ViewSonic Readying a 27-inch 520 Hz OLED Gaming Monitor for CES 2025 Launch

[Todestrieb]

Interesting... is OLED overclockable?

I really don't want to comment on the high-refresh is useless debacle other than: Just because you are not capable of something doesn't mean someone else can't do that. okay?
I know a bunch of people much better than me playing certain (stupidly difficult rhythm) games. I tried real hard to git gud. My brain/eye/finger just can't keep up. They can keep up.
I'm sure there are guys whose fingers are at least 2.5x faster than mine at tapping buttons...well I got too far. I hope I got the point out.

On the point of "why not enhance other things", I say "new cool tech needs more time to develop". And historically there are different type of panels better at different things. And like it or hate it, pushing for higher refresh is a way for easy money, I guess.

Also, probably hot take: 4K w/ 125% scaling is still better than 1440p.
Though I'm using 27" 4K w/ 150% scaling to roughly match the 24" 1080p on its side. Will have to try 100% once the 27" 4K OLEDs hit the market. I don't think I can get used to 100%, but I haven't try it for real.
And no, before you say "27" is too small" my desk can't take two 32" monitors, so double 4K 27" is one of the ways to stuff as many pixels as possible on my desk. Maybe my desk is too small, but there's no space for a bigger desk either.

 

[Upgrayedd]

I am 200% certain noone can tell the difference between 120 and 500Hz in a blind test. This is a marketing gimmick and useless product at best.
These so called competitive gamers are nothing but a bunch of clowns who parrot nonsenses they heard from other CounterStrike "patients". Or their sponsors.

As a casual gamer, I can see it. It's really not that hard. Hell I can feel the difference in 120 and 160. Is 120 smooth? Yeah for the most part. 160 does feel better and look better though. You're not going to be suddenly way better, but it does feel better.

The way you talk about it tells me you don't have a HFR screen to see for yourself. 240Hz LCDs are pretty cheap now, brick and mortar there's always an open box deal.

 

[Steevo]

Ahhh refresh rates significantly faster than the color rods and cones in our eyes can even reset to detect a new color due to the chemical process in our eyes, and our brain. Much like rocks for speakers they will find a market.

 

[Post Nut Clairvoyance]

Ahhh refresh rates significantly faster than the color rods and cones in our eyes can even reset to detect a new color due to the chemical process in our eyes, and our brain. Much like rocks for speakers they will find a market.

Is your rods stays off in presence of light for extended period due to chemical processes? You should consider contacting medical professionals!

 

[HOkay]

Ahhh refresh rates significantly faster than the color rods and cones in our eyes can even reset to detect a new color due to the chemical process in our eyes, and our brain. Much like rocks for speakers they will find a market.

This always confused me, there's a clear mismatch with this science & a lot of people's experience, so what gives? If I can tell the difference 100% of the time in a blind test between say 60Hz & 120Hz, then how can that science be right? I'd love a good answer to this, the only thing I can think of is they don't all reset in sync in our eyes.

 

[chrcoluk]

I don't buy that at all. I have 144 Hz and 240 Hz monitors and it doesn't make any difference. It's just smooth.

I remember LTT doing blind tests, asking its team to play a game and then asking them what the refresh rate was. They were unable to answer, had to wiggle to mouse and look at the screen and still be wrong 50% of the time.

High refresh rates makes only psychological difference, and that why in the video you provide the guy has a FPS counter : it is not obvious what the frame rate is.

I do have a giggle when people claim their brain can process a time difference of 3ms.

 

[Upgrayedd]

This always confused me, there's a clear mismatch with this science & a lot of people's experience, so what gives? If I can tell the difference 100% of the time in a blind test between say 60Hz & 120Hz, then how can that science be right? I'd love a good answer to this, the only thing I can think of is they don't all reset in sync in our eyes.

What is the specific time mentioned? I'd like to read about the rod and cone statement.

I just read one from Oct 2024 saying 75Hz lolol.

 

[Scircura]

This always confused me, there's a clear mismatch with this science & a lot of people's experience, so what gives? If I can tell the difference 100% of the time in a blind test between say 60Hz & 120Hz, then how can that science be right? I'd love a good answer to this, the only thing I can think of is they don't all reset in sync in our eyes.

It's explained well in this Blur Busters article, Journey to future 1000Hz Displays (from 2020, still just as relevant). If your eyes are following a moving object on screen, then your eyes don't need "240Hz refresh" to see the motion blur on a 240Hz sample-and-hold display. Crucially this is the case even for OLED screens with pixel response times less than 1ms (slow pixel response adds additional problems on top of the inherent blur).

240+Hz doesn't really help in competitive gaming. That LTT video from 5 years ago (which asked e-sports pros to test at various framerates in shooting-gallery-like scenarios in Overwatch and CS) IMO accurately measured the impact of high refresh rates on "time-to-photon". Once a target appears on-screen, the player is limited by reaction time and muscle memory. 240+Hz is more for aesthetics: making the picture sharper and clearer when objects or the viewport is in motion. Human vision is complicated and some people are more perceptive of (or bothered by) motion blur than others.

 

[csendesmark]

I would love to see a 5k 27" OLED monitor.

I would love to see how you can see that resolution on a relatively small sized display

500+ Hz is ridiculous. I would bet that 90% of people are unable to distinguish anything beyond 100 Hz. It's just having large numbers to compensate for something else, even if it is patently useless.

Agreed, 144Hz is about right for me, can really tell the difference between 100 and 144, anything else higher is about bragging rights only

 

[Scrizz]

I would love to see how you can see that resolution on a relatively small sized display

Most phones a higher ppi than a 5k 27" screen, and I don't see people complaining that phone screens are too much.

