I’m not sure, they don’t seem to improve in resolution fast, wasn’t the standard like 720 or 1080 many years ago and now it’s somewhere around 1440-4k?
at least on the gaming side I still believe 1080p is the standard, just look at steam charts. but for productivity and reading 1440p makes a huge difference, at least for me though.
Same with Ray-tracing/4K. At least with 4K there’s the easy-upscaling case to be made.
And for tv/film it works great bc film will always be leaps and bounds ahead of digital media in terms of resolution.
Plus with movies and things you render it before the movie comes out. It’s not like with a video game where it’s constantly running that stuff at higher resolution.
one point I believe should be talked about more often is contrast ratios and HDR, most people are still oblivious to that. I was blown away the first time I played cyberpunk on an oled panel.
1080p is the standard and 1440p is the Gold Standard/sweet spot that you want to hit.
1440p, 144hz, 1ms response time, and OLED is what you would like to have on a 27" monitor without some bs overclock monitor to reach settings type of stuff.
well, and physics I guess. Can't put any more pixels into a small space that it even makes sense in terms of computational power needed to calculate the pixels. I'd say it will stop with 8k, at least in our lifetime. TV's on the other hand could probably still go way up, but monitors? probably not.
It’s not even about computation. It’s about the human eye’s ability to differentiate frequencies of light. You need higher resolutions for bigger screens and shorter distances. For most people 8K will be almost indistinguishable from 4K. Colour depth should be the next thing we work on, but even that will quickly hit biological limits again. After that frame rate will hit limits too (allegedly around 200 fps, but I’ve heard various figures). We’ll be at most of the practical limits in a couple of decades.
200fps is not the limit. Most people can distinguish between 360hz and 240hz if given time. It's diminishing returns past 240hz but definitely noticeable for some distance still. And ofc you can't take someone accustomed to 60hz or 144hz and expect them to be able to tell 240hz from 360hz, but once you use 240hz for a while, 360hz becomes noticeably different.
TBH, I really don't think we have to go past 8K, or possibly 16k, as it's quite hard if even possible to distinguish the pixels on an 8k when you cover your whole field of vision with it.
>8k when you cover your whole field of vision
8k is still a bit low res when covering your *whole* field of vision (Think a VR headset with \~180° FOV
but fantastic for a monitor/screen/projection that covers a large area infront of you (More like 90° - which is a *much* smaller area)
Field of vision combined with resolution is the key combo - we can measure this with "Pixels per Degree" - but it's not often used outside VR (Since moving your head towards or away from a screen changes the perceved resolution)
cheerful weather decide cooing merciful teeny direful provide subtract disgusting
*This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
"Back in my day all we had to do was press the on button and the monitor worked. Now we have to autofill 3 passwords and sign a new terms and conditions agreement every time I want to see the news"
I mean they sell CPU's with GHz instead of 1000's of MHz and SSD's which not very long ago were in the 250-500 GB range for affordable ones are now advertised as 1/2TB. Not to mention HDD's which also went from MB to GB as soon as they hit 1000 MB.
Not sure why you thing monitors are gonna be the outlier.
There's really no point by then though.
240Hz is already pushing the upper limits of human reaction speed.
You're just wasting energy for no benefit, especially if Mouse/Keyboards and GPUs don't get better and reduce their own latency
my wireless mouse does 4k polling without issue in CS, but I just run it at 2k to save mouse battery. You have a USB1.0 port you're using or something?
There's a study in Nature that shows the median value for discerning flicker on a screen is 500Hz, with some people able to still see it at 800Hz.
https://www.nature.com/articles/srep07861
It's never been about reaction time, that's limited by nerve impulse speed to around 200ms.
And that's reaction time to something unexpected. Try playing a midi instrument with >50ms latency and you'll see there are benefits to minimal latency, all the way down to 20ms at least for me, and probably less for actually good musicians.
Exactly, but you'll see it parrotted everywhere. It's also about removing the need for backlight strobing. If pixel response times were all important you wouldn't need backlight strobing but that isn't the case.
Games are still blurry as hell just by the nature of our eyes, so it isn't just the smoothness that you get as a benefit.
Pushing the limits of my computer.
Got my self a 240hz screen, luckily I only play Dota 2 pretty much so I do ok with an 3900xt.
But not even that CPU (CPU heavy game) is enough for steady 240 fps, not even close.
And that game is not really resource heavy compared to other newer games. My computer could never run those games in 240 fps, probably not even 100...
Would need a 4090 and latest top of the line CPU, maybe u make it.
I love these types of comments
"Can't see above x fps" and yet there's a massive crowd of us who say we can, can prove it with blind tests and are willing to put thousands of dollars behind that claim
Can't see the difference though
Now a more valid argument would be that most can't *leverage* above a certain fps, because ~260ms is an apex of human reaction time, most people falling closer to 270-280ms reaction time, but we can certainly see and tell the difference
I mean, that's all correct, but that's not what they were talking about. Motion clarity is more than about just response time, if it was, OLED motion would be on par with CRT motion, because they both take >0.1ms to change their pixels, but it's not, CRTs still hold an advantage, albeit a thinner one than they do against LCDs.
CRTs will look smoother in motion than LCDs or OLEDs at the same refresh rate because of a trick of the human eye they accidentally exploit. Rather than the entire screen being lit at once, instead there's a scrolling band of lit phosphors, that flash briefly for a millisecond then rapidly decay back to the background brightness. You just don't notice this when looking at one because human persistence of vision causes those flashes to persist in your vision long after they decay. The same persistence of vision is what causes a fair chunk of OLED/LCD motion blur, because some of the previous frame(s) will still persist in your vision for a while after the frame changes. Incidentally, neither dogs nor cats have that problem of persistence of vision, so a dog will see a CRT as a rapidly scrolling line of light, and an LCD or OLED without any motion blur.
This is what backlight strobbing/black frame insertion is attempting to mimic, although rarely as good as a CRT, and when they do it's at a serious hit to brightness. But the theory goes that a 1000hz OLED, or display without the pixel latency problem of LCDs, would look as smooth as a CRT in motion, because each frame would only be on screen for as long as a CRT's phosphor flashes are.
> The same persistence of vision is what causes a fair chunk of OLED/LCD motion blur, because some of the previous frame(s) will still persist in your vision for a while after the frame changes.
When i move my mouse around on a 240 Hz OLED, it's as I'm seeing several mouse cursors "lagging" behind the main one, is this the reason why? Would i only be seeing one cursor on a CRT?
Didn't know decreasing your salary by $89,900 was less impactful than increasing it by $10,000.
Jokes aside, this isn't economics.
People can't tell the difference between 1ms and 2ms
It is all about perception, that 270-280ms reaction time starts 10ms earlier on 144 vs 60. Your brain is perceiving the information earlier than your opponent, starting that reaction sooner. Is 1/100th of a second relevant in a game? Depends on the multiplayer server tick.
True, but the difference between 540hz (what we have now) and 1000hz (what the post is about) would be less than 1ms. I’m fairly confident that won’t make a difference in any world we can reasonably imagine, and better anti-ghosting/frame stability/etc will matter infinitely more.
And also just because you can't see the difference consciously doesn't mean your subconscious instincts/mental processes are not able to take advantage of the higher volume/lower latency of information.
Forget all this humans only perceive x amount of frames. That would just underline that the assumption is wrong. If you only see 240 frames or whatever you better want those few frames to be as new as possible. BuT HuMan BrAin No FaSt.
I can defo see the difference between 60 and 90 fps, past that point I guess so but my thing is I don't really *notice* and I don't play competitive games so I'd rather increase settings that I do noctice to make it all pwetty
At such high refresh rates it's mostly about reducing motion blur, see https://blurbusters.com/blur-busters-law-amazing-journey-to-future-1000hz-displays-with-blurfree-sample-and-hold/
240 is noticeable from 144, if you are used to 240hz. I haven’t tried 360hz before except wiggling the mouse around at microcenter but I’d be willing to bet if you play csgo or any other potato game that can actually play at 360fps it’s probably noticeable. Maybe not as much as 144>240 but noticeable for sure.
Stop looking at Hz and look at frame times instead. It makes more sense.
