project reality header
Go Back   Project Reality Forums > Off-Topic Forums > Off-Topic Discussion
12 Aug 2020, 00:00:00 (PRT)
Register Developer Blogs Project Reality Members List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read
Off-Topic Discussion For all discussions not related to PR. No Spam.

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 2019-03-15, 22:01   #1
WeeGeez
Supporting Member

WeeGeez's Avatar
Default 240hz, why o why

Just after quick opinion on this subject...

So apparently, the main contending justification for owning a 240Hz monitor is that players can react more quickly and that this (IMO, silly) trend will see itself pervade esports events, where reaction time is pandered as being "crucial to winning."

I am not interested in esports, nor am I looking for a new monitor, rather confirmation how much quicker this is to make it stark how daft this trend really is.

For instance,

Someones 240hz montor may update every 4.16ms (1000miliseconds divided by 240)
similarly every 6.94ms on 144hz and every 16.60ms on 60hz, the latter being more common place.

So to recap, the ONLY reason for owning a 240hz monitor as far as gaming/general PC use is concerned (and not science related applications which might account for 1%of the market) is that it gives players 16.60 - 4.16 = 12.44ms extra 'edge' aka time to anticipate enemy players moves in multplayer / esports scenarios. Thats pretty stupid, amirite?

Also, I have trouble figuring out , how to express this number in x th of a second, anyone care to enlighten?...

i.e. 240hz gives players how much _____th of a second advantage over those who use a 60hz monitor?

Though I think its roughly 80th, could be wrong.


Cheap computer build / fast track upgrade for slow computer for PR > Guide
WeeGeez is offline
Last edited by WeeGeez; 2019-03-15 at 23:42..
Reply With Quote
Old 2019-03-15, 22:15   #2
WeeGeez
Supporting Member

WeeGeez's Avatar
Default Re: 240hz, why o why

Secondly, It's oxymoronic that nvidia sell 144/240hz monitors with g-sync also enabled on those. To clarify, the whole raison-detre of g-sync (and freesync, AMDs counterpart) is that monitor is slaved to GPU and not vice versa (the norm since introduction of LCD computing where GPU accomodated LCD screen spec, typically around 60hz).

Eitherway it's disturbing that its taken this long to roll out this feature. 15 years at least. 60fps is wastefull; a detour from majority of cinema content. Note, monitors differ from TVs. TVs are designed to slave to DVD/BLue ray content, often 24/29/30 fps decoded as such by connected player.. All is fine in the living room gear, but PCs..?

Think about it, this whole time freesync and gsync was absent, LCD users put up with this mismatch between non 60fps content (though 60fps video is a more recent development, its kinda moot now per advent of g/freesync) and/or needlessly getting beefier GPUs so as to maintain a more optimal visual/gaming experience, when really, all that was needed was for the 60hz to become unlocked, free to syncronise (slaved) to the GPU. I don't think CRT had this 'restriction' because the inter connection was analog however they've been deprecated since ~2004.

IMO, This dynamic rate monitor development (and I was late in learning about it, clearly) changes everything, certainly its a turning point in gaming. Funnily enough the video card vendors probably aren't promoting it too hard because they'd rather you buy extra power in order maintain higher rates regardless. ATI have been more ethical here because at least their not making their solution (solution being the symbiotic concert between GPU and monitor) proprietry, which is really what nvidia should be doing too. g-sync capable monitors are substantially more expensive because nvidia license the comm/link chip to monitor manufacturers, contrast to ATI who offer a free specificaiton for manufacturers to copy). With ATI freesync, one can get a 22" freesync enabled monitor for £90, paired with an inexpensive entry ATI GPU that has freesync and be set for viewing (films or gaming) as nature intended. The visual difference is remarkable. For video/film be that physical media or MP4 on the web, these are typically 24/29/30fps and sometimes 60. This is if said media has not been resampled beforehand in video editiing software - which only worsens end-experience done incorrectly). See Occam's razor.

Again, why a 240hz monitor if it also has g-sync? and why even 240 at all?

