Conina said:
In the 80s Commodore was the king of sound. At first the SID-chip in the C64 and after that the Paula-chip in the Amigas |
In 1989 the PC had Sound Blaster and before that AdLib.
But... One could argue the Commodore was a PC, not a console anyway.
Before that the PC's audio was catastrophically terrible.
However... The peak of 3D positional Audio was during the Aureal A3D/Soundstorm era on PC in my opinion.
Peh said:
Input lag is not everything. Panel quality is something that you should take into account. 8bit/10bit/12bit per color channel, brightness, backlight technology, Smart TV features, CPU power and more. All of them make the price and depending on your taste, you either go with the one you have chosen or one in a higher price class, if something like HDR and no color banding is a must for you. |
WELL. If you *really* want me to touch upon that topic... Nothing less than 10bit IPS for me, FRC can muddy the picture a bit... And is typically more important on 6-bit panels.
Allot of cheaper TV's tend to use VA panels, which are okay, but VA does suffer from ghosting a little more, but does have some impressive blacks.
Gotta' be careful with HDR as well. Sometimes a panel might be advertised as a "HDR" display but cannot hit the required brightness... Let alone the different variants of HDR as well.
| Cerebralbore101 said: Ah. I have an LG UK6300. Looks like I got a good TV then. https://www.rtings.com/tv/tests/inputs/input-lag UK6300 Series |
LG have always seemed to have handled input lag fairly well.
But... If you don't have game mode enabled, you are going to be looking at 62.6ms.
| Ganoncrotch said: Just in relation to the figures for consoles vs PC , say if 1 in 5 ps4s sold are pro models and we have around 5m it so x1x's that means you have around 20m console gamers who've got hardware which can reach 4k in some titles albeit with concessions (but don't be living in fantasy Land that those who are rendering in 4k on the PC are all on ultra settings/60fps please)
But my point is if it was 20m consoles capable of it, but 1.3% if PC's then to get 20m pcs using that % it would require steam/gaming PCs numbering into the billions, around 1.6b if my math is correct. It's just that such a low % at 4k means for their to be multiple millions it sends the other side of the scale insanely high. |
False comparison.
What you are doing is taking all the 4k "capable" consoles and not accounting for the amount of users with 1080P or lower displays.
1.3% of PC's is the amount of PC's with a 4k display, NOT hardware that is capable of 4k, the amount of PC's capable of 4k is significantly higher.
Burning Typhoon said:
Not a fair comparison. I was going off the top of my head. Of course it isn't actually that slow. It's 33 ms slower than my 144hz monitor, specifically. I ran tests when I got the TV, initially and the results were on my phone, which i wasn't going to consult to get exact details. I put 60fps in there to mean with both of them running at the same framerates. A TV running 60 fps and a monitor running 144, or anything below, or around 60, a 2 fps difference doesn't tell you anything. But, as I was saying before. Yes, that 33ms delay is enough to keep me on 1080p. |
Fair call.
| m0ney said: Yes, around 5% of them |
Impossible to say actually.
Multi-GPU's are a thing that isn't reflected.
--::{PC Gaming Master Race}::--
