By the time nextgen comes out midrange GPUs will be capable of 4k-1600p gaming

[QUOTE="Bebi_vegeta"]

[QUOTE="AM-Gamer"]

Not anymore there not, while monitors may have higher res they sacrafice both contrast ratio and color accuracy. A high end HDTV is the way to go if you can afford it.

GioVela2010

Color accurancy... I'm sure people who have a profession for video editing or any related to that have monitors.

There's high end monitors too...

[QUOTE="DerekLoffin"]And why we would care exactly? Unless you have your nose next to the screen, or have a truly monstrous screen, you wouldn't see the difference. Hell, I have a hard time telling the difference between 720p and 1080p now. This would truly be kind of irrelevant. the_bi99man

If I sit on my couch, like 7 or 8 feet away from my 42" TV, and have my laptop plugged into it, and I run any given game, and alternate between 1080p and 720p, the difference is massive. It's over twice as many pixels. Over twice as much detail. And that's not just technical mumbo-jumbo. It looks a lot better. Anyone and everyone can tell. You have to be blind to not see it. Granted, lower resolutions don't look as bad when you get further away from the screen, but that means that higher resolutions also look even better when you get further from the screen. It all stays relative. 1080p is a very big, immediately noticeable upgrade from 720p. If you can't see that, you're blind or lying. Or you're not actually seeing 1080p when you think you are. If you're playing console games, keep in mind that the vast majority of the games that say "1080p" on the back of the case, are actually rendering at less than 720p, and being upscaled. Which is pretty much equivalent to running a PC game at a less-than-native resolution, and hitting "fullscreen".

[QUOTE="the_bi99man"]

[QUOTE="DerekLoffin"]And why we would care exactly? Unless you have your nose next to the screen, or have a truly monstrous screen, you wouldn't see the difference. Hell, I have a hard time telling the difference between 720p and 1080p now. This would truly be kind of irrelevant. DerekLoffin

If I sit on my couch, like 7 or 8 feet away from my 42" TV, and have my laptop plugged into it, and I run any given game, and alternate between 1080p and 720p, the difference is massive. It's over twice as many pixels. Over twice as much detail. And that's not just technical mumbo-jumbo. It looks a lot better. Anyone and everyone can tell. You have to be blind to not see it. Granted, lower resolutions don't look as bad when you get further away from the screen, but that means that higher resolutions also look even better when you get further from the screen. It all stays relative. 1080p is a very big, immediately noticeable upgrade from 720p. If you can't see that, you're blind or lying. Or you're not actually seeing 1080p when you think you are. If you're playing console games, keep in mind that the vast majority of the games that say "1080p" on the back of the case, are actually rendering at less than 720p, and being upscaled. Which is pretty much equivalent to running a PC game at a less-than-native resolution, and hitting "fullscreen".

I honestly don't know what to think. From 7-8 feet, on my 46" sammy, the difference between 720p and 1080p is monumental to me (in games especially). Maybe I have much keener eyesight than most? In much the same way I don't really care about audio quality because i'm no audiophile?

