PC and laptop displays are working toward 480 Hz
AUO and LG had already been linked to 480 Hz, FHD-resolution PC screens.
arstechnica.com
Frequent this thread if old.
-
Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.
PC and laptop displays are working toward 480 Hz
- Thread starter delete12345
- Start date
- News PC Tech
arstechnica.com
Frequent this thread if old.
I'm VERY particular about frames/performance/latency. I had a 144hz display like a full decade ago. And I'm all about reducing input and display lag as much as possible.
But I just have to admit to myself I struggle to perceive much value beyond about ~165hz. I've tried a 360, and no doubt it was dope and super cool - but it didn't improve my performance. Beyond about 144/165, I'd rather just have more resolution or more bells and whistles.
Cool for people that want it, though!
But I just have to admit to myself I struggle to perceive much value beyond about ~165hz. I've tried a 360, and no doubt it was dope and super cool - but it didn't improve my performance. Beyond about 144/165, I'd rather just have more resolution or more bells and whistles.
Cool for people that want it, though!
OP
OP
Agreed. I also used a 144 Hz monitor, and I even have trouble perceiving anything above 144 Hz. Is it even worth hitting 480 Hz refresh rate on the computer at this point? It's a thought to ponder....
idk I feel like you hit greatly diminishing returns at 144 or 240 (let alone 360) for both performance hit and number of people with the input/reaction speed to actually capitalize on perceiving this. rather see effort/resources go into Higher Quality Pixels (tm), eg better color and contrast, for monitors
My monitor only caps at 100Hz, so I have no dog in this fight. I did find this Linus video to be interesting a couple of years back and is probably still relevant even though the test caps at 240.
Tbh a good 60hz is usually enough for me in most circumstances. 90 is nice, around 120 or above I feel like I've definitely hit diminishing returns in basically every case.
I'd much rather better quality 144 or 165hz panels with color accuracy, image retention, multiple overdrive modes and the like rather than just such absurdly high refresh rates.
I'd much rather better quality 144 or 165hz panels with color accuracy, image retention, multiple overdrive modes and the like rather than just such absurdly high refresh rates.
Dude i play rocket league (top 100 + ex semi pro)/val and see the diff between 240 and 360 on an eyetest and id never go 360->480, I cant imagine itd do anything. 240->360 is barely better when youre actually playing well.
Blur Busters Law: The Amazing Journey To Future 1000Hz Displays
Strobeless ULMB. Blurless sample-and-hold. Blur-free with no flicker or strobing. Lagless. Coming within your lifetime.
blurbusters.com
And yet a 120hz OLED with BFI will deliver better motion clarity at a quarter of the render cost.
LCD is simply the wrong display technology for a gaming focused monitor.
LCD is simply the wrong display technology for a gaming focused monitor.
Blur Busters Law: The Amazing Journey To Future 1000Hz Displays
Strobeless ULMB. Blurless sample-and-hold. Blur-free with no flicker or strobing. Lagless. Coming within your lifetime.
Hah, I was just about to make a "look, we'll want a kilohertz refresh rate due to sample-and-hold display technology having poor motion clarity even at the 144Hz+" remark.
240Hz is about the maximum which most people will be able to perceive.
It is also a good refresh which is evenly divideable by 24, 30, 48, 60 and 120. This makes it an optimal choice for most content and for usage in multidisplay configurations.
Anything above that is a complete overkill even on superfast OLEDs IMO. 99% of users won't be able to see any improvements from going above 240.
It is also a good refresh which is evenly divideable by 24, 30, 48, 60 and 120. This makes it an optimal choice for most content and for usage in multidisplay configurations.
Anything above that is a complete overkill even on superfast OLEDs IMO. 99% of users won't be able to see any improvements from going above 240.
By the way, how long is the frame actually displayed with BFI on, say, the LG C1? Like, at 60fps it would usually stay up for 16.6ms. Does BFI flicker it off after e.g. 1ms, meaning 15.6ms out of the 16.6ms are in black? Or what is the ratio here? I'm wondering in particular, because brightness is one of the largest concerns and I reckon displaying the frames only extremely shortly (say 0.1ms) would cause lower brightness by a lot.
I mean, that's technically true, but a new >240hz display will probably also come with variable refresh rate support so it doesn't really matter.
I'm very sensitive to performance issues but honestly, after 144Hz I don't notice the difference. My 165Hz feels no different to my 144Hz. After 144Hz I'd focus on other things like resolution and picture quality.
Honestly I kind of struggle to think of how useful this would be.
I've not tried above 144hz (and I use the 120 mode) but honestly even though I can see and feel 120, I really don't feel much improvement going from 120 to 60 for the most part. I can't imagine that 240 would be all that useful or noticeable, much less 360 or 480hz...
I dunno though. Witcher 3 at 120FPS was such a damn blast of a game
I've not tried above 144hz (and I use the 120 mode) but honestly even though I can see and feel 120, I really don't feel much improvement going from 120 to 60 for the most part. I can't imagine that 240 would be all that useful or noticeable, much less 360 or 480hz...
I dunno though. Witcher 3 at 120FPS was such a damn blast of a game
Does a higher refresh reduce the motion fade? For example, I always notice the after-affect when dragging around the mouse on my 144Hz laptop. It's no better than 60Hz monitors. I'd hope that can be improved, but I've never seen a screen where it isn't an issue.
Wish they'd focus on being brighter instead, HDR needs to be better and more widely available, or heck go even further beyond and start doing more OLEDS in the space, nobody needs more then 240hz, there's like 3 competitive games giving you those frame rates if you have the horsepower for it and your resolution sucks and the 100 people in the world who could benefit from speeds like that probably aren't playing on laptops professionally.
Agreed. The fact that monitors are so behind in HDR is so disappointing.
