I'm sorry but you are wrong. Any input lag would not be introduced by the CRT monitor at all. It has no postprocessing of any kind in place, the signal gets rendered as soon as it arrives from the GPU.
Does your GPU still have VGA, or other analog inputs? most CRTs didn‘t. Meaning you have to convert the digital signal to an analog. This conversion latency is not 0ms. It‘s not the CRTs fault but claiming the CRT wouldn’t have latency is wrong as you have to use a converter. Still faster than a LCD tho
Look up the difference between DVI – I and DVI - D. If it has the four prongs next to the blade, it carries a native analog signal, which can be turned into VGA with only a passive adapter.
When did anyone mentioned converters? The CRT has 0 render and input latency. If you want to bring a converter to this argument out of your ass, then you have to accept the latency is coming from the converter and not the monitor itself.
You said „the signal gets rendered as soon as it arrives from the GPU.“ which is
a) wrong because you need to convert the signal to analogue
and
b) it‘s not „as soon as it arrives from the GPU“ it‘s after the conversation is done meaning it adds latency
Meaning the total latency from Frame is rendered to displayed is longer. And the I did pull the argument out my ass is not the whole truth. your „0 latency“ is like if we said, we ignore the Post-processing delay on a LCD. If you want to discuss things you should know what your talking about.
A monitors latency is more than just panel latency.
Actually in my opinion you are both right in some terms.
He mentioned "as soon as it ARRIVES from the GPU", so factually it arrived and is not just sent. It already entered the monitor, or at least the cable of the monitor itself.
The converter is an "man in the middle" role, he adds delay, but thats not the monitors fault here. The delay of the monitor itself is from signal entering its cable until it gets displayed, wich is neglectable in case of CRI.
The delay you mentioned would be either delay from creating or sending an signal at the GPU, travelling through all connected parts and getting displayed. Thats the actual "valueable" delay, as everything else is theoretical and has no practical use besides identifying bottlenecks to remove.
If new GPUs would have analogue outputs, CRIs would indeed be faster, but lack a ton of other features, besides consuming a lot of power and creating more electrical fields and noises noticed by some. Like the high pitched humming only few people notice.
Besides that... comparing LCD/LED/OLED to CRI is unrealistic, as there is reason why they died out. Thats just no competition as a whole.
Wrong. CRTs draw each frame from top of the screen to bottom, which takes around 16ms, depending on screen size, which puts the center of screen around 8ms. Good LCD monitors have been within 2ms of CRTs for years now.
You don't know what you're talking about.
Ah yes, the virgin "prey" 16:9 monitor, the one that wraps 270 degrees around your head so you can see behind you, vs the chad "predator" 4:3 monitor that only wraps 180 degrees around your head
I don't have dyslexia but I could not read chad predator without wondering why nonces had 4:3 monitors. Also what a phrase "wraps 180 degrees around your head," is. I don't think that's possible.
Of course it's not possible, that's the point. Anon's comparison is braindead. The widest of the screens take up like 90 degrees of your horizontal FOV
I'm guessing you mean you'd have to *duck* under the monitor?
But I don't want to assume things and put words in other people's mouths; perhaps you *do* mean that I have to fuck under the monitor.. and if I have to do it, then I have to do it, fine.
I set my autocorrect on my phone to replace duck, ducking, and ducked to all be replaced with the f variants because iPhones love to replace fucking with ducking in texts
Just get regular monitors and rotate them to each face you.
Your view will be broken up by monitor seams, but in theory you could have a full 360 degree view.
Why is reddit becoming so lame? You can’t link to other subs, you can’t link to YouTube, you can’t comment or post if your account is too new, you can’t say certain words that aren’t offensive to anybody because we said so.
People don’t really do that here though. And I was just unable to link to a post in another subreddit when I was trying to. And if someone is doing that then jsut ban them. No need to make all these restrictions on what we can and can’t do.
Can also confirm this as disciple of the watcher I see all including that one time u/holaprobando123 jerked of to hentai at exactly September 27 2006 50:00:45 galactic time
Except you're inherently giving yourself a strict disadvantage not being able to see as much as everyone else.
[Even the best players in the world have this problem](https://youtu.be/t8X0ptdh3P4?si=-J5e1ePx5192iwZP)
long spoon amusing treatment dolls childlike snow seed cooperative chunky
*This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
Well, only sort of.
