Jump to content
Search In
  • More options...
Find results that contain...
Find results in...
Popple2000

IPS or 1ms 144hz

Recommended Posts

Heh thank you for actually taking the time to answer my question twice :P, that was a really good and clear explanation(with the As) there! I now kind of get it better! Also 60fps was just an example i'll be using a rig with a gtx 770, amd fx 8350, 8gb ram so yea and shooters i might turn down a little graphically for more frames but i would still expect to hit <90 at most with a 770 but i really have no clue...

 

I'd suggest getting an intel i5-4670 for you rrig if you can afford it, the gaming performance is much higher.  But the AMD 8350 is plenty strong for gaming and with a 770 you should easily be able to run 1080p over 100fps.  You might not max out settings on everything, but most online multiplayer games it's better to run high instead of ultra for the extra framerate.  Smoother + no motion blur + accurate positioning = better scores = more fun.  Winning is fun.  I don't ever stop in a CS:GO match and say:  "wow, that texture looks nice, that color depth is really amazing"...I'm far too busy shooting the guy that just came around the corner in the head for the 7th time this match and laughing when he thinks I'm hacking because his setup sucks for FPS online gaming.

 

Honestly, I usually don't even run AA on FPS games because you're moving fast enough that it isn't that big a deal anyway.  Or at most I'll run 4x MSAA (make sure you never run vertical sync, it introduces BAD lag).  Otherwise play with your settings until you can sit at a solid 100+ and you'll be golden.

 

Edit: Just to be clear, I'm not saying you can't notice the smoother textures, I'm saying that while you're running around you aren't likely thinking about it...you're thinking about where you're going and being ready to shoot them before they shoot you.  Just like when I said I couldn't really see a huge difference at 1440p, I didn't mean I can't see one...I said it wasn't a stark difference.  That's an important distinction and I want it to be clear, it's the meaning not the wording I'm concerned with...

Link to post
Share on other sites

I get really tired of seeing these threads.  The population here is horribly biased for IPS monitors because a lot of them are more about eyecandy than performance.  This isn't a bluray vs 1080p upscaled DVD situation where the difference is stark and noticable even by people who don't have a trained eye.  I have a very trained eye for video and I haven't even seen that much of a difference since I jumped to 1440p, although I'm withholding judgement completely until I've been gaming in it for a few months and can go back and play on my old monitor.

 

I still come down to these two questions:

 

1) Do you primarily play single player games OR primarily use your monitor for photo/video editing?

 

2) Do you primarily play online multiplayer games OR rarely (or never) use your monitor for photo video editing?

 

If 1 = true then "buy IPS"

elseif 2 = true then "buy 144hz TN"

else "buy both"

or option 3) primarily plays multiplayer games, with a singleplayer game occasionally, which would be me in this case- ithink 144hz is better here but i dunno


Specs of my PC:

CPU: AMD FX 8350  Motherboard: Gigabyte 990XA UD3  GPU: Gigabyte GTX 770 Windforce 2GB  HDD: WD Green 2TB SSD:  Corsair Force GT 120GB SSD RAM: Corsair 8GB(2X4) PSU: CoolerMaster G650M

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd suggest getting an intel i5-4670 for you rrig if you can afford it, the gaming performance is much higher.  But the AMD 8350 is plenty strong for gaming and with a 770 you should easily be able to run 1080p over 100fps.  You might not max out settings on everything, but most online multiplayer games it's better to run high instead of ultra for the extra framerate.  Smoother + no motion blur + accurate positioning = better scores = more fun.  Winning is fun.  I don't ever stop in a CS:GO match and say:  "wow, that texture looks nice, that color depth is really amazing"...I'm far too busy shooting the guy that just came around the corner in the head for the 7th time this match and laughing when he thinks I'm hacking because his setup sucks for FPS online gaming.

hehe true dat. although in CSGO i can easily get a MINIMUM framerate of 144 fps even playing at 1080p maxed out.


