http://www.blurbusters.com/4k-120hz -with-bonus-240hz-and-48

>>61959612
the human eye can only see in 30 fps

File: 63-Cat-Projectile-Vomit.jpg (92KB, 565x403px) Image search: [Google]

92KB, 565x403px

>TN panels

>>61959717
They mention this in the article, the problem with VA and IPS is the higher GtG response time. At 480fps the framerate would literally be faster than the GtG time, the fastest IPS panels are usually 4ms while 480fps has a frametime of 2ms.

>>61959612
>I'm interested to see how 480Hz feels
Feels poor, because you're gonna need 5000 dollars worth of hardware to brute force a crappily optimized modern game into 480hz

>>61959612
lmao, the 1080ti barely gets 60 fps on 4k

I'm more interested in cheaper 40"+ 4k/60Hz monitors.

>>61959612
This would have been useful on plasmas which actually refreshed at 480hz-3000hz internally, the only reason you were capped at bullshit ASTC resolutions was because of hollywood enforcing their bullshit DRM through proprietary interfaces (HDMI consortium)

Liquid crystal can't turn on a dime like phosphors or most self emissive types, TN hits the wall at 105hz~, IPS at 80hz etc.. you are just wasting electricity rendering all that shit

>>61959856
>800X540
>5 grand worth of hardware

>not 1:1 bandwidth scaling
dropped

>>61960153
>Mount stupidity.

Why don't we have dynamic refresh rates for computers and consumers? Why does only Crapple have it?

>>61961734
Why would you want anything lower than your max? Even moving your mouse around at 30Hz would look like shit compared to 60Hz+

>>61959856
at 540p, either the game will play at 480hz or it will never get there because the cpu just cant push it further.

>>61959917
Not the point, there are a lot of people who don't want to give up higher than 60fps for a resolution bump alone, god knows I am with them, a 120hz monitor next to a 60hz and using the 60 is painfully choppy anymore.

>>61961730
>>61960153
guys not entirely wrong, I notice ghosting on most panels because they can't change the pixel fast enough, it has gotten far FAR better, but still not good enough.

backlight strobing tends to almost fix this though. but tis more an eye trick than anything else.

>>61959612
>it's kind of gimmicky at only 540p though
It's gimmicky regardless. Going over 240Hz is a huge waste for almost no gain.
Does current DP even provide enough bandwidth for 4k 120Hz?

>>61959717
it's available in both 28" TN panel and 39" VA panel
but obviously for serious gaming the TN panel will be more viable

>>61961946
DP has since late 2014, and HDMI 2.1 also supports it, along with mandatory variable refresh rate aka freesync/gsync. Which means nvidia might have to drop goysync, or at least support HDMIsync which means no more choosing a monitor and being forced to stay with one card maker to keep variable refresh ability.

>>61961946
you have to use 2 displayport connections for this 4k@120hz to work

>>61959644
wasted dubs

I am a fighter pilot I see at 200fps

>>61961946
>Going over 240Hz is a huge waste for almost no gain
Getting closer to real life fps of course

File: 1465490384589.gif (981KB, 342x239px) Image search: [Google]

981KB, 342x239px

>>61962729
>real life fps
next thing you will be talking about is real life resolution and dpi

does the eye actually take frames? Or is that a gay science comparison

>>61959917
I get over 1000fps on qw with a gtx 650ti

>>61959791
>480fps
Couldn't they do something actually useful?

>>61959612
>I'm interested to see how 480Hz feels, it's kind of gimmicky at only 540p though
Weren't plasmas at 666hz. You could probably find a 720p 40" plasma for $50 if you really wanted to feel the rush.

>>61961734
>what is Gsync and Freesync?

>>61961916
A TN has 1ms GtG which is about the same as the phosphor used in CRT's. IPS is still too slow at 4-5ms but it's improved massively over the past few years. The main issue is motion blur caused by sample and hold which is unavoidable. It can only be solved by ludicrously high refresh rates, backlight strobing or black frame insertion. 4k/120Hz/Gsync is the holy grail for emulation since combining backlight strobing every frame and inserting a black frame every other frame (reducing 120Hz to 60Hz for NTSC games) makes the LCD look exactly like a CRT. Th eonly limitation is the TN panel of course, but OLED should fix that, we have very fast response OLED screens already.

>>61963136
Your eyes don't see in frames, rather your eyes take in as much info as possible and your brains sorts useful info from garbage, using natural motion blur to fill in any holes. Test on air force pilots put the limit for "useful frames" at around 300fps. So you can probably notice 480fps, however your brain won't likely get anything useful out of it, it won't improve your skill at the game. This means I think the 720p/300Hz mode is probably a better balance, although 28' at 720p probably looks like trash still.

>>61964164
>TN 1 ms GTG
>IPS 4-5 ms GTG
manufacturers usually just pick 2 close gray colors to measure it
there is no standard to which 2 colors to pick so every manufacturer can just make up a number at will

>>61964223
>although 28' at 720p probably looks like trash still
well it's a 4k panel so it will look blurry, but still better than a 720p panel at 28" with giant pixels

>>61959612
>480Hz
What am I enjoying at that refresh rate besides Q3A?

>>61959917
I second this.
I will just use 4k when a 100hz+ monitor appears. A lot of older games can run fast, I would even consider 1080ti SLI.
Probably a volta ti will manage to do 4k 70 or around, we will need more 2 gens.
A1080ti alone can't drive 144hz at 1440p on all games yet.

File: 1462912682086.gif (731KB, 540x304px) Image search: [Google]

731KB, 540x304px

>>61964342
CoD2
CoD4
CS:GO
Overwatch
or any game, just [spoiler] lower your graphic settings[/spoiler]

>>61960153
It's a pity that couldn't manage to make more denser plasma because plasma colors and contrast absolutely rocks

>>61963136
A think interesting you might want to test is the difference between direct light emission vs reflected light: when you are watching directly light from a display you need very high frequency. When you are watching reflected light like from a projector, your eyes will adapt much better, and even lower franes don't feel that bad.

>>61959644
You must mean the brain can process a moving image from 20-30fps given it's fluid like from a camera. 480 is overkill though. we can't, however distinguish information with a temporal difference of ~= 2ms. Sorry too lazy to quote research but 200hz is more then enough as 5ms is possible...

>>61960153
This guy knows it, LCD, and TN are not used in vision science for that reason usually old CRT is used bc of response times and transition time.
>>61961730
Fag

For window management/smooth scrolling 100fps is more than enough.

>>61959612
I can already see idiots playing at 540p for their precious frames

>>61963104
>real life resolution
Vsauce already did a video on this and as usual it sucked ass and wasn't informative in the least.

File: Screenshot_20170818-093742.png (864KB, 1440x2560px) Image search: [Google]

864KB, 1440x2560px

>>61959612
Was going to buy the no panel kit and source my own panel for a total of $600, but after reading the guide this might be a little over my head.


The stupid-tax fully complete $815 kit might be better for me but at that price I'm willing to wait until 2019 for gsync/freesync compliant kits.

>>61964816
And /g/ said CPU benchmarks at low resolutions are pointless. Time to start doing 540p benchmarks for games.

File: 6ee.png (20KB, 400x462px) Image search: [Google]

20KB, 400x462px

>>61959612
the industry standard should have been 1000hz 1000fps minimum from day1. damn shame. good thing the human eye can't see fps or feel input lag tho.