We must have 500hz screen in order to get to 1MHz screen someday.

1080p 480 Hz
1440p 360 Hz
2160p 240 Hz
High Refresh OLED Monitors

Hmmm good good :toast:

mechtechI 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.

Pretty much this.

I've had my 165Hz monitor for a few months now and I fail to see the attraction of the "high refresh rate". It is actually most noticeable when moving the cursor and dragging windows. In game, I've been able to see a difference only in Doom, and even then it wasn't huge. What I mean is, high refresh rate (120 and up) is pleasant and nice to have, but by no means essential to the gaming experience. If anything, it's a bit of a liability: it increases requirements towards the hardware, causes more coil whine, and potentially exposes various driver issues, especially when mismatching different monitors with different refresh rates (I'm looking at you, AMD!); all this for an increase in framerate that I'm barely noticing.

64Ktbh 500 Hz is wasted on me. I can barely tell a difference with my 144 Hz monitor.

Few people can. Medical science thing. Above 240hz, 99.9% of people can't tell a difference. Most can barely tell a difference between 120hz and 240hz.

ZoneDymoI mean dont knock it till you saw it I say

BestBuy, Target and Walmart. Drop in, view the differences for yourself. If you can tell a difference, cool beans, buy and enjoy! But be honest with yourself.

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

Exactly this.

Personally, it seems that Alienware/Dell pushing this particular performance threshold is just a marketing ploy. Even competitive gamers will not benefit from 500hz compared to 480hz, 360hz or even 240hz. While faster frames are faster(and I am a "Framerate is Life" kind of guy), at these levels where the physical limitations of the human ocular system are playing in, it amounts to techo-snake-oil.

Space LynxI 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

You sound like someone who was exposed to the Korean panel market. 32" 4K is pretty stellar in pixel density. Some panels are so fast nowadays that Vsync will make them unplayable.

kapone32Some panels are so fast nowadays that Vsync will make them unplayable.

Oh? Please do explain. How would having a panel that is very fast and enabling vsync going to make a game unplayable?!?

lexluthermiesterFew people can. Medical science thing. Above 240hz, 99.9% of people can't tell a difference. Most can barely tell a difference between 120hz and 240hz.


BestBuy, Target and Walmart. Drop in, view the differences for yourself. If you can tell a difference, cool beans, buy and enjoy! But be honest with yourself.


Exactly this.

Personally, it seems that Alienware/Dell pushing this particular performance threshold is just a marketing ploy. Even competitive gamers will not benefit from 500hz compared to 480hz, 360hz or even 240hz. While faster frames are faster(and I am a "Framerate is Life" kind of guy), at these levels where the physical limitations of the human ocular system are playing in, it amounts to techo-snake-oil.

I want MSI to make one and test it on their Youtube channel. The concept that we are seeing an enemy in an FPS is just where that data is in the pipeline. Theoretically if you can render the piepline faster than the other user you will be aware of them before they are of you but math must be applied like you said. What are the limits when it comes to human? I played Silpheed with a keyboard and mouse and I still can't believe it today.

lexluthermiesterOh? Please do explain. How would having a panel that is very fast and enabling vsync going to make a game unplayable?!?

Freesync panels, Just Cause 4. I have a 144hz panel (165 before) and Vsync is defaulted to 60HZ. If I leave Vsync on the Game will stutter. You could also try any racing Game and when you turn it off your FPS will increase and experince will improve. I do not under any circumstance use Vsync in Games.

kapone32The concept that we are seeing an enemy in an FPS is just where that data is in the pipeline. Theoretically if you can render the piepline faster than the other user you will be aware of them before they are of you but math must be applied like you said. What are the limits when it comes to human? I played Silpheed with a keyboard and mouse and I still can't believe it today.

Yeah, it doesn't work that way. Most games sync over networks at a rate slower than display refresh rates anyway. But even if some of them are faster, the difference between 1/240th of a second and 1/500th of a second to the human eye is imperceptible. It is mathematically significant, but insignificant to the human eye.

kapone32Freesync panels, Just Cause 4. I have a 144hz panel (165 before) and Vsync is defaulted to 60HZ. If I leave Vsync on the Game will stutter. You could also try any racing Game and when you turn it off your FPS will increase and experince will improve. I do not under any circumstance use Vsync in Games.

That's a configuration error on your part. Locking vsync without first setting the default refreshrate will result in the problem you described. You must first set your default refresh rate and THEN set vsync. Whether you do it in the Windows display settings or the driver control panel is up to you.

InfernalAII 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.

Any 1440p or 4K LCD panel is gong to beat a 1080p plasma in regards to image quality. I'm not sure what IPS or TN display you are comparing it to but I don't need to see a plasma display to know that more pixels is going to result in higher image quality. On top of that Plasma TVs are required to have a glass front which means glare is going to be hella bad and the max brightness means they couldn't be used in every environment.

Another part of image clarity, response times and refresh rate, Plasmas are at a disadvantage for as well. The way Plasma TVs generate different shades is by quickly turning on and off subpixels. By modulating the rate at which the subpixel is on or off you change the perceived shade. To display a darker shade of blue the plasma would just flicker the blue subpixel at a slower rate. This is where the "600 Hz" figure comes from. It's measuring the number of times a pixel and it's subpixels can be flickered within a given refresh rate. In effect each flicker is a portion of a pixel / subpixel transition. Most Plasmas operate at a refresh rate of 60 Hz and would flicker 10 times each frame, thus you get your marketing "600 Hz". Mind you plasmas displays have a minimum pixel transition time of 5ms as this is how long the phosphor takes to decay. On top of that, the pixel response time profile of plasma TVs is sub-optimal. Many LCD panels tend to push the pixels to the desired values early in the transition, sometimes at the cost of overshoot. This drastically reduces the time pixel transitions take and many displays have settings that let users tune pixel response time (often called overdrive). This faster response time means that high motion games and movies will be more clear.