Specs of my PC:

CPU: AMD FX 8350  Motherboard: Gigabyte 990XA UD3  GPU: Gigabyte GTX 770 Windforce 2GB  HDD: WD Green 2TB SSD:  Corsair Force GT 120GB SSD RAM: Corsair 8GB(2X4) PSU: CoolerMaster G650M

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd suggest getting an intel i5-4670 for you rrig if you can afford it, the gaming performance is much higher.  But the AMD 8350 is plenty strong for gaming and with a 770 you should easily be able to run 1080p over 100fps.  You might not max out settings on everything, but most online multiplayer games it's better to run high instead of ultra for the extra framerate.  Smoother + no motion blur + accurate positioning = better scores = more fun.  Winning is fun.  I don't ever stop in a CS:GO match and say:  "wow, that texture looks nice, that color depth is really amazing"...I'm far too busy shooting the guy that just came around the corner in the head for the 7th time this match and laughing when he thinks I'm hacking because his setup sucks for FPS online gaming.

 

Honestly, I usually don't even run AA on FPS games because you're moving fast enough that it isn't that big a deal anyway.  Or at most I'll run 4x MSAA (make sure you never run vertical sync, it introduces BAD lag).  Otherwise play with your settings until you can sit at a solid 100+ and you'll be golden.

also unfortunately i cant change the parts anymore. people also telling me to change the ssd to a 840 evo and the hdd to a barracuda but i think ill be fine.


Specs of my PC:

CPU: AMD FX 8350  Motherboard: Gigabyte 990XA UD3  GPU: Gigabyte GTX 770 Windforce 2GB  HDD: WD Green 2TB SSD:  Corsair Force GT 120GB SSD RAM: Corsair 8GB(2X4) PSU: CoolerMaster G650M

Link to post
Share on other sites

also unfortunately i cant change the parts anymore. people also telling me to change the ssd to a 840 evo and the hdd to a barracuda but i think ill be fine.

 

It's ok, the 8350 is just fine for a CPU.  It's not as good, but in a lot of games it won't make a noticable difference, the ones you'll see a big performance hit are the AAA big graphic engine games...and often those are single player where the framerate isn't quite as important.  For your FPS games like CS:GO, BF3, CoD, etc (even BF4) you'll be fine.  In this case the 8350 is just about as good for BF4, and in the others mentioned most of the modern CPUs with a good GPU can go over 100 fps anyway.  Same story with games like WoW or LoL, anything can push them 100+ easily.

 

I just always mention the performance because the price difference isn't that much and when it comes to longevity the Intel CPU will stay relevant longer.  Current performance, especially if you're overclocking will be plenty good.  And if you do video editing or 3d modeling you've got the CPU for it ;)

 

I've built machines with both Intel and AMD chips, they both make a good product.  Just like anything else there are pros and cons to every decision, you *can* use whatever hardware you want within reason and get good gaming performance.  It just depends what you want to play, what settings you want to run and what your budget is...

Link to post
Share on other sites

I love my benq xl2420te, as some has said if your not playing for competitive an ips may be the better choice, but for better pew pew the benq rules.

Link to post
Share on other sites

It's ok, the 8350 is just fine for a CPU. It's not as good, but in a lot of games it won't make a noticable difference, the ones you'll see a big performance hit are the AAA big graphic engine games...and often those are single player where the framerate isn't quite as important. For your FPS games like CS:GO, BF3, CoD, etc (even BF4) you'll be fine. In this case the 8350 is just about as good for BF4, and in the others mentioned most of the modern CPUs with a good GPU can go over 100 fps anyway. Same story with games like WoW or LoL, anything can push them 100+ easily.

I just always mention the performance because the price difference isn't that much and when it comes to longevity the Intel CPU will stay relevant longer. Current performance, especially if you're overclocking will be plenty good. And if you do video editing or 3d modeling you've got the CPU for it ;)

I've built machines with both Intel and AMD chips, they both make a good product. Just like anything else there are pros and cons to every decision, you *can* use whatever hardware you want within reason and get good gaming performance. It just depends what you want to play, what settings you want to run and what your budget is...

K thanks for clearing that up! for now i just want to play most games maxed out at at least those 60fps. As i said MP FPS games i can sacrifice some of the visuals for better framerate


Specs of my PC:

CPU: AMD FX 8350  Motherboard: Gigabyte 990XA UD3  GPU: Gigabyte GTX 770 Windforce 2GB  HDD: WD Green 2TB SSD:  Corsair Force GT 120GB SSD RAM: Corsair 8GB(2X4) PSU: CoolerMaster G650M

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hey, I'm getting a 144hz monitor for my rig but my rig wont play games at around 144fps at ultra settings itll get only about 60fps and i dont want to make everythign ugly just to get a lot of framerate. Is there a big difference in 60fps on 60hz vs 60fps on 144hz? or is there no difference at all? i just wasted money i guess :P

You'll see a HUGE difference at any framerate

Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted · Original PosterOP

This is the worst kind of ignorance.