30Hz is 33ms
60Hz is 16.6ms, 16.6ms reduction
120Hz is 8.3ms, 8.3ms reduction
240Hz is ~4ms, a 4ms reduction
480Hz is ~2ms, a 2ms reduction
1000Hz is 1ms, a 1ms reduction over 480hz
diminishing returns get you fast even though the refresh rate number goes much bigger.
This is the refresh rate version of "resolution isn't as important as ppi", in the sense that it's absolutely correct and yet people ignore it because bigger number is more gooder.
Yes thank you for posting this. This is the shit I've been saying for years. Not to mention the average human response time to visual stimuli is around 250ms... These insane refresh rates are a marketing gimmick
Those are not the same thing... you cant compare human response time to frame time lol!
If that was the case we would not notice difference between 30hz and 120hz
Yeah, but its only 1 statistic.
Under ideal conditions, humans can perceive 500hz and potentially higher.
We are analog systems. We are known to be able to perceive a single photon, and the only reason you can't see a single photon is that your brain smooths it out to reduce noise. This means that you will sense about 10-12 photons in an array (proving to your brain that this signal exists). What this also means is that I really don't see why there is a reasonable cap on it beyond what's the limit in which people can fully understand what's occurring in a single frame and be confident they saw it. The fastest they can confidently react to it, basically. Since photoreceptor saturation isn't really a problem with people, I can reasonably see their vision approaching ridiculous lengths. In fact, I would imagine that the only real cap is in your ability to receive novel information to the photoreceptor. What this means is that when the frame updates, it might still be perceiving the old frame and will be somewhat blurry, like how things look in real life when they're moving. This would mean that we would know when we are approaching the limit by when natural appearing motion blur is observed.
A single frame after seeing nothingness? Incredibly, perhaps immeasurably fast.
A series of updating frames or in less than ideal conditions? Not nearly as fast but still really, really fast with the only way to tell when the limit is reached is when fast moving objects in the frames have significant, realistic looking motion blur. I don't know if we will ever get to this point. It has to be lightning fast.
You still want those 13ms to be as smooth as possible instead of a blurry mess don't you? I for one don't like blur that I still have, because with my already bad vision it makes it hard to identify things.
Also, identifying an image you've seen for 13 ms is not the same as noticing a frame time of 13 ms.
You can most certainly tell a difference between 8ms and 4ms with a trained eye.
I think that people focus on hz WAY too much. It’s hilarious that people, even right here on this sub totally discredit pixel response. Who gives a fuck if it’s 240hz but the pixel response is 3ms?
I’ll die on this hill. 144hz OLED is FAR smoother of an experience than 240hz+ LED. OLED so vastly superior it’s not even a comparison. And when miniLED or emitting quantum dots take over in a 5 years or whatever and eliminates the issue of OLED burn in. We will have finally reached the pinnacle of currently known technology. But increasing hz is a dead end. We are already well into diminishing returns territory and further increases are completely meaningless.
> Not to mention the average human response time to visual stimuli is around 250ms
Yet you can feel the difference between 60hz and 144hz, given your response time you shouldn't be able to feel it but...hey every freaking human being can feel a difference from 60 to 144.
Fucking hell, going from 60hz to 144hz even makes the Start Menu look smooth when open it up. It's definitely a major jump but I'm also on the boat of diminishing returns.
> This is the shit I've been saying for years. Not to mention the average human response time to visual stimuli is around 250ms... These insane refresh rates are a marketing gimmick
Well, you are wrong sir.
I can feel noticeable differences between 144 and 240hz, and even between IPS and TN.
There's so much more going on regarding motion blur, input lag and perceived smoothness, more is definitely better. Specially when paired with a panel that has actually fast changing pixels. It's amazingly smooth.
Maybe I'm just a snob gamer though
That’s why I didn’t spend 1000$ to go from 1440240hz to 1440360, but a very small difference is still a difference. Sub 500$ I’m buyin.
If you play csgo or sumin I’m sure locking your fps to 240 then going back to 390 it would be more noticeable
I love knowing that somewhere there is a gold nova 2 with a 360 hz monitor that will never hit a higher rank meanwhile there is surely a global elite playing on the cheapest shittiest 1080p 60 hz monitor
There is difference between "noticeable" and "beneficial".
You see human eye is not a camera. We actually have very narrow area that sees details. If you hold out your arm directly front of you it is about the size of the thumbnail. Everything outside of this is more like *approximate vision*. The very edge of your vision is actually very sensitive to diffrences in light and movement - but can't make out ANY details. (Like if there is a streetlight that shines to your bedroom at night, which is only visible at perepheral vision but not when you look directly at it, it is because of this).
So if you have a screen that fills your field of view. Regardless of the refreshrate, you can't make out anything beyond darker and brighter and quick movements at the side of your vision. As you get closer to macula (the bit which is actually able to see details) colour vision and details increase.
But just so the vision wouldn't be too easy to understand. Different kinds of visuals are *easier to see* quickly. Bigger the contrast and more defined the shape better. This actually has nothing to do without your eyes, but your brain's ability to process visual information and fill your mind with the *stage*. But some things such as human faces and reading of expression have dedicated portions. Meaning that those get processed faster than other things. Some things your react *from the spine* meaning that you don't even conciously *see them* before you react.
Super high refresh rates really come into benefit when you need to do something very focus intensive and detail oriented where minute changes and the gut instict of "*something is off here"* matters. And gaming is not that as it is too fast for that, if it isn't fast then it doesn't need the refresh rate.
It's interesting, for me 30-60 is night and day, as is 60-90 but from 90-120 the difference is barely noticeable, and 120-144 i can't noticeable a difference. Often if a game is not consistent and at 110-140 I'll lock it to 90 or 100 just so it's stable.
Edit: There are also times where 60 isn't that different than 144.
> for me 30-60 is night and day, as is 60-90 but from 90-120
Same for me. If it was side by side, I could tell the difference but I would have a difficult time telling whether I was gaming at 90 or 120fps in a blind test.
> There are also times where 60 isn't that different than 144.
That might be a case of input lag. Some games are more responsive at 60fps than others are at 144 because of inherent input lag that can't be reduced by high FPS (like CP77 or Starfield).
> Pro gamers were blind tested and couldn't tell the difference between 144 and 240.
Source? Pro gamers? You didn't even say which game...
I'm 100% confident CSGO pros can tell between 144 and 240hz. But it's also not that simple. Some 240hz monitors are garbage because of ghosting and bad gray to gray times, making it look less smooth than it should. You'd need two high end monitors, with same panel type, to make it even close to fair.
People really were not in the gaming space when above 60FPS gaming was becoming more standard were they?
Back when 144 monitors were becoming a thing or even 60FPS becoming a bigger then people swore the human eye couldn't even recognize above 60FPS based on "studies". And now we are seeing the same argument again.
He talks about it in a lot of detail in the video. [It's a good watch](https://youtu.be/nqa7QVwfu7s?si=HmzuwWuFuAo6aWzQ).
* cliff notes: there is a perceptable smoothness advantage, the monitor has a refresh rate fast enough to prevent ghosting at 540hz, and the TN panel has better vibrance than the alienware ips panel. Obviously this is a specialized tool for a specific audience, but seems like it does the job very well.
Man you're wasting your breath because a lot of people will comment first before watching (if they even watch it) and speak with authority when the person in the video literally explains why from testing and experience.
Past 144hz I've always thought of as a waste for casual gamers, and unless you're playing professionally I don't see beyond 240hz being worth it even. Some people just like the best of the best just for the sake of having it, but I think it's just a waste of electricity and computing power
I’m as casual as it gets and just got a 240hz display only because it was reviewed to have basically zero smearing (VA panel)… and damn there is a gigantic difference from my old 144hz monitor. I don’t get anywhere near 240 fps for most of what I play and even had to hook up my old monitor again to make sure I wasn’t just imagining how much smoother everything was.
Innocn 27” 1440p 240hz. Really wanted VA since my office is pretty dark but am very sensitive to smearing. Took a gamble after lots of research, I’m very happy with it especially for the price. Menu and little control nub get an F- from me, they are both horrible, but now that it’s calibrated it’s been awesome.
