Is high refresh rate a meme?

It's more noticeable than a slight increase in resolution

>>62343785
>Gayming
>>>/v/

>>62343793
Why did we ever give up on CRT?

>>62343793
This. I'll take framerate over resolution or aspect ratio any day of the week. The only thing I dislike about my current Benq Xl2411 is that it's TN, I'm planning on upgrading to one of the new crop of 27" high-framerate IPS displays sooner or later.

The "human eye can't see past 60 fps" is pure bullshit. I remember doing a self test and got up to 85-90 Hz before I couldn't see the difference anymore. If you replace monitors once a decade I'd just go for 4k monitors instead. There isn't many times where you could take advanyage of 144hz besides gaming.

>>62343809
We didn't, the general public did and manufacturers pushed LCD tech with big box retailers like crazy.

>>62343785
GAYMERS BTFO

>>62343804
>anything to do with refresh rate is automatically gayming
What the fuck

>>62343793
what's slight?

>>62343785
Your sex life is a meme.

>>62343819
I can't take seriously the opinion of anyone using a TN panel

Forget gayming, the smoothness of 144+ hz on mouse movement alone is worth it.

60hz feels like dragging the courser through molasses in comparison.

>Since I replace monitors once a decade,

keep waiting then, 144hz or die

>>62343873
> 4k monitors
I'm not a fan of DPI scaling, everything gets fucked up

>>62343992
use an operating system that's not garbage.

>>62343992
OS X has been handling 2x scaling fine for the better part of 5 years. Is Windows still struggling with it? Last I heard Ubuntu had scaling figured out, is that not the case?

Don't scale at a non-integral value. You're just asking for hell to interpolate shit.

>>62343785
Kilo VAT & delivery

>>62344051

windows does alright at scaling the problem is that all the pajeet programmers can't figure out the right defaults

I had to do registry tweaks just to get it to scale properly

>>62343785
High refresh and low latency are the only two non-memes in regards to monitors. Color accuracy needs to be adjusted on virtually all monitors, the only technology that provides good blacks is OLED which barely exists, ghosting is for crybaby videophiles, Free/G-sync are kinda whatever, resolution beyond 1440 on a monitor is a joke.

>>62344027
>use nothing to accomplish something
That makes no sense.

>>62344051
There's always something that breaks

I can't run OS X on my hardware anyway

>>62343785
protip: 38" is way too big for a monitor, 34" is just fine for 21:9 1440p

>>62344691
I've used a 30" and a 27" monitor before, 16:9 is shit - not enough vertical space - and the 34" ones are just fatter versions of typical 27" monitors.

>>62344742
you understand that the resolution is the same right? You aren't getting more vertical space even on a 50" 21:9 1440p screen

>>62344793
>you understand that the resolution is the same right?
it's not you illiterate retard - the 30" monitors mentioned are 16:10, i.e. 2560x1600, 38" ones are also 1600p >>62343785

>>62344924
never mind, didn't know that 21:9 1600p screens existed

>>62343873
It's not even about that. LCD panel produce motion blur and over 60 hz panels reduce that blur. I have the last Panasonic plasma panel, at 60hz a moving image at 60 frames per second looks as smooth or even smoother than moving image at 144fps on 144hz lcd panel.

>>62343977
This.

Actually, Im running a 144hz + 60 hz dual monitor setup and I just tried this for myself. Its absolutely true.

It's the HDD/SSD wars all over again

One is bigger and has worse use experience, while the other one is smaller and has a superior experience.

I have a gtx 1070 and a 1080p 144hz monitor. My only wish is that I had bought a 2k 144hz monitor, but I'm definitely not going back from 144hz

I have a 165Hz monitor and I didn't think I was seeing any difference, but then my friends wanted to play a game that happens to be capped at 60FPS. It's a huge difference.

That said,
>ultrawide

>>62343819
>>62343976
TN is fine as long as it's small enough or you sit far enough away. My 24" has no issues at 2-4' viewing distance. It also cost half of what a similar IPS would, has no retarded gaymer aesthetics, and I didn't have to RMA it to get one without issues.

4K 240Hz HDR OLED 1ms 12-bit colour panels when? I need something all purpose.

