Quoting: pleasereadthemanualPart of me wonders why Gaming Mode uses Wayland but Desktop Mode uses X11. Wouldn't it be the other way around? I would have thought that was because of Gamescope, but I think you can run Gamescope on X11 anyway...

The desktop mode uses X11 because default-Wayland wasn't yet ready for the version of Plasma used by the desktop session.

The gaming mode uses XWayland rather than Wayland. The gamescope session can't do Wayland applications - it's running all X11 applications, but otherwise wants to be a Wayland compositor.

Switching between the modes is a logout/login into a different session.

But you can also complicate things further by running a nested desktop session within the gaming mode (although that's not default).

I've been using Wine Wayland for some games for a while and it works well.

Quoting: Shmerl

Quoting: emphyAren't monitors generally upgraded far less often than the rest of the system? It seems to me people simply haven't gotten around to upgrading the monitor yet.

Yes, but it feels like this is way too infrequent even for this kind of upgrade cadence. Besides going from 60 Hz to higher refresh rate with adaptive sync is a huge improvement, so I'd guess gamers would want to do that not any less than getting a recent GPU. Once they get one that's better - then it can be already infrequent for displays.

I think in practice the reason could be that some don't realize / didn't investigate the difference it can make.

Well the difference between GPU and monitor upgrades is that newer games will literally not run, or will be annoying and glitchy, in older GPUs. New monitors will make games look better but they already look fine anyway and the games don't push it as a hard requirement.

High refresh rate monitors also requires that you have a high-end machine running games at high frame rates, so on budget systems that upgrade is behind a bottleneck.

And I'd guess people will prioritize other features for non-gaming use (size, resolution, multiple screens) and then it gets even more expensive to upgrade these "gaming perks".

Quoting: eldakingHigh refresh rate monitors also requires that you have a high-end machine running games at high frame rates, so on budget systems that upgrade is behind a bottleneck..

Not really. They simply give you a wider range and flexibility of monitor's refresh rate adjusting to your framerate. If you have a weaker machine, such monitor will run at lower refresh rate matching the framerate that the game will reach, dynamically adjusting to it.

Plus you'll have the benefit of high refresh rate for non gaming desktop operations, which even weaker machines can normally handle (for example it results in less motion blur when you scroll text or perform any other rapid content movement on the screen).

Basically, there are only upsides and modern high refresh rate displays don't really ad much of cost on top of explicitly trying to get a 60 Hz one. So I still find it strange that people are willing to buy new GPUs more than replacing 60 Hz monitors and attribute it more to lack of understanding of what the difference exactly is.

Last edited by Shmerl on 7 August 2024 at 10:45 pm UTC

Yeah it is never a downside, but it is still more expensive than a new 60Hz or 75Hz, and you aren't getting the "full" benefit. I don't think motion blur when scrolling text is a very compelling motivation.

When I got my current monitor, I did look for adaptive sync, which was readily available on cheap models, but going from 75Hz into the 100+ range was a big price increase... Though I also didn't splurge on a GPU (APU all the way, more than enough for me), if I was spending that kind of money I'd probably not go with a monitor this cheap either.

Quoting: eldakingYeah it is never a downside, but it is still more expensive than a new 60Hz or 75Hz, and you aren't getting the "full" benefit. I don't think motion blur when scrolling text is a very compelling motivation.

Well, you have to use it to compare. I wouldn't want to go back to 60 Hz monitor for any desktop usage. Clearer text movement is compelling enough for me.

And the price difference today is not big. Also, looking at the stats numbers, we are talking about people who are ready to buy GPUs which aren't cheap but aren't ready to buy better monitors. That's what doesn't add up for me.

Last edited by Shmerl on 7 August 2024 at 11:21 pm UTC

Quoting: ShmerlAlso, looking at the stats numbers, we are talking about people who are ready to buy GPUs which aren't cheap but aren't ready to buy better monitors. That's what doesn't add up for me.

Sample size of 1, but I chose a 4K IPS panel that only went up to 60Hz because color accuracy was more important than anything else to me. The monitor itself is more expensive than every other part of my desktop combined.

And then I went and defaulted to Wayland...sometimes I question my life choices.

Quoting: pleasereadthemanualI chose a 4K IPS panel that only went up to 60Hz because color accuracy was more important than anything else to me. The monitor itself is more expensive than every other part of my desktop combined.

I found 2560x1440 IPS to be most optimal for the current generation of GPUs as a good compromise between gaming and general usage. 4K just doesn't cut it for gaming unless you start using upscaling which I'm not a fan of.

But 4K IPS would be great for desktop usage though. Stuff like photo editing is probably nice with it.

What I'm waiting for is 2560x1440 IPS Black with high refresh rate. The difference is that it improves contrast ratio over existing leading options like "nano IPS".

See:

* https://tftcentral.co.uk/videos/ips-black-dual-mode-refresh-rates-and-other-new-lcd-panels-for-2024-lg-display-roadmap
* https://displaydaily.com/the-secret-of-ips-black-is-out/

Last edited by Shmerl on 8 August 2024 at 4:38 am UTC

Quoting: pleasereadthemanualSample size of 1, but I chose a 4K IPS panel that only went up to 60Hz because color accuracy was more important than anything else to me. The monitor itself is more expensive than every other part of my desktop combined.

For me aspect ratio > colour accuracy > everything else. So I've got the (pretty rare) 2560×1600 monitor with really good colours, which was an upgrade from the (similarly rare) 1920×1200 monitor with really good colours. A different refresh rate isn't even on the radar unless someone makes a 16:10 monitor with really good colours that happens to have a higher refresh rate at the time I happen to need a new monitor. The Deck OLED has a 16:10 display with really good colours with a 90 Hz refresh rate, so that's nice.