The Relevance of 144hz for non-FPS Gaming.

[treefroggy]

I already made the mistake of getting a 24" 1080p 144hz LG Ultragear for $280 right before it dropped down to $200 on amazon. It's too late to return it. I am unemployed and unhoused and on a tight budget, so mistakes like that hurt a lot. I'm going to sell it for $200 if I can. For something as important as a display I will only buy something worthy of starting at all day every day. I can't believe I spent nearly $300 on a 1080p display.

 

I got an RTX 3060 laptop this week for my vanlife setup. It has a 17" 144hz 1080p screen attached to it. It's an Acer Nitro 5. I got the "budget" 3060 laptop for $1200. The compromises it makes to be considered "budget" is mostly in the hardware like the screen, battery, and overall design, which is what I wanted since I'm using external peripherals anyway. It doesn't have displayport output, but I don't think I'm missing out on anything without it.

 

 I'm going to use it closed 100% of the time in my van, attached to an external monitor. The only reason I got a laptop is because it consumes far less power and takes a direct DC line so I get much more efficient power consumption off of my solar battery array. It can play current-gen games at max settings and only consumes about 100watts while doing so. The assumption is next-gen stuff will also play on high settings, and I can do an open case mod later for better cooling and overclock it as well.

 

I am driving myself insane researching gaming monitors and pc gaming specs in general. The term "gaming" and "gamer" on PC seem to be synonymous with FPS and competitive esports players. Everything is catering to FPS and esports players. "You can't live without ___ because it makes you better at shooting people in the head all day".. I can totally understand how a 144hz refresh rate is important when you are swinging around a targeting reticle and clicking heads faster than the competition, but that's not my bag. I don't even own a mouse, I use a trackball.

 

 I just want to play stuff like Dark Souls, Elden Ring, Nier, FFXVI etc. Dark Souls is even capped at 60fps, so what's the point in a 144hz monitor? I'm seeing lots of nerds online saying "even 60fps looks smoother on a 144hz monitor", but it sounds like BS, and science/blind testing seems to agree. I need to hear from someone who also doesn't play FPS or competitive games at all. I thought the human eye couldn't see past 60hz on a display, and watching videos it seems like your average person couldn't tell the difference between 60 and 144 during gameplay, only competetive gamers.

 

A monitor with 4K resolution seems more important. It would be great not only for gaming, but for reading and watching stuff too. 27", 4K 144hz monitors are just so expensive, I'm looking at 27" 4K 60hz displays. Maybe I'm drawing myself into a corner here though. 27" 1440p 144hz is also an option.... but 4K seems like the way to go for me. If there's something where I'd absolutely want 144hz, I could just use my laptop screen, couldn't I? (lol)

 

 There's also a lot to take into account besides resolution and refresh rate. Goes without saying I'm only looking at IPS displays.

These gaming monitors seem to be the only ones with good response time. 1-3ms is acceptable, but 60hz monitors usually have 5ms response time which can be a pain. So I guess I'm paying for a 144hz monitor anyways to play Sekiro.....

 

 I don't even know what 144fps looks like. I don't think I have any games that run 144fps aside for A Short Hike. My buddy tried to show me by booting his copy of Red Dead Redemption, but it wasn't getting 144fps either, more like 50fps.

 

[SorryBella]

1 minute ago, treefroggy said:

I thought the human eye couldn't see past 60hz on a display

No, because human eyes are relatively different from human to human, and the tolerance exceeds 60fps. The far more agreeable treshold before its indistinguishable (and remember this doesnt mean "couldnt see past", it just means you really really need to focus on it) is around 250-400fps. This old view is just an old remnants of console vs pc war which is filled to the brim with misinformation.

 

3 minutes ago, treefroggy said:

A monitor with 4K resolution seems more important. It would be great not only for gaming, but for reading and watching stuff too.