 

First of all, IPS panels aren't *that* much better than TN and anyone that implies it's some earthshattering difference I have some rude, inappropriate names to call you.  Second, most games are not rendered above 1080p and the color range isn't enough to offset the cons of an IPS panel.  And let's not get into the "response time" thing, because response time has *NEVER* been the important thing when looking at a gaming monitor.  There are two major factors in gaming that you want to look at in regards to a monitor:

 

1) Refresh rate - how quickly does the panel refresh.  60hz?  That's 16ms between frames.  120hz?  That's 8ms between frames.  144hz?  If I recall correctly that's 6ish ms between frames (don't have google handy atm).  So what does that mean?  It means that aside from reducing motion blur, aside from making your picture look smoother and more natural, it also gives you the most accurate information in online multiplayer games.  It means your shots will "feel" like they register better, you'll see spell effects and projectiles faster in RPGs and games like LoL.  You may not think it's a big deal, but it is noticable and when combined with...

 

2) Input lag - how much processing or input lag does your panel have?  A good gaming TN panel will have virtually no input or processing lag.  Most IPS panels (all the non-Korean 1440p ones) will have 20-30ms of input and/or processing lag.  The two things are different.  Input lag is what you get from having a PCB on your monitor that has HDMI, DP, DVI, etc.  The more inputs you have the worse the pathing is on your PCB and it introduces some lag.  Processing lag is what you get when you have a scaler that your signal passes through.  Even if you are running in your native resolution it passes through the scaler and causes lag.  When combined you get the 20-30ms that most people just simply call Input lag because breaking it down is complicated and pointless.  What you need to know is that it is worse than adding the same number of MS to your ping because it isn't an even playing field.  It would be like intentionally giving your enemy a handicap where they see you 30ms before you see them EVERY TIME. 

 

The worst thing is that the server doesn't take it into account because it's client side, that means that with ping you at least get some correction because the server is working with everyone's data and doing the calculations for you.  With input lag it doesn't even know you're reacting slower.  So when your shots don't hit like you think they should, or you don't see the fire in time to move, or that taunt hits you that you should have been able to dodge....it's your own fault.

 

That's why IPS panels are a bad idea.  And before anyone brings it up:  1080p IPS panels are stupid.  You don't get the resolution, on a single monitor viewing angle is a nonissue and the colors don't even offset the lack of higher refresh rate and lack of motion blur.  So even if you get a 1080p IPS that happens to have little input lag (there are a few) then the negatives still outweight the positives.  The only way I'd recommend a non-Korean IPS is if you do a TON of photo editing (for work, not fun) OR you play almost excluisively single player games.  If you play online multiplayer games at all you're handicapping yourself for no reason.

 

If you game a lot and don't want a Korean panel, I'd say go with the BENQ XL2420TE and don't look back.  People like the guy I quoted are generally bad at games and like to blame everyone else for why, it's always "lag, noobs or tryhards".   Getting stuck in LoL would be ELO Hell and not a personal lack of skill or knowledge.  It's really easy to see a difference in a 120hz monitor and anyone who couldn't tell a difference in 30ms of input lag doesn't deserve to play online multiplayer games.

 

Edit:  I have 1080p Dell IPS panels at work, they suck.  The matte finish is awful, they sparkle horribly, the colors are dull and lifeless even after being calibrated and I'd never even consider one for personal use.  The 2414 is a 1080p IPS that will do literally nothing for you for gaming.  The IPS snobs need to stay out of threads like this, it gets really old.  Oh, and I game on a Korean IPS panel...so meh.  But it has virtually no input lag and I've overclocked it to 110hz with no frame drops...so yeah.

 

Edit2: Pre-empting ridiculous responses, I sold TVs and monitors for years, I have calibrated them for years and I own what is arguably *still* the best TV in the world (the Pioneer elite FD-111 kuro).  So yeah, I know what a good picture is "supposed" to look like.  I've also done video work on properly calibrated IPS panels, I have a buddy who does professional photo work and I've played games semi-professionally on a variety of different monitors.  The takeaway:  I know what I'm talking about.

