Monitor
-
@wargazsem-_mlbts said in Monitor:
@tvsectog_psn said in Monitor:
LG CX .... beats any monitor, any day of the week, and twice on Sundays. Also gives you the game at 4k. I am hitting insane this year with my CX (I got it just before '21 dropped) and also made WS. I can see and read pitches like you wouldn't believe. .3ms response time, and as low as 5.9ms input lag (1080p), 6.9ms at 4k@120 or 13.9 at 4k@60. I got the 65-inch and it allows for being able to see both incredible vertical and lateral movement of pitches...which makes it very easy to figure out the pitch. My batting average is up over 50 points from last year in RS. I am hitting over .400 with multiple players. It is not only the CX (I had a bad eye issue last year that impacted my vision and I finally figured out hitting overall), yet the CX does help.
Come on now, it is a nice T.V. but you went way too far and talking out of your [censored] saying it beats any monitor.
I'm strictly a console gamer using a T.V and have for over 30 years and that made me laugh.
Consoles are limited to 120hz....so the 240hz and 360hz montors for PC gamers ....aren't going to do much/add for a console game. Also, the 240 and 360hz monitors only achieve their fastest specs at the highest refresh rate. If the gaming monitors can't operate at 240hz or 360hz their response time and input lags go up.
However, I'll clarify/correct my response. For gaming on an Xbox Series X or PS5....the CX is better than a gaming monitor because you can .....
-
Actually see the game being played
-
You get 4k and also HDR (not currently available on most gaming monitors)
-
You get a TV that can also be used for other purposes, other than just for gaming
So, overall ...for console gaming...a CX is better than a gaming monitor, especially for us older players who have families and actually want to be able to see the game. When the Xbox Series XI comes out and it supports HDMI 3.1 or 4.1 .... and does 8k @ 120, 8k @240 or 8k@360 ...then a gaming monitor might give one an advantage....but by then I'll just upgrade my CX.
-
-
@tvsectog_psn said in Monitor:
@wargazsem-_mlbts said in Monitor:
@tvsectog_psn said in Monitor:
LG CX .... beats any monitor, any day of the week, and twice on Sundays. Also gives you the game at 4k. I am hitting insane this year with my CX (I got it just before '21 dropped) and also made WS. I can see and read pitches like you wouldn't believe. .3ms response time, and as low as 5.9ms input lag (1080p), 6.9ms at 4k@120 or 13.9 at 4k@60. I got the 65-inch and it allows for being able to see both incredible vertical and lateral movement of pitches...which makes it very easy to figure out the pitch. My batting average is up over 50 points from last year in RS. I am hitting over .400 with multiple players. It is not only the CX (I had a bad eye issue last year that impacted my vision and I finally figured out hitting overall), yet the CX does help.
Come on now, it is a nice T.V. but you went way too far and talking out of your [censored] saying it beats any monitor.
I'm strictly a console gamer using a T.V and have for over 30 years and that made me laugh.
Consoles are limited to 120hz....so the 240hz and 360hz montors for PC gamers ....aren't going to do much/add for a console game. Also, the 240 and 360hz monitors only achieve their fastest specs at the highest refresh rate. If the gaming monitors can't operate at 240hz or 360hz their response time and input lags go up.
However, I'll clarify/correct my response. For gaming on an Xbox Series X or PS5....the CX is better than a gaming monitor because you can .....
-
Actually see the game being played
-
You get 4k and also HDR (not currently available on most gaming monitors)
-
You get a TV that can also be used for other purposes, other than just for gaming
So, overall ...for console gaming...a CX is better than a gaming monitor, especially for us older players who have families and actually want to be able to see the game. When the Xbox Series XI comes out and it supports HDMI 3.1 or 4.1 .... and does 8k @ 120, 8k @240 or 8k@360 ...then a gaming monitor might give one an advantage....but by then I'll just upgrade my CX.
Nope
-
-
@tvsectog_psn said in Monitor:
Consoles are limited to 120hz....so the 240hz and 360hz montors for PC gamers ..
For this game anything over 60 is useless. That is why your TV is only 13.6ms Input Lag. Which is great. Hopefully by next year they give us performance mode.