You need to understand about Pixel Density, and how its very much affecting you. 4K displays are far too overkill in pixel density for an average scenario of computer monitors at around 24-31.5 inches, and even at around 40 inches or so, if youre sitting at it far enough youre still cant tell the difference from pixel to pixel. And to add to the issue, a 4K resolution has far more pixels to reproduce, around 200 million pixel delta between a 1080p 144hz, compared to 4k 60Hz which means that you gonna add more load to try to run at 4K compared to running more fps. 1440p is a much much better alternative for pure desktop use.

10 minutes ago, treefroggy said:

I already made the mistake of getting a 24" 1080p 144hz LG Ultragear for $280 right before it dropped down to $200 on amazon. It's too late to return it. I am unemployed and unhoused and on a tight budget, so mistakes like that hurt a lot. I'm going to sell it for $200 if I can. For something as important as a display I will only buy something worthy of starting at all day every day. I can't believe I spent nearly $300 on a 1080p display.

Honestly, i kinda get you. LG MSRP is quickly disavowed the second after its released for better or for fucking worse and its sad to see missing deal but thats the market for you. Could you have done a better decision? Probably, but you definitely couldve gotten a far far worse one.

11 minutes ago, treefroggy said:

 I just want to play stuff like Dark Souls, Elden Ring, Nier, FFXVI etc.

Actually, on the topic of HnS, i play a bit of it on the past. Nothing serious, just the batman series and imo the extra room of refresh rates still helps. Yes, things moves slower but you can spot things faster which is still useful.

[treefroggy]

 

27 minutes ago, SorryClaire said:

-1440p is a much much better alternative for pure desktop use.

 

-Actually, on the topic of HnS, i play a bit of it on the past. Nothing serious, just the batman series and imo the extra room of refresh rates still helps. Yes, things moves slower but you can spot things faster which is still useful.

Well I am all ears if you think 1440p is more reasonable at 27-31 inches. I should add that I am sitting with my monitor very close though, 2 feet max.

That 4K gaming is dumb video is several years old at this point though. Again if my games are capped at 60fps already, I'm interested in what they could look like at 4K resolution.

I don't know what HnS stands for.

Thanks for helping me cope with my ultragear purchase, it means a lot actually. 

I was looking at this before I got on the 4K kick:

https://www.amazon.com/LG-27GN800-B-Ultragear-Response-Compatible/dp/B07TD94TQF/ref=psdc_1292115011_t1_B08V85XBFZ?th=1

[BobVonBob]

In my opinion, a 144 Hz screen benefits absolutely everything you can do on a computer. Not just competitive FPS games, but also racing games, RTS games, MMORPGs, hell even scrolling around spreadsheets or your web browser looks much smoother in 144 Hz. At this point, I can instantly notice the difference between 60 and 144 Hz, and I've never been anything remotely approaching a competitive gamer. I will never go back to a 60 Hz screen if I have the choice.

 

Now whether it makes sense for you is another matter entirely. If you don't have the money for 144 Hz, or you think you would prefer a different featureset, go for it. Don't let my experiences color your judgement too much, you'll feel happier with your decision if you make up your own mind on whether 144 Hz matters to you.

[SorryBella]

2 hours ago, treefroggy said:

HnS stands for.

Hack and Slash. Sorry if you dont know that.

[CTR640]

Quote

I am driving myself insane researching gaming monitors

Stop right there. Most "gaming products" are nothing but childish bullshit designs, bad quality-control, overpriced and overly marketed bullshit.

I'm a (casual) PC gamer myself and I have zero interests in shit like "gaming" looks. You automatically got a 1080p/144 screen because it's a laptop designed for gaming so higher refresh rate is included. And despites my current 60hz monitor, I would have loved a 120hz/144hz display. I once had a 240hz monitor and loved how smooth it was! And despites GTAV had dips into the 40 fps, it still felt smooth unlike on my 60hz screen. Higher refresh rate also lowers the inputlag, I experienced that on the 240hz monitor. GTAV runs fine on 1440p/120.

