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

[GGforever]

According to the reputable German publication ComputerBase, ViewSonic is preparing to launch an absolute unit of a gaming monitor at CES 2025, which is scheduled to take place in January of next year. The monitor is expected to sport an OLED panel, along with a peak refresh rate of a whopping 520 Hz. The product is also rumored to boast a resolution of 2560 x 1440, which should allow for decent pixel density considering its 27-inch size.

Like many other monitors available currently on the market, yet another unnamed ViewSonic OLED monitor will also boast dual-mode capabilities. Simply put, the monitor will give its user the option to toggle between a high-refresh rate mode with lower resolution, and a high-resolution mode, likely 4K, but with a lower refresh rate. No other details are known at this point, so interested folks will have to wait till next month to know more.




Apart from these offerings, ViewSonic is also expected to introduce a new ColorPro monitor aimed at creative professionals with a 5K panel and Thunderbolt 4 support. The panel is also expected to be extremely color accurate, which is a must-have for professional use. As with the other products, not much else is known about this one either, but more details and pricing information should be available next month. Either way, for those on the hunt for a new monitor, it seems waiting till CES will be a prudent choice.

View at TechPowerUp Main Site | Source

 

[Scrizz]

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

 

[Battler624]

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

Fuckin same man.
Ofcourse, high refresh rate tho.

 

[Tomorrow]

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

4K 27" OLED next year.

 

[Makaveli]

4K 27" OLED next year.

lets hope they also make a 32" model as well 4k on 27" is too small

 

[konga]

lets hope they also make a 32" model as well 4k on 27" is too small

32" models have already been available for a year.

 

[phints]

I saw and felt a huge improvement from 60 to 144Hz, then later tiny improvement from there at 165-240Hz range. To anyone building a nice gaming PC I'd say go with 1440p 240Hz OLED and don't pay a penny more unless it's an identical price because your average framerate will never be higher other than CS2. Sure vkQuake runs at 4000fps but what else does.

These companies have completely lost my interest in the refresh rate circlejerk beyond 240Hz. Not building a $4000 PC with 9800X3D + RTX 5090 anytime soon.

 

[Kaleid]

27" is too small. Ultrawide or at least 32"

 

[theglaze]

Monitors like this are not meant for us mere mortals:

 

[Tomorrow]

27" is too small. Ultrawide or at least 32"

Where have you people lived?

There's already 32" 4K OLED and UltraWide OLED monitors for years.
Some people want 4K 27" because that's one of the size/resolution combos that is missing from the OLED monitor market.

 

[Kaleid]

Where have you people lived?

There's already 32" 4K OLED and UltraWide OLED monitors for years.
Some people want 4K 27" because that's one of the size/resolution combos that is missing from the OLED monitor market.

Yeah, but OLEDs are rather new, coating on them as well as text quality hasn't been the greatest.
As I already have an ultrawide monitor I'd rather it had some higher resolution for instance than 3440x1440p

 

[Tomorrow]

Yeah, but OLEDs are rather new, coating on them as well as text quality hasn't been the greatest.
As I already have an ultrawide monitor I'd rather it had some higher resolution for instance than 3440x1440p

I believe 5120x2160 is coming. Source: https://tftcentral.co.uk/news/oled-news-and-rumours-round-up-for-2025

 

[Kaleid]

I believe 5120x2160 is coming. Source: https://tftcentral.co.uk/news/oled-news-and-rumours-round-up-for-2025

Long wait

"Some people may be hoping for an updated resolution as well, but as far as we know the panel production for those expected future 34″ 5120 x 2160 resolution panels is not scheduled until at least Q4 2025 (next year) and so that is extremely unlikely. It’s far more likely to be the updated 34″ 3440 x 1440 @ 240Hz panel. More info on those other higher resolution OLED panels in our latest video on the topic here."

 

[Frick]

The only reasonable argument I've heard for 5K monitors is that it allows you to edit 4K videos at native resolutions, but beyond that I really don't see the point.

 

[MacZ]

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.

