2560x1440p 240Hz IPS 1ms - Eve Spectrum gaming monitors, featuring LG's panels

[Doobeedoo]

55 minutes ago, Lorant said:

It's been shown that people can't react or even notice the difference in frame rates that high.

 

Similar to how cars doing 0-60 in 3.2 seconds vs 3 seconds.  You can't notice that when driving.  I've done and seen that as well as used 240Hz monitors.  

 

Similar to how people can't tell the difference between 1080p and 4k at certain distances.  

That's a lot of BS there, where did you see that, sources, because there are many that prove otherwise.

What do cars have to do with monitors, that's not a comparison. How did you use 240Hz monitor, just dragged windows on desktop or what, depends on games and person using it as well, their skill and such.

Again, another comparison that is not similar at all, 1080p vs 4K is another thing. It's even more so to do with sight also. You can literally see difference between the two on smartphones if you look closely or with certain imagery.

49 minutes ago, SolarNova said:

Until fully tested and reviewed, I would be wary of ordering one. Monitors especially suffer from misleading specs.

I mean true, always better to see reviews first. Though, this is the the LG panel that's used in the fastest IPS monitors that are on the market.

[SADS]

I am skeptical of every 'startup company' or crowd funded projects.

Like mentioned earlier, they will just be buying and using existing tech and re-packaging it. I don't see what they are going to offer that existing established monitor manufacturers already can do or will do in the near future... and probably at a better price.

[TVwazhere]

-Threads Merged-

[pas008]

On 1/27/2020 at 12:18 PM, Lorant said:

Buying a 1440p 240Hz monitor to play at 720p 240Hz, and then gaming at 1440p 60Hz+ in other games?

 

240Hz is snake oil but if you think it's a good thing, cool.

 

5 hours ago, Lorant said:

It's been shown that people can't react or even notice the difference in frame rates that high.

 

Similar to how cars doing 0-60 in 3.2 seconds vs 3 seconds.  You can't notice that when driving.  I've done and seen that as well as used 240Hz monitors.  

 

Similar to how people can't tell the difference between 1080p and 4k at certain distances.  

its about timing

more chances to notice a change

(60times a sec vs 75times vs 90 vs 120 vs 144 vs 165 etc etc)

which gives better opportunity to react faster

 

simple lol

 

bet you could notice a change higher than you think

 

 

[Tempestwins]

1 hour ago, pas008 said:

 

its about timing

more chances to notice a change

(60times a sec vs 75times vs 90 vs 120 vs 144 vs 165 etc etc)

which gives better opportunity to react faster

 

simple lol

 

bet you could notice a change higher than you think

 

 

 

There definitely is a noticeable difference playing competetive games at 144hz+ just like you said, Its just more opportunity to react faster.. and for those of us who are casual gamers, as per the LTT Video, we have the most to gain from monitors with 240 hz refresh rates

[Mira Yurizaki]

I had a look at this and noticed they're doing the Apple thing: charging extra for a stand.

 

Granted it's $99 and not $999, but still.

[Blademaster91]

21 hours ago, WereCatf said:

It's good not to trust crowdfunded projects, but it's also not particularly difficult to separate most of the wheat from the chaff; there is no such thing free energy, if they claim to have invented something no one else has, then it's fake, if they claim specs far, far higher than you can find in any commercially-sold device, then it's fake and if they don't actually list detailed specs/ingredients, then it's fake.

 

I've backed several projects on Kickstarter and only one of them has been a fail. The one that was a fail..well, I don't really know what, exactly, happened, but I am under the impression that the project's maker might have gotten in trouble with some criminal elements. Something like that is pretty much impossible to predict.

I wouldn't count on that. I also would expect the displays not to be properly colour-calibrated.

I'd be more trusting of something else like a kickstarter keyboard,mouse or a case, not much to go wrong with those i think. But there can be a lot of variance in a monitor, and it wouldn't be as easy as sending it back to Amazon if the display were prone to backlight bleed.

I was kind of hopeful these would be calibrated because Eve is using LG displays, maybe the same ones as the LG ultragear series which are pretty accurate for a gaming monitor out of the box.