>>62345414
if dell hadn't fucked up we'd be using 4k 120Hz OLED 0.1ms monitors right now

>>62345414
>>62345486
you can buy one of those with 60Hz though
http://www.dell.com/en-us/shop/accessories/apd/210-aiei

>>62343809
Because they're fuck huge and heavy and hot

>>62343785
The most important thing is that the Hz are divisible by 24

That's why 144Hz looks so great.

>>62343785
I have a 1080 monitor overclocked to 85hz and I'd much rather have 1440/60. At least I'd be able to use the extra space instead of jerking myself off moving the mouse around at 85 frames per second.

>>62343804
>coding at less than 144 Hz
ishygddt

I'm still debating whether to replace my current 1440p 60hz IPS monitor with a high refresh one, or just buy a 1080p TN high refresh monitor as a second display purely for "competitive" gayming.

>>62347642
Just get the extra TN display.
I use 3x 1440p IPS screens and a 144hz 1080p for csgo etc.
You WILL find the IPS to be choppy as fuck after using the 144hz but you get used to it with time.

>>62343785
>went from 60hz to 144hz

Everything is insanely smoother. Not just gayming. It becomes unnatural to use other displays after moving on to higher refreshrates.

File: ulmb2.jpg (118KB, 767x434px) Image search: [Google]

118KB, 767x434px

once you go 120hz ULMB/strobing backlights (motion blur reduction) you'll never go back. personally i can't tell the difference past ~110 fps. i've seen that one 240hz monitor irl, i don't think it's worth it to go past 120hz

op, check out the dell s2716dg, it doesn't look like gamer shit and it does the job well. it can do 1440p@144hz gsync or 1440p@120hz ULMB. only downside is that it's a tn panel. i still love it, though. then again, i've never seen an ips panel, so i don't really know what i'm missing. but i play fast paced games, tns are perfect for that.

gsync is not worth it in my opinion, but ULMB/strobing backlights definitely is.

>I replace monitors once a decade
if you have a lot of money (for a high end gpu or two), i'd wait for 4k@144hz displays, they should be right around the corner.

>>62347705
I took a look at the prices and even a 240hz second monitor would be more affordable than selling my main IPS one and buying a 144/165hz 1440p IPS, and the cheapest 240hz monitor is downright cheap.

And of course 144hz ones are even cheaper.

The only downside is that having 2 different sized monitors is gonna trigger me somewhat fierce, but I think I can live with it.

File: 1499763732275.png (142KB, 565x396px) Image search: [Google]

142KB, 565x396px

bought a 1440p/60hz monitor a year ago and I wish I'd gone for the 144hz meme. But I'm too poor to have a 1440p/144hz IPS and I can't just drop another $300 on a monitor a year later

Doushio, /g/? I wish I could return the 1440p. What are the odds I can sell the monitor for close to what I paid for it?

Yeah, once you go to 144Hz, using 60Hz will literally make you feel sick/cause eyestrain.

>>62343809
Forget the other reasons - the big killer of CRT was RoHS.
CRTs produce radiation inside the tube, this is mitigated by using shielded glass to prevent radiating the users eyes.

In the very early days, with orange lowing CRTs the entire tube was lead-glass which glows orange. (you can see this on modern tube at the rear, which glows orange/red - due to lead glass.
For color CRTs though, obviously lead glass and other doped 'colored' glasses would work - so extremely expensive Barium glass was used for the front glass of the tubes - with much cheaper lead glass used for the remainder of the glass.

RoHS banned lead glass, which mean't only Barium could be used for the entire tube, which would make CRTs unbelievably expensive and would will most of the market left for the them (obviously not all, but not enough to keep produce highend CRT displays)

Thanks yurop.

>>62347786
don't expect to get more than 60-70% of the original price.

If I was looking at a 240hz monitor, would g-sync be worth it?

The price premium is significant, 60% more expensive than the cheapest 240hz display, 25% more expensive than the decent ones.

File: ulmb_motion_blur_from_persistence.png (53KB, 655x600px) Image search: [Google]

53KB, 655x600px

>>62347878
gsync is not worth it at high refresh rates/fps, but ULMB is. i think most if not all gsync displays support ULMB

see >>62347755

>>62343809
Because they're heavy (and require substantially more resources to produce), experience pixel crawl, grow in weight more than exponentially with size increase so high resolution CRTs were (and still aren't) viable consumer products, used more power than LCD and other flat panels (even in their infancy, the difference is even more so now), had technology that constrained the aspect ratio to a more square-ish 4:3 (le masterrace though!) without significant additional innovation, would never support significantly curved displays (a bit of meme though I'll admit), use a great deal more power and create more physical waste upon disposal.

