|
This high refresh rate craze has got me thinking for a while now.
Why bother with any of these games when buying excessively more expensive tech for such arbitrary reasons? It is like people are treating these games as if they were a job. 5 years ago most people gamed on a 60/70Hz monitor and didn't question it. Why is it suddenly that everyone must have a 144 or even 240Hz monitor? Why is every company out there shilling them? Why bother investing in a $500 monitor just to play 1-2 games which actually use it?
Judge, Nostalgia is a hell of a drug. | http://hwbot.org/user/secretdragoon/
You're a regular Jack Kerouac |
|
If your PC is only powerful enough to play a couple of games at that refresh rate, you are not the intended customer of these displays.
Fan of metal? Don't mind covers? Check out my youtube and give me some feedback
http://www.youtube.com/sircaballero |
|
Judgmenl posted...
Why bother investing in a $500 monitor just to play 1-2 games which actually use it? nearly all the games in my library run at 120+ fps at 1440p ultra. Older titles will even hit the 200s like with Stranger's Wrath. The only games that don't seem to hit my target are ubisoft games. Even some games with a 60 fps cap like Nier and DMC 3 have mods that can uncap the fps with side effect of faster gameplay (which I actually like). 4k 144 hz monitors still have its uses as well. With sli 1080ti I can already make a lot of games hit the triple fps mark @ 4k by default or by turning a few unnoticeable settings down one notch. When Volta comes out with their new Titans and Ti I fully expect even a single card to run 4k at near triple digits which still looks far better than the archaic 60 fps. Although I do agree that 240 hz is a bit excessive. Only older titles or games with lower quality graphics will see fps in the 200s at 1440p. 4k 240 hz is an impossibility right now for modern games even with quad sli Titans + most powerful cpu.
i7 6850k | 2x GTX 1080ti FE (SLI) |MSI x99 Gaming PRO | 1 tb SSD 850 EVO | DDR4 32 gig 3301 RAM | EVGA P2 1200W
Benchmark: http://www.3dmark.com/3dm/18890569?
(edited 18 hours ago)quote
|
|
Because people like pretending that going from 120hz to 240hz gives them a meaningful (if any) reaction time improvement.
You have absolutely no right to complain about a decision you decided to support with your money. Be smart and vote with your wallets!
|
|
Darth_Kamcio posted...
Because people like pretending that going from 120hz to 240hz gives them a meaningful (if any) reaction time improvement. Really tho, I don't have a huge gripe with 120hz, my deal is with 144, and 240Hz which don't seem to provide any significant advantage, and even fewer games take advantage of that high of a refresh rate (and you have to run SLI to take advantage of them). Ratchetrockon posted... The only games that don't seem to hit my target are ubisoft games. Because Ubisoft is garbage. They don't know how to develop a PC game, and none of their games have ever been known to run well on PCs.
Judge, Nostalgia is a hell of a drug. | http://hwbot.org/user/secretdragoon/
You're a regular Jack Kerouac |
|
in many competitive areas people are willing go out to eliminate any bottlenecks to just narrow it down to personal performance.
nfl player would go for lightest gear possible to push speed limits at same time protect them when they get hit. even if it's just going cost them several hundred dollars extra. ceo would buy tons of tech gear and get updates on the go how can companies make money without these people? lol competition is good for capitalism. also buy more to help the US economy.
I like my beer like I like my violence...
Domestic.
(edited 18 hours ago)quote
|
|
meanwhile a bunch of people who are ACTUALLY good at these games don't have a clue that this is a thing and still crush the competition.
|
|
Better question, why is anyone on this site still f***ing stupid enough to post in your topics.
|
|
Darth_Kamcio posted...
Because people like pretending that going from 120hz to 240hz gives them a meaningful (if any) reaction time improvement. More like people love to pretend it's why they lost because it surely couldn't be their lack of skill.
Reality is so flexible these days, its hard to tell whos disconnected from it and who isnt. You might even say its a pointless distinction.
|
|
This is the worst argument against high refresh rate I've ever seen.
First off, every game benefits from gsync/freesync. Every game that can be used normally above 60fps can also benefit from a high refresh rate monitor. Why is less motion blur and better responsiveness a bad thing? Why would you not want that? Last but not least, take 2 players of similar skill and reflexes in any competitive game (moba, fps, rts, etc.) If one player has a 60hz monitor and one has a 144hz monitor, the 144hz guy will always have the advantage, in terms of less motion blur, peeking corners a split second faster, and just general responsiveness. These days you can get a 24" 144hz monitor for fairly cheap, not "$500". Think more like $250. So yeah, your argument is pretty bad.
Steam: SneakyT
|
|
BearShrooms posted...
meanwhile a bunch of people who are ACTUALLY good at these games don't have a clue that this is a thing and still crush the competition. False. I played CS 1.6 from 2003-2010, I know for a fact everyone was trying to use high refresh rate CRTs for competitive advantage back then. Anyone who was good at the game knew how to get the most out of it.
Steam: SneakyT
(edited 17 hours ago)quote
|
|
I'll defend 144 Hz, as it is a visible improvement over 60. And I can't think of a competetive game out there that is that difficult to run. My 1070 does just fine with all the games I've tried, albeit with lowering some settings.
Now with 100% real fruit juice
|
|
144Hz is smoother, has less motion blur and feels better to play
Idk about 240Hz but even if all I did was play single player games, I wouldnt go back to 60Hz
Billy Mays: July 20, 1958 - June 28, 2009
The Greatest |
|
Nightmare2398 posted...
BearShrooms posted... really? Because I was good during those years and had no idea it was a thing. so, not false. But good try. |
|
typical 60hz peasant
a quad core i7 was just a rebranded celeron -Pengu1n
Anything that has 3p fps or better is fine with me -mucloud |
|
BearShrooms posted...
Nightmare2398 posted... One clueless person compared to thousands of CPL wannabes? Everyone I knew back then knew about higher refresh rates/ CRT advantage. It was pretty common knowledge for anyone trying to play cal or cpl.
Steam: SneakyT
|
|
clearly a reassurance topic to make yourself feel better about your 60Hz monitor that you prob use to play games at >60fps.
|
|
If you need the fastest engine, why enter the Indy 500?
PSN ID/Steam ID - DuckTalesLOL/Duck Tales LOL
Intel I7 5820k(4.4ghz)- 16GB Corsair Vengeance - EVGA 1080 TI - Acer Predator 27" 144hz Gsync monitor |
|
BearShrooms posted...
meanwhile a bunch of people who are ACTUALLY good at these games don't have a clue that this is a thing and still crush the competition. its like you have no common sense. its quite sad. that your in your little world and pretending to think everyone is perfect and generous around you. go do that you never grow in this capitalist world.
I like my beer like I like my violence...
Domestic. |
No comments:
Post a Comment