 

[Brooksie359]

14 hours ago, Lorant said:

It's been shown that people can't react or even notice the difference in frame rates that high.

 

Similar to how cars doing 0-60 in 3.2 seconds vs 3 seconds.  You can't notice that when driving.  I've done and seen that as well as used 240Hz monitors.  

 

Similar to how people can't tell the difference between 1080p and 4k at certain distances.  

I think you simply don't understand the concrete facts about how reactions work. At 240hz every frame displayed will be more up to date than if the refreshrate was 144hz so even if you can't see every frame it still is 100% fact that what you will have the advantage of seeing things faster than you would have otherwise allowing you to react faster. Now the real question is how much of a difference does it make? Well statistically speaking about 3ms faster so not a huge difference but still can be all the difference in those really important moments in game. Also as someone who has used a 144hz monitor and a 240hz monitor it really does make a difference in smoothness in really quick movements like playing tracer in overwatch. Much easier to do on a 240hz vs a 144hz because you are making alot of drastic movements and timing is so critical to be the difference between blinking at the right time to dodge things and recall at the right time when your health is low. On a 144hz monitor it feels like you are moving to fast to see properly where you are going with the type of movements I do on tracer while on a 240 I can see where I am going much easier. Granted this is going from 240hz to 144hz. When I orginally played on a 144hz I didn't play tracer as fast as I do now because I had to blink slower to actually see where I was going. I should also note that if you aren't moving around alot the difference is much harder to tell. 

[PewPewK]

9 hours ago, Mira Yurizaki said:

I had a look at this and noticed they're doing the Apple thing: charging extra for a stand.

 

Granted it's $99 and not $999, but still.

That's fine with me if it brings the cost of the monitor down, I use my own monitor mount anyway. The cardinal sin in Apple's case was also not including the $200 VESA adapter for free with the monitor. If you bought just the monitor, you are literally unable to use it (unless you just prop it up) without buying either the $200 VESA adapter or $1000 stand.

 

With the Spectrum, it has a standard VESA mount built into the display's rear. No upcharge for that.

[pas008]

9 hours ago, Brooksie359 said:

I think you simply don't understand the concrete facts about how reactions work. At 240hz every frame displayed will be more up to date than if the refreshrate was 144hz so even if you can't see every frame it still is 100% fact that what you will have the advantage of seeing things faster than you would have otherwise allowing you to react faster. Now the real question is how much of a difference does it make? Well statistically speaking about 3ms faster so not a huge difference but still can be all the difference in those really important moments in game. Also as someone who has used a 144hz monitor and a 240hz monitor it really does make a difference in smoothness in really quick movements like playing tracer in overwatch. Much easier to do on a 240hz vs a 144hz because you are making alot of drastic movements and timing is so critical to be the difference between blinking at the right time to dodge things and recall at the right time when your health is low. On a 144hz monitor it feels like you are moving to fast to see properly where you are going with the type of movements I do on tracer while on a 240 I can see where I am going much easier. Granted this is going from 240hz to 144hz. When I orginally played on a 144hz I didn't play tracer as fast as I do now because I had to blink slower to actually see where I was going. I should also note that if you aren't moving around alot the difference is much harder to tell. 

you pretty much just said everything i just did but for the bolded

smoothness is subjective in many ways,

everyones perception of smooth is different

everyone isnt seeing/looking for same things as the next

everyones eyesight isnt the same, even if 20/20 there are other things like light sensitivities, colors, etc

 

when you use the word smooth for vision, its almost like using for ears

sounds smooth, subjective right

but in reality some can hear and/or see differences while majority cant or even care to

hence why with have so much things like  clear motion 240, higher resolutions in both, flacs, aa, etc

 

[Tech Enthusiast]

I trust it, when I see it (reviewed).

All the current 1ms IPS screens only get close to that if they screw over the whole picture and make your eyes bleed.

 

Honestly just sounds like something to check all marketing boxes. Kinda like the 8k 120hz Consoles coming up. They can show you 8k and they can do 120hz, but they can't do both. Still, not lying tho... just funky wording to make some people fall for it anyways.

