Ok so over the years ive bought a lot of games based on the TV adverts you saw and been left rather disappointed by the game by comparison. I’m sure we all have made this mistake.
For a couple of years ive been buying games based on checking them out on places like youtube or twitch first. Ie if I like how it plays watching someone else then ill buy it.
This has led me to coming across gamers I tend to watch videos of and ones I don’t like to watch.
I don’t do allot of twitch live streaming so I don’t really follow anyone I just head for the first English speaking stream I can find!
But YouTube is very different. Videos tend to be edited down by the creator and I find them very digestable.
I particularly like JACKFRAGS whom I thought to be one of the classiest players ive ever seen when I saw him hit PUBG when it ‘launched’.
YouTube though is a funny thing and before I knew it I was getting DrDisrespect, level cap, stone mountain, summit1g, xfactor etc links to view.
Ill admit ive looked at most of these guys but I’m just not a fan like I am Jackie boy. I like the way he plays.
This was until a few weeks ago I came across a gamer called shroud. He seemed new to youtube (or at least I hadn’t heard of him) and ill be honest. The guy is on another level. So I looked a bit into who he was and hes a pro from an actual team called cloud9 or he was and he was also a pro CSGO player prior to going pro as a streamer.
Thing I don’t get though about all these guys is that they run low settings on 1080p. I understood the first time I realised it was happening was because on pubg if you have low then the grass is bald and people prone can be seen wheras on high they would be hidden by the grass but is that the case on all games?
Ive never tried CSGO so I’m not sure why 240fps is a thing and I’m a 60fps kinda person with cranked settings and a beautiful game experience.
Why do pro gamers go low on everything and insane fps? I dare say they wont all have 144+ fps panels so I’m not sure what the point is and or if they gain an advantage from running a 7700k a 1080ti and a 1080p low settings page
because when you crank up the pretty on some of these games, the ability to discern important things is compromised. When the graphics quality is down, it’s easier to see the opponent, resources, pathways, etc.
so lets just say I have the ‘pro gamer setup’ 7700k 1080ti 8gb3200+ ddr4 and all solid state storage, mech keyboard 8000dpi mouse and a 1080p 144hz panel. separate capture rig. the lot.
Why would I still want 240fps on csgo? or higher than the monitor refresh rate on any game?
Also seems a big waste of all that horsepower for essentially xbox one non s/x graphics fidelity albeit at much higher fps
Because it lowers latency. While you may not be able to see all frames, those that you do see are more recent than if your graphics card just put out older ones.
Fully agree with @pFtpr but to put things in prespective -
Having 60fps means 16.6 ms between each frame.
Having 144fps means 6.94 ms between each frame.
Having 240fps means 4.16 ms between each frame.
There are also other things that introduce delay but if it is only for the monitor I can give you an example-
If someone is moving with 5km/h ( walking ) and is behind a corner and will just reveal himself
The guy with 240 Hz screen will see him first almost as he comes out
the guy with 140 Hz screen will see him approximately 2 ms after that
and the guy with 60 Hz screen will see him after about 10 ms more.
What does that mean ? By the time the 240hz sees the first part of the enemy behind the wall he ( the enemy ) will be already (have moved in game by) ~5.7cm away from this point ( because he is moving) for the 140Hz will be about ~9.6cm and for 60Hz about ~23.1cm.
So even in this theoretical example the difference is big enough to hit an arm instead of the body.
And this is if the target is moving slowly ( walking ) if he is running with lets say 15km/h the distances will be -
for 240Hz - 17.1cm
for 144Hz - 28.8cm
for 60Hz - 69.3cm
which for 60hz is a difference between hit and miss. And this is only the monitor delay there are other delays some of which are compensated by most games … however I am going too much in detail.
Good choice for streamer btw Shroud is a smart and thinking while he plays, that’s what I like the most in him.
ps. - correct me if I am wrong sometimes math is not my strongest.