-
@wargazsem-_mlbts said in Monitor:
4k @ 120Hz
6.7 ms
1080p with Variable Refresh Rate
5.9 ms
1440p with VRR
6.2 ms"
4k @ 120Hz
6.7 ms
1080p with Variable Refresh Rate
5.9 ms
1440p with VRR
6.2 ms"
I was so hoping SDS would implement the Microsoft 120fps @ 4k patch in '21, yet no dice. I so wanted to run the CX at 4k@120 with the .3ms response time and 6.7ms input lag. Especially..... since I know it is possible in the game to run at 120hz....it is just being prevented, currently.
-
@wargazsem-_mlbts said in Monitor:
@tvsectog_psn said in Monitor:
@wargazsem-_mlbts said in Monitor:
@tvsectog_psn said in Monitor:
LG CX .... beats any monitor, any day of the week, and twice on Sundays. Also gives you the game at 4k. I am hitting insane this year with my CX (I got it just before '21 dropped) and also made WS. I can see and read pitches like you wouldn't believe. .3ms response time, and as low as 5.9ms input lag (1080p), 6.9ms at 4k@120 or 13.9 at 4k@60. I got the 65-inch and it allows for being able to see both incredible vertical and lateral movement of pitches...which makes it very easy to figure out the pitch. My batting average is up over 50 points from last year in RS. I am hitting over .400 with multiple players. It is not only the CX (I had a bad eye issue last year that impacted my vision and I finally figured out hitting overall), yet the CX does help.
Come on now, it is a nice T.V. but you went way too far and talking out of your [censored] saying it beats any monitor.
I'm strictly a console gamer using a T.V and have for over 30 years and that made me laugh.
Consoles are limited to 120hz....so the 240hz and 360hz montors for PC gamers ....aren't going to do much/add for a console game. Also, the 240 and 360hz monitors only achieve their fastest specs at the highest refresh rate. If the gaming monitors can't operate at 240hz or 360hz their response time and input lags go up.
However, I'll clarify/correct my response. For gaming on an Xbox Series X or PS5....the CX is better than a gaming monitor because you can .....
-
Actually see the game being played
-
You get 4k and also HDR (not currently available on most gaming monitors)
-
You get a TV that can also be used for other purposes, other than just for gaming
So, overall ...for console gaming...a CX is better than a gaming monitor, especially for us older players who have families and actually want to be able to see the game. When the Xbox Series XI comes out and it supports HDMI 3.1 or 4.1 .... and does 8k @ 120, 8k @240 or 8k@360 ...then a gaming monitor might give one an advantage....but by then I'll just upgrade my CX.
Nope
Why are you guys arguing over something that is subjective? lol, he is right given the reasons he did. HDR, viewing size, more viewing options, all better on a TV. Input lag, slightly better on a monitor. You guys are both right but arguing different things.
-
-
@chuckclc_psn said in Monitor:
@wargazsem-_mlbts said in Monitor:
@tvsectog_psn said in Monitor:
@wargazsem-_mlbts said in Monitor:
@tvsectog_psn said in Monitor:
LG CX .... beats any monitor, any day of the week, and twice on Sundays. Also gives you the game at 4k. I am hitting insane this year with my CX (I got it just before '21 dropped) and also made WS. I can see and read pitches like you wouldn't believe. .3ms response time, and as low as 5.9ms input lag (1080p), 6.9ms at 4k@120 or 13.9 at 4k@60. I got the 65-inch and it allows for being able to see both incredible vertical and lateral movement of pitches...which makes it very easy to figure out the pitch. My batting average is up over 50 points from last year in RS. I am hitting over .400 with multiple players. It is not only the CX (I had a bad eye issue last year that impacted my vision and I finally figured out hitting overall), yet the CX does help.
Come on now, it is a nice T.V. but you went way too far and talking out of your [censored] saying it beats any monitor.
I'm strictly a console gamer using a T.V and have for over 30 years and that made me laugh.
Consoles are limited to 120hz....so the 240hz and 360hz montors for PC gamers ....aren't going to do much/add for a console game. Also, the 240 and 360hz monitors only achieve their fastest specs at the highest refresh rate. If the gaming monitors can't operate at 240hz or 360hz their response time and input lags go up.
