World's Fastest Gaming Monitor Hits 500 Hz Refresh Rate (tomshardware.com) 128
According to Chinese news outlet Sina, BOE has made breakthroughs in monitor technology and has built the world's first 500 Hz gaming monitor. Tom's Hardware reports: The monitor features a 27-inch, Full HD panel equipped with a high-mobility oxide backplane which is how BOE achieved the blisteringly high refresh rate, with a response time of just 1ms. BOE has ample experience with oxide semiconductor display technology. For example, the company's 500 Hz monitor is significantly faster than the fastest gaming monitors on the market today, from the likes of Asus, Alienware, and Acer, which "only" top out at 360 Hz. Other attributes include accurate 8-bit output and support for an 8-lane eDP signal. Remember that BOE's monitor is a prototype designed for demonstration purposes only. BOE has not stated if it will be making a 500 Hz gaming panel for the mass market anytime soon, so we could be waiting a long until an official monitor arrives in the hands of gamers.
If you're going to buy this, (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:1)
Well no duh. 500hz x 1080P 3x8bit is like 24 terabits per second. You cant do that on the cheap. Full stop.
Re: (Score:3)
Quick napkin math. 1080p60 has a pixel clock rate of 148.5 MHz. It requires a cable bandwidth of 4.455 Gbps. A video mode that is less than 10 times the refresh rate is going to be around 45 Gbps not terabits.
Rather than CEA timings, which don't exist for 500 Hz, if it used CVT reduced blanking. The pixel clock for a 1920x1080 @ 60 Hz mode would require a pixel clock of 1459 MHz. That's a cable bandwidth of 43.77 Gbps. This is well within the capabilities of HDMI 2.1 with "Ultra high speed with Ethernet" ca
Re: (Score:3)
A monitor that connects via Infiniband or fiber sounds pretty cool.
Re: (Score:2)
That might be interesting, if expensive, and you could leverage the switches of FC or Infiniband. I'm not sure if the QoS controls could keep the latency down to a reasonable amount, maybe?
I have worked at places where we repurposed the PHYs on DisplayPort to use for a proprietary high-speed debugging interface. We could stream out registers and memory faster than could be done with a typical JTAG and do so continuously while other parts of the system are still active.
Re:If you're going to buy this, (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
It's for chess, not Minecraft.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
My refresh rate is way bigger than yours.
Re: (Score:2)
I get the joke, but cable quality matters a whole lot more for PC displays than it ever did for 1080p HDMI applications. I've had cable length issues with DisplayPort cables where there would be random blanking of the screen, but swapping out with a shorter cable made the problem go away. And we're not talking 20 foot runs here, it was the difference of 3 foot versus 6 foot.
Re: (Score:2)
Okay, but ... (Score:5, Insightful)
Seriously, can anyone tell me why? Is that actually useful?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I can't even tell difference between 60hz and 144hz. Supposedly very fast moving objects, you are supposed to be able to tell more detail, less blur.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Wow, what are you looking for to be able to tell a difference at 240Hz? What is the effect you are noticing?
Re: Okay, but ... (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Any fast movement will be smoother, so probably more compatible with whatever your eyes do to track fast-moving objects. In a first-person shooter game you might turn around quickly by flicking the mouse, and you'll typically miss anything that you turned past because it's just a flicker of disconnected frames. Maybe a super fast framerate will make it smooth enough to actually see things (and their motion). I know going from 60 to 144Hz improved my CSGO quite a bit.
Re: (Score:3)
Wow, what are you looking for to be able to tell a difference at 240Hz? What is the effect you are noticing?
My monitor only goes up to 165Hz, but I tested it at various rates like 60, 100, 120, 144 and 165. There were certainly diminishing returns but 165Hz was a bit smoother and had less motion blur than 144. I'd imagine 240Hz would be another marginal improvement like that.
This wasn't of course a "blind" test, and I could really only tell that one was better than the other. If I set it to a random rate above 100Hz, I don't think I could've said "oh, that's clearly 144Hz".
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Even if the monitor is fast, it doesn't matter if the game FPS isn't also fast enough.
Re: (Score:3)
I can feel the difference up to 240Hz. And while I don't feel the difference between 240Hz and 360Hz, I seem to play better with a 360Hz monitor.
Sure, and Audiophiles can hear the difference in their speaker cables too.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I ran 500 f/s when I still gamed regularly all the time.
