Blur Busters Forums

bleach wrote: ↑

17 Jun 2020, 18:49

Max_hz wrote: ↑

17 Jun 2020, 08:49

Sounds good! which size have you got this time?

25 incher, its flawless

so the long walk has finally rewarded you, good luck with it!

I just bought the VG259QM and I really don't like it at 280hz 80OD. At least in Overwatch, I need to test other games though. I don't know the technical term but the image is way too sharp and just looks ugly it's really distracting. 280hz 80OD looks better on the VG279QM. Overall I like the VG279QM better, it's just 27" it's too big for me to play competitively. IMO you might as well buy the MSI instead of VG259QM since it's big selling point, at least to me was 280hz, but it just doesn't look right on it.

^
Ya, 1080 27" is proving problematic in regards to my focal point when playing competively.

https://www.rtings.com/monitor/reviews/asus/vg279qm There's a new VG279QM review

Edit: Aaaand ofc you can't see it unless you pay.

I take back what I said about the VG259QM, 280hz OD60 is pretty good but I thought you needed OD80 for the best possible refresh window. Maybe not as big a deal as I thought. Also with ELMB on and 280hz it looks good i'm not a fan of ELMB so I wouldn't use it, but it's a option. So 280hz is definitely playable if you don't mind the lower OD or if you play with ELMB on.

RLSCContender will you be keeping the xb273x or sending it back?

How’s the picture quality and colors compared to the Mag251rx. I know you said it has the MSU beat in response times and input lag but how is gaming with the xb273x? What settings do you recommend on it?

But seriously, why would anyone spend nearly a thousand dollars to play low end/low graphically demanding games or esports titles on this monitor? There are better options with lower input lag with better response times. I have the rtx 2070 and i can barely get 80 FPS on a AAA 1440p title. what makes anyone think they can run a ps5 calibur AAA game to run at 240hz at 1440p? i don't think the 2080ti is fast enough, hell i don't think the 3080ti is fast enough to get 1440p near 240hz FPS(since it will be a massive bottleneck).
4. Speaking of input lag, if you do intend to play esports/low graphically demanding titles at 240hz, VA is notorious for having very bad input lag and slow response times, like i said, there are better options

I don't see why not. If you want smooth gameplay for the games you play, you only have the ability to scale up resolution and refresh rate. Games like DotA 2. I doubt it stresses a 2070... Because of crap anti-aliasing it would look much better at 1440p

Dammit, despite a FULL on factory reset, i'm still not able to get above 60hz refesh via HDMI on the acer predator xb273 x. The ad clearly stated HDMI 2.0 and i can confirm, it IS HDMI 2.0 thanks to CRU. But i'm at the very last stages of trying to get HDMI @60hz refresh above 60hz because i 100% intended to use this monitor for the ps5 and xbox series x and those consoles run at 120hz refresh.


upload




i'm going to do ONE more thing. i this doesnt' pass, then i will send it back. I just can't live at the fact that i'm stuck at 60hz via HDMI since the low 60hz input lag was amoong its best features.

BRB, about to hit up best buy and get me a 2-3 HDMI cables(of varying qualilties) to see if it's in fact the cable is the problem.

1080p for HDMI 2.0 SHOULD be able to get it as high as 240hz. If it can get up to 120hz, i am equally happy but unfortunately, whenever i try to change the refresh rate, it will make a blank black screen for 5-6 seconds then reverts back to 60hz refresh without changing it. i've tried every thing. Reinstalle drivers, updated firmware, and even did a factory reset. All i'm getting is this a blank black screen for FIVE seconds and reverts back to 60hz refresh.

If anyone here have a second opinion or have any tips to help me increase the refresh rate via HDMI higher than 60hz, let me know. Knowing that i can't get higher than 60hz via HDMI is a DEALBREAKER. Getting above 60hz @ 1080p shouldn't be a PROBLEM for HDMI 2.0 but apparently, for the past six hours, i just can't find a solution(btw, i used 3 hdmi cables of my own and it didn't work)

axaro1 wrote: ↑

17 Jun 2020, 02:53

If you can get more than 250fps every single time just set refresh rate to 280hz and cap at 250fps with freesync.
240hz capped at 236 is better IMO if you happen to have your fps dipping as low as 220-230.
Generally I take the 5% lows (not 0.1% and not 1%) and I use it as a baseline to find the correct fps cap, if I set the refresh rate to 280hz capped at 276fps with freesync I tend to find big aim inconsistencies when my fps is at 276 compared to when it dips to 230 and viceversa.

Can you output 250fps 95% of the time? Then cap at 250.

In terms of colors I think it falls behind what the MSI can do (It can still output 10bit if set to 144hz or lower, so it's good to watch h265 content) but it definitely compensate on other aspects like the refresh rate.

For 280hz if you set the overdrive to OD80 it has an extremely low amount of overshoot and a really crisp image, it looks better than the VG279QM with the same settings (If I compare the frog pursuit test https://www.aperturegrille.com/reviews/ASUSVG279QM/)
Tftcentral registered as low as 0.30ms signal processing time, if you add the Response Time Element(which is the same as the Acer) it's just 0.3ms (1/3 of a millisecond) slower than the XV273X.