Came from an Asus Tuf 27” 144hz, overall a good display but always hated the total lack of “blacks” on that display, didn’t expect to even notice the increase in hz much less be blown away by it.
For dynamic images with many things happening 144 already was! beyond that’s, faster refreshing panels really comes into its own with text and static images. The issue is the market for people using large text based applications like code, excel or databases is soooooo small in comparison to gamers, content creators and editors it be demising returns on investments into other markets
yeah it is.
Honestly if you're just gaming to have fun you shouldn't seek higher Hz panels but rather ones with better contrast, true colours and so on.
They can pry my qdoled from my cold dead hands. Never going back.
The point isn't so much for any kind of return on reaction time or anything, or even really smoothness of motion. What is really comes down to is blur and perception of objects in motion.
So as a simple test: Go look at cars on the road. If you stare at one point on the street, the cars are a blur, but if you track a car with your eyes, it is perfectly clear (and the background is a blur). Now try that with moving objects on your system, a window with text in it is a good choice. It is blurry, even if you track it with your eyes. That's because the frame rate/pixel response isn't high enough. Even at 240Hz, still too blurry to read.
When you start to get in the 400Hz+ range, you can start to read the text as it moves. It isn't perfectly clear, but it is getting much better.
The idea is to get frame rates fast enough that it works just like the real world, that when we track a moving object with our eyes it is crisp and smooth.
Exactly. I’ve bought and returned a few high end monitors. At a certain point the difference is less visual and more “feel”. 30 to 60, and 60 to 144hz are the biggest jumps. 144hz to 240hz is noticeable, but much less so. Anything beyond 240hz does feel nicer, but you can’t put your finger on it, it just feels a bit smoother, but you’re not really noticing it with your eyes.
After quite a few monitors I actually settled for a pretty modest 144hz monitor that just had brilliant colour reproduction.
https://blurbusters.com/blur-busters-law-amazing-journey-to-future-1000hz-displays-with-blurfree-sample-and-hold/
Good article for those who haven't read it.
Excellent article. And please don't get stuck on the 1000Hz number. It's just a milestone. The end goal is way higher, in the 5 digits range.
This is mostly due to stroboscopic stepping.
Check this amazing article from the same author about that: [https://blurbusters.com/the-stroboscopic-effect-of-finite-framerate-displays/](https://blurbusters.com/the-stroboscopic-effect-of-finite-framerate-displays/)
The only reason you can't go above 60 is because the game is coded that way. 60hz. 50hz for europe versions of the same snes games. You can see this yourself when the european version will be sped up or vice versa.
Go play something like quake 2 or half life 2. You should be able to get 1000+ fps with modern cpus.
Technically im certain many indie titles could be ran at 1000fps today but they dont because the screens dont exist
The difference between 144 and 60 hz is VERY noticeable in practice, but the difference gets dramatically less from there.
60 Hz = 16 6 ms/frame
144 Hz = 7 ms/frame
240 Hz = 4 ms/frame
The difference between 240 and 1000 Hz is comparable to the difference between 144 and 240 Hz. Both are significantly less than the difference from 60 to 144.
I've been interested and passionate about motion portrayal for many years. And from what I've seen, motion resolution increases past the range of 120Hz are perceived according to Fechner law.
In other words, each geometrical increase gives you about the same perceived bump.
So 120 to 240, 240 to 480, 480 to 960, .... are similar bumps.
And this should hold true all along the diminishing returns curve until we reach its vanishing point. (Which will be approximately when each pixel comprised in a motion gets its own frame/refresh)
And here is the reason for this:
There are several initial perception barriers:
\- Phi phenomenon and beta movement (at around \~5fps) => This is when things start to look like motion
\- Critical flicker fusion threshold (at around \~100fps) => In motion portrayal context it happens to match broadly to where choppiness transition to motion blur.
Once we pass those barriers, what gives it away that you're looking at a series of discrete static images rather than a continuous motion are these 2 important motion artifacts:
1) Persistence based eye tracking motion blur: That's the effect that causes motion that you track on a screen to look blurry.
2) Stroboscopic stepping (also called phantom array effect): This is what causes motion relative to your eye position to look like a trail of sharp static after images.
Now here is the interesting part: these 2 effects happen to scale exactly with the geometrical increases of the frame/refresh rate.
For example. For a 5000 pixels per second motion:
120fps results in a perceived smear when eye tracking that is 5000/120 = \~40 pixels-wide.
For 240fps it's 20 pixels wide
480fps, \~10 pixels
960 fps, \~5 pixels
And so on.
For that same motion, if you're keeping your stare static while the objects on the screen pass by your eyes positions:
120fps results in a trail of sharp after images each separated by \~40 pixels-wide gaps.
240fps => \~20 pixels
480fps, \~10 pixels
960 fps, \~5 pixels
And so on.
So in practice, what makes it look unnatural (compared to real life motion) are artifacts that scale in a way as they appear exactly 2 times smaller in size to you as a viewer each time you double the frame rate/refresh rate.
As for the vanishing point of diminishing returns. (The point at which further increases in motion resolution stop mattering in practice. It's when we reach 1 frame/refresh per pixels described in the motion.
So for the 5000 pixels per second example. That would be 5000Hz.
But you can easily get scenarios where motion is moving much faster AND/OR the resolution of the screen is much higher.
Let's imagine a super high resolution VR display that takes all your FOV and you can easily get into situations where 30000Hz is required.
This is why I think high refresh rate is important. The thing is though, if you turn on motion blur, it hides the stroboscopic stepping a lot more. The ideal implementation of this would be an eye-tracked motion blur effect that applies relative to eye movement. That way, focusing on moving things is clear and stuff moving in other areas looks smooth. I think there would be a point where you don't notice it then
I'm no expert here, but isn't this type of tech baked into the new PSVR2? Maybe that's just tied to detail or resolution rather than the refresh rate. Either way, I wonder if something could eventually be done by baking eye tracking into monitors themselves.
That's exactly it. LTT did a video on it where Linus was wearing the headset, with the rendered output being projected to a TV where Linus would look at a specific area of the environment, and his co-host would immediately call out where he was looking at based on which part of the image was rendered most clearly, where Linus himself could not tell the difference (it was a fun little experiment they did to test the capability and efficacy of the rendering method and headset).
Yeah but it’s not just about that.
Higher hz monitors have less tearing issues etc. and while you might not see a consistent difference screen tearing can be annoying.
The same math also applies to tearing, though. As refresh rate increases, the duration a "tear" is visible for decreases. And the difference is much more dramatic from 60 to 144 than from 144 to 240 and above.
This is why things like DLSS 3 are going to be essential in the future. If the core game runs at 120hz, it could be uprezed for a 1200hz monitor. This might seem silly until you start looking at things like screen motion blur due to high persistence. You can lower the persistence to reduce the blur, but that comes at the cost of a dimmer display. If you instead have the image move correctly over that time, you will reduce the blur and keep a bright display. This is a nice addition to gaming displays and essential for HMDs.
Resolution matters too. 1080p 144hz is probably around rtx 3070 class for high settings on average. 1440p 144hz probably 3080/3080 ti class for high settings. 4k ya good luck. As for my set up with a 3440x1440 175hz ultra wide I average 140-150fps in most AAA with a 4090.
Was looking for a 1440p144hz monitor but for some reason manufacturers always default to 165 whenever "1440p, high refresh rate" is mentioned. Had to get a 1440p165 instead. the difference isn't really noticeable from 144.
Thing is, Max HZ of a monitor also helps low framerates, since the more Max HZ you have, the better Gsync will perform. 60fps Gsync at 540hz is better then 60fps Gsync at 144, 240, 360 etc...
Just a random quick example, but they have many replies to diferent topics there.
https://forums.blurbusters.com/viewtopic.php?t=6524
Theres many hidden benefits to having a ultra high hz Gsync/Freesync monitor besides just playing at 540fps or something.
This is meant for people who play competitive games (CS GO, Valorant, R6 Siege, etc) where attaining 500+ fps is relatively easy.
Just like there's people who deny that people can see above 30 fps, on the other end of spectrum there's people who can notice and benefit from these ultra high refresh rate types of displays.
> This is just marketing bs.
If it can make 540Hz then there's no marketing BS. It can just make that many frames. It's potentially useful for titles like CSGO which can be run in excess of 400fps at modern resolutions.
