So, these 500+ Hz monitors

[Vince ✟]

I have been hearing some things about these. Have you used such a high performance monitor? Supposedly it is like looking through a window, with zero blur of any pixels in motion.

[Zefar]

Your best bet are tech Youtube channels that might have covered those items.

But past 200 FPS you are not going to be able to tell other than your PC turning on all fans at max speed to keep up with the heat generated from pulling 500 FPS in various games.

Personally I don't think it's worth it. I'd stick with at most the 144 Hz or even 120 FPS.

[Rumpelcrutchskin]

Nah I´m still on 144 Hz.

[DevaVictrix]

I’d imagine input lag/latency would make those kind of refresh rates pointless… and that’s assuming the gpu can match the refresh rate.

[De Hollandse Ezel]

personally I also find them utter nonsence.

the human eye percieves the world in 60-120 hz.
meaning that while some like myself absolutely can spot when images are under 100fps.. even the most visually blessed humans won't be able to visually see the difference between 120 and 144hz let alone those insanity resolutions above.

ofcousae fps =/= hz but thats where sync excist for > with sync on.. it pretty much is.

so to me the usage case for those 200+ hz monitors is zero.. and pure marketing.

[Zefar]

Originally posted by De Hollandse Ezel:

personally I also find them utter nonsence.

the human eye percieves the world in 60-120 hz.

It does not. We see fluid motion and not in frames. VR needs to be at around 90 FPS or higher or your eyes will not like it. Valve tested this quite a bit with HTC Vive.

So 90 should be bare minimum but you can still tell a difference when the FPS is increased quite a bit.

[_I_]

plasma tvs had sub field refresh rates of 600-800hz iirc

but the displayed image would be about 60-120/sec
if in their day the main boards were fast enough and had inputs capable of high refresh, the panels could do 300-800hz refresh rates

they could be just flat out lying and show the oled panel refresh rate cycle
not 500hz input refresh rate

at 1080p, that takes more data than hdmi 2.0 can deliver, that would be capped at 144hz
dp 2.0 could do 1000hz at 1080p

[⛧jakey⛧]

I owned the ASUS 24", 540hz, 1080p monitor (PG248QP). I really only used it for a couple months to play Left 4 Dead 2, because it is an older game I was able to get max framerate with my 4090.
540hz was absolutely a noticeable improvement over 240hz for fps, it was so smooth & my game performance was better.
However, because the monitor was 1080p, it was noticeably blurry. I am accustomed to 4K OLED so I got rid of it, I am sure the newly released 1440p 480hz OLED ASUS monitor is nice.

[r.linder]

The thing about refresh rate is that you only get the full benefits when your framerate actually goes that high, it's only useful in e-sports titles like CS:GO where your FPS can easily exceed that if you have good hardware.

If you want a good looking display in general, get an OLED, they look amazing and they have instantaneous response times

[󠀡󠀡󠀡󠀡⁧⁧Kei]

they are a waste of money because there isn't any decent game that goes past ~400 fps on max settings
just look at a garbage optimised game like cp77 and the newly released space marines 2 on steam, those will be so bad, if you've been above 144hz then you would know that anything below 100fps is awful, i prefer my games at 250fps at 1440p, 4k isn't worth it, i have 180hz max but i use 165 because i do not like having the max possible fps close to my monitor's refresh rate

[De Hollandse Ezel]

Originally posted by Zefar:

Originally posted by De Hollandse Ezel:

personally I also find them utter nonsence.

the human eye percieves the world in 60-120 hz.

It does not. We see fluid motion and not in frames. VR needs to be at around 90 FPS or higher or your eyes will not like it. Valve tested this quite a bit with HTC Vive.

So 90 should be bare minimum but you can still tell a difference when the FPS is increased quite a bit.

incorrect.. our mind constructs frames... we don't see fluid motion.. we see the world as a bunch of images.. just like a filmreal.. our mind generates the in between parts to make it fluid.... and while the number of images our mind actually sees differs person to person.. the range of human vision lies thus between 60 and 120 hz depending on the person.

