So you admit that 100hz to 144hz is not a big deal? If it was you could go to 1080p ultra wide and have higher refresh. Therefore you value resolution more it seems
r/whoosh
Literally ignoring the quote you're quoting ftw.
-
Competitor rules
Please remember that any mention of competitors, hinting at competitors or offering to provide details of competitors will result in an account suspension. The full rules can be found under the 'Terms and Rules' link in the bottom right corner of your screen. Just don't mention competitors in any way, shape or form and you'll be OK.
r/whoosh
Literally ignoring the quote you're quoting ftw.
Nope. Not if you understood what I am saying
If higher hz which you would be upgrading for primarily was of such importance, then people would never have gone backwards to 100hz
Nope. Not if you understood what I am saying
If higher hz which you would be upgrading for primarily was of such importance, then people would never have gone backwards to 100hz
Again. Balance. There's many aspects to a monitor, balancing them to suit your needs is more important than any singular spec.
But past balance choices are indicative of what you value. Does not fit well with you saying you would be primarily upgrading for more hz over resolution now
Sure. You won the internet. Here's your prize:But past balance choices are indicative of what you value. Does not fit well with you saying you would be primarily upgrading for more hz over resolution now
Soldato
- Joined
- 5 Sep 2011
- Posts
- 12,883
- Location
- Surrey
The thing you have to really try and grasp before you resort back to Mr. Shouty-Shout, is that a lot of users have already used 4K, maybe even for a considerable time before yourself. Many of those are of the same consensus; quickly becoming bored of the pixel chasing war. Perhaps your vision is just vastly superior to most which is why you see this incredible shift in image fidelity going beyond 1440p. Whatever the reason, try to remember that you're the minority here - so there's probably a rational reason as to why that is.
If his point was that 60Hz feels terrible compared to 100-240Hz then, depending on the game at hand, it does.
Last edited:
Responding to the wrong dude?
Soldato
- Joined
- 5 Sep 2011
- Posts
- 12,883
- Location
- Surrey
I am not a kid no more. All grown up nowYes, was aimed at the kid
Oh and fair enough, I can understand people not wanting to chase pixels due to the cost. But just say that, rather than downplay and make it sound like there is no difference, which is what a lot of people here do.
I am not a kid no more. All grown up now
Oh and fair enough, I can understand people not wanting to chase pixels due to the cost. But just say that, rather than downplay and make it sound like there is no difference, which is what a lot of people here do.
Nothing to do with cost.
For you maybe.
Soldato
- Joined
- 5 Sep 2011
- Posts
- 12,883
- Location
- Surrey
I am not a kid no more. All grown up now
Oh and fair enough, I can understand people not wanting to chase pixels due to the cost. But just say that, rather than downplay and make it sound like there is no difference, which is what a lot of people here do.
Didn't mention cost, not once. This speaks a lot about how you're posturing this to yourself. I could quite happily purchase any panel on the market right now. Heck, I could ask HQ for a 4K G-Sync panel. I simply don't want one right now. There's something in the product stack for everyone.
Totally agree^
I use a 4k panel but the sort of games I play suit it, if I played something like BFV I would move to a widescreen/higher fps very quickly.
4k is poor for fast moving games.
Pixel chasing you said. Last I checked more of these are a good thing that bring better image quality. Many here do not want go 4K due to cost, even read a comment earlier today forgot who it was now saying they are glad they never upgradid due to the rising cost of graphics cards. That may not be the case for you or a few others, but it is for many, you cannot deny that.
We will only end up disagreeing in the end. My stance is 4K is just simply very noticeably sharper and better picture quality that 1440p cannot offer. I like my graphics, so I much prefer that than a lower resolution monitor that has been available from since I was a kid
There's no pixel chasing at 4K with a 2080Ti. You're at the zenith there. Pixel game is won, you stand atop the pixel mountain, arms raised... the one true Pixel King. Until 8K comes along that is. As has been stated, 4K is amazing for certain games... for fast twitch stuff, not so much. If that's your bag then a 120/144Hz 1440p monitor is going to be far better suited. As mentioned, there is something for everyone... no right or wrong at the end of the day.
8k has already come along. There's a dell 8k monitor around the 3k mark.
Not into games like that myself or none of this silly fortnite stuff my mates are into.
Also correct me if I am wrong but just having a 144hz monitor even at a lower fps. Say 60 for arguments sake would be quite a bit more smooth and responsive compared to a 60hz panel?
Pretty sure a Titan RTX would run BFV close to 100fps at 4K without the ray tracing on anyways.
Yes but that's very much a halo product, it's not 'mainstream' and as widely available like 4K is... 8K is still very much in its infancy. You can pick up 4K monitors for a few hundred quid. or use a multitude of TV's if you so choose.
Finally someone who gets it.
No gsync one and there won't be any texture pack's for that resolution for probably another half a decade. 4K is where it will be at for the next 6-8 years it seems.
Though I do look forward to trying get a 8K panel in the future. One of the draws once a gsync 8k monitor is out will be not needing to use aa which some games still need at 4k.