 

[csendesmark]

Most phones a higher ppi than a 5k 27" screen, and I don't see people complaining that phone screens are too much.

Phone displays are densely packed with pixels - Yes
Also Phone users:

 

[Scrizz]

Phone displays are densely packed with pixels - Yes
Also Phone users:

My face is 24" away from my monitor only a couple inches farther away than I use my phone.
I use my phone 20" away from my face. Yes, I measured the distance.
I don't know why people have an issue with high resolution options existing. No one is being forced to buy anything.

 

[csendesmark]

My face is 24" away from my monitor only a couple inches farther away than I use my phone.
I use my phone 20" away from my face. Yes, I measured the distance.
I don't know why people have an issue with high resolution options existing. No one is being forced to buy anything.

I cherish high resolution just as much as high refresh rate!
But there is a limit where no point go higher since people will not notice,
I have the Samsung Galaxy S24 Ultra, and it's default screen resolution setting is not the the highest resolution which it's display can do.
This is for a reason.

 

[chrcoluk]

Most phones a higher ppi than a 5k 27" screen, and I don't see people complaining that phone screens are too much.

Marketing is a big success when people are convinced some kind of useless improvement is something they will notice.

 

[Post Nut Clairvoyance]

Interesting... is OLED overclockable?

I really don't want to comment on the high-refresh is useless debacle other than: Just because you are not capable of something doesn't mean someone else can't do that. okay?
I know a bunch of people much better than me playing certain (stupidly difficult rhythm) games. I tried real hard to git gud. My brain/eye/finger just can't keep up. They can keep up.
I'm sure there are guys whose fingers are at least 2.5x faster than mine at tapping buttons...well I got too far. I hope I got the point out.

On the point of "why not enhance other things", I say "new cool tech needs more time to develop". And historically there are different type of panels better at different things. And like it or hate it, pushing for higher refresh is a way for easy money, I guess.

Also, probably hot take: 4K w/ 125% scaling is still better than 1440p.
Though I'm using 27" 4K w/ 150% scaling to roughly match the 24" 1080p on its side. Will have to try 100% once the 27" 4K OLEDs hit the market. I don't think I can get used to 100%, but I haven't try it for real.
And no, before you say "27" is too small" my desk can't take two 32" monitors, so double 4K 27" is one of the ways to stuff as many pixels as possible on my desk. Maybe my desk is too small, but there's no space for a bigger desk either.

OLED probably not overclockable. I'd imagine the panel itself also has some driving logic that don't go beyond panel manufacturer's design. Otherwise people would do it, OLED response time would give almost linear motion clarity improvement (probably).
to me 1440p feels more like a 1080p+ resolution, and is not enough on 27''. (I've had 32''4k, 27''1440p and 23.8'' 1080p).
Something like 3200*1800 on 27'' would be nice for office work, close PPI to 32''4k, something like 2688*1512 or 2816*1584 would have close to half 4k or double 1080p's megapixel count, for the purpose of gaming horsepower required. A nicer solution is 3200*1800 monitor, and whatever competitive game to implement exact resolution resolution scaling.
OFC this is all headcannon, usually a new resolution is just doubling existing hardware's horizontal and vertical resolution. I mean, 1600x900 was a thing but wasn't common, and it was ok at the time for 15.6''

 

[Prima.Vera]

This is NOT what gamers are asking for!!
Where is my SVGA 1024x768 monitor with 1000Hz refresh rate!?? WHERE?!?!

People can see unlimited Hz, which means people will tell you the difference between 1000 Hz and 10 000 Hz.

I think it is right to claim something else - humans can adapt, if you use a 60 Hz screen and see nothing better, it would be fine for you, if you use a 500 Hz screen for some time and see nothing better, it would be fine for you, if you use a 10 000 Hz screen and see nothing better, it would be fine for you. Until you see that difference, and your brain recognises the existence of that thing better.

That Youtube video is a complete mess. It missrepresenting FPS vs Refresh rate, even on their slow motion videos. Blatant lie.

 

[Frick]

Microsoft is lazy. The only thing they need to do is to add size/bold to the fonts.

It would still be fuzzy.

 

[Tomorrow]

Most phones a higher ppi than a 5k 27" screen, and I don't see people complaining that phone screens are too much.

Android and iOS also have proper scaling. Try hacking windows on ARM to run there and then you'll see how much an optimized UI matters.
Yes there are people with really good eyesight who can use 27" 4K with native 100% scaling but that's the expectation.

 

[Upgrayedd]

Yes there are people with really good eyesight who can use 27" 4K with native 100% scaling but that's the expectation.

I like to think I have good eyes. But I think what my brain would like more than native 4K is 1800p screens. It would look better than 1440p, run considerably faster than 4K and be more affordable. But we've just totally skipped that stepping stone for whatever reason idk.

 

[Scrizz]

Marketing is a big success when people are convinced some kind of useless improvement is something they will notice.

I'm not talking about marketing or any other nonsense. I have 32" 4k screens and want better text crispness and a smaller display.
I don't see why people have an issue with someone wanting a higher resolution screen that isn't 32+ inches in OLED.

Then I see people saying Windows UI scaling is trash, etc. I didn't know the only thing people could use screens for was Windows.
Maybe I want to display a 12mp photo on my screen at 100% without needing to scroll. Maybe I just want a higher resolution screen in a smaller form-factor.
I don't need to justify my desire to want a specific set of features in a piece of tech especially considering the fact it's not anything unheard of https://www.lg.com/us/monitors/lg-27md5kl-b-5k-uhd-led-monitor

Computers do much more than play games and run Windows...

I guess I forgot TPU isn't a tech-enthusiast site anymore.