[QUOTE="GioVela2010"]Copy paste A Plasma panel display has near instantaneous response times on the order of 2 milliseconds. What this implies is that a plasma TV subpixel is only alight for a fraction of a second. Typically, most conventional Plasma TVs display video at 60fps (research has shown that the human eye cannot tell any significant difference in motion and smoothness of videos at higher frame rates). This implies that each frame has to be displayed for 1/60 or 17ms. However, the sub pixels of a plasma TV stay alight only for around 2ms when excited. Thus, to display a single frame for 1/60 seconds, the plasma panel excites the sub-pixels in pulses so as to keep all the pixels bright so that they can continuously display the desired frame. Thus, for example, a 60Hz plasma panel can have 10 pulses per frame, to display the image. Effectively, the screen is being refreshed 60Hz times 10 pulses/frame which gives us a value of 600Hz. This is what Plasma manufacturers refer to as the Sub field drive refresh rate. If the Plasma panel performs 8 pulses per frame, it gives a sub field drive refresh rate of 480Hz. Now when the displayed frame has to be changed to the next frame, the ultra-fast response times of the Plasma TV sub pixels enables an almost instantaneous transition to the next frame. As a result, even though only 60 frames are displayed per second by the Plasma TV, the near instantaneous transition between frames drastically minimizes motion blur and image ghosting. While the subfield drive terminology is a bit misleading as each frame is not being updated 600 times a second, it still portrays the inherent advantage of Plasma TVs when it comes to fast moving content due to its near instantaneous pixel response times. 240Hz and 480Hz LCD 3D TVs The truth behind the numbers In the case of LCD panels, things change drastically. One of the fundamental limitations of LCD technology is that the switching speed, or the time it takes to change the pixel color is quite slow on the order of around 4ms. In addition, this refresh rate is dependent on what color the pixel was showing, and what color it has to update to. The 4ms is only a best case estimate and even on some of the commercial 480Hz panels, many pixels can take much longer to update certain pixels. As a result, when you are trying to view 60Hz content on an LCD TV, in the case of fast moving scenes where there is a large difference between successive frames. If the LCD panel cant keep up with this (which is usually the case) it gives rise to motion blurring and image ghosting artifacts. While LCD manufacturers have been trying to push the response times of these displays, they are still nowhere close to producing a true 240Hz or 480Hz display that can display all video content accurately and free of artifacts at these high refresh rates. Instead, what they have chosen to do is use advanced mathematical techniques to interpolate between the frames of a 60Hz video signal to give rise to a 240Hz signal. Keep in mind that a large number of the 240 frames being displayed every second are fake interpolated frames. The idea behind this is that the 240Hz source keeps driving the LCD pixels at a much faster rate, thus allowing for a better transition from one frame to the next. While this is certainly an interesting way to improve LCD displays, the 240Hz or 480Hz terms are somewhat misleading since the screen itself is still not capable of true 240Hz/480hz response times.kraken2109

1. BS

2. We're now discussing 'true' 120hz on PC monitors, not interpolation.

3. Link to source.

[QUOTE="kraken2109"]

[QUOTE="GioVela2010"]Copy paste A Plasma panel display has near instantaneous response times on the order of 2 milliseconds. What this implies is that a plasma TV subpixel is only alight for a fraction of a second. Typically, most conventional Plasma TVs display video at 60fps (research has shown that the human eye cannot tell any significant difference in motion and smoothness of videos at higher frame rates). This implies that each frame has to be displayed for 1/60 or 17ms. However, the sub pixels of a plasma TV stay alight only for around 2ms when excited. Thus, to display a single frame for 1/60 seconds, the plasma panel excites the sub-pixels in pulses so as to keep all the pixels bright so that they can continuously display the desired frame. Thus, for example, a 60Hz plasma panel can have 10 pulses per frame, to display the image. Effectively, the screen is being refreshed 60Hz times 10 pulses/frame which gives us a value of 600Hz. This is what Plasma manufacturers refer to as the Sub field drive refresh rate. If the Plasma panel performs 8 pulses per frame, it gives a sub field drive refresh rate of 480Hz. Now when the displayed frame has to be changed to the next frame, the ultra-fast response times of the Plasma TV sub pixels enables an almost instantaneous transition to the next frame. As a result, even though only 60 frames are displayed per second by the Plasma TV, the near instantaneous transition between frames drastically minimizes motion blur and image ghosting. While the subfield drive terminology is a bit misleading as each frame is not being updated 600 times a second, it still portrays the inherent advantage of Plasma TVs when it comes to fast moving content due to its near instantaneous pixel response times. 240Hz and 480Hz LCD 3D TVs The truth behind the numbers In the case of LCD panels, things change drastically. One of the fundamental limitations of LCD technology is that the switching speed, or the time it takes to change the pixel color is quite slow on the order of around 4ms. In addition, this refresh rate is dependent on what color the pixel was showing, and what color it has to update to. The 4ms is only a best case estimate and even on some of the commercial 480Hz panels, many pixels can take much longer to update certain pixels. As a result, when you are trying to view 60Hz content on an LCD TV, in the case of fast moving scenes where there is a large difference between successive frames. If the LCD panel cant keep up with this (which is usually the case) it gives rise to motion blurring and image ghosting artifacts. While LCD manufacturers have been trying to push the response times of these displays, they are still nowhere close to producing a true 240Hz or 480Hz display that can display all video content accurately and free of artifacts at these high refresh rates. Instead, what they have chosen to do is use advanced mathematical techniques to interpolate between the frames of a 60Hz video signal to give rise to a 240Hz signal. Keep in mind that a large number of the 240 frames being displayed every second are fake interpolated frames. The idea behind this is that the 240Hz source keeps driving the LCD pixels at a much faster rate, thus allowing for a better transition from one frame to the next. While this is certainly an interesting way to improve LCD displays, the 240Hz or 480Hz terms are somewhat misleading since the screen itself is still not capable of true 240Hz/480hz response times.Cranler

