News New 360Hz Asus Monitor Lands Just in Time to Tax New GPUs

Toggle sidebar Toggle sidebar
"Not to mention that you'll need a powerful video card like the upcoming RTX 3090 to actually hit performance high enough to take advantage of 360Hz"

I don't think you'll need an RTX 3090 as much as you'll need a CPU that can drive that many frames. Right now, a 2080 Ti is largely bottle-necked by the CPU, especially at 1080p.
 
"They then showed her a demonstration of a Dota map scrolling at 240Hz vs 360Hz, where Harding said she could notice a slight improvement "

Can anyone say placebo effect?
 
Funny how some kid will buy this and will still be in the bottom of the leaderboard. Get buyer's remorse. Lose interest in gaming. And dad malds after spending all that money.
 
Endymio said:
"They then showed her a demonstration of a Dota map scrolling at 240Hz vs 360Hz, where Harding said she could notice a slight improvement "

Can anyone say placebo effect?
Click to expand...
Dota pros play games at less than 144hz too. Most of them play at Ultra settings 1080p and they can get max 120 to 130 with all the effects and elements in the game. Some of them even plays with vsync on.

I really don't know who they market these things for. If it's a project.. then good job. 360hz. But why?!
 
Well according to science anything more than 10-20 for some people is just considered motion. and reality states that we can't see more than 60 FPS anyway, but that is just science, its never right
 
drivinfast247 said:
I can easily see, tell, feel the difference between 30, 60 and 100fps.
Click to expand...
Not being argumentative-- but have you ever seen attempted to detect the difference between those framerates in a blind-study manner, i.e. in which you didn't know beforehand which is the highest rate?

This peer-reviewed research paper found that performance in a FPS videogame saturates at about 30 fps, and no benefit beyond 60 fps:

Mark Claypool, Kajal Claypool, & Feissal Damaab (2006). The Effects of Frame Rate and Resolution on Users Playing First Person Shooter Games. Proceedings of SPIE.
 
Endymio said:
Not being argumentative-- but have you ever seen attempted to detect the difference between those framerates in a blind-study manner, i.e. in which you didn't know beforehand which is the highest rate?

This peer-reviewed research paper found that performance in a FPS videogame saturates at about 30 fps, and no benefit beyond 60 fps:

Mark Claypool, Kajal Claypool, & Feissal Damaab (2006). The Effects of Frame Rate and Resolution on Users Playing First Person Shooter Games. Proceedings of SPIE.
Click to expand...
I cannot play a game at 30fps. It makes my eyes hurt and I feel off. 60 and up is really no problem.

I'm talking all types of games.
 
Endymio said:
Not being argumentative-- but have you ever seen attempted to detect the difference between those framerates in a blind-study manner, i.e. in which you didn't know beforehand which is the highest rate?

This peer-reviewed research paper found that performance in a FPS videogame saturates at about 30 fps, and no benefit beyond 60 fps:
Click to expand...
I think you're misrepresenting the conclusions of that paper. Although there is a kneepoint in performance between 15 and 30 fps, there is still measurable performance improvement going from 30 to 60.
"[...] there are performance benefits for user play up through 60 fps [...]"

They say nothing about performance capping at 60 fps, nor can they given they didn't test past 60 fps.

I'd also be curious to see how results might differ if a similar test was performed with human opponents rather than bots.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: LB23
360Hz? That's ridiculous! We need OLED and 4K144Hz screens, not 360Hz 1080p gray blacks. My oced 2080Ti struggles at 4K144Hz, it can run any game maxed except RDR2 above 60fps. I don't think RTX3090 will do 4K144 in all games anyway. I will stick with my 4K60 for a good time.
 
Ferimer said:
Well according to science anything more than 10-20 for some people is just considered motion. and reality states that we can't see more than 60 FPS anyway, but that is just science, its never right
Click to expand...
Changing just my desktop from 144 to 60 is jarring how stuttery even a window looks as you move it across the screen. I would like to see the study you claim the says we cant see more that 60 fps. Sounds more like opinion from someone who never used a higher refresh rate monitor than science.
 
LB23 said:
Changing just my desktop from 144 to 60 is jarring how stuttery even a window looks as you move it across the screen. I would like to see the study you claim the says we cant see more that 60 fps. Sounds more like opinion from someone who never used a higher refresh rate monitor than science.
Click to expand...
Google it? why do i have to do the work for you? go to google and type in ( can your eyes see more than 60 frames per second" and you will get your answer.
 
Ferimer said:
Google it? why do i have to do the work for you? go to google and type in ( can your eyes see more than 60 frames per second" and you will get your answer.
Click to expand...
The reason the onus is on you to provide the evidence is because you're the one making the claim.

But I went ahead and googled what you suggested. None of the results supported what you claim. In fact many results are specifically about refuting the claim that humans can't perceive a difference between FPS greater than 60.
 
TJ Hooker said:
The reason the onus is on you to provide the evidence is because you're the one making the claim.

But I went ahead and googled what you suggested. None of the results supported what you claim. In fact many results are specifically about refuting the claim that humans can't perceive a difference between FPS greater than 60.
Click to expand...
I dont even know why im posting this, I said the science is never always right as everyone is different. I also said for some people after 10-20 its just considered motion. We truly cant see more than 60FPS doesnt mean there isnt a difference when it comes to perceiving motion. There is so much work done on this subject from both sides. I do not wish to engage in this discussion, whether you want to believe the science or not is up to you.
https://www.pcgamer.com/how-many-frames-per-second-can-the-human-eye-really-see/
 
I'm not a gamer but does it makes sense?
I could understand 120Hz and fast movements when scene moves a lot but 360?
 
Ferimer said:
I also said for some people after 10-20 its just considered motion. We truly cant see more than 60FPS doesnt mean there isnt a difference when it comes to perceiving motion.
[...]
https://www.pcgamer.com/how-many-frames-per-second-can-the-human-eye-really-see/
Click to expand...
I agree that the cutoff for perceiving motion rather than a series of still images is roughly 10-20 fps, I don't think anyone's arguing against that.

I think I see where our disagreement lies, and it appears to be based on semantics as much as anything. You seem to draw a distinction between "seeing" and "perceiving [visually]", and one of the interviewees in that article (Chopin) seems to do something similar. Those two terms seem synonymous to me however. Unfortunately the discussion in that part of the article, along with Chopin's comments, offers a very poor, at times outright contradictory, explanation.

I have no idea what difference is implied by saying "see" vs "[visually] perceive", because they mean the same thing to me.
 
TJ Hooker said:
I agree that the cutoff for perceiving motion rather than a series of still images is roughly 10-20 fps, I don't think anyone's arguing against that.

I think I see where our disagreement lies, and it appears to be based on semantics as much as anything. You seem to draw a distinction between "seeing" and "perceiving [visually]", and one of the interviewees in that article (Chopin) seems to do something similar. Those two terms seem synonymous to me however. Unfortunately the discussion in that part of the article, along with Chopin's comments, offers a very poor, at times outright contradictory, explanation.

I have no idea what difference is implied by saying "see" vs "[visually] perceive", because they mean the same thing to me.
Click to expand...
What they're saying is that anything over 60Hz won't necessarily make you better in a game and I think that's true. Personally the difference between 60 and 144Hz for me was small, it is there but not very noticeable. I compared monitors in a computer store. I prefer higher resolution over high hz personallly, I am happy with my 4K60Hz LG screen. I will only upgrade it when OLED comes out, 144Hz will be a bonus but not necessary for me.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Moderators online

Share this page

COMPANY
RESOURCES
FOLLOW
Top Bottom