 

Personally I would love to see a screen like this (don't care for the latency tho. 4ms is plenty fine) but bigger. 32 inch is kind of what I use right now and I can't go back. Finding good 32 inch screens with IPS panels is like really hard AND expensive. 27 inch get all the good stuff for reasonable prices now tho, so one or two more years for me to get an upgrade.

[Lorant]

12 minutes ago, pas008 said:

you pretty much just said everything i just did but for the bolded

smoothness is subjective in many ways,

everyones perception of smooth is different

everyone isnt seeing/looking for same things as the next

everyones eyesight isnt the same, even if 20/20 there are other things like light sensitivities, colors, etc

 

when you use the word smooth for vision, its almost like using for ears

sounds smooth, subjective right

but in reality some can hear and/or see differences while majority cant or even care to

hence why with have so much things like  clear motion 240, higher resolutions in both, flacs, aa, etc

 

From the other standpoint you two espouse, I will have to revise my view on 240Hz monitors in a way.

 

Thank you for explaining it in other terms than just high fps is better.

[Dregur]

I would never order anything from this company. I know in the WAN Show about Eve Tech issues that James stated that "everyone, after a delay, got their devices", but this is untrue. There is an entire subreddit about people that never got their devices, nor got a refund, this includes myself. I'm basically out 1200 dollars, I never got anything after two years.

[Exprima]

tired of 27" 4k monitors, we need 32"

[Doobeedoo]

3 hours ago, comander said:

The benefit of 120 vs 240 is near 0 outside of extreme edge cases. It's definitely there at the pro level but most people who aren't at the level where they're sponsored and have stuff bought for them don't substantially benefit. I sure as hell don't. 

 

Beyond that, if your goal is to enjoy life, it's questionable that playing on lowish settings, with high end gear is a sane thing to do. Is your goal fun or Internet points on a game that don't matter? 

Well nobody was talking about most people in general though, most are fine with 144Hz so. But saying 120 vs 240Hz is near 0 difference is so not true, you can notice that on desktop even really. But as you said, you don't benefit yourself which is fine.

 

What? I'm not enjoying life because I play at low settings with higher end gear? What are you talking about, every competitive player does that regardless of hardware too. I was talking about competitive fps games, not every game on low. So you're saying what is fun to someone or?

[Bombastinator]

On 1/28/2020 at 9:32 AM, Doobeedoo said:

That's a lot of BS there, where did you see that, sources, because there are many that prove otherwise.

What do cars have to do with monitors, that's not a comparison. How did you use 240Hz monitor, just dragged windows on desktop or what, depends on games and person using it as well, their skill and such.

Again, another comparison that is not similar at all, 1080p vs 4K is another thing. It's even more so to do with sight also. You can literally see difference between the two on smartphones if you look closely or with certain imagery.

I mean true, always better to see reviews first. Though, this is the the LG panel that's used in the fastest IPS monitors that are on the market.

I think the analogy of fast cars vs fast monitors is fair for all its being a model.  Has a difference between 30 fps and 60 fps been found?  Yes.  It can be pretty striking.  Has a difference been found between 60hz and 120hz been found? Yes, but it is much less striking, it is still a useful difference, but not to as many people.  120-144hz?  I have no data.  144jz and 240hz? It appears to be only useful in fairly specific professional circumstances to fairly specific people.  There is a clear pattern of diminishing returns.  The difference between a 3sec 0-60 and a 3.2sec 0-60 could be compared.  To a racing professional in a car race that 0.2 sec is going to be the difference between a win and a loss.  It could be argued that 144-240 does the same, which is to say a competitive athletic event crewed by professional athletes.  Use cases matter.  1080p and 4k have similar issues.  