IPS panels are the go to for color accuracy and OLEDs are a close 2nd (OLED do have the best contrast by far though). You are likely referring to contrast which is where Plasma's are pretty good. That said VA LCD panels typically achieve around the same contrast or better without the drawbacks of Plasma and all the advantages of modern LCDs. Samsungs new Odyssey monitors are a good example of that.

As I pointed out earlier, even reviews from that time were not blow away compared to existing products on the market. Your experience is noted but that doesn't automatically dismiss the conclusions from existing reviews.

InfernalAIUnfortunately 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.

OLEDs have similar brightness issues to Plasma although less burn-in issues. That said OLED burn-in is often permanent but modern panels have done a good job of mitigating the chance of that.

OLEDs have vastly superior contrast as they can completely turn off pixels where as plasma pixels still retain some light. They can display a wider range of color, have a higher peak brightness, and have better color accuracy. OLEDs are not as efficient as LCDs but they are more efficient than Plasma TVs.

Not really of importance for end consumers but maybe a reason they shouldn't catch on, Plasma TVs emit a lot of radio frequency interference. Talking up to 1/2 mile away.

Same story as with Mouse DPIs

Comments/opinions on stuff like this always get so weirdly heated/personal and the arguments are mostly "the human eye can't see more then 30fps" with the goal line just moved to what the person currently owns.

Idk guys, you don't need to get this display and aren't a lesser being for not having it, relax, buy what you deem important for you.

ZoneDymobuy what you deem important for you.

the question isn't so much what you deem, that's subjective af, but does it really matter at all or is it just pointless, like the mouse DPI mentioned.

Well ... If Alienware goes that way, they believe in this monitor ...
Or maybe they know how and to who they will sell it ;)

Space LynxI 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

me, after switching from 4K 27" to 2K 27": WTF IS TOO SMALL RESO?!:D

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.

do you really need to OC from 144 to 170, instead of getting like 165 Hz/240 Hz or you are like me "if thing could be OC it MUST be OC" lmfao:D

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.

Beginning? 240hz is already solid in the realm of 'you gullible idiot...'. There is no way you can maintain stable FPS anywhere near it, all you do is invite more frame time variance.

Fools & Money like 80% of whats innovated for gaming today.

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.

Yes you actually do! Its the same old argument how "human eyes can only see up to 60fps/hz". Our eyes can pretty much see at 1000Hz and more, often times it's our brain that is lagging to make sense of it, rather than our eyes not being capable of uber fast seeing.

In fact, chimps have been tested with various reactions and with their superior short-term memory over humans, they've been able to spot millisecond type images and remember them!

144Hz is not even that fast, if you were to see an image that is spinning or moving across the whole screen you would notice its jagginess at 144Hz, we could probably notice jagedness up to 500Hz, before our brains start lagging and unable to process the difference!

tfdsafYes you actually do! Its the same old argument how "human eyes can only see up to 60fps/hz". Our eyes can pretty much see at 1000Hz and more, often times it's our brain that is lagging to make sense of it, rather than our eyes not being capable of uber fast seeing.

In fact, chimps have been tested with various reactions and with their superior short-term memory over humans, they've been able to spot millisecond type images and remember them!

144Hz is not even that fast, if you were to see an image that is spinning or moving across the whole screen you would notice its jagginess at 144Hz, we could probably notice jagedness up to 500Hz, before our brains start lagging and unable to process the difference!

Refresh rate is irrelevant if you arent getting more input information from the game. Theoretical vs practical situations. You dont game in a lab environment either.

Vayra86Refresh rate is irrelevant if you arent getting more input information from the game. Theoretical vs practical situations. You dont game in a lab environment either.

Its a 1080p monitor, so likely targeted at esports gamers and professional gamers. You can easily push 300fps+ on esports type games like Dota, LoL, Fortnite, Apex, CS:GO, etc...

tfdsafIts a 1080p monitor, so likely targeted at esports gamers and professional gamers. You can easily push 300fps+ on esports type games like Dota, LoL, Fortnite, Apex, CS:GO, etc...

Correct, but even there, server tickrates aren't giving you 300 frames of information.

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

I am sure you already know this but I want to say it, we do have 240 Hz OLED Monitors coming soon for those who care about the quality of frames v/s the quantity of frames.

And it (www.lg.com/us/monitors/lg-27gr95qe-b) comes color calibrated too. That's a pleasant surprise.
Brightness of 200 nits is very disappointing. I really hope they put a content based brightness boost option in there.

99% of techpowerup commentators can't see past 2 fps.

xSneak99% of techpowerup commentators can't see past 2 fps.

only 99%? i would say 99.69% is more accurate.

I wonder what kind of graphics card it takes to drive it at 500Hz just on the desktop.

xSneak99% of techpowerup commentators can't see past 2 fps.

WhoDecidedThatonly 99%? i would say 99.69% is more accurate.

Why the hostility?

Honestly, I think it will be interesting to see what esports organizers choose as their standard monitor at LAN since that dictates what the pro players will use. Nvidia was marketing the 360hz 1440p monitors as the new standard for esports. If the 1440p monitors are chosen then these 500hz panels are doa.