Steam telepítése
belépés
|
nyelv
简体中文 (egyszerűsített kínai)
繁體中文 (hagyományos kínai)
日本語 (japán)
한국어 (koreai)
ไทย (thai)
Български (bolgár)
Čeština (cseh)
Dansk (dán)
Deutsch (német)
English (angol)
Español - España (spanyolországi spanyol)
Español - Latinoamérica (latin-amerikai spanyol)
Ελληνικά (görög)
Français (francia)
Italiano (olasz)
Bahasa Indonesia (indonéz)
Nederlands (holland)
Norsk (norvég)
Polski (lengyel)
Português (portugáliai portugál)
Português - Brasil (brazíliai portugál)
Română (román)
Русский (orosz)
Suomi (finn)
Svenska (svéd)
Türkçe (török)
Tiếng Việt (vietnámi)
Українська (ukrán)
Fordítási probléma jelentése
https://www.amazon.com/Acer-XG270HU-omidpx-FREESYNC-Widescreen/dp/B00VRCLHYS/ref=sr_1_4?s=pc&ie=UTF8&qid=1486430498&sr=1-4&keywords=1440p+144hz
It all depends on your preference of games. I personally prefer higher resolutions over refresh rate. I game at 4K and it's absolutely amazing. I don't play competitive fps like csgo or cod though. I play games like skyrim, witcher 3, etc; and they look amazing in 4K.
So when someone says 144hz is better than 4K, that is their preference and you have to decide what you like.
We should be seeing the release of 4K 120hz monitors this year though.
High end PCs cant even run 4k at 60 fps so trying to run any modern game at 4k 120hz will be an exercise in futility.
What would be nice is if Nvidia could lower the price on Gsync monitors.
Not really sure what your point is. I run 4K at 60 frames per second just fine. In games like the Witcher three I just have to turn down settings a bit to run at 60 frames per second.
Games like CSgo should be able to run at 120 frames per second at 4K with no problem. And for other games you can just turn down settings a bit to achieve the 120 Hz.
You can still play fps games like Battlefield and COD very well with 60hz, especially 60hz G-SYNC - it's smooth as butter from 45 fps to 60 fps. 144hz or 165hz is overrated by 1440p owners. Don't expect 144hz to be like 30hz to 60hz difference, it isn't. The higher the framerate gets, the harder it is to see a difference. That's why 1440p 144hz monitors are a waste of money. £700 for 1440p 144hz monitor for a 1% increase in smoothness vs £700 4K monitor with a very big difference in detail over 1440p. 4K is future proof. That's why 4K got the "go ahead" and not 1440p. That's why there's no such thing as 1440p TV's because 1440p doesn't look much better than 1080p, where 4K does.
I had my PC built in 2014 and on most part, I'm still using that hardware. Only the gpu , SSD and HDD's I've changed. I'm still using a 3 year old i7 4770K and I've been gaming at 4K almost 2 years now. I also do alot of 4K video editing and rendering. My i7 is under alot of stress everyday and it's still fine. I see no point upgrading my cpu at this moment in time. Cpu last a very long time at the top compared to gpus.
This is the problem with technology nowadays. Moore's law is to a point now that each new generation of CPU's and GPU's is a very significant leap forward.
You won't have to upgrade every two years to continue playing at 4K because almost every game is made to run on consoles that don't have half the horsepower as your system does. This should ensure that you will be good with 4K with some graphics adjustments for the foreseeable future
If I were you I would try and demo some screens at your local tech store to see what you would prefer.