dev is right. I've never come across a monitor that is capable of high refresh rates over HDMI...

You probably know this, but just in case: Any laptop with thunderbolt / usb-c would work too. But hdmi doesn't have enough bandwidth iirc.

newer HDMI protocols do support 144hz, but no monitor seems to

So a laptop with USB-C/Thunderbolt, NVIDIA GeForce plus an external monitor would likely be just as good as with DisplayPort? I think that would make it easier finding a laptop.

Yes, my MBP only has usb-c, I use a usb-c-to-displayport cable to the 144hz monitor.

Does the monitor function at 144hz using this adapter? or is it limited to 60hz?

No, I run QW at 1080p @ 144 Hz ... Displayport via USB-C is a thing, it works fine: https://www.displayport.org/what-is-displayport-over-usb-c/

that is cool. I know if you want to convert from DisplayPort to DVI you need a special expensive 'active' adapter in order to get higher refresh rates... it is not great at all.

What you have doesn't appear to be a converter but rather just running one protocol over another port. very cool.

Thanks, that helps.

Yes, they've done it right with usb-c. It's gonna be the go-to-protocol for everything for a decade.

Can Apple phones with thunderbolt and other phones with usbc push 144hz? I suppose the chips don't support that?

Like an iPhone running an external 144Hz monitor, you mean? No idea. But the usb-c won't be the problem. (Though iPhones don't have usb-c anyway, but lightning port, iirc, not sure about displayport protocol compatibility or bandwidth limits on that.)

Ah, you confused me a little with this quote, I guess you mean that thunderbolt laptops have usbc, not about thunderbolt to dp adapters working or existing.

Do you think a Dell XPS 15" would be fine? It has Tunderbolt and a GeForce GTX 1050. The only real game I need it for is QW - otherwise just surfing and general regular use. It would be nice with the 13" but it does not have a GeForce.

Yes, that should work fine, afaics that is the same Thunderbolt port I have on my MBP.

You can use a cable from the USB-C port to the display, like I do (I got this one) or you can get the Dell docking station and use a standard displayport-to-displayport cable.

I run QW at 1155 fps from the MBP to the 144 Hz monitor. The GTX 1050 in the Dell will outperform this by miles.

(Edited 2017-08-13, 11:46)

Not really sure what you're asking, but: Thunderbolt and USB-C use the same connectors, so any cables or adapters that fit one will fit the other. If say a Thunderbolt to Displayport cable will work, from what I can see, depends if the Displayport alternate mode is supported by the hardware in the laptop. The Thunderbolt ports on the MBPs and Dell XPS, for instance, supports the Displayport alternate mode, and a cable like this will be fine.



First of all, iPhones have Lightning port, not Thunderbolt/USB-C, so they won't. For smart phones with USB-C, it depends if the manufacturer has built support for all the possibilites the USB-C gives, like Displayport alternate mode. Samsung Galaxy S8 does support DP alt mode, and from that I've googled, it can work fine like here, and it can be buggy. Those tests don't mention anything about refresh rate, though.

MBP = MacBook Pro?

Does that have the Intel Iris Plus Graphics?

Yes, but I have the one with Radeon Pro 560.

I've had a talk with a friend, and mentioned to him that I am looking for a laptop which is also suitable for QW. He said that it is irrelevant to have more FPS than the number of Hz your monitor supports (for example, 144).

Is there a reason why this is not the case for QW?

He sent me these links which describes the rationale:
http://www.blurbusters.com/gsync/gsync101/
http://forums.blurbusters.com/viewtopic.php?f=5&t=3073
http://www.avadirect.com/blog/frame-rate-fps-vs-hz-refresh-rate/
https://www.reddit.com/r/pcmasterrace/comments/36ivpd/monitor_refresh_rate_hz_vs_frames_per_second_fps/

I showed him the theory of smooth QW article:
http://www.quakeworld.nu/blog/140/the-theory-of-smooth-qw

However, it still sounded like to him that it seems to be a general misconception that the more FPS the better.

So can anyone explain to me why it is necessary to aim for as much FPS as possible?

It's irrelevant because the monitor hz will determine maximum fps shown on screen.
The thing with qw is fps sent to server (cl_maxfps if cl_independentphysics 0 and cl_physfps if cl_independentphysics 1).
If i remember correctly, with cl_independentphysics 0 if you use hz higher than 77, screen will start to get fuzzy/shaky even with cl_nolerp 0 because it does not interpolate screen, only objects.
With cl_independentphysics 1 it's all about cl_physfps 77 and it's multiples. Let's take this range into consideration:

77 154 231 308 385 462 539 616 693 770 847 924 1001 1078 1155

With 154hz and 154fps would make the game completely smooth so there is actually no need for more fps.
But using a lcd 120/144hz it doesn't fit with those values, so people use fps values from the range that get closest to hz multiples and usually high values are needed.
Time for manufacturers to start producing 154hz lcd's.

120x9 = 1080, so 1078fps is the best value for 120hz because it's where it gets the lowest diference, only 2 fps off.
144x8 = 1152, so 1155fps is the best value for 144hz, 3 fps off.

I have a lcd 75hz and with cl_physfps 75, cl_maxfps 75/150/etc it's completely smooth even with cl_nolerp 1.
The problem i found with this is that cl_physfps lower than 77 seem to have a weird effect on movement and predictions in my case.
So i actually get game smooth using cl_independentphysics 0, cl_maxfps 75, cl_nolerp 1, cl_predict_half 1.

There's slightly less delay between your input and the renderer with a higher fps and so the game feels more responsive.

The higher fps the better because even if your monitor can only display 144hz, it doesn't mean that those 144 fps are getting there in sync. Nvidia has something called GSync that is the closest thing to do that, but some people say it isn't as smooth as having like 4 to 8 times more frames being sent per second in order to make that "out of sync" effect (aka screen tearing) unnoticeable.

Have you ever stopped to think how many things you would have to perfectly sync to have a 100% fluid gameplay, according to these theorists?

1) Mouse polling rate
2) GPU Fps
3) Monitor
4) Your eyes

Believe me: most of the people that write about this subject are purists / theorists that don't have a clue of how things work in fact. Simply put: the more fps you get the better. Some people say that from 616 on the difference is unnoticeable, some others say that this limit is 770, others 1001. What I have to tell you about this is that the world best QuakeWorld player uses 616fps.

that is not true, i use 1001

Better in wich way?
Screen will always be smoother if fps matches hz multiples.
The only thing and hardly noticeable is a thin horizontal line of tearing that disappears with interpolation.

There is an issue that when hz go above fps allowed by server, screen gets fuzzy/blurried.
You can't see this because of the interpolation (cl_nolerp 0) nor the tearing if fps don't match hz multiples but you will notice screen less smooth if there is tearing.
With a 120/144hz lcd you can check this by setting serverinfo maxfps 120/144 on your ktx server, cl_nolerp 1 on the client and the fuzziness disappears.
I tested this on my ktx server by setting "serverinfo maxfps 60" on the server and cl_nolerp 1 on the client using 75hz. The least common multiple for 60 and 75 is 300 wich is doable for fps.
Screen is still fuzzy because of hz higher than 60 (fps allowed) but i notice that thin horizontal line showing that the 300fps are matching hz like if i used 75fps resulting in no tearing. Then i set cl_nolerp 0 and screen gets perfectly smooth.
So, If i use more fps but they don't match hz multiples i will not get a smoother screen.
The least common multiple for 77 and 120/144 is huge, so 1078/1155fps are the best values.

I use 165hz and 616fps. It makes no sense to use higher fps because timedemo is like 830 fps..
:]