This was not to run 500 f/s since it was 120 Hz monitor, but because lower graphics make everything clearer, and 500 f/s in simple situations often reduces to 150 f/s in intense battles and one really does not want to drop to 60 or even 30 f/s in a big battle in a game of StarCraft.
Re: (Score:1)
60Hz is horrible and blurry for screen scrolling such as the one at ufotest.
Re: (Score:2)
I can tell the difference between 60Hz and 90Hz on a phone display. When scrolling the text is a bit less blurred, and slightly easier to to follow. Since the screen is small you end up doing a lot of scrolling, so it's quite a useful improvement.
Similarly I can quite easily see the difference between a 60Hz and 120Hz TV, mostly because moving objects are less blurred.
Re: (Score:2)
It's a diminishing returns argument though. Yes, you can see a difference at those lower refresh rates. However, you get much farther up, and it becomes a placebo, a penis compensator, or both.
Re: (Score:2)
In recent years I started getting motion sickness playing games and headaches from using monitors for too long. Switching to a 144hz monitor eliminated that problem. The human brain is definitely able to tell even if we're unaware of it.
Re: (Score:2)
I can't even tell difference between 60hz and 144hz.
Wait really? I can't tell above say 120hz, but 60hz compared to 144hz may as well be an old stop motion clay animation by comparison.
Re: (Score:2)
I expect those who pro-gammers can tell the difference. However, I have more of an issue of this being sold to the general public, vs a custom build for the Pro.
Violins can cost a couple hundred bucks to millions of dollars. While the Million Dollar Violin will sound nicer than the hundred dollar one, if given to a kid who never played an instrument, it would sound just as crappy as it would a $100 one. The $100 one will sound much better in the hands of a top pro compared to the Million Dollar one in the h
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Okay, but ... (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Very likely just a psychological effect. This cannot easily be blind-tested as moving the mouse gives you a simple way to "see" the Hz via interference.
Gamer believes he has a super-duper-high-speed display and subconscious strives to do better because he believes he should be able to. An elaborate version self-delusion. The human optical system just does not work that fast.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The average human's visual system's processing "frame rate" is roughly 500 Hz. This is crossing a biological border similar to a Retina display, if you agree with their numbers for what resolution it should have been (which I'll save for another post.)
Re: (Score:2)
Do you have a citation for this? The fastest I could find was under 100 Hz [healthline.com].
Re: (Score:2)
My 10 year old Panasonic TV (plasma) has a 600MHz refresh rate. It is only 1080p. That said, some interpolation makes the scenes smoother. The eye's refresh is like 120Mhz at any age at best, so that is excessive. I can buy a 4k TV in a heartbeat, just haven't felt the need.
Re: (Score:2)
Again, the output device's refresh rate doesn't mean diddly squat if the source material is 24fps or 30fps, unless something is inserting some frame interpolation.
30fps video on a 120hz screen without processing means the screen draws the same frame 4 times, then the next frame 4 times, etc.
Re: (Score:2)
The average human's visual system's processing "frame rate" is roughly 500 Hz. This is crossing a biological border similar to a Retina display, if you agree with their numbers for what resolution it should have been (which I'll save for another post.)
And in actual reality it is more like 25Hz or below if sequence matters and it really tops out at 75Hz if just seeing the image flash (but not being able to tell sequence) at 75Hz: https://www.healthline.com/hea... [healthline.com]
There are enough fools that can convince themselves they can do much better that biology and chemistry allows, so a product like that 500Hz monitor has a market, just like "audio" Ethernet cables and switches or other stuff that does nothing but implies "cool".
Re: (Score:2)
And 24-bit colour,which exceeds the ability of the human eye to perceive.
People continue to be impressed by numbers, AKA "more is better". That's OK buddy, you want a 500Hz monitor, I'll sell you one.
Re: (Score:2)
And 24-bit colour,which exceeds the ability of the human eye to perceive.
Indeed. Apparently experienced radiologists can see more and usually want 10 bit or so, but only in grey-scale, not color.
Re: (Score:2)
And 24-bit colour,which exceeds the ability of the human eye to perceive.
Most people have 3 types of cones in their eyes (trichromatic), but a few may have 4 types of cones (tetrachromats). "While trichromats can see about 1 million colors, tetrachromats may be able to see an incredible 100 million colors [healthline.com]" according to Jay Neitz, PhD. The tree types of cones in human eyes are long wavelengths (L; about 564–580 nm), medium wavelengths (M, about 534–545 nm), and short wavelengths (S, about 420–440 nm). Humans have more L cones than other types, and S cones make u
Re: (Score:2)
I would want a refresh rate which is a multiple of the frame rate of the source. Common frame rates for tv and movies are 24, 30, and 60. A monitor with a refresh rate of 480Hz would probably be perceived better than 500Hz.
