1920*1080@144Hz "24 vs 2560*1440@60Hz "27+

[thelyrale1]

Hello guys! I'd like to know your opinion regarding which of the following displays to choose for playing such games like Dota2/PUBG for comfort gameplay and a vivid picture?

 

[volkgren]

Knowing your system specs would help in deciding. Personally I prefer the higher refresh rate of my 1080p 144Hz monitor rather than my 4K 60Hz monitor.

 

[thelyrale1]

Knowing your system specs would help in deciding. Personally I prefer the higher refresh rate of my 1080p 144Hz monitor rather than my 4K 60Hz monitor.

CPU Intel Core i5-8400
GPU MSI GeForce GTX 1070 GAMING X 8GB
RAM 16GB (2 x 8GB)
HDD 1TB
SSD 250GB

 

[rontonomo]

1080p 144Hz all the way.

 

[King_V]

I like larger screens, and you've got the hardware to handle it, so I'd prefer 2560x1440 @ 60Hz with the 27" monitor.

 

[rontonomo]

but he wants to play first person shooters and its always better for higher refresh rate than resolution in those games... i have a 27 1440p g-sync 144Hz and also a 1080p 240Hz g-sync, and i play all shooters on the 1080p because its higher refresh rate is better for those games hands down. also don't forget 1080p at 144Hz is more demanding than 1440p at 60Hz.

 

[King_V]

The human eye can't send information to the brain that fast. So, until I see a consistent, reproducible study where people can tell the difference between a rock-solid 120fps and 200fps or something along those lines, I'm thinking it's more along the lines of people BELIEVING that they see the difference.

Now, is there a human-perceivable difference between a steady 60fps and a steady 120fps? That I'm less sure of. I'm skeptical, though, particularly since then there's also the requirement to be able to mentally process and physically respond to it.

Ultimately, I don't buy the "faster frame rate is always better for FPS games" argument.

I do know that, all other factors being equal, a clearer display is better in terms of comfort. Likewise, all other factors being equal, a bigger screen, as long as it's not too big to be entirely seen (ie: don't use a 60-inc TV up close), is better in terms of comfort.

Granted, I've had two monitors, both 1080p, where the smaller one was sharper and more vivid, but it was a notably newer model than the bigger screen I had. The bigger one also used a flourescent tube for backlighting whereas the smaller was LED-LCD.

 

[rontonomo]

The human eye can't send information to the brain that fast. So, until I see a consistent, reproducible study where people can tell the difference between a rock-solid 120fps and 200fps or something along those lines, I'm thinking it's more along the lines of people BELIEVING that they see the difference.

Now, is there a human-perceivable difference between a steady 60fps and a steady 120fps? That I'm less sure of. I'm skeptical, though, particularly since then there's also the requirement to be able to mentally process and physically respond to it.

Ultimately, I don't buy the "faster frame rate is always better for FPS games" argument.

I do know that, all other factors being equal, a clearer display is better in terms of comfort. Likewise, all other factors being equal, a bigger screen, as long as it's not too big to be entirely seen (ie: don't use a 60-inc TV up close), is better in terms of comfort.

Granted, I've had two monitors, both 1080p, where the smaller one was sharper and more vivid, but it was a notably newer model than the bigger screen I had. The bigger one also used a flourescent tube for backlighting whereas the smaller was LED-LCD.

sounds to me like your trying to justify why you do not believe you should buy a better monitor... There is a big difference, sorry your eyes are not good enough to see it but for a huge number of people there is a night and day difference... i would be willing to bet you have never even owned a high refresh rate monitor but still act like you know something about them... /and that bs about not being able to send info to the brain quick enough is complete proven wrong bs... bottom line i would not have bought a 240Hz monitor if it wasn't smoother and faster in game than my 144Hz monitor which was way smoother and faster than 60Hz.

here is just one link out of thousands to prove you wrong
https://us.battle.net/forums/en/overwatch/topic/20749876977

 

[King_V]

I have not. I just read a lot about the human eye when I start seeing the people needing to hit 200 fps.

You're almost right. My main monitor maxes out at 75, and my son's at 144. But, the video cards are the issue more than the monitor refresh rate. I am also excluding the CRTs, as I did have CRTs that could go pretty fast at an intermediate resolution. I know I can perceive more than 60Hz just because at 60Hz, I'd see the flickering on CRTs. 72 would be flicker-free for me on a CRT, definitely by 75Hz.