However, I'll clarify/correct my response. For gaming on an Xbox Series X or PS5....the CX is better than a gaming monitor because you can .....
-
Actually see the game being played
-
You get 4k and also HDR (not currently available on most gaming monitors)
-
You get a TV that can also be used for other purposes, other than just for gaming
So, overall ...for console gaming...a CX is better than a gaming monitor, especially for us older players who have families and actually want to be able to see the game. When the Xbox Series XI comes out and it supports HDMI 3.1 or 4.1 .... and does 8k @ 120, 8k @240 or 8k@360 ...then a gaming monitor might give one an advantage....but by then I'll just upgrade my CX.
Nope
Why are you guys arguing over something that is subjective? lol, he is right given the reasons he did. HDR, viewing size, more viewing options, all better on a TV. Input lag, slightly better on a monitor. You guys are both right but arguing different things.
It isn't subjective when someone makes a false statement.
That T.V is nice but it is not the best, for example...Samsung Q80T is better in that area per rtings.com
1080p @ 60Hz
10.1 ms
1080p @ 60Hz Outside Game Mode
79.5 ms
1440p @ 60Hz
9.8 ms
4k @ 60Hz
9.8 ms
4k @ 60Hz + 10-Bit HDR
9.7 ms
4k @ 60Hz @ 4:4:4
9.9 ms
4k @ 60Hz Outside Game Mode
66.4 ms
4k @ 60Hz With Interpolation
22.0 ms
8k @ 60Hz
N/A
1080p @ 120Hz
5.4 ms
1440p @ 120Hz
5.3 ms
4k @ 120Hz
5.8 ms
1080p with Variable Refresh Rate
6.4 ms
1440p with VRR
7.2 ms
4k with VRR
7.1 ms
8k with VRR
N/A -
-
@wargazsem-_mlbts said in Monitor:
@chuckclc_psn said in Monitor:
@wargazsem-_mlbts said in Monitor:
@tvsectog_psn said in Monitor:
@wargazsem-_mlbts said in Monitor:
@tvsectog_psn said in Monitor:
LG CX .... beats any monitor, any day of the week, and twice on Sundays. Also gives you the game at 4k. I am hitting insane this year with my CX (I got it just before '21 dropped) and also made WS. I can see and read pitches like you wouldn't believe. .3ms response time, and as low as 5.9ms input lag (1080p), 6.9ms at 4k@120 or 13.9 at 4k@60. I got the 65-inch and it allows for being able to see both incredible vertical and lateral movement of pitches...which makes it very easy to figure out the pitch. My batting average is up over 50 points from last year in RS. I am hitting over .400 with multiple players. It is not only the CX (I had a bad eye issue last year that impacted my vision and I finally figured out hitting overall), yet the CX does help.
Come on now, it is a nice T.V. but you went way too far and talking out of your [censored] saying it beats any monitor.
I'm strictly a console gamer using a T.V and have for over 30 years and that made me laugh.
Consoles are limited to 120hz....so the 240hz and 360hz montors for PC gamers ....aren't going to do much/add for a console game. Also, the 240 and 360hz monitors only achieve their fastest specs at the highest refresh rate. If the gaming monitors can't operate at 240hz or 360hz their response time and input lags go up.
However, I'll clarify/correct my response. For gaming on an Xbox Series X or PS5....the CX is better than a gaming monitor because you can .....
-
Actually see the game being played
-
You get 4k and also HDR (not currently available on most gaming monitors)
-
You get a TV that can also be used for other purposes, other than just for gaming
So, overall ...for console gaming...a CX is better than a gaming monitor, especially for us older players who have families and actually want to be able to see the game. When the Xbox Series XI comes out and it supports HDMI 3.1 or 4.1 .... and does 8k @ 120, 8k @240 or 8k@360 ...then a gaming monitor might give one an advantage....but by then I'll just upgrade my CX.
Nope
Why are you guys arguing over something that is subjective? lol, he is right given the reasons he did. HDR, viewing size, more viewing options, all better on a TV. Input lag, slightly better on a monitor. You guys are both right but arguing different things.
