Support NeoGAF

[345triangle]

Wait wait ! So if my monitor is 60 hz is there a point to cranking my fps higher than 60 ? This is news to me.

you might find you get slightly better input response but no, there is basically no point from an FPS perspective.

anyone with a good rig needs a proper gaming monitor IMO or the power is just going to waste. 4K 60hz or 1440p 144hz (both with g-sync or freesync) are the best targets depending on whether you prioritise resolution or smoothness.

the latter is the sweet spot for me — my 1080 can run pretty much anything at 1440p above 100fps, and assets are more of a bottleneck than panel resolution when it comes to detail in most games.

 

[NEO0MJ]

Is the Dell S2716DG still considered a good option? I'm still lacking a monitor for my PC and that seems to be the closest to matching my needs and budget requirements.

 

[Renekton]

Is the Dell S2716DG still considered a good option? I'm still lacking a monitor for my PC and that seems to be the closest to matching my needs and budget requirements.

Good color and image quality, better than average when it comes to perceived blur and ghosting, usual TN panel weaknesses.

https://pcmonitors.info/reviews/dell-s2716dg/

 

[Wallach]

I'm currently on a Swift 1440p gsync monitor and I had a 4k monitor at one time as well. Yeah 4k makes everything much more crisp, but the refresh rate is god awful coming from a 144hz panel. It's extremely noticeable. I eventually got to the point where I'd rather have the refresh rate over the fidelity of 4k. Feels much better.

Now that 4k/144hz monitors will be releasing soon, you can get the best of both worlds.

For those with high refresh panels are you adjusting settings in games to hit 144fps? I found that anything around 90+ feels really good with gsync.

I typically try to hit 100 FPS. I think it was ESO on PC that made me find that mark; the game by default is capped to 100 FPS due to some engine setting, and I found that in the cases where it would slip from there I could sort of feel it in the controls.

They do exist. The ASUS PG279Q ROG SWIFT and the ACER XB271HU BMIPRZ are popular options.

Yeah. I'm on the Acer version of this panel and I adore it.

 

[NEO0MJ]

Good color and image quality, better than average when it comes to perceived blur and ghosting, usual TN panel weaknesses.

https://pcmonitors.info/reviews/dell-s2716dg/

Thanks. To be honest I'd have preferred the DELL S2417DG but no place here has it and importing it will cost me just as much as the s2716dg.

 

[Chumley]

Is there any 120/144hz monitors that have/approach IPS panel color quality? Most of what I've seen have TN panels. I'd love to get high refresh rate monitor but my work (digital arts) probably means I'm stuck with IPS right? I still love my Dell U2515H though lol

ASUS PG279Q ROG SWIFT is what I'm using. I do video and photo editing, color accuracy is basically identical to the Apple Cinema Display I upgraded from. IPS panel.

 

[Timu]

If its not 4k@144 then its at lower res@144

It would be like 5+ years to max games out at 4k and 144fps!

 

[galv]

Thanks. To be honest I'd have preferred the DELL S2417DG but no place here has it and importing it will cost me just as much as the s2716dg.

I just bought the S2716DG after my 1080p60 monitor conked out for around $450 in the States.

G-Sync is seriously the god-tier gaming upgrade. Prior to G-Sync, if you asked me what the framerate of a game was, I could probably tell you exactly when it was dipping below 60. Now, with G-Sync on, I have no idea as long as it doesn't dip below 40FPS. Playing games like Overwatch, League of Legends and Counter-Strike at 144FPS is a god-send as well. But I find that an overlooked upgrade for me with this monitor was the 1440p resolution. It makes a massive difference.

The only downside of this monitor was that it's not IPS as opposed to my previous monitor. It does make a slight difference and there seems to be more issues getting the gamma corrected in games leading to crushed blacks or banding, but most of those issues are fixed with calibration to the monitor. It's definitely a great buy for a budget G-Sync 144Hz monitor.

 

[Vipu]

A) I have no interest in spending the many, many thousands of dollars required to build and maintain a PC capable of consistently outputting those framerates

If you think playing at high framerates needs thousands of dollars then you are badly misinformed.