 

Just because Red Dead Redemption doesn't run at 144fps doesn't mean it's bad. In fact, your eyes would probably suffer if you ran RDR on a 60hz screen like mine. Higher refresh really benefits for everything. The higher refresh rate for FPS is nothing but a big misunderstanding and a meme, it's a folklore nonsense.

 

About pixel density, usually refered as ppi, pixel per inch. The higher the better but not always. The most minimum ppi is 93, under that number, it will look ugly, more pixelated. 93ppi is equal to 1080p on a 24" monitor. 102 is the sweet spot, that's 1080p on 22" monitor like I have. 204ppi is 4K on 21.6". Your screen got the best ppi, 1080p on 17", right? You lucky bastard :3 Some configs are nice and others are not like 1440p on 32", that's just 93ppi. It may sounds awesome but who is kidding themself? Just the same shit as 1080p 24".

 

And there is another thing about pixels but this is on a different level. OLED pixels vs LCD pixels.

I'm not really sure if that's on me but I went to see an OLED tv in a physical store, it's a 48" 120hz and 4K. That size and resolution has ppi of 93, the same as 1080p 24". I expected to see the pixels more like "grain", you know what I mean? But I didn't! It looks very sharp and could hardly see the pixels. So I went to see the other tv's that are LCD and yeah, they looked like smeared turd. But like I said, it's on a different level. OLED tv's may be expensive when you hear about it but they have become cheaper than high-end LCD craptv's.

[tikker]

4 hours ago, treefroggy said:

I already made the mistake of getting a 24" 1080p 144hz LG Ultragear for $280 right before it dropped down to $200 on amazon. It's too late to return it. I am unemployed and unhoused and on a tight budget, so mistakes like that hurt a lot. I'm going to sell it for $200 if I can. For something as important as a display I will only buy something worthy of starting at all day every day. I can't believe I spent nearly $300 on a 1080p display.

Why did you buy a display you don't consdier worthy starting every day in the first place? Happening to miss a sale is not a mistake. Since you most of the time don't know when stuff goes on sale, that's just unfortunate market developments that happen to everbody who buys things.

4 hours ago, treefroggy said:

The assumption is next-gen stuff will also play on high settings, and I can do an open case mod later for better cooling and overclock it as well.

Will heavily depend on the titles of course. E-sports and not graphically intensive games will keep running fine probably, AAA titles probably less so. That CPU (i7 10750H if I'm looking at the right model?) also can't be overclocked, so any gains will have to come from whatever (probably small) GPU overclock the card and laptop will allow for.

4 hours ago, treefroggy said:

 I just want to play stuff like Dark Souls, Elden Ring, Nier, FFXVI etc. Dark Souls is even capped at 60fps, so what's the point in a 144hz monitor? I'm seeing lots of nerds online saying "even 60fps looks smoother on a 144hz monitor", but it sounds like BS, and science/blind testing seems to agree. I need to hear from someone who also doesn't play FPS or competitive games at all. I thought the human eye couldn't see past 60hz on a display, and watching videos it seems like your average person couldn't tell the difference between 60 and 144 during gameplay, only competetive gamers.

Games that aren't capped at 60 FPS. Dark Souls is old, not from the high FPS era, Nier and FF XVI are a console port and game and Elden Ring also releases on consoles so not surprised if it ends up locked to 60 as well. Incidentally for those games an absolute rock solid 60 FPS is probably better than a high average frame rate that is all over the place. 120+ Hz is also more pleasing to look at for productivity and what not in my opinion and I guess 144 is a nice multiple of the 24 FPS movies are shot at. You might get a slight benefit from frames that finish rendering slightly faster than 60 FPS, giving you a more up to date frame on 144 Hz monitor. You won't have a constant 60 FPS, that's why people may say to still go for a higher refresh rate montior, but practically 60 FPS won't look drastically different on a 144 Hz display to me.