1. BS

2. We're now discussing 'true' 120hz on PC monitors, not interpolation.

3. Link to source.

[QUOTE="Cranler"]

[QUOTE="kraken2109"]

1. BS

2. We're now discussing 'true' 120hz on PC monitors, not interpolation.

3. Link to source.

DerekLoffin

[QUOTE="DerekLoffin"][QUOTE="Cranler"] I 2nd in calling those claims bs. I recently upgraded to a 120hz monitor and on games like Quake live the difference is night and day. I was absolutely astonished at the difference in fluidity and clarity.Cranler

If you're playing 4K resolution on a mid-range GPU then you're doing it wrong. What an epic waste of pixels.

(research has shown that the human eye cannot tell any significant difference in motion and smoothness of videos at higher frame rates). GioVela2010

If you actually look a little deeper, you will find a standard PC monitor will smoke even the highest price HDTV. clyde46

This statement is false, unless you are referring to CRT computer monitors such as the top of the line Sony FW900, which easily beats out most LCD and Plasma displays.

[QUOTE="the_bi99man"]

[QUOTE="DerekLoffin"]And why we would care exactly? Unless you have your nose next to the screen, or have a truly monstrous screen, you wouldn't see the difference. Hell, I have a hard time telling the difference between 720p and 1080p now. This would truly be kind of irrelevant. DerekLoffin

If I sit on my couch, like 7 or 8 feet away from my 42" TV, and have my laptop plugged into it, and I run any given game, and alternate between 1080p and 720p, the difference is massive. It's over twice as many pixels. Over twice as much detail. And that's not just technical mumbo-jumbo. It looks a lot better. Anyone and everyone can tell. You have to be blind to not see it. Granted, lower resolutions don't look as bad when you get further away from the screen, but that means that higher resolutions also look even better when you get further from the screen. It all stays relative. 1080p is a very big, immediately noticeable upgrade from 720p. If you can't see that, you're blind or lying. Or you're not actually seeing 1080p when you think you are. If you're playing console games, keep in mind that the vast majority of the games that say "1080p" on the back of the case, are actually rendering at less than 720p, and being upscaled. Which is pretty much equivalent to running a PC game at a less-than-native resolution, and hitting "fullscreen".

[QUOTE="Cranler"][QUOTE="DerekLoffin"] Well, it is partly BS at least. The human eye can perceive something beyond 100 hz, BUT, 60 is generally where that perception reaches its mostly useful limits (ie if I show you an image for that 1/60 of a second, you can have a shot at identifying it, verse if I show you an image at 1/120 of a second, you may know something was shown, but wouldn't have a clue what). DerekLoffin

[QUOTE="DerekLoffin"][QUOTE="Cranler"] Have you ever played a game at 120 frames with a 120hz monitor? Actually even without games theres a big difference, just scolling this page or dragging windows around on the desktop is so much more fluid and clear which results in less eye strain. Cranler

If you're playing 4K resolution on a mid-range GPU then you're doing it wrong. What an epic waste of pixels.

Teufelhuhn

[QUOTE="Cranler"]

[QUOTE="DerekLoffin"] That's far from universal though. Some people have a detection threshold less than 60hz. Some have over 200hz. And keep in mind, what you are observing there is not contradicting what I said at all. You are noticing a change, however, if I showed you an image for 1/120 of a second, you could not tell me what I showed you, but you could tell me something was shown.GioVela2010

[QUOTE="GioVela2010"][QUOTE="Cranler"]Flashing images for 1/120 of a second isnt the same thing as looking around in a game with a mouse/controller or watching npc's moving about in the gameworld. Simply strafing back and forth is much clearer at 120hz

Cranler

Have you seen a game played in over 1080p? It's quite good.

mitu123

[QUOTE="mitu123"]

Have you seen a game played in over 1080p? It's quite good.

