User panel stuff on forum
  274 posts on 10 pages  First page12345678910Last page
General Discussion
2013-10-24, 07:28
Member
298 posts

Registered:
Sep 2006
Another one here - http://www.techpowerup.com/190212/philips-launches-144-hz-gaming-monitor.html

144 hz but 5 ms response time (1 ms grey to grey, whatever that is).
Any idea on this one?
2013-10-24, 09:42
Member
175 posts

Registered:
Mar 2012
not sure man but 5 ms seems rather sucky
2013-10-24, 10:02
Member
129 posts

Registered:
Mar 2007
Tulkas wrote:

lol. as previously mentioned. I have used a 120hz monitor before on MUCH more graphically intense games so I am aware of what it can do... Oh and I just so happened to have Quake installed on that computer as well... What a coincidence.

...

From what I read, you guys equate having a 120 hz monitor to cable internet versus a slow DSL or some shit.



I'm not sure what 'MUCH more graphically intense games' have to do with 120hz monitors. I'm not sure you understand the issue that higher refresh rates might resolve.

I know this isn't really the point but for QW, "slow DSL" on fastpath is usually much better than cable internet with its contended upstream.

So you've amply demonstrated that you don't actually know what you're talking about... which is fine - there are a lot of things I don't know about too! But perhaps see this as an opportunity to broaden your knowledge and learn!
2013-10-24, 11:05
Moderator
1329 posts

Registered:
Apr 2006
Adrenalin wrote:
not sure man but 5 ms seems rather sucky

Manufacturers usually claim only G2G (grey to grey) response times with their monitors, but the fact is that different colors change their state at different speeds. So TFTs have two reported response times. These are "grey to grey" response time which is fast and "typical" response time which means color transitions and it is slower. 1ms/2ms G2G monitors have "typical" response time of 5ms to colors.

Why don't you find about these things before you guess and comment something?
Servers: Troopers
2013-10-24, 13:44
Administrator
629 posts

Registered:
Nov 2008
Tulkas wrote:
Jissse wrote:
Nice troll.

lol

and

Andeh wrote:
Try playing on a high level on a 60hz. Then try a 120+hz. Then sit down.

lol. as previously mentioned. I have used a 120hz monitor before on MUCH more graphically intense games so I am aware of what it can do... Oh and I just so happened to have Quake installed on that computer as well... What a coincidence.

and

[quote ="renzo"] And this is where you go wrong again.

Like Andeh said, "try playing on a high level on a 60hz". And yes, this means QW. I know a lot of (good) players who have tried 60Hz TFTs when they first came out and then changed to 120Hz and noone has been unhappy about it. If you are playing QW with 60Hz monitor, you are at huge disadvantage when it comes to reaction times and accuracy.

Of course... who is going to be UNHAPPY about a 120 hz monitor? Like I said... Ive used one before on multiple games, I know what it can do... I'm simply saying I can take my current desktop vs my desktop from 2008 vs my desktop from 2003/4 and not have any change in my gameplay (now that ezquake is out and has uncapped fps that is), But as far as quakeworld.. sure it's smoother, I never said it wasnt smoother... I'm saying it isn't necessary. I don't see it as being a deal breaker like you people seem to think it is. From what I read, you guys equate having a 120 hz monitor to cable internet versus a slow DSL or some shit. I just think it's funny because this is a discussion for a much newer game... But anyway, flame on because everyone in this thread is obviously on the same side or else you wouldn't be posting in this thread about your monitors

Derp.


What you fail to realize is that Quakeworld is indeed like 17 years old. This means that people have been practicing the game for 17 years. If you want to have the slightest chance of beating a player of high caliber, you cannot play on a 60hz. A casual player can of course settle with a 60hz (even though I wouldn't because my head would ache), but if you want to have the slightest chance at winning versus good players, you cannot play on a 60hz. The difference is big in quakeworld terms (in my opinion big in every aspect, but I see your point) and definitely big enough to make a huge difference in high level games.

@Renzo: Seems I should go for Asus VG278HE. It seems like an extremely good monitor, here we go!

