Account Details
SteamID64 76561198042353207
SteamID3 [U:1:82087479]
SteamID32 STEAM_0:1:41043739
Country Germany
Signed Up December 16, 2012
Last Posted March 14, 2019 at 9:41 AM
Posts 2791 (1.2 per day)
Game Settings
In-game Sensitivity
Windows Sensitivity
Raw Input  
Refresh Rate
Hardware Peripherals
1 2 3 4 ⋅⋅ 186
#5 Monitor Response Time Questions in Q/A Help

I wouldn't worry about response time.
Simply getting 120 fps (~8.3ms frametime) instead of 144 fps (~7.9ms) matters more than that. Input lag and everything else will scale roughly with the fps so 144/120 = 1.2 -> about 20% more. Prendered frames and everything else in the chain take multiple frame times so 1ms more or less on the monitor response time is the least of your worries.

You have to choose between terrible screen tearing or slightly higher input lag.
Do you want your eyes to bleed because you believe that the 4ms lower input lag are worth it and will make you a better player or because you paid for 144 Hz and absolutely have to use it?
Or do you want to actually be able to enjoy games while being at an absolutely massive disadvantage compared to all the 144 Hz or even 240 Hz gamers (well their advantage wouldn't change much either way).

posted 4 days ago
#2 Monitor Response Time Questions in Q/A Help

Response time and fps are not related.
If you send the monitor one new frame per month and actually changing the pixel from one colour to another takes 1ms the response time is still 1ms.
Of course 120 fps on 144 Hz will look like shit because of screen tearing.

Response time and Hz are related.
For obvious reasons you can't display a new frame every 1/120th of a second if your response time is higher than that. So higher refresh rates require lower response times to work. Not 1ms though.

Also 1ms response times are marketing garbage.

That's a "1ms" 144 Hz monitor.

posted 4 days ago
#8 Any arg/chi here? in Off Topic
Ombrackeven though his flag is spanish, that guy's french

posted 5 days ago
#2 Any arg/chi here? in Off Topic

How did you get Santiago de Chile and Argentina/argentinian right but also write "Chili"?
I approve of your subconscious thoughts about spicy food.

posted 5 days ago
#16 which gpu should i get in Hardware
sheepy_dogs_handWhat's the point of spending all that money on an expensive gaming PC if it doesn't look sexy?

This might sound absurd, but having a good gaming PC that runs games well might be the point most are going for.

sheepy_dogs_handThe GTX 980 and the 1060 preform pretty similarly in game and there is a very small difference in FPS. While the GTX 980 does use more power, it also looks better, sounds better and is like $30-$40 cheaper, easily the alpha graphics card.

Do you mean the name sounds better or the reference cooler which has been used since the 700 series with minor updates and is still used on the 1060 sounds better than itself?
Because that's a hard no to both.

posted 1 week ago
#10 which gpu should i get in Hardware

Yes. Or if "200 range" means "around 200$" then 229$ MSRP might just about fit.

If your CPU ever breaks I've got a very alpha looking Pentium 4 for you.

posted 1 week ago
#5 which gpu should i get in Hardware

Buy a GTX 1060 asap, the GTX 1660 will launch in 9 days so the 1060 prices will drop and you might have to buy one for less than 200$ if you wait for too long.

posted 1 week ago
#3208 PC Build Thread in Hardware

Ok, 3 options:
Z370 + 8350K + cooler + overclocking, which is extremely tight on that budget.
B350 + 2500X (not available so 1500X, which is a bummer) + maybe cooler + overclocking.
B360 + 8100/8300.
The 1500X variant needs faster RAM and overclocking to end up with about the same speed as the 8100/8300 and the 8350K option is quite expensive. All 3 are enough for 120 fps so I'd go with the 8100/8300.
And 2x4 GB
or 2x8 GB
There's different colours for the same price, pick whatever you want.
1079,96 R$ with 8 GB RAM
1288,52 R$ with 16 GB RAM
i3-8300: 1183,84 R$ / 1392,40 R$ with 8 / 16 GB

8 GB should be completely fine though. If you want to upgrade later the mobo got 4 slots so you can just add another 2x4 GB.

There aren't any good benchmarks for Apex Legends on low yet but the 1060 is definitely not enough for 120 fps.
Even the 8100 is good enough for 120 fps on high so I'd suggest going with the cheapest option (8100 + 8GB) so you can get a new GPU sooner if you really want one. It's a shame because the 1060 isn't that old and Apex Legends just scales badly. From what I've seen the 1060 gets 80, maybe 90 fps on the lowest settings and still 55-60 on the highest.

posted 2 weeks ago
#3206 PC Build Thread in Hardware

If the fps are fine when not streaming you just need more cores.
i7-6700/7700, maybe i5-6600/7600 should work.
If you want significantly more frames in general you'd have to oc and if your mobo does not support that it'll get a bit more expensive.

posted 3 weeks ago
#23 Help me decide on a new monitor in Hardware

So strobing above 120 Hz at 1440p still requires generous amounts of fuckery as expected and while I'm willing to go through some pains to get the G-Sync+ULMB hack to work I'm not willing to do it every single day because a reboot/power cycle on the monitor resets it if I have to pay 700€ for the monitor.