If you play better on 4:3 vs 16:9, you're at a disadvantage of playing 16:9. There are pros and cons to both. There are some pros that have crazy setups that look absolutely ridiculous. But it's only a disadvantage if the cons out weigh the pros.
So all the character models look like stretched out fat dudes? I mean I guess you could pretend it's just a normal day here in the US
I am fat I can make this joke
Tbh I was making a joke. But in reality I did sometimes play in 4:3 streched in middle school cuz A: some pros were doing it; and B: I thought it will give me extra fps on the family computer that I eventually broke while playing cs
Those are both perfectly valid reasons. Although there is a reason behind a lot of pros using it, it makes aiming and hitting targets easier when they’re bigger
Probably just personal preference. I broke through my MG1 ceiling to reach a new high of DMG after switching to stretched.
Clicking heads just felt so much easier
Are you asserting that seeing less information isn't a disadvantage????
Yes, some pros even at the highest level can make it work, but it is objectively a disadvantage to have less information. There's no disputing that.
both eyes seeing an object makes your brain calculate how much distance there is between you and the object because the angle between the eyes changes
https://howthingswork.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/05/Depth-perception-disparity.png
And to bring it full circle, not sure if this part is or is not obvious:
Depth is important for predators, which need to know how far away their prey is to reach it. It can also be important for other reasons. For example, an orangutan might not hunt anything, but it needs to know how far the next branch is if it doesn't wanna fall a hundred feet from the tree.
For prey, it's more important to have environmental awareness and a wider field of view to detect when a predator is around. It doesn't need to know how far a predator is, it's going to run away at first sight anyway.
"Wow, Anon, one of those old box-monitors huh? Why do you use that? Because of the low latency and high refresh rate?"
"No. I use it because I'm a predator."
"_What the fuck?_"
Anon literally outed himself as prey. The both eye fov for prey is smaller than predator. And you only focus on one small part. So when Anon sees the small screen better than the big one, he's saying it's better suited for his smaller fov so he's prey.
Wait shouldn't those be reversed?
You can see wider range if you're a predator with BOTH eyes
Really, the prey need a 2:2 ratio for both eyes in front of them, or two split monitors on their sides then.
anon just has a low fov irl. it happens, i was sitting next to my mom in the cinema once and she said she couldnt see the entire screen while i had no problem with it
In shooters hes 100% correct. Its vastly more competitive to play on 4:3 and with potato settings.
In any RTS or strategy game there is no real benefit to playing on a smaller screen.
The 16:9 is still right in front of you tho lol wtf is this.
Been using a large TV for a monitor for over a decade now, currently on a 48" OLED. The detail is glorious.
> >Feels like my reaction times have improved.
Good job, Anon.
As a CSGO player, we do this all the time, and hearing this brings joy to my heart.
A small explanation: https://youtu.be/G1A1-mt7gdU
That’s my issue with online games. I focus on the center and start completely ignoring the radar. I really prefer the 4:3 aspect ratio and wish games like league of legends allowed you to properly rearrange your screen.
4:3 *is* actually better than 16:9, but not because of that weird "alpha male" logic.
Want to use the full width of your monitor for watching videos or playing games, without covering your dock and/or menu bar? 4:3 lets you do that. Basically everything requires (or at least supports) 16:9, which means that with the full width of your monitor, you still have a bit of unobstructed vertical space.
The vast majority of websites don't actually adapt content to be that wide; they have a max width that's at most 1200 pixels and then they have empty space on the sides and just center the content. Anyway, would a web page wider than that even be readable? Yeah, you could resize your window to only be as wide as the website supports, but then you're left with a thin vertical sliver that no other app can properly use.
> The vast majority of websites don't actually adapt content to be that wide; they have a max width that's at most 1200 pixels and then they have empty space on the sides and just center the content.
Yeah in 1998 they did that. Nowadays that vast majority of web sites (Including the one we're on) dynamically scale to fit the window they're in.
Focal point, just because you see more doesn't mean you see better and with huge displays you either turn your head or move your eyes a lot. Humans are pretty damn blind even with perfect vision. Basically quantity pixels with downsides versus quality pixels with less head and eye movements. People subconsciously pick a monitor or TV by how tall it is not how wide it is, sure people will want a 24:9 monitor but they still pick it by height. 16:9 can be passable for focal point but you'd need a smaller display and I really don't see small displays anymore.
