Solution
Yeah, at 144Hz, pixel transitions should be performed in under 7ms to be completed within the span of a single frame, or at least come close, whereas a 16ms panel is only enough to complete pixel transitions within a 60Hz refresh window. And this panel doesn't even quite manage that, averaging over 18ms, with many dark-level transitions taking close to 30ms. Even the fastest transitions to black take over 10ms.

That's some pretty abysmal performance for a "144 Hz" screen, and coupled with the poor color range, it doesn't seem to be a particularly good panel. It's like Asus sought out the cheapest 60Hz IPS panel they could find, then fed a 144Hz signal into it just so they could market it under those specifications.
Yeah, at 144Hz, pixel transitions should be performed in under 7ms to be completed within the span of a single frame, or at least come close, whereas a 16ms panel is only enough to complete pixel transitions within a 60Hz refresh window. And this panel doesn't even quite manage that, averaging over 18ms, with many dark-level transitions taking close to 30ms. Even the fastest transitions to black take over 10ms.

That's some pretty abysmal performance for a "144 Hz" screen, and coupled with the poor color range, it doesn't seem to be a particularly good panel. It's like Asus sought out the cheapest 60Hz IPS panel they could find, then fed a 144Hz signal into it just so they could market it under those specifications.
 
Solution

GeneralMercer

Honorable
Nov 20, 2016
144
1
10,685
Yeah, at 144Hz, pixel transitions should be performed in under 7ms to be completed within the span of a single frame, or at least come close, whereas a 16ms panel is only enough to complete pixel transitions within a 60Hz refresh window. And this panel doesn't even quite manage that, averaging over 18ms, with many dark-level transitions taking close to 30ms. Even the fastest transitions to black take over 10ms.

That's some pretty abysmal performance for a "144 Hz" screen, and coupled with the poor color range, it doesn't seem to be a particularly good panel. It's like Asus sought out the cheapest 60Hz IPS panel they could find, then fed a 144Hz signal into it just so they could market it under those specifications.
So is it better to buy a laptop with less response time and 60hz ,because the asus one can't even manage 60?also is there a method to calculate maximum refresh rate at a particular response (like 60hz at 16ms)?
 
Actually I watched harware unboxed's review of asus a15(on YouTube and he seems pretty reliable) and he was basically saying that having 144 hz refresh rate and such bad response time doesn't make sense
It results in more blur than have a lower response time, but that's true regardless of whether you're above or below one frame time. If you have a 60 Hz monitor with an 18 ms response time, there will be more blur and longer motion trails than on a 16 ms monitor. But 16 ms will have more blur than a 14 ms monitor which will have more blur than a 10 ms monitor. And a 144 Hz monitor with 10 ms response time will have motion trails the exact same length as a 10 ms 60 Hz monitor, even though the frame time (7 ms) is less than 10 ms and a 60 Hz monitor (with 16 ms) is more. There is no special threshold that is crossed when you go below the frame time of the monitor. It's not like "aha, the response time of 10 ms is longer than the 7 ms frame time of a 144 Hz monitor, so the blur will be really bad, but if it's a 60 Hz monitor, then the frame time is 16 ms and the response time of 10 ms is less than that, so the blur is ok in that case". No, the amount of blur is the same in either case.

Although there are many people who say "if the pixels can't change within one refresh period, then it's effectively like it's operating at a lower refresh rate", this is total nonsense that comes from a misunderstanding of how these things work.
 
Although there are many people who say "if the pixels can't change within one refresh period, then it's effectively like it's operating at a lower refresh rate", this is total nonsense that comes from a misunderstanding of how these things work.
If a pixel can't finish transitioning from one color to another before switching to the next frame, then it largely defeats the purpose of attempting to display those additional frames. The pixel will never reach its intended color while the image is in motion, and those extra frames will largely be lost in the sea of blur. If a transition can be completed within the refresh window, you at least have it eventually reach its intended color for some length of time before moving onto the next.