Thank you very much for all of that ! Great info :)

Link to post
Share on other sites

You'll see a HUGE difference at any framerate

Really? :o


Specs of my PC:

CPU: AMD FX 8350  Motherboard: Gigabyte 990XA UD3  GPU: Gigabyte GTX 770 Windforce 2GB  HDD: WD Green 2TB SSD:  Corsair Force GT 120GB SSD RAM: Corsair 8GB(2X4) PSU: CoolerMaster G650M

Link to post
Share on other sites

IPS its very hard to tell the difference between 120 and 60 htz or FPS if you only get 60 fps then theres no point geting a 120htz as you just see the same frame 2 times


Aselwyn1

Link to post
Share on other sites

IPS its very hard to tell the difference between 120 and 60 htz or FPS if you only get 60 fps then theres no point geting a 120htz as you just see the same frame 2 times

2 times? dont you mean twice as fast?


Specs of my PC:

CPU: AMD FX 8350  Motherboard: Gigabyte 990XA UD3  GPU: Gigabyte GTX 770 Windforce 2GB  HDD: WD Green 2TB SSD:  Corsair Force GT 120GB SSD RAM: Corsair 8GB(2X4) PSU: CoolerMaster G650M

Link to post
Share on other sites

The screen displays the same frame 2 times then goes to the next frame

 

This is pretty comically wrong.  Did you not even read any of my previous posts where I go through a detailed technical explanation of how refresh rate works?  I'm not rehashing it for a third time, so click on the little 3 and go read my posts on the previous page.  I wish people today knew what gaming on a CRT was like, people are so used to blurry motion they don't even know better and it makes me sick.  IPS monitors are for graphical work, not gaming.  It's always been that way and until a no input lag high refresh rate IPS hits the market...it will always be that way.  I'm going to refrain from getting nasty, but people need to stop giving advice based purely on what they own.

 

Edit:  Even if you're talking about only getting 60fps, it doesn't display the same frame twice..that isn't how LCD monitors work.  They keep the frame up until a new frame is displayed.  If you get 30fps on a 60hz monitor you aren't getting double of each frame, you're getting 30 frames, that's it.  It's called persistence and I talked about it in a previous post that you clearly didn't read.

Link to post
Share on other sites

First off I have gamed on a CRT and know what that was like. Gaming on IPS does not have a noticeable difference over 120 htz (never tried a "144". Linus and Slick play on IPS FYI and recommend it in there videos. You are correct about it staying on but it's just Easier to explain This is coming from a Broadcast Engineer.

This is pretty comically wrong. Did you not even read any of my previous posts where I go through a detailed technical explanation of how refresh rate works? I'm not rehashing it for a third time, so click on the little 3 and go read my posts on the previous page. I wish people today knew what gaming on a CRT was like, people are so used to blurry motion they don't even know better and it makes me sick. IPS monitors are for graphical work, not gaming. It's always been that way and until a no input lag high refresh rate IPS hits the market...it will always be that way. I'm going to refrain from getting nasty, but people need to stop giving advice based purely on what they own.Edit: Even if you're talking about only getting 60fps, it doesn't display the same frame twice..that isn't how LCD monitors work. They keep the frame up until a new frame is displayed. If you get 30fps on a 60hz monitor you aren't getting double of each frame, you're getting 30 frames, that's it. It's called persistence and I talked about it in a previous post that you clearly didn't read.

Aselwyn1

Link to post
Share on other sites

This is pretty comically wrong.  Did you not even read any of my previous posts where I go through a detailed technical explanation of how refresh rate works?  I'm not rehashing it for a third time, so click on the little 3 and go read my posts on the previous page.  I wish people today knew what gaming on a CRT was like, people are so used to blurry motion they don't even know better and it makes me sick.  IPS monitors are for graphical work, not gaming.  It's always been that way and until a no input lag high refresh rate IPS hits the market...it will always be that way.  I'm going to refrain from getting nasty, but people need to stop giving advice based purely on what they own.

 

Edit:  Even if you're talking about only getting 60fps, it doesn't display the same frame twice..that isn't how LCD monitors work.  They keep the frame up until a new frame is displayed.  If you get 30fps on a 60hz monitor you aren't getting double of each frame, you're getting 30 frames, that's it.  It's called persistence and I talked about it in a previous post that you clearly didn't read.

yea i knew it doesnt display the same frame 2 times thats why i was like wtf, what is that guy writing. or was the last sentence about not reading your last post directed to the other guy? because i read all your posts!