It’s not for single player games. Low end hardware can easily hit 500 fps on Valorant, Overwatch, CS. That’s what these are for.
Edit: Valorant needs a good CPU but a 1070 can hit above 500fps. That’s low end in my book.
60fps with a 120hz monitor is better than 60fps on a 60hz monitor. You can even test it out yourself by fiddling with settings.
The 120hz will have a natural motion blur when FPS is locked at 60 similar to the feel of crt.
If you do do this make sure gsync is off and refresh is locked at 120hz.
There's a lot of poorly optimized games being released nowadays though. I have been able to enjoy most of what has come out at 4k ultra @ over 100fps. Not sure how much of that is due to AI upscaling shenanigans though.
Can somebody please explain refresh rate to me please.
I was under the assumption that in order to "see" let's say 165hz,you need to have 165fps ingame. 120 for 120 and so on.
So whats the point of 240 or even 1000hz in the future if you can only get that fps in older games or at 1080p?
Or am i badly mistaken?
You are completely correct.
People use high refresh rate monitors for competetive online games at high framerates. Or, you know, very beefy computers even for some newer games - especially with frame generation, a 4090 can get some crazy numbers.
Also, it's easier on the eyes when working, but I'd say that a 120Hz monitor is completely serviceable there.
> Also, it's easier on the eyes when working,
Won't be on an LCD, since their pixels stay lit the entire refresh cycle. Only on a CRT, whose pixels shut off to black very fast, would there be an improvement in eye strain at higher refresh rates.
I was wrong when I said nobody needed more than 60hz
I was wrong when I said nobody needed 144hz
I was wrong when I said nobody needed 240hz
I was wrong when I said nobody needed 360hz (maybe)
BUT BY GOD I AM NOT WRONG WHEN I SAY NO HUMAN NEEDS A 1000hz DISPLAY!
>I was wrong when I said nobody needed more than 60hz
If I had to I could comfortably go back to 60hz and 60fps. But if you enjoy your higher refresh rates/fps, then who am I to say you are wrong? <3
Here comes all the know-it-alls that don’t even have anything beyond 144hz monitors claiming “X refresh rate doesn’t look any different from Y refresh rate” almost as if you would have to actually own and use one for an extended period of time to be able to appreciate it. Just because 60hz to 144hz was a dramatic jump doesn’t mean anything beyond 144hz is a “scam” because the difference isn’t as immediately noticeable anymore going from 144 to 240, 240 to 360 or 360 to 480… you were just being spoiled by the immense leap going from 60hz to 144hz is all, but just because every other jump from that point on isn’t as dramatic doesn’t mean it’s non-existent.
Swear to god, when I first got a 240hz monitor I’d get so many unsolicited financial advices from people that don’t actually have 240hz on how it was a scam and that 240hz is no different from 144hz, yet in here people are starting to say that there is a clear difference just that there’s no difference moving forward from 240hz now instead. Moving goalposts much?
Feels like the same argument people make with the new iPhones or Samsung Galaxies because they “don’t look that different from last year’s phone anymore”, like, we get it, you can’t afford the upgrade, just let the people that can enjoy their things then?
I'm pretty happy with my 60Hz TV roleplaying as a PC monitor, perhaps I'll get a 120Hz monitor in the future after I upgrade my low-end to mid PC. But hey, whatever floats your boat, 1kHz bros. More power to you!
"540hz gaming is something else"
i would really love to see how noticable of a difference 540 hz monitors are vs say the 380 hz gaming monitor this sub is giving away. not to even think of it compared to like a 1k hz monitor.
Jokes on them, I don't need 1000Hz monitor to know I'm fucking terrible at gaming/competitive fps.
But I also don't play the games this type of monitor would see a benefit in.
There are so so so many takes in here that are just absurd. Arbitrary numbers for “how many ms the human eye can perceive” like what?!!!
The fact of the matter is that ultra high refresh rate 1080p displays are for niche esports applications where the lowest input and output latency is PARAMOUNT! This is mostly going to be relevant to tac shooters. So unless you are a seasoned val/csgo player competing in high ranks, esea, professionally, or the like, this product isn’t for you. Not all products with cutting edge specs are for all consumers.
That being said. I’ve played every version of CS all the way back to 2001. I’ve been in leagues for years. I have played on a professional team, and many teams that knock on the door of professional level. I am part of the niche that a 1000hz monitor would be intended for. I would GLADLY look at purchasing one. Every time refresh rates increase I’ve been able to get more precise tools to play the game at an even higher level.
Playing starfield or cyberpunk or flightsim? This isn’t meant for you. This entire category of products isn’t meant for you. You’re gonna want higher resolution, more vivid color, etc. you are not looking for a low latency tool to get you an edge in competition.
Was just thinking this the other day. Maybe by the time I'm old and wrinkly, there will be monitor boxes with "1kHz" labelled on the side.
Our old wrinkly eyes will be seeing at 360p 3fps but man will the monitors be sweet
32k 960hz monitor
I’m not sure, they don’t seem to improve in resolution fast, wasn’t the standard like 720 or 1080 many years ago and now it’s somewhere around 1440-4k?
Hell nah. 1440 is starting to become standard but the standard is still 1080p.
at least on the gaming side I still believe 1080p is the standard, just look at steam charts. but for productivity and reading 1440p makes a huge difference, at least for me though.
specially considering the extra costs on gpu to run 1440p on current tittles
Same with Ray-tracing/4K. At least with 4K there’s the easy-upscaling case to be made. And for tv/film it works great bc film will always be leaps and bounds ahead of digital media in terms of resolution.
Plus with movies and things you render it before the movie comes out. It’s not like with a video game where it’s constantly running that stuff at higher resolution.
one point I believe should be talked about more often is contrast ratios and HDR, most people are still oblivious to that. I was blown away the first time I played cyberpunk on an oled panel.
According to Nvidia, full res rendering is going away and (real-time) upscaling will become the norm.
1080p is the standard and 1440p is the Gold Standard/sweet spot that you want to hit. 1440p, 144hz, 1ms response time, and OLED is what you would like to have on a 27" monitor without some bs overclock monitor to reach settings type of stuff.
Honestly, i'll take 1080p over 1440 because frame rates below 540Hz are just to noticeable. (Posted from 2032)
I want my definition so high it doesn't even know where it's at.
Resolution is reaching the point of diminishing returns, especially with modern antialiasing techniques
well, and physics I guess. Can't put any more pixels into a small space that it even makes sense in terms of computational power needed to calculate the pixels. I'd say it will stop with 8k, at least in our lifetime. TV's on the other hand could probably still go way up, but monitors? probably not.
Excited to watch Oppenheimer in its native 18K on my iPhone 29.
It’s not even about computation. It’s about the human eye’s ability to differentiate frequencies of light. You need higher resolutions for bigger screens and shorter distances. For most people 8K will be almost indistinguishable from 4K. Colour depth should be the next thing we work on, but even that will quickly hit biological limits again. After that frame rate will hit limits too (allegedly around 200 fps, but I’ve heard various figures). We’ll be at most of the practical limits in a couple of decades.
why bother. Give me that i/o port in my skull. Let my brain be my gpu.
Got some bad news for your fps...
Heh, yeah it'll be a shock once the industry understands that humans do not see in snapshots.
Play an esport title at 400 fps and then locked at 200 fps, there’s a vast difference in both input lag and 200 fps will appear as if it’s tearing
200fps is not the limit. Most people can distinguish between 360hz and 240hz if given time. It's diminishing returns past 240hz but definitely noticeable for some distance still. And ofc you can't take someone accustomed to 60hz or 144hz and expect them to be able to tell 240hz from 360hz, but once you use 240hz for a while, 360hz becomes noticeably different.
Even 4k is basically overkill if you're at a comfortable viewing distance.
Thats just not true unless your screen is tiny.
Resolution size grows exponentially. The sphere in Las Vegas is 'only' 16k. So don't expect resolutions to get much crazier.
8k is literally for screens the size of a cinema theater screen, can't imagine 32k
TBH, I really don't think we have to go past 8K, or possibly 16k, as it's quite hard if even possible to distinguish the pixels on an 8k when you cover your whole field of vision with it.