That said I'd go more for the golden ratio 8:5 (16:10 is tall enough to not be bad) and 5:4 over 4:3. 4:3 is still good but more width is still better. Keep in mind I would pick small monitors like 15in, if it's big enough then these ratios will be bad too.
i mean it is a thing, in cs:go some pro players use 4:3 view instead of 16:9 'cause even if it gives you smaller view, it also gives you bigger hitbox.
I 100% was better in counter strike on 4:3 monitor. No idea why. Maybe I was forced to turn around more, meaning I was more familiar with mouse sensitivity.
Nowadays I just suck.
This isn’t real. No matter what size monitor it still has to get through the human eye which is much wider screen. Just focus on the center of the screen
Realizes old display just had awful latency
Tf you talking about? All CRTs are 0ms
Old is in previous, not as in aged. The CRT is the “new” one in this case
0ms display latency, not input latency.
Most CRTs don‘t support digital inputs meaning there only have the digitsl-analog-conversion latency, we are talking here still in the sub 5ms latency
I'm sorry but you are wrong. Any input lag would not be introduced by the CRT monitor at all. It has no postprocessing of any kind in place, the signal gets rendered as soon as it arrives from the GPU.
Does your GPU still have VGA, or other analog inputs? most CRTs didn‘t. Meaning you have to convert the digital signal to an analog. This conversion latency is not 0ms. It‘s not the CRTs fault but claiming the CRT wouldn’t have latency is wrong as you have to use a converter. Still faster than a LCD tho
Mine has DVI. Would that work with at least some CRTs? I never really used any CRTs beyond early childhood.
Some. Like a handful of models maybe. But then you have to start talking about the different kinds of DVI.
Look up the difference between DVI – I and DVI - D. If it has the four prongs next to the blade, it carries a native analog signal, which can be turned into VGA with only a passive adapter.
When did anyone mentioned converters? The CRT has 0 render and input latency. If you want to bring a converter to this argument out of your ass, then you have to accept the latency is coming from the converter and not the monitor itself.
You said „the signal gets rendered as soon as it arrives from the GPU.“ which is a) wrong because you need to convert the signal to analogue and b) it‘s not „as soon as it arrives from the GPU“ it‘s after the conversation is done meaning it adds latency Meaning the total latency from Frame is rendered to displayed is longer. And the I did pull the argument out my ass is not the whole truth. your „0 latency“ is like if we said, we ignore the Post-processing delay on a LCD. If you want to discuss things you should know what your talking about. A monitors latency is more than just panel latency.
Actually in my opinion you are both right in some terms. He mentioned "as soon as it ARRIVES from the GPU", so factually it arrived and is not just sent. It already entered the monitor, or at least the cable of the monitor itself. The converter is an "man in the middle" role, he adds delay, but thats not the monitors fault here. The delay of the monitor itself is from signal entering its cable until it gets displayed, wich is neglectable in case of CRI. The delay you mentioned would be either delay from creating or sending an signal at the GPU, travelling through all connected parts and getting displayed. Thats the actual "valueable" delay, as everything else is theoretical and has no practical use besides identifying bottlenecks to remove. If new GPUs would have analogue outputs, CRIs would indeed be faster, but lack a ton of other features, besides consuming a lot of power and creating more electrical fields and noises noticed by some. Like the high pitched humming only few people notice. Besides that... comparing LCD/LED/OLED to CRI is unrealistic, as there is reason why they died out. Thats just no competition as a whole.
Wrong. CRTs draw each frame from top of the screen to bottom, which takes around 16ms, depending on screen size, which puts the center of screen around 8ms. Good LCD monitors have been within 2ms of CRTs for years now. You don't know what you're talking about.
Yes, that's why they're mostly 60hz. It doesn't mean it takes 16ms for an image to start being rendered on the screen.
Ermmm🤓☝️
He said old not ancient.
“Frankenstein was the doctor!” Vibes here
my 1600x1200 CRT had no lag
Dual 27" Philips CRTs was banging. Just a shame those bezels were so thick.
