Worlds First 360Hz Monitor Detailed & Launching in September 2020

[EnVii]

ASUS has announced the worlds first 360Hz monitor - the PG259QN - launching in September for $699. 

 

Quote

 “The ROG Swift 360Hz PG259QN is 24.5″ in size and features a 1920 x 1080 resolution “Fast IPS” panel. This offers a 1ms G2G response time to support the very fast 360Hz refresh rate. That is also supported through a Native G-sync hardware module for variable refresh rates”

 

My thoughts

 
As someone who has gone through 30-60-120-240 and now will go through 360Hz very soon, I’m glad that technology has progressed. 
 

A lot of people will say that even 240Hz is “a limit” and that you “can’t tell a difference/much of a difference” between 144 & 240. 
 

However, when I first tried 240 and went back to 144 due to TN just not being good enough, especially at 1080p, I did notice the difference. 
 

I soon went back to 240Hz with the Lenovo Y27gq which is a 2nd Gen 8-bit TN panel at 1440p and 240Hz - this made a big difference to the colours and quality. 
 

Now I’m really excited for 360Hz on a IPS panel!

 

I intent to pair this with the upcoming flagship Nvidia 3090 - or whatever the top tier card will be. 
 

With the new cards, plus 1080p, I do expect to hit 360Hz in many MP games. 
 

Exciting times ahead!

 

Edit:

 

Review of Monitor:

 

https://www.pcmag.com/reviews/asus-rog-swift-360hz-pg259qn

 

Sources

 
https://www.tftcentral.co.uk/blog/asus-rog-swift-360hz-pg259qn-esports-monitor-with-360hz-refresh-rate-details-released/

 

https://www.asus.com/Monitors/ROG-Swift-360Hz-PG259QN/
 

https://www.thefpsreview.com/2020/08/25/asus-rog-swift-pg259qn-360-hz-gaming-monitor-releasing-in-september-for-699/
 

https://www.displayspecifications.com/en/news/49af3c9

[Stahlmann]

I'd love to know what games actually run at 360 fps. I know CS:GO will do it easily but idk about any other game, even on competitive settings. In my own experience i couldn't tell the difference between a 240Hz and 120Hz monitor in terms of input lag. Maybe with the jump to 360Hz this will change.

 

Does it have ELMB sync or just static backlight strobing at 360Hz?

 

Also the problem with almost all 240Hz panels right now is, that you cant use them at anything lower than 240Hz or the overshoot and input lag will get ridiculously bad unless you change the overdrive setting for each game depending on the fps you expect. I really hope, Asus will include 1 overdrive mode that works all the way from 60 to 360 Hz without the need to change it. This is possible through the included G-Sync scaler.

 

So depending on the performance throughout the refresh rate range this might be a great option for 699$. I might have a look at this one.

 

Edit: Overlooked you already stated the pricing in the OP.

[Spindel]

And here I an thinking 60 Hz is perfectly OK on LCD monitors.
 

I prefered 75 Hz on CRTs (and I think 85 Hz, was there 85 Hz CRTs?), not because of framerate but becasue of the reduced flickering, whitch is a non issue on LCD. 

[Noah0302]

11 minutes ago, Stahlmann98 said:

I'd love to know what games actually run at 360 fps. I know CS:GO will do it easily but idk about any other game, even on competitive settings. In my own experience i couldn't tell the difference between a 240Hz and 120Hz monitor in terms of input lag. Maybe with the jump to 360Hz this will change.

Rythm games will hugely profit from it I think.

When I play osu! from time to time I usually have above 1000fps and notice quite some difference between my old 144 and my 240hz.

 

And if Riot would optimize LoL to use more than 1-2 cores, actually use GPUs more than 20% and maybe a newer DX version, it could easily run 300FPS+ all the time

[HempBoosh]

Finally, now this will reduce the price of fewer hz monitors so I could finally upgrade my monitor!

[StDragon]

I'm waiting on 640hz; that ought to be enough for anybody.

[soldier_ph]

Yes, LTT already has a sample and the Short Circuit and LTT review are coming hopefully soon.

[Kroon]

2 hours ago, StDragon said:

I'm waiting on 640hz; that ought to be enough for anybody.

 

It all depends on what you are are doing with your monitor.  Specially adapted monitors (not for gaming) that can reach over 1000Hz, think 3000Hz is the highest right now.  Just to clarify this is highly specialised monitors han only display grey scales.  Point is that if someone spends that much money on grey scale monitors to get high refresh rates it must be some reason for it.

 

Personally, my physiology crap out somewhere just above 90Hz.  But who in their right mind would buy a 1080p monitor today? it's not 2001 anymore.