It isn't subjective when someone makes a false statement.
That T.V is nice but it is not the best, for example...Samsung Q80T is better in that area per rtings.com
1080p @ 60Hz
10.1 ms
1080p @ 60Hz Outside Game Mode
79.5 ms
1440p @ 60Hz
9.8 ms
4k @ 60Hz
9.8 ms
4k @ 60Hz + 10-Bit HDR
9.7 ms
4k @ 60Hz @ 4:4:4
9.9 ms
4k @ 60Hz Outside Game Mode
66.4 ms
4k @ 60Hz With Interpolation
22.0 ms
8k @ 60Hz
N/A
1080p @ 120Hz
5.4 ms
1440p @ 120Hz
5.3 ms
4k @ 120Hz
5.8 ms
1080p with Variable Refresh Rate
6.4 ms
1440p with VRR
7.2 ms
4k with VRR
7.1 ms
8k with VRR
N/AI just meant you are only arguing Input Lag and he is arguing other stuff. He is taking the panel as a whole and using all the features and you are zoned in on one thing. Like I said, not wrong, but I can see his side as well. BTW those QLED Samsung's are great.
-
-
@chuckclc_psn said in Monitor:
@wargazsem-_mlbts said in Monitor:
@chuckclc_psn said in Monitor:
@wargazsem-_mlbts said in Monitor:
@tvsectog_psn said in Monitor:
@wargazsem-_mlbts said in Monitor:
@tvsectog_psn said in Monitor:
LG CX .... beats any monitor, any day of the week, and twice on Sundays. Also gives you the game at 4k. I am hitting insane this year with my CX (I got it just before '21 dropped) and also made WS. I can see and read pitches like you wouldn't believe. .3ms response time, and as low as 5.9ms input lag (1080p), 6.9ms at 4k@120 or 13.9 at 4k@60. I got the 65-inch and it allows for being able to see both incredible vertical and lateral movement of pitches...which makes it very easy to figure out the pitch. My batting average is up over 50 points from last year in RS. I am hitting over .400 with multiple players. It is not only the CX (I had a bad eye issue last year that impacted my vision and I finally figured out hitting overall), yet the CX does help.
Come on now, it is a nice T.V. but you went way too far and talking out of your [censored] saying it beats any monitor.
I'm strictly a console gamer using a T.V and have for over 30 years and that made me laugh.
Consoles are limited to 120hz....so the 240hz and 360hz montors for PC gamers ....aren't going to do much/add for a console game. Also, the 240 and 360hz monitors only achieve their fastest specs at the highest refresh rate. If the gaming monitors can't operate at 240hz or 360hz their response time and input lags go up.
However, I'll clarify/correct my response. For gaming on an Xbox Series X or PS5....the CX is better than a gaming monitor because you can .....
-
Actually see the game being played
-
You get 4k and also HDR (not currently available on most gaming monitors)
-
You get a TV that can also be used for other purposes, other than just for gaming
So, overall ...for console gaming...a CX is better than a gaming monitor, especially for us older players who have families and actually want to be able to see the game. When the Xbox Series XI comes out and it supports HDMI 3.1 or 4.1 .... and does 8k @ 120, 8k @240 or 8k@360 ...then a gaming monitor might give one an advantage....but by then I'll just upgrade my CX.
Nope
Why are you guys arguing over something that is subjective? lol, he is right given the reasons he did. HDR, viewing size, more viewing options, all better on a TV. Input lag, slightly better on a monitor. You guys are both right but arguing different things.
It isn't subjective when someone makes a false statement.
That T.V is nice but it is not the best, for example...Samsung Q80T is better in that area per rtings.com
1080p @ 60Hz
10.1 ms
1080p @ 60Hz Outside Game Mode
79.5 ms
1440p @ 60Hz
9.8 ms
4k @ 60Hz
9.8 ms
4k @ 60Hz + 10-Bit HDR
9.7 ms
4k @ 60Hz @ 4:4:4
9.9 ms
4k @ 60Hz Outside Game Mode
66.4 ms
4k @ 60Hz With Interpolation
22.0 ms
8k @ 60Hz
N/A
1080p @ 120Hz
5.4 ms
1440p @ 120Hz
5.3 ms
4k @ 120Hz
5.8 ms
1080p with Variable Refresh Rate
6.4 ms
1440p with VRR
7.2 ms
4k with VRR
7.1 ms
8k with VRR
N/AI just meant you are only arguing Input Lag and he is arguing other stuff. He is taking the panel as a whole and using all the features and you are zoned in on one thing. Like I said, not wrong, but I can see his side as well. BTW those QLED Samsung's are great.