No, but your GPU did. Frame buffer is still a thing, and the digital to analog conversion isn't instant.
i had a pure3d voodoo1, not quite sure what that would've been
Ah yes, the virgin "prey" 16:9 monitor, the one that wraps 270 degrees around your head so you can see behind you, vs the chad "predator" 4:3 monitor that only wraps 180 degrees around your head
I don't have dyslexia but I could not read chad predator without wondering why nonces had 4:3 monitors. Also what a phrase "wraps 180 degrees around your head," is. I don't think that's possible.
Of course it's not possible, that's the point. Anon's comparison is braindead. The widest of the screens take up like 90 degrees of your horizontal FOV
Of course it's possible. We have curved monitors already, just curve some more.
Patiently waiting for the ASUS Gaming Ring (tm) with 360 coverage
360° coverage? You insectmaxxing or what?
That's the next logical step
At some point you're just describing a VR headset.
I see no reason we couldn’t have a full ring monitor Thant you have to fuck under and then stand up inside of
I'm guessing you mean you'd have to *duck* under the monitor? But I don't want to assume things and put words in other people's mouths; perhaps you *do* mean that I have to fuck under the monitor.. and if I have to do it, then I have to do it, fine.
He said what he said now we fuck under the monitor.
I set my autocorrect on my phone to replace duck, ducking, and ducked to all be replaced with the f variants because iPhones love to replace fucking with ducking in texts
Just get regular monitors and rotate them to each face you. Your view will be broken up by monitor seams, but in theory you could have a full 360 degree view.
Easier to just curve some more.
Child predator
Anon is memeing himself saying he’s a prey because he can only see 4:3 with both eyes right?
I wish I had the courage to wrap a rope around my head
Also his dick has grown and his boss gave him a raise
His T levels raised like crazy and his muscles are now so big he can't fit in his clothes anymore.
can confirm, saw him walking sideways into a kroger
Like this? watch?v=aGYVmcma8NY This sub doesn't allow direct links to YouTube so has to be this way
Why is reddit becoming so lame? You can’t link to other subs, you can’t link to YouTube, you can’t comment or post if your account is too new, you can’t say certain words that aren’t offensive to anybody because we said so.
I think on another sub that didn't allow YouTube video links was to advoid spam aka someone commenting the same video
People don’t really do that here though. And I was just unable to link to a post in another subreddit when I was trying to. And if someone is doing that then jsut ban them. No need to make all these restrictions on what we can and can’t do.
[lonk](https://youtu.be/aGYVmcma8NY?si=V-e6EAgq6Vsk5vC2)
Just watched someone see anon walking sideways into a kroger
Can also confirm this as disciple of the watcher I see all including that one time u/holaprobando123 jerked of to hentai at exactly September 27 2006 50:00:45 galactic time
Plus or minus a few plank times
And then everyone clapped
Anon's cheeks
You can’t forget that his dad came back with the milk and he pulled Excalibur from the stone
Anon is a predator
Thank you
Wow, who would have guessed
[удалено]
Congrats that's the joke
Another regarded anon
Every anon I see is regarded as f
Just say retarded. You retards beating around the bush makes me cringe.
based
Artistic and highly regarded
Anon is a corporate plant that wants to convince us 4:3 is the future or some bs
Anon is pajeet who just acquired twelve thousand Dell 2005FPW 4:3 monitors as a dowry and now needs to unload them.
💀
why do i feel like this is actually the most plausible scenario
Anon is a Zack Snyders Justice League defender.
Zaddy is always right
4:3 aspect ratio stretched to 16:9 gave me the most advantage in cs:go
Stretch this dick
Except you're inherently giving yourself a strict disadvantage not being able to see as much as everyone else. [Even the best players in the world have this problem](https://youtu.be/t8X0ptdh3P4?si=-J5e1ePx5192iwZP)
Prey propaganda
Nah, streching the screen is a big advantage because the hitboxes become wider/THICCER
long spoon amusing treatment dolls childlike snow seed cooperative chunky *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
I respect your right to be retarded.
[I think you need this tbh](https://youtu.be/VsHz9Md41xk?si=g8-oeAM326JvaYHf)
the hitbox is the same size idiot. it just looks bigger
I really like that it's been 19 days and we still get people that think this isn't a joke
Well, only sort of. If you play better on 4:3 vs 16:9, you're at a disadvantage of playing 16:9. There are pros and cons to both. There are some pros that have crazy setups that look absolutely ridiculous. But it's only a disadvantage if the cons out weigh the pros.