 

[Kaleid]

The only reasonable argument I've heard for 5K monitors is that it allows you to edit 4K videos at native resolutions, but beyond that I really don't see the point.

Text quality on cellphones is nice, I want similar for desktop

 

[3valatzy]

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.

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.

There have been many reports from different reaction tests that people can react to visual signals in less than 1 ms - this corresponds to 1000 FPS.

How many FPS can we actually see?

I was just screwing around the internet while at home, and I just randomly wandered, how many FPS can the human eye actually see? I did a little googling and came across this: ****So many people keep repeating this myth all over the Internet, that I decided it would be a good idea to bust this...

community.spiceworks.com

Text quality on cellphones is nice, I want similar for desktop

Cellphoness have very high pixels per area density. Like 400 ppi, 500 ppi, which corresponds to ultra high crispness and image quality.

 

[Kaleid]

Cellphoness have very high pixels per area density. Like 400 ppi, 500 ppi, which corresponds to ultra high crispness and image quality.

Take a normal 1440p 27" and up the resolution to 4k and it'll already look better than what people are used to. It's not near phone density levels but it's certainly noticeable better.
Now if we could only get better motion resolution as well, like 60fps being the norm. That'd be something.

 

[MacZ]

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.

How many FPS can we actually see?

I was just screwing around the internet while at home, and I just randomly wandered, how many FPS can the human eye actually see? I did a little googling and came across this: ****So many people keep repeating this myth all over the Internet, that I decided it would be a good idea to bust this...

community.spiceworks.com

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.

 

[phints]

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

Yes of course, but as I said above your PC needs to be running at that average FPS, and 1% lows can't be much lower than that. Also from my own experience there is diminishing returns beyond 150fps or so. For the time being I can't see any value in anything other at 1440p than 240Hz. This is a complete waste of money unless the price point is going to be identical.

 

[Kaleid]

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.

At least on my B3 OLED the mouse motion 60hz vs 120hz is easy to see. Haven't tried higher HZ than that though. I'd say that higher hz on LCDs is more important than OLED, they're not equal at 120hz.
Some reviews point out that only Samsungs 240hz VA panels do not have black smearing but all the others do. This isn't generally a problem with OLEDs.

But no, people can't see unlimited hz. It would eat up too much brain power to do so.

 

[3valatzy]

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.

Most probably those LTT "blind" tests were wrong. Because you need the right conditions - very fast paced gaming, and a graphics card which maintains above the Hz threshold framerate / 0.1% lows, etc.

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.

Because of VSync issues, screen tearing and the like. You see a smoother 500 FPS gaming even on a 60 Hz screen. You just recognise it.

 

[MacZ]

Most probably those LTT "blind" tests were wrong. Because you need the right conditions - very fast paced gaming, and a graphics card which maintains above the Hz threshold framerate / 0.1% lows, etc.

Or you are wrong, because for me it perfectly align with my experience. High refresh rate is a gimmick to sell hardware. You are just unwilling to admit you have been conned.

 

[Frick]

Text quality on cellphones is nice, I want similar for desktop

Windows ain't the same as Android/iOS though. Even Windows 11 has UI elements that doesn't scale, meaning if you're not at 100% it'll be fuzzy. Add to this old games, mixed resolutions/scaling (multiple monitors), lots of programs... It would be nice and it might be achievable if you exclusively play modern games and use the web for everything.

Most probably those LTT "blind" tests were wrong. Because you need the right conditions - very fast paced gaming, and a graphics card which maintains above the Hz threshold framerate / 0.1% lows, etc.

Add to this people who would use such monitors and would volunteer for such tests. Grab 100 random people off the street and have them play Counter Strike for an hour and I'm sure they would not be able to tell the difference.

 

[3valatzy]

Or you are wrong, because for me it perfectly align with my experience. High refresh rate is a gimmick to sell hardware. You are just unwilling to admit you have been conned.

I see that my 120 Hz cellphone is better than my old 60 Hz cellphone. The scrolling is smoother.