Is 75hz good enough for FPS Gaming?

lloydcars18 said:
I Was Originally looking at getting a RX 580 but then when i seen Vega was releasing i thought it would have been way high priced but starting at 400 dollars seems a bargain Also i want to be able to Hit 60 Fps Minimum in all the upcoming games over the next few years so wouldn't 1080p 75hz be less taxing on the Gpu il be overclocking it btw.
Click to expand...

If you buy a 1440P targeted GPU, and you only play at 1080P, that card will "last" longer before needing an upgrade, yes.
 
hornetstinger said:
hahaha lol whatever.

My TN doesn't look like garbage. It's 10 years old, and IPS back then were garbage for gaming. You don't need 99% colour accuracy in games.

There are pros and cons to ALL panel types, IPS has positives and negatives, just like TN and VA.
Click to expand...

oh well then everyone elses eyes must not work correctly if you think your TN doesn't look like garbage compared to an IPS panel. as for colour accuracy if your playing the games to be immersed in them and for realism then colour accuracy is extremely important. it's a part of the experience. it would be akin to saying decent headphones don't matter when gaming you should just use some in ears from poundland which cannot reproduce sound accuracy correctly.

yes there are pros and cons to every panel but IMO there are no cons to IPS apart from cost. they may be slower than TN but they are faster than VA but the difference is so small it's negligible.
 
it would be akin to saying decent headphones don't matter when gaming you should just use some in ears from poundland which cannot reproduce sound accuracy correctly.
Click to expand...

A £10,000 headphone will produce a gunshot sound effect
So will a £25 headphone

Will a £10,000 phone make you play better? No. Both do the same job.

"no cons to IPS apart from cost"

Now you're lying. Typically they are slower than TN, you won't get 2ms panels with low input lag, and what about IPS backlight bleed?

My TN panel is black all over.

It's not negligable to gamers, I've seen the difference between 2ms and 6ms panels.

Yes a IPS may look "better" but that has NOTHING to do with advantage of gameplay. You just enjoy the scenery better.
 
hornetstinger said:
A £10,000 headphone will produce a gunshot sound effect
So will a £25 headphone

Will a £10,000 phone make you play better? No. Both do the same job.

"no cons to IPS apart from cost"

Now you're lying. Typically they are slower than TN, you won't get 2ms panels with low input lag, and what about IPS backlight bleed?

My TN panel is black all over.

It's not negligable to gamers, I've seen the difference between 2ms and 6ms panels.

Yes a IPS may look "better" but that has NOTHING to do with advantage of gameplay. You just enjoy the scenery better.
Click to expand...

you don't have a clue

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mpxezuLR9Ko

there

http://www.tomshardware.co.uk/forum/63666-3-will-notice-difference

your talking about milliseconds here not seconds it's 1/1000th of a second. it makes zero ******* difference. not even superman could benefit from 1ms vs 6ms
 
I compared two panels, the 245B I have now, and another Samsung which was 2ms. The 2ms was far smoother when you are panned around like crazy.

Seems YOU don't have a clue, it's the discharge of the LCD pixels, the 2ms panel created less blur. For twitcher games it would be noticeable.
 
hornetstinger said:
I compared two panels, the 245B I have now, and another Samsung which was 2ms. The 2ms was far smoother when you are panned around like crazy.

Seems YOU don't have a clue, it's the discharge of the LCD pixels, the 2ms panel created less blur. For twitcher games it would be noticeable.
Click to expand...

less ghosting / blur of extremely fast moving objects. which again fortifies my point it makes zero real difference to competitive gaming.

game skill is the most important factor. i bet a pro player would destroy any pub on a 15ms monitor vs them on a 1ms monitor. it makes zero difference in the real world it's so small.
 
Skill is obviously #1 here, a crap player will be just as crap at 60hz as they would at 240hz. The issue I've noticed as a fps-twitch based gamer (quake etc.) is if you have two equally skilled players, one on a 60hz monitor and another on a 120hz monitor and your wizzing around the map rocket jumping and trying to hit a target the other side of the map zipping past a small door the one with the 120hz monitor WILL have the advantage, both in latency and in smoother motion/more frames.

The latency argument has 2 parts really, there's certainly a noticeable difference on input latency between monitors, more than you'd think especially if you have been gaming on PC for a long time and it can mean the difference between winning and losing a game, but not because "OMG the lagz!!111" but because of motion to photon latency which we're very perceptable too, it is possible to adjust to higher latency and still thrash similarly skilled players when we're talking 10ms - 20ms total latency (that's input latency, frametime latency and pixel latency combined), any higher and it will start to affect your skill if you are in the top bracket of players. Having tried 50hz, 60hz, 75hz, 90hz, 100hz, 120hz, 144hz and 240hz the most noticeable both visually and in skill improvement/comfort difference was between 60 and 100, much above 100 started getting exponentially increasing diminishing returns. I'd say 120hz is a nice spot to aim for as its 2x 60hz (so videos/cutscenes or even windowed games that play at either 30fps or 60fps get to display an even number of images per frame and you get an even smooth motion, whereas something like 90 means some frames have to either wait or skip and you get micro-stuttering, again only a minor issue and only on locked fps games or videos/cutscenes)
 
Psycho Sonny said:
https://www.humanbenchmark.com/tests/reactiontime/statistics

Since this site was created, it's recorded 52,347,301 reaction time clicks.