Sync + strobing is actually possible with FreeSync in G-Sync compatibility mode (thanks Comanglia) so fuck nVidia and their prices.

24.5" 240 Hz IPS panels are coming next month which will literally tick every box except 1440p and that's literally the least important feature to me especially on 24". Considering how rare 1440p 24" is anyway if I have to choose between a 24/27/24 setup with 1440p or 27/27/27 which is impractically large and 24/24/24 with only 1080p I'll choose 1080p every time. That means paying for a 27" 1440p 165 Hz G-Sync IPS monitor, because those are the only ones with Sync + strobing + IPS, would be absurd since I want neither 27" (it's in fact a downside for me), nor G-Sync (Sync + strobing works with FreeSync and it's cheaper) nor do I get much use out of the 165 Hz most of the time since strobing beyond 120 Hz is still wonky on those. Half of the cost would be going towards features I don't want, don't need or can't use most of the time.
That leaves me with 3 options:
27" 1080p non-TN of which there are a grand total of two (1 IPS, 1 VA), but at 27" 1080p is indeed kinda meh.
24" 1080p VA with a grand total of one fucking monitor with a VA panel, which somehow costs more than both the VA and IPS 27" option.
24" 1080p TN Freesync, which will cost half that.
So once again I am forced to take the reasonable, cost-effective option instead of the lavish upgrade I deserve. On the upside I can now wait for a monitor that does (almost) everything I want (rip 1440p dreams), but the downside is the manufacturers will test my patience again when trying to figure out high frequency strobing on IPS panels. Please don't make me choose between FreeSync at 240 Hz and FreeSync + strobing at the same time (I will make it happen) at a lower refresh rate. On the other hand if we get to the point where I can choose between those options I should probably be happy.

In other news hopefully I'll be selling a 24" 1080p TN FreeSync + strobing monitor in a year or so.

posted 3 weeks ago
#17 Help me decide on a new monitor in Hardware

He's at least trying to help and he is right. If the colours are ok-ish it would definitely be the cheapest option and that's something. Even with 240 Hz it wouldn't be outrageously expensive.

Of course it would be nice if someone could confirm that G-Sync + ULMB at the same time still works and/or that it can/can't be done with FreeSync. Afaik nVidia broke it before and fixed it again but they might've broken it again and FreeSync is generally the preferable and cheaper option.

Also I will delay the PC Build Guide for one extra month per bad meme. Helpful posts are minus one month. Good memes are neutral. Choose wisely.

posted 3 weeks ago
#15 Help me decide on a new monitor in Hardware

Calibration isn't magic. I already do that but I'm limited since I've only got rather cheap hardware. No point in buying a 2000$ Spectrophotometer to calibrate a single 300$ monitor.
Calibration does not fix low contrast (usually makes it worse) and does not increase the colour space.
It can't magically turn a 6 bit + FRC TN panel into a 10 bit IPS panel.
See #1, I'm willing to put up with TN if it's not garbage. I can calibrate and profile it, but if you start with trash you only get polished trash.

posted 3 weeks ago
#13 Help me decide on a new monitor in Hardware

Yeah, I've waited for years and I know that I can't get everything yet, but at least most.
XV272U, VG271U and AD27QD don't have strobing so they're out.

Even ignoring the 1080p TN options (plenty of those available) there's a few options.
Dell S2716DG, 27", 1440p, 144 Hz, G-Sync + ULMB hack works
ASUS ROG Swift PG278Q, same, but the PG278QR got 165 Hz.
ASUS ROG Swift PG278QR, Acer Predator XB1 XB271HU, Acer Predator Z1 Z271U, AOC Agon AG273QCG, ASUS ROG Swift PG27VQ all 27" 1440p, 165 Hz, hack works

Dell S2417DG, 23.8", 165 Hz, hack works
Acer Predator XB1 XB241YU, AOC Agon AG241QG, both 23.8", 165 Hz, should be the same panel so I'm guessing it works too.
I'd still have to choose between 24" 165 Hz and 27" 144/165 Hz (price difference, ULMB might not work >120 Hz anyway) and they're all TN panels but they tick most of the boxes. I'd actually prefer 24" (triple monitor setup and all that) but feel free to convince me otherwise.

Now it gets difficult:
Samsung C27HG70, 27", 144 Hz, VA, 1440p, but FreeSync + strobing. No idea how to get those turned on at the same time.
Samsung C24FG70, 23.5", 144 Hz, VA, only 1080p and the same "problem".

