Top players: do you use a new gen console and/or monitor?

[Good Grappler]

Re: Top players: do you use a new gen console and/or monitor?

I don’t have any good hardware... i got the oldass TV from 178 AD and the original Xbox One that Thedore roosevelt played on.

Even still... I will split decision the living hell out of any man, regardless of hardware.

Except for jigsaw. That mofo definitely on EPO

[1212headkick]

Re: Top players: do you use a new gen console and/or monitor?

I don’t have any good hardware... i got the oldass TV from 178 AD and the original Xbox One that Thedore roosevelt played on.

Even still... I will split decision the living hell out of any man, regardless of hardware.

Except for jigsaw. That mofo definitely on EPO

I hear that guy hammer is a goon too

[ZombieRommel]

Re: Top players: do you use a new gen console and/or monitor?

ZHunter pretty much already covered it.

A lot of TV's have an abysmal response time, because the TV's primary job is to show you TV shows and movies. They tend to do a lot of background post-processing work on the image, which takes some time and causes delay. Not a big deal if you are on your couch playing through the latest Gears of War campaign, but if you are getting sweaty in a 1v1 game then it's not what you want.

My current monitor is 165hz 1440p with 1ms response time -

https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B0...=operasport-20

I mainly got it for PC gaming since I value frame rate. Console games max out at 60FPS, but UFC3 at 1080p (stretched to 1440p) with supersampling anti-aliasing turned on in the PS4 Pro's settings looks pretty damn good.

For me personally 60FPS is a huge deal and I just flatly won't play the game at 30. All 30FPS games feel like utter dogsh*t to me. I bought Red Dead 2 and stopped playing after about 3 hours because the frame cap felt like someone was gouging out my eyes.

Your mileage may vary. But as someone who is used to playing games on PC from 120-165hz, 30 feels absolutely terrible.

Keep in mind, the NES, SNES, and Genesis all ran at a native 59.9hz. So like... Mario, Sonic... that was all 60FPS for the most part. When devs start valuing image quality over "feel" and fluidity was around the Playstation era. My overall point is that if you're playing an action game at 30FPS, you've actually gone backwards in terms of feeling and fluidity from what was achieved in 1985 on the NES.

Now... does 60FPS give you a discernible advantage? Not really, the game simulates at 30hz. But if you have decent eyes, 60FPS will "feel" vastly better and more responsive to you. You're getting twice the visual data.

So to sum up, the only real hard advantage comes from response time differences (but you hit diminishing returns once you are using a display with about 5ms response time). Smart TV's are notoriously delayed.

FPS is preference but if you have good eyes and can easily detect the difference between 30 and 60FPS, get a Pro and you will not regret it.

[Find_the_Door]

Re: Top players: do you use a new gen console and/or monitor?

ZHunter pretty much already covered it.

A lot of TV's have an abysmal response time, because the TV's primary job is to show you TV shows and movies. They tend to do a lot of background post-processing work on the image, which takes some time and causes delay. Not a big deal if you are on your couch playing through the latest Gears of War campaign, but if you are getting sweaty in a 1v1 game then it's not what you want.

My current monitor is 165hz 1440p with 1ms response time -

https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B0...=operasport-20

I mainly got it for PC gaming since I value frame rate. Console games max out at 60FPS, but UFC3 at 1080p (stretched to 1440p) with supersampling anti-aliasing turned on in the PS4 Pro's settings looks pretty damn good.

For me personally 60FPS is a huge deal and I just flatly won't play the game at 30. All 30FPS games feel like utter dogsh*t to me. I bought Red Dead 2 and stopped playing after about 3 hours because the frame cap felt like someone was gouging out my eyes.

Your mileage may vary. But as someone who is used to playing games on PC from 120-165hz, 30 feels absolutely terrible.

Keep in mind, the NES, SNES, and Genesis all ran at a native 59.9hz. So like... Mario, Sonic... that was all 60FPS for the most part. When devs start valuing image quality over "feel" and fluidity was around the Playstation era. My overall point is that if you're playing an action game at 30FPS, you've actually gone backwards in terms of feeling and fluidity from what was achieved in 1985 on the NES.

Now... does 60FPS give you a discernible advantage? Not really, the game simulates at 30hz. But if you have decent eyes, 60FPS will "feel" vastly better and more responsive to you. You're getting twice the visual data.

So to sum up, the only real hard advantage comes from response time differences (but you hit diminishing returns once you are using a display with about 5ms response time). Smart TV's are notoriously delayed.

FPS is preference but if you have good eyes and can easily detect the difference between 30 and 60FPS, get a Pro and you will not regret it.

Input lag is about 10 Ms on that monitor when running 60hz (lower when running higher refresh rates not possible on PS4).

2019 LG Oleds will have HDMI 2.1 and 13 MS input lag at 60hz with lower input lag at higher refresh rates so TVs are catching up in a big way.

https://displaylag.com/asus-rog-pg278q-g-sync-monitor-review/

[burningxspirit]

Re: Top players: do you use a new gen console and/or monitor?

Would never trade size for response time...I needs my big screen. luckily I unintentionally got a TV with less than 10ms.

But X/Pro is a necessity...never could go back to 30fps.

[1212headkick]

Re: Top players: do you use a new gen console and/or monitor?

Would never trade size for response time...I needs my big screen. luckily I unintentionally got a TV with less than 10ms.

But X/Pro is a necessity...never could go back to 30fps.

Bigger tv takes longer for picture to be displayed