4 hours ago, treefroggy said:

A monitor with 4K resolution seems more important. It would be great not only for gaming, but for reading and watching stuff too. 27", 4K 144hz monitors are just so expensive, I'm looking at 27" 4K 60hz displays. Maybe I'm drawing myself into a corner here though. 27" 1440p 144hz is also an option.... but 4K seems like the way to go for me. If there's something where I'd absolutely want 144hz, I could just use my laptop screen, couldn't I? (lol)

Furthermore, since the laptop only has HDMI, should you want 144 Hz you'll have to get a monitor that supports that high refresh rate over HDMI which isn't always implemented in my experience, so if you do go for that read and watch reviews to be 100% sure it accepts high refresh rates over HDMI. Your laptops screen is in between a 27" 4k display and a 24" 1080p display in terms of PPI. A 27" 1440p display is a little lower density than your laptop screen.

 

Although I would find 4k a tad much on 27", it may be nice in the sense that 1080p content scales perfectly to it. That means you can game on 1080p (do realise the 3060 isn't a 4k gaming card) and you won't have the slight upscaling-blur you would have if you'd scale e.g. 1440p to 4k or 1080p to 1440p.

4 hours ago, treefroggy said:

There's also a lot to take into account besides resolution and refresh rate. Goes without saying I'm only looking at IPS displays.

These gaming monitors seem to be the only ones with good response time. 1-3ms is acceptable, but 60hz monitors usually have 5ms response time which can be a pain. So I guess I'm paying for a 144hz monitor anyways to play Sekiro.....

Advertised monitor response times are all scams and always something like gray-to-gray or the maximum overdrive setting which likely looks like crap. Read/watch reviews to find out what they actually are and how much blur and such there really is. Can recommend 144 Hz for Sekiro though.

[xg32]

5 hours ago, treefroggy said:

.

 

When picking a monitor, if not ultrawide, it's down to refresh rate/response time, panel type, ppi and color gamut for most people, (the order varies but refresh rate is usually pretty high up there), then look at the budget and gpu, you likely made the right choice in 1080p/144hz.

 

I'd always take 1080p/144hz over a 4k/60hz monitor, all else equal.

 

If you wanna know what a 32inch 1440p monitor looks like, just use ur 24inch 1080p, and sit closer.

 

There's alot more details but then it'd become a wall of text.

[treefroggy]

Also I should add this, since it caused huge misunderstanding and tons of hateful comments on Reddit:

I said I am unhoused and on a tight budget, everyone combined the two and made tons of comments like "get a job, you are crazy, etc". I am not struggling, not living in squalor, doing great, have my life together etc. This setup is the centerpiece for my van build, I have plenty of money in savings. When I say tight budget I mean I'm a cheap ass and hate buying the wrong thing. This monitor purchase is my first case of buyer's remorse in several years, so I'm doing great in that regard. I just did a bad job representing myself I guess, because I don't tailor my posts to the internet masses who will not immediately understand what I'm talking about when I say "unhoused", meaning I live in an epic space ship lol.

 

A lot of people on Reddit also assumed I'm gaming with my trackball mouse? Lol, I'm using a controller.

12 hours ago, tikker said:

Why did you buy a display you don't consdier worthy starting every day in the first place? Happening to miss a sale is not a mistake. Since you most of the time don't know when stuff goes on sale, that's just unfortunate market developments that happen to everbody who buys things.

- I don't understand this first comment.

- As for the rest of your reply, yeah I will be playing mostly console games. As far as gaming, this pc is a PS4/PS5 replacement.

11 hours ago, xg32 said:

If you wanna know what a 32inch 1440p monitor looks like, just use ur 24inch 1080p, and sit closer.

I can't sit any closer. I sit within 1.9 feet of the monitor already. That's why 4K @ 27" seems like a good choice. I can see the pixels on any 1080p screen and it's ugly!

12 hours ago, CTR640 said:

Stop right there. Most "gaming products" are nothing but childish bullshit designs, bad quality-control, overpriced and overly marketed bullshit.