Also two more 1080p 27" 144 Hz options:
ASUS ROG Strix XG27VQ, VA, also FreeSync + strobing so strightly worse than the C27HG70 because it's only 1080p and otherwise got the same features.
ASUS VG279Q, the first IPS in the list, still FreeSync and 1080p at 27" is still meh.

Last but not least the 1440p 27" 165 Hz options:
AOC Agon AG271QG, ViewSonic XG2703-GS, Acer Predator XB1 XB271HU, ASUS ROG Swift PG279Q, Acer Predator XB1 XB271HUT, all with G-Sync, the hack should work, but all rather expensive.

There's also the Eizo Foris FS2735, but it's needlessly expensive for a FreeSync option.

So the first things to confirm would be that the hack still works and whether or not there is any way to do the same with FreeSync.
FreeSync + strobing at the same time > G-Sync + strobing at the same time (fuck vendor lock-in) > FreeSync and strobing separately > G-Sync
Also if it works I should probably look into ULMB at over 120 Hz. No point in paying for 165 Hz if I won't use it.
The new 24.5" IPS 144/240 Hz panels would be nice but I haven't seen any upcoming monitors with that and my monitor is officially dead now I think.

There are 24.5" 240 Hz monitors with G-Sync which implies ULMB, but i think they are still limited to 144 Hz ULMB so there's not much point in paying for 240 Hz if I don't use it and get worse colours in exchange.
If I were to tolerate not having strobing and sync on at the same then there's also monitors like the LG Electronics 27GK750F-B (240 Hz strobing + 240 Hz FreeSync, TN 1080p 27" though, but comparatively cheap).

posted 3 weeks ago
#1 Help me decide on a new monitor in Hardware

My monitor is definitely dying and now is certainly not the worst time to buy a new monitor.
There are many things that I'd want my new monitor to have
-240 Hz
-strobing and adaptive sync at the same time.
and as a wise man once said I want it all and I want it now.
The "all" thing obviously isn't happening, but I can't wait for a monitor to be released that got everything (see above, I would've wanted to upgrade 3 years ago) so the "now" part still stands and that's why I've decided to let you vote on what to get because

24" would be nice because I've got a triple monitor setup and 24/27/24 is weird and I'm not going to buy two more 27" monitors. Also 3x27" takes up a lot of space. 1440p 24" IPS is rare though especially with >=120 Hz and sync/strobing so I might have to give up on that one. I consider 23.5-24.5" to be close enough to 24" to get the "correct size" bonus in the ranking.
1440p is probably the least important thing, but especially on a 27" monitor it would be nice to have. I don't care about 4K or HDR. Will definitely count as bonus/tiebreaker between similar monitors.
IPS or at least VA for the pretty colours. TN panel is only acceptable if a review proves that it's not garbage. Viewing angles don't matter since it'll be the center monitor anyway (and even if not the side monitors are angled towards me).
240 Hz would be ideal but 120 is completely fine tbh. More than 144 Hz is a bonus.

Now strobing and adaptive sync can be used at the same time via some fuckery with G-Sync and ULMB but it depends on the monitor and the drivers so it's not guaranteed. Additional downsides are the cost of G-Sync and vendor lock-in.
FreeSync + any strobing would work with any GPU but so far I haven't seen a way to run both simultaneously. If you know of any way or monitor to make it happen tell me.

Less than 23", less than 120 Hz, no strobing or no adaptive sync are not acceptable.

So which combination should I get?
Post suggestions, monitors and reviews.
Vote now.

posted 3 weeks ago
#3204 PC Build Thread in Hardware

PCPartPicker part list / Price breakdown by merchant

CPU: AMD - Ryzen 5 2600X 3.6 GHz 6-Core Processor (€189.90 @ Alternate)
CPU Cooler: CRYORIG - H7 49 CFM CPU Cooler (€31.39 @ Aquatuning)
Motherboard: MSI - B450M MORTAR Micro ATX AM4 Motherboard (€100.91 @ Amazon Deutschland)
Memory: Corsair - Vengeance LPX 16 GB (2 x 8 GB) DDR4-3000 Memory (€104.90 @ Amazon Deutschland)
Video Card: Gigabyte - GeForce RTX 2070 8 GB GAMING 8G Video Card (€473.96 @ Amazon Deutschland)
Power Supply: SeaSonic - FOCUS Gold 450 W 80+ Gold Certified Semi-Modular ATX Power Supply (€65.99 @ Amazon Deutschland)
Total: €967.05
Prices include shipping, taxes, and discounts when available
Generated by PCPartPicker 2019-02-18 20:48 CET+0100

Rough idea for now, exact parts depend on what's actually available in local stores.

posted 3 weeks ago
1 2 3 4 ⋅⋅ 186