News World’s Fastest Gaming Monitor Hits 500 Hz Refresh Rate

jacob249358

Prominent
Sep 8, 2021
630
214
790
13
anything beyond 240 is stupid imo. It costs so much and it barely feels different. Once you have hit like 144 or 165 I would rather up the resolution and settings.
 

sycoreaper

Reputable
Jan 11, 2018
57
10
4,535
0
Id like to know what practical purpose this serves other than bragging rights and emptying gulible consumer pockets.



anything beyond 240 is stupid imo. It costs so much and it barely feels different. Once you have hit like 144 or 165 I would rather up the resolution and settings.
What makes 240 the magic number? Id be more inclined to agree with your 165 assessment. Not many games reach above that or if they do there isnt much visible benefit. I have a 300hz panel but have no idea why. 3070 cant reach 300 except Doom or Duke Nukem.

And Plasma televisions really were 600hz...
Not the same. Read the top post, it explains it well. Thread
 

jacob249358

Prominent
Sep 8, 2021
630
214
790
13
Id like to know what practical purpose this serves other than bragging rights and emptying gulible consumer pockets.





What makes 240 the magic number? Id be more inclined to agree with your 165 assessment. Not many games reach above that or if they do there isnt much visible benefit. I have a 300hz panel but have no idea why. 3070 cant reach 300 except Doom or Duke Nukem.



Not the same. Read the top post, it explains it well. Thread
Well for some people who play fps games competitively 240 is good to have but for average consumers, 165 is all you need.
 

sycoreaper

Reputable
Jan 11, 2018
57
10
4,535
0
Well for some people who play fps games competitively 240 is good to have but for average consumers, 165 is all you need.
Im talking about the monitor in the article, the 500hz one. That statement was independent from your comment, only the part below applied to yours
 

btmedic04

Distinguished
Mar 12, 2015
282
80
18,890
22
why is this a thing? id much rather see advances made to reduce the cost of MicroLED, reduce the chance for burn in on OLED etc. We dont need faster panels than whats on the market currently, we need better panels to come down in price and become more accessible to more folks
 

Neilbob

Distinguished
Mar 31, 2014
74
56
18,620
2
If they build it, they will come.

Also, many people are really good at talking themselves in to believing they can tell a difference in order to justify paying more than is really necessary.
 
Reactions: jacob249358
I’d like to have go of this before passing judgment. Having recently gone 1440p 240Hz I was surprised how much of a benefit it was over my 1440p 144Hz, even in games where the fps are about 160fps. I assume it’s to do with the faster response time of the pixels resulting in less smearing. I never noticed a problem when I used my 144Hz as my main monitor but stepping up to 240Hz showed me what I hadn’t noticed. Now I do expect there are diminishing returns. If you are making a living from esports though any tiny edge is probably worth it.
 

Nolonar

Distinguished
Dec 17, 2013
174
43
18,710
0
Even if your PC can't supply those 600 FPS, having a faster screen means less tearing. At 60 Hz, a torn frame would be visible for16.6 ms, whereas at 600 Hz it would be visible for only 1/10 the duration. This could very well be the difference between "I need to turn V-Sync on" and "V-Sync doesn't do anything besides adding input lag".
 

Friesiansam

Distinguished
Feb 9, 2015
144
66
18,670
2
When people spend a lot of money on something, confirmation bias can make them believe many things. Like, for example, a monitor refresh rate beyond 200Hz actually makes a difference...
 

King_V

Illustrious
Ambassador
I was going to say "this is getting stupid," but it got stupid a long time ago.

I'm still waiting for the science that proves that humans can really distinguish much beyond 100Hz.

That statement seems to outrage people. Outrage, but never really garner any real proof other than some "well, these couple of gamers tried it out" video, or, typically, comparing how they can see the difference and game better between 60Hz and whatever super number they're going with.
 

sycoreaper

Reputable
Jan 11, 2018
57
10
4,535
0
I was going to say "this is getting stupid," but it got stupid a long time ago.

I'm still waiting for the science that proves that humans can really distinguish much beyond 100Hz.

That statement seems to outrage people. Outrage, but never really garner any real proof other than some "well, these couple of gamers tried it out" video, or, typically, comparing how they can see the difference and game better between 60Hz and whatever super number they're going with.
If you can't tell the difference between 60hz and 120hz you might want to see a neurologist.
 