It would be like 5+ years to max games out at 4k and 144fps!

Its good thing we dont have to max out games.

 

[wildfire]

Motion resolution is the most important in my opinion. My Vt60 plasma is able to recreate 1080-1200 lines of motion resolution compared to 300-400 lines that 4k oled tv's are able to produce. What's the point of having a really high framerate like 120fps (at 4k for example) if the panel can only reproduce 300 lines of motion? I've read that higher hz on the tv improves motion resolution so that's should be the next evolution for oled's/qleds, a 1,000hz panel would help tremendously.

This is also true. 60 hz on CRT back then is like 200 HZ on LCD screens now.

The display tech determines how much GPU processing power we need to get certain effects.

We clearly aren't going to stay on LCDs to the point we need to push games above 120 FPS for sublime motion.

 

[Turin Turambar]

You only have to to a slow motion video with a special camera at 1000hz to see the difference, doh!


OP, in case you haven't noticed, human eyes are slower than that.

 

[Swarna]

I mean, I have a 144 hz g-sync monitor and its nice when it hits 100+ FPS, but anyone saying 60 is bad in comparison is being super hyperbolic. Hell, even 30 is fine for me still.

For shooting games it's definitely bad, especially if you're used to competitive games. Stopped playing Wolfenstein TNO because the 60 cap felt real bad.

Most other types of games are manageable after a period of adaption.

The real universal benefit of higher refresh monitors is being able to throw v-sync into the trash where it belongs since the tearing becomes much less noticeable and variable refresh rates become viable even without adaptive sync tech.

 

[Arex]

ASUS PG279Q ROG SWIFT is what I'm using. I do video and photo editing, color accuracy is basically identical to the Apple Cinema Display I upgraded from. IPS panel.

They do exist. The ASUS PG279Q ROG SWIFT and the ACER XB271HU BMIPRZ are popular options.

Cheers, yeah those two look pretty good. I'm looking for smaller size (24-25") though. The Acer predator 24" is TN I think, which is too bad

 

[nkarafo]

If it's not the K model and you don't have it OC, then yeah, you could be seeing some problems.

Ι have a similar CPU and a 1060. So far, according to Afterburner, no games of the ones i tried makes the CPU go above 70% but they do cause the GPU to reach 99%.

So am i GPU limited here?

 

[opticalmace]

Not this shit again
Using slow motion to show that 144hz is better

144hz is a joke

10000hz is where it's at
Gotta have a ultra high speed camera

10kHz? Pfft, my computer has been at 4GHz for years!

Ι have a similar CPU and a 1060. So far, according to Afterburner, no games of the ones i tried makes the CPU go above 70% but they do cause the GPU to reach 99%.

So am i GPU limited here?

With a 1060, yeah (unless you're playing at like... 720p). But in general, the usages don't always tell you about bottlenecks IIRC; I believe this was discussed in the PC thread a few times, I don't recall the specifics now. I believe in some games that interpretation works, but in others it doesn't tell you the whole story.

For the vast majority of people posting on gaf they'll be GPU limited (though there are a few people with top end video cards and old CPUs playing at low-ish resolutions).

 

[Kadey]

I can't go back to anything lower after getting the PG279Q. I never how much a smooth experience is better for quality of life until now. I use to ignore screen tearings and such but now I realize how much it strains on the eyes and annoy during certain parts of games.

Was going to get a new tv but I decided I'm going to get a monitor at 4k 144hz HDR to complement my Pro. The upcoming Acer X27 seems to fit the bill unless something else comes out in the same time frame. Prefer to get an Asus to go with my other monitors and setup.
There is only a very select few games I'm going to play on consoles from now on but everything else will be on PC.

 

[NEO0MJ]

Cheers, yeah those two look pretty good. I'm looking for smaller size (24-25") though. The Acer predator 24" is TN I think, which is too bad

High spec options at that size are unfortunately very limited.

 

[blankempathy]

I'd love to try a 240hz monitor some day and see if theres a difference. Sadly unless you know someone its really hard to experience high refresh rate monitors first hand. When I bought my first 144hz monitor it was a leap of faith but now Its hard to go back to 60hz in most genres. Hell I find even browsing the internet to be smoother.