You forgot there are PAL video outside America. The common frame rates therefore include 24p, 25i, 30i. The common multiple of all of them is 600Hz.
Re:Okay, but ... (Score:4, Informative)
It reduces migraines. Nothing to do with the actual image. But the ones gamers get when they read the specs and realize that they don't have the latest equipment.
I can still vaguely remember a display adapter manufacturer who came out with a newer, better product several decades ago. It was an improvement from something like a 48Hz to 60Hz refresh rate. Everyone said, "I've got to get me one of those. Because headaches watching the slower screens." And they did. And poured forth praise (on Usenet) over how much better the screen looked. Some months later, it was discovered* that the manufacturer's driver had a bug in it and when 60Hz was selected, the driver only supported 48Hz. Suddenly, everyone started having migraines again until the s/w upgrade was released. Idiots never could tell the difference.
*I believe the discovery was made by some Linux people setting up XConfig files by hand with timing information.
Re: (Score:2)
There is a sucker born every minute....
Most people have no clue what the numbers actually mean and can only compare which one is higher (or lower in some cases). Manufacturers figured that out a long time ago. And effects like migraine or, in "pro"-gamers reaction time, are influenced by what they think the equipment is. In a way, expectation shapes perceived reality. It does not shape actual reality, of course.
But there are tons of people with money to spare that are deeply convinced that of course _they_
Re: (Score:2)
In a way, expectation shapes perceived reality.
Right. But of course this doesn't apply to the oxygen-free copper power cord for my hi-fi (Never mind that it's only the last 6 feet of the trip the power took, often through miles of conductors covered with bird shit).
Re: (Score:2)
In a way, expectation shapes perceived reality.
Right. But of course this doesn't apply to the oxygen-free copper power cord for my hi-fi (Never mind that it's only the last 6 feet of the trip the power took, often through miles of conductors covered with bird shit).
These, and the special power plugs for them, never cease to amuse me greatly. The best thing is of course that all that gold plating (with underlayers of other metals to make the gold stick) causes additional noise, as current flowing from one metal to another always adds some noise. Of course it is below what anybody can hear even in the audio connectors, but it is still funny that a _worse_ solution is sold as much better and at a high price.
Re: (Score:2)
It might make a difference if the screen refresh rate is out of sync with the game frame rate. Because then you might be viewing half or 1/3 the reported framerate (since even though it's refreshing, it's refreshing without changing).
Re: (Score:3)
Motion blur (Score:3)
I am not certain that a 500 Hz refresh rate is a good use of resources to avoid motion blur because there are other solutions. But motion blur is a known phenomenon, both in the vision psychology and video gaming communities.
And it is not a subtle effect, either. It commonly affects pans and scrolls -- where a more-or-less static scene is panned or scrolled across a screen. It is something that CRT monitors do not have because they "strobe" or "flash" images whereas LCD flat panels tend to "sample-and
Re: (Score:2)
That is some fine nonsense you are claiming there. Seriously, you claim CRTs do not cause motion blur? Ever heard that the phosphorus in a CRT is actually pretty slow and does the same as "holding" an image? In fact, the original use of CRTs was as short term computer _storage_ devices exactly because of that effect.
Going to get me cancelled for this? (Score:2)
So I am going to get cancelled for spreading misinformation about the differences between CRT and LCD monitors?
I don't know if seeing or not seeing the effect is a genetic trait like the ability to smell asparagus metabolites in your pee. But if you have this trait, maybe you never made the connection to a particular musky odor and having eaten asparagus, but once you know about the effect, there is nothing subtle about it.
I learned about the effect -- on motion blur, not asparagus pee -- from the Kay
Re: (Score:2)
So I am going to get cancelled for spreading misinformation about the differences between CRT and LCD monitors?
No. We do not do that on Slashdot ;-)
One thing is that is true is that Phosphorus for CRTs is very well understood and there are various versions, including very slow decay ones for oscilloscopes, for example. The LCD intensity decay is somewhat different and less well understood and researched and significant progress is still being made there. Also, LCD refresh is different from CRT refresh, as CRTs use "point refresh", while LCDs use "line refresh". This causes numerous effects, also in perceived Motion
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Yes. But you cannot tell which instance of the mouse pointer was first in two neighboring ones. You know because you are moving the mouse and can see the overall movement. Bit that is it. You just see an interference pattern. This makes things a bit prettier, nothing more. And it could easily be simulated at lower frequencies.
