[QUOTE=Tophat;45018129]I agree with most things you said there except for the 144hz part. The 144hz is shit, the monitor performs far better with the lightboost hack in 120hz.[/QUOTE]
Weird, I just tried LightBoost and did not like it, yes the slight blur was gone in the tests but I couldn't stand default colors and brightness as well as the choppiness of 120 after 144
"republic of gamers"
ugh
This looks nice. I use a 1080p/120hz Acer Monitor atm and I'll probly upgrade to something like this when 1080p + resolutions are a more common trait among PC users
I hope one day an OLED, 1440p (or 4k), 144hz monitor comes out... god damn
[QUOTE=elevate;45019004]"republic of gamers"
ugh[/QUOTE]
It's just their high performance branding. Kinda lame, I'll agree. But it's important to differentiate the product lines.
[QUOTE=EvilPengy;45019010]This looks nice. I use a 1080p/120hz Acer Monitor atm and I'll probly upgrade to something like this when 1080p + resolutions are a more common trait among PC users
I hope one day an OLED, 1440p (or 4k), 144hz monitor comes out... god damn[/QUOTE]
I'm using a 1080p120 BenQ monitor and it's the best monitor I've ever had, 1440p would be really nice but I'd need a hardware upgrade to take advantage of it. Already have a hard enough time pushing a constant 120fps at 1080p.
[QUOTE=damnatus;45018993]Weird, I just tried LightBoost and did not like it, yes the slight blur was gone in the tests but I couldn't stand default colors and brightness as well as the choppiness of 120 after 144[/QUOTE]
That's odd to hear. As a salesman everyone that I've ever recommended it to have liked it as well.
In case you didn't know it also brings the response time down from 1.8ms for the whole color spectrum down to 1.2ms. So I don't understand how it could possible be "choppier". And from everything I've researched, the 144hz is actually even choppier than 120hz stock. The colors in 144hz are also horrid and have often been compared to a "disco". (at least at the wrong trace-free settings, which you'll want to look into if you're having any problems with picture quality)
Scroll down on this in-depth review and see for yourself. [url]http://pcmonitors.info/reviews/asus-vg248qe[/url]
If you want better colors grab the color profile off of that review as well, it's around halfway down the page.
[editline]6th June 2014[/editline]
[QUOTE=zombini;45018312]Especially with LightBoost(Nvidia only, sorry AMD guys) it's fantastic. Blur gets cut right down and everything is much smoother. I actually have a 144hz monitor, but i can't run many games at 144fps, so i go for 120. Luckily 120 with LightBoost is about as smooth as 144 without LightBoost.[/QUOTE]
AMD users can do it as well, I have 2 friends with AMD who have done it.
[QUOTE=alien_guy;45018160]When can we get OLED monitors?[/QUOTE]
Nobody actually wants OLED monitors once they realize the limitations and that the only benefit to the user whatsoever is black levels.
[url]http://www.anandtech.com/show/7942/galaxy-s5-followup[/url]
OLED physically cannot actually do AdobeRGB, let alone the upcoming Rec. 2020 color space coming with UHD. You need LCD with quantum dots to do that and it's why OLED is just going to be some niche monitor tech that nobody really uses. It's not usable for professional work and the burn in isn't manageable with all the stationary elements in a desktop environment.
[QUOTE=Angus725;45014646]It'll take another 1-2 generations of video cards until they can actually drive these things at decent fps...
([B]I'm trying to drive a 2560x1440x50hz monitor with a GTX670M to terrible effect[/B], not often do you want to buy a computer for a monitor instead of a monitor for a computer.)[/QUOTE]
you are doing something very wrong
[editline]6th June 2014[/editline]
[QUOTE=Elecbullet;45018196]This might be great for normal desktop usage.[/QUOTE]
for normal desktop usage it would actually be better to have more accurate colours in most scenarios, these 1440p 144hz monitors have to sacrifice a lot of accuracy
[QUOTE=Levelog;45017946]If only it were made by Corsair. Then we could change that ugly red ring to an ugly blue or white.[/QUOTE]
or razor
then it would be twice the cost and covered in shitty blue rainbow flashing LED lights
[editline]6th June 2014[/editline]
also how well would this do on a single gtx770 anyways?
