KrocketKarmaBeen curious for a long time why manufacturers stuck to 144hz. Weird number to pick when they could probably go up if they wanted to. I'd like to see some try to get even higher. Idgaf about color or res.
1080p, TN, 1ms GTG, 240hz sounds better than 4ms 165hz even if we're getting into really tiny differences.
so a few things here. 144Hz is divisible by 24 which is quite nice because certain media when it plays back at a refresh that isn't divisible 24 just doesn't look right. 1080p on Dual Link DVI should support ~200Hz with relative ease, and higher if you have a heavy gauge cable that's 6ft or less.
Now the reason most manufacturers don't do this
1. Their's very little demand, and nearly no games can put up these kinda of numbers, and a good chunk of the ones that can have to be frame capped / ran in vsync cause they don't work a good example would be what happens to skyrim's physics.
2. Power Usage
3. The more you raise the refresh rate of a LCD monitor the higher your gamma is which completely fucks colors and contrast. Plus anyone who says they don't care about contrast is a LIAR it's hard as hell to track/flick to people when contrast is awful.
https://i.imgur.com/gKqKce5.jpg (I don't play on 240Hz just as an FYI their's all sorts of issues you hit after ~200Hz I haven't gone over)
Setsul#22
DVI DL bandwidth is limited.
Also if you don't care about colour and resolution you probably shouldn't be looking at a 1440p IPS panel.
Just get a cheap 144Hz 1080p TN panel and overclock it. It'll look like garbage, but it'll be faster and way cheaper.
I'll be posting a guide about this within the next couple months.
yukiIsn't 24" still 1080p? I was just wondering if it was worth upgrading to a 144hz from a 120 or if it won't be noticeable.
No, you can have higher resolutions at 24". Also you'll notice the difference between 144Hz and 120Hz, but I don't know if anyone could justify spending $200-$300 unless they don't have light boost and REALLY want to use lightboost.