Acer Releases Predator Monitors With 200MHz+ Refresh Rates Into The Wild

[IInuyasha74]

Acer announced three new Predator displays that boast extraordinarily high refresh rates of 200Hz or higher. They also feature support for G-Sync to improve your gaming experience.

Acer Releases Predator Monitors With 200MHz+ Refresh Rates Into The Wild : Read more

 

[hdmark]

i think there is a small typo in the title unless these monitors are INCREDIBLY fast

these do look awesome though. im wondering what the people who say humans cant see faster than 60hz anyway will say about these monitors

 

[RomeoReject]

OK, legitimate question: Is going beyond 144Hz beneficial to anyone? As it stands, I already can't really see the difference on any display north of 100Hz, 200 vs 144 sounds like the kind of thing you'd tell yourself you notice, while secretly admitting you don't notice.

 

[hdmark]

OK, legitimate question: Is going beyond 144Hz beneficial to anyone? As it stands, I already can't really see the difference on any display north of 100Hz, 200 vs 144 sounds like the kind of thing you'd tell yourself you notice, while secretly admitting you don't notice.

im going to say yes. but most likely will only be the enthusiasts. I bet professional games will see the difference instantly and use it to their advantage, where my mom doesnt see any real difference between my 1440p and my 1080p

 

[grimfox]

Through training the human Eye can be trained to pick up faster and faster movements. There was a team of softball players that put different stickers on a softball and ran the balls through a pitching machine. They then called out the different stickers and increased the speed of the pitching machine until they could accurately identify the stickers on 100mph fast balls. Given that, I wouldn't say it's impossible to see those types of changes in refresh rate but I do wonder if something like that truly provides a useful advantage.

 

[RomeoReject]

OK, legitimate question: Is going beyond 144Hz beneficial to anyone? As it stands, I already can't really see the difference on any display north of 100Hz, 200 vs 144 sounds like the kind of thing you'd tell yourself you notice, while secretly admitting you don't notice.

im going to say yes. but most likely will only be the enthusiasts. I bet professional games will see the difference instantly and use it to their advantage, where my mom doesnt see any real difference between my 1440p and my 1080p

I'll be completely honest, unless I'm sitting up close, I'm like your mama: Can't spot the difference at more than three feet out. Though I use a TV, might be different if I were up close with a monitor.

 

[dbdarrough]

I wonder what the G-Sync range is.

 

[sillynilly]

For mere mortals this is a silly Hz - you won't notice the difference. At least your 1080 will render fine for these poopy 1080 panels (just my opinion!)

 

[Kewlx25]

Human vision does not see in frames. It's a continuously integration of visual input where the brain is really good at finding anomaly.

For example. What you see is only integrated into your consciousness about 15 times a second. You may think that's 15fps, but it's not. The brain integrates many visual cues and adds meta-data to objects seen, like direction of movement. If an object jumps more than a small percentage of its size, your brain will see the same object as two different objects. This means if a rocket goes flying across your screen, it can't move more than a few pixels at a time without confusing your brain into thinking there are multiple rockets.

In laboratory experiments, humans can see into the thousands of frames per second and can recognize a pulse of light as short as a few femto-seconds (0.000000000000001 seconds) in pitch-black aka 1,000,000,000,000,000 fps

FPS/HZ does not apply to human vision. We don't see in discrete amounts, we have a more analog vision.

 

[Kewlx25]

The eye actually has an amazing ability to detect resolution at the center, and horrible everywhere else. If you hold out your thumb at arm's length, your eye could discern 6 megapixels crammed into your thumbnail. This averages to about 256 megapixels for your entire vision per eye. But everything outside of that thumbnail sized spot only has a total resolution of 1 megapixels.

In theory, a 7 megapixel display with 6 of the megapixels packed into a small spot in the center is all you need. But your eye can move and is constantly moving. There is already some DX12 implementations to take advantage of this and only render the center quarter of your display at 4k and the rest at 1080p. Even better would be eye tracking with very low latency to dynamically move high resolution section of your monitor.

 

[alidan]

OK, legitimate question: Is going beyond 144Hz beneficial to anyone? As it stands, I already can't really see the difference on any display north of 100Hz, 200 vs 144 sounds like the kind of thing you'd tell yourself you notice, while secretly admitting you don't notice.

going from 60 to 144 I could see the difference in everything from moving files to games,

going from 144 to 240 would likely be as big a jump, but nothing new can be pushed that far, or rarely can be pushed that far.

normal desktop use would probably be amazing, as so with displaying images in games, as it would push the image faster reducing the perceived input lag, free and gsync also do this, but having a monitor do it just because its so damn fast is better as its less crap that can go wrong at any given time.