 

[Vipu]

You only have to to a slow motion video with a special camera at 1000hz to see the difference, doh!


OP, in case you haven't noticed, human eyes are slower than that.

Yeah human eye is like around 800hz, true that.

 

[Rats Off To Ya]

I did pretty extensive testing when I bought my 144hz monitor and I personally can't tell the difference north of 100fps or so.

60hz feels noticeably choppy on a mouse now, but it's fine with a controller.

 

[PaulloDEC]

If you think playing at high framerates needs thousands of dollars then you are badly misinformed.

My last PC cost two and a half thousand dollars, and there was never any chance of me being able to play new releases at higher than 60fps (without sacrificing visual quality significantly).

Thinking back, most of my PCs have cost around the 2.5k mark and hitting 60fps with a mix of medium-high settings has always been the sweet spot.

Obviously if all I was interested in playing was less demanding multiplayer titles or just older games in general it'd be a different story.

 

[345triangle]

My last PC cost two and a half thousand dollars, and there was never any chance of me being able to play new releases at higher than 60fps (without sacrificing visual quality significantly).

Thinking back, most of my PCs have cost around the 2.5k mark and hitting 60fps with a mix of medium-high settings has always been the sweet spot.

Obviously if all I was interested in playing was less demanding multiplayer titles or just older games in general it'd be a different story.

do you put like 70% of your build budgets into SSD storage or something?

i built a PC last year for a lot less than that and it easily pushes 1440p/ultra/100hz+. not constant 144fps, no, but with g-sync it doesn't matter.

 

[PaulloDEC]

do you put like 70% of your build budgets into SSD storage or something?

i built a PC last year for a lot less than that and it easily pushes 1440p/ultra/100hz+. not constant 144fps, no, but with g-sync it doesn't matter.

I couldn't tell you where the money went tbh, my last major build was way back in 2012. Australia tax probably factors into it, shit is expensive here.

I don't have G-sync hardware either unfortunately, which would certainly add a big chunk to the cost.

 

[nogoodnamesleft]

I couldn't tell you where the money went tbh, my last major build was way back in 2012. Australia tax probably factors into it, shit is expensive here.

I don't have G-sync hardware either unfortunately, which would certainly add a big chunk to the cost.

Man wtf...for that budget here (aus too) you can build a pc with the best CPU and gpu and standard other parts and still have money left over. You got jipped.

 

[Samaritan]

To those who have used or seen 240Hz monitors, how noticeable is the difference between that and 144Hz? Diminishing returns would definitely start setting in, but I want to know if the difference is noticeable.

 

[Tracygill]

Look at this video from Microsoft Research that demonstrates how good a fast response time looks. You can clearly see the lag in real time.
Microsoft Research Applied Sciences Group: High Performance Touch 100-1 ms difference

1000 fps = 1 ms
100 fps = 10 ms
60 fps = 16 ms
30 fps = 33 ms
20 fps = 50 ms
10 fps = 100 ms

86% of Gamers prefer 120 hz displays

Higher refresh rate displays can also reduce stutter and judder for movies.

 

[PaulloDEC]

Man wtf...for that budget here (aus too) you can build a pc with the best CPU and gpu and standard other parts and still have money left over. You got jipped.

Y'know I really shouldn't have mentioned cost, because literally every time I've ever done that on an enthusiast forum I've been met with a cavalcade of people telling me they built two government-grade supercomputers on my budget with enough money left for a three-night stay in Paris.

My original point was simply that playing at consistently high framerates requires powerful, expensive hardware, and I stand by that.

 

[blankempathy]

Y'know I really shouldn't have mentioned cost, because literally every time I've ever done that on an enthusiast forum I've been met with a cavalcade of people telling me they built two government-grade supercomputers on my budget with enough money left for a three-night stay in Paris.

My original point was simply that playing at consistently high framerates requires powerful, expensive hardware, and I stand by that.

I agree its not cheap but theres also a huge distinction between dropping 800 dollars on a pc and 2.5k. Although I can't really think of a time where If I dropped 2.5k on a pc I wouldn't be able to absolutely crush games at max settings and not just hit medium-high. Unless maybe i was trying to hit 4k.

