and we both started in october and are within 100k total hitsKwonaiden wrote:
oh chit LOL! hi Twin!Riince wrote:
nice pp
separated@birth
numbers are a scary thing
forum
Planning to buy a new monitor, suggestions or tips
posted
Total Posts
57
numbers are a scary thing
144hz doesn't make a difference? you obviously don't have one and don't know what you're talking about.Saphirshroom wrote:
144hz is 144% useless.Gumpyyy wrote:
But 144hz is great for osu!
I don't know why people buy this shit thinking it will make a difference. The only thing that's different is GPU and electricity usage and that's not exactly a positive change either.
@OP don't worry, getting a new monitor will not make you need to relearn osu!
But I do think a 144hz monitor like the ASUS one would be a good idea. They are designed for gaming and have low latency, quick response times and the high refresh rates make moving objects look very smooth. Buying a TV for gaming is a bad idea has they often have a lot of input lag and stuff.
And I don't really know why you would want a really large size, it just results in the image being stretched more. You could just move close to the screen. 24" seems really big to me.
This post gave me cancer.Saphirshroom wrote:
144hz is 144% useless.Gumpyyy wrote:
But 144hz is great for osu!
I don't know why people buy this shit thinking it will make a difference. The only thing that's different is GPU and electricity usage and that's not exactly a positive change either.
http://ask.fm/layneCA/answer/124906855444Kairi wrote:
This post gave me cancer.Saphirshroom wrote:
144hz is 144% useless.
I don't know why people buy this shit thinking it will make a difference. The only thing that's different is GPU and electricity usage and that's not exactly a positive change either.
everyone agrees.
Kairi wrote:
This post gave me cancer.Saphirshroom wrote:
144hz is 144% useless.
I don't know why people buy this shit thinking it will make a difference. The only thing that's different is GPU and electricity usage and that's not exactly a positive change either.
Kairi wrote:
This post gave me cancer.Saphirshroom wrote:
144hz is 144% useless.
I don't know why people buy this shit thinking it will make a difference. The only thing that's different is GPU and electricity usage and that's not exactly a positive change either.
i dunno
...Saphirshroom wrote:
144hz is 144% useless.Gumpyyy wrote:
But 144hz is great for osu!
I don't know why people buy this shit thinking it will make a difference. The only thing that's different is GPU and electricity usage and that's not exactly a positive change either.
Exactly.[ Momiji ] wrote:
1. motion blur reduction, taiko/mania/ctb. (significant) and standard (unsignificant)Saphirshroom wrote:
144hz is 144% useless.
I don't know why people buy this shit thinking it will make a difference. The only thing that's different is GPU and electricity usage and that's not exactly a positive change either.
I can exclude things I want to exclude too[ Momiji ] wrote:
2. 144 effective FPS, feels a lot smoother compared to 60hz.
Effects standard too in a big way makes high AR reading ez as pie.Saphirshroom wrote:
Exactly.[ Momiji ] wrote:
1. motion blur reduction, taiko/mania/ctb. (significant) and standard (unsignificant)
LMAOSaphirshroom wrote:
144hz is 144% useless.Gumpyyy wrote:
But 144hz is great for osu!
I don't know why people buy this shit thinking it will make a difference. The only thing that's different is GPU and electricity usage and that's not exactly a positive change either.
For media pleasure you should get an Ultra HD monitor, or maybe two or three HD ones
For gaming you should definitely get a 120-144HZ monitor. For osu! it wont matter which monitor you get as long as it works... in fact getting a really big one might become a hindrance, so, yeah. You want to keep a playfield of an adequate size.
For gaming you should definitely get a 120-144HZ monitor. For osu! it wont matter which monitor you get as long as it works... in fact getting a really big one might become a hindrance, so, yeah. You want to keep a playfield of an adequate size.
144hz is 144% useless.
I don't know why people buy this shit thinking it will make a difference. The only thing that's different is GPU and electricity usage and that's not exactly a positive change either.
The difference is 9-10ms at largest. I've never played AR11, to me it doesn't sound like a whole lot, considering the circle appears 300ms before you have to hit it - but maybe these are the fractions of a second you need to read it properly.Gumpyyy wrote:
Effects standard too in a big way makes high AR reading ez as pie.
If you're out for framerate/fluency on other games, fair enough. I rather buy a 4k screen for the same money.
