In my last post on the i7 / amd, I had in the conclusion indicated that I had to change screen and I was waiting for a model 240hz 1ms in gsync.
I will present the differences with my previous screen that soon to 10 years and began to show signs of fatigue.
Why change screens?
So to tell you the truth, I did not want to change for the screen moment.
I had a 1080p 5ms 60hz 24p screen that satisfied me very well.
But in recent weeks, he did not want to recognize the startup hdmi input (it zapped between my three possibilities hdmi / dvi / vga), I was forced to spend more than 30 min to click on the selection button for that it validates my chosen video input.
I still planned to keep it for a few years before switching to a 4k screen, but I had no choice.
So I decided to buy another one with the latest technologies
- Higher frequency
- GSync
- 1ms
- ulmb
Explanations of frequencies in fps
My old screen was 60hz so could display up to 60 frames per second (fps).
It is the standard on consoles and televisions of last generation.
But on PC, one of the advantages is to have much more powerful graphics cards than a console of last generations, which allows to obtain a lot more images per second.
There are pc monitors at 120/144/165 / 240hz.
One wonders what is the point of displaying more seconds on a screen?
Well it's just more fluid, when you play, the action is immediate.
Especially in fps games (call of duty, battlefields, CS GO, etc.).
The difference between a 60hz and a 144hz is that you can never go back, you will have an impression of slowness.
It's a bit like going from the 4K TV format of the 80s (before dvd ^^).
After sincerely between 144hz and 240hz even if you feel a difference it is less important, although appreciable.
But to claim 144 frames second you need a graphics card that allows it so far forget games in 4k.
With my 1060gtx 6gb I can manage between 70 and 240 hz depending on the games, but in full HD.
For the games of fps do not hesitate has lowered the graphic options of the game (shadow, texture, etc.), to fluidify to the maximum. The fps is primarily looking for responsiveness.
For the rest of the graphics games in full HD and enjoy ....
5ms contre 1ms
The difference is really glaring between a 5ms and a 1ms (display delay).
Taking a screen in 2ms or 1ms is just great for any gamer.
It is better to prefer the 1ms for sports games or fps.
Personally, on FIFA it's just perfect to quickly chain short passes.
Gsync et ULMB
The Gsync avoids the tearing of the image is a little the vsync games, but without losing as much fps. But curiously on some games I had to disable it because I had jerks. To date I do not explain it, I'm still looking for the problem.
For most games, it's super efficient. More image tearing a perfect smoothing even during fast action. One more huge face consoles.
ulmb
The ULMB can not be activated at the same time with Gsync and allows on fast images to increase the sharpness (for example on the speed in motor racing).
On games where I could not activate Gsync, I put the ULMB.
Both technologies should soon be able to be combined.
It will be necessary to wait for the first tests to see if it will not lose too much fps in game.
Conclusion
For any gamer or even potential gamer, choosing a pc screen in 1 or 2 ms is a priority.
Gsync technology is a real plus, but with sometimes difficult settings on some games.
The Ulmb will improve your gaming experience, but so far it will be necessary to choose between sharpness and image tearing.
Regarding the frequency I would recommend at least 120hz and better 144hz, to rediscover your games and significantly improve the way you play. The 240hz is now reserved for big gamers with graphics cards without compromise in 1080p.