Reminder: Update your PC info for the next round of statistics updates

Quoting: Shmerl

Quoting: ElectricPrism240-270 is good enough IMO if you are doing FPS, 144 is meh.

Good enough in FPS is also relative, if your GPU can't saturate that. Something like CP2077 at 2560x1440 only produces around 70 fps for me. Can't even imagine what kind of GPU will be needed to get 270 fps in it, but I guess in a few generations of them it would be doable.

Right, being able to saturate each refresh with a new frame is an important part of getting the use out of it. I'm on AMD RX 6900 XT so it's not a problem, it's not cheap though or even practical for most people at this time.

For motion sensitive people though, it does make a big difference as lower Hz and FPS don't go over well at all.

I did a lot of monitor research, obviously I found the common online sentiment of 144hz or 165hz being the point of diminishing return to not be correct in my own personal trials as a system builder.

Monitor tech is really in a wonky place this last year, hopefully 2022 will be a little better (Eg: They want you to own one monitor for every use-case, color work, FPS gaming, one that is 4k or more for more screen real estate, etc... I settled on 1440p 170hz ASUS and 270Hz 1080p which are easier to push at that lower resolution -- next on my radar is the LG 42" 4k monitor though I'm sure the refresh rate won't be as good as I would hope. [but this is how advertisers work, they want to sell you every slightly better version as you go, no you can't have a 128 core CPU even though it's invented right away, you need to go through 4, 6, 8, 12, 16, 32, 48, 56, 64, and every in-between before they unlock the technology sitting on their shelf ready to deploy -- at least that was literally Intel for the last 10 years before AMD kicked their ass the last 5 years.)


Last edited by ElectricPrism on 30 December 2021 at 3:28 am UTC

Quoting: ElectricPrismRight, being able to saturate each refresh with a new frame is an important part of getting the use out of it. I'm on AMD RX 6900 XT so it's not a problem, it's not cheap though or even practical for most people at this time.

I have 6800 XT which is only marignally weaker than 6900 XT. And as above, with ultra settings in something like CP2077 I get 70 fps at 2560x1440 (LG 27GP850 with adaptive sync, 180 Hz max). Which I think is great, but it simply means current generation GPUs are not there yet to benefit from 270 Hz. Unless of course you use more mid range games that aren't so demanding.

I agree that monitor tech seems to be progressing slower than it could. For example variable overdrive for some reason is not common place yet.

Quoting: Shmerl

Quoting: ElectricPrismRight, being able to saturate each refresh with a new frame is an important part of getting the use out of it. I'm on AMD RX 6900 XT so it's not a problem, it's not cheap though or even practical for most people at this time.

I have 6800 XT which is only marignally weaker than 6900 XT. And as above, with ultra settings in something like CP2077 I get 70 fps at 2560x1440 (LG 27GP850 with adaptive sync, 180 Hz max). Which I think is great, but it simply means current generation GPUs are not there yet to benefit from 270 Hz. Unless of course you use more mid range games that aren't so demanding.

I agree that monitor tech seems to be progressing slower than it could. For example variable overdrive for some reason is not common place yet.

Yeah I take the meaning behind your point, if I wanted to split a hair, I would argue that specific game devs are becoming increasingly wasteful with hardware resources and just really aren't targeting a scope where FPS would make use of those high refresh rates.

I guess for "most" games we'll just have to wait for the market to be saturated with some version of 170hz or 144hz monitors before gamers start changing the scope of game devs to target their hardware, which... could easily take a few generations.

I'm glad monitor tech has IPS refresh improvements, but it is definitely a point of pain -- I've discussed the situation with other monitor enthusiasts and they have arrived at the same conclusion we are in some kind of fucked up limbo. Ironic that in some ways CRT was superior in some ways for many years.

If we could only get out of this 16:9 thing -- I would be estatic if 16:10 or even 3:2 (frame.work ratio, sony vaio, etc...) came back -- It's really sad that the TV market has essentially taken the monitor market captive and forced compromises, even 1600x1200 in a upgraded form would make for a really nice screen @ 3200x2400 -- maybe as people work at home more, the monitor market will start to overtake the TV market and we'll get some leverage back where all this smart-crap and backdoors aren't installed directly to my screen. /rant

Edit: I suppose there's an argument to be made about use-case, for example FPS or high action gaming are going to notice that higher refresh rate (270hz) at that lower resolution (1080p), RPG, and most use cases are really not going to be noticeably different (above 170hz probably), certainly not web browsing or other standard use-cases (my selection of a higher refresh rate is entirely in an attempt to reduce motion sickness for group gaming)


Last edited by ElectricPrism on 30 December 2021 at 5:51 am UTC

I find it very interesting that most people on gamingonlinux have nvidia gpus, and not amd gpus.

Quoting: ambersthirdcousinI find it very interesting that most people on gamingonlinux have nvidia gpus, and not amd gpus.

That's not really interesting, this situation is the relic of the past simply reflecting the inertia of things. What's more interesting is the trend of Nvidia usage dropping and AMD growing. That tells the real story.

It has been flat for a while due to shortages since almost no one is upgrading today, but the trend of Nvidia usage on Linux dropping will continue once shortages and pricing will normalize.


Last edited by Shmerl on 30 December 2021 at 8:30 pm UTC

Hardware updates? I wish. A better GPU of course, but the bitcoin bros drove the costs of them too high.

Quoting: Shmerl

Quoting: Xpanderlike does it really matter if its 144 or 180

The jump from 60 Hz to 144 Hz is surely more significant than from 144 Hz to 180 Hz. But it's still smoother (less motion blur, etc.).

Outside of gaming, the easiest way to see the difference is to scroll a lot of text fast.

yeah, for me 120hz+ really isn't much of a difference, unless i really pay attention or compare side to side. below 120 is felt easily. Though i havent seen 240hz+ in real life, so maybe theres a huge difference between 144 and 240 also., but 120 to 170 feels pretty much same to me, unless i put them side to side to compare.

Meanwile here I am using a fourteen year old 60 Hz LCD panel and a CRT monitor...

I'm quite satisfied with my used ViewSonic monitor with 75hz and FreeSync. Having played on consoles most of my life, 60+fps is a luxury to me. I don't play multiplayer games, so I'm not interested in dropping tons of money on a new monitor and whatever else kids like these days.

My PC info is completely different now since I'm now using a PC I put together myself. More powerful CPU, more powerful GPU, DDR4 instead of DDR3, and EndeavourOS instead of Debian.


Last edited by CyborgZeta on 30 December 2021 at 6:17 pm UTC

A lot of people with pure Arch. Interesting, I have installed it lately again and it is for me still too much hassle to get to a sane installation for a desktop with all the optional depends I had to install to get everything I need working (starting from android phone connecting over printer and scanner, which was not as easy as expected even though it works out of the box on most other distros).

Probably I grew out of wanting to fiddle with the system. It will always have a place in my heart for being as much upstream as possible having used it 2004-2017. But currently Solus caters bettet to my needs.