I use the PS5 on the Samsung Q90T and have the LG C9 in the living room. I would recommend them both.
-
-
@chuckclc_psn said in Monitor:
@savagesteve74 said in Monitor:
@chuckclc_psn said in Monitor:
Here is a CHEAP 4K option. Normally closer to 300 bucks. IPS screen, so nice colors and viewing angles.
Thank you. Is 4ms good though? Everyone keeps saying 1ms are as close to that as possible. I know we are talking about micro-fractions at this point, but want to make sure.
That is Response time, Gray to gray color switching. How long it takes the pixel to change colors. Not as important as input lag at all. Also this monitor mentioned is an IPS panel. Only crappy TN panels can do true 1ms response times. But this IPS has a 1ms Response using VRB. So essentially it will look like 1ms. That being said I dont know how good this monitor is, i just know it is cheap as hell right now and has decent reviews.
I actually just bought it and I am gonna check it out for myself. I bought it off New Egg because it seems like it will arrive quicker from there. Also has a $20 PSN card from NE but cost a bit more.
Great, thank you again. If you remember, please let me know how it does once you get it. I was hoping to place an order this weekend, but could wait a little longer. In the end, it sounds like they are all pretty close, some have advantages, but others also have advantages. And for someone who really doesn’t understand it all, can be quite confusing. In the end, I know it all doesn’t matter much since the human eye and brain can only process so much.
-
@savagesteve74 said in Monitor:
@kangbang8888_psn said in Monitor:
I picked up this monitor when I got the ps5:
ASUS TUF Gaming VG27WQ1B 27” Curved Monitor.Appreciate it. I guess one of the things I’m confused about is the actual capabilities of the PS5. I’m probably misunderstanding, but I thought the PS5 doesn’t really handle anything higher than 60Hz. And I’m not even sure that it matters. I just want something that has decent graphics, but also has the best response time, if it’s even related.
It’s all confusing to this old man
Response time and input lag are two different things but usually when one has a good spec the other will as well. The PS5 can do 120fps but the game must provide that option and your monitor or tv will need a HDMI 2.1 input to achieve it. There are only a couple tv’s that have it and monitors are even more scarce at the moment. You can get a solid 4K monitor for $300. I have a Samsung 28” 4K monitor and an Asus 27” 1080p monitor. The new game even looks great on a 1080p monitor. I think for this generation of consoles a monitor which can do 4K/60fps will be more than sufficient. I don’t see a lot of games offering 120fps any time soon.
-
@tvsectog_psn said in Monitor:
@wargazsem-_mlbts said in Monitor:
4k @ 120Hz
6.7 ms
1080p with Variable Refresh Rate
5.9 ms
1440p with VRR
6.2 ms"
4k @ 120Hz
6.7 ms
1080p with Variable Refresh Rate
5.9 ms
1440p with VRR
6.2 ms"
I was so hoping SDS would implement the Microsoft 120fps @ 4k patch in '21, yet no dice. I so wanted to run the CX at 4k@120 with the .3ms response time and 6.7ms input lag. Especially..... since I know it is possible in the game to run at 120hz....it is just being prevented, currently.
It has been stated here by the powers that be that this game is running at 4K/60fps and they aren’t doing 120fps.
-
@slipkid69_psn said in Monitor:
@tvsectog_psn said in Monitor:
@wargazsem-_mlbts said in Monitor:
4k @ 120Hz
6.7 ms
1080p with Variable Refresh Rate
5.9 ms
1440p with VRR
6.2 ms"
4k @ 120Hz
6.7 ms
1080p with Variable Refresh Rate
5.9 ms
1440p with VRR
6.2 ms"
I was so hoping SDS would implement the Microsoft 120fps @ 4k patch in '21, yet no dice. I so wanted to run the CX at 4k@120 with the .3ms response time and 6.7ms input lag. Especially..... since I know it is possible in the game to run at 120hz....it is just being prevented, currently.