Yours,
Andeh
2013-10-24, 13:54
Member
175 posts

Registered:
Mar 2012
so renzi im guessing the benq and the asus have 5ms to colors also? and renzi the benq and the asus what is the aspect ratio? the philips has 16:9
2013-10-24, 14:29
Member
175 posts

Registered:
Mar 2012
i found a 120 hz ips 2500 resolution gaming monitor from korea

http://www.ebay.com/itm/New-YAMAKASI-Catleap-Q270-2B-Extreme-OC-120Hz-IPS-1440p-Monitor-Free-Shipping-/111051274052?pt=Computer_Monitors&hash=item19db2bf744

but its about 1k
2013-10-24, 21:33
Member
14 posts

Registered:
Oct 2013
Andeh wrote:
Tulkas wrote:
Jissse wrote:
Nice troll.

lol

and

Andeh wrote:
Try playing on a high level on a 60hz. Then try a 120+hz. Then sit down.

lol. as previously mentioned. I have used a 120hz monitor before on MUCH more graphically intense games so I am aware of what it can do... Oh and I just so happened to have Quake installed on that computer as well... What a coincidence.

and

[quote ="renzo"] And this is where you go wrong again.

Like Andeh said, "try playing on a high level on a 60hz". And yes, this means QW. I know a lot of (good) players who have tried 60Hz TFTs when they first came out and then changed to 120Hz and noone has been unhappy about it. If you are playing QW with 60Hz monitor, you are at huge disadvantage when it comes to reaction times and accuracy.

Of course... who is going to be UNHAPPY about a 120 hz monitor? Like I said... Ive used one before on multiple games, I know what it can do... I'm simply saying I can take my current desktop vs my desktop from 2008 vs my desktop from 2003/4 and not have any change in my gameplay (now that ezquake is out and has uncapped fps that is), But as far as quakeworld.. sure it's smoother, I never said it wasnt smoother... I'm saying it isn't necessary. I don't see it as being a deal breaker like you people seem to think it is. From what I read, you guys equate having a 120 hz monitor to cable internet versus a slow DSL or some shit. I just think it's funny because this is a discussion for a much newer game... But anyway, flame on because everyone in this thread is obviously on the same side or else you wouldn't be posting in this thread about your monitors

Derp.


What you fail to realize is that Quakeworld is indeed like 17 years old. This means that people have been practicing the game for 17 years. If you want to have the slightest chance of beating a player of high caliber, you cannot play on a 60hz. A casual player can of course settle with a 60hz (even though I wouldn't because my head would ache), but if you want to have the slightest chance at winning versus good players, you cannot play on a 60hz. The difference is big in quakeworld terms (in my opinion big in every aspect, but I see your point) and definitely big enough to make a huge difference in high level games.

@Renzo: Seems I should go for Asus VG278HE. It seems like an extremely good monitor, here we go!

Yours,
Andeh



This post has made the most sense out of any of them that I have read (in reply to me that is)... Although where I am coming from is I currently play on a 60 Hz (trust me, I would love to have a 120 hz monitor because I do, in fact, miss mine) and I play a mod of TF called MegaTF... It's been called on multiple occasions the fastest paced shooter ever created.... That may not hold true at the pub level but at the competitive level, I can go from one side of the map to the other, grab flag, and capture it back on my side in less than 6 seconds, where 5 of those 6 seconds are me in the air... To be able to stop an offensive attack like that, you have to be able to rely on wrist snap airshots... if you can't consistently hit an airshot against someone going in excess of 1400-1500 according to "cl_showspeed" then you can't compete in MegaTF. However, I don't think there is a single one of us that currently use more than a 60hz monitor. So where I see where you are going with this... I haven't played DM seriously since 1997 and haven't played DM at all since maybe around 2000 or so... But unless the speed of it has DRASTICALLY changed I don't see what the need for it is. I see it as being "overkill." More like using a corvette in a box car race. But maybe, again, that is my naivety. Where in, the slower speeds of DM quake make it MORE necessary to have a higher calibur monitor? Thoughts?
2013-10-24, 22:34
Moderator
1329 posts

Registered:
Apr 2006
Tulkas wrote:

But unless the speed of it has DRASTICALLY changed I don't see what the need for it is. I see it as being "overkill." More like using a corvette in a box car race. But maybe, again, that is my naivety. Where in, the slower speeds of DM quake make it MORE necessary to have a higher calibur monitor? Thoughts?