I'm a (casual) PC gamer myself and I have zero interests in shit like "gaming" looks. You automatically got a 1080p/144 screen because it's a laptop designed for gaming so higher refresh rate is included. And despites my current 60hz monitor, I would have loved a 120hz/144hz display. I once had a 240hz monitor and loved how smooth it was! And despites GTAV had dips into the 40 fps, it still felt smooth unlike on my 60hz screen. Higher refresh rate also lowers the inputlag, I experienced that on the 240hz monitor. GTAV runs fine on 1440p/120.

Yeah, what you described has always bothered me. That's why I'm going insane trying to research what I actually want. I definitely don't want high input lag, but I don't think I need esports-level input latency. 

 

So anyways, I am dead-set on getting a 27" monitor to replace this 24" one. I sit super close to the screen so not seeing pixels takes precedent. I care more about input lag than the smoothness of 144hz, but if those go hand in hand, I guess I've drawn myself into a corner. Ideally I'd get a 4K, 27", bezeless monitor with 100-120hz (though it seems like 60hz and 144hz is all there is), either IPS or OLED. Maybe there's something better for me in the TV space, then I could get real HDR support right? Again there's no Displayport output, though the ultragear seems to freesync just find to my laptop over hdmi.

 

I think I am still leaning to 4k 60hz because all the replies I'm getting elsewhere that are like "you can't game in 4k with a 3060 laptop" are missing the point. I'm fine to game in 1080p, but for daily computing and reading/image/movie viewing, high res is nice, arguably more nice than smooth scrolling on webpages, lol. Plus, it's possible it will have better colors and HDR, from what I'm seeing the main tradeoff is input lag. But I could be wrong still.

[tikker]

2 hours ago, treefroggy said:

- I don't understand this first comment.

Well you bought a 1080p monitor and then you say

17 hours ago, treefroggy said:

For something as important as a display I will only buy something worthy of starting at all day every day. I can't believe I spent nearly $300 on a 1080p display.

Though reading it again maybe starting is a typo and was meant to be staring, but then the point remains the same with that word

2 hours ago, treefroggy said:

I can't sit any closer. I sit within 1.9 feet of the monitor already. That's why 4K @ 27" seems like a good choice. I can see the pixels on any 1080p screen and it's ugly!

Not as a permanent solution. Just get your face up close to it to get an impression.

2 hours ago, treefroggy said:

Maybe there's something better for me in the TV space, then I could get real HDR support right?

If you consider TVs you'll have to basically double the size. 27" isn't a common size anymore, let alone for 4k and decent HDR. Also keep in mind that OLEDs will not like static content.

[treefroggy]

17 minutes ago, tikker said:

Well you bought a 1080p monitor and then you say

Though reading it again maybe starting is a typo and was meant to be staring, but then the point remains the same with that word

Not as a permanent solution. Just get your face up close to it to get an impression.

If you consider TVs you'll have to basically double the size. 27" isn't a common size anymore, let alone for 4k and decent HDR. Also keep in mind that OLEDs will not like static content.

Yeah, I don't need to get any closer though. It's more pixelated that I'd like to be staring at all day. Yeah, I have buyer's remorse. But it's not a major issue, I can get rid of it.

I'm aware of the OLED burn in and such. But I don't think I'm going to find anything that fits the criteria.

[treefroggy]

Alright. I got a 27" LG 4K monitor and I'm very very pleased. Most of the advice I got online was very bad and I stuck to first principles of what I needed and wanted. I'm playing Dark Souls Remastered and a couple other games in 4k, and most everything else at 1440p, watching movies in 4K, and most importantly the screen real estate and pixel size is wonderful. None of my games are going to run over 60fps and I don't need them to. Only downside is poor black levels compared to an OLED tv, but I'm done being a perfectionist in that regard. 

[jre84]

yeah I was in the same boat. I bought a 165hz msi monitor g32c4 and its pretty ok, I dont notice 144hz over 60hz in most games and I can see the pixels so I wish I went with 144hz 1440p...but I suppose that would be double the price and hard to push with a gtx 1650...

