Acer Announces Predator X25 Monitor: 25", 1080p, 360 Hz

[Recon-UK]

huh. I understand that the quality of the panel may not be the best but you can't say, being a sane person, that games at 1080p high refresh rate monitor looks better than games at 4k in general.
Maybe your eyes are fixed on the high refresh rate too much but the visuals at 4k are extraordinary in comparison to what you get at 1080p despite high refresh rate cause the last one gives you smooth experience not better visuals.

Movement is visual...

You can get most of the benefits of higher resolution by down sampling but at this point that depends how much GPU horsepower is left over from filling the 144hz refresh rate.

When in game and playing, the smoothness is very compelling, 60 hz looks a stuttery mess, it is instantly noticeable if a game is not running at a minimum of 120hz from the get go.

Things do improve greatly on a higher refresh panel, target acquisition, target leading, improvement to input delay, far easier on your eyes.

You can also make use of safety features if your panel has them (eye care).

Resolution means nothing when your image looks washed out, ghosting, dull input latency and generally frustrating for any modern online shooter regardless of being competitive or not.

Even a casual player with a 120hz screen will have quite the advantage over others using a 60hz panel, it is the truth.

CSGO rank improved from DMG straight to SMFC with just a screen upgrade, i could have sworn everyone was cheating at 60hz.

 

[cucker tarlson]

I look at a game like watchdogs and apart from image quality what often strikes me is the movement of pedestrians.the smoother the animation gets the more realistic it feels.
not even talking about controlling your own character cause that's an obvious thing.

I think that more fps will always be better,and given a big enough increment you'll always see and feel that.the problem is somewhere else.it's whether you personally need that framerate.
do I see a fps increase from 45 to 60 ? yes,and I need it too.from 60 to 80 - same.80 to 120 - yes,especially for shooters.now from 120 to let's say 165 - yes I can see it in shooters.the thing is I don't really need it cause 120 already felt super smooth.I'd much,much prefer to play that 120fps with ulmb than lock 170 at 170hz.

 

[ratirt]

Movement is visual...

You can get most of the benefits of higher resolution by down sampling but at this point that depends how much GPU horsepower is left over from filling the 144hz refresh rate.

When in game and playing, the smoothness is very compelling, 60 hz looks a stuttery mess, it is instantly noticeable if a game is not running at a minimum of 120hz from the get go.

Things do improve greatly on a higher refresh panel, target acquisition, target leading, improvement to input delay, far easier on your eyes.

You can also make use of safety features if your panel has them (eye care).

Resolution means nothing when your image looks washed out, ghosting, dull input latency and generally frustrating for any modern online shooter regardless of being competitive or not.

Even a casual player with a 120hz screen will have quite the advantage over others using a 60hz panel, it is the truth.

CSGO rank improved from DMG straight to SMFC with just a screen upgrade, i could have sworn everyone was cheating at 60hz.

You know what? I'm not gonna argue with you since you are moving into details to prove your point and these are panel related. You don't need to get crappy 4k screen to get ghosting etc.
High refresh rate gives you smoothness and I agree. No doubt about it.
Maybe you get better with high refresh rate monitor but I'm not convinced. When you suck you just suck. I play 4k 60hz CSO and I don't have that "everyone is cheating opinion".
But saying the visuals(eye candy) are better is just not true. 4k is superior in visuals and detail to 1080p no matter what refresh rate you get on the last one.

 

[Recon-UK]

You know what? I'm not gonna argue with you since you are moving into details to prove your point and these are panel related. You don't need to get crappy 4k screen to get ghosting etc.
High refresh rate gives you smoothness and I agree. No doubt about it.
Maybe you get better with high refresh rate monitor but I'm not convinced. When you suck you just suck. I play 4k 60hz CSO and I don't have that "everyone is cheating opinion".
But saying the visuals(eye candy) are better is just not true. 4k is superior in visuals and detail to 1080p no matter what refresh rate you get on the last one.

4K is only superior in detail since it is a resolution, resolution only = detail, resolution = resolve, to resolve an image at a higher resolution, therefor the image has more detail.

But that is not the only thing that adds to better image quality.

You are assuming now that a person has a character flaw for being honest with how they views a game from a refresh rate perspective as to hold your own opinion as full truth, getting killed before it is possible to even humanly react is real when someone has that big of an advantage over you and in CSGO, anything above DMG is hard to increase skill wise, so everything counts.

"I play CSGO" It means nothing, there are players who only play for the bunny hop servers.

It's a strong point and is observed by almost anyone else who has a higher refresh rate monitor also.