The fact that as a reasonably mature technology they were unable to compete with LCD panels in their infancy speaks volumes.

>>62347914
CRT master race once again.

I can understand why melee players insist on having CRTs only.

>>62343785

Wait for the 49" ultrawide 144hz samsung

File: aspect ratio.jpg (769KB, 2391x1024px) Image search: [Google]

769KB, 2391x1024px

>>62347987
crt wins in terms of clarity, sure. but crt's have a shitty aspect ratio.
strobing backlights gives you almost crt-like clarity, but with a better aspect ratio. i think it's a step in the right direction.

Unless all you do is write word documents and read, upgrading your monitor to a higher refresh rate is similar to comparing playing a video game on 20 to 60 fps.

>>62347914

Problem with ulmb is that you need to keep a locked 120hz with vsync otherwise the frames are out of sync, and it has a little bit more input lag.

I like it too but only in overwatch and cs go where i can keep a steady 120 (1080 and 1440p 144hz ips)

>>62347914
But you can't get ULMB at 240hz, right?

>>62348062
wait never mind
>>62348060
if you need vsync on then it's not for me.

>>62348060
>>62348079
i have vsync turned off and i use ULMB. i never noticed anything being out of sync or lags. all you need is a steady 120fps. if your monitor supports it, you should at least give it a try.

does ULMB force vsync on the driver level?

when i got my monitor, i played with gsync for 6 months. then i turned on ULMB. i feel like my aiming got more accurate in ut4, tf2 and overwatch. in dota 2 i did not notice being better. the difference is night and day, though. nothing beats that clarity.

>>62348062
not possible as far as i know.

>>62343785
>Since I replace monitors once a decade, I want to make sure I jump on the right bandwagon
You might want to consider buying a monitor which can actually display straight lines, in that case.

Been looking at a 240hz display.

Kinda interested in this:
http://zowie.benq.com/en/product/monitor/xl/xl2546.html
cause it got some anti blur technology while not being as expensive as the acer/asus stuff, and it looks better.

But there's also this:
http://eu.aoc.com/en/gaming/products/ag251fz

Which seems to be bog standard 240hz monitor, but it's SIGNIFICANTLY cheaper.

So is there reason enough to pay more for the Zowie?

Why are there no 300hz panels yet anyway?

>>62343785
>60Hz to higher
why the fuck would anyone do that? it's scientifically proven the human eye can't see more than 24 fps

>>62345536
>huge
its on your desk
>heavy
its on your desk and not moving
>hot
its on your desk and you never touch it

>>62352064
I used CRTs for a couple years after LCDs started taking off(in fact I only got my first proper non-CRT monitor in January last year if you don't count laptop screens) but come on, don't be obtuse.

My last CRT was so fuckhuge that I would have to move my desk like 50 cm away from the wall if I wanted to sit at the same distance from the screen I'm sitting now. And while shopping from new desk literally majority of non-expensive desk were rated too low to hold even a single large CRT. Add to that huge bezels and limited size and aspect ratio options, and CRTs aren't that perfect.

I don't think heat was a particular issue though.

File: 467711327.jpg (15KB, 515x389px) Image search: [Google]

15KB, 515x389px

>>62352183
>being a desklet

>>62346321
You realize you can downclock shit, rite?

if you play fast shooters, it's really noticable. Going from 120 to 60 feels like going from 60 to 30, i.e. like powerpoint.

>>62352064
idiot

>>62343804
Dude. Just using 144hz in Windows is fantastic over 60hz.

I can't go back

>>62350336
Anyone?

One of the reviews of the AOC one mentioned that it was good and that all it needed was some kind of anti-blur technology, which is what the Zowie has.

Zowie seems to have sometimes bad color calibration out of the box but as all 240hz monitors use the same exact panels I don't think this matters all that much.