Re: (Score:2)
Seriously, can anyone tell me why? Is that actually useful?
Why are hypercars "useful"? It's all about bragging rights.
I'm sure some Youtube "influencers" can monetize it.
Re: (Score:2)
Linus Tech Tips did an experiment that showed that there was some benefit to higher refresh rates for gamers. It wasn't rigorously controlled, but the results were reasonably consistent. They found some moderate improvements in aiming ability with moving targets in Counterstrike, for example.
They tested 144Hz monitors. The question is what is the limit beyond which faster updates no longer have any benefit to the player. It's probably a combination of factors - refresh rate, latency, pixel switching time, h
Re: (Score:2)
Linus Tech Tips did an experiment that showed that there was some benefit to higher refresh rates for gamers. It wasn't rigorously controlled, but the results were reasonably consistent. They found some moderate improvements in aiming ability with moving targets in Counterstrike, for example.
They tested 144Hz monitors. The question is what is the limit beyond which faster updates no longer have any benefit to the player. It's probably a combination of factors - refresh rate, latency, pixel switching time, how well the particular game scales to very short frame times.
They likely were observing a measurement artifact. It is pretty easy to see the refresh rate with interference patterns (e.g. from moving a mouse or a moving object on the screen) and the test subjects likely just felt they had to perform better with the higher Hz. That effect is subconscious and you need to remove all indirect ways to recognize what equipment they are using to make it go away. That pretty much impossible.
Conventional wisdom says that about 75Hz is the limit where still can see an individua
Re: (Score:2)
Seriously, can anyone tell me why? Is that actually useful?
Yes. So separate the gullible from their money.
In actual reality only a small fraction of the population can even see any flicker above 24Hz (what movie theaters use) and nobody can at 60Hz. You can do some tricks to see interference, e.g. move the mouse-cursor in a circle fast. With higher Hz, you get more copies visible. But that does not mean you actually see them in sequence. Instead, you see several sort-of at the same time, because the human eye is pretty slow. Some people fantasize this effect gives
Re: (Score:2)
Because it may lead to interesting technology later you myopic wanker.
Why buy it? Answer is clear. (Score:4, Insightful)
I didn't manage to get in before the deluge of indignant pinheads who are aghast at other people's folly. But...
You buy this for the same reason you buy the highest tier of DRAM and overclock it to make a 2 FPS and otherwise imperceptible difference in your gaming experience., You buy it for the same reason that you put LEDs in your case as decoration. You buy it for the same reason you chase that last couple of benchmark points to make sure you're not below the fastest end of the chart. Not because it makes one damn shred of difference in your day to day experience...
You buy it because it makes you happy to do so.
Why do others feel the need to mock people after they buy monster cables? There are two futures, in neither of which do they have their money back. First, the future in which they're satisfied and go on with their lives. Second, the future in which the insulter feels smug, and the purchaser feels taken.
It's just jackassery to belittle people for purchases that make them happy. Leave them alone, lest somebody count up the unnecessary extravagances surrounding you at the keyboard.
Why would the company make them? Because there'll be uses for the technology beyond the immediacy of the accomplishment.
Re: Why buy it? Answer is clear. (Score:5, Insightful)
About 15 years ago I was a cable technician. I typically got the calls to troubleshoot issues when customers had degraded signals affecting their analog or digital TV reception or high speed internet. I had access to precision tools to assess the health of a connection and talk down the root cause of issues. I could measure interference, unusual signal strength loss and signal to noise ratios across at least 1GHz of spectrum. I can tell you tangibly that Monster cables, typically sold at 10x the price of mass produced no brand cables, performed miserably. Apparently with 10x the cost you get 10x more loss for the same length of cable. Some customers would spend thousands on surge protectors, "line conditioners" and other snake oil that would further degrade their experience. I could prove it with precise readings and by just demonstrating bypassing the equipment with a properly terminated new cable. Of course the customers would insist their Monster brand cables couldn't be inferior.
