Wednesday, April 19th 2023

AUO's 540 Hz Display Panel is Based on E-TN Technology

by
TheLostSwede
 Discuss (14 Comments)
As expected, based on yesterday's press release from AUO, its new 540 Hz gaming panel is based on E-TN technology. The E simply stands for Esports and AUO has never really mentioned what the difference is between its E-TN and its regular TN panels. In this case, we already know who AUO is working with, as the monitor on display at Touch Taiwan was the ASUS ROG Swift Pro PG248QP, which was announced at CES earlier this year.

As ASUS has as yet to release the ROG Swift Pro PG248QP, we do at least have some very minor, additional specs of the display panel now. As expected, this is a 1080p panel and AUO claims a sub 1 ms response time, which is hardly unexpected considering the refresh rate. It also has a brightness of 400 cd/m², which is about 50-100 cd/m² better than the best TN panels on the market and it's said to deliver up to 99 percent of the sRGB colour gamut. No other details were provided, so we're just going to have to wait for ASUS to launch the PG248QP before we get the full specs.

Related News

Add your own comment

14 Comments on AUO's 540 Hz Display Panel is Based on E-TN Technology

#1
Blaazen
Does exist some double-blind study proving that people are able to distinguish or perceive such a high refresh rates or is it a video*) snake oil?

*) An analogy to audio snake oil where various cables or devices for hundred or thousand dollars do literally nothing.
Posted on Reply
#2
Vayra86
BlaazenDoes exist some double-blind study proving that people are able to distinguish or perceive such a high refresh rates or is it a video*) snake oil?

*) An analogy to audio snake oil where various cables or devices for hundred or thousand dollars do literally nothing.
No
Posted on Reply
#3
evernessince
BlaazenDoes exist some double-blind study proving that people are able to distinguish or perceive such a high refresh rates or is it a video*) snake oil?

*) An analogy to audio snake oil where various cables or devices for hundred or thousand dollars do literally nothing.
The higher refresh rate of a monitor, the lower the latency there will be attributed to the display. It doesn't necessary matter if there's a perceived improvement in fluid motion, all that matters is that the monitor is displaying the most current image possible. The lower the total system delay, the lower the overall latency chain will be.
Posted on Reply
#4
Kodehawa
BlaazenDoes exist some double-blind study proving that people are able to distinguish or perceive such a high refresh rates or is it a video*) snake oil?

*) An analogy to audio snake oil where various cables or devices for hundred or thousand dollars do literally nothing.
The latency is lower, assuming the response time can keep up. Whether you perceive it or not is up to the person, there's people who can blind-distinguish between 120 and 240Hz (8.4 vs ~6ms), and people who don't. The gain after 120Hz are MOSTLY inconsequential to the average person.
Posted on Reply
#5
MentalAcetylide
Unless all you do is gaming & don't care about viewing angles & color shift, TN is just garbage.
Posted on Reply
#6
unwind-protect
evernessinceThe higher refresh rate of a monitor, the lower the latency there will be attributed to the display. It doesn't necessary matter if there's a perceived improvement in fluid motion, all that matters is that the monitor is displaying the most current image possible. The lower the total system delay, the lower the overall latency chain will be.
Yeah but at 500 frames per second we are talking 2 milliseconds. I have a hard time believing that 2 versus 3 ms makes a difference.
Posted on Reply
#7
evernessince
unwind-protectYeah but at 500 frames per second we are talking 2 milliseconds. I have a hard time believing that 2 versus 3 ms makes a difference.
It's actually 1.85ms. That's a 38.5% decrease over 3ms, which is quite significant. You have to remember that the provided delay in ms is the distance between screen refreshes so as you increase the refresh rate, the delay between frames decreases. When you look at the whole picture though, you are getting 540 refreshes a second vs 360 or less. That's a significant number of additional refreshes that'll mean what the screen will more accurately represent the current game state.
Posted on Reply
#8
konga
evernessinceIt's actually 1.85ms. That's a 38.5% decrease over 3ms, which is quite significant. You have to remember that the provided delay in ms is the distance between screen refreshes so as you increase the refresh rate, the delay between frames decreases. When you look at the whole picture though, you are getting 540 refreshes a second vs 360 or less. That's a significant number of additional refreshes that'll mean what the screen will more accurately represent the current game state.
yes, it's a big percentage difference, but in absolute terms it's insignificant. even the sweatiest of esports pros will tell you that a 1ms difference isn't much at all.
Posted on Reply
#9
evernessince
kongayes, it's a big percentage difference, but in absolute terms it's insignificant. even the sweatiest of esports pros will tell you that a 1ms difference isn't much at all.
I'd call BS on this given 4K and 8K polling are a mere 0.75 ms and 0.85 ms advantage over 1K polling and yet many eSport professionals are touting how much better those devices are. 4K mice in general are just nice to use, regardless of if you play eSports games or not.

You seem to be focusing on the fact that the difference is only approximately 1 ms but you are forgetting that said figure is ms until the next refresh cycle, of which a 540 Hz monitor is packing in 180 more refreshes per second. So that's 1 ms faster times the number of additional refresh cycles, which means you could shave up to 180 ms off the cumulative latency of any frames displayed in a second, assuming you have the system to do so.

Ditto goes for high polling rate mice, increased polling rate just makes the mouse feel more responsive and pleasant to use.
Posted on Reply
#10
Tomorrow
TN is dead. Accept it. We have 500Hz IPS so 540Hz TN is pointless. Next year we will hopefully see 480Hz OLED too so TN literally has lost it's edge against IPS.
Posted on Reply
#11
PapaTaipei
TN = no thx
MentalAcetylideUnless all you do is gaming & don't care about viewing angles & color shift, TN is just garbage.
Wrong
Posted on Reply
#12
chrcoluk
unwind-protectYeah but at 500 frames per second we are talking 2 milliseconds. I have a hard time believing that 2 versus 3 ms makes a difference.
Manufacturers taking advantage at this point, but there is humans out there who "think" it helps so as long as they pay up, they keep making this stuff.
Posted on Reply
#13
Bensam123
This comment section reminds of when the first 120hz monitors were being released over a decade ago and there were the old luddites that were like 'You can't see higher then 60fps anyway, so why does it matter!?!?!'.

I've been waiting for this and still no release date.
Posted on Reply
#14
MentalAcetylide
PapaTaipeiTN = no thx


Wrong
Wrong, I would know since I used an Alienware 17" laptop with a high refresh rate TN panel. They are trash for doing anything with color accuracy. If this wasn't true, professionals wouldn't be paying a premium price for color accurate monitors and would simply use a cheaper TN panel.
Posted on Reply
Add your own comment
Nov 21st, 2024 13:10 EST change timezone

Latest GPU Drivers

New Forum Posts

Popular Reviews

Controversial News Posts