>>62352279
The desk I'm using is pretty shallow but it's like 2 meters wide and height adjustable. I'd like something 80cm+ deep but I'd have to pay a ton to get something decent.

1440p@144 master race here
Iam glad I earn real money and dont live in my mothers basement, like some other salty /g/ bros, so I can buy and enjoy things I like without having the need to rationalize my purchases.

>I cant afford proper resolutions, refresh rates, freesync/gsync mimimi
>gamer crap
>adult

I hate this board, bunch of jealous neckbeards.

>>62354228
>not having a 4k monitor for media consumption and a separate 240hz one for gaming
Please.

Also 1440p@144hz is not even expensive anymore.

>>62354413
>Also 1440p@144hz is not even expensive anymore.
it isnt, never was.
the sad thing is that some anons here consider 700$ to be a huge deal even though they sit most of their freetime infront of a monitor.
rather cheap out on monitor and buy some retarded keyboards or other shit because they cant afford both.

LG is building 3840x1600@144Hz panels to be released Q4 2017. It'll probably be early 2018 when they come out.

>>62354530
there is no gpu on the market that could handle 100+fps at that resolution, atleast in newer games.
I mean Iam sure for working/surfing its great but besides that what are you going to use the resolution for? its not games and its not movies, because there are basically non out.
4K is a meme.

>>62354580
A 1080Ti/Titan Xp could probably handle it under most cases, but the current displayport spec can't handle it. The release will follow the update.

There have been 3440x1440@100Hz monitors for a year or two now by the way.

>>62354530
I'd rather have 1440p at 240hz instead.

>>62354651
so much this.
1440p is the perfect resolution.

>>62354530
>High refresh rate Ultra-wides - Away from those high end requirements LG.Display are also investing further in curved ultra-wide IPS panels. Of note is the planned 37.5" sized panel following on from those already available today, such as that used in the impressive LG 38UC99 display. These 37.5" panels offer a 3840 x 1600 resolution and 24:10 aspect ratio. While current panels are limited to 75Hz maximum refresh rate, a 144Hz compatible version is planned for Q4 2017 (so a long way away yet). This is expected to offer a 1000:1 contrast ratio, 300 cd/m2 brightness, 8-bit+FRC colour depth, sRGB gamut and 2300R curvature. 3840 x 1600 @ 144Hz will require bandwidth support beyond current DisplayPort 1.2 interfaces which will be a large reason for the delay in production for another year. At least it is planned!

http://www.tftcentral.co.uk/news_archive/36.htm#lg.display_oct16

>>62347794
But that's a lie. I've had 1440p/144Hz monitors at various points over the last year whilst trying to find one that's not a piece of shit with backlight bleed out the ass (six returned and counting), and I had no issues going back to my old 1080p/60Hz screen. The difference in smoothness is noticable, but it's perfectly fine.

File: 1459238767798.png (31KB, 720x644px) Image search: [Google]

31KB, 720x644px

>>62353961
you dont need to pay much
>buy a couple of wooden planks
>screw em together
ther u go
if u want it adjustable
get some metal lifting mechanism like a hinge orsomething
its that easy anon, if u want a glass table, get glass + metal for support.
buying premade desks is expensive and always not something you were looking for in the 1st place

I have a 60hz Acer monitor. I was able to squeeze 75hz out of it. Just the 15 hz difference felt a million times better. You could go with the initial one you wanted and just "overclock" it to more than 60 if it's capable. I've had zero issues with this for 6+ months

>>62343785

High refresh rate only matters at accurately depicting fast-pace motion/animation.

If you aren't a twitch gamer then don't worry about it.

>>62355788
fucking retard that never tried a 100+hz monitor.

>>62355886
>muh placebo
tard...

>>62355886

I have a fucking MG278Q here.

It is only good for fast-pace motion a.k.a twitch shooters and platforming. For everything else, it does almost nothing (assuming you have a good set of eyes). The overwhelming majority of video content ot there is either 24FPS or 60FPS.

The rest of the world gets by with 60-75hz displays without an issue.

>>62343809
>Why did we ever give up on CRT?
Were you into computers in the late 90's?

The school CRT's and home ones were usually set at 60hz. Some could go up to 75hz which really helped, but they still looked pretty bad.

When people talk of CRT's now they tend to talk about the great ones, not the common ones.

