The Alienware m15 R3 is a slim gaming machine with strong performance and a 300 Hz display, but it runs hot.
Alienware m15 R3 Review: Gotta Go Fast : Read more
Alienware m15 R3 Review: Gotta Go Fast : Read more
300 Hz display is great for eSports
Actually yes it is, the higher the refresh rate the sooner information gets to your eyes and your brain can act on it, like with anything there are diminishing returns, but there is a measurable difference.No it's not. Not until humans develop cybernetic eyes.
Diminishing returns are true - within human physical capability. 300Hz is well beyond that.Actually yes it is, the higher the refresh rate the sooner information gets to your eyes and your brain can act on it, like with anything there are diminishing returns, but there is a measurable difference.
Eh, I don't really think so (the part about 300Hz being "well beyond that" -- I definitely agree with the diminishing returns aspect). Like, watching a video at 144Hz vs. 240Hz vs. 300Hz (and an accompanying framerate), I don't think anyone would notice. That's because cameras and video capture and then replay things in a different fashion.Diminishing returns are true - within human physical capability. 300Hz is well beyond that.
Actually yes it is, the higher the refresh rate the sooner information gets to your eyes and your brain can act on it, like with anything there are diminishing returns, but there is a measurable difference.
I've seen/used both 144hz and this m15 R3 w/300hz. Yes, you can see a difference. On the 300hz display, just moving windows around the screen is amazingly smooth, unlike anything you've seen. The difference is very noticeable.Can you really notice the difference between 144hz and 240?
Better yet, what stupid company uses SATA drives in an expensive gaming system? And that NVME? It's hampered by the x2 PCIe lanes. All three drives are losers.I have a m15 R3, ordered it on release day. The RAID 0 drives are m.2 SATA, while the single "storage" drive is NVMe (x2 PCIe 3.0). First thing I did is change the boot drive to the single NVMe drive. What stupid company sets a RAID 0 array as a boot drive?
A friend tried to explain this to me, and used the "window moving" test. So, we got on my son's monitor, and tried it.I've seen/used both 144hz and this m15 R3 w/300hz. Yes, you can see a difference. On the 300hz display, just moving windows around the screen is amazingly smooth, unlike anything you've seen. The difference is very noticeable.
Eh, I don't really think so (the part about 300Hz being "well beyond that" -- I definitely agree with the diminishing returns aspect). Like, watching a video at 144Hz vs. 240Hz vs. 300Hz (and an accompanying framerate), I don't think anyone would notice. That's because cameras and video capture and then replay things in a different fashion.
But playing a game, with the live feedback loop, there's certainly a difference between 60Hz and 144Hz, and even from 144Hz to 240Hz. I suspect for serious (ie, 'pro' gamers like Ninja), yes, 300Hz and 300 fps vs. 240Hz and 240 fps would actually yield a modest 3-5% improvement. It's fuzzy math for sure, and no pro gamer is actually going to use a 15-inch laptop for a competition. There's a reason pros have standardized on 24-inch (sometimes 21.5-inch) displays.
Yeah, Nvidia had demos of 300Hz vs. 60Hz at CES this past January (RIP, CES!) It wasn't double blind, but having personally tried it, there was an obvious difference in feel and response. Nvidia claims pros saw a boost of 3~5% in K/D ratio by moving to 300Hz vs. 240Hz. However, IIRC we weren't given the option of trying the tests at anything other than 60 vs 300 -- there was one test where you could view 60/120/144/240/300 Hz (and fps) content from League of Legends map panning, but that's not quite the same as hands on tests. I definitely did better on the 300Hz vs. 60Hz display, but would be very curious how much of a change I'd see with 144Hz vs. 300Hz.Oh, I absolutely agree, watching a video of it is completely useless. As for playing a game, I keep repeating my mantra of the pointlessness of higher and higher refresh rates, and pointing out that the fastest recorded human reaction time was on the order of 12 ms - that puts it at about 84 fps.
However, I have also always said that, should an actual, scientifically documented double-blind study be done, where many users can actually the user can consistently tell what the frame rate is without being told, then I would have to reconsider my position.
I think the only response I've ever gotten was a half-hour video from Linus Tech Tips... and an insistence that it meets the standards of scientific rigor.