 

4k is noticable(even if your far away you can spot the clarity increase) and not everyone will be able to tell the difference between locked 60 and locked 144hz is my argument

[Stahlmann]

After using higher refresh rate displays over the last few years i would not go back to 60Hz as my main display, no matter how small the budget. Even while i'm no competitive gamer myself, 120Hz is the minimum i'd consider myself. Even when just hanging around your desktop, 120Hz+ will just feel a lot smoother and better to use.

[treefroggy]

I had a 144hz monitor, and it wasn't worth stepping down from 4k for me.

For desktop especially, 4K is far more important to me that slightly barely noticeably smoother. I sit very close to my screen all day. I don't want to see pixels. And again, many of the games I play simply don't go over 60fps. So I made the right choice. I find that many people will insist over 60hz is necessary even just for desktop workflow and web browsing. In all the advice columns and threads I've seen, only 1% of people are saying 60hz is acceptable to them. I find this to be highly suspect, lol. So I'm thinking for myself and sticking to first principles and making my own choice here.

I'm very happy with my choice.

Well, just because you can tell the difference in smoothness doesn't mean it should be everybodies' priority as it is yours.

Not to mention, I'm using a laptop with 1080p 144hz display. So if I really crave the smoothness, I would be using the laptop screen.
Here's what games I play.
Of all of these, the only ones I could imagine myself enjoying higher refresh rate for would be Sonic Mania and Downwell. Sonic is locked at 60fps, and if I wanted to hack it for higher refresh I could just use my laptop screen. Downwell was also locked, at 44 I think, and when I hacked it to 60 it actually broke the game and it now runs too fast because gameplay is tied to framrate.

 

Again, I used 144hz in a desktop environment for months and I was far more bothered by the big chunky pixels on the 1440p display that I was bothered when I switched back to 60fps. I couldn't even tell the difference because very few of my games ran over 60fps and the majority of the time I was playing Dark Souls. Not to mention it's a 3060 laptop so I'm not as likely to even get over 60fps at 4k anyways.

I have, however, been enjoying 4K movies. Bladerunner, Star Wars, Hateful Eight, 2001, all looking quite nice

4K is also very nice for all the on-screen text and HUD in FF14, and seeing new details I've never seen before in Dark Souls remastered.

[IPD]

I agree.  4k is preferable in many/most situations.  The exception is things like FPS, where you are making rapid movements, and there is potential for tearing.  G-Sync doesn't do anything for situations like this, if the panel is still 60hz limited.

 

In virtually ever other case, the higher pixel density is much more of an image improvement for the user.  And that is increasingly a factor as the display size goes up.

[treefroggy]

Like, yeah, I get it, 144hz is smoother, even on the desktop. It just sounds like a bubble of the same opinions bouncing off eachother wherever I go. A bubble of FPS gamers. 4K is the future, it's easier to resell, it's easier on my eyes, and much more immediately apparent. More screen real estate means I can finally snap discord to the left half of my screen, and have more room for crouded GUI environments like FF14.

[xg32]

3 hours ago, treefroggy said:

Like, yeah, I get it, 144hz is smoother, even on the desktop. It just sounds like a bubble of the same opinions bouncing off eachother wherever I go. A bubble of FPS gamers. 4K is the future, it's easier to resell, it's easier on my eyes, and much more immediately apparent. More screen real estate means I can finally snap discord to the left half of my screen, and have more room for crouded GUI environments like FF14.

it's very costly to get a quality 4k monitor+a gpu to run it, need next gen gpus imho...

 

it's a waiting game for us all.

 

I don't even know if current 4k panels have good resale value, panels get updated and the old ones are just...worse, especially with larger 4k screens atm.

[IPD]

The guy with the same GPU I have says "next gen GPU needed".  Ok then.

 

I will never understand the bloody fetishism with insisting that all games be ran in native resolution for the display--and only at 120hz+; and that people will happily downgrade their choice of monitor (resolution) to POTATO just to make that a thing.

