Jump to content

cheaper 144hz widescreens coming ...

Guest Strangerbob
By Guest Strangerbob
in Displays
 Share
Go to solution Solved by Guest Strangerbob,

Freesync disables below a minimum, it probably does that for a reason. Freesync is useless at 9hz anyway so i just would not care. It's also probably only going to appear during loading screens, it's not that you need high Hz/fps at that point...

 

It might be nice, but there is no use for it so why would someone invest time in it?

I just don't get it...

 

Its more about having a mathematically beautiful system. 

 

Practically - ye there wont be any difference if freesync just disables itself below 9hz.

Posted

Okay.  Now give me a 40" OLED, 3840x2160 at 120hz and freesync.   :D

 

Realistically OLED is probably 5 years away from mass production for monitors - at least.

 

But when eventually OLED monitors do come - oh man! 

OLED removes ALL the defects LCD has, and if you add variable refresh rate to it(and you wouldnt need a minimum for it) = you get total artifact free motion.

LCD would look like black&white TVs playing a VCR look to us now.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted

I do, and if you are playing games, you wont notice a damn difference in 720, 1080 or 1440 if you are at a reasonable distance (1m+) from your monitor.

lol what, pls tell me youre joking

Hey there. You are looking mighty fine today, have my virtual cookie!  :ph34r:

MY RIG: http://linustechtips.com/main/topic/34911-my-setup-gold-ghetto-gg-lots-of-pictures/#entry446883

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted

Realistically OLED is probably 5 years away from mass production for monitors - at least.

 

But when eventually OLED monitors do come - oh man! 

OLED removes ALL the defects LCD has, and if you add variable refresh rate to it(and you wouldnt need a minimum for it) = you get total artifact free motion.

LCD would look like black&white TVs playing a VCR look to us now.

I know.  I can't wait in honesty.  Literally OLED will be mainstream when Haswell-E starts to reach the end of its life(sort of).  I look forward to the future.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted

I know.  I can't wait in honesty.  Literally OLED will be mainstream when Haswell-E starts to reach the end of its life(sort of).  I look forward to the future.  

 

Im kinda glad LG is the biggest OLED maker right now. 

http://www.oled-info.com/will-lg-display-build-gen-10-oled-tv-fab

 

Cuz LG is also one of the big 21:9 proponents. Thats my dream. 21:9 OLED, 0-144hz adaptive sync... and i wont care about the pixel density even, you can mitigate that with DSR.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted

Guys, i said NO GAMING. You can argue as much as you want about hertzs and resolutions, but 1080p is T H E perfect screen resolution.

Primary: Lenovo T61 / Intel Core2Duo T7200 @ 2.2GHz / 3GB DDR2 / NVIDIA Quadro NVS 140M / Fedora 22 <<<< THE WHITE KNIGHT

Secondary: Compaq Presario CQ56 / AMD V130 @ 2.3GHz / 2GB DDR3 / AMD Radeon HD 4250 / Windows 8.1 <<< THE FORGOTTEN HERO

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted

Im kinda glad LG is the biggest OLED maker right now. 

 

Cuz LG is also one of the big 21:9 proponents. Thats my dream. 21:9 OLED, 0-144hz adaptive sync... and i wont care about the pixel density even, you can mitigate that with DSR.

21:9 definitely.  Hell just 100hz would be more than perfect.  3840x1600 21:9 100hz OLED with adaptive-sync.  Perfection.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted

Guys, i said NO GAMING. You can argue as much as you want about hertzs and resolutions, but 1080p is T H E perfect screen resolution.

1080p is not the perfect resolution for everyone.  Many on this forum can't stand 16:9 format and opt for 16:10 or prefer 21:9.  There is no perfect resolution.  If you are talking about not gaming, then perfection for workflow and enjoyment would be 39" - 42" 4k monitors or 34" 21:9.  For gaming 1080p is good for high refresh rates because it is easy to push, but for everything else - there is no reason to not opt for larger resolution and screen size.  Crisper, cleaner, and more space to do work / multi-task.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted

21:9 definitely.  Hell just 100hz would be more than perfect.  3840x1600 21:9 100hz OLED with adaptive-sync.  Perfection.

