Granted its RL with game settings geared to 'performance'. But RL, with the laptop's 300hz 1080 display runs consistently at 300fps. In terms of GtG, I havent had time yet to check out any AAA titles and get a sense of what that feels like. I will have to dig into that wiki to try to find hardware specs, but i'm familiar with their game settings being public and have been tweaking-around with my - an interesting thing re this laptop is that the MUX is fixed on the DP output, so only the dedicated GPU gets used via DP. Just getting back to the replies here, thanks for your - those kind of hardware specs r exctly what I was looking for. This is a matter of seeing numbers and feeling good about numbers, not actual physical advantages. I don't mean to dump on Snaxxon's laptop here because it's an awesome machine and in bang for buck is one of the best laptops on the market right now, but I'm just using that as an example: I could make similar criticisms about the majority of monitors on the market. Everything about gaming on that model is not as it seems until you plug in an external monitor due to there being no MUX (the GPU has to feed frames to the laptop's screen via the iGP). Even with its overdrive setting on, and overdrive is almost always bad no matter the panel type, the image has significant overshoot so whatever advantage they think they're getting, they're not getting (in fact, worst of both worlds with blur from insufficient speed combining with overshoot). Snaxxon's laptop doesn't achieve GTG fast enough to actually display 300Hz properly. The other thing is GTG: it's not hard to find a 240Hz display that can manage clean(ish) frames. The advantages of >241Hz refresh rates, even in twitchy headshot games, is slight whereas more detail is a large fixed benefit. Since we don't see movement but neighbouring pixels changing colour, it stands to reason that if you can get 240Hz with a greater resolution then you're better off than with a low resolution with 300-360Hz. It's not hurting his game, and he still beats current pros. Lethamyr posts to YouTube in 1440p, so he's playing at 1440p. There is a reason why any good player will play on performance settings to squeeze as many frames from their game as possible, whether or not its more than the refresh rate. Those slight frames that you might not notice on a lower refresh rate are extremely valuable. You can get 240Hz 1440p, and you aren't going to play better on a 360Hz 1080p display. You can easily get an extremely high refresh-rate 1440p monitor, and if you can afford one then you should. Rocket League is extremely resource-light. It's only by the pixels changing that your eyes can gauge movement, and anything that confuses your vision even a little bit with affect your reactions too. If speed matters to you then so should pixels. There is no real website that gives you this type of informations, but considering various aspects I would recommend the 1920x1080. Originally posted by Simo62bit:for pro players performances are everything, and although it may seem a strange thing, every fps is valuable to them, so I highly doubt that they use the 1440 resolution, which in itself uses more graphics resources and lowers the performance of the graphics card.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |