PapaTaipeiPpl claiming this is waste are not experienced enough in highly competitive fps games. Even if you have only 60 fps you want the refresh rate as high as possible. Unless your monitor is showing trails.

Tell an unexperienced novice, what benefits do you get from 240Hz refresh? I'd like to know, because I'm not gaming much.

bugTell an unexperienced novice, what benefits do you get from 240Hz refresh? I'd like to know, because I'm not gaming much.

The input has less delay, and there is less perceived screen tearing.

PapaTaipeiThe input has less delay,

And what good is going from 5ms to 2ms delay?

PapaTaipeiand there is less perceived screen tearing.

I believe screen tearing goes up with the refresh rate. The faster you refresh, the more likely you will refresh in the middle of another frame.

GreiverBladeanything above 100Hz is not really ... useful (well 144 is fine ... ) specially at 2.5/3/4K ... the new trend will be dowclocking instead of overclocking? :laugh:

claiming to see a difference between 30 and 60/75 i can understand (when the game go in those range) between 75 and 144 i do see it but with less benefit/amplitude (even in fast paced fps) above 144 i guess only Pro :laugh: Gamers can claim that (well they probably would have the hardware for it )

240Hz for 1440p seems to be the sweet spot if you're running a high end system and playing games such as CoD Warzone or the new BF as examples.

windwhirlI don't think many people in the world can see a difference between 240 and 360 hz, never mind 480. Plus, as mentioned before, the usefulness of this kind of refresh rate is limited to a handful of games and only when running on the most powerful GPU in the world.

That is if these LCD panels have fast enough pixel response times to fit into the refresh window.
Sure the panel can refresh at 480Hz but if it ends up with smearing all over the place, then of course no one can see the difference.

PapaTaipeiWhat is obvious is that if they are making 4K 240Hz, the same MCU can do 1080p @960Hz. The only reason they don't sell that right now is because you gotta milk those customers and go step by step. Exactly like Moore's predictions.


480hz is far from human limitations. Few years ago nvidia said it was around 17KHz. Btw the faster you move your camera the more you need a high refresh cycle.

humans dont see in Frames per second, it depends on contrast, setting, manner of testing, but for playing games you wont get anything out of going from 500 to 17khz....

also I would love to see a link to that claim.

You can google it I am not paid to search stuff for you on demand, with higher refresh the tear btw each frames is less pronounced due to the fact that the shift btw each frames is reduced. You can read on blurbusters.com for more infos. Again, you need to play extremely fast games to see the difference, and you need the skill prior to that to use such as small edge.

windwhirlI don't think many people in the world can see a difference between 240 and 360 hz, never mind 480. Plus, as mentioned before, the usefulness of this kind of refresh rate is limited to a handful of games and only when running on the most powerful GPU in the world.

Everybody can see the difference when shown side by side especially when jump is significant (eg from 60 to 120 or from 240 to 480Hz). Higher Hz is needed to combat motion blur caused by sample-and-hold nature of OLED/LCD displays. Images in motion on OLED and LCD look like shit compared to eg CRT, but you can't understand it if you haven't seen one in action. You can get really close with BFI/ULMB but that depends how good the implementation of this tech is (usually it's complete shit just to check a mark on a spec sheet) and you lose a lot of brightness so HDR is a no go. High Hz will give you excellent motion performance and won't obstruct HDR but will require some hefty GPU power. BTW :D

PapaTaipeiYou can google it I am not paid to search stuff for you on demand, with higher refresh the tear btw each frames is less pronounced due to the fact that the shift btw each frames is reduced. You can read on blurbusters.com for more infos. Again, you need to play extremely fast games to see the difference, and you need the skill prior to that to use such as small edge.

There's a point where higher refresh rates becomes more psychological than it benefits. Having a ridiculously high refresh rate that every other single piece of hardware could keep up with would only benefit network communications to the server, and that is IF the game's netcode for incoming packets is dependent on client-side frame rate.

There's a point where a gamer will have to recognize adaptation far outweighs having the absolute best hardware. Not to mention having to win every single game. If it's a career thing, having a plan B is never a bad thing, considering how much stress and selling out is involved going pro.

So yeah, diminishing returns and all that. But let's be realistic for a second: Can you print a higher number on the box so the average consumer will assume it's better? Yes. Does the average consumer know or care about things like color accuracy? No. That's all of the arguments manufacturers need. Also, GAMING!!!oneoneone.

PapaTaipeiYou can google it I am not paid to search stuff for you on demand,

You aren't but then nobody is paid to listen to you or believe your claims without any source either.
Burden of proof is in the one making the claim.

bugThose aren't really the panel manufacturer's job. All the aspects you mentioned are only handled properly by professional display manufacturers (NEC, Eizo...). For a price.

And while the advantage of 240Hz over 144 may be debatable, I believe 480Hz is downright wasteful. Not only your video card will need its own PSU to output that many frames, the monitor itself will burn through a lot more power as well.

that makes sense yeah. I'd like to see them stick to 240 max refresh for the energy reasons alone.

We have high enough Hz for now, focus on the bloody image quality instead. Better uniformity and colour accuracy, less ghosting, that's what we want... Give us affordable IGZO MicroLED screens!

Assuming the color accuracy and backlight evenness aren't utterly crap, I'm on board. 144hz was a noticeable improvement over 120hz and 120hz was night-and-day difference from 60-75hz. Ideally, I'd like to see an entirely new technology come up; something akin to an analog CRT but digitally driven and completely tear-free, regardless of input FPS.

Sigh

I guess pushing technology is good, but there are a lot of other items besides fps to improve upon.

Such as
1. start implementing DP v2.0
2. true 10-bit color (no frc, etc.)
3. no low Hz pwm/strobing backlighting (except in blur-reduction options only)
4. 120hz std refresh rate - kick 60hz to the curb like vga port
5. how about a 3-5 yr warranty.............used to be like that...............down to 1 yr for a lot of monitors
6. better nomenclature on the anti-glare coating, perhaps 0 - full gloss, and 10 - strong anti-glare??
7. more even uniformity back-lighting
8. better contrast ratios
9. improved color space/accuracy/gamut
10. reduced overshoot
11. reduced input/signal processing lag
12. response times that can keep up with refresh rate
13. etc. etc.

IMO those should be std for todays panels, they have been in production for about 20 years now......................

What a joke. Peak refresh was reached at 240hz. How about larger panels instead? Say 1440p@170hz above 42" at prices normal people can afford?

We no longer want billions of extra pixels at faster and faster refresh rates. We want size, low input lag, colour reproduction, brightness options, HDR etc etc.

Tired of this display panel story arc.

PapaTaipeiPpl claiming this is waste are not experienced enough in highly competitive fps games. Even if you have only 60 fps you want the refresh rate as high as possible. Unless your monitor is showing trails.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHA

Sorry mate but if you put this kind of stuff up in public as an opinion, you need to be prepared to face reality.

So I have well over 20 years experience at very high level competitive FPS gaming - Counterstrike for one. I have always used the best hardware available. And I am here to tell you that once monitors got to 1440p, 240hz and 99.9% FPS was over that, there were no more hardware advantages to be had that made any sense whatsoever, not even to the top 1% of all FPS players. Maybe the top 1% of the top 1% MIGHT get a TINY advantage going to 360hz. MAYBE.

But you are definitely falling for marketing, my man.

I think people might be losing sight of what his might mean here. The difference perceived between 60-120hz is a clear "smoothness" gain, where as as we continue to increase refresh rate I believe that perception will become much less obvious, but we might run into different perceptual qualities of displays that either are understood or not generally understood by most people where things might start looking more "believable" or "real". I don't know as I haven't seen a 240 or 480hz display. I think a lot of people here have a very naive approach to getting to those 240 or 480hz frame rates, it seems most people seem to think you just need to keep brute forcing it to push the frame rate up but I bet as you get into those higher refresh rate regions, technologies like spacial re-projections will start coming into play, where it's much easier to re-project the last frame into a new fake frame at maybe 480hz and update the high frequency details at maybe 120hz. There's solutions to everything and there's perceptual possibilities outside your 60hz display. Or maybe it's all marketing guff, lets wait and see.

Personally I'm excited to see what a 360hz 1440p monitor might look like and I'd happily upgrade my aging gsync 144hz 1440p (which is having pixel persistence problems, probably cause of all the overdrive that's on by default).

PapaTaipeiPpl claiming this is waste are not experienced enough in highly competitive fps games. Even if you have only 60 fps you want the refresh rate as high as possible. Unless your monitor is showing trails.

Euh, no, you want the refresh rate to go with it because desync is still tearing.

For competitive you want a high FPS, even on a slower refresh monitor. That way you always display the most recently produced frame, reducing the gap between refresh and frame production. It also works well with low latency sync options.

So not just gullible but also straight up turning facts around to fit marketing narrative. Its called blatantly lying. Nice.

lynx291440p 360hz lol... wow...

honestly i'd rather they just stick with 240hz but improve backlighting issues, gamma, colors out of box, etc.

Exactly my first thought, improve quality, not hz. Refresh has hit a big point of diminishing returns, however image quality still has a long way to go.

Franzen4RealExactly my first thought, improve quality, not hz. Refresh has hit a big point of diminishing returns, however image quality still has a long way to go.

Especially when the refresh rate is achieve by sacrificing image quality.
I dread how much overdrive is used to achieve this, and the amount of inverse ghosting as the result.

Correction: I found the nvidia article back and they stated 1.7KHz and not 17KHz as I had mentioned earlier.

Most 240hz monitors cant even keep up with max GTG transitions. 480hz seems silly.

jaszyMost 240hz monitors cant even keep up with max GTG transitions. 480hz seems silly.

Yup that's the biggest problem so far. I wonder why OLED gaming monitors are still not produced.

PapaTaipeiCorrection: I found the nvidia article back and they stated 1.7KHz and not 17KHz as I had mentioned earlier.

You mean these:

Hybrid Modulation for Near Zero Display Latency (nvidia.com)

NVIDIA Demos Zero Latency Display Running at 1700Hz (guru3d.com)

And you did not link them because they do not even come close to saying what you pretend they are saying.

Maybe have a look at the nvidia video talking about it?