Jan 31, 2022
5
1
15
0
By common sense pixel response time is 1ms x 500hz = 500ms from every 1000ms(1sec) its only changing pixels. So this device half time displaying what it should and another halftime its only changing pixels. 1000hz with response time 1ms means it will never display anything properly only blurring. What do you think ? Am i right ?
 

King_V

Illustrious
Ambassador
If you can't tell the difference between 60hz and 120hz you might want to see a neurologist.
I can.

My point is that the very people touting these higher and higher speeds don't prove their point about the benefits when they compare the latest ultra-high-speed-refresh rate to 60Hz. You don't need 240, 360, or 500Hz to see an improvement over 60Hz, because even 100Hz is a visible improvement over 60Hz.

Show me testing that holds up to scientific rigor that proves the benefits of any of the higher speed refresh rates above the commonly available 144Hz, and then I'll have to reassess my conclusion.

Until that point, anything over 144Hz, or even 120Hz or 100Hz, is a waste of money. 144Hz has the benefit in that it's cheap because it's so commonplace.
 

King_V

Illustrious
Ambassador
I probably should have also included . . "and above and beyond that, how fast the fastest human being can understand and possibly respond to what is being seen."

As I recall, the fastest response recorded was at a speed that equates to approximately 83Hz...

EDIT: that said, there's a difference between noticing flicker, and noticing something recognizable.

And, yes, in the old days, a light or white screen background (say, using Microsoft Word) at 60Hz on a CRT would eventually give me headaches, and I could ever so slightly detect the flicker. 75Hz, however, was comfortable.

The article linked states viewing of a stable picture, not of rapid movement.
 
Jan 31, 2022
2
1
15
0
anything beyond 240 is stupid imo. It costs so much and it barely feels different. Once you have hit like 144 or 165 I would rather up the resolution and settings.
Honestly. This 500Hz FHD (lol) display is purely a marketing gimmick intended to bolster the brand's name rather than provide a useful option in the market among side current existing tech. BEsides, if someone did own a graphics capable of pushing out close to 500 Frames Per Second at 1080p resolutions, they are 10/10 times better off waiting until the Samsung G8 32" 4K 240hz monitor releasing in the middle of this year which result in a far greater gaming experience.
 
Reactions: jacob249358
Jan 31, 2022
2
1
15
0
You'll wait a long time for that, the human vision system is simply not fast enough.
Lol, anecdotal evidence has universally shown by practically everyone that has experienced it, that there is a significant difference between 60Hz and 144hz, and while less noticeable, also a difference between 144Hz and 240Hz. While it may not meet your standard of evidence, given the mountain of anecdotal testimony that exists online regarding the differences, it is rather silly to write what the two of you just wrote.
 

jacob249358

Prominent
Sep 8, 2021
630
214
790
13
By common sense pixel response time is 1ms x 500hz = 500ms from every 1000ms(1sec) its only changing pixels. So this device half time displaying what it should and another halftime its only changing pixels. 1000hz with response time 1ms means it will never display anything properly only blurring. What do you think ? Am i right ?
No. I don't really understand what you are saying but it basically shows 500 pictures in each second. Response time is something to do with the color changing. This logic you have is kind of funny. Did you rip a few lines of substances before writing this?
 
Honestly. This 500Hz FHD (lol) display is purely a marketing gimmick intended to bolster the brand's name rather than provide a useful option in the market among side current existing tech. BEsides, if someone did own a graphics capable of pushing out close to 500 Frames Per Second at 1080p resolutions, they are 10/10 times better off waiting until the Samsung G8 32" 4K 240hz monitor releasing in the middle of this year which result in a far greater gaming experience.
The esports people will gobble this monitor up. Playing potato games at low graphics settings to eek every last possible fps only makes them a better player.
 
Jan 31, 2022
5
1
15
0
No. I don't really understand what you are saying but it basically shows 500 pictures in each second. Response time is something to do with the color changing. This logic you have is kind of funny. Did you rip a few lines of substances before writing this?
Yes and for each 500 pictures per second all pixels have to change and switch to required color to create and prepare image to display. This display have response time 1ms to it takes 1ms to pixel to switch to create picture. And when you need 500 pictures per second it takes pixels 500ms to switch every second(1000ms) and during this time it shows only "blurring" picture because pixels are still changing to prepare picture. So half time this display not showing what it should.
 
Jan 31, 2022
5
1
15
0
Simply 1ms response time means these monitor pixels needs 500ms every second to prepare 500 pictures (every second)
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY

TRENDING THREADS