Saphirshroom wrote:
The difference is 9-10ms at largest. I've never played AR11, to me it doesn't sound like a whole lot, considering the circle appears 300ms before you have to hit it - but maybe these are the fractions of a second you need to read it properly.Gumpyyy wrote:
Effects standard too in a big way makes high AR reading ez as pie.
If you're out for framerate/fluency on other games, fair enough. I rather buy a 4k screen for the same money.
seriously tho try it before you try to sound smart
op: With a budget that big, I'd get a G-Sync monitor (or FreeSync if you're running an AMD GPU), and still have a lot of leftover money.
144hz is worth it just for the fluidity and realism of motion in osu! and other things, it makes everything look so much better.Saphirshroom wrote:
The difference is 9-10ms at largest. I've never played AR11, to me it doesn't sound like a whole lot, considering the circle appears 300ms before you have to hit it - but maybe these are the fractions of a second you need to read it properly.
If you're out for framerate/fluency on other games, fair enough. I rather buy a 4k screen for the same money.
I don't really see much point in 4K, you can't really game with it, and what media is actually 4K? The only apparent benefit I can think of is the extra workspace which might be useful if you are a media creator or something.
I think there are some 4K movies already, and Youtube along other websites support 4K. In a year or two there should be many more.B1rd wrote:
I don't really see much point in 4K, you can't really game with it, and what media is actually 4K? The only apparent benefit I can think of is the extra workspace which might be useful if you are a media creator or something.
Buying a 4K monitor is somewhat subjective though. A friend of mine got one and I think you can really see the difference. Personally I don't think it's that worth it - especially with Windows 8 still having some issues with scaling UI elements. If those get fixed I could see 4K becoming a thing.
4k tv's @40"+ at the very least might be good, but for something like a 27-30" monitor, 1440p is already more than enough pixel density. You'd be able to notice a much bigger difference between 60hz and 120-144hz than 1440p and 4k.Saphirshroom wrote:
I think there are some 4K movies already, and Youtube along other websites support 4K. In a year or two there should be many more.B1rd wrote:
I don't really see much point in 4K, you can't really game with it, and what media is actually 4K? The only apparent benefit I can think of is the extra workspace which might be useful if you are a media creator or something.
Buying a 4K monitor is somewhat subjective though. A friend of mine got one and I think you can really see the difference. Personally I don't think it's that worth it - especially with Windows 8 still having some issues with scaling UI elements. If those get fixed I could see 4K becoming a thing.
This. I recently bought a benq 144hz with the new firmware and improved motion blur reduction using blur busters; everything is just much easier on the eyes after switching from 60hz. I personally haven't tried the new adaptive vsync monitors coming out now, but they would definitely work out better if you play other games besides osu!standard because of no screen tearing.cheezstik wrote:
op: With a budget that big, I'd get a G-Sync monitor (or FreeSync if you're running an AMD GPU), and still have a lot of leftover money.
If you don't want to wait, just get an asus/benq 144hz and you should be satisfied.
If people need to offset in-game audio by 5-10ms to feel comfortable playing by ear then seeing objects 10ms earlier as well only makes thing easier.Saphirshroom wrote:
The difference is 9-10ms at largest. I've never played AR11, to me it doesn't sound like a whole lot, considering the circle appears 300ms before you have to hit it - but maybe these are the fractions of a second you need to read it properly.Gumpyyy wrote:
Effects standard too in a big way makes high AR reading ez as pie.
If you're out for framerate/fluency on other games, fair enough. I rather buy a 4k screen for the same money.
Topic Starter
Thanks all,
I looked into the feedbacks and did alot of research yesterday and looking around.
Initially I was going to get the Samsung 40" http://www.samsung.com/uk/consumer/tv-audio-video/televisions/flat-tvs/UE40H6670STXXU
When it says it has a refresh rate of 600 hz I was skeptical so I researched more into it and read that all manufacturers TV have their own made up numbers for refresh rate (for samsung its known as Clear motion rate) and the true refresh rate is 120hz.
This link maybe helpful for people who plan to purchase a TV for Media or gaming use.
http://www.rtings.com/info/fake-refresh-rates-samsung-clear-motion-rate-vs-sony-motionflow-vs-lg-trumotion
I don't mind the size for osu because I can play windows to adjust the play area and I am a designer by profession but the deal breaker was indeed the input lag which b1rd meationed. It was 44ms+ avg and thats kinda disgusting when my current one is around 12ms..and will make this game kinda unplayable
Guess today I will be ordering the Asus ROG Swift PG278Q 27 inch
I looked into the feedbacks and did alot of research yesterday and looking around.