[editline]6th June 2014[/editline]
or should I just stick to trying for a 1080x120hz monitor?
[QUOTE=J!NX;45019411]or razor
then it would be twice the cost and covered in shitty blue rainbow flashing LED lights
[editline]6th June 2014[/editline]
[B]also how well would this do on a single gtx770 anyways?[/B][/QUOTE]
um, that's plenty of processing power for 1440@144hz in most games around medium-high
[editline]6th June 2014[/editline]
your video ram might factor in, though
[QUOTE=Tophat;45018223]I didn't know about those first couple of monitors that you mentioned because they weren't sold here in Canada yet (at least not at Canada Computers). The main reason there's hype for this is probably because it's the successor to the ever so hot VG248QE, albeit at a much higher price.
[editline]6th June 2014[/editline]
6ms isn't a low response time.[/QUOTE]
The hell it isn't. That's lower than polling response is most common peripherals.
i'd like to see anyone who complains about a 6ms response time actually go ahead and take a blind test compared to 1ms
[QUOTE=27X;45019452]The hell it isn't. That's lower than polling response is most common peripherals.[/QUOTE]
By monitor standards that's actually above average (posted) response time. Most monitors sit at around 5ms (posted, which equates to about 7-8ms for the whole color spectrum).
[editline]6th June 2014[/editline]
[QUOTE=.Lain;45019467]i'd like to see anyone who complains about a 6ms response time actually go ahead and take a blind test compared to 1ms[/QUOTE]
I would happily do so. The difference is night and day to me. It's like the latency difference between having v-sync on and off.
[editline]6th June 2014[/editline]
[QUOTE=.Lain;45019243]for normal desktop usage it would actually be better to have more accurate colours in most scenarios, these 1440p 144hz monitors have to sacrifice a lot of accuracy[/QUOTE]
That depends on what you consider to be "normal". What even is "normal"?
[QUOTE=Tophat;45019487]By monitor standards that's actually above average (posted) response time. Most monitors sit at around 5ms (posted, which equates to about 7-8ms for the whole color spectrum).
[editline]6th June 2014[/editline]
I would happily do so. The difference is night and day to me. It's like the latency difference between having v-sync on and off.[/QUOTE]
Except no it isn't because the response time has no direct correlation whatsoever with processing lag. This is why OEMs selling bad monitors still stay afloat, people actually read things like a 1ms response time and a 9 million trillion billion dynamic contrast and actually think it means anything.
[img]http://images.anandtech.com/graphs/graph7906/62309.png[/img]
Compare the UP3214Q to the P246Q. The "response time" is literally a 2ms difference for GtG. There's no correlation, none. The scaler, channel bit depth, and a bunch of other factors have an impact too and putting it down to the response time number is nonsense.
[QUOTE=Kaabii;45019219]Nobody actually wants OLED monitors once they realize the limitations and that the only benefit to the user whatsoever is black levels.
[url]http://www.anandtech.com/show/7942/galaxy-s5-followup[/url]
OLED physically cannot actually do AdobeRGB, let alone the upcoming Rec. 2020 color space coming with UHD. You need LCD with quantum dots to do that and it's why OLED is just going to be some niche monitor tech that nobody really uses. It's not usable for professional work and the burn in isn't manageable with all the stationary elements in a desktop environment.[/QUOTE]
TBH, OLED is cool on phones if the UI utilises a lot of black areas and very vibrant colours (cough cough WP) and it kinda shines there.
On anything else, it really isn't that amazing.
[QUOTE=Tophat;45019487]By monitor standards that's actually above average (posted) response time. Most monitors sit at around 5ms (posted, which equates to about 7-8ms for the whole color spectrum).
[editline]6th June 2014[/editline]
I would happily do so. The difference is night and day to me. It's like the latency difference between having v-sync on and off.
[editline]6th June 2014[/editline]
That depends on what you consider to be "normal". What even is "normal"?[/QUOTE]
anywhere where colour accuracy matters. working in adobe suites, watching a lot of movies etc. sure, a 120hz accurate panel would be cool but that's the last thing this monitor is
for other desktop tasks, 120hz doesn't provide much benefit to the average user. most if not almost all video/web content is displayed at 60fps or lower
[QUOTE=Kaabii;45019527]Except no it isn't because the response time has no direct correlation whatsoever with processing lag. This is why OEMs selling bad monitors still stay afloat, people actually read things like a 1ms response time and a 9 million trillion billion dynamic contrast and actually think it means anything.
