Rig Showdown
Fellow keyboard warriors, I'm curious what your non virtual weapons are. My rig is as follows: PC: Intel I7 6700k on Asus Maximus VIII Ranger, Samsung 860 Evo SSD, 32 GB Corsair Vengeance DDR4 @3200...
Forum Discussion
Wow, a lock of rockets around. Seems like I'm the only one so far that uses the "freeloader's" refresh rate of only 60Hz. Hmmm, maybe I can blame it for my bad aim... :D
Forgot to add a note about the mouse: it sucks! There's glue coming out from under the side grips after just a few months of use. I can repair it, but its profile feels a bit low as well. This leads me to a question: is anyone using / recommending a vertical mouse?
Well I don't think there are any affordable ultrawide options with better refresh rates. Ultrawide is definitely not something I would choose for shooters though 🙂.
144Hz QHD IPS is the most optimal screen for BR's atm (if the card can drive QHD at the needed 144+ fps).
When I switched from 60 to 240 Hz my aim didn't improve, but my eyes keep thanking me. The blur, the screen tearing, the visibly low frame count - those are all extremely annoying to look at and happen 100% of the time when simply turning with low refresh screens (something you kind of need to do in an FPS). 240 Hz makes them all go away almost completely.
Mouse is a very personal thing. The most important thing, by a mile, is hand-to-mouse form fit. So the best way to buy one is actually try them. Otherwise you're down to trying to find something that fixes the shortcomings (e.g., buy higher if it feels too low - but then you may just find that the slant or curve is just not right...). E.g., the G703 could be a miracle mouse, but I could still never use it, because it's so tiny that I would have to use fingertip grip to make it work (and I'm not the fan of that, and it's also best for wrist-aiming, which wouldn't make sense for fps).
I would not recommend going 240hz as humans can't notice any difference above 165hz (all the tests made on pro players, showed that people with 70-90ms reaction did not see any difference above 165hz) - although I can understand that the companies want to sell them.
I can assure you, I can notice a drop from 240 to 220 VERY clearly (and that's only based on FPS dropping from 240 to 220, the frames themselves are still drawn at 1/240th of a second each; true 220 Hz would be even more noticeable). If I could get what I want I would gladly go for 10k refresh rate (in 20 years maybe?). That would look SMOOOTH.
But of course there's diminishing returns.
Afaik there currently are no IPS QHD 240 Hz panels and for BR's visual clarity tops smoothness. IPS gives better blacks and overall better colors and QHD resolution allows for easier spotting at long range. So IPS 144 > TN 240, QHD 144 > HD 240. Hence, the best compromise for BR's seems to be a QHD IPS 144+.For a game like overwatch, I would never ever give up 240 hz.
Well I actually looked up studies made on screen hz and there was none that could prove that any human (pro players mind you) could actually pass the test that they saw any notice above 165hz. I think this is placebo mate. Best choice is 165hz, and that's if you have a very low response time that you actually gain anything from it.
Test was going from 60hz -> 144hz -> 165h-> 240hz. And trying to see if there was any change for them at all, and for them to guess what refresh rate it was. They could see a change from 144hz -> 165hz, but that's where it stopped.
