uziq wrote:i could probably appreciate a 120Hz screen if i was playing lots of FPS games and quite serious about it. i'm not denying that they're an improvement in terms of 'feel' with quick moving games. i mean to deny it would be to deny something very obvious.
Even on the desktop, it's really nice to have, and you notice it when you go back.
uziq wrote:but my point is that i played games for 15+ years, sometimes to a top level, with a 60hz screen or an early CRT. i never once thought 'damn this refresh rate sucks' or 'the ghosting is distracting'. for you to turnaround and say that 60Hz is trash-tier and horrid and that a laptop that can only game on 60Hz is 'unplayable' is just ridiculous.
never said any of that. 60 fps max is trash tier. 60 fps 60hz is quite playable.
uziq wrote:people have played on 60hz for the majority of gaming's history. you're really drinking the marketing kool-aid if you think sub-120Hz is 'unplayable'.
dude, crts were pushing hundreds of hz 30 years ago. High refresh has always been a thing, it's just taken this long to get it working on flat screens.
uziq wrote:it's also ironic that you trash gaming laptops and then say 'higher refresh rates in gaming laptops is decent'.
no I said higher refresh rates on laptops is decent, even out of games it's still nice to have.
uziq wrote:lol show me a laptop that can consistently maintain 120fps or 144fps on a 1080p+ screen.
like, any of the current gaming laptops, if you're playing lite current games(CoD, Apex, CS:GO)
uziq wrote:and i'm not being nasty at all, i just think you're being super pedantic and autistic about a fairly unexceptional claim:
yes, that is the entirety of the point of this conversation, I came for a fight
uziq wrote:that mobile GPUs now are really in a good place, in that mid-range options can play just about any game that a gamer would want to play nowadays. having the very best laptop for my freelance/creative work that can also jump into fortnite or overwatch or play through a new single-player game at acceptable frame rates IS astounding to me. even buying specced-out MBPs in the past, to game on a high resolution would equal 12-15fps. now that is what i would objectively say is 'unplayable'. to claim that 60 fps is game-breaking is just ridiculous, because it's obviously not. you're not going to be competitive at cs:go, of course, and there will be screen tears and slow downs, but in general it's fine.
Ehh, I dunno man. I think we have different definitions of "fine". "Fine" is merely acceptable, it ticks the boxes but doesn't excel. Unfortunately, I'd say that under 60FPS average with demanding current-gen titles is not a "fine" gaming experience, it's sub-par. It's not terrible, I grant you, but it's not "fine" in my book. "Fine" is 60FPS minimum, not maximum.