[󠀡󠀡󠀡󠀡⁧⁧Kei]

Originally posted by De Hollandse Ezel:

Originally posted by Zefar:

It does not. We see fluid motion and not in frames. VR needs to be at around 90 FPS or higher or your eyes will not like it. Valve tested this quite a bit with HTC Vive.

So 90 should be bare minimum but you can still tell a difference when the FPS is increased quite a bit.

incorrect.. our mind constructs frames... we don't see fluid motion.. we see the world as a bunch of images.. just like a filmreal.. our mind generates the in between parts to make it fluid.... and while the number of images our mind actually sees differs person to person.. the range of human vision lies thus between 60 and 120 hz.

30's mind posting right here

[Bad 💀 Motha]

Don't waste your money on hype. 144 - 240 Hz is plenty.

You're better off with 1440p 21:9 with high refresh then to go with a 16:9 screen with a ridiculously high refresh

[skOsH♥]

500Hz is the display refreshing 500 times a second to display what is on there at that exact microsecond/millisecond

after 240hz, 360hz gives maybe a 5ms advantage. 500Hz would just be a little more than double the refreshes of 240Hz monitors, so the display is showing what should be the exact image if, and only if your game can run at 500fps, since it does 500 refreshes a second. Obviously there's desync and dropped frames but there's only a handful of games it's useful in. If it can't reach that refresh value in fps, there's really no point in a refresh rate that high.

beyond 360hz, you're getting a 1-2ms advantage at 500hz....and it's not making your reaction faster persay either if you're using these monitors for fast reaction type games, which is the only reason to do so

I have played on many monitors, one panel was recent and 240hz. I now play at 165hz. Due to the better display/contrast/oled, I actually see what I need to see more quickly than the 240hz panel. It's also easier on my eyes and feels just as smooth.

When there's a reliable 360hz q-dot oled, I'll buy one of those

edit: but I'd likely just buy a 240-244hz oled when I need to buy a new one

[Azza ☠]

I've used a 240Hz OLED 4K and that's great. Since it's G-SYNC, butter-smooth and scales up depending on the game's performance. Only downside is the OLED needs to run pixel-cleaning every now and then to ensure no burn in image, but active (moving wallpaper) works too and most newer OLEDs will very slightly shift pixels for you, which you don't even notice. Also being cooling too, etc. It's never hot like some old OLEDs would after hours of usage.

After 165Hz refresh rate, it's not really noticeable but rather just relaxing on the eyes for faster pace action. You seem to react slightly quicker. Nice for FPS, etc.

Now the monitor could be toggled down to 1440p resolution and run at 480Hz, but honestly I see no reason unless perhaps doing professional e-Sports or a racing game?

[skOsH♥]

Originally posted by Azza ☠:

I've used a 240Hz OLED 4K and that's great. Since it's G-SYNC, butter-smooth and scales up depending on the game's performance. Only downside is the OLED needs to run pixel-cleaning every now and then to ensure no burn in image, but active (moving wallpaper) works too and most newer OLEDs will very slightly shift pixels for you, which you don't even notice. Also being cooling too, etc. It's never hot like some old OLEDs would after hours of usage.

After 165Hz refresh rate, it's not really noticeable but rather just relaxing on the eyes for faster pace action. You seem to react slightly quicker. Nice for FPS, etc.

Now the monitor could be toggled down to 1440p resolution and run at 480Hz, but honestly I see no reason unless perhaps doing professional e-Sports or a racing game?

I always refresh right before power down and then every four hours when using it, keep the brightness low for most things, and I just have a blank desktop that's simply the color #000000

Technically with oled those pixels are off, but along with not having icons or anything on the oled monitor I still haven't noticed any burn in. If I have to adjust the picture size of a video I'll stretch it to screen so all pixels are being used

and if I step away from it for a bit I'll just manually toggle the refresh or turn the monitor off until I get back