CRT = 10 euro
22" 60hz LCD (for other things) = 100-120 euro
Total = 110-130 euro

Es giebt ein CRT von iiYama in Stuttgart - Gerlingen zu kaufen, wer interesse hat PM an mich, das Angebot stand letzten Monat noch bei eBay.

Den wollte ich erst haben, aber ich habe mich gegen Windows entschieden und spielen unter Linux ist bah !

Is there a reason why you posted this?

you can inline google translate it with firefox :

There is a CRT Iiyama in Stuttgart - Gerlingen to buy, who has interested PM me, but the offer was still in last month eBay.Den I wanted first, but I decided against Windows and playing on Linux is bah!

I understand enough German to roughly know what it said. What I don't understand is why was it posted as a reply to my comment or why did he post it in german

get brainstorms that seem relevant when they are not when you have`nt had no sleep for a day or few

get brainstorms that seem relevant when they are not when you have`nt had no sleep for a day or few

YES the *keyword* here is CRT :)

german because of in Germany and local ...

x-star dp2414 144hz=150euro

has it high hz (minimum 120) on all resolutions ?
anything negative worth mentioning (input lag, ghosting ...) ?
thx !

its mediocre build quality and ugly exterior but support 120 and 144hz native, no input/ghosting, shitty build-in speakers. Other is pretty OK for its price

thanks for the info.
i need 120hz on 640x480 800x600 1024x768 too.
i have a monitor that has only 120hz bugfree in native res, which is really annoying. i only play around 5-15percent of the games in native res because i think high res looks worse than middle res in MOST games. and ofc all the classics like 2d games

built in speakers are good for porn, and the headphone socket

and messengers, with video calls, listening to some tracks when modding when you can`t really be bothered with music

dont usin pc speakers for ~10years since bought philips shp895

Don't know much about hardware, benq I got really happy with it, don't use to its full potential sadly, little expensive but worth the extra few million rupees.

157€

http://www.ebay.com/itm/X-star-DP2414LED-Full...4d358ceeec


Testimonials:

http://www.giantbomb.com/pc/3045-94/forums/x-...r-1466057/

I saw a thread on the net claiming the use the same panels as Samsung.

High refresh rate is overrated IMHO.

uve a problem with zoom but not low hz lol

Zoom allows you to see close to an area or enemy regardless of how far away you are. This removes a difficulty from weapons like MG and RG because in a circumstance without zoom you may be less accurate or simply miss information (like green pixels through a slim opening). What does this have to do with refresh rate? 60Hz is enough information to play competitively. The experience is certainly not as smooth as 100+ but it is not enough of a disadvantage to matter. A T4 playing at 60Hz vs. a T3 playing at 144Hz won't change the outcome. Having played low and high refresh rates I feel that there is not a significant difference. INPUT LATENCY, which plagues the majority of IPS and TN panels, is the real disadvantage.

youre fucking wack lol

Compelling argument.

fella, ur the only one on esr who believes a difference in zoomfov has a bigger impact than a 60 vs 120 refresh rate. i would lock myself to 130 fov if it meant that was the only way to get 144hz instead of 60

Ad hominem, no evidence...

oh im sorry i didnt foresee that uve been living under a rock for the past decade or so when people realised refresh rate matters a lot in fps games. you can google the advantages of a higher refresh rate

im having a hard time taking u seriously doe

When did I claim that refresh rate does not matter in FPS games? My original statement is that 60Hz is enough information to play competitively. Can you refute that? Do you need to justify a purchase you made? As far as I know there isn't any solid evidence that refresh rates over 60 enhance your performance in FPS games. People just assume higher = better without any empirical evidence.

well zoom is a very small factor in both amateur and professional games and since you claim it has a bigger impact than uneven refresh rates, you must imply that refresh rates doesn't matter. 60hz is enough in a competitive only if both parties are forced to use it, otherwise the person with 144hz is sitting on a major advantage. as i said earlier, you are free to google the advantages of a higher refresh rate, you will find MOUNTAINS of well-documented evidence of how it will improve your performance. personally for me, i pretty much instantly increased my lg accuracy with about 5% (in a week or so), which was already about 30-35%, along with my other weapons hit rates. if i'm not mistaken, Madball dedicated his leap in skill to his new 120/144hz monitor.

zoom on the other hand, especially in quake, have never been indicated to have the massive impact you make it out to have. maybe in cs with the awp, but that's merely due to it requiring zoom to actually shoot straight. it's actually uncommon that players will buy AUG/SIG just for the zoom.

Here's a little bit of support:
Rapha for most of his time playing QL didn't have a functioning zoom bind on his setup, he had zoom bound to mouse4(I'd assume it was a bind for his old MX518), and used a WMO, and it wasn't some time until the "look zis fukit" incident that he bound zoom to B or V and changed his zoom fov to 67.5(I think).
So basically he obviously found zooming to be helpful, but he didn't actually need it.

yeah, tbh the whole notion that zoom is more important than refresh rate is just ridiculous. ultimately, its gonna increase the chance of hitting 5 or so shots a game, while refresh rate is gonna impact every fight

zoom can really help you to hit some shots like corner rails etc tho.
but i agree.
zoom from retribution was off from the topic )
or at least he didnt have to state zoom > 120/144
or i can say positioning / reading your opponents > 120/144

I never claimed that zoom > 120/144Hz. I said refresh high refresh rate is overrated IMHO. Palatka brought up zoom.

