News BOE Demos 600 Hz Gaming Laptop Display

[Admin]

BOE shows off the industry's first 600 Hz LCD panel for notebooks.

BOE Demos 600 Hz Gaming Laptop Display : Read more

 

[Neilbob]

My willpower isn't strong enough. I have to say it. I just do.

Pointless, pointless, POINTLESS!

 

[ikernelpro4]

Now this is just stupid.

600hz means nothing except higher prices to produce this nonsence.

------
144hz is enough, especially considering that you have to hit 144 fps in the case of games which is questionable for notebooks and desktops already.

Even then. 600hz (which you won't notice anyway) for what? Firefox? Explorer? Money well spent....

 

[Alvar "Miles" Udell]

It's going to sell like hotcakes to "eSports" people though, even if it does have a garbage TN panel.

 

[btmedic04]

all hail Jensen for finally, after 18 long and arduous years, has provided us with the ability to play CS:GO the way it was intended to be played: at 600 fps/600hz

/end sarcasm

 

[hotaru251]

144hz is enough, especially considering that you have to hit 144 fps in the case of games which is questionable for notebooks and desktops already.

in fps games you want frames when you are competitive.

this means low resolution and settings as low as possible to make the frame rate high as possible.


stupid, but its what some ppl do.


i do agree its pointless to have 600 refresh rate

 

[watzupken]

It's going to sell like hotcakes to "eSports" people though, even if it does have a garbage TN panel.

I am not sure eSports player will be gaming a on laptop to begin with. Chasing after ridiculous refresh rate is just really for marketing, with no practicality. Problems I foresee,

1. At 600Hz, it is going to kill battery life,
2. At 1080p, no matter what GPU you slap on the laptop, it will be very CPU bound since mobile CPUs have a tight power limit to work with as compared to their desktop counterpart, And yet, the desktop counterparts are severely bottlenecking the RTX 4090/ 4080 at 1080p.

So can the 600Hz be realized in real world usage, particularly for gaming? Doesn't sound like it.

 

[boe rhae]

i don't remember demoing this at all!

 

[derekullo]

While they are at it they should demo an 12" 640x480 1200 hertz monitor

 

[oofdragon]

Do you know at how many fps life happens in front of our eyes? It doesn't.. time is not a set of frames. It's not like screens will catch up to real life motion, ever. So whats up to it? Better response time? Less motion blur? Did it really matter to anyone playing Mario 64 at 30fps? Can you really beat me on CS if you are playing with a 480hz monitor and I with a 60hz IF I play better than you? I must aknowledge that a120hz does look more pleasing on a smartphone compared to a 60hz one, that means when there are 240hz models I may say "eh... I think I maybe noticed something?.. now 240hz to 480hz? Put 10 people looking at them side by side and tell which is which.... It's pointless beyond that point

 

[oofdragon]

240hz/fps is end game, no matter how you look at it; same for 4K. Today a monitor like Neo G9 is really end game. Haters will hate but if you put side by side a 1080p/60Hz Plasma next to a 4K/120hz OLED there are still people who are going to think the plasma is the better looking, these numbers means nothing in real life. If you call over your girlfriend to play Mario 64 with you on your N64 vs with a RTX3080... you think she's going to actually notice the fps difference? Sorry guys but this is NERD assumption. It's the same at photo equipment reviews the NERDS crying "my medium format stomps your 4/3".. but when you actually print it.. the girlfriend (the tech clueless) won't tell the difference, there is virtually none. Fps stalkers are the new pixel peepers of old, same waste of mental resource and just marketing e

 

[-Fran-]

I'm loving the sarcasm in here, unironically.

I agree, for the most part. Anything above 144Hz is strong "diminishing returns" territory. Even 120Hz becomes almost indistinguishable from anything higher.

People will be more receptive to input delay than pure FPS'es and Linus put an interesting video about it yesterday in fact, so nice timing:

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IvqrlgKuowE


Regards.

 

[King_V]

I . . just . . can't.

I didn't even know there were native 480 and 500Hz screens.

360Hz was stupid when it came out. 240Hz was stupid when it came out.

Even 144Hz is past the threshold where the human eye can distinguish.

"A fool and his money..." and all that.