[img]http://images.anandtech.com/graphs/graph7906/62309.png[/img]
Compare the UP3214Q to the P246Q. The "response time" is literally a 2ms difference for GtG. There's no correlation, none. The scaler, channel bit depth, and a bunch of other factors have an impact too and putting it down to the response time number is nonsense.[/QUOTE]
I realize that, I guess that was a bad metaphor. 2ms GtG is pretty much 4-5ms for the whole color spectrum. The couple of milliseconds do make a difference when you make the jump from approximately 7ms for the whole spectrum down to 1.2ms. Especially if you're gaming on mushrooms etc.
[QUOTE=wraithcat;45019561]TBH, OLED is cool on phones if the UI utilises a lot of black areas and very vibrant colours (cough cough WP) and it kinda shines there.
On anything else, it really isn't that amazing.[/QUOTE]
It's too bad everything except WP8 is moving towards grey and white mainly for the UI. The thing is though, you still get burn in for things like the status bar. The Moto X review sample for a certain website I write for has massive burn in where the status bar normally is. Plus as the subpixel materials degrade at different rates you get massive color shift. I honestly don't think OLED is going to be viable for a long time, a really really long time. In fact Ching W. Tang, one of the key inventors of OLED tech, mentioned at SID 2012 that he doesn't expect any advancement in blue subpixel lifetimes for OLED for a very long time. Any display with subpixel degradation will never be viable for professionals even if they calibrate every week.
[QUOTE=.Lain;45019579]anywhere where colour accuracy matters. working in adobe suites, watching a lot of movies etc. sure, a 120hz accurate panel would be cool but that's the last thing this monitor is
for other desktop tasks, 120hz doesn't provide much benefit to the average user. most if not all video content is lower than 60fps[/QUOTE]
Let's be honest; I've worked in a PC store and the "average" user just wants to browse the internet and do their office work. I understand what you're trying to say, but as far as "normal" or "average" user goes neither of those titles represent anybody who even cares about the quality of their monitors at all! :v:
[QUOTE=Tophat;45019599]I realize that, I guess that was a bad metaphor. 2ms GtG is pretty much 4-5ms for the whole color spectrum. The couple of milliseconds do make a difference when you make the jump from approximately 7ms for the whole spectrum down to 1.2ms. Especially if you're gaming on mushrooms etc.[/QUOTE]
You've bought into placebo, that's all I can say. Those couple of milliseconds aren't even a single extra frame of delay. Also you don't measure for "the whole color spectrum", you just do GtG or BtB because black to black implies you're using the 3 primaries at whatever the deepest depth of your monitor is (64 for trash TN or IPS, 256 for 8-bit TN or IPS)
[QUOTE=Tophat;45019055]That's odd to hear. As a salesman everyone that I've ever recommended it to have liked it as well.
In case you didn't know it also brings the response time down from 1.8ms for the whole color spectrum down to 1.2ms. So I don't understand how it could possible be "choppier". And from everything I've researched, the 144hz is actually even choppier than 120hz stock. The colors in 144hz are also horrid and have often been compared to a "disco". (at least at the wrong trace-free settings, which you'll want to look into if you're having any problems with picture quality)
Scroll down on this in-depth review and see for yourself. [url]http://pcmonitors.info/reviews/asus-vg248qe[/url]
If you want better colors grab the color profile off of that review as well, it's around halfway down the page.
[/QUOTE]
That's what I read even before I bought it, and that is the color profile i ended up using (I think using the lightboost hack sets the profile to default or something). TraceFree is at 80. Also how 144 hz can possibly be choppier if it allows more frames than 120hz
[QUOTE=damnatus;45019666]That's what I read even before I bought it, and that is the color profile i ended up using (I think using the lightboost hack sets the profile to default or something). Also how 144 hz can possibly be choppier if it allows more frames than 120hz[/QUOTE]
Lightboost isn't meant to work above 120Hz. It should be turning itself off at 144Hz to begin with.