Well the thing is, the speed of QW has in fact increased drastically since 2000. All the people are very adept at moving and people actually hit very hard all the time. Due to lower pings and also due to antilag you can die fully armored in less than 2 seconds if you just walk around. So movement is essential (dodging ability) and the ability to hit back when you are being hit, or you will die (a lot).

I myself played around 12 years the game before I actually quit. During this time I went from 150Hz CRT to 60Hz TFT which actually made me quit the game, because my performance went down a lot (since I relied on my aim and movement instead of too fancy tactics). The problem with 60Hz TFT was that in fast situations enemies were "jumping" from place to another and it was impossible to follow them properly and when I was hit and flew somewhere, it took a lot of time before I realized where I was pointing at with my crosshair and what my location was.

After around 6 months after the 60Hz I got myself "the best CRT" I have used, Viewsonic p227fb which was able to run 154Hz at 1360*768 and QW was fun again and 8 months later around the summer of 2007 I was playing my best QW and we actually won against Reppie+Razor (they were absolutely the best at that time in 2on2) in DM4 with Fucu and all the rounds were quite even.

After this I bought myself the 1st generation 120Hz monitor (2233rz) and certain things became "hard" and aiming was harder. Not because of the Hz difference but because of the 16ms+ input lag 2233rz has. BenQ XL2410T helped with lower input lag but for certain reason the BenQ was not as smooth as the 2233rz was like Rikoll mentioned earlier with his XL2411T. I had 2410T the longest time before I got myself this VG278HE 144Hz monitor, but I can't really say if this helped my QW because at the time I got this monitor (around this time last year) I was playing 2-10 rounds of 2on2 in a month on the best case scenario and this had been happening for a year or more. But still, VG278HE feels better than the previous 120Hz TFTs I have had, but it is not a CRT like I mentioned in my VG278HE review here on QW.NU.
Servers: Troopers
2013-10-25, 01:35
Member
14 posts

Registered:
Oct 2013
Renzo wrote:
Tulkas wrote:

But unless the speed of it has DRASTICALLY changed I don't see what the need for it is. I see it as being "overkill." More like using a corvette in a box car race. But maybe, again, that is my naivety. Where in, the slower speeds of DM quake make it MORE necessary to have a higher calibur monitor? Thoughts?

Well the thing is, the speed of QW has in fact increased drastically since 2000. All the people are very adept at moving and people actually hit very hard all the time. Due to lower pings and also due to antilag you can die fully armored in less than 2 seconds if you just walk around. So movement is essential (dodging ability) and the ability to hit back when you are being hit, or you will die (a lot).

I myself played around 12 years the game before I actually quit. During this time I went from 150Hz CRT to 60Hz TFT which actually made me quit the game, because my performance went down a lot (since I relied on my aim and movement instead of too fancy tactics). The problem with 60Hz TFT was that in fast situations enemies were "jumping" from place to another and it was impossible to follow them properly and when I was hit and flew somewhere, it took a lot of time before I realized where I was pointing at with my crosshair and what my location was.

After around 6 months after the 60Hz I got myself "the best CRT" I have used, Viewsonic p227fb which was able to run 154Hz at 1360*768 and QW was fun again and 8 months later around the summer of 2007 I was playing my best QW and we actually won against Reppie+Razor (they were absolutely the best at that time in 2on2) in DM4 with Fucu and all the rounds were quite even.

After this I bought myself the 1st generation 120Hz monitor (2233rz) and certain things became "hard" and aiming was harder. Not because of the Hz difference but because of the 16ms+ input lag 2233rz has. BenQ XL2410T helped with lower input lag but for certain reason the BenQ was not as smooth as the 2233rz was like Rikoll mentioned earlier with his XL2411T. I had 2410T the longest time before I got myself this VG278HE 144Hz monitor, but I can't really say if this helped my QW because at the time I got this monitor (around this time last year) I was playing 2-10 rounds of 2on2 in a month on the best case scenario and this had been happening for a year or more. But still, VG278HE feels better than the previous 120Hz TFTs I have had, but it is not a CRT like I mentioned in my VG278HE review here on QW.NU.


