Comixbooks
Fully [H]
- Joined
- Jun 7, 2008
- Messages
- 22,000
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Anytging over 60 fpsa is also dumb
Anytging over 60 fpsa is also dumb
OK, I just watched the entire video...he's right about a lot...here at [H] there's always the subset of members who jump at every new video card release and every new technology because they assume that newer equals greater without really knowing why...1440p 144hz is indeed still the sweet spot
I'm of the opinion that it depends on what type of games you're playing. It's also worth noting that this is talking about desk setups. Once you start PC gaming on a massive TV with surround sound, it's tough to go back to a desk.
Yeah, no.
Even with how old i'm getting the difference between 60FPS and 120FPS on a 120hz capable panel is fairly noticeable.
No we can't. There is no such thing as a sweet spot. The more resolution the better. It's an entirely different question whether our GPUs can produce enough FPS at a certain resolution. But that doesn't mean 4k is dumb, it just means we don't have gpus that are powerful enough for 4k yet.I think we can all agree that a 27" 1440p is the current "sweet spot".
No we can't. There is no such thing as a sweet spot. The more resolution the better. It's an entirely different question whether our GPUs can produce enough FPS at a certain resolution. But that doesn't mean 4k is dumb, it just means we don't have gpus that are powerful enough for 4k yet.
.... I never implied 4k is dumb.
I'm merely stating for the price/performance and the current state of graphics cards, that if you want the best image quality FOR THE MONEY: a 27" 1440p display is the best size/pixel count..
Now, if you have the disposable income, get dual 2080 ti's and a 50" 4K curved display or whatever.
But what some of you guys need to realize is: most [H] sig rigs are in the top 0.01%.
.... I never implied 4k is dumb.
I'm merely stating for the price/performance and the current state of graphics cards, that if you want the best image quality FOR THE MONEY: a 27" 1440p display is the best size/pixel count..
Now, if you have the disposable income, get dual 2080 ti's and a 50" 4K curved display or whatever.
But what some of you guys need to realize is: most [H] sig rigs are in the top 0.01%.
I don't agree with this. I have a 240hz monitor and there is no way I'd go back to 144hz let alone the 60hz that most TVs are. I also have a 65in 4k TV and while it does look glorious I can't stand the lower refresh rates and latency in it.
Anyways, I really think are two types of "game" experiences when you look at it. There is online playing with/against people where there is an element of competition, and then there is the offline grand cinematic type experience.
If you're playing online games against other people 4k is stupid and does not make sense. And it won't make sense until 144hz-240hz 1ms monitors at 4k resolution become reasonably priced and can be driven solidly with one card. On the other hand, if your idea of gaming is jumping into a single player RPG and losing yourself for a couple hours than yeah a large 4k screen with surround speakers might be a bit more up your alley.
.... I never implied 4k is dumb.
I'm merely stating for the price/performance and the current state of graphics cards, that if you want the best image quality FOR THE MONEY: a 27" 1440p display is the best size/pixel count..
Now, if you have the disposable income, get dual 2080 ti's and a 50" 4K curved display or whatever.
But what some of you guys need to realize is: most [H] sig rigs are in the top 0.01%.
Since SLI seems to be dead, you can't even have it for any money currently.
Linus is dumb.
No we can't. There is no such thing as a sweet spot. The more resolution the better. It's an entirely different question whether our GPUs can produce enough FPS at a certain resolution. But that doesn't mean 4k is dumb, it just means we don't have gpus that are powerful enough for 4k yet.
43” 4K @ 2.5ft + 2080 TI is where it’s at!
I think even 1080p is too much for a 15" screen. on 17" it's OK. But not from a gaming perspective, but desktop use perspective. If we had proper scaling it wouldn't matter.LInus' rant on laptop monitor resolutions is right on. Anything more than 1080p on a 17'' or less screen is silly and just wasting $2-4k on a machine that will be obsolete faster.
Yeah I understand what he meant now. Meanwhile I think my 27" 1440p -> 38 4K wide switch was the best upgrade I did in a decade, even if I'm stuck with 40fps in games without sli support.I think that's what he means: It is the sweet spot of rez vs cost and rez vs performance. 2.5k monitors are cheap and widely available. If you only want 60Hz you can have them for as little as $200 for a cheap TN panel and $300 for IPS. For $650ish you can have have IPS, 165Hz and G-sync. That's just way more economical than you find 4k monitors. Likewise the GPU power needed to drive it is half what it takes at 4k, it is literally half the pixels. So a GPU that can only pull 30fps at 4k will do 60fps at 2k5 no problem. Hence it is a sweetspot. The cost of 4k vs 2.5k is fairly large, the cost of 2.5k vs 1080p is much smaller.
You know you can get a 4K monitor for $200 these days. You can get a very large 4K TV for $300.I think that's what he means: It is the sweet spot of rez vs cost and rez vs performance. 2.5k monitors are cheap and widely available. If you only want 60Hz you can have them for as little as $200 for a cheap TN panel and $300 for IPS. For $650ish you can have have IPS, 165Hz and G-sync. That's just way more economical than you find 4k monitors. Likewise the GPU power needed to drive it is half what it takes at 4k, it is literally half the pixels. So a GPU that can only pull 30fps at 4k will do 60fps at 2k5 no problem. Hence it is a sweetspot. The cost of 4k vs 2.5k is fairly large, the cost of 2.5k vs 1080p is much smaller.