 

Oh, displayport 1.3 has enough room to do 140hz on that resolution. With 0-140hz adaptive sync implementation you dont need to hit these 120/144 numbers, all movies will be played at exactly their framerate=refreshrate when fullscreened :)

Since OLED can hold 0hz if needed, so no minimum. Unlike the crap LCD which would get image degradation if it dropped below 30hz or smth.

 

Oh, and OLED doesnt care about max refresh rate either. You can go up to 2000hz just as easily as 60hz, its all the same for OLED, cable bandwidth is the only issue.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted

Guys, i said NO GAMING. You can argue as much as you want about hertzs and resolutions, but 1080p is T H E perfect screen resolution.

how about no, theres a massive difference between 1080p and 1440p. If you cant see it, get your eyes checked

Hey there. You are looking mighty fine today, have my virtual cookie!  :ph34r:

MY RIG: http://linustechtips.com/main/topic/34911-my-setup-gold-ghetto-gg-lots-of-pictures/#entry446883

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted

Guys, i said NO GAMING. You can argue as much as you want about hertzs and resolutions, but 1080p is T H E perfect screen resolution.

The closer you are to a screen, and the larger it is, the more you need a higher resolution. Eg. lying on my bed watching a movie at 480p on my 25" 1080p screen I don't actually notice any pixelation. However as soon as I'm sitting at my desk even 720p is only just bearable due to pixelation.

"We also blind small animals with cosmetics.
We do not sell cosmetics. We just blind animals."

 

"Please don't mistake us for Equifax. Those fuckers are evil"

 

This PSA brought to you by Equifacks.
PMSL

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted

Ideal screen, probably 3440x1440 144Hz IPS whatever inch it is. 35? I don't know...

Oh yea and freesync, but whatever, we will get there eventually.

 

I think most of us are waiting for the perfect screen, but it's not here, yet.

It's just a matter of time :P And i can wait soo...

If you want my attention, quote meh! D: or just stick an @samcool55 in your post :3

Spying on everyone to fight against terrorism is like shooting a mosquito with a cannon

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted

I do, and if you are playing games, you wont notice a damn difference in 720, 1080 or 1440 if you are at a reasonable distance (1m+) from your monitor.

You are right, its only a difference of 1 million pixels

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted

Would love a 27" 1440p/4k 144hz VA panel. Now I really want OLED but that won't be for awhile.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted

Guys, i said NO GAMING. You can argue as much as you want about hertzs and resolutions, but 1080p is T H E perfect screen resolution.

I would say 1440p is the perfect resolution for me. Because 1440p at 27" has pretty much the perfect pixel density where you don't need scaling in windows, but you cant see each individual pixel without looking closely. I used to have a 1440p imac and downgrading to 1080p on my desktop is a real difference. 1080p just doesn't seem to have enough pixels.

hello!

is it me you're looking for?

ᴾC SᴾeCS ᴰoWᴺ ᴮEᴸoW

Spoiler

Desktop: X99-PC

CPU: i7 5820k

Mobo: X99 Deluxe

Cooler: Dark Rock Pro 3

RAM: 32GB DDR4
GPU: GTX 1080

Storage: 1TB 850 Evo, 1TB HDD, bunch of external hard drives
PSU: EVGA G2 750w

Peripherals: Logitech G502, Ducky One 711

Audio: Xonar U7, O2 amplifier (RIP), HD6XX

Monitors: 4k 24" Dell monitor, 1080p 24" Asus monitor

 

Laptop:

-Overkill Dell XPS

Fully maxed out early 2017 Dell XPS 15, GTX 1050 4GB, 7700HQ, 1TB nvme SSD, 32GB RAM, 4k display. 97Whr battery :x 
Dell was having a $600 off sale for the fully specced out model, so I decided to get it :P

 

-Crapbook

Fully specced out early 2013 Macbook "pro" with gt 650m and constant 105c temperature on the CPU (GPU is 80-90C) when doing anything intensive...