The point is, wasting money on a scam isn't something to justify, defend or be proud of. It's intentional ignorance. If you want to be proud of investing an unusual amount of money in a hobby, demonstrate knowledge, experience and wisdom by investing in ways that improve your experience. Just throwing money at a brand name isn't happiness, it's foolish and delusional.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Indeed. Friends of mine wayy back bought a $120 "super" audio cable 1m in length. The salesman must have been really good, because they kept insisting it was much better when I started laughing. So I made them an offer: I got 5m of ElCheapo audio cable and 4 plastic Cinch-connectors for a total of $10 or so and soldered them together. If they could hear the difference, I would pay for the 2nd cable (we were students with little money...). The next day they got a refund on the expensive cable.
Re: (Score:2)
It's intentional ignorance.
No it's not. There's a well known psychological phenomenon in the perception of quality related to an expected outcome. Those people who spend more money on snake oil literally hear some improvement because the brain specifically goes looking for it.
The problem is that improvement doesn't reconcile with measured data, in their eyes all you're doing is measuring wrong. About the only thing you can do is actually use the brain itself to defeat the brain: i.e. a blind controlled test. But even then the truly c
Re: Why buy it? Answer is clear. (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The question is why you'd want to accomplish something imperceptible, probably even subconsciously. Case underglow is at least something you can experience.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Why do others feel the need to mock people after they buy monster cables?
Because they are morons and mocking them reduces the chance that other, more naive people, will be fooled into thinking that this is money well spent rather than pissed away for no purpose.
These monitors are a waste of time, money, electricity, and whatever resources were used to make them. The manufacture of waste should be criticised wherever it happens. People who encourage the manufacture of waste by paying for it should be criticised too.
Re: (Score:2)
It's just jackassery to belittle people for purchases that make them happy. Leave them alone, lest somebody count up the unnecessary extravagances surrounding you at the keyboard.
Well, if they leave _me_ alone with their stupid purchase, entirely fine. But if they start to want affirmation from other people, that stops being their private folly and it becomes a public nuisance. Pushing back on that is not "jackassery", it is a justified response. And there are actually dangerous versions of this form of ignorance and overestimating ones's skills and insights: "I can control my car at high speed", "I know how much alcohol I can take", "CoVID is just the flu", etc.
Re: (Score:2)
Second, the future in which the insulter feels smug, and the purchaser feels taken.
And ... you still don't see the benefit??
Re: (Score:2)
It's just jackassery to belittle people for purchases that make them happy. Leave them alone, lest somebody count up the unnecessary extravagances surrounding you at the keyboard.
If we don't call out stupid when its being "marketed" as the next big thing then much time, money, and hardware will be wasted. Does can't get a GPU because something something keeps pushing the price/supply curve all to hell sound familiar?
Re: (Score:2)
pointless (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Even if you can somehow tell the difference with 1ms, you won't be able to see individual frames here.
Re: pointless (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
500 Hz? Not fast enough (Score:5, Interesting)
I am not a gamer. I am a scientist who studies the visual system. For years now, I, like many of my colleagues, have been hoarding top-of-the-line CRTs from decades past because the have been faster than anything available, are necessary for our work, and haven't been manufactured for years.
Over the past 6, maybe 8 months or so, LCDs (and they need to be IPS because of the horrible off-axis color shifts from TN) have approached usability for our field. That we now have devices that are fundamentally 200 Hz models (claimed 360, but if you look at the specs, they are really 200 Hz technology) is fan-freaking-tastic. If we had 1000 Hz technology, we would be dancing in the streets.
Yes, I'm aware that you can hack projectors to get monochromatic 1000 Hz displays. And that there is at least one manufacturer who sells a 480 Hz full-color projector tuned for scientific work. But neither of those are appropriate for our research -- the monochromatic display is not interesting because, well, it's monochromatic, and the 480 Hz projector because it multiplexes the different color channels, and we need them presented simultaneously.
500 Hz monitors for gaming sound great to me, because it means there are manufacturers still trying to push the envelope, and we, as scientists studying visual perception, will benefit. In turn, the rest of humanity will benefit from the knowledge we discover.
All because lots of geeks like to play computer games. Bring it on!
Re:500 Hz? Not fast enough (Score:5, Insightful)
Please explain what exact purposes the high refresh rates are necessary for, or is it the latency of the CRT's? Asking purely out of intellectual curiosity.