[QUOTE=Kaabii;45019646]You've bought into placebo, that's all I can say. Those couple of milliseconds aren't even a single extra frame of delay. Also you don't measure for "the whole color spectrum", you just do GtG or BtB because black to black implies you're using the 3 primaries at whatever the deepest depth of your monitor is (64 for trash TN or IPS, 256 for 8-bit TN or IPS)[/QUOTE]
It sure doesn't feel like a placebo, I've always been really sensitive to latency between my inputs and the outputs, perhaps there's a different issue at hand then that I have yet to figure out. And as far as all colors vs GtG and BtB I suppose my managers and supervisors at Canada Computers must have been wrong then? (That wouldn't surprise me lol)
[editline]6th June 2014[/editline]
[QUOTE=damnatus;45019666]That's what I read even before I bought it, and that is the color profile i ended up using (I think using the lightboost hack sets the profile to default or something). TraceFree is at 80. Also how 144 hz can possibly be choppier if it allows more frames than 120hz[/QUOTE]
Choppier in the sense that the colors become more inaccurate and the tracing becomes more undesirable at 144hz. Perhaps choppy is a bad way to describe those concepts.
[QUOTE=Tophat;45019741]
Choppier in the sense that the colors become more inaccurate and the tracing becomes more undesirable at 144hz. [b]Perhaps choppy is a terrible way to describe those concepts.[/b][/QUOTE]
Yes.
[editline]6th June 2014[/editline]
[QUOTE=Tophat;45019626]Let's be honest; I've worked in a PC store and the "average" user just wants to browse the internet and do their office work. I understand what you're trying to say, but as far as "normal" or "average" user goes neither of those titles represent anybody who even cares about the quality of their monitors at all! :v:[/QUOTE]
Canada Computers doesn't sell Apple products or the best Dells so it's not like you'd get any ordinary customers that do care anyway. Basically your sample doesn't work because it wouldn't consist of a group of people in the first place. Display is a big reason why the tablet market and Apple's PC sales are growing while the rest of the PC industry is shrinking.
[QUOTE=wraithcat;45019561]TBH, OLED is cool on phones if the UI utilises a lot of black areas and very vibrant colours (cough cough WP) and it kinda shines there.
On anything else, it really isn't that amazing.[/QUOTE]
IIRC OLED tech theoretically can handle refresh rates in the vein of many kHz. That's a big plus if you hate screen tearing while running a game without Vsync.
I don't think I'd need more than 1080p I can barely see the damn text anyway
[QUOTE=Antimuffin;45014703]Can somebody elaborate the difference between 60hz and 120hz?[/QUOTE]
[media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6CML9GaMSdg[/media]
[QUOTE=zombini;45019843]IIRC OLED tech theoretically can handle refresh rates in the vein of many kHz. That's a big plus if you hate screen tearing while running a game without Vsync.[/QUOTE]
In theory. In practice it's hard enough to make OLED panels at sRGB with normal subpixel layouts at 60Hz. We can expect kHz OLED monitors in the timeframe of never. You'll just hit a wall with transmission anyway. DisplayPort 1.3 already has VESA implementing compression for 8K streams at high bit depth or refresh rate because it's getting difficult to send all this data.
[QUOTE=Kaabii;45019796]Yes.
[editline]6th June 2014[/editline]
Canada Computers doesn't sell Apple products or the best Dells so it's not like you'd get any ordinary customers that do care anyway. Basically your sample doesn't work because it wouldn't consist of a group of people in the first place. Display is a big reason why the tablet market and Apple's PC sales are growing while the rest of the PC industry is shrinking.[/QUOTE]
Haha come on, it's not a "terrible" way to describe those concepts. If the image isn't clean (no tracing) then it is a tad "choppy", is it not? Because you'd be seeing remnants of the last image on screen.
Once again, what is an "ordinary" customer? There is no such thing, that's like trying to say you are a "average" human, that lives a "normal" life. You could debate for centuries trying to put proper definitions on those concepts in those contexts.
A lot of apples users are photographers and video editors that have been led to believe that their panels are the best for their work. They are great, no doubt, but there are still a ton of smart pc users out there who care just as much about their displays. There are a lot of great panels that meet or beat the quality of Apple's for around the same price.
Also, who buys Dells anymore? It's 2014 and most people have learned their lessons by now. Dell is just bad.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.