>>62343785
>10,000 HZ
>........ response time 3 seconds

>>62356750
Early days of LCDs were the best, you could get a CRT that used to retail for hundreds if not thousands of dollars for under $100.

I still regret not buying a dozen to replace dying ones for a couple years.

Can anyone recommend a good budget screen? I don't do much besides write, watch some videos, and maybe occasionally play factorio or civ 5. Currently use a LED236W3R that I got about 6 years ago and looking to upgrade to dual-monitors again.

>>62343785
yeah i cant use 60hz after using 144. even the mouse on the desktop feels like shit at 60hz

>>62358308
pretty sure AOC makes good cheapo monitors

for 144hz get basically anything from acer or asus

1440p 144Hz oled monitors when? TN has shitty viewing angles and IPS has backlight bleed and poor response times

I wish 75hz was the standard instead of 60hz. 75hz is noticeably smoother. I've used 60, 75, 120, 144 and 160hz and I'll agree 144hz is glorious but i think 75hz should've been the standard instead of 60hz. Using 60hz again feels so stutter and janky.

>>62356750
Every mid tier one could do 85Hz unless you went full retard with the resolution

>all these monitors with shitty adaptative sync ranges
real tired of this shit, give me a monitor with full range at least for once

>>62343982
>>62343965
>>62343936
>>62343873
>>62346405
>>62352534
>>62343785
>>62358315

what animations on your computer do you watch that are above 60 fps? also, a mouse cursor is a stupid thing to care about you fucking retards

120Hz is worth it for first person shooters. Everything else has more marginal benefits.

>>62358942
scrolling down websites
seeing the text you type

anything, really

>>62359477
>the text you type
lmao

>>62343785
If you play games, don't get 60hz. Higher is better.

If you don't play games, then go ahead and get 60hz.

That's all there is to it.

>>62358942
try it fuck face itll change your world

It's obvious af in games, yes.

>>62359524
i was using 120Hz since 2010 then upgraded to 4k 60Hz. 4k 60Hz is much better if you don't game since most of the time it's just a static image (don't really care about mouse cursors)

>>62345486
How so?

>>62359558
i tried 1440p at 60hz but couldnt take it cause i play gaymes

>I N T E R P O L A T I O N

Cancer among TV's. Do you agree?

>>62359565
yes i agree that with games its WAY better

>>62359586
yeah, it looks smoother but meh, native footage always looks better

>>62359586
isnt that what 240hz monitors use or is there now true 240hz?

>>62359627
monitors use true Hz almost always, it's just TVs that use shitty 240 or 480Hz interpolation

>>62347952
>The fact that as a reasonably mature technology they were unable to compete with LCD panels in their infancy speaks volumes.

Bullshit. LCD screens took 10 fucking years to become meaningfully competitive in terms of actual quality, despite having basically a complete monopoly of the market for 8 of those years. CRTs were able to do resolutions around 1440p back when LCDs were still putting out 900p, and it hasn't been until 4K that LCD screen have actually surpassed CRTs in terms of resolution, all the while having inferior picture quality.

LCDs became popular for the same reason the iPhone became popular. It was massively profitable for the companies because the production cost per unit was relatively low, and they justified it to consumers by calling emphasizing how it was more sleek and stylish sitting on your desk, despite all of the issues LCDs had (have) when it comes to actual picture quality.

>>62343809
>Why did we ever give up on CRT?
- RoHS bullshit making them nearly illegal
- unstable pixel geometry that required you to spend 5 minutes readjusting everything if you so much as rotated the display 15 degrees
- dot crawl and imperfect pixel sharpness at any resolution
- power hungry in comparison to LCD
- were at least as deep as their diagonal size
- pretty fucking heavy. a 20" visible flat CRT weighed 65-70 lbs

I miss the perfect viewing angles, high refresh rates, and motion clarity of my old high-end CRT, but I still feel much better off overall with my 43" UHD@60Hz IPS. 120+Hz UHD can't come soon enough though.

File: capture.png (22KB, 430x417px) Image search: [Google]

22KB, 430x417px

This thread inspired me and I managed to overclock my monitor to 72hz!

File: 495c9f1b_timings.jpg (56KB, 372x426px) Image search: [Google]

56KB, 372x426px

>>62360534