EPTLiquid now powered by AOC - Page 3
| Forum Index > General Forum |
|
Onegu
United States9699 Posts
| ||
|
Deleted User 135096
3624 Posts
On September 17 2016 17:48 Wrath wrote:When do I get my 4K monitor? Don't until DisplayPort 1.3 or higher is actually a thing and not just a spec. You'll probably start seeing this sometime in 2017, but no sooner. | ||
|
freelander
Hungary4707 Posts
On September 17 2016 09:12 deth2munkies wrote: I'd love to look into one of those monitors (I have a 1440p setup right now, but it's not a gaming monitor and I've been feeling the response time difference while playing Killer Instinct), but I can't find where the fuck I'm supposed to buy it or even see the price. I don't really get how it makes any difference in any fighting games which run with fixed 60 FPS | ||
|
deth2munkies
United States4051 Posts
On September 19 2016 04:14 freelander wrote: I don't really get how it makes any difference in any fighting games which run with fixed 60 FPS It's the response time on the monitor, mine's 16ms which is...about 1 frame, while this monitor has a 1ms response time. It can be the difference between being able to reaction-break some stuff and not. It wasn't really something I was looking at when I bought it, but it turned out to be relevant. The only problem with this one is that it's 1080 where my current one is 1440, but the cheapest 1440 monitors with low response time are stupid expensive. | ||
tofucake
Hyrule19259 Posts
| ||
|
konadora
Singapore66365 Posts
| ||
|
blade55555
United States17423 Posts
On September 17 2016 04:10 Incognoto wrote: it's frigging night and day holy shit 60 hz is so dead to me it looks laggy This so much. I could never go back to 60 hz monitor for gaming... So laggy (well looks it  ). | ||
|
esdf
Croatia736 Posts
and yes, everyone who doesn't own a 144hz screen and plays fps games should get one immediately. benq if possible. | ||
|
avilo
United States4100 Posts
| ||
|
nimdil
Poland3774 Posts
On September 22 2016 02:42 avilo wrote: That r1ch review seems like a new spicy meme in the making His review captured 3 crucial aspects of the monitor. Well two actually and one bonus one. | ||
|
lestye
United States4243 Posts
I used to joke around when pros were getting to the point they demanded 144hz and 60 was UNPLAYABLE, that I'd refuse to attend LANs as a spectator unless the monitors the spectators watch the games thru were also up to those standards. I feel like that's becoming less and less a joke. | ||
|
iloveav
Poland1483 Posts
In terms of the Hz talk, input lag is much more important than refresh rate. I dont want to make a wall of text about it, but to generalize a lot, its the time it takes for the monitor to "read" the signal coming from your graphics card and transform it to a format of display. Total lag in your system is: 1. The time it takes for your keyboard/mouse to register the action (usually 1-2 ms when corded). 2. The time it takes for your USB to process the request for an action interruption in the CPU to record the action (PS/2 does not have this problem, it always interrupts and goes in first). No way of knowing how long, too many variables (all hardware and software can affect this). Usually its about 10 ms. 3. The time it takes for the CPU to process the action and send it to the OS, and then the OS to record the action and send it to the GPU (5-12 ms). 4. The time it takes for the GPU to record the change (5 ms, probably less). 5. The time it takes for the signal to travel the cable (0.01 ms). 6. The time it takes for the monitor to process the signal (this thing can go from 3 ms to 145 ms, most monitors are in the 10 to 40 range). 7. The time it takes for the monitor to make a pixel response to the image sent (anywhere from 2 ms to 18 ms). So, if you want absolute minimal latency/lag in your actions, the biggest factor by far is going to be the monitors input lag and pixel response time. It can actually make all the other elements unimportant. (Well, except the ps2/usb, and only if you are using USB for one device and ps/2 for another because at very high apms, your actions might be recorded in incorrect order. I had this happen to me in Broodwar). AoC is not the best in input lag but it has some decent models that are good enough to consider. By the way, as a side note, the normal reaction time of a human is normally at 250ms. High reflex people (like pilots and gamers) can have 200 ms reaction time. VERY good gamers can get into the 180-170 ms reaction time area. http://www.humanbenchmark.com/tests/reactiontime Ignore anything under 150 (even if true, the % of people who are that fast in the world make it a statistically unimportant anomaly). http://www.displaylag.com/display-database/ Old database for input lag on monitors and tvs. Finally, remmeber that 16ms is 1 frame at 60 hz/fps. So if you have a monitor with input lag under 16ms, you should never notice a difference if it goes lower than 16ms. But once you hit 32ms delay, thats two frames. That is certainly noticeable by gamers (but not by normal pc users). However I agree that if you have the hardware to support a 144hz monitor with low input lag and great pixel response time, with your PC (and get higher than 60 fps in the game ofc) then the benefits are very nice, mostly in terms of fluent gaming. | ||
|
tofucake
Hyrule19259 Posts
| ||
fusefuse
Estonia4644 Posts
+ Show Spoiler + ![[image loading]](https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/42425448/20160924_010930.jpg) | ||
|
FrostbitethundeR
Malaysia28 Posts
GL HF everyone ! <3 Sc2 | ||
|
iloveav
Poland1483 Posts
On September 24 2016 01:07 tofucake wrote: All of the numbers in your post seem wrong but I don't have enough evidence to prove it That is what my research has led me to believe. It can be wrong, ofc. | ||
|
Djzapz
Canada10681 Posts
Unlike the others, I can go back and play on 60hz just fine, but I find it uncomfortable and feels choppy until you get used to it again. But although maybe it's entirely my fault, I personally feel like I lose a competitive edge when I play on 60hz. | ||
FakeSteve[TPR]
Valhalla18444 Posts
| ||
|
tofucake
Hyrule19259 Posts
| ||
|
ZenithM
France15952 Posts
On September 18 2016 05:35 Aldehyde wrote: Yeah, they seem to consider refresh rate to be the same as response time. That said, the monitors I've seen are about 1ms response time so it doesn't really matter anyway. No, extra frequency effectively translates into better response time. 144 Hz allows one image every 6.9 ms, 60 Hz allows one image every 16.7 ms. Boom, 10ms potential cut-off in your response time. Edit: And for fast competitive gamers with a 200ms reaction time, that means a 5% improvement on that. Not life-changing, but definitely not insignificant. | ||
| ||