Initially I was going to get the Samsung 40" http://www.samsung.com/uk/consumer/tv-audio-video/televisions/flat-tvs/UE40H6670STXXU
When it says it has a refresh rate of 600 hz I was skeptical so I researched more into it and read that all manufacturers TV have their own made up numbers for refresh rate (for samsung its known as Clear motion rate) and the true refresh rate is 120hz.
This link maybe helpful for people who plan to purchase a TV for Media or gaming use.
http://www.rtings.com/info/fake-refresh-rates-samsung-clear-motion-rate-vs-sony-motionflow-vs-lg-trumotion
I don't mind the size for osu because I can play windows to adjust the play area and I am a designer by profession but the deal breaker was indeed the input lag which b1rd meationed. It was 44ms+ avg and thats kinda disgusting when my current one is around 12ms..and will make this game kinda unplayable
Guess today I will be ordering the Asus ROG Swift PG278Q 27 inch
Good job doing some research yourself aswell.
Did you laugh at Saphirshroom?
Did you laugh at Saphirshroom?
Topic Starter
lol Can't really laugh at him because it was his opinion!Gumpyyy wrote:
Good job doing some research yourself aswell.
Did you laugh at Saphirshroom?
Oh man if it wasn't for input lag ;( Some tv's have crazy refresh rates up to 240hz, picture playing some really crazy high speed games
I doubt they're really 240hz, I think they just double the refresh rate or something.
Knit_old_1
Get a CRT monitor.
CRT is a much better technology than LCD.
1) Perfect black levels
2) Flawless off-axis viewing
3) Much faster refresh rate than LCD
4) Warmer, more natural image (thanks to scan lines and small granules)
5) Far longer life-span
6) Not subject to manufacture problems such as dead-pixels
7) Good range of compatibility with lower or non-standard resolutions without blurring
Given ultimate space and money the world's best CRT could easily crush the world's best LCD. So tell me G&R, why do you like your inferior screens that companies such as Samsung have brainwashed you to think is better than what already existed? The only cost-savings are on their end.
And the funny thing is you guys keep buying this crappy LCD technology and giving away your free CRTs on Craigslist. A fool and his dollar are soon parted I guess.
And before you start yapping about IPS panels:
Enjoy your slow G2G response to switch pixels already, not to mention that hidden input and scalar lag. Luckily, CRT has no such bullshit.
The only semi-legitimate point I've heard against CRTs regards weight, but you don't bitch about the weight of a prospective couch while furniture shopping, do you? Didn't think so.
CRT is a much better technology than LCD.
1) Perfect black levels
2) Flawless off-axis viewing
3) Much faster refresh rate than LCD
4) Warmer, more natural image (thanks to scan lines and small granules)
5) Far longer life-span
6) Not subject to manufacture problems such as dead-pixels
7) Good range of compatibility with lower or non-standard resolutions without blurring
Given ultimate space and money the world's best CRT could easily crush the world's best LCD. So tell me G&R, why do you like your inferior screens that companies such as Samsung have brainwashed you to think is better than what already existed? The only cost-savings are on their end.
And the funny thing is you guys keep buying this crappy LCD technology and giving away your free CRTs on Craigslist. A fool and his dollar are soon parted I guess.
And before you start yapping about IPS panels:
Enjoy your slow G2G response to switch pixels already, not to mention that hidden input and scalar lag. Luckily, CRT has no such bullshit.
The only semi-legitimate point I've heard against CRTs regards weight, but you don't bitch about the weight of a prospective couch while furniture shopping, do you? Didn't think so.
^This. TV's don't really use 600hz or 240 whatever, I don't remember the exact details, but it's just 600hz with some fancy method of refreshing the same frames 10 times or something. Same with that new 240hz gaming monitor, it's just 120 with the same method, not true 240.B1rd wrote:
I doubt they're really 240hz, I think they just double the refresh rate or something.
Quote
Yes ok, lemme pay $1000+ for some shitty hard to find monitor which weighs a ton (gg shipping price) and looks like it came straight from the 90s, and also runs a shitty non standard res anyway. Not to mention how much space they take up, with some desks, you won't have anywhere to put your mouse and keyboard (and tablet).jayysen wrote:
Get a CRT monitor.
