News AOC Unveils Lightning-Fast 0.5ms Response Gaming Monitors


Apr 3, 2001
Retire 1080p already...:unsure:
Retire any display under 240hz and above 1ms response time... :unsure:

See what I did there? What fits your needs doesn't necessarily fit the needs of others. A TON of gamers prefer fast response times and high refresh rates over resolution and gamut. When you're on a budget the choices get even tougher.
I'm a tightwad and I won't spend that much on a display, but it's good to see someone pushing displays sub-1ms response.
They are reporting the "MPRT" response time which takes into account backlight strobing, rather than a more usual metric of the actual pixel response time such as grey-to-grey, and it's not like there are any standards in place for companies to measure response times by, so I'm not sure this "0.5ms" response time actually means much. It's a bit hard to take monitor specifications seriously for any screen that advertises a 50,000,000:1 "dynamic" contrast ratio for a panel that actually only offers contrast of about 1,000:1.

Plus, you can't enable backlight strobing and adaptive sync at the same time, so you will miss out on FreeSync or G-Sync with the feature enabled, and backlight strobing reduces maximum screen brightness as well. In any case, even at 240Hz, pixels have multiple milliseconds to complete a full transition without creating significant ghosting. Maybe the image will remain slightly sharper during motion, but it's still a TN panel, so it's not like image quality is going to be great. Expect mediocre color accuracy, mediocre contrast, and mediocre viewing angles from the screen. I'd be more interested in hearing about improvements to the several-millisecond pixel response times that are typical for IPS and VA panels. Or how about an industry-standard way of accurately measuring response times and other monitor specifications so that we are not left with the manufacturer's marketing numbers?

Why? Nearly 65% of gamers out there, at least on Steam, are gaming at 1080P. There's more 720P gamers then 1440P & 4K combined.
While that's true, it's kind of hard to tell much about what the situation is like in a particular market based on results of the Steam Hardware Survey. It would be nice if you could filter results by region, and various other criteria. For example, how many of these systems are laptops? How many are installed in net cafes? How many are HTPCs connected to televisions? How many are 10+ year old systems used only to run older titles and indie games? You can't really gain a good picture of what kind of monitors people are buying now for gaming based on that. You'll also see 1080p screens dominating Amazon's Best Sellers list, but how many of those are being used for gaming? It's kind of difficult to draw any definitive conclusions from the data.

I do agree that 1080p is still a very viable resolution though, especially since graphics card performance hasn't exactly been progressing all that fast over the last few years. "Mid-range" graphics cards are still best suited for 1080p in the latest games, and if raytraced lighting effects catch on and we don't see significant hardware advancements in that area for a while, even those with higher-end cards may need to limit their resolution to get good frame rates with those effects enabled. And of course, high refresh rates are now a desirable feature, and it can be difficult to keep frame rates in the 100+ fps range in many games at resolutions above 1080p without high-end hardware.
Reactions: WildCard999