 

[PaulloDEC]

I agree its not cheap but theres also a huge distinction between dropping 800 dollars on a pc and 2.5k.

For sure, but some very quick price checking shows me that even a GTX 1070 (i.e. enthusiast but not top-of-the-line) can cost between 600 and 800 dollars AUD, and that's just the video card.

This idea that you can comfortably get into high-framerate gaming (without major sacrifices to visual quality or buying absolute shit parts for everything besides your CPU and GPU) for around a thousand bucks seems disingenuous to me, especially keeping in mind that most gamers would need to buy a new monitor in addition to their new rig to even notice the difference.

 

[blankempathy]

For sure, but some very quick price checking shows me that even a GTX 1070 (i.e. enthusiast but not top-of-the-line) can cost between 600 and 800 dollars AUD, and that's just the video card.

This idea that you can comfortably get into high-framerate gaming (without major sacrifices to visual quality or buying absolute shit parts for everything besides your CPU and GPU) for around a thousand bucks seems disingenuous to me, especially keeping in mind that most gamers would need to buy a new monitor in addition to their new rig to even notice the difference.

I mean it really does depend on where you're from but if you're aiming for 144hz+ most aren't going to care about running a game at max detail etc. I'm perfectly content playing overwatch at 144hz on mostly low settings and thats just with a 970 card. And yes you need a monitor but I know in the us prices for 144hz monitors range from around 150-700+ depending on if you want gsync, 1440p, ips etc.

 

[borges]

I dont know why I think I wont have enough budget for a 240hz option until 2020, more or less.

 

[Fuchsdh]

I dont know why I think I wont have enough budget for a 240hz option until 2020, more or less.

It's not just that, it's that especially right now you can pick between picture quality, bit depth, resolution, and refresh rate, but there are no really good options for no compromises, even if you're willing to burn money.

Did have a fun time playing with iPad Pros at Best Buy the other day. It's definitely smoother, but going from that to my 60Hz phone is certainly less of a choppy recalibration than 60 to 30.

 

[blankempathy]

It's not just that, it's that especially right now you can pick between picture quality, bit depth, resolution, and refresh rate, but there are no really good options for no compromises, even if you're willing to burn money.

Did have a fun time playing with iPad Pros at Best Buy the other day. It's definitely smoother, but going from that to my 60Hz phone is certainly less of a choppy recalibration than 60 to 30.

I mean I feel like this is always going to be the case. The idea of trying to play a game in 4k at 144hz at ultra settings makes my wallet want to cry. I imagine when that becomes doable by not costing an arm and a leg we'd probably move into a higher resolution. At least we get the option of picking and choosing between whats more important for the game we're playing though.

 

[Vash63]

For sure, but some very quick price checking shows me that even a GTX 1070 (i.e. enthusiast but not top-of-the-line) can cost between 600 and 800 dollars AUD, and that's just the video card.

This idea that you can comfortably get into high-framerate gaming (without major sacrifices to visual quality or buying absolute shit parts for everything besides your CPU and GPU) for around a thousand bucks seems disingenuous to me, especially keeping in mind that most gamers would need to buy a new monitor in addition to their new rig to even notice the difference.

But... 60FPS is a major sacrifice to visual quality. I'd argue that most games look better on High @ 100FPS than Ultra @ 60FPS, easily. The framerate makes a much bigger visual difference than most graphical settings in modern games.

 

[Trace]

IMO anything over 120-144hz is kinda overkill because I start not being able to tell the framerate differences around there, but up until then it definitely makes a big difference over 60.

 

[345triangle]

Y'know I really shouldn't have mentioned cost, because literally every time I've ever done that on an enthusiast forum I've been met with a cavalcade of people telling me they built two government-grade supercomputers on my budget with enough money left for a three-night stay in Paris.