This panel seems to be particularly bad for a supposedly gaming-focused device, as at 144fps, the average transition would take close to 3 frames to complete, with many transitions taking over 4 frames. The panel has way too much ghosting to be used as a high refresh rate screen, and it seems pretty clear Asus was just looking for the cheapest panel they could find while deceptively marketing it with specs that would look good on paper. When people see 144Hz IPS advertised in a gaming laptop's description, logically one would assume that it's a screen with good properties for gaming, like the vast majority of 144Hz IPS panels are, with minimal motion blur and above-average color quality, not one with bottom-of-the-barrel response times and colors. The screen still wouldn't be good if Asus treated it as a 60Hz panel, but at least then people might not be quite as deceived into thinking it was something more.

So is it better to buy a laptop with less response time and 60hz ,because the asus one can't even manage 60?also is there a method to calculate maximum refresh rate at a particular response (like 60hz at 16ms)?
From what I gather, most 144Hz laptop screens should be significantly better than this one, so generally a 144Hz panel would be better. But I suspect most 60Hz gaming laptop screens should also be better than this particular model, though with 60Hz, you won't get as smooth of motion at high frame rates compared to a (decent) 144Hz panel.

The refresh rate is simply how many times per second the image on-screen updates, and milliseconds are 1/1000th of a second. So at 60Hz, each frame will be displayed for 1000/60 seconds, or 16.67ms. At 144Hz, that would be 6.94ms.

Of course, there's also response times, which are how fast the pixels can physically shift from one color to another, which usually don't get advertised in a reliable way, and only some reviewers will test for that. Again though, for the most part, I suspect most gaming laptop screens will tend to be better than this one, although there are probably some other models using similar budget panels out there.
 
If a pixel can't finish transitioning from one color to another before switching to the next frame, then it largely defeats the purpose of attempting to display those additional frames. The pixel will never reach its intended color while the image is in motion, and those extra frames will largely be lost in the sea of blur.
This is an explanation that is very theoretically sensible, but falls apart when you consider the real world situation of what pixel transitions are actually occurring on the screen.

The pixel will never reach its intended color while the image is in motion

This assumes that everything only stays on the screen in the same spot for a single frame, that every object on the screen moves to a totally different region of the screen, with no overlap with its previous position, with every single frame. The reality is very far from this. Most pixels will reach their intended color, even if the response time is longer than the frame time, because nearly all pixel transitions stay on the same color (or a similar color, where the transition between them doesn't really matter much) for more than one frame. At 144 Hz, pixels have an opportunity to change every frame, but generally only a few pixels change drastically each frame, most of the other pixels stay close to their previous color (where the transition isn't that important whether it's 50% or 80% or 100% done, since the starting and ending color are very similar anyway). The pixels that change to a drastically different color each frame are generally different from the pixels that changed drastically in the previous frame, so the previous frame's pixels have time to complete their transitions. This becomes more true at high refresh rates, where the amount of time between each frame is less, and so the amount by which objects move between each frame is much less.

The only color transitions that really matter are high-contrast color changes, which occur primarily at the edge of objects. If the object is more than a few pixels wide then it will take several frames for the object to pass through any given point (pixel) on the display, and so most pixels have several frames to transition to the correct color. Meanwhile, the edge of the object continues to move, and its position will be updated (new pixels will begin transitioning) every 1/144th of a second. At the very least, people who claim "well it says 144 Hz, but it has 10 ms response time in testing, so it's effectively like having only a 100 Hz monitor" is just incorrect, as the effect of having a 10 ms response time on a 144 Hz monitor is not that it behaves the same way as if it were operating at 100 Hz; that is not true. But it is something that people say, based on theory/logic, not on testing or experience.

There is surely a disadvantage to having a 10 ms response time on a 144 Hz monitor, and that is that there is increased blur compared to 7 ms. But there's nothing particularly special about being longer than the frame period; 7 ms itself has more blur than 4 ms, which has more blur than 1 ms. If you hold the theory aside and just examine for example a 144 Hz VA monitor (which may be 30 ms in dark transitions) with a high-speed camera, what you'll find is not that "it's just like it only updates a 30 Hz", what you'll find is that it looks blurrier than a 10 ms 144 Hz monitor, and 10 ms looks blurrier than a 4 ms 144 Hz monitor, and 4 ms looks blurrier than a 1 ms 144 Hz monitor. There's no sudden transition where you pass below the frame time and you can suddenly make out all the details of the image, as people seem to suggest.
 