A side note:, consider how much power is wasted in the case of 4k gaming; 12megapixels, thats twelve-million pixels, rendered every 60-240 times a second at any given time. That is astronomcial waste considering eyes won't notice differences beyond 30fps, let alone 60. There's a reason cinema has used ~24/29/30 for film for decades. Install freesync monitor and one can now run their favourite AAA titles at a lesser price and get just a visibly as-good appearance than if they had opted to try 4k, for example at a consistent 60, 144, or 240fps.

I'd like to hear communities thoughts on this.

TLDR: It's about time freesync was introduced but 240hz in any case is, IMO, a huge con propelled by clueless marketing.

Quote:
Marketing is always going to use (to a point of irrelevance) what the laypeople can be counted on to know
" But muh <insert bigger number here>Hz monitor "



And as always, analog mediums/connections media of the past like SCART never had any of these Hz issues. It was electrical/live.


Cheap computer build / fast track upgrade for slow computer for PR > Guide
WeeGeez is offline
Last edited by WeeGeez; 2019-03-17 at 00:53..
Reply With Quote
Old 2019-03-16, 11:46   #3
saXoni
Supporting Member
Default Re: 240hz, why o why

240 fps > 60 fps
saXoni is offline Reply With Quote
Old 2019-03-16, 17:28   #4
DogACTUAL

DogACTUAL's Avatar
Default Re: 240hz, why o why

Dude, higher refresh rates aren't really about reacting quicker, but about reducing the 'motion blur' and being able to track movement much better, do better deflection shooting and other stuff. There is a very very noticable difference in the quality the movement on your screen is displayed between 60Hz and 120Hz for example.

Basically your eyes are getting more feedback per second, which will make it easier for you to get a 'firing solution' so to say.

Quote:
That is astronomcial waste considering eyes won't notice differences beyond 30fps, let alone 60.
That's not true, it is a misconception. Around 30Hz and maybe lower is when your eyes start perceiving the sequence of images appearing on your screen as movement rather than seperate images. However you can definitively notice a big difference in the fidelity of the motion beyond that.

Not only did the DEVs totally throw off the CAS/AA balance and make TOWs useless against tanks, no that was not enough. They also had to introduce their most controversial change yet, a 16 character limit on player names.
------------------
''Mats literally does not give a single fuck what you, me or everybody else thinks the game should be like. He doesn't care if you, me or everybody else plays the game even.'' - Frontliner
DogACTUAL is offline Reply With Quote
Old 2019-03-16, 18:54   #5
[R-DEV]​Rusty_42
PR:BF2 Developer

Rusty_42's Avatar
Default Re: 240hz, why o why



Rusty_42 is online now Reply With Quote
Old 2019-03-16, 22:13   #6
Wicca
Supporting Member
PR Server License Moderator

Wicca's Avatar
Default Re: 240hz, why o why

The more information you receive the better?


Xact Wicca is The Joker. That is all.
Wicca is offline Reply With Quote
Old 2019-03-16, 22:53   #7
PBAsydney
Supporting Member

PBAsydney's Avatar
Default Re: 240hz, why o why

More hz/fps always better.

Even for movies. There. I said it. 48 fps Hobbit was awesome. SVP ftw.




HITREG CARRY
PBAsydney is offline Reply With Quote
Old 2019-03-16, 23:49   #8
WeeGeez
Supporting Member

WeeGeez's Avatar
Default Re: 240hz, why o why

Thanks for replies. While I disagree in part (and concede on 30fps statement), when you see a g/freesync monitor polling at 45hz side-by-side next to a 240hz (with or without g/freesync monitor) the difference is absolutely negligible and certainly not worth the extra overhead unless you can/want to afford it. We're talking 80th of a second difference. I think the matter of mismatch between GPU and montor has been/was always the bigger problem and that this is now being conflated with this 240 and 144 trend.

To elaborate: Personally I (and likely most 'average gamer') never bothered with expensive enough hardware to maintain 60fps in sync (against what is recommended / what enthusiast do), rather, I just disabled sync altogether and put up with tearing or jitter and while this wasn't optimal, tru, it never actuallly bothered me enough to upgrade. My first PC was also my last, to play vanilla BF2 in 2007. It wasn't stuttering horridly enough that it was unplayable, but it wasn't 60 constant either i.e. theres a grey area, where a game is still enjoyable but not 60 constant.. Most non-enthusiast builders fall into this category - mid-range - the games are still playable - they think not much of it unless they've read into it. I did research before buying but not enough to have learned about sync (untill reading about freesync, now hence thread).