+Strobe timings for this monitor are 120, 144, 240 and 280.
Forget about strobing with Gsync/Freesync, it doesn't work well on this monitor.
Standard strobing however is a completely different thing, 280hz with strobing is very good, the refresh window at 280hz is 3.57ms and the strobe duration lasts only 1.1ms, which is very fast.

I think using 240hz and caping fps at 236 might be the best option but I'm going to try different settings and see how it looks and feels. My monitor should arrive tomorrow or Saturday. Thanks for the tips.

Does 10 bit means it's better than 8 bit or not necessarily. I mean what other variables should be considered for good image quality and accurate colors?

This review here the guy suggests that its color accuracy isn't that great. At 6:15 he talks about the colors and says that before calibration it's 4.42 average Delta-E and after calibration it's 2.41. He says that it's not good for an IPS monitor and should be lower closer to zero. Can someone elaborate more on that or clarify what exactly are the variables one should look for to judge the image quality or the color accuracy of a monitor.



I'm still using my Asus PA248 IPS monitor at the moment. I bought it a long time ago because it was one of the better monitors recommended for digital art. I wonder how does it compare to the VG259QM as far as image quality and color accuracy. Of course that monitor isn't good for gaming though. They mention that the Delta-E is less than 5 but didn't give an actual number. I'm just wondering how important or noticeable something like that.

https://www.asus.com/us/Monitors/ProArt-PA248Q/

Hello, I would like to correct a few points in a post made by RLCScontender.

RLCScontender wrote: ↑

18 Jun 2020, 04:59

Think about it this way. If you are sniping, yet you are late by 40 frames, do you think you will get that perfect shot? 40 frames may not sound a lot but in faster games, it's A LOT. That is how much of an advantage 280hz has over 240hz.

This is wrong, hz is a unit of cycles per second. At 280hz your monitor will have displayed 40 more frames over the course of a second. Thus, your example is only true if you somehow take 1 second to react and shoot your gun (in which case, I'm sorry to say but you're most certainly already dead ).

RLCScontender wrote: ↑

18 Jun 2020, 04:59

1. 50/50 situations. if two saw each other at the same time(Frist person shooters) or in rocket league, there's a 50/50 situation. The player with a 40hz frame advantage WILL get priority This happens all the time in rocket league because we are put in so many 50/50 situations that the person whois a few frames FASTER will hold priorit. You may think you aren't playiing any different but you are through the EYES of your opponent.

You can't look at hz only, you also have to consider delay. In a perfect world without any delay, or if the input delay is the exact same for both monitors and the only variable is the refresh rate, at 280hz you would see the opponent a huge (1/240 - 1/280) * 1000 = 0.59ms before your opponent sees you. Also, this is the worst case scenario, meaning the opponent appears immediately after both monitor refreshed their frame at the same time. My intuition tells me on average you would see the opponent 0.59 / 2 = 0.295ms before he sees you (again, assuming identical display lag).

RLCScontender wrote: ↑

18 Jun 2020, 04:59

2. WHen moving your camera. not only do you get less motion blur(higher MPRT), but it's EASIER to react in a subconscious way when moving your camera because you are able to see MORE frames per second in the long run. If you do the math per minute, you would've experienced almost 80,000 MORE frames than the 240hz competition

I'm not sure how you tried to calculate this, but this is false. A 40 hz advantage means your monitor displays 40 more frames each second. 40 frames/second * 60 second/minute = 2400 frames/minute. Your maths would work, if a minute was 2000 seconds (maybe I'd have enough time to do what I want in the day, then!).

RLCScontender wrote: ↑

18 Jun 2020, 04:59

3. extra frames gives you a reaction time advantage.You may think you are reacting the same way, playing the same,e tc. But you really aren't because relative to other people, you ARE going faster than they are since they are capped at 240hz. With that being said, if you combine the 50/50 advantage on TOP of the "moving your camera" advantage, sub consciously, even though you may THINK you are seeing no differences in speed of your gameplay, the OTHER people who has a 240hz or less monitor will perceive that you are reacting faster than they are.

It's not that simple. For example, consider a 1000hz monitor that would have a 1 second input delay. The gameplay would probably appear as smooth as a baby's butt compared to 240hz, but the 240hz monitor would still see you first. This is why input lag is very important, hz alone doesn't tell the whole story.


This post is not meant to attack or offend you, english is not my first language so I hope my corrections don't sound "agressive". It seems like you do some very thorough tests, but it would be wise to read a bit more on the theoretical side of things to allow you to interpret your results properly. Thanks for all the tests, by the way!

EDIT: Immediately after posting this, I figured out I was wrong about the 40hz difference (my reply to the 2nd quote). Indeed, the worst case (from the viewpoint of the 240hz monitor) is actually if the enemy appears immediately before the 280hz monitor refreshes, and immediately after the 240hz monitor refreshes. This will have a delay of 1/240hz = 4.167ms.

If we try to calculate the worst case from the viewpoint of the 280hz monitor (the inverse of the above scenario): 1/280hz = 3.57ms.

It turns out what I calculated above was the difference between the worst cases from both monitors.

Also, I'd like to point out that I'm not arguing that fractions of milliseconds aren't important; they matter to me. I'm simply trying to explain that the "reason why" in the post I quoted was invalid. Hopefully someone with better english than me can clarify.