 

[cucker tarlson]

there's one affordable 4k 120 strix screen and you've got dlss 2.0 so it's a start.
I'd like more of both so that I can get into 4k/120
for nowc tho it's 1440p on a 24" to get both the framerates and super sharp image

 

[Recon-UK]

 

[ratirt]

4K is only superior in detail since it is a resolution, resolution only = detail, resolution = resolve, to resolve an image at a higher resolution, therefor the image has more detail.

But that is not the only thing that adds to better image quality.

Like what you said that high refresh rate boosts image quality?

You are assuming now that a person has a character flaw for being honest with how they views a game from a refresh rate perspective as to hold your own opinion as full truth, getting killed before it is possible to even humanly react is real when someone has that big of an advantage over you and in CSGO, anything above DMG is hard to increase skill wise, so everything counts.

"I play CSGO" It means nothing, there are players who only play for the bunny hop servers.

It's a strong point and is observed by almost anyone else who has a higher refresh rate monitor also.

So You accuse me of assuming something about others and yet you quote "I play CSGO" means nothing cause I play bonny hop server? I see.

4k is superior to 1080p in image quality despite 1080p's refresh rate. That is my opinion and as a person who actually have a 1080p Acer VG240Y 144hz (new purchase) I think there is a merit to what I say.
High refresh rate gives you smoothness, damn you can be better if you think that's the case but if all you guys with High refresh rate monitors start convincing people that image quality is better on a 1080p vs 4k now, that's just wrong.

 

[Recon-UK]

Like what you said that high refresh rate boosts image quality?


So You accuse me of assuming something about others and yet you quote "I play CSGO" means nothing cause I play bonny hop server? I see.

4k is superior to 1080p in image quality despite 1080p's refresh rate. That is my opinion and as a person who actually have a 1080p Acer VG240Y 144hz (new purchase) I think there is a merit to what I say.
High refresh rate gives you smoothness, damn you can be better if you think that's the case but if all you guy with High refresh rate monitors start convincing people that image quality is better on a 1080p vs 4k now, that's just wrong.

I have not said that 4K does not improve image quality, but to me, my preferences for image quality are different to yours. Cost, black levels, colour reproduction, image speed.
Want quality and a fast panel?, i hit the sweet spot.

Is it the best, no because there are 1MS IPS competitive esports monitors like the one in the OP here, mine is 4ms, but i also gain far superior contrast ratio, 125% sRGB colour & very decent viewing angles.

The advantages are advantages only, 4K is like a cherry on top to me, for some it is what makes image quality... The cherry on top would cost me roughly £2000 in upgrades to fulfil & to find my image preferences, possibly around £2000 or more for the monitor.

We both like image quality, we come at it from different perspectives however.

Also, reading comprehension.

 

[Vayra86]

1080p is absolutely fine for gaming and I would mind owning one of those 1080p 240/360.not on my priority list but man,1080p 240/360 is a million miles better than owning a 60hz 4K.
this must be fun for shooters and parkour games,I bet dying light be the zombie mode plays ridiculous on this.

I honestly don't understand people who see this and curse ppl who are interested.why ? not interested then get out.there'll be people who are cause they understand that pushing pc gaming experience is not just about more pixels.

but I guess that's the type,they think 1080p is stupid and then see this and say "I would like to pay a grand for that"

No man.... its about the fact 360hz is just about as pointless as the 4K60 you mention in this day and age. There is a healthy bit of placebo involved, thinking it somehow aids any kind of gaming experience.

It. Does. Not.

This panel exists for people who buy marketing.
Note how that glowy IPS (I suppose?) is also an Acer Predator. "Gaming" branded. Yay

The vast majority of those special monitors are just crap. What you need is tried and tested, well balanced design, calibrated panel and high production quality. There is indeed more to a panel than resolution, but the most important specs are always hidden to us. Thát is why they put a fat 360HZ on the box. Its the same nonsense as dynamic contrast and a bunch of other trickery. 360hz is achieved through overdrive, most likely, so you shall have ghosting.

 

[cucker tarlson]

thinking it somehow aids any kind of gaming experience.
It. Does. Not.

well,240 over 120 does.
and I haven't tried it so I'ma refrain from bashing it.
and where does thinking really fit into this.you either see it or not.

 

[Vayra86]

well,240 over 120 does.
and I haven't tried it so I'ma refrain from bashing it.
and where does thinking really fit into this.you either see it or not.

That is not how placebo's work. You see it because you want to see it, and you want to see it because you damn well bought the panel to get it.

 

[cucker tarlson]

That is not how placebo's work. You see it because you want to see it.

no you see it cause it's there.
placebo would be an effect where they tell you there's 360hz but in fact it's a 120hz with a 360 sticker.

I want to see my 144hz do a better job than 60hz.I must be delusional then.

 

[Vayra86]

no you see it cause it's there.
placebo would be an effect where they tell you there's 360hz but in fact it's a 120hz with a 360 sticker.