It has been stated here by the powers that be that this game is running at 4K/60fps and they aren’t doing 120fps.
Yes, I know that...for this year. However, '22 and beyond ....as more games move to 120...they will have a hard time not putting it in those year's releases....especially when Microsoft has done some of the work for them.
Even if it arrives only in '22.... the HDMI 2.1 spec that the console use to get 4k@120 will limit gaming monitors effectiveness moving forward because then it just is processor speed to further reduce input lag and response time. 240hz and 360hz gaming monitors only achieve 1ms and 4ms response times at 240hz and 360hz, not 120hz ..., currently. As the 120 is the gating restriction moving forward, gaming monitors won't be able to signficantly drop the input lag or response time much more than they already have for these new consoles. But...I know in '22 when The Show does support 120 (as other games will as well later this year) ..... that my input lag on my CX drops to 6.9ms, so I am in better shape than gaming monitors.
-
@chuckclc_psn said in Monitor:
Here is a CHEAP 4K option. Normally closer to 300 bucks. IPS screen, so nice colors and viewing angles.
Thanks again Chuck, ordered it this weekend and got it today. So far so good. Can’t believe the difference it makes. Now I have to relearn hitting, but in a fun/good way. Really appreciate everyone’s insight and help.
-
@savagesteve74 said in Monitor:
@chuckclc_psn said in Monitor:
Here is a CHEAP 4K option. Normally closer to 300 bucks. IPS screen, so nice colors and viewing angles.
Thanks again Chuck, ordered it this weekend and got it today. So far so good. Can’t believe the difference it makes. Now I have to relearn hitting, but in a fun/good way. Really appreciate everyone’s insight and help.
Hope you enjoy it. For that price it has been nice. I am still kinda messing with the settings a bit, but TBH it was pretty good out of the box. Hope you got one with little or no back light bleed and no dead pixels like I did. Plus being an IPS panel it has good viewing angles. I really was kinda blown away by this thing for the price. Now I see it is kinda sold out most places or the price is back to 300 bucks.
-
@chuckclc_psn said in Monitor:
@savagesteve74 said in Monitor:
@chuckclc_psn said in Monitor:
Here is a CHEAP 4K option. Normally closer to 300 bucks. IPS screen, so nice colors and viewing angles.
Thanks again Chuck, ordered it this weekend and got it today. So far so good. Can’t believe the difference it makes. Now I have to relearn hitting, but in a fun/good way. Really appreciate everyone’s insight and help.
Hope you enjoy it. For that price it has been nice. I am still kinda messing with the settings a bit, but TBH it was pretty good out of the box. Hope you got one with little or no back light bleed and no dead pixels like I did. Plus being an IPS panel it has good viewing angles. I really was kinda blown away by this thing for the price. Now I see it is kinda sold out most places or the price is back to 300 bucks.
No issues that I see, only made sure it was in gaming sports mode, a lot of settings that I have no idea what they do and no manual, so just guessed at that setting. I got it for $250 from Costco, free shipping. Ordered on Sunday, delivered today.
-
@tvsectog_psn said in Monitor:
@slipkid69_psn said in Monitor:
@tvsectog_psn said in Monitor:
@wargazsem-_mlbts said in Monitor:
4k @ 120Hz
6.7 ms
1080p with Variable Refresh Rate
5.9 ms
1440p with VRR
6.2 ms"
4k @ 120Hz
6.7 ms
1080p with Variable Refresh Rate
5.9 ms
1440p with VRR
6.2 ms"
I was so hoping SDS would implement the Microsoft 120fps @ 4k patch in '21, yet no dice. I so wanted to run the CX at 4k@120 with the .3ms response time and 6.7ms input lag. Especially..... since I know it is possible in the game to run at 120hz....it is just being prevented, currently.
It has been stated here by the powers that be that this game is running at 4K/60fps and they aren’t doing 120fps.
