Latest Legend wrote:
Ah, I didn't know there actually were decent 1440p monitors now, so I guess 1440p is an option. Not sure if it's worth the extra money though. Thoughts on that instead of the fan? ^^'
In my experience using a 300€ 1440p monitor, YES!
I mean, for gaming only I might not recommend it right now. However, I think it's absolutely amazing for productivity (university/work/etc.) because you have so much more room to work on. I don't think I'd recommend anyone with a 1k+ budget a 1080p monitor (regardless of refresh rate) right now.
I know it's great for productivity, I'm using one myself too. I'm questioning whether it's actually beneficial for gaming. To me it feels like a €300 1440p monitor can be beaten by a €120 1080p monitor if we're talking professional gaming. But I'm not really up to date, which is why I was asking.
I'm not really sure whether Luther was planning to spend more than 1k pounds on the system either.
So I'm currently thinking of a system capable of running decent 1440p stuff for when those monitors get mainstream but with a (relatively cheap) 1080p monitor.
Then again, maybe Luther needs to set down a decent indication of his intended budget.
I'm not really sure whether Luther was planning to spend more than 1k pounds on the system either.
So I'm currently thinking of a system capable of running decent 1440p stuff for when those monitors get mainstream but with a (relatively cheap) 1080p monitor.
Then again, maybe Luther needs to set down a decent indication of his intended budget.
********'s a pretty good fertilizer
Latest Legend wrote:
I know it's great for productivity, I'm using one myself too. I'm questioning whether it's actually beneficial for gaming. To me it feels like a €300 1440p monitor can be beaten by a €120 1080p monitor if we're talking professional gaming. But I'm not really up to date, which is why I was asking.
If you are talking actual professional gaming, you want to have 144hz and minimal input lag(so no ips panel), which is also out of the 100-150 € pricerange even at 1080p. AFAIK no one here is good enough in any game for it to matter, so you might as well just ignore these screens.
I'm gonna try to stick to about £1200 if possible (including the keyboard and monitor). I think I have a pretty decent idea of what I'm looking for now though, thanks for all the recommendations.
mastrer1000 wrote:
If you are talking actual professional gaming, you want to have 144hz and minimal input lag(so no ips panel), which is also out of the 100-150 € pricerange even at 1080p. AFAIK no one here is good enough in any game for it to matter, so you might as well just ignore these screens.
Almost entirely false. RETRACT YOUR STATEMENT AT ONCE, SIR!
IPS-panels can have average latency on similar levels to TN-panels. Manufacturers tend to favor measuring the very shortest part of the response curve and listing it as the response time (while it is actually only one part of it), meaning that the response time spec is essentially useless; look up reviews that measure it instead. I know TFT-central know their stuff.
And it's not just about the competitive advantage. It's also about making your experience more pleasant. Having a smoother framerate is a positive experience.
Vynertje wrote:
I said that the results for 7v on the Pro correspond with the results on 12v for the R5.
Oh.
To be fair, you were pretty unclear. You first list a 5 degree temperature difference and then say that the noise levels are about the same for a different test in the very next sentence without any clear separation.
But more importantly, I think you need to take a proper look at yourself here. Because you're without question making biased comparisons.
Let's take a look at your use of language:
Quoted:
it cools much worse than the Enthoo Pro: tests I looked at show the temperatures are about 5 degrees higher than the Pro. The Pro with case fans at 7v cools better than the R5's at 12v, with about equal noise levels (35.9 vs 37 in favour of the R5).
You're only mentioning the good parts of your favored product, ignoring or trivializing the good parts of the "opposing" product.
You first mention the largest temperature difference you could find and then proceed to mention the smallest noise difference, combining the numbers as to best suit your point.
Sure, 5C cooler is pretty nice (25.6 vs 30.1), but you failed to mention that it is accompanied with a whopping 11.7 dB more noise (35.9 vs 47.6)..
Sure, the difference between 35.9dB and 37dB could be called negligible, but then the temperature difference between 28.9 and 30.1 is also negligible (those are the numbers for the corresponding dB levels). You can't claim that 1.2C is better while 1.1dB is negligible. That's hypocrisy and bias. And that's just the 400W test numbers (which you likely used because they favored your point better), if we take a look at the 200W test we see that Define R5 actually runs cooler than Enthoo Pro: 24 vs 24.2, that's what I'd call negligible, but one of the cases is quieter at the same temp. I'm gonna let you guess which.
If you look closely at the numbers you provided they actually discredit your own argument. You're going about this in the wrong order. Don't decide what you think is best and then go looking for facts to back it up, look for facts and then conclude which is best based on the facts. Don't do a Sarkeesian :P
Such biased behavior can be quite harmful. I sincerely hope you consider what I've written here and try to do something about it.
Sittin' on chimneys, putting fire up my ***.
"I biked 12km in a blizzard today and mice are chewing on my chocolate bars. Life's good."
"I biked 12km in a blizzard today and mice are chewing on my chocolate bars. Life's good."
Searz wrote:
Almost entirely false. RETRACT YOUR STATEMENT AT ONCE, SIR!
IPS-panels can have average latency on similar levels to TN-panels. Manufacturers tend to favor measuring the very shortest part of the response curve and listing it as the response time (while it is actually only one part of it), meaning that the response time spec is essentially useless; look up reviews that measure it instead. I know TFT-central know their stuff.
And it's not just about the competitive advantage. It's also about making your experience more pleasant. Having a smoother framerate is a positive experience.
My post was oriented entirely at gaming at very the highest level where the competitive edge comes before a better experience 100% of the time. If you have watched games done quick this week, then you prohably came across a glitch that the speedrunners were using where they had a timeframe of 2 or 3 frames to do something. I am pretty sure that no one here needs this kind of performance, but Latest Legend mentioned pro gaming so I figred that I'd go with it.
this graphic is from the review of the Dell U2515H by TFT-Central and shows the overall display lag of various screens. As you can see, stuff like the rog swift pg278q or the benq XL2720z in instant mode performs in the 3ms area while the better of the ips screens are in the 10ms area.
You need to log in before commenting.
<Member>