That doesn't disprove my point.

Also, let me be sure I understand this correctly. You're taking a messageboard posting at BattleNet as proof? A message board where the poster does in fact say:
"Also, notice that it is my personal understanding of the problem. I may be wrong somewhere"

This statement, however:
"- Human's eye can see up to 1000 FPS and, perhaps, above."

is complete and utter nonsense.

Ever see a car driving at a certain speed? As it picks up speed, ever notice how the wheels look like they slow down, stop and reverse?

Ever hold your hand in front of your face, palm toward you with your fingers spread? Then start slowly waving your hand back and forth, picking up speed until you start to see blurring?

What makes it even more complex is that the center of your vision is worse at it, and peripheral vision is better at it. That's why you're more likely to see flicker on a CRT when you're not looking directly at it, but out of the corner of your eye.

All in all, though, it's a bit more complex of a subject than our posts are making out. We haven't even touched on the brain actually adjusting what we're actually seeing in order to "predict the future" so to speak. Here are a few links that go in a few directions with it.

http://www.pcgamer.com/how-many-frames-per-second-can-the-human-eye-really-see/

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/cheryl-g-murphy/how-fast-can-the-eyes-see_b_7749510.html (fyi, 13 milliseconds comes to 76.923Hz)

I have trouble buying into some of the lower numbers stated, admittedly.

Further, there's this fun bit, which touches not only in the "brain predicting the future" portion, but goes into other wacky tricks that your brain plays on you - constantly. The whole thing is well worth the read, even if some of it is off of the particular FPS topic.

http://www.cracked.com/article_20432_5-illusions-that-prove-your-sense-reality-full-s232125.html

Related might be some of the stuff that deals with how fast the conscious vs the subconscious minds can process things.

 

[King_V]

Yet more fun. If you look at a CRT, do you see a solid image on the whole screen or do you yell at it "What is this useless device that only shows me a small horizontal band constantly moving downward?"

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3BJU2drrtCM

 

[rontonomo]

listen buddy i don't care you don't agree but as i said everybody who i know sees a benefit from a higher refresh rate if you don't agree then whatever but your shitty eyes are not the normal... the whole point of this post was which screen is better for pubg and dota and by far the norm would agree 1080 144Hz so get over yourself... im done now...

 

[thelyrale1]

Okay guys, thank you for your response, I got the viewpoint of each of you. I'll take that under advisement.

 

[King_V]

listen buddy i don't care you don't agree but as i said everybody who i know sees a benefit from a higher refresh rate if you don't agree then whatever but your shitty eyes are not the normal... the whole point of this post was which screen is better for pubg and dota and by far the norm would agree 1080 144Hz so get over yourself... im done now...

That's YOUR opinion based on anecdotal evidence based on people you know. You're the one who came in with a chip on your shoulder and told me that my opinion was wrong.

Don't give me an attitude just because the science doesn't back you on this.

 

[rontonomo]

listen buddy i don't care you don't agree but as i said everybody who i know sees a benefit from a higher refresh rate if you don't agree then whatever but your shitty eyes are not the normal... the whole point of this post was which screen is better for pubg and dota and by far the norm would agree 1080 144Hz so get over yourself... im done now...

That's YOUR opinion based on anecdotal evidence based on people you know. You're the one who came in with a chip on your shoulder and told me that my opinion was wrong.

Don't give me an attitude just because the science doesn't back you on this.

no actually your the one who came in with the bs that the human eye couldn't even see over 60 fps so a higher refresh rate was pointless get over yourself buddy... and quit saying science backs you thats complete bs... seems to me like your the one with the chip on his shoulder...

 

[King_V]

no actually your the one who came in with the bs that the human eye couldn't even see over 60 fps so a higher refresh rate was pointless get over yourself buddy... and quit saying science backs you thats complete bs... seems to me like your the one with the chip on his shoulder...

The human eye can't send information to the brain that fast. So, until I see a consistent, reproducible study where people can tell the difference between a rock-solid 120fps and 200fps or something along those lines, I'm thinking it's more along the lines of people BELIEVING that they see the difference.

Yeah, I can see how "the difference between a rock-solid 120fps and 200fps" could so EASILY be misread as "the human eye couldn't see over 60 fps"