How about instead of this pointless monitor equivalent to the mouse dpi race they instead focus on getting quality monitors out to the market with good QC and consistency. The monitor market is so frustrating. We already have 360hz and even that much is needless overkill.
Finally sample and hold displays can come close to the motion handling of CRT without BFI. Although you would need games running at this framerate to see the benefit, which is a tall order.
144 hz is the sweet spot for achievable performance and low latency for me so anything above that is overkill in my book.
Same here, 144hz is as high as I would go and I'm also on a 165hz monitor as well.
I think 120Hz is honestly the sweet spot. In a lot of games I will cap my frame rate to 120 and push the visuals as far as I can without dropping a frame, 120 rock solid feels great on 165Hz. Obviously if it's an eSports game I'll run it at 162 (to avoid tearing) but if I can't hit that without dips 120 is my go to.
Surely not, that is extremely noticeable.
So I should have a better motion clarity on my LG B1 with 1080p120 than on a 240 hz IPS panel?
LCD starts looking pretty good in motion around 200hz, but you have to actually have 200fps to actually realize this improvement. 360hz was already pushed well past where the vast majority of games could even drive that sort frame rate to make it worthwhile. 480hz without 480fps probably gains you next to nothing over a 360hz display.
These are all pretty much exclusively aimed at eSports games that can run at extremely high framerates even without top tier hardware. Anything else and good luck ever making use of those refresh rates. Even then I feel that 240 Hz and above are more felt than seen. They feel more responsive, which is great for these fast paced games. 60 -> 120 Hz is the biggest perceived change.
While higher refresh rates do reduce perceived motion blur, I really wonder if LCD tech can actually keep up with it. I would like to see these higher refresh rates pushed in OLED tech instead as those have the real ~1ms pixel response times to keep up.
Overkill and I'd rather they keep it lower and work on more important things like energy consumption
I guess this is just the result of natural technical development in terms of "yeah we can now manufacture displays at higher refresh rates".
They're going to market it and try to sell it to you in any way, but I have to agree personally that there is a case of negligible difference w.r.t. high refresh rate monitors.
It's a TN panel anyway, so it's primarily for the e-sports market where colour reproduction isn't the most important factor, where I can imagine that these higher refresh rates are somewhat applicable, although again it can be disputed whether the difference is noticeable or not.
Nontheless, pretty cool though, I tried 300Hz and I do notice it v.s. my 144fps monitor, but in the end, I'm still worse at the game than my friend who has a 60 Hz monitor 🤣.
They're going to market it and try to sell it to you in any way, but I have to agree personally that there is a case of negligible difference w.r.t. high refresh rate monitors.
It's a TN panel anyway, so it's primarily for the e-sports market where colour reproduction isn't the most important factor, where I can imagine that these higher refresh rates are somewhat applicable, although again it can be disputed whether the difference is noticeable or not.
Nontheless, pretty cool though, I tried 300Hz and I do notice it v.s. my 144fps monitor, but in the end, I'm still worse at the game than my friend who has a 60 Hz monitor 🤣.
Frametime = The time each frame stays on screen before the next is being displayed.
144hz = 6,94ms frametime
165hz = 6,06ms frametime
In this example the frametime difference between 144hz and 165hz is less than 1ms (6,94ms - 6,06ms = 0,88ms). No wonder you can't tell the difference!
For reference the 60/30hz comparison:
60hz = 16,66ms frametime
30hz = 33,33ms frametime
Here, the frametime difference is ~16ms and noticeable to most people. Consequently, the frametime difference between 60/30hz is over 16x larger than between 144/165hz. There are people who already have issues seeing the 16ms frametime difference between 60/30hz and you might need to tell them what to look out for to notice.
The thing is, we are already in the single digit millisecond frametime range with 120hz displays (8,33ms frametime) and our eyes aren't really made to differentiate between single digit millisecond differences very well. Another way to put this: We are already way up on the diminishing returns graph and it really isn't all useful to push this harder.
Last edited:
If the B1 supports 120hz BFI like the C1 and G1 (I honestly never looked into it), then yes.
Sample and hold motion blur at 120hz BFI is the same as native 240hz sample and hold motion blur and the instant pixel response means there's no overshoot artefacts or pixel transitions that miss the 4.167ms window.
Even without BFI, I'd take the artefact free motion of an OLED at 120hz over an LCD any day, regardless of the refresh rate.
PC gaming monitors focusing on these competently unachievable refresh rates are tackling the problem in the wrong way.
Focus on delivering the absolute minimal lag in a 120hz OLED BFI mode and you'll have better motion at a performance level that is actually achievable. It would allow these monitors to target something other than 1080p without bright shining greys for black levels as well.
welll the only problem i've found since getting a 1440p/155hz screen a couple years ago, is that I can only reach that framerate on older games. even with a 3070ti, i'm not reaching that max framerate unless I drop res/settings combo on new "ish" releases
now that said, unless it's a multiplayer game, as long as i'm staying within my freesync boundaries, i'm fine not hitting that in single player games.
so assuming it's just for pro players playing titles like cs go, i'm assuming these kinds of refresh rates can be hit.
that said, i'm on the verge of hooking up to my CX to reduce my max framerate to 120 anyway. cant move away from my desk for all games though, looking at you, flight sim
now that said, unless it's a multiplayer game, as long as i'm staying within my freesync boundaries, i'm fine not hitting that in single player games.
so assuming it's just for pro players playing titles like cs go, i'm assuming these kinds of refresh rates can be hit.
that said, i'm on the verge of hooking up to my CX to reduce my max framerate to 120 anyway. cant move away from my desk for all games though, looking at you, flight sim
I see 240 over 165 in Overwatch, but yeah, I'm not sure how much I would notice beyond that AND not having the horsepower to drive games at that framerate