Showing Results: Most Recent
Pros: No ghosting, screen tearing in most games is less noticeable than on a 60Hz monitor, and the difference between 60 and 144Hz is night and day, even when I can't actually maintain 144 frames per second.
Cons: Contrast and colour could be better. Prepare to either miss people in the dark or crank your brightness high enough that outdoor scenes (such as in BF4 on Operation Locker) look pure white.
Other Thoughts: Wanted to make a correction to an earlier reviewer who said this:
"Having next to no input lag means you can react faster when action happens on screen, meaning my K/D went up and I make more kids rage quit more often"
For one thing, almost every single monitor has under 10ms response time these days, and most TVs have a gaming mode to reduce the standard response time. This means that there is no perceivable input lag because the monitor responds quicker than frames (on a standard 60Hz monitor, there are 16 milliseconds between each frame). Thus whether you have a 1ms response time or 15ms response time, you won't be able to notice a difference in input lag. If there was, the problem lies somewhere beyond this.
More importantly, frequency response time has to do with how the pixels on the monitor can update. The lower the response time, the less ghosting there is. Ghosting is where in a moving picture it looks blurry, for example if you have text scrolling sideways across your screen on a standard 5-10ms monitor, it will be fuzzy and difficult to read. On 1ms monitor, the pixels update faster and don't have blurring, so you get a clearer image during motion and can read text while it's scrolling across your screen.
Apologies for the rant, just kinda get annoyed when people with alleged 5-star tech level claim that the lower frequency response time affects their reaction time in games. Typical human reaction time is well over a hundred milliseconds anyways, so the difference between 1ms and 5ms even if it was an extra frame likely wouldn't make a perceivable difference.
Anyways, I highly recommend this monitor. Its image quality (due to contrast and colours) isn't amazing, but is better than BenQ's lower cost 144Hz panels.
The biggest downside to this monitor is that it's going to make playing MMOs painful when they drop down to 30 fps in raids =P
Pros: This chip offers really good bang for your buck.
+ very well priced
+ in applications that will utilize up to 8 threads, this is faster than i5 CPUs and almost as fast as i7 chips
+ overclocks easily
Cons: Minor drawbacks.
- inaccurate temperature readings**
- power consumption is pretty high, but we're talking less than $10/yr difference vs an Intel chip for most users
- single-threaded performance is weak, but nowadays and moving forward this isn't as important except for a few select uses
- cache and memory latencies could be a lot better, but no issues with stuttering or general performance, but expect the occasional hiccup when gaming (if you ever encounter the framerate dipping briefly from 60+ down to 20-40 momentarily then going back up, this is likely why)
Other Thoughts: **Temperature readings are inaccurate with the FX chips - it's a well known issue, but apparently not well known enough! To the people who report idle temperatures of <20, let me make it clear that it's not possible for any component to be below room temperature if it's cooled by air or liquid cooling. Typically idle temperature will be somewhere in the 30s and load temperature will be 50s-60s, varying depending on your voltages, clock speed and cooler.
You'll never get a perfectly accurate temperature, but CoreTemp is the most inaccurate for these chips. You'll want to download HWmonitor or AIDA64 for the most accurate temperature readings and even those you need to take with a grain of salt.
It's probably worth mentioning the power consumption since many people on the net seem to be under the impression this will cost you an arm and a leg. Difference in wattage between FX 8320 and an Intel enthusiast chip (i5 or i7) at stock speeds is roughly 65W under load, and they're nearly identical at idle. Search google for a power consumption calculator to figure out how much it'll cost you based on the price per kwh where you live, but for most Canadians and Americans you're looking at $5-10/yr difference between an FX 8320 and a 4670K/4770K. If you plan to overclock, then you're looking at about $10-15/yr difference. This will vary some depending on how frequently your computer is under load and obviously how much power costs where you live.
If you plan to overclock this chip, make sure to use a 990FX board. The 970 boards will support it at stock, but are only suitable for overclocking the FX 4300 and 6300. The cheapo 780 and 960 boards very rarely will support an 8320 even at stock.
Don't own this chip personally, just what I know from testing along with loads of research. But felt the need to correct those reporting ridiculously low temperatures. Best of luck shopping =)
This review is from: Razer Vespula Dual-Sided Gaming Mouse Mat - Speed and Control
Pros: + The rubber pad that goes beneath the mouse mat does a good job of preventing it from sliding
Cons: - Both sides are hard surfaced, and scratch quite easily, and are noisy and make a scraping sound when moving the mouse across it
- The wrist pad is much taller than I expected, and greatly reduces the effective forward and back movement space of the mousepad
Other Thoughts: I was rather disappointed with this mouse pad, and am wishing I got the Razer Goliathus. The hard surface really doesn't do much for gaming, and scratches very easily and is very finicky with small hairs and dust particles (and unless you have the most immaculate house in the world and clean your mouse numerous times a day, dust will make its way to the surface).
At first, it didn't seem to provide any advantage over my bare desk (granted, I have a pretty slick desk). Now that it's scratched after less than a month of owning it, my Razer Naga has some jittering issues and I dare say it works better directly on my desk than on the mouse pad.
The wrist pad is good for every day computing, but gets in the way when gaming particularly in shooters. Moving the mouse around quickly you don't want your wrist on the pad because it will likely be somewhat irritating rubbing against it, though it is a very soft material. The biggest downfall of the wrist pad is it limits your mouse's forward and back movement space due to its height; if I move the mouse behind roughly the half way point, the heel of my hand bumps into the mouse pad so I need to raise my hand to avoid it completely which is a completely different position than normal. If you have your sensitivity high enough, though, this shouldn't be a huge issue since you don't need to make as much vertical movement in most cases. For me this was a bit of a dealbreaker as it was a huge pain in the rump for flying controls in Battlefield, combined with the jittering from scratches and fine dust/hair particles on the mouse pad.
A potential option is to flip the mouse pad around 180 degrees and use it from the side that doesn't have the wrist pad, but there are a few things that resulted in this being a problem for me: first of all, the height of the mouse pad due to being raised nearly a centimetre off the desk makes it rather awkward to use, but may just take some getting used to. Secondly, I use the Razer Naga wired so the wire protruding from the front of the mouse collides with the mouse pad in this manner. You also can't really use the mouse pad without the mat that goes beneath it, since without it the pad will slide all over the place: the green feet on the corners don't grip well at all and are only there because they sort of catch onto the outside edge of the mat beneath it preventing it from sliding off of the mat.
I recommend getting a soft mat unless you have a very specific need for a hard surface and have tried one to ensure the wrist pad will not be an issue for you.
Some manufacturers place restrictions on how details of their products may be communicated.