A 2013 laptop with a regular sized battery still has better battery life than a 2017 laptop with a massive battery! I think this is a testament to apple's ability at making laptops, or maybe how little CPU technology has improved even 4+ years later (at least, until the recent introduction of 15W 4 core CPUs). Anyway, I'm never going to get a 35W CPU laptop again unless battery technology becomes ~5x better than as it is in 2018.

Apple knows how to make proper consumer-grade laptops (they don't know how to make pro laptops though). I guess this mostly software power efficiency related, but getting a mac makes perfect sense if you want a portable/powerful laptop that can do anything you want it to with great battery life.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted

Guys, i said NO GAMING. You can argue as much as you want about hertzs and resolutions, but 1080p is T H E perfect screen resolution.

Why is that ?

  ﷲ   Muslim Member  ﷲ

KennyS and ScreaM are my role models in CSGO.

CPU: i3-4130 Motherboard: Gigabyte H81M-S2PH RAM: 8GB Kingston hyperx fury HDD: WD caviar black 1TB GPU: MSI 750TI twin frozr II Case: Aerocool Xpredator X3 PSU: Corsair RM650

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted

So this really is not a news thread but a statement about the obvious fact technology we use will continue to advance, become more mainstream/available and in the process become more affordable? 

 

 

I'm so glad I've got you guys to remind me how the world works. lol

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted

Ideal screen, probably 3440x1440 144Hz IPS whatever inch it is. 35? I don't know...

Oh yea and freesync, but whatever, we will get there eventually.

 

I think most of us are waiting for the perfect screen, but it's not here, yet.

It's just a matter of time :P And i can wait soo...

 

OLED is the perfect monitor - but thats 5 years away AT LEAST, so lets not talk about it.

 

But for those next 5 or whatever years, we already have the perfect screen. Didnt you hear?

Acer x34 - 34inch, IPS, 3440x1440, 100hz + gsync

 

And since there is no better cables than displayport coming any time soon, (just a chicken piss marginal displayport improvement) - we aint getting anything better than this on LCD.

Maybe a 1600p OR 144hz version of that acer x34 - but not both at the same time, cuz the new displayport is shit. So nothing noticeably better will really appear for the next 5 years.

 

So, the perfect screen for the next - probably 6 years - is already preorderable.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted

OLED is the perfect monitor - but thats 5 years away AT LEAST, so lets not talk about it.

 

But for those next 5 or whatever years, we already have the perfect screen. Didnt you hear?

Acer x34 - 34inch, IPS, 3440x1440, 100hz + gsync

 

And since there is no better cables than displayport coming any time soon, (just a chicken piss marginal displayport improvement) - we aint getting anything better than this on LCD.

Maybe a 1600p OR 144hz version of that acer x34 - but not both at the same time, cuz the new displayport is shit. So nothing noticeably better will really appear for the next 5 years.

 

So, the perfect screen for the next - probably 6 years - is already preorderable.

I want freesync tbh, i have an AMD gpu soo... Anyway, it's not 144Hz, bit of a bummer, and OLED is too far away, and DP can easily support that.

It supports 4K @120hz, so i would be suprised if it can't handle 3440x1440 @144Hz

If you want my attention, quote meh! D: or just stick an @samcool55 in your post :3

Spying on everyone to fight against terrorism is like shooting a mosquito with a cannon

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted

I want freesync tbh, i have an AMD gpu soo... Anyway, it's not 144Hz, bit of a bummer, and OLED is too far away, and DP can easily support that.

It supports 4K @120hz, so i would be suprised if it can't handle 3440x1440 @144pHz

 

I already said that it can do 3440x1440@144p in my previous post.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted

My body is ready.

ROG X570-F Strix | AMD R9 5900X | EK Elite 360 | EVGA 3080 FTW3 Ultra | G.Skill Trident Z Neo 64gb | Samsung 980 PRO 
ROG Strix XG349C | Corsair 4000 | Bose C5 | ROG Swift PG279Q

Logitech G810 Orion | Sennheiser HD 518 |  Logitech 502 Hero

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted

I want freesync tbh, i have an AMD gpu soo... Anyway, it's not 144Hz, bit of a bummer, and OLED is too far away, and DP can easily support that.

It supports 4K @120hz, so i would be suprised if it can't handle 3440x1440 @144Hz

 

Oh, by the way - freesync will become better than gsync with OLED. As OLED can go as low as 0hz. Since freesync cant do that double/quad refresh OLED does below the 30minimum....

OLED doesnt need a minimum - you would just get a true fps=hz.

 

That 9hz minimum they said for adaptivesync - thats the only part that bothers me. I hope they update it to 0hz once OLED appears (nvidia even said that there is no reason why adaptive sync couldnt go as low as 0hz).

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted

Oh, by the way - freesync will become better than gsync with OLED. As OLED can go as low as 0hz. Since freesync cant do that double/quad refresh OLED does below the 30minimum....

OLED doesnt need a minimum - you would just get a true fps=hz.

 

That 9hz minimum they said for adaptivesync - thats the only part that bothers me. I hope they update it to 0hz once OLED appears (nvidia even said that there is no reason why adaptive sync couldnt go as low as 0hz).

Why would you want to run your monitor at 9Hz? O_o And 0hz = off so you don't need anything for 0hz.

I don't really understand where you want to go, you can't do anything properly at 9Hz and at 0Hz your screen is just off.

 

And with the screens you have now you can also go as low as you want, most handle up to 60Hz, but they are fine with any refresh rate lower than that, it's just the scaler that needs to be able to handle weird low refresh rates, but there are no reasons why the panels of today, IPS, TN, VA, whatever, can't handle lower refresh rates than 60. 

If you want my attention, quote meh! D: or just stick an @samcool55 in your post :3

Spying on everyone to fight against terrorism is like shooting a mosquito with a cannon

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted

Why would you want to run your monitor at 9Hz? O_o And 0hz = off so you don't need anything for 0hz.

I don't really understand where you want to go, you can't do anything properly at 9Hz and at 0Hz your screen is just off.

 

And with the screens you have now you can also go as low as you want, most handle up to 60Hz, but they are fine with any refresh rate lower than that, it's just the scaler that needs to be able to handle weird low refresh rates, but there are no reasons why the panels of today, IPS, TN, VA, whatever, can't handle lower refresh rates than 60. 

 

Well, LCD cant refresh lower than 25 or something, otherwise you get image degradation.

 

Also, the point wasnt to watch a movie or something @ 0hz or 7hz....

The point was to get a 100% flicker free monitor. Even for the rare occurrences.

 

*When a game is @ loading screen it occasionally drops the fps to 0fps. Gsync monitors start to flicker then.

Freesync ones dont, cuz freesync gets disabled below the minimum and it just refreshes at the monitors native HZ.

I just think it would be nice to not disable freesync ever - but have a 100% fps=hz monitor (up to a maximum).

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted

Well, LCD cant refresh lower than 25 or something, otherwise you get image degradation.

 

Also, the point wasnt to watch a movie or something @ 0hz or 7hz....

The point was to get a 100% flicker free monitor. Even for the rare occurrences.

 

*When a game is @ loading screen it occasionally drops the fps to 0fps. Gsync monitors start to flicker then.

Freesync ones dont, cuz freesync gets disabled below the minimum and it just refreshes at the monitors native HZ.

I just think it would be nice to not disable freesync ever - but have a 100% fps=hz monitor (up to a maximum).

Freesync disables below a minimum, it probably does that for a reason. Freesync is useless at 9hz anyway so i just would not care. It's also probably only going to appear during loading screens, it's not that you need high Hz/fps at that point...

 

It might be nice, but there is no use for it so why would someone invest time in it?

I just don't get it...

If you want my attention, quote meh! D: or just stick an @samcool55 in your post :3

Spying on everyone to fight against terrorism is like shooting a mosquito with a cannon

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share
Go to topic listing Displays

×