CRT is a much better technology than LCD.
1) Perfect black levels
2) Flawless off-axis viewing
3) Much faster refresh rate than LCD
4) Warmer, more natural image (thanks to scan lines and small granules)
5) Far longer life-span
6) Not subject to manufacture problems such as dead-pixels
7) Good range of compatibility with lower or non-standard resolutions without blurring
Given ultimate space and money the world's best CRT could easily crush the world's best LCD. So tell me G&R, why do you like your inferior screens that companies such as Samsung have brainwashed you to think is better than what already existed? The only cost-savings are on their end.
And the funny thing is you guys keep buying this crappy LCD technology and giving away your free CRTs on Craigslist. A fool and his dollar are soon parted I guess.
And before you start yapping about IPS panels:
Enjoy your slow G2G response to switch pixels already, not to mention that hidden input and scalar lag. Luckily, CRT has no such bullshit.
The only semi-legitimate point I've heard against CRTs regards weight, but you don't bitch about the weight of a prospective couch while furniture shopping, do you? Didn't think so.
I think I'd rather take a regular 120hz-144hz thin monitor with the 1ms of unperceivable delay. Sure, if you have the money and space for a crt monitor, it might be a good choice, but they aren't for everyone. Badass sales pitch though, I like it
I don't have space also it has a shit resolution.jayysen wrote:
Get a CRT monitor.
Topic Starter
Reminds me of a friend who plays Starcraft and was banging on about the advantages of CRT, he has a HUGE ass CRT monitor which was once white in color.. the size of it was huge was a 17"jayysen wrote:
Get a CRT monitor.
CRT is a much better technology than LCD.
1) Perfect black levels
2) Flawless off-axis viewing
3) Much faster refresh rate than LCD
4) Warmer, more natural image (thanks to scan lines and small granules)
5) Far longer life-span
6) Not subject to manufacture problems such as dead-pixels
7) Good range of compatibility with lower or non-standard resolutions without blurring
Given ultimate space and money the world's best CRT could easily crush the world's best LCD. So tell me G&R, why do you like your inferior screens that companies such as Samsung have brainwashed you to think is better than what already existed? The only cost-savings are on their end.
And the funny thing is you guys keep buying this crappy LCD technology and giving away your free CRTs on Craigslist. A fool and his dollar are soon parted I guess.
And before you start yapping about IPS panels:
Enjoy your slow G2G response to switch pixels already, not to mention that hidden input and scalar lag. Luckily, CRT has no such bullshit.
The only semi-legitimate point I've heard against CRTs regards weight, but you don't bitch about the weight of a prospective couch while furniture shopping, do you? Didn't think so.
They might have better colours and faster response times (though pretty negligible compared to fast LCD) but it's not worth really worth it IMO because of how big and bulky they are, the small screen size and the high power consumption. LCD is more popular for a reason. Also the refresh rate is in fact a lot slower than 144hz LCD.
If I had a CRT on my desk it'd be pressed against my face.
If I had a CRT on my desk it'd be pressed against my face.
I had a CRT years ago I barely had space for my keyboard.
ZenithPhantasm
LCDs are more popular because they are cheaper to produce and easier to ship and takes up less space. IIRC CRTs go up to 160hz and some models beyond that. Get facts straight please.B1rd wrote:
LCD is more popular for a reason. Also the refresh rate is in fact a lot slower than 144hz LCD.
If I had a CRT on my desk it'd be pressed against my face.
E m i
you mean in 640x480 or some shitZenithPhantasm wrote:
LCDs are more popular because they are cheaper to produce and easier to ship and takes up less space. IIRC CRTs go up to 160hz and some models beyond that. Get facts straight please.B1rd wrote:
LCD is more popular for a reason. Also the refresh rate is in fact a lot slower than 144hz LCD.
If I had a CRT on my desk it'd be pressed against my face.
"because there are a few exceptions of models of CRT that will go above 144hz at tiny resolutions you're wrong, get your facts straight"[ Momiji ] wrote:
you mean in 640x480 or some shitZenithPhantasm wrote:
IIRC CRTs go up to 160hz and some models beyond that. Get facts straight please.
ZenithPhantasm
. Don't imply LCDs are superior to CRTs for responsiveness when they're not. LCDs are merely more practical and cheaper.I never said they were, I just said in general gaming LCDs have higher refresh rates..
ZenithPhantasm