You think this is 360hz native with no overdrive?

Alright then.

 

[cucker tarlson]

You think this is 360hz native with no overdrive?

Alright then.

no I have not said anything like that.

 

[Vayra86]

no I have not said anything like that.

Well, then you're looking at BS because a panel using overdrive to get refresh rates this high, will also cause ghosting artifacts. Now, put that next to something hideous like 'dynamic contrast' (you know, when blacks get grey in light scenes and everything flickers like mad) and note the similarities: big spec number, achieved with panel tricks that are always visible.

 

[Recon-UK]

You think this is 360hz native with no overdrive?

Alright then.

I have no experiences of anything over 144hz other than real life which is smoother than 144hz. That does mean that theoretically, there can be improvements to refresh rate, but just a theory.

Resolution depends on image size, not impressed with 4K.

I doubt this has overdrive, but i guess blur busters can test it.

 

[cucker tarlson]

Well, then you're looking at BS because a panel using overdrive to get refresh rates this high, will also cause ghosting artifacts.

link me the review so I can see how bad it is.

 

[Vayra86]

I have no experiences of anything over 144hz other than real life which is smoother than 144hz. That does mean that theoretically, there can be improvements to refresh rate, but just a theory.

Resolution depends on image size, not impressed with 4K.

I doubt this has overdrive, but i guess blur busters can test it.

That'd surprise me, on an IPS.

 

[Recon-UK]

That'd surprise me, on an IPS.

IPS has changed...

TN vs. IPS vs. VA: What's the Best Display Panel Technology?

The most influential decision you can make when you buy a new monitor is the panel type. So, what's the difference between TN, VA, and IPS, and which one is right for you?

www.howtogeek.com

"Previously, TNs exhibited less input lag than any other panel, but IPS technology has finally caught up. In June 2019, LG announced its new Nano IPS UltraGear monitors with a response time of one millisecond. "

 

[cucker tarlson]

have you seen a flawless monitor Vayra ? then stop making claims you can't defend.
it's always a trade off,always.let people decide what they want to sacrifice and what they want to focus on.

IPS has changed...

TN vs. IPS vs. VA: What's the Best Display Panel Technology?

The most influential decision you can make when you buy a new monitor is the panel type. So, what's the difference between TN, VA, and IPS, and which one is right for you?

www.howtogeek.com

"Previously, TNs exhibited less input lag than any other panel, but IPS technology has finally caught up. In June 2019, LG announced its new Nano IPS UltraGear monitors with a response time of one millisecond. "

yeah IPS weren't slow even a couple of years ago.

it's the bleed and lack of dark color that puts me off.had a mx27aq,couldn't stand how dark colors looked.no IPS for me as long as they cost a premium and deliver crappy darks.

 

[Vayra86]

IPS has changed...

TN vs. IPS vs. VA: What's the Best Display Panel Technology?

The most influential decision you can make when you buy a new monitor is the panel type. So, what's the difference between TN, VA, and IPS, and which one is right for you?

www.howtogeek.com

"Previously, TNs exhibited less input lag than any other panel, but IPS technology has finally caught up. In June 2019, LG announced its new Nano IPS UltraGear monitors with a response time of one millisecond. "

Note they cap at 144hz, 175 requires OC

 

[Recon-UK]

VA here has no backlight bleed, the blacks are really dark, whites are really good too, the only issue is 4ms response time, there are faster 144hz panels, there is slight motion blur, but compared to a 60hz panel, it's negligible.

 

[Vayra86]

have you seen a flawless monitor Vayra ? then stop making claims you can't defend.
it's always a trade off,always.let people decide what they want to sacrifice and what they want to focus on.


yeah IPS weren't slow even a couple of years ago.

it's the bleed and lack of dark color that puts me off.had a mx27aq,couldn't stand how dark colors looked.no IPS for me as long as they cost a premium and deliver crappy darks.

Certainly a trade off. And sure anyone can go out and buy random crap however often they like. I'm just here providing a bit of guidance on things to look out for, and traps not to step into.

 

[Recon-UK]

Note they cap at 144hz, 175 requires OC

"While high refresh rates were typically reserved for TNs, more manufacturers are producing IPS panels with refresh rates of 240 Hz. For example, the 27-inch 1080p ASUS VG279QM uses an IPS panel and supports 280 Hz. "


Same link.

 

[Vayra86]

VA here has no backlight bleed, the blacks are really dark, whites are really good too, the only issue is 4ms response time, there are faster 144hz panels, there is slight motion blur, but compared to a 60hz panel, it's negligible.

Big fan of VA, but it has drawbacks too, smearing being a notable one, the weak G2G in darker hues is definitely a step down from what IPS can do. But yes... blacks and static contrast are king on this tech.