Oh, hey, anyone remember that guy who posted insisting that his eyes could distinguish 1000fps, and, I think, asking about how he could get videos to play to satisfy his eyes? Maybe he's the target audience?

 

[DavidLejdar]

... Can you really beat me on CS if you are playing with a 480hz monitor and I with a 60hz IF I play better than you? ...

Technically, 60 FPS means one frame per 16.67 ms, and at 480 FPS that is 2.08 ms. So, assuming a situation in which you and your opponent each have the same reaction time, the same internet connection latency, and so on, your opponent has constantly an advantage of about 14.59 ms.

Of course, that is a rather ridiculous time-frame in regard to casual gaming, with i.e. movement in CS not being that fast that one could peek around the corner in less than 15 ms (a peek you wouldn't notice at 60 FPS, as that movement could be inbetween the frames you are seeing). But counted across 100 matches, your accuracy may be slightly lower, and even a mere 1% lower performance may be quite an issue when it shows e.g. in that tie-breaker match one step away from qualifying for a tournament, and similar.

Myself, I will be fine with 120 FPS though. I do some online gaming, but spending hundreds extra to get 6 ms less between frames with a 360 Hz screen (and at a lower resolution at that), such doesn't seem worthwhile to me (neither).

 

[YouFilthyHippo]

Lol. When the 4090M comes out we will finally be able to play roblox on a laptop at 600FPS

 

[helper800]

I . . just . . can't.

I didn't even know there were native 480 and 500Hz screens.

360Hz was stupid when it came out. 240Hz was stupid when it came out.

Even 144Hz is past the threshold where the human eye can distinguish.

"A fool and his money..." and all that.


Oh, hey, anyone remember that guy who posted insisting that his eyes could distinguish 1000fps, and, I think, asking about how he could get videos to play to satisfy his eyes? Maybe he's the target audience?

The difference between 60 / 75 / 90 / 120 / 144 / 165 hz to me is very obvious. 180 / 240 / 280 / 300 / and 360 hz from those lower ones I mentioned were basically exactly the same for me at least. To me the difference between 144hz and 165hz was subtle but there. Between 165 and anything more I could not discern a difference is smoothness of any type even the ufo tests were exactly the same looking even with different response times and overdrive settings.

120-165 or so monitors is where its at imo.

 

[Axell]

Can't wait to have this on my cellphone

Sent from my ASUS Zenfone 5 (KILL ME PLEASE)

 

[ikernelpro4]

in fps games you want frames when you are competitive.

this means low resolution and settings as low as possible to make the frame rate high as possible.


stupid, but its what some ppl do.


i do agree its pointless to have 600 refresh rate

it's all bs. It's all meaningless and a waste of time.

 

[ikernelpro4]

so on, your opponent has constantly an advantage of about 14.59 ms.

which in the real world means <Mod Edit>

 

[helper800]

which in the real world means <Mod Edit>

I mean, you cannot know that for sure though. Try to get the equivalent of masters in some of these esports games at 60fps, I bet you would on average have a marginally easier time with a higher refresh rate.

The main reason higher refresh rate monitors help to an extent is that our brains can only interpret information on a screen so fast. The faster the screen shows that information to you the faster you can theoretically react to it. You can even calculate the increase in theoretical reaction speed at different monitor refresh rates. For example a 1000hz monitor has a 1ms latency between frames. Compare this to 60hz at 16.67 ms. This means on a 1000hz monitor you will theoretically be able to react 15.67ms faster than your opponent on a 60hz monitor.

The reason I keep saying theoretically is because this scenario is more complicated than this in the real world, but isolated as a direct comparison it can be quantified as so.

 

[hotaru251]

it's all bs. It's all meaningless and a waste of time.

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OX31kZbAXsA


if you reject literal video proof i can't help you.


there are benefits.
there is for sure a diminishing return.

but again these extreme high refresh rates (i.e basically anythign over 240) are not aimed at everyone.

 

[King_V]

Wait a minute... and yes, I ask this because I don't feel like wading through over half an hour of video to find the specific info in looking for...

Is this the video that asks for subjective views, and checks to see whether people can notice a high frame rate (or game better with it) when compared to 60 hz/fps?

If so, then it's garbage.

If not, then, while my curiosity is slightly piqued, it still doesn't constitute "literal video proof" because it's not anything close to scientific rigor and it's too small of a sample size.