I see what you are saying... and where I agree that most likely the speed has increased with player skill, for example looking at a simple increase in player speed/skill from 1996 - 2000, I would dare say that still the speeds are probably still nowhere near 1400-1500+ (my personal fastest on a flag grab was around 1915 or so according to cl_showspeed), but I would say that could be the difference maker... If players are visible for longer periods of time, you must track them for longer periods of time, where as in MegaTF, you see a player on one side of the map and "predict" or snapshot where you think he is going to be 2 seconds from now after he has travelled half the map in distance and fire a rocket at him... that would make MegaTF more reliant on prediction and reflexes rather than constant visibility of a target and having to be able to keep up with their every move so i am beginning to be able to see where having more refreshes would be benificial. I can even relate it to certain maps and classes in megaTF such as the MegaTF medic.... unlike in regular TF, the medic's super nailgun has a much higher fire rate causing it to be ALMOST a hitscan weapon with nails. So on some maps with long halls, Teams would use medics to play defense to wreck heavy offense classes with the nailgun and slow down their bunnyhop, very similar to how a LG might be used in DM.
2013-10-25, 11:21
Member
383 posts

Registered:
Apr 2006
What a bizarre discussion. Of course higher refresh rate allows for better player performance. We can measure it quite easily. I myself have experienced the not insignificant difference of switching between 85hz CRT, 60hz CRT, and 120hz TFT at various points in my qw career. The difference shows unambiguously in average LG hit percentage across the thousands of povdmm4s I have played. It doesn't matter if you personally don't see why it should happen, because it clearly, and demonstrably, does happen.
2013-10-26, 02:20
Member
14 posts

Registered:
Oct 2013
Stev wrote:
What a bizarre discussion. Of course higher refresh rate allows for better player performance. We can measure it quite easily. I myself have experienced the not insignificant difference of switching between 85hz CRT, 60hz CRT, and 120hz TFT at various points in my qw career. The difference shows unambiguously in average LG hit percentage across the thousands of povdmm4s I have played. It doesn't matter if you personally don't see why it should happen, because it clearly, and demonstrably, does happen.


Thanks for your grade-A input... lol. Anyway, the point of discussion has turned now to where it is necessary and where it is not. Looks like it has turned to the fact that in a slower game of DM Quake a higher refresh rate would be worth it... but in a game such as TF, or more so MegaTF, where it is much more reliant on reflexes and prediction, the higher refresh rate doesn't matter.
2013-10-26, 02:28
Member
152 posts

Registered:
Feb 2012
Tulkas wrote:
but in a game such as TF, or more so MegaTF, where it is much more reliant on reflexes and prediction, the higher refresh rate doesn't matter.


http://animatika.ru/netcat_files/userfiles/3/facepalm.jpg
“If I wanted you to understand it, I would have explained it better.” (c) Johan Cruyff
2013-10-26, 09:10
Member
462 posts

Registered:
Jan 2006
@Tulkas most of your points were completely nonsensical. The age of the game or "graphical intensity" (whatever that is supposed to mean) is totally irrelevant. Also the fact that your display adapter is rendering 600-900 frames per second does not help much if your monitor can actually show you only 60. The rest is more or less wasted (although there are other factors related to this).

What mostly matters is the type of the game and the speed of the game. And Quake is pretty fast even for an FPS game. I have seen people perform great with low fps and crappy displays in BF3 for example, but at least is it not more enjoyable to play a game when the image you're looking at is not a blurry mess?
2013-10-26, 10:12
Member
383 posts

Registered:
Apr 2006
Tulkas wrote:
Thanks for your grade-A input... lol. Anyway, the point of discussion has turned now to where it is necessary and where it is not. Looks like it has turned to the fact that in a slower game of DM Quake a higher refresh rate would be worth it... but in a game such as TF, or more so MegaTF, where it is much more reliant on reflexes and prediction, the higher refresh rate doesn't matter.