 

If I'm that desperate, I'll play in 1080p on my 4k and live happily ever after.  I hate aliasing text.  Vehemently.

 

 

[treefroggy]

On 11/6/2021 at 3:13 PM, xg32 said:

it's very costly to get a quality 4k monitor+a gpu to run it, need next gen gpus imho...

 

it's a waiting game for us all.

 

I don't even know if current 4k panels have good resale value, panels get updated and the old ones are just...worse, especially with larger 4k screens atm.

 

On 11/6/2021 at 5:07 PM, IPD said:

The guy with the same GPU I have says "next gen GPU needed".  Ok then.

 

I will never understand the bloody fetishism with insisting that all games be ran in native resolution for the display--and only at 120hz+; and that people will happily downgrade their choice of monitor (resolution) to POTATO just to make that a thing.

 

If I'm that desperate, I'll play in 1080p on my 4k and live happily ever after.  I hate aliasing text.  Vehemently.

 

 

Agreed.

Everyone who tried to tell me there's "no point" in using a 4K monitor because "you won't run games in 4K" is just biased as heck though. I just played through Dark Souls, Demon's Souls, and plenty of other games in 4K60, just not my more recent games which will all do best at 1440p. I also watch movies in 4K, and again, appreciate the pixel density at such a close angle.

back on my 144hz laptop screen, the smoothness of the cursor is quite noticeable, but again, I don't find it necessary over pixel density, by a longshot. I do however, miss the screen real estate of my 4K monitor quite a bit while in laptop mode.

Would 144hz be awesome on top of 4K resolution? Hell yeah. But not only are the majority of games I'm playing locked at 60 FPS anyways but an affordable 4K 60Hz monitor is a long ways off still. Mainly, I think these gamers don't understand what "NON-FPS GAMING" means, even when I spell it out for them that I'm just going to be playing DARK SOULS, FINAL FANTASY, DEATH STRANDING, DRAGON QUEST XI and a ton of games with incredibly low requirements, be they retro, or indies. Every time NVIDIA releases a new game ready driver, it's for something I 100% don't give a crap about. 

[CTR640]

On 11/7/2021 at 1:07 AM, IPD said:

The guy with the same GPU I have says "next gen GPU needed".  Ok then.

 

I will never understand the bloody fetishism with insisting that all games be ran in native resolution for the display--and only at 120hz+; and that people will happily downgrade their choice of monitor (resolution) to POTATO just to make that a thing.

 

If I'm that desperate, I'll play in 1080p on my 4k and live happily ever after.  I hate aliasing text.  Vehemently.

 

 

Totally agreed. It makes us normal gamers sounds like a bunch of sad moronic losers who only cares about high refresh and we'll go in rage mode if fps is 143.9. Like for real? Currently I have an "ancient" potato 1080Ti and I'll keep using it till it breaks or when RTX8070 is afforable or something. Next year I'll upgrade to 42" OLED and highly likely it will be 4K. Of course my potato is not "next gen" but I'll happily run games at 1440p.

 

14 hours ago, treefroggy said:

 

Agreed.

Everyone who tried to tell me there's "no point" in using a 4K monitor because "you won't run games in 4K" is just biased as heck though. I just played through Dark Souls, Demon's Souls, and plenty of other games in 4K60, just not my more recent games which will all do best at 1440p. I also watch movies in 4K, and again, appreciate the pixel density at such a close angle.

back on my 144hz laptop screen, the smoothness of the cursor is quite noticeable, but again, I don't find it necessary over pixel density, by a longshot. I do however, miss the screen real estate of my 4K monitor quite a bit while in laptop mode.