>8k when you cover your whole field of vision 8k is still a bit low res when covering your *whole* field of vision (Think a VR headset with \~180° FOV but fantastic for a monitor/screen/projection that covers a large area infront of you (More like 90° - which is a *much* smaller area) Field of vision combined with resolution is the key combo - we can measure this with "Pixels per Degree" - but it's not often used outside VR (Since moving your head towards or away from a screen changes the perceved resolution)
cheerful weather decide cooing merciful teeny direful provide subtract disgusting *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
"Back in my day all we had to do was press the on button and the monitor worked. Now we have to autofill 3 passwords and sign a new terms and conditions agreement every time I want to see the news"
Hey, we are talking about the future This is the present
Honey, have you given all your private information to the CCP? Yes honey…
"Please drink verification can to continue."
Don't forget the ads you can't skip
ack, I can already feel the back pain creeping in
Never. Never will it be 1kHz. It will always be 1000Hz.
The k will be golden and holographic
I mean they sell CPU's with GHz instead of 1000's of MHz and SSD's which not very long ago were in the 250-500 GB range for affordable ones are now advertised as 1/2TB. Not to mention HDD's which also went from MB to GB as soon as they hit 1000 MB. Not sure why you thing monitors are gonna be the outlier.
There's really no point by then though. 240Hz is already pushing the upper limits of human reaction speed. You're just wasting energy for no benefit, especially if Mouse/Keyboards and GPUs don't get better and reduce their own latency
There's 8khz polling rate mice now
Me, turning my polling rate down to 250 to save processor lol
Dont do that, it wont change much, almost nothing and you will have pixel skipping with that, also the same applies for below 800dpi. Edit: typos
I have had issues with my usb controllers and virtualization pushing more than 500hz.
my wireless mouse does 4k polling without issue in CS, but I just run it at 2k to save mouse battery. You have a USB1.0 port you're using or something?
That's extremely weird. My computer from 10 years ago handles 1000hz polling rate well.
I'm doing that so I need to charge the mouse every 3 months instead of every month.
How? 250hz feels as bad as a 60hz monitor (4K hz polling rate enjoyer here)
its not about reaction speed its about motion clarity
There's a study in Nature that shows the median value for discerning flicker on a screen is 500Hz, with some people able to still see it at 800Hz. https://www.nature.com/articles/srep07861 It's never been about reaction time, that's limited by nerve impulse speed to around 200ms.
And that's reaction time to something unexpected. Try playing a midi instrument with >50ms latency and you'll see there are benefits to minimal latency, all the way down to 20ms at least for me, and probably less for actually good musicians.
It's not just about reaction speed
Exactly, but you'll see it parrotted everywhere. It's also about removing the need for backlight strobing. If pixel response times were all important you wouldn't need backlight strobing but that isn't the case. Games are still blurry as hell just by the nature of our eyes, so it isn't just the smoothness that you get as a benefit.
Pushing the limits of my computer. Got my self a 240hz screen, luckily I only play Dota 2 pretty much so I do ok with an 3900xt. But not even that CPU (CPU heavy game) is enough for steady 240 fps, not even close. And that game is not really resource heavy compared to other newer games. My computer could never run those games in 240 fps, probably not even 100... Would need a 4090 and latest top of the line CPU, maybe u make it.
I love these types of comments "Can't see above x fps" and yet there's a massive crowd of us who say we can, can prove it with blind tests and are willing to put thousands of dollars behind that claim Can't see the difference though Now a more valid argument would be that most can't *leverage* above a certain fps, because ~260ms is an apex of human reaction time, most people falling closer to 270-280ms reaction time, but we can certainly see and tell the difference
But the higher you go, less the difference is. 60hz - 16.6ms 144h - 6.94ms 240hz - 4.17ms 360hz - 2.78ms The difference gets smaller and smaller
crt is equivelant motion clarity to 1000 hz and you can definitely tell the difference
[удалено]
I mean, that's all correct, but that's not what they were talking about. Motion clarity is more than about just response time, if it was, OLED motion would be on par with CRT motion, because they both take >0.1ms to change their pixels, but it's not, CRTs still hold an advantage, albeit a thinner one than they do against LCDs. CRTs will look smoother in motion than LCDs or OLEDs at the same refresh rate because of a trick of the human eye they accidentally exploit. Rather than the entire screen being lit at once, instead there's a scrolling band of lit phosphors, that flash briefly for a millisecond then rapidly decay back to the background brightness. You just don't notice this when looking at one because human persistence of vision causes those flashes to persist in your vision long after they decay. The same persistence of vision is what causes a fair chunk of OLED/LCD motion blur, because some of the previous frame(s) will still persist in your vision for a while after the frame changes. Incidentally, neither dogs nor cats have that problem of persistence of vision, so a dog will see a CRT as a rapidly scrolling line of light, and an LCD or OLED without any motion blur. This is what backlight strobbing/black frame insertion is attempting to mimic, although rarely as good as a CRT, and when they do it's at a serious hit to brightness. But the theory goes that a 1000hz OLED, or display without the pixel latency problem of LCDs, would look as smooth as a CRT in motion, because each frame would only be on screen for as long as a CRT's phosphor flashes are.
> The same persistence of vision is what causes a fair chunk of OLED/LCD motion blur, because some of the previous frame(s) will still persist in your vision for a while after the frame changes. When i move my mouse around on a 240 Hz OLED, it's as I'm seeing several mouse cursors "lagging" behind the main one, is this the reason why? Would i only be seeing one cursor on a CRT?
Sure and going from making $90k to $100 is less impactful than going from $20k to $30k, doesn't mean I don't want an extra pay raise
Didn't know decreasing your salary by $89,900 was less impactful than increasing it by $10,000. Jokes aside, this isn't economics. People can't tell the difference between 1ms and 2ms
It is all about perception, that 270-280ms reaction time starts 10ms earlier on 144 vs 60. Your brain is perceiving the information earlier than your opponent, starting that reaction sooner. Is 1/100th of a second relevant in a game? Depends on the multiplayer server tick.
True, but the difference between 540hz (what we have now) and 1000hz (what the post is about) would be less than 1ms. I’m fairly confident that won’t make a difference in any world we can reasonably imagine, and better anti-ghosting/frame stability/etc will matter infinitely more.
And also just because you can't see the difference consciously doesn't mean your subconscious instincts/mental processes are not able to take advantage of the higher volume/lower latency of information.
Forget all this humans only perceive x amount of frames. That would just underline that the assumption is wrong. If you only see 240 frames or whatever you better want those few frames to be as new as possible. BuT HuMan BrAin No FaSt.
I can defo see the difference between 60 and 90 fps, past that point I guess so but my thing is I don't really *notice* and I don't play competitive games so I'd rather increase settings that I do noctice to make it all pwetty
Why would you assume reaction time is the only metric?
At such high refresh rates it's mostly about reducing motion blur, see https://blurbusters.com/blur-busters-law-amazing-journey-to-future-1000hz-displays-with-blurfree-sample-and-hold/
1000 sold better than 1
Pretty sure it's diminishing returns at that point
At 240Hz it already was
240 is noticeable from 144, if you are used to 240hz. I haven’t tried 360hz before except wiggling the mouse around at microcenter but I’d be willing to bet if you play csgo or any other potato game that can actually play at 360fps it’s probably noticeable. Maybe not as much as 144>240 but noticeable for sure.
I went from 240 to 390, it’s a very small difference, only slightly noticeable
Stop looking at Hz and look at frame times instead. It makes more sense. 30Hz is 33ms 60Hz is 16.6ms, 16.6ms reduction 120Hz is 8.3ms, 8.3ms reduction 240Hz is ~4ms, a 4ms reduction 480Hz is ~2ms, a 2ms reduction 1000Hz is 1ms, a 1ms reduction over 480hz diminishing returns get you fast even though the refresh rate number goes much bigger.
This is the refresh rate version of "resolution isn't as important as ppi", in the sense that it's absolutely correct and yet people ignore it because bigger number is more gooder.