[Doobeedoo]

1 hour ago, Bombastinator said:

I think the analogy of fast cars vs fast monitors is fair for all its being a model.  Has a difference between 30 fps and 60 fps been found?  Yes.  It can be pretty striking.  Has a difference been found between 60hz and 120hz been found? Yes, but it is much less striking, it is still a useful difference, but not to as many people.  120-144hz?  I have no data.  144jz and 240hz? It appears to be only useful in fairly specific professional circumstances to fairly specific people.  There is a clear pattern of diminishing returns.  The difference between a 3sec 0-60 and a 3.2sec 0-60 could be compared.  To a racing professional in a car race that 0.2 sec is going to be the difference between a win and a loss.  It could be argued that 144-240 does the same, which is to say a competitive athletic event crewed by professional athletes.  Use cases matter.  1080p and 4k have similar issues.  

It's a bad example, the other has actual noticeable benefit and is still far less diminished compared to car stuff. Who cares if one car starts 0.1s faster, like what. In proper way everyone would use same cars anyway. Really no point comparing something like this, we're talking about monitors refresh rates for gaming. Point was that he kept saying it's a waste etc. yet not being knowledgeable or experienced at all.

Not true, 60 to 120 is still huge difference, literally to anyone unless you're doing spreadsheets. While 144Hz monitor is completely more than enough for majority, doesn't mean there's no benefit to 240Hz monitor, obviously for competitive people. I know many that use and so do I. 

[Doobeedoo]

2 hours ago, comander said:

You're the one making the claim. 

 

Prove that the typical consumer would have a materially better experience. Everything I've seen, including on LTT showed a big drop off after 120ish in terms of utility. Even then the rate as which the system (not the monitor) put out frames seemed to matter more than the monitor per se.  

 

 

Again if you're good enough to be sponsored the argument is different, this involves money. For the most part it's marketing bs aimed at gullible people who don't have lives. Not always. 

 

Beyond that there are still tradeoffs between resolution, wide screen vs ultra wide, etc. Cranking any one area to the max at the expense of the others is generally questionable. 

You said benefit is near 0 which is false. You also said it doesn't benefit for most people, which nobody argued, I already said most are fine with 144Hz. When was I talking about a typical consumer having big benefit out of 240Hz though? You said you yourself don't benefit, which is fine you may not play online fps games at competitive level and or may not notice difference. Depends on your skill level and what you play. 

Don't know what is everything that you've seen, the LTT vid is neat, but far from full picture. The drop of you speak off 120 vs 240 is not as pronounced as you think. Again depends on scenario of a game and players skill. You can notice the difference on desktop even.

"Even then the rate as which the system (not the monitor) put out frames seemed to matter more than the monitor per se."

Urm what? Where did you get that, your PC obviously needs to be powerful to maintain high framerate, you need better monitor to take advantage of it no.

 

Dude, what has money to do with anything of this, monitors are so cheap nowdays like 144Hz though. You continue saying 240Hz is marketing BS even though you lack gaming experience in that field. Sure some will buy whatever and think they'll be better, that doesn't change the fact that 240Hz is not snake oil.

People that play competitive fps don't play on high res, ultra wide, high detail. Nothing new.

[Bombastinator]

3 hours ago, Doobeedoo said:

It's a bad example, the other has actual noticeable benefit and is still far less diminished compared to car stuff. Who cares if one car starts 0.1s faster, like what. In proper way everyone would use same cars anyway. Really no point comparing something like this, we're talking about monitors refresh rates for gaming. Point was that he kept saying it's a waste etc. yet not being knowledgeable or experienced at all.

Not true, 60 to 120 is still huge difference, literally to anyone unless you're doing spreadsheets. While 144Hz monitor is completely more than enough for majority, doesn't mean there's no benefit to 240Hz monitor, obviously for competitive people. I know many that use and so do I. 

Re: racing winners

Who cares which car is .1 second faster?  The thousands of people in the stands watching the race?  The guy who wins I don’t know how much but probably w whole lot of money by winning the race?  The corporations who spent large amounts of money to put their logo on a car hoping it would be that .1 second faster and therefor win the race?  Same as with esports I assume.  I don’t follow either them or auto racing but both appear to be big business.

 

re: 60-120

i never said it wasn’t.  I said it was less of a difference than 30-60

 

re: 240

i never said there was no benefit.  I said benefit was limited.  And it is.  The benefit isn’t visible to the naked eye but allows for better accuracy with virtual gunfire in some situations.