Understand, the main problem or ' visual issue' - up untill the advent of g/freesync connections - was a mismatch in rates caused by incapable hardware alone and not lowly refreshing monitors as 240 advocates suggest. In fact, in some situations opting for 240hz only increases the chance of sub optimal viewing.
Apparent 'smoothness' reflects GPU ability and most people - I feel - never actually experienced that because it gets expensive fast, expecially considering the late explosion in game resolutions i.e. 4k etc. No qualms for enthusiasts who surrender £1k+ for a PC but average person spends less and/or are not familiar with requirements and thus (obliviously) put up with sub optimal viewing. Freesync mitigates this problem better than higher rates monitor will. If the monitor can do both, then thats a bonus perhaps.

Rusty. That animation will appear to each one of us differently, and this depends on a combination of factors:

Constants being:
the rate at which the animation was created + how the conversion to .GIF format is handled

Variable being:
the rate at which each one of our monitors refresh at.

i.e. a gif is a bad example.



I will concede from my original post that 30fps can be imrpoved upon to 45hz for example but really more than this is just ...meh <80th of a bloody second. The priority should be freesync and not monitor speed, if on a budget or are new to building computers , but more than 60 is still silly in my view.

When it comes to uninformed PCs buyers, theyre encouraged to buy 240hz first then not realise this places four times more of a power requirement on the GPU for optimal result. The better option would be to buy a freesync monitor capable (of any rate) first , then work from there. Though like I said g-sync monitors are considerably more expensive, one may as well buy a 60hz static monitor and with money saved on monitor splurge on adequate GPU for that. I mean, if your PC can't maintain 240hz and defaults on requiring g-sync to look optimal, then the only scenes such a system will be able to render smooth will be scenes with nothing happening anyway.

My semi-basis for my doubt about higher rates too is that films, when filmed at 60 look unnatural wheras for some reason rates as low as 24 or 29 is more acceptable, (rhetorically) why not games? and my answer would be; because all LCD were/are 60hz before the arrival of g/fsync, which so happened to concide with introduction fo 144/240.


Cheap computer build / fast track upgrade for slow computer for PR > Guide
WeeGeez is offline
Last edited by WeeGeez; 2019-03-17 at 01:28..
Reply With Quote
Old 2019-03-17, 00:51   #9
PBAsydney
Supporting Member

PBAsydney's Avatar
Default Re: 240hz, why o why

I cannot speak for 240 Hz, but 144 Hz is leaps and bounds superior over 60Hz and insanely noticeable how much better EVERYTHING is, even just moving the mouse around on the desktop.

I will never buy a monitor with less than 144Hz again.




HITREG CARRY
PBAsydney is offline Reply With Quote
Old 2019-03-17, 00:55   #10
WeeGeez
Supporting Member

WeeGeez's Avatar
Default Re: 240hz, why o why

Quote:
Originally Posted by DogACTUAL View Post
There is a very very noticable difference in the quality the movement on your screen is displayed between 60Hz and 120Hz for example..
Quote:
Originally Posted by PBAsydney View Post
I cannot speak for 240 Hz, but 144 Hz is leaps and bounds superior over 60Hz and insanely noticeable how much better EVERYTHING is,
Have either of you ever compared each rate, side by side? I gues not because thats two individual systems and nobody has the time for that, but in the shop sometimes there is a demonstration.

Improvement could be due to:
-The monitor you have is free-sync and/or
-You concurrently upgraded to a more powerful GPU at the same time which can now push 144.
-Possibly Placebo,

Evidently I am not a staunch believer in anyhting beyond 60fps. Real world experiments I should do... I just think freesync is awesome, 144/240 moot in comparison.


What monitors you guys got exactly, model wise?

also

Quote:
even just moving the mouse around on the desktop..
I'd have to see it believe it....


Cheap computer build / fast track upgrade for slow computer for PR > Guide
WeeGeez is offline
Last edited by WeeGeez; 2019-03-17 at 01:25..
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT. The time now is 15:19.