Re:500 Hz? Not fast enough (Score:5, Informative)
The neurons in the first three stages of the visual system, the retina, the lateral geniculate nucleus, and the primary visual cortex, have been studied for many decades now. Later stages have as well, but let's concentrate for the moment on those three. Each neuron in those areas can be described as having a mostly linear response to visual input that, if you're familiar with signals and systems, would be considered the impulse response, or transfer function. It is the ideal input to the cell that causes the cell to respond. Each cell has a very slightly different version of this input, which, in the parlance, is call the response field (it's a terrible name, but that's what is used). Think of it like a filter in an audio circuit: it is the shape of the input that will produce maximum response. Or, conversely, if you give white noise input, it is what the filter will generate as its output. For neurons, the shape of these functions is kind of like what you get when you drop a pebble in a pond: there's a brief peak, and then a decaying ripple.
[ For those reading this description who are familiar with the field, yes, these are simplifications and approximations that are not exact. Bear with me. ]
To measure neural response fields now, what we do is measure the voltage from a given neuron while we play a white noise input. We then use the times that the neuron responds to collect the immediately preceeding input and average it together. That calculation is called spike-triggered averaging, or reverse correlation. It's pretty simple: think of capturing the frame from a wildlife camera each time it senses an animal and averaging all of those images together -- you'll get a blurry mass where the sensor's motion sensitivity is highest. Same thing with reverse correlation.
The reason we need high refresh rates is that the neural sensitivity lasts only a few tens of milliseconds or so. Maybe 50. I depends on lots of things, but is fundamentally pretty quick. If you are presenting frames on a 60 Hz monitor, then you get to measure that response with a resolution of 16 ms or so ... a couple of frames and it's gone. To really measure it well, you need at least 200 Hz, and preferably faster. There might be no reason to go above 1000 Hz, but I'd love to see that sort of speed.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Do you know if refresh rate is also the reason many animals (like my cat) just completely ignore whatever is on a screen, no matter how tasty the birds may look? Has there been research into that? I would love to know if it's something simple and 'mechanical' like lacking refresh rate, or something more complex like missing other cognitive cues (smell, sound, etc.) which tells their brain that it is not real. Especially because screen perception seems to vary from animal to a
Re: (Score:2)
Do you know if refresh rate is also the reason many animals (like my cat) just completely ignore whatever is on a screen, no matter how tasty the birds may look?
RGB colors are optimal for human eyes and not close to the right colors for cats. Cats are also more tuned to detecting movement. My cat will follow my cursor, which has full black and white contrast.
While I don't believe that typical RGB colors (and there is no one set, and each display technology has a different set of spectra for the three axes) are optimal for human vision, they aren't too far off; they are most certainly far from optimal for cats. Cats have a very different visual system than humans, so much so that I've long advocated that the decades of research in cats was ill-advised if we wanted to understand human vision (same for mouse). Cats can see into the UV spectrum (we can't), and ha
Re: (Score:2)
I'm not a gamer either, I just play one on the weekends.
Re: (Score:2)
There are indeed boutique manufacturers addressing our market. They produce pretty good stuff, at boutique prices.
Gaming as a market is many orders of magnitude larger (three, four, five orders?) -- if gaming pushes display technology in a direct that is useful for us, and it appears to be doing so with a vengeance at present, then our little corner of the market benefits greatly. The last time I looked at the boutique manufacturers, they were charging 10x to 100x prices over business-grade displays, and
It's not really 500Hz (Score:2)
What the marketing people consider a full 'refresh cycle' just isn't. It's BS.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
120Hz LCD != 120Hz CRT is all I have to say.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Big Deal (Score:2)
I'd still get my ass kicked on Apex Legends. (Score:2)
If you're not a young fit professional player playing a fast-paced FPS 8+ hours a day you're likely being silly getting anything faster than 150hz refresh for a monitor.
At my age, my brain-bandwidth/reaction-time is so meh it wouldn't make a difference at all. I'd still get my ass kicked by some teenagers playing 24/7.
I play games on an XBox One X with 1080p on a neat thin 27" HP Monitor that was cheap and is lightyears beyond my Matrox Mystique with a Helios 3DFX extension card and my first 13" Sony Trinit
Instead, focus on color quality (Score:2)
I find most 120Hz+ gaming monitors have terrible black levels and can't adequately reproduce the sRGB range. My Asus 144Hz display sits next to a 10-year old 4:3 LCD, and the old one looks fantastic by comparison. Hopefully, these improvements will trickle down and we can get IPS displays with the motion-clarify of TN, or TN displays with the color range of IPS. Even a middle ground would be nice.
Numbers game (Score:2)
That's all it's become now.