That is exactly the opposite of what is true. That isn't even an intuitive interpretation. Even someone completely inexperienced in the matter would realise that a faster game would benefit from more frequent graphical updates. I honestly don't know why you would think that unless you were just making stuff up to back up your own points. Spouting patently wrong, entirely fabricated nonsense to reinforce your own beliefs does nothing for the world. You're like those people who come in to monitor threads and say that the human eye can only see 24fps.

If you are satisfied with 60hz, then that is fine. No one is forcing you to buy a high-refresh-rate display. You would almost certainly benefit from it, but it's not the most important factor in your TF game by a long shot. You don't have to justify not making a financial investment for a small improvement in your game.
2013-10-26, 10:50
Member
298 posts

Registered:
Sep 2006
The attitude that this dude represents is called "the confirmation bias". Basically, he ingores all the facts that contradict his own beliefs even though they are based on evidence and reason.

(Edited 2013-10-26, 11:50)
2013-10-26, 11:29
Member
286 posts

Registered:
Sep 2012
Speaking about the Phillips screen you linked Kaptain, the fact that it has the same caracteristics and even the same wired remote controller than the new BenQ makes it look a lot like a rebrand...
2013-10-26, 13:28
Member
175 posts

Registered:
Mar 2012
yep looks like the new benq insides
2014-01-05, 15:16
Member
175 posts

Registered:
Mar 2012
i finally got the BenQ XL2420TE 144Hz, 1ms High Performance 24-Inch Professional Gaming Monitor in euro or germany its being sold as benq xl2420T 2.0 version make sure its 144hz version
hello fellow quakers
ok lets see... when i plugged this monitor in and played qw with it i was amazed its so top notch smooth like a 200 hz crt which i had and the picture qualety is stunning... the colors are so crisp and intense like an ips my mother has its just really nice.....and for the eyes its also very good in native resolution .....
it has different modes even a photo mode where its all glossy even the colors are even better then standart... also what i find amazing is you can change the
black pitch of the monitor if you go into gaming profile which you can choose from you can make the black even more black so it is no where near washed out its really saturated and intense.. i love this monitor and will not go back to crt.....for any qw player i suggest this monitor

greets cj
2014-01-11, 21:06
Member
205 posts

Registered:
Feb 2011
Some of you may have heard of NVIDIA's G-Sync technology. New monitors should be coming out with support for it pretty soon. In the meantime, NVIDIA just made available a kit to mod the Asus VG248QE to support G-Sync:

http://www.geforce.com/hardware/technology/g-sync/diy

Requirements (GTX650 Ti Boost or above)

Tradeoff table of the mod (you lose Audio and HDMI Out)

AnandTech review

Anyone brave enough to give this a shot for $200?!
2014-08-15, 04:04
Member
9 posts

Registered:
Oct 2012
Rikoll wrote:
I can confirm that the lightboost hack works amazingly on the XL2411T. It really is silky smooth. Unfortunately, it screws your colors and sharpness of textures over, but for QW smoothness, this is truly amazing.

Weirdly enough, in 144 Hz it's really crap, unless you use v_sync (which of course is unthinkable).

So you still playing 120Hz with LightBoost ON?
2014-08-15, 12:21
Member
459 posts

Registered:
Mar 2008
peckB wrote:
Rikoll wrote:
I can confirm that the lightboost hack works amazingly on the XL2411T. It really is silky smooth. Unfortunately, it screws your colors and sharpness of textures over, but for QW smoothness, this is truly amazing.

Weirdly enough, in 144 Hz it's really crap, unless you use v_sync (which of course is unthinkable).

So you still playing 120Hz with LightBoost ON?


Yes. 144 hz on this screen still feels rubbish. At least for QW.
2015-10-21, 19:57
Member
22 posts

Registered:
Oct 2015
Ive been reading a bit about this new freesync and gsync technology. Im considering a whole new system, and would like to hear the thoughts from people who play qw. And especially from the people here who knows a lot about monitors, like Dedi and Renzo.

