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

[jacob249358]

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.

what you are saying kind of makes sense but monitors arent blurry so idk. Maybe we have a monitor expert around?

 

[King_V]

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.

"Anecdotal evidence"
"practically everyone"
"mountain of anecdotal testimony"
etc.

The 60 vs 144 has already been mentioned as obviously visible. 144 to 240? Burden of proof is on the one making the claim.

But, taking some random internet poster's word on the fact that a "mountain" of such anecdotal "evidence" exists, and that it should be accepted without the same rigor that other claims require, is just absurd.

Anecdotal evidence means very little. Unproven claims mean practically nothing.

 

[jacob249358]

"Anecdotal evidence"
"practically everyone"
"mountain of anecdotal testimony"
etc.

The 60 vs 144 has already been mentioned as obviously visible. 144 to 240? Burden of proof is on the one making the claim.

But, taking some random internet poster's word on the fact that a "mountain" of such anecdotal "evidence" exists, and that it should be accepted without the same rigor that other claims require, is just absurd.

Anecdotal evidence means very little. Unproven claims mean practically nothing.

In my experience there is a difference between 240hz and 144hz but its not nearly as significant as 60hz to 144hz. The difference feels like 60hz to 75hz

 

[Veprik]

what you are saying kind of makes sense but monitors arent blurry so idk. Maybe we have a monitor expert around?

I just wanted to show that too much hz or frames per second can be sometimes worse solution than e.g. 144hz or 240hz b/c also depends on response time. Of course 240 is not blurry but 500hz or more doesnt make sence at all and it will must have with same ms res.time worse result than less hz monitor b/c half of time you see images in changing pixel process and thats a lot adn too much.