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

Still same old GPU :( Damn those prices. I want to upgrade already.

Your PCs are ultra-modern spaceships compared to mine.

I want to upgrade but, well, you know...

I wanted to build an all new rig at once but I might have to space it out. My 1080 is still doing okay even though I want to rejoin Team Red but things are at the point where I am asking too much from my 4790k. It lived a long life, longer than any other gap between new PCs for me, but it's just not cutting it anymore.

I'm torn between waiting until later this year to see the shiny new AMD stuff coming out but at the same time, a current gen Ryzen would still be a massive upgrade and more mature.

Quoting: XpanderStill same old GPU :( Damn those prices. I want to upgrade already.

Supposedly new fabs will start operating by the end of 2022.

After four months of waiting my PC finally made its way across the Pacific to my new home, and I can update my stats with my brand spankin' new 1440p, 170 Hz monitor. (My first above 1200p [and that over 4 years ago] and 60 Hz.) Only to discover that its refresh rate of 170 Hz is not on the list…

Honestly, refresh rates are a bit crazy nowadays. I'm upgrading from 60 Hz for the first time, and there's a dizzying range of Hz above 120 now. Do you want a monitor with a refresh rate of 144 Hz? 150 Hz? 160? 165? It's like, I can accept that people see a difference between 60 and 120 Hz, or even 120 and 240 or other stupidly high numbers…but I refuse to accept that anyone sees a difference between 165 and 170 Hz (that's a < 3% difference), like the articles I've seen that literally say things like "This monitor has a 160 Hz native refresh rate, and it can be overclocked to 165 Hz!" Can we just settle on a smaller number of standard refresh rates, please, preferably in larger increments than 5 Hz? I don't care whether it's multiples of 24 (144 Hz, 240 Hz), 30 (60 Hz, 120 Hz) or 5 (165 Hz), just pick one standard and stick with it.


Last edited by Philadelphus on 28 January 2022 at 6:47 pm UTC

Out of curiosity, regarding the Desktop "Window Manager Only":

• 1) what software does that cover?


• 2) Why would those be put into a single bucket vs having an option for each one like the rest?


• 3) With that now being in 3rd place, does it make sense to split it up into the individual options?

Last edited by lectrode on 28 January 2022 at 7:26 pm UTC

Quoting: PhiladelphusCan we just settle on a smaller number of standard refresh rates, please, preferably in larger increments than 5 Hz? I don't care whether it's multiples of 24 (144 Hz, 240 Hz), 30 (60 Hz, 120 Hz) or 5 (165 Hz), just pick one standard and stick with it.

With adaptive sync there is no need to make some standard increments. It's basically, whatever the panel can handle :)

Congrats on the new monitor!


Last edited by Shmerl on 28 January 2022 at 8:11 pm UTC

Quoting: lectrodeOut of curiosity, regarding the Desktop "Window Manager Only":

• 1) what software does that cover?


• 2) Why would those be put into a single bucket vs having an option for each one like the rest?


• 3) With that now being in 3rd place, does it make sense to split it up into the individual options?

Could be bit of a can of worms. There's only handful DE:s, but as far as window managers go, there's much more. Might need separate graph at least. I would like to know how many twm users there are

Quoting: XpanderStill same old GPU :( Damn those prices. I want to upgrade already.

I actually decided to buy a complete new rig, since the whole PC with a 3070Ti did cost almost the same as the card itself... and since that a half year passed.

Vendors seem to still get them at reasonable prices

Given, I did not like my old rig and I wanted a passively cooled one, all in all it did cost me about 400 more for the whole PC than buying the card itself.

Silent (heatpipe cooled), tripled the RAM which is faster, special silent case, good SSD, and a stable mainboard (my old was a real pain).


Last edited by STiAT on 28 January 2022 at 11:20 pm UTC

Quoting: Shmerl

Quoting: PhiladelphusCan we just settle on a smaller number of standard refresh rates, please, preferably in larger increments than 5 Hz? I don't care whether it's multiples of 24 (144 Hz, 240 Hz), 30 (60 Hz, 120 Hz) or 5 (165 Hz), just pick one standard and stick with it.

With adaptive sync there is no need to make some standard increments. It's basically, whatever the panel can handle :)

Congrats on the new monitor!

Thanks! And true, obviously it doesn't matter with VRR, I meant more from a…simplification standpoint, I guess. Like, we have 720p and 1080p and 1440p and 2160p in 16:9 resolutions, but not 1712x963 or 1984x1116 or other random resolutions in between. If nothing else it's going to make this graph a nightmare if there are monitors with refresh rates every 5 Hz interval above 150. (Personally I'd probably say something like intervals of 30 Hz: 120, 150, 180, 210, 240, etc.. That's a big enough jump I'd believe people saying they could see a difference, and keeps the monitor space less diluted with refresh rates all over the place.) But you're probably right that since it doesn't really matter too much with VRR there's little chance of that happening.