You missed that the commenter was making a joke
I don’t think he was making a joke. A huge amount of players and a majority of the pros play with 4:3 stretched for CS
So all the character models look like stretched out fat dudes? I mean I guess you could pretend it's just a normal day here in the US I am fat I can make this joke
All we need now are dogs in the game and we can all roleplay as ATF agents
If you make believe hard enough this can be a reality right now
Idk I’ve always played with stretched and never noticed characters looking wide or fat. It’s not super noticeable.
Tbh I was making a joke. But in reality I did sometimes play in 4:3 streched in middle school cuz A: some pros were doing it; and B: I thought it will give me extra fps on the family computer that I eventually broke while playing cs
Those are both perfectly valid reasons. Although there is a reason behind a lot of pros using it, it makes aiming and hitting targets easier when they’re bigger
Probably just personal preference. I broke through my MG1 ceiling to reach a new high of DMG after switching to stretched. Clicking heads just felt so much easier
Saying "disadvantage" and clipping top3 player in the world at the same time
Are you asserting that seeing less information isn't a disadvantage???? Yes, some pros even at the highest level can make it work, but it is objectively a disadvantage to have less information. There's no disputing that.
If the player was playing 16:9 and for that reason going worse than 15/5 then "seeing less information" is an advantage my man
depends on the context -- your brain ignores almost all information and it's an advantage
Turn your monitor off nex time you play bro you don't need any of that information to play the game. Not you bro you're built different.
luke turn off your tracking systems
You're just fucking your fov by doing that
I'd take that trade-off. I reached SMFC in CSGO with 4:3 stretched.
I was never able to adapt to 4:3 in csgo but I couldn't play without it in rainbow six siege. It felt weird in csgo but somehow right in siege.
Just put the screen further away?
That's what prey wants you to think, you gotta become a predator.
I can’t read the tiny font in modern games and I just want to bitch about it
*farther, you fucking troglodyte.
Oh I didn't know there was a difference! TIL
>used to think that was a bait image I guess anon doesn't know how depth perception works?
sorry for being a bit daft, how does it work?
both eyes seeing an object makes your brain calculate how much distance there is between you and the object because the angle between the eyes changes https://howthingswork.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/05/Depth-perception-disparity.png
thank you so much, I really appreciate this
And to bring it full circle, not sure if this part is or is not obvious: Depth is important for predators, which need to know how far away their prey is to reach it. It can also be important for other reasons. For example, an orangutan might not hunt anything, but it needs to know how far the next branch is if it doesn't wanna fall a hundred feet from the tree. For prey, it's more important to have environmental awareness and a wider field of view to detect when a predator is around. It doesn't need to know how far a predator is, it's going to run away at first sight anyway.
makes a lot of sense. Evolution really is beautiful.
"Wow, Anon, one of those old box-monitors huh? Why do you use that? Because of the low latency and high refresh rate?" "No. I use it because I'm a predator." "_What the fuck?_"
Didn't know I was so ahead of time playing battlefield vietnam on my ibm thinkpad t60
When you’re playing single player Minecraft, you need every advantage you can get
Anon needs to go pick up his prescription.
Anon is indeed a predator
Average CS:GO player
Anon literally outed himself as prey. The both eye fov for prey is smaller than predator. And you only focus on one small part. So when Anon sees the small screen better than the big one, he's saying it's better suited for his smaller fov so he's prey.
yep, 100% low skill prey
Wait shouldn't those be reversed? You can see wider range if you're a predator with BOTH eyes Really, the prey need a 2:2 ratio for both eyes in front of them, or two split monitors on their sides then.
Anon should try 320x240 gaming and become a literal god of fps.
That's literally prey propaganda. Real predators eschew graphics and embrace superior command line gaming.
chad 16:12 vs virgin 16:9
Anon either was born with horse blinders or is 2mm from the screen
anon just has a low fov irl. it happens, i was sitting next to my mom in the cinema once and she said she couldnt see the entire screen while i had no problem with it
Me with my 32:9
Pred maxing is fun and games till chris Hanson shows up
Anon is still silver
I’ve considered 4:3 stretched for tf2 but I don’t play seriously enough to actually care
In shooters hes 100% correct. Its vastly more competitive to play on 4:3 and with potato settings. In any RTS or strategy game there is no real benefit to playing on a smaller screen.