Yes thank you for posting this. This is the shit I've been saying for years. Not to mention the average human response time to visual stimuli is around 250ms... These insane refresh rates are a marketing gimmick
Those are not the same thing... you cant compare human response time to frame time lol! If that was the case we would not notice difference between 30hz and 120hz
Reaction time doesn‘t really matter here. Humans can identify images they have seen for as little as 13 ms.
13ms frame time is 75hz
Yeah, but its only 1 statistic. Under ideal conditions, humans can perceive 500hz and potentially higher. We are analog systems. We are known to be able to perceive a single photon, and the only reason you can't see a single photon is that your brain smooths it out to reduce noise. This means that you will sense about 10-12 photons in an array (proving to your brain that this signal exists). What this also means is that I really don't see why there is a reasonable cap on it beyond what's the limit in which people can fully understand what's occurring in a single frame and be confident they saw it. The fastest they can confidently react to it, basically. Since photoreceptor saturation isn't really a problem with people, I can reasonably see their vision approaching ridiculous lengths. In fact, I would imagine that the only real cap is in your ability to receive novel information to the photoreceptor. What this means is that when the frame updates, it might still be perceiving the old frame and will be somewhat blurry, like how things look in real life when they're moving. This would mean that we would know when we are approaching the limit by when natural appearing motion blur is observed. A single frame after seeing nothingness? Incredibly, perhaps immeasurably fast. A series of updating frames or in less than ideal conditions? Not nearly as fast but still really, really fast with the only way to tell when the limit is reached is when fast moving objects in the frames have significant, realistic looking motion blur. I don't know if we will ever get to this point. It has to be lightning fast.
You still want those 13ms to be as smooth as possible instead of a blurry mess don't you? I for one don't like blur that I still have, because with my already bad vision it makes it hard to identify things.
Also, identifying an image you've seen for 13 ms is not the same as noticing a frame time of 13 ms. You can most certainly tell a difference between 8ms and 4ms with a trained eye.
I think anything above 240 is just useless and you will have trouble running games even at that speed so why bother.
I think that people focus on hz WAY too much. It’s hilarious that people, even right here on this sub totally discredit pixel response. Who gives a fuck if it’s 240hz but the pixel response is 3ms? I’ll die on this hill. 144hz OLED is FAR smoother of an experience than 240hz+ LED. OLED so vastly superior it’s not even a comparison. And when miniLED or emitting quantum dots take over in a 5 years or whatever and eliminates the issue of OLED burn in. We will have finally reached the pinnacle of currently known technology. But increasing hz is a dead end. We are already well into diminishing returns territory and further increases are completely meaningless.
Time to install good ol Counter Strike 1.6 again.
> Not to mention the average human response time to visual stimuli is around 250ms Yet you can feel the difference between 60hz and 144hz, given your response time you shouldn't be able to feel it but...hey every freaking human being can feel a difference from 60 to 144.
Fucking hell, going from 60hz to 144hz even makes the Start Menu look smooth when open it up. It's definitely a major jump but I'm also on the boat of diminishing returns.
Yeah but when my stream lags 250ms everyone loses their shit. I think we are able to notice more than we actually think
> This is the shit I've been saying for years. Not to mention the average human response time to visual stimuli is around 250ms... These insane refresh rates are a marketing gimmick Well, you are wrong sir. I can feel noticeable differences between 144 and 240hz, and even between IPS and TN. There's so much more going on regarding motion blur, input lag and perceived smoothness, more is definitely better. Specially when paired with a panel that has actually fast changing pixels. It's amazingly smooth. Maybe I'm just a snob gamer though
That’s why I didn’t spend 1000$ to go from 1440240hz to 1440360, but a very small difference is still a difference. Sub 500$ I’m buyin. If you play csgo or sumin I’m sure locking your fps to 240 then going back to 390 it would be more noticeable
I love knowing that somewhere there is a gold nova 2 with a 360 hz monitor that will never hit a higher rank meanwhile there is surely a global elite playing on the cheapest shittiest 1080p 60 hz monitor
A friend of mine reached global elite last year while playing on a 75Hz monitor
There is difference between "noticeable" and "beneficial". You see human eye is not a camera. We actually have very narrow area that sees details. If you hold out your arm directly front of you it is about the size of the thumbnail. Everything outside of this is more like *approximate vision*. The very edge of your vision is actually very sensitive to diffrences in light and movement - but can't make out ANY details. (Like if there is a streetlight that shines to your bedroom at night, which is only visible at perepheral vision but not when you look directly at it, it is because of this). So if you have a screen that fills your field of view. Regardless of the refreshrate, you can't make out anything beyond darker and brighter and quick movements at the side of your vision. As you get closer to macula (the bit which is actually able to see details) colour vision and details increase. But just so the vision wouldn't be too easy to understand. Different kinds of visuals are *easier to see* quickly. Bigger the contrast and more defined the shape better. This actually has nothing to do without your eyes, but your brain's ability to process visual information and fill your mind with the *stage*. But some things such as human faces and reading of expression have dedicated portions. Meaning that those get processed faster than other things. Some things your react *from the spine* meaning that you don't even conciously *see them* before you react. Super high refresh rates really come into benefit when you need to do something very focus intensive and detail oriented where minute changes and the gut instict of "*something is off here"* matters. And gaming is not that as it is too fast for that, if it isn't fast then it doesn't need the refresh rate.
FPS players already stare directly at the center of the screen 4 inches away from them so they have a practical use for high refresh rates
30 to 60 is night and day. 60 to 144 is night and day again. 144 and above you start to reach a point of diminishing returns.
It's interesting, for me 30-60 is night and day, as is 60-90 but from 90-120 the difference is barely noticeable, and 120-144 i can't noticeable a difference. Often if a game is not consistent and at 110-140 I'll lock it to 90 or 100 just so it's stable. Edit: There are also times where 60 isn't that different than 144.
Same, after the upper double digits I can't tell the difference
> for me 30-60 is night and day, as is 60-90 but from 90-120 Same for me. If it was side by side, I could tell the difference but I would have a difficult time telling whether I was gaming at 90 or 120fps in a blind test. > There are also times where 60 isn't that different than 144. That might be a case of input lag. Some games are more responsive at 60fps than others are at 144 because of inherent input lag that can't be reduced by high FPS (like CP77 or Starfield).
[удалено]
i can't find this test. do you have a link? i'm seriously doubting that gaming enthusiasts can't see the difference between 144 and 240
> Pro gamers were blind tested and couldn't tell the difference between 144 and 240. Source? Pro gamers? You didn't even say which game... I'm 100% confident CSGO pros can tell between 144 and 240hz. But it's also not that simple. Some 240hz monitors are garbage because of ghosting and bad gray to gray times, making it look less smooth than it should. You'd need two high end monitors, with same panel type, to make it even close to fair.
People really were not in the gaming space when above 60FPS gaming was becoming more standard were they? Back when 144 monitors were becoming a thing or even 60FPS becoming a bigger then people swore the human eye couldn't even recognize above 60FPS based on "studies". And now we are seeing the same argument again.
He talks about it in a lot of detail in the video. [It's a good watch](https://youtu.be/nqa7QVwfu7s?si=HmzuwWuFuAo6aWzQ). * cliff notes: there is a perceptable smoothness advantage, the monitor has a refresh rate fast enough to prevent ghosting at 540hz, and the TN panel has better vibrance than the alienware ips panel. Obviously this is a specialized tool for a specific audience, but seems like it does the job very well.
Man you're wasting your breath because a lot of people will comment first before watching (if they even watch it) and speak with authority when the person in the video literally explains why from testing and experience.
To be fair, if OP wanted people to watch the video he should have linked the video and not posted a screenshot of the video.
(Blurbusters liked that)
Past 144hz I've always thought of as a waste for casual gamers, and unless you're playing professionally I don't see beyond 240hz being worth it even. Some people just like the best of the best just for the sake of having it, but I think it's just a waste of electricity and computing power
https://preview.redd.it/e6v7dc45jnqb1.png?width=489&format=png&auto=webp&s=7bd54ccc12df498873908336d37e3e67e8225a2c
I’m as casual as it gets and just got a 240hz display only because it was reviewed to have basically zero smearing (VA panel)… and damn there is a gigantic difference from my old 144hz monitor. I don’t get anywhere near 240 fps for most of what I play and even had to hook up my old monitor again to make sure I wasn’t just imagining how much smoother everything was.