Player skill > everything else. Cooller on 60Hz, wireless mouse, swapped audio channels with a random config would still do well because he plays intelligently and understands the game.

I find display lag to make more of an impact too. A month ago I accidentally set my CRT to 85hz instead of usual 130hz and I played like that for a few games and I barely noticed. On the other hand, when I played a game on my 60hz LCD a few days ago I couldn't believe how delayed and terrible everything felt

The experience is certainly not as smooth as 100+ but it is not enough of a disadvantage to matter.

Having played low and high refresh rates I feel that there is not a significant difference.

So is the disadvantage objectively inconsequential? Or do you only feel that way? The likely situation is that there is no irrefutable evidence one way or the other regarding the degree of influence of 120Hz on in-game performance. To control for the human element in an experiment like this would be difficult because there is too much leeway in most cases. Players' performance depends on their concentration, reaction time, strategy, dexterity, etc., and they're never completely consistent.

What's noteworthy is that some players, who are accustomed to 120Hz, believe that 60Hz gives them a disadvantage. This mere belief, combined with the less smooth experience, could decrease their confidence and sense of control over their game, thus a performance decrease may truly occur.

I like your comment. Well some people actually prefer it. I've seen people who are used to 60Hz complaining that 120Hz is too fast and they either need to change their settings or simply try to adjust to it. I agree that it would be difficult to prove. There are indeed several other variables involved that decrease or increase performance in some way. It's interesting to point out that robots would prefer the highest sensitivity possible because of the benefits in game. That is certainly not true for human beings though. There is no perfect refresh rate, cm/360, FOV because of each individuals approach, style and preference. The faster the experience is for us the more likely it is that we will make mistakes. I think that is easier to prove.

FPS = how many frames your computer is completing

Hz = How often the screen 'refreshes' with a new image

60fps, on 120hz will probably repeat frames and you get tearing, you will see the same frame twice

adjusting refresh rates is probably what gsync and freesync do. monitors are adaptive and the refresh rate can be set in each game, some game are 30FPS, most monitors will refresh at 60hz

this is the most comprehesnible port post have ever seen

looks like cypher bought into the high refresh rate scam

https://twitter.com/cypheritooo/status/644072171313201152

games will start using adaptive v-sync http://www.geforce.co.uk/hardware/technology/adaptive-vsync

not to be confused with AMD's "adaptive sync". :P

monitors need to support G-Sync and FreeSync, adaptive V-Sync can probably be used on any monitor

About fucking time. September 2015, mind blowing

There are decent 144hz lcd monitors available now for around 250 euro. Like the Iiyama gb2488hsu. Apparantly you can go cheaper but I know nothing of those 150 euro panels.

CRT requires a really big desk so you dont have the thing in your face. It's the best option if you're tight but a flat screen is preferable unless you have some rig for games only.

High refresh rates are not overrated, and when I tried 120hz vs 144hz on the screen mentioned above it was much more noticable than I expected.

benq. o/

some people said the Asus VG248QE.
And others say BenQ XL2420Z is good too.

I prefer to stay on the same screen for all and not switch between 2 screen for internet and games.

http://www.acer.co.uk/ac/en/GB/content/model/UM.HB0EE.005

does everything, and connections of the future

which benq would i want to go with if i'm looking for a 24"? there are so many models some of them decently priced some way over priced... i want the cheapest that offers the 144hz

the acer is the best, its 27", and can be found for 260 or so, while other are 450

27''? Neck pain D:

1280x1024 for desktop, anything else is rubbish anyway, while trying to read menu`s at 3am

yeah 27" is a bit too large as I'm wanting to get dual monitors... so 24" is pretty much my limit. i found a buyers guide for benq and it looks like the cheapest 144hz was like 250 bucks.

ASUS VG248QE

just bought this monitor... any guides on setting it up correctly for teh quake?

meh, no 120hz IPS in this thread.

I had a 120 hz screen before, it was viewsonic vx2268wm .
very good, no ghosting or thing like that, it was very good for games.

almost all 120+ hz TN's are not that cheap crappy 1990 TN's its much better in all terms and can easily beat cheap IPS like AOC/philips in all aspects (include viewing angles)

since when are IPS panles cheaper then TN?

just compare prices on 24inch 144hz TN and 24inch 60hz IPS. like TWICE cheaper ?

Time to give away my 160hz Sony Trinitron...........for free! Either that or it's going in the recycle center next month. I have no desire to open it up and buy expensive capacitors then solder them on, as that will only fix part of the problem. A new era for me. 20 years of CRT RIP