Would 144hz be awesome on top of 4K resolution? Hell yeah. But not only are the majority of games I'm playing locked at 60 FPS anyways but an affordable 4K 60Hz monitor is a long ways off still. Mainly, I think these gamers don't understand what "NON-FPS GAMING" means, even when I spell it out for them that I'm just going to be playing DARK SOULS, FINAL FANTASY, DEATH STRANDING, DRAGON QUEST XI and a ton of games with incredibly low requirements, be they retro, or indies. Every time NVIDIA releases a new game ready driver, it's for something I 100% don't give a crap about. 

Exactly. What kind of bullshit is that? What about smartphone screens? You don't need 4K because you can't see pixels. Uhm, okay... So FHD or QHD on smartphones are pixelated? High pixel density is another important reason why I hold off getting the LG 48C1 to get the 42C2. My current monitor has ppi of 102 and the difference between 102 and is 93 big and I have 24" monitor stored in our basement just in case if ever needed.

[Stahlmann]

Higher framerates and the added smoothness help me immerse myself more in games or movies. That's the reason why i will never buy a 60Hz main monitor again. And that's also the reason why i will always use interpolation on my TV despice purits (and Linus for that matter) saying it's a feature they always instantly turn off. I just cannot bear 24Hz movies whatsoever. While 24hz movies or 60hz gaming might be ok for many people, it's not for me.

 

I'm one of the lucky few people owning a 3080 so unless the game is locked, it runs well over 60 fps anyway. And the only games that come to mind right now that i played in the last few years that have locked fps without a workaround are the Dark Souls games. Everything else either just runs above that or can be unlocked with some trick or another. If there would be any way to unlock the fps in Dark Souls, i'd instantly do it no questions asked.

 

 

No matter what game, if i can end up at 90 fps or more i'm happy.

 

[tikker]

18 hours ago, treefroggy said:

Everyone who tried to tell me there's "no point" in using a 4K monitor because "you won't run games in 4K" is just biased as heck though. I just played through Dark Souls, Demon's Souls, and plenty of other games in 4K60, just not my more recent games which will all do best at 1440p. I also watch movies in 4K, and again, appreciate the pixel density at such a close angle.

I mean, arguably if the pixel density is high enough then no, there is no point in a 4k monitor over a 1080p one if you're not going to game at 4k, which is what the topic started about. If you add in content consumption / creation it becomes a different story though.

 

18 hours ago, treefroggy said:

back on my 144hz laptop screen, the smoothness of the cursor is quite noticeable, but again, I don't find it necessary over pixel density, by a longshot. I do however, miss the screen real estate of my 4K monitor quite a bit while in laptop mode.

To each their own. Not caring about 144 Hz is completely fine.

18 hours ago, treefroggy said:

Would 144hz be awesome on top of 4K resolution? Hell yeah. But not only are the majority of games I'm playing locked at 60 FPS anyways but an affordable 4K 60Hz monitor is a long ways off still. Mainly, I think these gamers don't understand what "NON-FPS GAMING" means, even when I spell it out for them that I'm just going to be playing DARK SOULS, FINAL FANTASY, DEATH STRANDING, DRAGON QUEST XI and a ton of games with incredibly low requirements, be they retro, or indies. Every time NVIDIA releases a new game ready driver, it's for something I 100% don't give a crap about. 

Death Stranding and FF XV got Game Ready Drivers. They are just updates and tweaks specifically for those games. IIRC similar stuff can also be delivered through a normal driver update. Not every game needs a GRD, your game isn't automatically performing worse because it didn't get one. You also allude to why they don't or may not bother with them: "a ton of games with incredibly low requirements". If requirements are already "incredibly low" then there's not really a need to tweak drivers for them.

3 hours ago, Stahlmann said:

And that's also the reason why i will always use interpolation on my TV despice purits (and Linus for that matter) saying it's a feature they always instantly turn off. I just cannot bear 24Hz movies whatsoever. While 24hz movies or 60hz gaming might be ok for many people, it's not for me.

I don't really like it at its maxed out suuuuper smooth setting, but without any motion interpolation e.g. movie credits or panning shots are a slideshow on my C9. I'll take a smooth scrolling wall of text.