Frikandel wrote:
placebo is a word used to describe when no change is perceived and turned into an improvement
going from 3.4722222ms average latency to 2.083333ms average latency, and stuff like that, is not placebo because there is an existent change
If you're taking into account the non-refresh rate portion of input lag then you're just doing a better job than me, I was trying to isolate only one factor from the entire situation (refresh rate)Rayne wrote:
Yeah it's definitely worth spending 500~ bucks on a monitor with medium image quality and worse responsiveness, that will have literally no benefits to any game but osu, (not really though, given you might get more lag) unless you have the setup to also run other (more demanding) games ABOVE 144hz.
Not mentioning that in several games a refresh rate of 240hz isn't really beneficial (league).
Obviously Momiji will come along and say that it makes a calculated 0,000123% difference that, on a scale of a 100000 playcount COULD potentially net you one or two misses less, not factoring in that it might screw with the way you've adjusted to your reading which probably also give you a few more 100s here and there, maybe a miss (I know I had a similar experience on 60hz vs 144hz when it came to bhopping)
However, Momiji is not factoring in the increased response / input lag that certain monitors bring with them. The ASUS VG248QE has the lowest input lag on the market right now IIRC, while the newer 240hz models have a slightly higher delay to them, so you actually would be downgrading in terms of osu! if we were looking at it realistically.
The AOC AG251FG has twice the input lag of the VG248QE, the ViewSonic apparently comes with an input lag four times higher than the ASUS VG248QE.
You can't really judge a book by its cover. Just because a panel comes with 1ms response and a higher hz doesn't necessarily mean it has 1ms input lag / response time in a realistic environment.
Now I'm not saying 240hz isn't desirable, but it's reaaaally not worth the investment JUST for the improved frame rate which really only affects one game at best. If you play something like L4D2 or anything "twitchy" and where you can get a stable 240FPS or atleast over 144hz granted you can make use of G-sync or variable sync, then it also benefits you there.
For osu however I feel it's more giving a smooth feel to the entire game rather than actually noticably boosting your performance, and in case of input lag & responsiveness, you'd actually be downgrading if you changed from a VG248QE to a 240hz model right now.
There are obviously other benefits like no PWM and sometimes better image quality, but given the right preset you can have a decent image quality on the VG ( and other TNs ) already.
TL;DR
Don't go 240hz. Wait until it's cheaper or IPS 144hz panels get cheaper so you can have both smooth gameplay and good image quality.Frikandel wrote:
placebo is a word used to describe when no change is perceived and turned into an improvement
going from 3.4722222ms average latency to 2.083333ms average latency, and stuff like that, is not placebo because there is an existent change
Hence it would be placebo. You don't perceive a 1,4ms change in latency.
fuck gsync, fuck freesync.I can pretty much guarantee this information isn't true.Rayne wrote:
The ASUS VG248QE has the lowest input lag on the market right now IIRC
The g-sync module physically replaces the scaling hardware in g-sync monitors. This means that they don't have to scanout at hz/2 at a frame miss, but can instead scanout at a fraction of hz/2. (Read: When the frame is ready.)Momiji wrote:
60 fps / 240 hz = every 4th refresh
80 fps / 240 hz = every 3rd refresh
120 fps / 240 hz = every 2nd refresh
36 fps / 144 hz = every 4th refresh
48 fps / 144hz = every 3rd refresh
72 fps / 144 hz = every 2nd refresh
what about 60hz? only 30 and 60 is possible, anything else gives you stutter (and the stutter is also bigger)
And yes I know momentary frametimes are what matters, not frames rendered during a 1000ms period.
it's good as a non-bruteforce method but i prefer the brute force ones for lower input lag lol. Unless g-sync and freesync got better recently.Implojin wrote:
The g-sync module physically replaces the scaling hardware in g-sync monitors. This means that they don't have to scanout at hz/2 at a frame miss, but can instead scanout at a fraction of hz/2. (Read: When the frame is ready.)Momiji wrote:
60 fps / 240 hz = every 4th refresh
80 fps / 240 hz = every 3rd refresh
120 fps / 240 hz = every 2nd refresh
36 fps / 144 hz = every 4th refresh
48 fps / 144hz = every 3rd refresh
72 fps / 144 hz = every 2nd refresh
what about 60hz? only 30 and 60 is possible, anything else gives you stutter (and the stutter is also bigger)
And yes I know momentary frametimes are what matters, not frames rendered during a 1000ms period.
This is actually really good at greatly reducing microstutter, especially if you have some older hardware in your system like one of the overclocked K-series cpus with only 4 threads.
I'd still warn people away from the current generation of 240hz monitors unless they *want* to be bleeding edge adopters with the buying-it-twice problem that always entails, but *on paper* the tech is sound.
But you know you're spinning fast when your spin starts to look like it's moving backwardsEmersyne wrote:
I can only hope for the day I can do a spinner and just see one image of my cursor, and not, like, twenty.
Should I get a 240hz then since I am also HRDTJolene wrote:
hi 240hz user reporting in
i can see the difference between 144hz and 240hz
144hz is alright, it's playable, but it feels like it could be better
240hz is pure fluid, like water
144hz is shitty for AR11 unless you play it with HD, which I don't
240hz is great for me, as a HRDT player, it looks like the circles are going down normally as you would see on AR9, except it goes down really fast, the frames are the same but compressed kinda stuff, I'm not sure if I'm making any understandable statements right now
but yes 240hz is best for everything
yesAegyo wrote:
Should I get a 240hz then since I am also HRDT
what monitor is that I need to knowMomiji wrote:
idk just buy the
540p 480hz
1080p 240hz
4k 120hz
monitor
and everything is going to be ok
http://www.zisworks.com/shopJolene wrote:
yesAegyo wrote:
Should I get a 240hz then since I am also HRDTwhat monitor is that I need to knowMomiji wrote:
idk just buy the
540p 480hz
1080p 240hz
4k 120hz
monitor
and everything is going to be ok
best website 2018Wishes wrote:
http://www.zisworks.com/shopJolene wrote:
what monitor is that I need to know
keep an eye on the blur busters forums, they have a user there who occasionally makes and sells custom monitor hardware that is a year or two ahead of the mass market techJolene wrote:
yesAegyo wrote:
Should I get a 240hz then since I am also HRDTwhat monitor is that I need to knowMomiji wrote:
idk just buy the
540p 480hz
1080p 240hz
4k 120hz
monitor
and everything is going to be ok
Jolene wrote:
hi 240hz user reporting in
i can see the difference between 144hz and 240hz
144hz is alright, it's playable, but it feels like it could be better
240hz is pure fluid, like water
144hz is shitty for AR11 unless you play it with HD, which I don't
240hz is great for me, as a HRDT player, it looks like the circles are going down normally as you would see on AR9, except it goes down really fast, the frames are the same but compressed kinda stuff, I'm not sure if I'm making any understandable statements right now
but yes 240hz is best for everything