This assumes that everything only stays on the screen in the same spot for a single frame, that every object on the screen moves to a totally different region of the screen, with no overlap with its previous position, with every single frame. The reality is very far from this. Most pixels will reach their intended color, even if the response time is longer than the frame time, because nearly all pixel transitions stay on the same color (or a similar color, where the transition between them doesn't really matter much) for more than one frame. At 144 Hz, pixels have an opportunity to change every frame, but generally only a few pixels change drastically each frame, most of the other pixels stay close to their previous color (where the transition isn't that important whether it's 50% or 80% or 100% done, since the starting and ending color are very similar anyway). The pixels that change to a drastically different color each frame are generally different from the pixels that changed drastically in the previous frame, so the previous frame's pixels have time to complete their transitions. This becomes more true at high refresh rates, where the amount of time between each frame is less, and so the amount by which objects move between each frame is much less.
I still think you're looking at this wrong. Especially in fast-paced games where one's view can change significantly from one frame to the next, lot's of smaller objects and details will be completely lost in the blur. Take for example, turning one's view in an FPS game, where there's another player in the distance along the horizon. Unless your view is stopped in the same position for multiple frames, there will be virtually no overlap from one frame to the next with a "144Hz" screen that has an average pixel transition time of over 18ms. As a result, the pixels will only complete about one-third of their transition to the intended colors for that player before heading back toward the background color for the next frame. So they will only appear as a transparent ghost, significantly less visible than they would otherwise be. And that will be even more of a problem if there isn't a lot of contrast between them and the background to begin with, yet the transitions are still just as slow. On a 60Hz screen with the same pixel transition time, they would at least get a chance to just about complete the full transition momentarily, resulting in greater perceived contrast against the background, even though the positional jumps would be larger from one frame to the next. And this also goes for things like pixel-level texture details that will similarly get blurred out of existence when in motion, even in slower-paced games.

As for 144Hz VA panel screens, that's not really comparable, as they typically perform far better than the IPS panel used in this particular laptop. On VA screens, slow response times are generally limited to transitions between black and other dark colors or pixel elements. The vast majority of pixel transitions tend to be relatively fine though, particularly if the screen provides a decent overdrive implementation where most of the transitions are able to remain fully-completed for some time within a frame. As such, many would find that as a reasonable tradeoff to allow for VA's superior contrast ratios. With this screen, there's no such tradeoff though. The response times are significantly worse than a typical high refresh VA with none of the transitions coming close to completing within the refresh window, the color gamut only covers two-thirds of the standard SRGB color space resulting in desaturated colors and negating IPS's primary selling point, and it lacks the high contrast of something like VA. It's a pretty weak screen all around, and Asus was clearly cutting corners when putting it in that laptop.
 
I still think you're looking at this wrong. Especially in fast-paced games where one's view can change significantly from one frame to the next, lot's of smaller objects and details will be completely lost in the blur. Take for example, turning one's view in an FPS game, where there's another player in the distance along the horizon. Unless your view is stopped in the same position for multiple frames, there will be virtually no overlap from one frame to the next with a "144Hz" screen that has an average pixel transition time of over 18ms. As a result, the pixels will only complete about one-third of their transition to the intended colors for that player before heading back toward the background color for the next frame. So they will only appear as a transparent ghost, significantly less visible than they would otherwise be. And that will be even more of a problem if there isn't a lot of contrast between them and the background to begin with, yet the transitions are still just as slow. On a 60Hz screen with the same pixel transition time, they would at least get a chance to just about complete the full transition momentarily, resulting in greater perceived contrast against the background, even though the positional jumps would be larger from one frame to the next. And this also goes for things like pixel-level texture details that will similarly get blurred out of existence when in motion, even in slower-paced games.
I understand the argument, I just think you overestimate how often what you're describing really manifests in reality. Even in FPS games when moving or looking around, most frames are only slightly offset from the previous frame. If you whip the camera around really fast then sure, but the overall effect is basically that it will look blurrier.

My main concern is people that say "aha well it has a 10 ms response time, that means even though it says 144 Hz, it's really only effectively operating at 100 Hz" which is just nonsense.