101–110 of 470 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Once you try a high refresh rate monitor, even for work, you just don't want to go back. Every movement and animation is buttery smooth. Try setting your refresh rate to 30hz for an hour.
People say this, but I’ve had people fail double blind tests for 120hz vs 90hz vs 60hz. I’ve yet to find anyone that can reliably tell 144hz vs 120hz. What people mostly notice is latency not refresh rate.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
People say this, but I’ve had people fail double blind tests for 120hz vs 90hz vs 60hz. I’ve yet to find anyone that can reliably tell 144hz vs 120hz. What people mostly notice is latency not refresh rate.
Anecdotal, but my friends and I have passed such tests. YMMV
If you don’t mind me asking how old are your friends?
Slightly off topic but I can’t wait until there’s a 120 Hz 8K monitor. It’s the only thing holding me back from upgrading from 4K. I wonder if the current limitation is on the panels, cable bandwidth or absurd price tag…
I think you're going to be waiting a long time, even the geforce 4080 and 4090 don't support displayport 2.0. Additionally much of the demand for >60Hz is for gaming purposes, and there is nowhere near a powerful enough GPU anyone can afford that would be able to render games in high quality or extreme detail level at 8K above 60 FPS. Right now a GPU that costs $1500 USD can maybe render a 4K game with extreme detail…
Great review. Are you returning the monitor? Also, have you kept the Kinesis 360 keyboard and did you get used to the plam pads? Personally, I'm using the palm pads of the Advantage 2.
Yeah, I’m returning it. I kept the 360, but am currently using the Advantage 2 again. I never got used to the 360 palm pads.
Also, check out the MoErgo Glove80 keyboard.
Group 1 can tell the difference between the two and strongly prefers 120Hz.
Group 2 can't tell the difference between the two and prefers the more affordable options.
Group 3 has not done a lot of comparisons between the two refresh rates, or has used 120Hz displays that were actually in 60Hz mode, or compared lower resolution 120Hz displays with higher resolution 60Hz displays.
I think a lot of people mistakenly think they are in Group 2 when they are in Group 3.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Most people buying high-end monitors prioritize high refresh rates over pixel densities.
Gamers do. For coding I prefer high contrast and clarity. I’m disappointed there haven’t been any huge genuine OLED screens. MicroLED could be nice too.
I won’t turn down a higher peak framerate if it comes without cost to the rest of the monitor’s functionality of course, but it’s not worth trading anything away for.
Just give me a 2K monitor that turns on instantly, doesn’t hunt for sources, consumes less than 20W of power and I’ll be a happy guy. Bonus for having physical buttons to select explicit input sources without delays.
I would say that less than 30W might be a more realistic goal[0]. Maybe lower end monitors consume less power than these... I'm not sure. Also, it just seems strange that anyone is asking for a 1080p monitor in 2023 outside of Esports. Are you sure you want 1080p (2K) and not 1440p (2.5K)? It bothers me when people use 2K to refer to 1440p. 1080p is 2K[1]. [0]: this chart has a few recent monitors and gives a general…
Slightly off topic but I can’t wait until there’s a 120 Hz 8K monitor. It’s the only thing holding me back from upgrading from 4K. I wonder if the current limitation is on the panels, cable bandwidth or absurd price tag…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
How much did a 2048x1536 CRT monitor cost though? That's usually high and I bet it probably priced similar to what a 6K or 8K monitor is today.
Also that CRT was probably 21" max, and weighed 20% of the human looking at it.
I am not sure with that dot pitch of 0.25mm it was worth it.
[1] https://www.backoffice.be/prod_uk/ViewSonic/p225f_viewsonic_...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It’s crazy how much of a regression there was in resolution and picture quality when we went from CRT to LCD displays. In the late 90’s you could get a CRT that did 2048x1536 no sweat with great color and decent refresh rate. Then suddenly LCD displays became the standard and they looked awful. Low resolutions, terrible colors and bad viewing angles. The only real advantage they had was size. It took a decade or so t…
How much did a 2048x1536 CRT monitor cost though? That's usually high and I bet it probably priced similar to what a 6K or 8K monitor is today.
I'm struggling to remember how much they did cost, but with $2000 price tag for the top of the notch machine the monitors on the low end tended (well, AFAIR, don't take my word for it) to be less than $150, and hi-end were like $700 for not the ultra-uber-special cases.