[Doobeedoo]

4 minutes ago, Bombastinator said:

Re: racing winners

Who cares which car is .1 second faster?  The thousands of people in the stands watching the race?  The guy who wins I don’t know how much but probably w whole lot of money by winning the race?  The corporations who spent large amounts of money to put their logo on a car hoping it would be that .1 second faster and therefor win the race?  Same as with esports I assume.  I don’t follow either them or auto racing but both appear to be big business.

 

re: 60-120

i never said it wasn’t.  I said it was less of a difference than 30-60

 

re: 240

i never said there was no benefit.  I said benefit was limited.  And it is.  The benefit isn’t visible to the naked eye but allows for better accuracy with virtual gunfire in some situations.

Point was we're talking monitors, not something else, there was no need for any comparison at all, especially because there's much more to it and basic comparison is not enough.

I also added they'd use same fast cars so there.

 

60-120Hz of course it's less difference, but it's still within a range of big difference though, you said not useful to as many people, really it quite is. Almost everyone seeing it in action will appreciate it.

 

240Hz Yes benefit/diminished returns will be lower, but not as low as some think. Already said it's like so. Point was responding to people claiming that there's almost no difference, while also them not even being at competitive level. 

Also you just saying now that benefit is not visible to the naked eye is simply not true. It simply is, for me, many competitive people too excluding pros. Maybe you can notice vs 144Hz and that may give you perspective to much lower benefit. It's smoother, you literally get info faster and more updated, less motion blur which is important. 

[Bombastinator]

17 minutes ago, Doobeedoo said:

Point was we're talking monitors, not something else, there was no need for any comparison at all, especially because there's much more to it and basic comparison is not enough.

I also added they'd use same fast cars so there.

 

60-120Hz of course it's less difference, but it's still within a range of big difference though, you said not useful to as many people, really it quite is. Almost everyone seeing it in action will appreciate it.

 

240Hz Yes benefit/diminished returns will be lower, but not as low as some think. Already said it's like so. Point was responding to people claiming that there's almost no difference, while also them not even being at competitive level. 

Also you just saying now that benefit is not visible to the naked eye is simply not true. It simply is, for me, many competitive people too excluding pros. Maybe you can notice vs 144Hz and that may give you perspective to much lower benefit. It's smoother, you literally get info faster and more updated, less motion blur which is important. 

An analogy isn’t a comparison.  It’s a way to illustrate a point.

 

debating the exact definition of what constitutes “big” does not strike me as productive. 

[cesh me inside b0z]

Still waiting for prices to fall on 1080P 144hz screens, it don't make any sense why a 1080P screen would cost above £140.

[Bombastinator]

Just now, cesh me inside b0z said:

Still waiting for prices to fall on 1080P 144hz screens, it don't make any sense why a 1080P screen would cost above £140.

They can be had for I suspect a fifth of that used.  They’ll be slow Tn 60hz panels from offices of course.

[Doobeedoo]

12 hours ago, Bombastinator said:

An analogy isn’t a comparison.  It’s a way to illustrate a point.

 

debating the exact definition of what constitutes “big” does not strike me as productive. 

It's a bad and very limited, thus not good thing for this topic. It's comparing numbers from one field to another and that's it, holds no basis. There's much more to it than just number vs number and "it's like.." comment.

It's easily still quite a difference between 60 to 120 though, it's well known.

 

Topic already derailed quite a bit. All I was saying is that there's definitely difference and improvement with 240Hz to those that continue saying there's almost none. Yet they them selves don't even play or use it, but continue saying stuff that is factually wrong.

[RejZoR]

On 1/27/2020 at 6:55 PM, Lorant said:

1440p 240Hz...  more useless monitors for the hyped to blow money on.

How is it useless? This is IPS, something that was basically impossible before. Also 1440p is fine and 240Hz means you'll never have to enable V-Sync on systems that might not hit such ridiculous framerates. Or if you play super competitive and those games easily push out 500fps on top end systems.