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

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

7 hours ago, Mholes said:

On their site the specs say that all Eve Spectrum monitor's will use LG's 27" IPS panels, so doubt it's samsung's monitor.

Thought it said Samsung.   Either way.  A company’s monitor seems to have been picked.  I also pointed out at one point that attempting to crowdsource suggestions that all apply to monitor panels doesn’t help because the company doesn’t make panels themselves. That was apparently old news because it apparently what they did

Life is like a bowl of chocolates: there are all these little crinkly paper cups everywhere.

Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Ryzen 7 3800X | X570 Aorus Elite | G.Skill 16GB 3200MHz C16 | Radeon RX 5700 XT | Samsung 850 PRO 256GB | Mouse: Zowie S1 | OS: Windows 10

Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Link to post
Share on other sites

-Threads Merged-

"Put as much effort into your question as you'd expect someone to give in an answer"- @Princess Luna

Make sure to Quote posts or tag the person with @[username] so they know you responded to them!

Purple Build Post ---  Blue Build Post --- Blue Build Post 2018

RGB Build Post 2019 --- Rainbow 🦆 2020 --- Project ITNOS --- P600S VS Define R6/S2

CPU i7-4790k    Motherboard Gigabyte Z97N-WIFI    RAM G.Skill Sniper DDR3 1866mhz    GPU EVGA GTX1080Ti FTW3    Case Corsair 380T   

Storage Samsung EVO 250GB, Samsung EVO 1TB, WD Black 3TB, WD Black 5TB    PSU Corsair CX550M    Cooling Cryorig H7 with NF-A12x25

Link to post
Share on other sites
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

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
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

CPU: i7 7820X  |  Motherboard: Asus Prime X299 Deluxe |  GPUs: ASUS ROG Strix GTX 1080  |  RAM: 16GB Corsair Vengeance 3000Mhz  

Storage: 2 x Samsung 960 Evo NVMe (RAID 0)  |  2 x 4 TB Seagate Barracuda  |  PSUCorsair HX1000i

CoolingCorsair H115i Pro  |  5  x Corsair ML140 RGB Fans  

Case: Corsair Graphite 780T

Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
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. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Link to post
Share on other sites
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

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

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. ?

Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Ryzen 5 3600 | EVGA CLC240 | EVGA RTX 2070 Super XC Ultra | ASRock AB450 Pro4 | 16gb EVGA SuperSC DDR4-3200 | 1tb WD SN550 | 2tb SanDisk Ultra 3DEVGA P2 650w | Fractal Design Meshify CViewSonic VX2758-2KP-MHD + ViewSonic VS2412-H | IKBC F87 (MX Browns) | Finalmouse Ultralight Phantom | Artisan-Japan Ninja FX Hien (M/Soft) | Fostex HP-A3 | Fostex PM0.3G | Fostex T60RP | Beyerdynamic DT 1990 Pro | Beyerdynamic FOX

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/27/2020 at 10:29 AM, Doobeedoo said:

Aside from fps you don't know why people play like that. You can obviously play all other games 1440p 120fps+ it all depends what specs.

 

Saying 240Hz is a snake oil just shows what you know, which is literally nothing, it also proves that you've never used one or that you even play online fps games.

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? 

R9 3900x; 64GB RAM | RTX 2080 | 1.5TB Optane P4800x

1TB ADATA XPG Pro 8200 SSD | 2TB Micron 1100 SSD
HD800 + SCHIIT VALI | Topre Realforce Keyboard

Link to post
Share on other sites
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?

Ryzen 7 3800X | X570 Aorus Elite | G.Skill 16GB 3200MHz C16 | Radeon RX 5700 XT | Samsung 850 PRO 256GB | Mouse: Zowie S1 | OS: Windows 10

Link to post
Share on other sites

that looks cheap wonder how it will perform.

Link to post
Share on other sites
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.  

Life is like a bowl of chocolates: there are all these little crinkly paper cups everywhere.

Link to post
Share on other sites
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. 

Ryzen 7 3800X | X570 Aorus Elite | G.Skill 16GB 3200MHz C16 | Radeon RX 5700 XT | Samsung 850 PRO 256GB | Mouse: Zowie S1 | OS: Windows 10

Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Doobeedoo said:

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?

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. 

R9 3900x; 64GB RAM | RTX 2080 | 1.5TB Optane P4800x

1TB ADATA XPG Pro 8200 SSD | 2TB Micron 1100 SSD
HD800 + SCHIIT VALI | Topre Realforce Keyboard

Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Ryzen 7 3800X | X570 Aorus Elite | G.Skill 16GB 3200MHz C16 | Radeon RX 5700 XT | Samsung 850 PRO 256GB | Mouse: Zowie S1 | OS: Windows 10

Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Life is like a bowl of chocolates: there are all these little crinkly paper cups everywhere.

Link to post
Share on other sites
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. 

Ryzen 7 3800X | X570 Aorus Elite | G.Skill 16GB 3200MHz C16 | Radeon RX 5700 XT | Samsung 850 PRO 256GB | Mouse: Zowie S1 | OS: Windows 10

Link to post
Share on other sites
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. 

Life is like a bowl of chocolates: there are all these little crinkly paper cups everywhere.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

×