The median reaction time is 271 milliseconds.

The average reaction time is 282 milliseconds.


and you think 0.004 of a second is going to make a big difference to someones game?
Click to expand...

You aren't comparing like to like - it ties more into the whole framerate argument - to changes in light levels people have sensitivity between 2-4ms depending on conditioning and natural sensitivity but this largely isn't about response times whether reaction times or visual sensitivity but how clear things are in motion and in that context very low ms values will make a bigger difference to how crisp an object is in motion on the screen as the value itself only reflects a small part of how good the monitor is in terms of pixel response - my Dell U2913WM for instance is rated for 8ms but will beat the **** out of most 4ms panels for clarity in motion and how quickly the image stabilises on a fast view change - but it doesn't even come close to a gaming TN for clarity when tracking an object in motion.

Imagine yourself in a very dark room. You have been there for hours and it's totally black. Now light flashes right in front of you. Let's say as bright as the sun. Would you see it, when it's only 1/25th of a second? You surely would. 1/100th of a second? Yes. 1/200th of a second? Yes. Tests with Air force pilots have shown, that they could identify the plane on a flashed picture that was flashed only for 1/220th of a second.
Click to expand...

End of the day I don't have a Dell S2716DG (1ms) along side a Dell U2913WM (8ms) just for LOLs and I also have better response IPS panels but the U2913WM has better IQ than the others for serious gaming an IPS panel just doesn't cut it unless its far better than anything I've had my hands on yet.
 
Last edited:
they all impact each other.

if your reaction time is 300ms, pixel response that is 4ms slower in the real world is going to make zero difference.

player skill is the most important factor. basically unless your in the top 1-3% it doesn't matter if your using 1ms or 4ms
 
Psycho Sonny said:
they all impact each other.

if your reaction time is 300ms, pixel response that is 4ms slower in the real world is going to make zero difference.

player skill is the most important factor. basically unless your in the top 1-3% it doesn't matter if your using 1ms or 4ms
Click to expand...

You absolutely can't put those two into the same equation they are measures of very different things. Sure the impact on player skill isn't going to swing a situation but that doesn't mean you can't have a better experience with crisper motion clarity and faster image stabilisation on quick turns, etc.

As per what I quoted people are sensitive to changes in light levels that only happen for single digit ms - I was slightly out with the original post as its around 5ms for the average person and upto 2ms for those with natural abilities or more conditioned to it - this will make a difference to perceived clarity, etc. as well as what the monitor is actually doing in respect to visible residual data with pixel value changes.
 
If you can notice anything sub 15ms you are either kidding yourself or must never play games, well not on a PC and certainly not on a Windows machine over a network. Gaming must be horrendous for these people, TFT's must make peoples eyes bleed.
 
jigger said:
If you can notice anything sub 15ms you are either kidding yourself or must never play games, well not on a PC and certainly not on a Windows machine over a network. Gaming must be horrendous for these people, TFT's must make peoples eyes bleed.
Click to expand...

In what way are you meaning it? - its been verified that people can see changes in light level and not just notice them but notice detail, lasting as little at 1/220th of a second - same as latency in video games, especially those without lag compensation, can make a huge difference with even 15ms difference making for quite a difference in how much you have to lead a target, etc. even though people's reaction times aren't even close to those kind of numbers.
 
I mean is what's been said is complete rubbish. It's not even applicable to this scenario, but if it was non of us would accept any type of digital screen.
 
jigger said:
but if it was non of us would accept any type of digital screen.
Click to expand...

Personally I don't find any of them particularly acceptable compared to CRTs of old - fast gaming TNs are "acceptable" but even those if I go and spend some time playing on an old CRT and them come back to a TFT look like a mess until my brain compensates for it again.

I think people would be surprised how much their brain compensates for motion blur, etc. on TFTs after awhile and this does actually slightly slow your reaction to things as your brain starts automatically offsetting for it - on older TFTs that can easily be an additional 1-2 frames (~16-34ms).
 
jigger said:
I mean is what's been said is complete rubbish. It's not even applicable to this scenario, but if it was non of us would accept any type of digital screen.
Click to expand...


Play games on a ancient laptop, they have horrid blur because the LCD panels discharge is terribly slow, 25ms or so.

Again that is seperate from input lag
 
Right. If you can see or feel any form of latency from in the amounts getting talked about then you will be able to notice all kinds of wonder in the natural world. You'd also hate playing computer games because you'd *feel* the latency from lost packets, the windows network stack and many other systems in the PC. The numbers getting talked are silly as no human notice single digit milliseconds in a game. Most people couldn't notice tenths of seconds.

If you want the best possible screen, with want being the operative word, then simply don't buy a TFT screen. If your feels can really sense the delay of a TFT you're COMPLETELY screwed and no type of monitor can help because your senses are way beyond current technology that the video output and screen will be the least of your problems.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom