Overclock.net › Forums › Components › Monitors and Displays › [Various] ASUS debuts ROG SWIFT PG279Q 144hz IPS and G-SYNC
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

[Various] ASUS debuts ROG SWIFT PG279Q 144hz IPS and G-SYNC - Page 204

post #2031 of 9388
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pragmatist View Post

It's kinda wierd that TFT central hasn't received the monitor yet.
I can't believe that there are people doubting the difference between 60hz and 120hz in 2015. The difference is night and day, and unless you've experienced it first hand you should refrain from arguing against it. Most top gamers do play with a high refresh rate, only those that don't know better play with a 60hz refresh rate at this point and it's especially so when it comes to games like CS:GO.

I have experienced it first hand. It's nice, but it's not going to take anyone's competitive performance to the next level. I called for objective evidence, and instead you answered me with a subjective statement "its night and day", and then a made a false assumption that I've never tried the technology myself. You say most top gamers play with high refresh rate monitors? Do you have a link or citation or any evidence to back that claim up?
post #2032 of 9388
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rocketlucco View Post

I have experienced it first hand. It's nice, but it's not going to take anyone's competitive performance to the next level. I called for objective evidence, and instead you answered me with a subjective statement "its night and day", and then a made a false assumption that I've never tried the technology myself. You say most top gamers play with high refresh rate monitors? Do you have a link or citation or any evidence to back that claim up?

120 Hz has half the input latency of 60 Hz caused by monitor refresh. Is that objective enough?
post #2033 of 9388
It is not reasonable to expect a member of a forum to produce a scientific paper to backup that he feels there is a competitive advantage. That doesn't mean his argument is void or incorrect and he cannot express it without you jumping on it calling for evidence. You are not winning any arguments like that and nor do any of us need to.

How about this, can you show evidence of a test which disproves any advantage of motion tracking on high refresh rate monitors? Ah ok then you dont have the study you cant comment. See how it is not very constructive.
post #2034 of 9388
I think for most gamers it makes sense to stay with 60Hz, not everyone plays competitive or even plays games with fast motion. They will have a lot more choice of monitors and less of these QC issues that we're worrying about. Heck, I just got promoted to Eagle in CS:GO while playing on a 4K VA panel. But that's the point where I am really getting eager for 120+Hz, maybe it will not improve my game so much but every little bit will help. At least it should be more enjoyable for my eyes because I am really not satisfied with my motion clarity at the moment, and that's coming from someone who hasn't played at 120Hz yet. If eye pleasure would not be important, we could all stay on 1080P anyway.
post #2035 of 9388
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mand12 View Post

120 Hz has half the input latency of 60 Hz caused by monitor refresh. Is that objective enough?

I see there is some confusion about the difference between objective, subjective, and factual statements are. The claim made is that Higher Refresh Rates monitor confer a significant advantage in competitive gaming. Objective evidence would be some type of setup that shows that competitive gamers using high refresh monitors consistently perform significantly better than competitive gamers who are using regular 60hz monitors. This would require getting gamers of the same skill level, having them play under the same environment with the only changing variable being the monitors used. You would also need to define what "significantly better" means-- Do these monitors confer some minor advantage? Sure. Is it one that actually matters? Well you would have to set a definition for a noticeable difference in skill, and see if the group using the higher refresh monitors mets that criteria.

All you did was make a factual statement about input latency. For your statement to actually prove the point you think you made, y ou'd have to give evidence that the difference in input latency was enough to cause a significant advantage.
post #2036 of 9388
Quote:
Originally Posted by timd78 View Post

It is not reasonable to expect a member of a forum to produce a scientific paper to backup that he feels there is a competitive advantage. That doesn't mean his argument is void or incorrect and he cannot express it without you jumping on it calling for evidence. You are not winning any arguments like that and nor do any of us need to.

How about this, can you show evidence of a test which disproves any advantage of motion tracking on high refresh rate monitors? Ah ok then you dont have the study you cant comment. See how it is not very constructive.

The burden of proof is on those who wan't to claim a new product elicits a change. No the other way around. And yes, I'm sorry to inform you that all arguments are not equal. Some are based on good evidence and argued in good merit, while others are not.

Sorry if you feel like I'm coming across like a jerk. I don't really mean to, but I think its silly and deceitful to claim to people they are going to get a gaming advantage from spending the extra money on this monitor. There are plenty of reasons to get a high refresh rate monitor-- stops screen tearing, motion fluidity makes the image look nicer, enthusiast pride, etc.. . With so many legitimate reasons to get a monitor, trying to sell it to people under false assumptions seems unnecessary.
post #2037 of 9388
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rocketlucco View Post

I see there is some confusion about the difference between objective, subjective, and factual statements are. The claim made is that Higher Refresh Rates monitor confer a significant advantage in competitive gaming. Objective evidence would be some type of setup that shows that competitive gamers using high refresh monitors consistently perform significantly better than competitive gamers who are using regular 60hz monitors. This would require getting gamers of the same skill level, having them play under the same environment with the only changing variable being the monitors used. You would also need to define what "significantly better" means-- Do these monitors confer some minor advantage? Sure. Is it one that actually matters? Well you would have to set a definition for a noticeable difference in skill, and see if the group using the higher refresh monitors mets that criteria.

All you did was make a factual statement about input latency. For your statement to actually prove the point you think you made, y ou'd have to give evidence that the difference in input latency was enough to cause a significant advantage.

When you're moving your mouse around at 60hz it isn't smooth, it's like a slideshow in comparison to 120hz+. To me personally this discussion is old, and I can't fathom that there are people like you still doubting the what you gain from it. I'm under impression that it's casual gamers that won't notice the difference, and perhaps even old people which is based on comments during the years on this subject.
post #2038 of 9388
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rocketlucco View Post

The burden of proof is on those who wan't to claim a new product elicits a change. No the other way around. And yes, I'm sorry to inform you that all arguments are not equal. Some are based on good evidence and argued in good merit, while others are not.

Sorry if you feel like I'm coming across like a jerk. I don't really mean to, but I think its silly and deceitful to claim to people they are going to get a gaming advantage from spending the extra money on this monitor. There are plenty of reasons to get a high refresh rate monitor-- stops screen tearing, motion fluidity makes the image look nicer, enthusiast pride, etc.. . With so many legitimate reasons to get a monitor, trying to sell it to people under false assumptions seems unnecessary.

The same can be said about your claims, you have no factual proof. I am not saying that 165hz will be better than 144hz, I'm saying 60hz vs 120hz is a huge gosh darn step that most top gamers and other folks with a good pair of eyes can notice. IF you can't notice the difference, then that's fine. It's just odd to argue against the gain in this day in age.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PgHx3eMBXjI
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yWEpIwNDeCA
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sWdYu-vjZTE
Edited by Pragmatist - 10/7/15 at 10:13am
post #2039 of 9388
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rocketlucco View Post

Everything you said in regards to both topics is theoretical and subjective. Yes I understand the concept of how motion clarity can help you track a kill, but does it impart a significant statistical objectively measurable advantage? Well there's no formal studies done, but my guess would be no, since the vast majority of the best players in the world are not playing using these monitors. I'm sure it gives a minor advantage, but nothing that would make or break a match or compensate for lack of innate skill and practicing.

In terms of audio you are just regurgitating the same tired argument that values anecdotal experience over objective tests. Time and time again respected members of the audiophile community with the so called ability to tell the difference are put to blind listening tests, and in fact cannot tell the difference between high cost and low cost speakers or headphones. Can they tell the difference between well made and poorly made audio equipment? Yes of course, but the quality does not always correlate with price, and there are many relatively low cost speakers/headphones that score the same marks as thousand dollar ones on blind tests. Claiming that "some people just aren't able to tell the difference, but I can" is nonsense that people tell themselves to justify high cost purchases. If you think you can hear a difference, and it makes you enjoy your media more, all the more power to you, but that doesn't change the fact that it's a placebo effect.

Of course it's subjective, that was the entire point of my post. I'm not saying you should expect a massive increase in K:D ratios because you upped the refresh rate. The main point of spending money on a more expensive, higher hz display is for the eye candy, and whatever margin it helps (better motion clarity, decreased input lag) for competitive FPS is just a welcomed bonus. BTW looking at 60hz after fully adjusting to 144hz is very difficult, in fact it's a blurry mess. No one should be pumping 60hz in 2015 lol..

I have 0 experience with a outrageously priced cans, so rushing to judgement on them would be a bit arrogant. The only thing I can comment on is the $300 and less range, which I laugh at the idea what improvements I hear are placebo. But this is me after trying several headphones, made by different companies in different price ranges. Not going off what I read on the world wide interwebs and jotting that down as my real world experience. So here's a test, below linked are the headphones I have (that blows everything I previously owned out of the water) and I want you to find me something that will provide the same accurate powerful bass, sound stage, detail, and clarity for a much lower price.

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B00193FT26?keywords=dt%20990s&qid=1444235319&ref_=sr_1_1&sr=8-1
post #2040 of 9388
Quote:
Originally Posted by CallsignVega View Post

Actually, 21. biggrin.gif

But yes, I doubt the usefulness of the difference. It's pretty freaking hard for a CPU to put out that FPS in modern game these days no matter how much GPU horsepower you have.

Actually, 15 biggrin.gif new Acer XB is 150Hz with G-Sync and 144Hz without G-Sync: http://www.144hzmonitors.com/monitors/acer-xb271hu-27-inch-1440p-144hz-ips-g-sync-monitor/

I want finally some reviews of this monitor!!
Tomb
(19 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Intel i7 5775C 4.2 Ghz 1.36V Asus VII Hero ASUS GTX 1080 Ti STRIX OC 11 GB 2063/6000 24/7 G.Skill DDR3 16GB (2x8GB) TridentX 2133MHz 
Hard DriveHard DriveCoolingOS
SSD HyperX Savage 480GB SATA3 Seagate 3.5'', 2TB, SATAIII Corsair H105 Windows 10 Pro 
MonitorKeyboardPowerCase
XB271HU 1440p 165Hz Corsair K70 LUX RGB EVGA Supernova G2 1000 PHANTEKS Enthoo Evolv ATX Tempered Glass- Black. 
MouseMouse PadAudioAudio
Razer DeathAdder Chroma EXCO Scropion Athletics Edifier R1800BT SENNHEISER HD598 SPECIAL EDITION - BLACK 
OtherOtherOther
LC-Power LC-CFC-1 Fan Controller Xbox One One Gears of War 4 Crimson Omen specia... Playstation 4 Pro + Licensed PS4 Pad stand 
  hide details  
Reply
Tomb
(19 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Intel i7 5775C 4.2 Ghz 1.36V Asus VII Hero ASUS GTX 1080 Ti STRIX OC 11 GB 2063/6000 24/7 G.Skill DDR3 16GB (2x8GB) TridentX 2133MHz 
Hard DriveHard DriveCoolingOS
SSD HyperX Savage 480GB SATA3 Seagate 3.5'', 2TB, SATAIII Corsair H105 Windows 10 Pro 
MonitorKeyboardPowerCase
XB271HU 1440p 165Hz Corsair K70 LUX RGB EVGA Supernova G2 1000 PHANTEKS Enthoo Evolv ATX Tempered Glass- Black. 
MouseMouse PadAudioAudio
Razer DeathAdder Chroma EXCO Scropion Athletics Edifier R1800BT SENNHEISER HD598 SPECIAL EDITION - BLACK 
OtherOtherOther
LC-Power LC-CFC-1 Fan Controller Xbox One One Gears of War 4 Crimson Omen specia... Playstation 4 Pro + Licensed PS4 Pad stand 
  hide details  
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Monitors and Displays
Overclock.net › Forums › Components › Monitors and Displays › [Various] ASUS debuts ROG SWIFT PG279Q 144hz IPS and G-SYNC