Is it worth the money when we get 144 fps stable at all times anyway? Most of the active-sync-thing argument evolve around fps drops and what the gpu and monitor can do about this.

And also: is nvidia still better than ati for qw, or is that argument outdated?
2015-10-22, 23:14
Moderator
1329 posts

Registered:
Apr 2006
nigve wrote:
Is it worth the money when we get 144 fps stable at all times anyway? Most of the active-sync-thing argument evolve around fps drops and what the gpu and monitor can do about this.

I haven't played QW in a long, long time now, but I did test it somewhat comprehensively when I got my G-sync monitor (Asus ROG Swift) back in the day. What I did find was that the QW feels the best with V-sync / G-sync off, the input is most accurate like this when you run some nice fps like 616fps or so.

Witch G-sync you need to limit the client fps to something like 135fps or so or else you will have some input lag. If you limit it to 144Hz the mouse input starts feeling a bit off and if you actually use cl_maxfps 0 with G-sync, the mouse input just becomes horrible.

Also note that I don't really think G-sync (adaptive sync) actually makes games that have high fps variances any better really. It is still as awful as without syncing. Also if the fps is too low, not any kind of adaptive sync can make it better. But if you can have spot on 60fps or 80fps or 140fps and you use G-sync (adaptive sync) it is going to be as smooth as it can be with TFT monitors.

Quote:

And also: is nvidia still better than ati for qw, or is that argument outdated?

NVIDIA is the way to go if you want to play QW.
Servers: Troopers
2015-10-26, 09:07
Member
43 posts

Registered:
Apr 2012
nigve wrote:

And also: is nvidia still better than ati for qw, or is that argument outdated?


It's still true, I have one of the newer ATi cards and my fps drops from 1 billion to 900 when Quad is close to me.
2015-10-26, 11:21
Member
279 posts

Registered:
Jan 2015
rio wrote:
nigve wrote:

And also: is nvidia still better than ati for qw, or is that argument outdated?


It's still true, I have one of the newer ATi cards and my fps drops from 1 billion to 900 when Quad is close to me.



Terrible news for me. I just bought an expensive notebook equipped with AMD GPU

I will test with timedemos and let u know the results anyway.
dev
2015-10-26, 12:31
News Writer
23 posts

Registered:
Oct 2015
I highly recommend the following article:
https://www.mvps.org/directx/articles/fps_versus_frame_time.htm

FPS values are non-linear. Comparing FPS drops at very high values like 500 FPS is kinda pointless.
zin
2015-10-26, 18:52
Administrator
1024 posts

Registered:
Apr 2006
mission wrote:
I highly recommend the following article:
https://www.mvps.org/directx/articles/fps_versus_frame_time.htm

FPS values are non-linear. Comparing FPS drops at very high values like 500 FPS is kinda pointless.

At the same time that article is incredibly stupid. If you can reach 1000fps that means it takes 1ms to do a complete frame (that includes network, input, sound, graphics, all of it). Adding something small that would cause a frame to be rendered in 2ms (500fps) instead then yes it's probably slow as hell! Your extra thingie cost just as much as everything else combined. Sometimes it makes sense, other times it really doesn't.
2015-10-26, 22:51
Member
279 posts

Registered:
Jan 2015
mission wrote:
I highly recommend the following article:
https://www.mvps.org/directx/articles/fps_versus_frame_time.htm

FPS values are non-linear. Comparing FPS drops at very high values like 500 FPS is kinda pointless.


With love: this article is stupid. It uses simple mathematical relations to explain behaviours that are even more obvious.

In the end of the day it is all about your perception.
The more you get used to higher fps, more accurate is your perception for fps drops.
dev
2015-10-27, 00:06
News Writer
23 posts

Registered:
Oct 2015
This article shows that "900 FPS to 450 FPS" performance loss is exactly the same as "60 FPS to 56 FPS" (pretty much negligible difference). For non-programmers that's not obvious at all.
zin
  274 posts on 10 pages  First page12345678910Last page