 

also about 144hz guys even if you dont get the framerate take it as 144hz is headroom and is more, im gona pull out that word again "future proof" as in case you guys might upgrade to a rig that will in the future have a beast gfx card and will be able to pull those 144fps @ 1080p then you will really appreciate it.


Specs of my PC:

CPU: AMD FX 8350  Motherboard: Gigabyte 990XA UD3  GPU: Gigabyte GTX 770 Windforce 2GB  HDD: WD Green 2TB SSD:  Corsair Force GT 120GB SSD RAM: Corsair 8GB(2X4) PSU: CoolerMaster G650M

Link to post
Share on other sites

yea i knew it doesnt display the same frame 2 times thats why i was like wtf, what is that guy writing. or was the last sentence about not reading your last post directed to the other guy? because i read all your posts!

 

also about 144hz guys even if you dont get the framerate take it as 144hz is headroom and is more, im gona pull out that word again "future proof" as in case you guys might upgrade to a rig that will in the future have a beast gfx card and will be able to pull those 144fps @ 1080p then you will really appreciate it.

if you wanna "future proof" then ya but you may want a 4k or a G-sync monitor in the near future


Aselwyn1

Link to post
Share on other sites

First off I have gamed on a CRT and know what that was like. Gaming on IPS does not have a noticeable difference over 120 htz (never tried a "144". Linus and Slick play on IPS FYI and recommend it in there videos. You are correct about it staying on but it's just Easier to explain This is coming from a Broadcast Engineer.

 

Sigh.  Being a broadcast engineer has nothing to do with the technology behind IPS and TN panels and how refresh rate works.  You said it displays 2 of the same frame, it doesn't.  It displays the frame once and it stays on the screen until it's replaced, that's a completely different thing.  It's also why these monitors have motion blur, because unlike a CRT that projects the frame and then it's gone...it stays there and BLURS while the pixels are transitioning.  LCD pixels are slower than Plasma, than OLED and CRT.  It's not the same and it never will be. 

 

However, TN panels have overcome a lot of the limitations with LCD pixels by incorporating super fast refresh speeds (by comparison, 60hz is 16ms, 144 is something like 6ms) and using the backlight with lightboost to take care of the permanence issue.  I covered all this in previous posts if you would trouble yourself to go back and read them.  IPS also has input lag, which no matter what you say makes a difference that is clear and noticable.  Want proof?  Go play rock band on your LCD screen and set the lag compensation on the game to 0ms and see what happens.  See how poorly the screen lines up and tell me that 20-30ms isn't a noticable difference.

 

if you wanna "future proof" then ya but you may want a 4k or a G-sync monitor in the near future

 

 4k is a joke, and G-Sync is only for people who have rigs that can't put out 60fps or better.  There isn't even native gaming content in 1440p right now, 4k will be well over 5 years in the making and the monitors themselves SUCK.  Anyone who buys one now is a sucker getting a 30 or 60hz piece of early adopter garbage and spending 3x as much as they will be when the content finally catches up.  144hz and lightboost are the two best things to happen to monitors in a VERY long time (since CRTs went away) and everything else will fall in line as people realize it.

 

Edit:  before you even say it, "but 8ms response time isn't a very big difference from 1ms" Stop it.  Those numbers are meaningless, GTG doesn't matter at all, it's subjectively measured and it doesn't change the fact a 60hz refresh rate means the fastest the screen can display a new frame is every 16ms.  Period.  End of discussion.  The TN panel on the other hand is 8ms @ 120hz and even less at 144hz.  Plus with lightboost the frame only displays for 1.3ms or so on the 10% setting which is why you virtually eliminate motion blur and the next generation of monitors will include lightboost in official drivers (nvidia already announced it).

Link to post
Share on other sites

if you wanna "future proof" then ya but you may want a 4k or a G-sync monitor in the near future

g-sync monitors are 144hz monitors as far as i know.


Specs of my PC:

CPU: AMD FX 8350  Motherboard: Gigabyte 990XA UD3  GPU: Gigabyte GTX 770 Windforce 2GB  HDD: WD Green 2TB SSD:  Corsair Force GT 120GB SSD RAM: Corsair 8GB(2X4) PSU: CoolerMaster G650M

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


×