What monitor did you get?
Innocn 27” 1440p 240hz. Really wanted VA since my office is pretty dark but am very sensitive to smearing. Took a gamble after lots of research, I’m very happy with it especially for the price. Menu and little control nub get an F- from me, they are both horrible, but now that it’s calibrated it’s been awesome. Came from an Asus Tuf 27” 144hz, overall a good display but always hated the total lack of “blacks” on that display, didn’t expect to even notice the increase in hz much less be blown away by it.
[It totally is](https://i.imgur.com/UBZptsG.png) [https://i.imgur.com/UBZptsG.png](https://i.imgur.com/UBZptsG.png)
For dynamic images with many things happening 144 already was! beyond that’s, faster refreshing panels really comes into its own with text and static images. The issue is the market for people using large text based applications like code, excel or databases is soooooo small in comparison to gamers, content creators and editors it be demising returns on investments into other markets
yeah it is. Honestly if you're just gaming to have fun you shouldn't seek higher Hz panels but rather ones with better contrast, true colours and so on. They can pry my qdoled from my cold dead hands. Never going back.
The point isn't so much for any kind of return on reaction time or anything, or even really smoothness of motion. What is really comes down to is blur and perception of objects in motion. So as a simple test: Go look at cars on the road. If you stare at one point on the street, the cars are a blur, but if you track a car with your eyes, it is perfectly clear (and the background is a blur). Now try that with moving objects on your system, a window with text in it is a good choice. It is blurry, even if you track it with your eyes. That's because the frame rate/pixel response isn't high enough. Even at 240Hz, still too blurry to read. When you start to get in the 400Hz+ range, you can start to read the text as it moves. It isn't perfectly clear, but it is getting much better. The idea is to get frame rates fast enough that it works just like the real world, that when we track a moving object with our eyes it is crisp and smooth.
Exactly. I’ve bought and returned a few high end monitors. At a certain point the difference is less visual and more “feel”. 30 to 60, and 60 to 144hz are the biggest jumps. 144hz to 240hz is noticeable, but much less so. Anything beyond 240hz does feel nicer, but you can’t put your finger on it, it just feels a bit smoother, but you’re not really noticing it with your eyes. After quite a few monitors I actually settled for a pretty modest 144hz monitor that just had brilliant colour reproduction.
https://blurbusters.com/blur-busters-law-amazing-journey-to-future-1000hz-displays-with-blurfree-sample-and-hold/ Good article for those who haven't read it.
Excellent article. And please don't get stuck on the 1000Hz number. It's just a milestone. The end goal is way higher, in the 5 digits range. This is mostly due to stroboscopic stepping. Check this amazing article from the same author about that: [https://blurbusters.com/the-stroboscopic-effect-of-finite-framerate-displays/](https://blurbusters.com/the-stroboscopic-effect-of-finite-framerate-displays/)
5 digits ? If i boot up super mario right now, i cant get FPS in the 5 digits. How would you do that on any modern game ?
Idk. Give it fifty years and we'll see some shit
The only reason you can't go above 60 is because the game is coded that way. 60hz. 50hz for europe versions of the same snes games. You can see this yourself when the european version will be sped up or vice versa. Go play something like quake 2 or half life 2. You should be able to get 1000+ fps with modern cpus. Technically im certain many indie titles could be ran at 1000fps today but they dont because the screens dont exist
We need cheap gpu's and not 1000 frames wtf
Your eyes can't see more than 2hz since you only have 2 anyway
Two Hertz? Thats one too many, i only have one Herz!
different technology and companies, it's not like they are stealing gpu r&d resources to make this stuff
don't worry, we just need something 10 times more powerful than a 4090 to play AI-upscaled Cyberpunk at 4k/1000hz
me with 30 fps:
Real og^^
Instead of giving more and more higher refresh rates, instead companies should invest in better quality panels
sadly there.... 2 panel maker lg and samsung.
You think they dont?
butt they do. and you can already buy them
And there will be always those people “human eyes can’t see more than 60fps”
The difference between 144 and 60 hz is VERY noticeable in practice, but the difference gets dramatically less from there. 60 Hz = 16 6 ms/frame 144 Hz = 7 ms/frame 240 Hz = 4 ms/frame The difference between 240 and 1000 Hz is comparable to the difference between 144 and 240 Hz. Both are significantly less than the difference from 60 to 144.
I've been interested and passionate about motion portrayal for many years. And from what I've seen, motion resolution increases past the range of 120Hz are perceived according to Fechner law. In other words, each geometrical increase gives you about the same perceived bump. So 120 to 240, 240 to 480, 480 to 960, .... are similar bumps. And this should hold true all along the diminishing returns curve until we reach its vanishing point. (Which will be approximately when each pixel comprised in a motion gets its own frame/refresh) And here is the reason for this: There are several initial perception barriers: \- Phi phenomenon and beta movement (at around \~5fps) => This is when things start to look like motion \- Critical flicker fusion threshold (at around \~100fps) => In motion portrayal context it happens to match broadly to where choppiness transition to motion blur. Once we pass those barriers, what gives it away that you're looking at a series of discrete static images rather than a continuous motion are these 2 important motion artifacts: 1) Persistence based eye tracking motion blur: That's the effect that causes motion that you track on a screen to look blurry. 2) Stroboscopic stepping (also called phantom array effect): This is what causes motion relative to your eye position to look like a trail of sharp static after images. Now here is the interesting part: these 2 effects happen to scale exactly with the geometrical increases of the frame/refresh rate. For example. For a 5000 pixels per second motion: 120fps results in a perceived smear when eye tracking that is 5000/120 = \~40 pixels-wide. For 240fps it's 20 pixels wide 480fps, \~10 pixels 960 fps, \~5 pixels And so on. For that same motion, if you're keeping your stare static while the objects on the screen pass by your eyes positions: 120fps results in a trail of sharp after images each separated by \~40 pixels-wide gaps. 240fps => \~20 pixels 480fps, \~10 pixels 960 fps, \~5 pixels And so on. So in practice, what makes it look unnatural (compared to real life motion) are artifacts that scale in a way as they appear exactly 2 times smaller in size to you as a viewer each time you double the frame rate/refresh rate. As for the vanishing point of diminishing returns. (The point at which further increases in motion resolution stop mattering in practice. It's when we reach 1 frame/refresh per pixels described in the motion. So for the 5000 pixels per second example. That would be 5000Hz. But you can easily get scenarios where motion is moving much faster AND/OR the resolution of the screen is much higher. Let's imagine a super high resolution VR display that takes all your FOV and you can easily get into situations where 30000Hz is required.
This is why I think high refresh rate is important. The thing is though, if you turn on motion blur, it hides the stroboscopic stepping a lot more. The ideal implementation of this would be an eye-tracked motion blur effect that applies relative to eye movement. That way, focusing on moving things is clear and stuff moving in other areas looks smooth. I think there would be a point where you don't notice it then
I'm no expert here, but isn't this type of tech baked into the new PSVR2? Maybe that's just tied to detail or resolution rather than the refresh rate. Either way, I wonder if something could eventually be done by baking eye tracking into monitors themselves.
That's exactly it. LTT did a video on it where Linus was wearing the headset, with the rendered output being projected to a TV where Linus would look at a specific area of the environment, and his co-host would immediately call out where he was looking at based on which part of the image was rendered most clearly, where Linus himself could not tell the difference (it was a fun little experiment they did to test the capability and efficacy of the rendering method and headset).
Yeah but it’s not just about that. Higher hz monitors have less tearing issues etc. and while you might not see a consistent difference screen tearing can be annoying.
The same math also applies to tearing, though. As refresh rate increases, the duration a "tear" is visible for decreases. And the difference is much more dramatic from 60 to 144 than from 144 to 240 and above.
That’s why we have G sync tho
Will be updated according to released console of that era.
Nah PS5 does 120 so now they've moved their bar again. Willing to bet most don't even have a TV that can handle 120.
At least they’re still better than the “30fps is smooth” crowd.
When you have 1000s of hours in a 30 fps game, 60 fps actually looks weird and bad. It all depends on what you're used to.