Yes, I know that...for this year. However, '22 and beyond ....as more games move to 120...they will have a hard time not putting it in those year's releases....especially when Microsoft has done some of the work for them.
Even if it arrives only in '22.... the HDMI 2.1 spec that the console use to get 4k@120 will limit gaming monitors effectiveness moving forward because then it just is processor speed to further reduce input lag and response time. 240hz and 360hz gaming monitors only achieve 1ms and 4ms response times at 240hz and 360hz, not 120hz ..., currently. As the 120 is the gating restriction moving forward, gaming monitors won't be able to signficantly drop the input lag or response time much more than they already have for these new consoles. But...I know in '22 when The Show does support 120 (as other games will as well later this year) ..... that my input lag on my CX drops to 6.9ms, so I am in better shape than gaming monitors.
Seriously stop. I already showed you that the Samsung Q80T from 2 years ago has better input lag then your CX.
The fact you're now arguing in a year or so is idiotic. I guess you think monitors won't upgrade in that time frame?
We get it, you paid out the [censored] for the CX and you're wanting to convince yourself but the fact is....Samsung Q80T from 2 years ago has better input stats.
Stop claiming that the CX is better then any monitor. It isn't even better then a 2 year old Samsung Qled
27'' UltraGear UHD Nano IPS 1ms 144Hz HDR600 Monitor with G-SYNC
CompatibilityMonitor with 2.1hdmi that just like the Samsung Q80T has better input then your CX.
-
@wargazsem-_mlbts said in Monitor:
@tvsectog_psn said in Monitor:
@slipkid69_psn said in Monitor:
@tvsectog_psn said in Monitor:
@wargazsem-_mlbts said in Monitor:
4k @ 120Hz
6.7 ms
1080p with Variable Refresh Rate
5.9 ms
1440p with VRR
6.2 ms"
4k @ 120Hz
6.7 ms
1080p with Variable Refresh Rate
5.9 ms
1440p with VRR
6.2 ms"
I was so hoping SDS would implement the Microsoft 120fps @ 4k patch in '21, yet no dice. I so wanted to run the CX at 4k@120 with the .3ms response time and 6.7ms input lag. Especially..... since I know it is possible in the game to run at 120hz....it is just being prevented, currently.
It has been stated here by the powers that be that this game is running at 4K/60fps and they aren’t doing 120fps.
Yes, I know that...for this year. However, '22 and beyond ....as more games move to 120...they will have a hard time not putting it in those year's releases....especially when Microsoft has done some of the work for them.
Even if it arrives only in '22.... the HDMI 2.1 spec that the console use to get 4k@120 will limit gaming monitors effectiveness moving forward because then it just is processor speed to further reduce input lag and response time. 240hz and 360hz gaming monitors only achieve 1ms and 4ms response times at 240hz and 360hz, not 120hz ..., currently. As the 120 is the gating restriction moving forward, gaming monitors won't be able to signficantly drop the input lag or response time much more than they already have for these new consoles. But...I know in '22 when The Show does support 120 (as other games will as well later this year) ..... that my input lag on my CX drops to 6.9ms, so I am in better shape than gaming monitors.
Seriously stop. I already showed you that the Samsung Q80T from 2 years ago has better input lag then your CX.
The fact you're now arguing in a year or so is idiotic. I guess you think monitors won't upgrade in that time frame?
We get it, you paid out the [censored] for the CX and you're wanting to convince yourself but the fact is....Samsung Q80T from 2 years ago has better input stats.
Stop claiming that the CX is better then any monitor. It isn't even better then a 2 year old Samsung Qled
27'' UltraGear UHD Nano IPS 1ms 144Hz HDR600 Monitor with G-SYNC
CompatibilityMonitor with 2.1hdmi that just like the Samsung Q80T has better input then your CX.
Unfortunately, I don't think you understand the concept in computing that the device can only goes as fast as the slowest component. Gaming monitors won't get noticeably better within a year as they are processor bound. Without better multi-threading and without being able to leverage their higher refresh rates....gaming monitors for console use aren't going to get much better the next few years. TV's will close the gap, and already have.
-
A admin locked this topic on