II_Seraphim_II

[QUOTE="mitu123"]

Have you seen a game played in over 1080p? It's quite good.

II_Seraphim_II

Cool deal, bro.

PC gaming= Paying $2000 for a rig just to play freecell and solitaire, all the best games come to consoles.

kingoflife9

Bad troll! Bad!

[QUOTE="II_Seraphim_II"][QUOTE="mitu123"]

Have you seen a game played in over 1080p? It's quite good.

Cranler

[QUOTE="II_Seraphim_II"][QUOTE="mitu123"]

Have you seen a game played in over 1080p? It's quite good.

Cranler

[QUOTE="Cranler"][QUOTE="II_Seraphim_II"] Yes its nice, its just not worth the extra $$$$mitu123

[QUOTE="mitu123"]

[QUOTE="Cranler"] Not worth the drop in fps either imho. Cranler

[QUOTE="Cranler"]

[QUOTE="mitu123"] This is why I'm gonna be an SLI person again.

mitu123

[QUOTE="mitu123"]

[QUOTE="Cranler"] Not worth the drop in fps either imho. Cranler

My monitor model can sometimes reach 120 Hz, but mine can only reach 117 Hz.

[QUOTE="mitu123"]

[QUOTE="Cranler"] I got so tired of sli. Dont think I'll ever use it again. Plus no high res monitors have 120hz afaik. I cant go back to 60hz even for non gaming use now.

clyde46

[QUOTE="clyde46"][QUOTE="mitu123"] What's so tiring about SLI? BTW 120hz 1440p monitors do exist.

mitu123

[QUOTE="mitu123"]

[QUOTE="clyde46"] SLI still has issues and is very driver reliant.clyde46

[QUOTE="Cranler"]

[QUOTE="mitu123"] This is why I'm gonna be an SLI person again.

mitu123

[QUOTE="Cranler"][QUOTE="GioVela2010"] You guys get too hung up on the numbers. A 96hz Plasma will always have less motion blur than a LCD, alwaysGioVela2010

So, do you not actually understand the difference between a game's FPS and your monitor/TV's refresh rate? Or are you arguing something else here?

[QUOTE="mitu123"]

[QUOTE="Cranler"] I got so tired of sli. Dont think I'll ever use it again. Plus no high res monitors have 120hz afaik. I cant go back to 60hz even for non gaming use now.

Cranler

It seems game dependent, but in my experience since I started in late 2011 I don't have many problems as all the games I pretty much tried ran well with it.

[QUOTE="Cranler"]

[QUOTE="mitu123"] This is why I'm gonna be an SLI person again.

mitu123

[QUOTE="Cranler"][QUOTE="mitu123"] What's so tiring about SLI? BTW 120hz 1440p monitors do exist.

mitu123

It seems game dependent, but in my experience since I started in late 2011 I don't have many problems as all the games I pretty much tried ran well with it.

[QUOTE="mitu123"]

[QUOTE="Cranler"] I got so tired of sli. Dont think I'll ever use it again. Plus no high res monitors have 120hz afaik. I cant go back to 60hz even for non gaming use now.

GioVela2010

[QUOTE="mitu123"]

[QUOTE="Cranler"] Never seen a 1440p with 120hz, got any links out of curiosity? As far as sli, various issues. Witcher 1 had lights bleeding through all textures. The engines used for Fallout and Elder Scrolls actually gave me worse performance with sli and vFallout 3 had hdr glitches. Crysis 2 had flicker issues at first. I could go on, the pros are outweighed by the cons for me.GioVela2010

It seems game dependent, but in my experience since I started in late 2011 I don't have many problems as all the games I pretty much tried ran well with it.

[QUOTE="GioVela2010"][QUOTE="mitu123"] What's so tiring about SLI? BTW 120hz 1440p monitors do exist.

mitu123

[QUOTE="GioVela2010"][QUOTE="mitu123"]http://www.overlordcomputer.com/overlord_tempest_X270OC_display_p/ot_x270oc_a.htm

It seems game dependent, but in my experience since I started in late 2011 I don't have many problems as all the games I pretty much tried ran well with it.

mitu123

[QUOTE="mitu123"]

[QUOTE="GioVela2010"] That's a 60hz Monitor that can be overclocked. many complain about artifacting when you start approaching over 100hzGioVela2010