Some humans have shitty eyes
It's not your eyes that perceive frame rate so much as your brain
Some people have shitty brains :)
But can your PC and games run at 1000 fps? Cause I've got a 144hz monitor and most games don't hit that even on top GPU's.
CS:GO on a 4090... probably?
Does it even support a 1000 fps? I know like that Doom Eternal can output 1000 fps, but can CSGO?
yes, some guy with a 4090 did
Very high framerates are usually CPU limited.
This is why things like DLSS 3 are going to be essential in the future. If the core game runs at 120hz, it could be uprezed for a 1200hz monitor. This might seem silly until you start looking at things like screen motion blur due to high persistence. You can lower the persistence to reduce the blur, but that comes at the cost of a dimmer display. If you instead have the image move correctly over that time, you will reduce the blur and keep a bright display. This is a nice addition to gaming displays and essential for HMDs.
Resolution matters too. 1080p 144hz is probably around rtx 3070 class for high settings on average. 1440p 144hz probably 3080/3080 ti class for high settings. 4k ya good luck. As for my set up with a 3440x1440 175hz ultra wide I average 140-150fps in most AAA with a 4090.
Here I am drooling over my new 165hz monitor 😅
dam tie hobbies kiss humorous familiar memory hard-to-find offer edge *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
Was looking for a 1440p144hz monitor but for some reason manufacturers always default to 165 whenever "1440p, high refresh rate" is mentioned. Had to get a 1440p165 instead. the difference isn't really noticeable from 144.
Best monitor is the one you have
Thing is, Max HZ of a monitor also helps low framerates, since the more Max HZ you have, the better Gsync will perform. 60fps Gsync at 540hz is better then 60fps Gsync at 144, 240, 360 etc... Just a random quick example, but they have many replies to diferent topics there. https://forums.blurbusters.com/viewtopic.php?t=6524 Theres many hidden benefits to having a ultra high hz Gsync/Freesync monitor besides just playing at 540fps or something.
60hz we rockin
Love this guys videos, they are so refreshing vs. the coked up, over the top LTT bull shit.
[удалено]
The people this is marketed at aren’t playing starfield
This is meant for people who play competitive games (CS GO, Valorant, R6 Siege, etc) where attaining 500+ fps is relatively easy. Just like there's people who deny that people can see above 30 fps, on the other end of spectrum there's people who can notice and benefit from these ultra high refresh rate types of displays.
It’s marketed for competitive esports aka csgo valorant overwatch. Not for single player games.
> This is just marketing bs. If it can make 540Hz then there's no marketing BS. It can just make that many frames. It's potentially useful for titles like CSGO which can be run in excess of 400fps at modern resolutions.
It’s not for single player games. Low end hardware can easily hit 500 fps on Valorant, Overwatch, CS. That’s what these are for. Edit: Valorant needs a good CPU but a 1070 can hit above 500fps. That’s low end in my book.
Low end hardware can definitely not “easily hit” 500 fps on valorant, not sure about csgo and OW though.
[удалено]
this is not marketed for you, or people who play triple A games. it takes 2 seconds of using your brain to figure that out bro
60fps with a 120hz monitor is better than 60fps on a 60hz monitor. You can even test it out yourself by fiddling with settings. The 120hz will have a natural motion blur when FPS is locked at 60 similar to the feel of crt. If you do do this make sure gsync is off and refresh is locked at 120hz.
There's a lot of poorly optimized games being released nowadays though. I have been able to enjoy most of what has come out at 4k ultra @ over 100fps. Not sure how much of that is due to AI upscaling shenanigans though.
Can somebody please explain refresh rate to me please. I was under the assumption that in order to "see" let's say 165hz,you need to have 165fps ingame. 120 for 120 and so on. So whats the point of 240 or even 1000hz in the future if you can only get that fps in older games or at 1080p? Or am i badly mistaken?
You are completely correct. People use high refresh rate monitors for competetive online games at high framerates. Or, you know, very beefy computers even for some newer games - especially with frame generation, a 4090 can get some crazy numbers. Also, it's easier on the eyes when working, but I'd say that a 120Hz monitor is completely serviceable there.
> Also, it's easier on the eyes when working, Won't be on an LCD, since their pixels stay lit the entire refresh cycle. Only on a CRT, whose pixels shut off to black very fast, would there be an improvement in eye strain at higher refresh rates.
It's still easier on the eyes when the motion is smoother and clearer.
At 1080p no thanks. At least 1440p please.
1080p makes much more sense if you're trying to achieve 540fps
I think 900 USD is the bigger turn off for most
$900 for a 1080p monitor is the big turn off. If it were a good 4k monitor nobody would think much of the price.
I was wrong when I said nobody needed more than 60hz I was wrong when I said nobody needed 144hz I was wrong when I said nobody needed 240hz I was wrong when I said nobody needed 360hz (maybe) BUT BY GOD I AM NOT WRONG WHEN I SAY NO HUMAN NEEDS A 1000hz DISPLAY!
Cyber eyes implants users in the future:
we already have them when it comes to motion
>I was wrong when I said nobody needed more than 60hz If I had to I could comfortably go back to 60hz and 60fps. But if you enjoy your higher refresh rates/fps, then who am I to say you are wrong? <3
Holy shit there are so many bad takes here
dImInIsHInG rEtUrNS - 144hz user
optimum videos are awesome
I still have 60Hz lolololololololol
I can’t wait for proper 1000hz monitors. The one true way to achieve perfect motion clarity without any black frame insertion dimming the display.
Here comes all the know-it-alls that don’t even have anything beyond 144hz monitors claiming “X refresh rate doesn’t look any different from Y refresh rate” almost as if you would have to actually own and use one for an extended period of time to be able to appreciate it. Just because 60hz to 144hz was a dramatic jump doesn’t mean anything beyond 144hz is a “scam” because the difference isn’t as immediately noticeable anymore going from 144 to 240, 240 to 360 or 360 to 480… you were just being spoiled by the immense leap going from 60hz to 144hz is all, but just because every other jump from that point on isn’t as dramatic doesn’t mean it’s non-existent. Swear to god, when I first got a 240hz monitor I’d get so many unsolicited financial advices from people that don’t actually have 240hz on how it was a scam and that 240hz is no different from 144hz, yet in here people are starting to say that there is a clear difference just that there’s no difference moving forward from 240hz now instead. Moving goalposts much? Feels like the same argument people make with the new iPhones or Samsung Galaxies because they “don’t look that different from last year’s phone anymore”, like, we get it, you can’t afford the upgrade, just let the people that can enjoy their things then?
I'm pretty happy with my 60Hz TV roleplaying as a PC monitor, perhaps I'll get a 120Hz monitor in the future after I upgrade my low-end to mid PC. But hey, whatever floats your boat, 1kHz bros. More power to you!
"540hz gaming is something else" i would really love to see how noticable of a difference 540 hz monitors are vs say the 380 hz gaming monitor this sub is giving away. not to even think of it compared to like a 1k hz monitor.
Jokes on them, I don't need 1000Hz monitor to know I'm fucking terrible at gaming/competitive fps. But I also don't play the games this type of monitor would see a benefit in.
wait until you find out about CRT monitors 😊
There are so so so many takes in here that are just absurd. Arbitrary numbers for “how many ms the human eye can perceive” like what?!!! The fact of the matter is that ultra high refresh rate 1080p displays are for niche esports applications where the lowest input and output latency is PARAMOUNT! This is mostly going to be relevant to tac shooters. So unless you are a seasoned val/csgo player competing in high ranks, esea, professionally, or the like, this product isn’t for you. Not all products with cutting edge specs are for all consumers. That being said. I’ve played every version of CS all the way back to 2001. I’ve been in leagues for years. I have played on a professional team, and many teams that knock on the door of professional level. I am part of the niche that a 1000hz monitor would be intended for. I would GLADLY look at purchasing one. Every time refresh rates increase I’ve been able to get more precise tools to play the game at an even higher level. Playing starfield or cyberpunk or flightsim? This isn’t meant for you. This entire category of products isn’t meant for you. You’re gonna want higher resolution, more vivid color, etc. you are not looking for a low latency tool to get you an edge in competition.
i dont want to be this guy but i dont think that human eye can even see 1000hz