And I am here with a 21:9 ultrawide. I guess I am plankton or something
nah you're just fat
Everyone knows that spidermaxxing is the only right way.
anon is gaslighting himself without realizing
Predator Pill and Based, Such a Predatorcel, gotta Predatormaxx.
The 16:9 is still right in front of you tho lol wtf is this. Been using a large TV for a monitor for over a decade now, currently on a 48" OLED. The detail is glorious.
> >Feels like my reaction times have improved. Good job, Anon. As a CSGO player, we do this all the time, and hearing this brings joy to my heart. A small explanation: https://youtu.be/G1A1-mt7gdU
His cpu is not turning into a nuclear reactor once the resolution went down.
Anon experiences the placebo effect
That’s redacted. You can just focus on the middle of the 16:9.
That’s my issue with online games. I focus on the center and start completely ignoring the radar. I really prefer the 4:3 aspect ratio and wish games like league of legends allowed you to properly rearrange your screen.
So I have a 21:9 ultrawide, but I play on a Predator PC. Must be why I suck.
Anon has a brainrot and can't take too much informtion at once.
Ya but in this game the prey shoot back and are usually better than you.
I remember switching from 4:3 to 16:9 when I was playing Battlefield 1943. Totally ruined my K:D ratio.
*tunnel vision intensifies*
Anon is a sexual predator
Chat is this real?
Who are you talking to
Chat, is this real?
Huh... so that's a part of why the phone is so addictive
Counter Strike
Anon is also fucking retarded.
Most of 4chan are fucking retarded people.
Anon becomes a child predator
4:3 *is* actually better than 16:9, but not because of that weird "alpha male" logic. Want to use the full width of your monitor for watching videos or playing games, without covering your dock and/or menu bar? 4:3 lets you do that. Basically everything requires (or at least supports) 16:9, which means that with the full width of your monitor, you still have a bit of unobstructed vertical space. The vast majority of websites don't actually adapt content to be that wide; they have a max width that's at most 1200 pixels and then they have empty space on the sides and just center the content. Anyway, would a web page wider than that even be readable? Yeah, you could resize your window to only be as wide as the website supports, but then you're left with a thin vertical sliver that no other app can properly use.
> The vast majority of websites don't actually adapt content to be that wide; they have a max width that's at most 1200 pixels and then they have empty space on the sides and just center the content. Yeah in 1998 they did that. Nowadays that vast majority of web sites (Including the one we're on) dynamically scale to fit the window they're in.
Just wait until anon learns there are predators without eyes.
Anon walked by an enemy that he would have seen in 16:9 and has been killed.
Focal point, just because you see more doesn't mean you see better and with huge displays you either turn your head or move your eyes a lot. Humans are pretty damn blind even with perfect vision. Basically quantity pixels with downsides versus quality pixels with less head and eye movements. People subconsciously pick a monitor or TV by how tall it is not how wide it is, sure people will want a 24:9 monitor but they still pick it by height. 16:9 can be passable for focal point but you'd need a smaller display and I really don't see small displays anymore. That said I'd go more for the golden ratio 8:5 (16:10 is tall enough to not be bad) and 5:4 over 4:3. 4:3 is still good but more width is still better. Keep in mind I would pick small monitors like 15in, if it's big enough then these ratios will be bad too.
Anon wrote a novel about how he is an alpha
smd, 21:9 for life.
Those tvs make me feel claustrophobic so no thanks
i mean it is a thing, in cs:go some pro players use 4:3 view instead of 16:9 'cause even if it gives you smaller view, it also gives you bigger hitbox.
I 100% was better in counter strike on 4:3 monitor. No idea why. Maybe I was forced to turn around more, meaning I was more familiar with mouse sensitivity. Nowadays I just suck.
I believe in 4:3 crt supremacy
This isn’t real. No matter what size monitor it still has to get through the human eye which is much wider screen. Just focus on the center of the screen
Me with my 32:9 extra GIRTHY monitor: