soon we will reach 666 Hz and the gates of hell will open inside monitors

tbh 500 Hz is wasted on me. I can barely tell a difference with my 144 Hz monitor.

1000 hz where. is it 2k23 or what

500 Hz. It's beginning to get a little rediculess. I'm am still at a 144 Hz (with oc 170 Hz monitor) and I don't need more than that.

Wow... Is 500Hz really necessary? I don't believe it'll help you gaming, really.

I find anything over 180hz has too much of a soap opera effect. I prefer my games to run at 100-165 fps on a 165hz monitor. I don't think I will ever want more than that.

Anything less than 100 is a blurry mess to me though.

Tomgang500 Hz. It's beginning to get a little rediculess. I'm am still at a 144 Hz (with oc 170 Hz monitor) and I don't need more than that.

I mean dont knock it till you saw it I say

Can’t wait for those 1kHz refresh rates while still having less than 1000:1 contrast ratios, poor colours, and terrible uniformity.

Oh c'mon, it's an esports territory. I swear I've read the same comments when the 240Hz ones became a thing. If you can't find or justify the use for it, it doesn't mean it won't be utilized by other people out there.

If you add black frame insertion will you only see a Black Screen at that speed?

Space LynxI find anything over 180hz has too much of a soap opera effect. I prefer my games to run at 100-165 fps on a 165hz monitor. I don't think I will ever want more than that.

Anything less than 100 is a blurry mess to me though.

Anything less than 100hz is a blurry mess? You must go blind watching films and tv shows in 24fps.

ArkzAnything less than 100hz is a blurry mess? You must go blind watching films and tv shows in 24fps.

I only watch movies and TV series, the latency and blurriness is fixed mostly by OLED optimizations. I only watch tv and movies on OLED devices fyi, otherwise yes they are too blurry for me.

500HZ actually makes sense. Pair this with a 6800/6900 or 3080/3090 or any 7000 or 40 series cards and you would have no issue getting in the 400s in Games like Fortnite. This could give a player of a Game like Valorant a real advantage.

kapone32500HZ actually makes sense. Pair this with a 6800/6900 or 3080/3090 or any 7000 or 40 series cards and you would have no issue getting in the 400s in Games like Fortnite. This could give a player of a Game like Valorant a real advantage.

what a waste of money to play Fortnite or Valorant, just saying.

Bomby569what a waste of money to play Fortnite or Valorant, just saying.

Not for me but when you are playing for money in tournaments. I myself have no interest in 1080P.

That's maybe something for the 0.01% of competitive gamers that actually can use this..(and of course not those who pretend they are competitive but suck at 144 or 500hz alike).

I'd trade 250-300Hz for a resolution bump to 1440p and OLED/mini-led anytime...after all OLED gaming monitors are coming en masse to CES and they have insane response time.
I'm done using outdated panel with mediocre lightbleed, my long awaited upgrade Q1 2023 is toward oled or mini-led, period.

The 50 peons who are going to buy this are overjoyed.

Argyrsoon we will reach 666 Hz and the gates of hell will open inside monitors

No, not allowed as people are crazy these days so it be +\- 1.

Although it be 660, chances are they will have to find some other selling point.

Argyrsoon we will reach 666 Hz and the gates of hell will open inside monitors

Panasonic NeoPDPs reached 600Hz back in 2009 or so. They still have better image quality than any LCD panel, especially if you can outfit them with PMCv2.
Sadly they are quite old, so they don't support modern features like HDR10 despite having native 10-bit panels.

I mean, even 240hz is barely usable with all the overshoot required to make the pixels able to refresh that fast due to panel technology limitations.
Anything above seems to be just marketing gimmick, currently only OLED is able to make such claims believable (as it doesn't have this limitation).

ymdhisPanasonic NeoPDPs reached 600Hz back in 2009 or so. They still have better image quality than any LCD panel, especially if you can outfit them with PMCv2.
Sadly they are quite old, so they don't support modern features like HDR10 despite having native 10-bit panels.

Plasma displays fundamentally work differently than LCDs. Those "600 Hz" displays are not showing 600 images a second: www.cnet.com/tech/home-entertainment/what-is-600hz/

If you take a gander at reviews for those displays, even for their time they did not blow any doors down.

If these displays were actually that amazing, they would still be around today.

Argyrsoon we will reach 666 Hz and the gates of hell will open inside monitors

Only acceptable way to play DOOM

I just wish manufacturers would stop being so fucking dumb.

Like with these 15.6" QHD or 4k displays. No you stupid shits, give me 1080p at 15.6" and 17.3" and make it fucking OLED high refresh

and 240hz OLED 1080p at 23.8" anything above that for 1080p is too pixelated. ffs these companies just don't get it.

15.6" -23.8" 1080p OLED at 165hz-240hz

27" 1440p OLED 165hz

32" 4k OLED 120hz


also, make two variants, glossy and matte for each model, I know they can do it, they just need to stop being fucking lazy, give the consumer a choice. useless

evernessincePlasma displays fundamentally work differently than LCDs. Those "600 Hz" displays are not showing 600 images a second: www.cnet.com/tech/home-entertainment/what-is-600hz/

If you take a gander at reviews for those displays, even for their time they did not blow any doors down.

If these displays were actually that amazing, they would still be around today.

I have a panasonic 1080p plasma still and so can easily compare with the lcd monitors that I have. I don't know if you do? But point is, that experience trumps technical jargon, or in other words, what matters is what the experience is like. It is true that plasma 600hz which mine was advertised as doesn't feel or look exactly the same as say an lcd at 144hz, but it most certainly has a better feel than an lcd at 60hz. The plasma tv gives a smoother experience than lcd 60hz. Also I have never been able to get my TN LCD, or IPS LCD to match the color/image quality of my plasma. The only downside the plasma has is that it is 1080p and so that hurts the image a bit, but outside of that plasma is most certainly the better technology for color image quality.

Unfortunately plasma seems to have gone away because it was difficult to make them above 1080p for cheap, used more power, and burn in is simply never able to be completely mitigated. Now burn in is I think different from image retention, in that "burn-in" may refer to permanent image burned in, while image retention would be temporary. My plasma does retain the image for static objects if they are on the screen too long, they are not easy to notice if not looking at a pure color background, but they do show up. Now they do go away over time if I start using it with different images on screen, but say I play a game for a significant amount with a static ui for a month, that ui might faintly be seen for a good 1-2 months if I start playing a new game. So far I do not notice any permanent burn in over my 10 years of ownership, though I of course made conscious effort to make sure I don't leave a static image on for too long.

I unfortunately haven't been able to get an oled yet, so I don't know how they would compare to plasma.

I would say once you hit 120/144 anything past that is basically diminishing returns.

I used to have a 120hz screen and my roommate had a 144. Between that and 60 yes noticeable difference.

120 to 144 basically indiscernible difference. Nice thing about 120, is that 24, 30, 60 all divide evenly into it, unlike 144, which is better with videos/pull-up/etc.

But hey, if you're good with marketing I'm sure you could sell snow to someone in the arctic.