My original point was simply that playing at consistently high framerates requires powerful, expensive hardware, and I stand by that.

it's niche, sure, but, so is high-end PC gaming in general — it's not like expensive GPUs never get discussed around these parts. if anything, i'm surprised proper high-refresh-rate monitors don't get talked about more, given that they're one of the few good ways to actually make use of something like a 1080 Ti right now.

frankly the relentless focus on achieving 4K at 30fps and regular console graphics "settings" from sony and microsoft is what's turned me back onto this. i like the idea of console spec bumps but the implementation seems like a total waste of power to me when i can get better, smoother results at 1440p on PC.

 

[Timu]

Its good thing we dont have to max out games.

While true, it's preferable though to get the most out of the game and PC hardware.

 

[Durante]

My last PC cost two and a half thousand dollars, and there was never any chance of me being able to play new releases at higher than 60fps (without sacrificing visual quality significantly).

Thinking back, most of my PCs have cost around the 2.5k mark and hitting 60fps with a mix of medium-high settings has always been the sweet spot.

Obviously if all I was interested in playing was less demanding multiplayer titles or just older games in general it'd be a different story.

Honestly, that sounds like you are bad at hitting a good price/performance spot in you PC component selection.
Unless you live somewhere where everything costs literally twice as much as in Europe or the US, because I'd say a very good gaming PC is more in the ~1250 range.

Y'know I really shouldn't have mentioned cost, because literally every time I've ever done that on an enthusiast forum I've been met with a cavalcade of people telling me they built two government-grade supercomputers on my budget with enough money left for a three-night stay in Paris.

If that happens every time, don't you think there might be some truth to it?
Also, if you quote a price in Australian dollars, just calling it "dollars" unqualified on an international forum is slightly misleading since that alone is already a ~30% difference.

For sure, but some very quick price checking shows me that even a GTX 1070 (i.e. enthusiast but not top-of-the-line) can cost between 600 and 800 dollars AUD, and that's just the video card.

Well, the graphics card is generally the single most expensive part of a gaming build.

 

[Wolf Akela]

Honestly, that sounds like you are bad at hitting a good price/performance spot in you PC component selection.
Unless you live somewhere where everything costs literally twice as much as in Europe or the US, because I'd say a very good gaming PC is more in the ~1250 range.

If that happens every time, don't you think there might be some truth to it?
Also, if you quote a price in Australian dollars, just calling it "dollars" unqualified on an international forum is slightly misleading since that alone is already a ~30% difference.

Well, the graphics card is generally the single most expensive part of a gaming build.

I doubt AUD prices for PC components are that much different than NZD prices, but really, I don't think a 2500USD PC can't even hit 60FPS unless you bought a really bad prebuilt.

I live in the same region and recently build my PC from scratch. It cost me a little less than 1500USD to get everything, which includes an i7 7700, RX480, 16GB RAM, and a 500GB SSD. It more than maxes any title I throw at it. I can't fathom what things he bought for 1000USD that ate so much of his budget.

Hell I could swap the RX480 for a Titan, which bumps its price to 2000USD, which is still less than 2500USD. If I swapped my monitor monitor for a 27" 1440p 144Hz monitor then yeah I can finally hit 2500USD.

 

[FrozenCell]

If only we could slow down time like Aloy does

 

[spyshagg]

anyone with a freesync/gsync 144hz panel can tell the game stutters when the framerate drops bellow 90ish. 60 feels like 30 when you were at 144 a few seconds earlier.

Its that noticable.

 

[Bl@de]

anyone with a freesync/gsync 144hz panel can tell the game stutters when the framerate drops bellow 90ish. 60 feels like 30 when you were at 144 a few seconds earlier.

Its that noticable.

Yup. Especially with mouse movement. 90+ is a lot smoother in motion.

 

[TSM]

IMO anything over 120-144hz is kinda overkill because I start not being able to tell the framerate differences around there, but up until then it definitely makes a big difference over 60.

240hz makes a huge difference in blur reduction, even when you are running games at less than that. With gsync on the screen refreshes at the speed of 240hz even if your game is running 30 fps. Everything in motion is so much crisper than a 144hz monitor. It was a huge upgrade over my 144hz monitor.

 

[coughlanio]

Didn't Valve had some study that 90 fps was to point where you can't see the difference anymore and thus also being the best fps for VR or something?

