I suppose you'll review it when it's released, right?
I can't afford it but reading your review will be almost as good
New Dell 30" 4k Oled Announced CES 2016
- Thread starter RareEntitee
- Start date
I suppose you'll review it when it's released, right?
I can't afford it but reading your review will be almost as good
Do you ever get to be able to keep any the monitors the company's send you for reviews or do have to send them all back or to the next reviewer ?Certainly hoping to if we can
Last edited:
I agree that running 4K at high refresh rates is currently a massive challenge for any system. Although I'm sure in time that will change. But I don't agree that anything over 100Hz is just placebo. There's a noticeable difference in image fluidity and speed, not to mention additional benefits in perceived motion blur as refresh rate improves. Higher refresh rates also make technologies like 3D vision and blur reduction backlights possible, when they aren't available at as low as 100hz. So again there's a benefit in supporting 144hz or above
Going from 60Hz to 100Hz is the biggest jump, its quite scary how noticable it is.
Going from 100Hz to 144Hz is placebo for me, factually there is a difference yes but you are never going to notice it. Side by side with random games you will not pick the 144Hz screen every time - lets say you could, you would still have to be driving said game at a constant 144fps to even remotely feel the benefit, if at all.
I did a blind test with a friend once between 100 and 144Hz, I could pick every single time.
I won the euromillions 3 weeks in a row, but I felt guilty so I gave it all back.
100 -> 144hz has quite a massive difference in terms of gaming.
Theres much less blur during fast motion.
Seems you're not really a gamer or you're very very old or simply arent paying any attention.
You seem to live in a world where 100 -> 144 is just a marketing gimmick judging by all of your posts in other threads too.
You also seem to think Curved monitors are a waste of time, guess you want that barrel effect on larger monitors.
Last edited:
Absolute utter pish.
What was the setup and what game did you run at at a full and constant 100fps, and what was the setup and game you ran at a full and constant 144fps ?
LambChop, if other people can see the difference between 100Hz and 144Hz they are entitled to their opinion and view. just because you can't tell the difference doesn't mean others can't. in fact it seems you are probably in the minority here on this one.
Sure and the human eye cant see more than 30 fps, because all the Console gamers say so.
You really gotta ask that? let's keep it friendly please!
Just as I thought, you're giving out 'facts' without any substance.
I'm quite happy to be proven wrong, if you tell me your setups you tested with, the 2 exact machines running side by side, the same game, what monitors used etc, and what you did to test and why you did the test in the first place ?
another thing i forgot to mention before is that often the higher refresh rates have an impact on the actual pixel response times. So not only do you get a benefit in terms of perceived motion blur because of the increased refresh rate of a sample and hold display, you also get an improvement because of pixel response times.
http://www.tftcentral.co.uk/reviews/acer_xb270hu.htm
Have a look for example at the response time measurements and pursuit camera tests of this screen. you will see the response times are lower at 144Hz than at 100Hz and this has a knock on effect to the levels of blur you see with the naked eye - which is what the pursuit camera is designed to reflect.
like i said also, having support for >100Hz also then allows for additional technologies like Blur Reduction (ULMB). That is sometimes provided at 85Hz and 100HZ but works better at 120Hz and 144HZ with lower levels of blur detected. screens which can only go up to 100HZ max tend to not even feature ULMB or blur reduction modes so that's missed completely on those kind of screens.
http://www.tftcentral.co.uk/reviews/acer_xb270hu.htm
Have a look for example at the response time measurements and pursuit camera tests of this screen. you will see the response times are lower at 144Hz than at 100Hz and this has a knock on effect to the levels of blur you see with the naked eye - which is what the pursuit camera is designed to reflect.
like i said also, having support for >100Hz also then allows for additional technologies like Blur Reduction (ULMB). That is sometimes provided at 85Hz and 100HZ but works better at 120Hz and 144HZ with lower levels of blur detected. screens which can only go up to 100HZ max tend to not even feature ULMB or blur reduction modes so that's missed completely on those kind of screens.
You're right they are, but sometimes peoples opinion and view is so warped and wrong it has to be argued.
Some people dont want their new 144Hz monitor or 165Hz monitor to be flamed. I can understand that too. They paid good money for it, how dare anyone say anything different.
Is that in a desktop environment or gaming ?
What monitor do you own out of interest?
Those pursuit camera tests are carried out with specific motion test environments. The reduced pixel response times carry over in all applications as does any increased frame rate.
I'm not saying everyone will see the benefit in actual use and games but there are tangible differences that plenty of people do notice and the measurements and facts support that argument
You mean just like what you are doing now because you own a fairly new 100HZ asus 34" monitor? lols......
I have the PG348Q
I did have the 144Hz Swift, now the 100Hz Swift so I feel I'm in a good position to be able to give my experience on both and the differences. It's not like for like ok, but its still a decent observation of them both.
Most will spout what they read on the net and draw their own conclusion from that, and yet others will just pipe up on a thread with nothing to contribute, I'm not sure what lols means, I'm older than 14.