz

>>61931786
Don't know about 1080p but even at 1440p/low settings with my overclocked Ryzen 5 and GTX 1080 I could only get 100-120fps with drops. Its not welp optimized enough yet

>>61931875
Understand this but 90fps on a 60 fps monitor would cause interpolation/screen tearing wouldn't it?

>>61931856
>why the shit does everyone on /v/ and /g/ hate pubg?
Mainly shitty performance and shitty moves by devs. The game itself is great, but I can't recommend it to others for those two reasons.

File: cfk9pkym771y[1].jpg (18KB, 400x327px) Image search: [Google]

18KB, 400x327px

>>61931923

>>61931923
Depends on the game, but usually yes.
If you're constantly hitting 90+ FPS in a game and you have a 60hz monitor, you should be using vsync so screen tearing isn't a problem.

>>61931928
this i understand, but after how much the game has grown, the money the devs are making, and how pissed off players will be if they don't do this, i assume it will be much more optimized reasonably soon for most systems. Its coming out of early access soon too not that that means it'll be fixed much

>>61931786
>will running a game at say 60fps look exactly the same on a 60hz and 144hz monitor though?
It'd probably have less motion blur and input lag.

>>61931875
>Not with your graphics card.
gtx1060 ROG STRIX has a boosted 1873 mhz

I forgot to mention i also have 16gb of ddr4

>>61932014
Please be bait

>he wants a shitty TN gaymur monitor

>>61931999
On the 120?
Running double the hz means its attempting to fill every second frame right?

>>61932027
I'd get an gsync/freesync IPS but they're expensive as fuck, ya fuck.

>>61932038
>he desires a shitty gaymur IPS panel with BLB out the ass and pitiful contrast
>even that he cannot afford and so he just laments his situation, never seeing the forest for the trees

>>61932028
You can lock a game at 60 with Rivatuner while your monitor runs at 120. Of course you cant use vsync then but screen tearing is less noticable at higher reftesh rates.

>>61932072
Spot on

>>61932135
Oh forgot to mention you can always underclock the monitor too. Usually 60 100 and 120 are options for a 144hz, but you can manually set the refresh rate using your GPU drivers as well. So lets say you hit a minimum of 75fps, just set your monitor to 75hz.

>>61932248
I didn't know this was possible, cheers

I got nearly the same build. if you have the budget for for a 1440p @144hz, it will still run all current games at at least mid settings very smoothly. if you don't and/or are only interested in 1080p, it will work and going from 60hz to 144hz is night and day

>>61931253
1060 can give you high hz but your CPU will possibly bottleneck on some games.
High hz us a bitch because you need both good cpu and gpu

>posting your storage capacity as if it has an impact on performance
>moron /v/edditors that know nothing about input lag and refresh rates

>>61931726
I have a pair of 1080s and 7700k 5.0gjz. most aaa games top 130-140hz on 1440p. It's possible to not cheap. The cost to run 144hz 1440p is more than 4k 60hz, due to CPU needs for high frequency.

>>61931253
I'm using a 3770k @4.5ghz and a guy 970 @1600mhz without any issues on 1080p and 144hz. If a game decides to dip I simply lower some unnecessary shit like shadows or dynamic reflection. Game looks pretty much the same but runs 30-40fps higher.

>>61931786
Once you meet real 120hz + you will feel very uncorfortable going back to 60hz. Your eyes adapt fast.
I used to get around 120hz 1080p on a 980, a 1060 should be near that.
You will get this on games like bf4. Witcher 3 will land near 70-80

>>61932264
I'm not too interested in 1440p only because i'd rather play at higher graphics with a better fps on 1080, and i'm sure my build won't handle 1440p too well
>>61932301
exactly why ^

>>61932367
I would rather go a 1080ti, but 1080sli still give better performance.

Movies look like literal slideshows after switching to 144hz. Also I can still play games at 60fps but using a desktop at 60hz is annoying. The mouse just moves too slow. I think 75hz should be the standard for computer monitors.

>>61932723
I meant 1080p not gpu