Monday, August 14th 2017
480 Hz True Refresh Rate Monitor Spotted, Heralding a New Wave of Display Tech
A prototype true 480 Hz monitor has found its way to the hands of Blur Busters, who aptly tested whether or not that feature made their blur busting name irrelevant at some point in the future. The verdict? While 480 Hz refresh rates do offer a visible difference in step distances and blur reduction, things can be improved further. But we're talking about a refresh rate where most high-end monitors typically achieve 144 Hz - so 480 Hz is a totally different beast.
While display tech has seen some interesting evolutions as of late (mainly the introduction of OLED displays and HDR technology (which seems to be facing some delays of its own), refresh rates have somewhat stagnated in recent times. A true 480 Hz refresh rate will surely get some users drooling over it, and justify yet another round of upgrades to your entire system - though of course, the usability of such a high refresh-rate monitor begins to dwindle as resolution increases (and frame rates necessarily decrease.) Let's see where this goes.
Sources:
Blur Busters, via HotHardware
While display tech has seen some interesting evolutions as of late (mainly the introduction of OLED displays and HDR technology (which seems to be facing some delays of its own), refresh rates have somewhat stagnated in recent times. A true 480 Hz refresh rate will surely get some users drooling over it, and justify yet another round of upgrades to your entire system - though of course, the usability of such a high refresh-rate monitor begins to dwindle as resolution increases (and frame rates necessarily decrease.) Let's see where this goes.
51 Comments on 480 Hz True Refresh Rate Monitor Spotted, Heralding a New Wave of Display Tech
www.blurbusters.com/480hz-monitor-at-blur-busters/
Added =)
Not to mention all these console game developers are holding tech back.
we do have a total contradiction at work here.. two totally conflicting desires.. which do we go for cos its for sure we cant have both..
i am currently playing hellblade.. at a 1440 resolution with very high settings i am seeing frame rates that go as low as 40 fps at times all on my (possible) 165 refresh rate g-sinc monitor..
i cant help but feel the plot is being lost somehow.. he he..
trog
ps.. i have to add.. if i wasnt running fraps. i would not know how low my frames rates were going.. the game plays smooth and the game plays fine.. i just aint used to seeing lows of 40-ish fps..
Damn that alienware 240Hz monitor looks sick, if it was $100-150 cheaper I'd go for it just for fun.
Aside from my question, you know what I think is the most ridiculous thing I ever heard in the fps/hz debate ? It's not about "human eye can see up to xxx fps", that I kind of understand, it may be some ppl's understanding of the concept of animation fluidity. Same as some see stutter some not, understandable. What is most ridiculous is some ppl say that blur reduction is redundant since blurry vision is natural and it's how we see the world when we move. What ? :laugh: If my vision had the same sort of blur that I can see when moving the camera at 60Hz my day would be nothing but walking around and throwing up.
ulmb will reduce aliasing but also make picture darker, only allow half of possible refresh rate and no gsync.
gsync by itself is awesome and i much prefer it to ulmb.
edit:
sorry, not aliasing. blur and ghosting.
IMHO part of the problem is that we still have FPS. LCD panels don't need a fixed refresh frequency, they can be updated as little or as often as you wish (as long as it isn't too fast). Screen tearing should never have been a problem on LCDs because a Gsync or Freesync like mechanism should have been present in modern interface standards to begin with. HDMI still has blanking intervals built in!