This is about what I experience on my 165hz panel. About 85fps and below is where I notice something isn't right.

 

[psn]

240hz makes a huge difference in blur reduction, even when you are running games at less than that. With gsync on the screen refreshes at the speed of 240hz even if your game is running 30 fps. Everything in motion is so much crisper than a 144hz monitor. It was a huge upgrade over my 144hz monitor.

Do you have the Asus one?

 

[killatopak]

this thread is not good for us plebs without money to support the kind of hardware these monitors necessitates.

 

[Paragon]

240hz makes a huge difference in blur reduction, even when you are running games at less than that. With gsync on the screen refreshes at the speed of 240hz even if your game is running 30 fps. Everything in motion is so much crisper than a 144hz monitor. It was a huge upgrade over my 144hz monitor.

The point of G-Sync is that the refresh rate matches the framerate, instead of always running at the maximum.
What you're probably seeing is the difference between a really fast TN panel and whatever you had before, as well as the much better controlled overdrive that G-Sync panels have compared to most other displays.

 

[accx]

Thanks. To be honest I'd have preferred the DELL S2417DG but no place here has it and importing it will cost me just as much as the s2716dg.

I've got the S2716DG and it's fantastic. I have a "korean apple samsung" IPS-panel (It's one of those Qnix that was popular years ago) next to it and the difference is negligible honestly.
EDIT: I've just used community provided colour profiles, and haven't bothered calibrating them myself. The biggest difference (besides view angle ofc), is gamma/contrast. Colours are a little bit matte/washed out on the S2716DG compared to my Qnix. The earlier versions of S2716DG has a screen filter that's kind of over the top, and annoying, but one get used to it. That's actually my biggest gripe now that i think of it... Newer revisions have a much less aggressive filter according to people though.
That said, i got mine almost at release, and if i where to buy one today i'd go for the S2417DG instead. I haven't seen how 1440p looks like on a 24" monitor but for me, 27" is honestly too much. I actually have two 1440p 27" monitors side by side right now, and it's actually quite annoying. The Qnix was a gift to my GF (still is), but since it only does DVI we need an active mini dp to DVI adapter to connect it to her mac. I won't pay for one and she won't because we both think mini dp is a stupid format. But i digress...

Right now i'm waiting for a 1440p, 24" 240hz monitor that will replace my S2716DG, but i need to upgrade other parts before anyhow.

Also, someone mentioned ULMB earlier. My experience with ULMB have been quite negative. It introduced significant eyestrain for me, in a way that a CRT never would've.
For comp gaming i recommend running as high fps and as high hz as possible. ULMB is restricted to 120hz right now, and g-sync does not offer anything for someone playing competitive fps. G-sync however has made my GTX 670 last a year or two longer.

If you get the S2716DG, Check out this thread! You'll find a lot of profiles there!
Also, Dells return and warranty policies are top notch, just wanted to add that.
http://www.overclock.net/t/1577511/dell-s2716dg-1440-144-hz-g-sync-owners-thread/3500_100

 

[hoserx]

Just a heads up, if anyone is a costco member, I got the Acer Predator 27" IPS Gsync 165hz for $499. They even have a display model for sale at $350 right now. It's an amazing monitor, and that price is fantastic. Check your costcos.

 

[Vipu]

Look at this video from Microsoft Research that demonstrates how good a fast response time looks. You can clearly see the lag in real time.
Microsoft Research Applied Sciences Group: High Performance Touch 100-1 ms difference

1000 fps = 1 ms
100 fps = 10 ms
60 fps = 16 ms
30 fps = 33 ms
20 fps = 50 ms
10 fps = 100 ms

86% of Gamers prefer 120 hz displays

Higher refresh rate displays can also reduce stutter and judder for movies.

That microsoft video was cool, maybe that can show the fps difference best.

My original point was simply that playing at consistently high framerates requires powerful, expensive hardware, and I stand by that.

Your point is that your pc from 2012 costed 2,5k$ and it cant run 144fps, if you buy pc these days it costs a lot less to run 144fps.
Even gtx970($200) can run 100+ fps easily if you are not stuck in that ALL ULTRA mindset.