The only benefit from extremely high refresh rates is having screen tearing.
Sure, 60, 120, 180 and 240 work because the common divisor is 60.
But what if you hit 152 FPS?
Then you have two or even three images on screen at the same time.
Plus the HDMI controller in the monitor gets hotter than usual.
I would say if you are a professional gamer 144Hz is a must or you will under perform and also if you get to a tournament you will not be adapted to 144Hz monitors which most competitions use. For everyone else if they don’t think to get serious it really doesn’t matter.
no it is not see my previous post that you have replied to.
just a fun fact most of the monitors that support more than 60Hz actually support 144Hz not 120Hz witch is not with a common divisor of 60, actually the common between all of them is 12. In 12 we trust. ( its a long joke )
Well then some of the frames get dropped while waiting for their turn this is really long topic, if you are curious you can look it up on the net both Nvidia and Amd have different ways of doing things. And yes this is the time you get tearing.
Just to add my (Jayz) two cents, because Valve is now being hostile towards virtualization, the only way for pro CS:GO streamers to have perfect frametimes is a dual system solution.
It makes a huge difference when your fps dips from 300 down to 60 and causes input latency lag for a fraction of a second.
In competitive game play, it’s very annoying when your clicking and movement inputs are not 1:1 for the sake of some useless shaders or high resolution textures. This is has been well known since CS 1.x having options of OpenGL or DirectX and pixelated smoke puffs vs. particles rendered in real time. This was also a big deal when displays initially transitioned from CRT to LCD.
If it means my game needs to look like Golden Eye 64 with some aspects resembling Duke Nukem 3D revolving around 2D sprites in a 3D plane, I don’t care how unappealing it looks if the result is me finishing with the best kill:death ratio or my team winning the match because of those advantages.
All competitive gaming still has variables of RNG to some extent. The best competition, in my “opinion” (because I’m not an imbecile scraping by in the 2-digit IQ range), is going to take place when the players have no hardware or software advantages. It would need to be some type of advanced engine rendering no less than 1000 FPS constantly on a 1000 FPS native display with controls hard-wired directly into the processor and memory buses on the same machine. The closest to that so far has been arcade fighting games which have the total player limitation and 2D plane limitation. Competitive games have their own advantages and flaws, but nobody seems to try taking all of those advantages and making an actual E-sport. Instead, “E-sports” are just BS used to market stuff.
yes very good points. I suppose if the playing field were to be level it would basically mean everyone has a 1080ti or a console.
I wonder if the actual event organisers locked everyone to 60hz and high settings if the trend would change. It really does seem a waste when you see guys like shroud playing potato settings when they are good enough to win the game with good settings and skills
Shroud hacks, he has been using aimbots since he began streaming, before he joined C9. Hacked his way through CS and now back streaming and still aimbotting. The config doesn’t really matter all that much. Don’t know what else to say really…
200ms is the best possible reaction time to visual stimulus, anything below that is not possible in human physiology, this has been scientifically proven many times over. Average is 250ms.
IIRC Type α-Axons (or type “la” for sensory “feedback”) have a conduction velocity somewhere arround 100m/s (meters per second). Meaning if your arms are longer, it takes longer for the signal to reach your hand.
Having a distance of 1m between your hand and your head results in a delay of roughly 10ms, or 1.44 frames when gaming in 144Hz
Before you can react, your brain has to make sense of the visual input, hand it over to the cerberal cortex (iirc) so you can recall your memory and then make your hands do something (after the aformentioned delay).
TL;DR Your fastest possible reaction happens about 23 frames after initial display assuming you have above average reaction times and game at 144FPS
If you are thinking that a 60Hz monitor is better than 144Hz because you can not react fast enought you are wrong.
It’s all about who will see who first and with a 144Hz monitor you are 10 ms faster. Also because of the high refresh rate you have a more recent picture of where exactly the enemy is.