[StDragon]

30 minutes ago, Kroon said:

 

It all depends on what you are are doing with your monitor.  Specially adapted monitors (not for gaming) that can reach over 1000Hz, think 3000Hz is the highest right now.  Just to clarify this is highly specialised monitors han only display grey scales.  Point is that if someone spends that much money on grey scale monitors to get high refresh rates it must be some reason for it.

 

Personally, my physiology crap out somewhere just above 90Hz.  But who in their right mind would buy a 1080p monitor today? it's not 2001 anymore.

 I'm sorry sir, but you should hand over your nerd card; you didn't get the joke, and that makes me sad. 

[Joduko]

Noob question:

What allows them to continually increase the refresh rates like this? Does it increase power consumption?

[EChondo]

1 hour ago, Kroon said:

But who in their right mind would buy a 1080p monitor today? it's not 2001 anymore.

Well considering the monitor is marketed as "Esports", then it's probably for people competing in tournaments with 2080ti's/Titans and 10900k's playing CS:GO, Valorant, etc. at bare bones graphics settings.

 

This monitor isn't exactly meant for consumers, just the 1% of people playing video games. Plus you probably won't see a 360Hz 1440p panel for another couple of years.

 

And besides that, 1080p is still a very good resolution...why hate on it? Keeps performance requirements and costs down a bit, especially when people who would buy this monitor certainly won't be using 1440p and will probably run their games in 1280x960 for 4:3 and upscale it...

 

I'm using a S2719DGF and loving the 27"/1440p due to the real-estate, but if I could have a higher refresh rate then I would take it. 360Hz would probably be my cap(well 240Hz would be I think, but 360Hz is a good buffer for 99% of people out there in my opinion).

 

^{Also 1080p wasn't common in early 2000's, I still had 1680x1050 and 1440x900 monitors well into the mid-2000's...}

[dat_boi_fluff]

1 hour ago, Damprol said:

Noob question:

What allows them to continually increase the refresh rates like this? Does it increase power consumption?

Research and development and better panel technology. Im sure it also increases the power consumption too.

[Tieox]

I challenge you @LinusTech to build a system that can run Cyberpunk at the maximum frame-rate of this monitor. 

[Vanderburg]

This shouldn't be expensive at all.

[wanderingfool2]

Given that this is a diminishing returns type of thing, I wonder what the practical cap is for the 90% percentile of gamers.  Just like after about 8k, it doesn't really make too much sense for monitors (VR will likely be different)...actually even from 4k to 8k I think most people would have a difficult time noticing a difference.

[Kisai]

7 hours ago, EnVii said:

ASUS has announced the worlds first 360Hz monitor - the PG259QN - launching in September for $699. 

 

 

My thoughts

 
As someone who has gone through 30-60-120-240 and now will go through 360Hz very soon, I’m glad that technology has progressed. 
 

A lot of people will say that even 240Hz is “a limit” and that you “can’t tell a difference/much of a difference” between 144 & 240. 
 

 

The problem is you're comparing a TN panel, where a TN panel is basically rubbish for color, and you don't know what you're missing until you actually see it side-by-side. It's better to have cheaper UHD HDR monitors than higher-refresh rate HD monitors. 

 

All LCD panels operate at 60hz by default, and unlike a CRT (which has a noticeable flicker at 60hz), a LCD is a static image at any refresh rate, which is why VRR is even possible and doesn't look like a flickering seizure-inducing nightmare.

 

Most people don't notice, or don't care about >60hz because really the monitor doesn't improve over 60hz, that image retention from frame to frame still exists at any refresh rate, so a 60hz monitor and a 360hz monitor are still going to have the same effect otherwise they would appear to flicker by having to insert black frames between each cycle (thus really only having a 180hz refresh rate.) This why you can sometimes justify a 120 or 144hz refresh rate, because the monitor takes some effort to reduce the ghosting between frames this way. However as far as games go, 360hz just isn't viable, at any resolution.

 

At 60hz, your game has a 16.66ms input cycle, at 120hz it has a 8.33ms input cycle, at 240hz it has a 4.16ms input cycle, at 360hz it would be 2.77, So the difference between 240 being 4 and 360 being 3, is really not that different.

 

The actual peak framerate that anything really matters is 200 fps, because the timing loop is an even 5ms, and below that which network latency to a game host in your city might have. Or in other words, two players in the same city less than 100km apart might get 5ms to each other, so they might both be able to play at 200fps without one gaining an advantage.

 

However most MMO games don't even work that way, and the global clock is based on some arbitrary value. So if you think you need a 360hz monitor to play CS:GO or WoW, it doesn't benefit you to do so. It'll only ever be noticed in a game designed, knowing that players will play it at that refresh rate, which basically nothing but synthetic benchmarks ever run a game timing loop above 60hz on purpose, and even then I'd argue that no games do this on purpose because they would have to take into account variable frame rates. So instead the game loop is locked to some internal value (eg 16ms) and the rendering loop just fires off as many frames it can based on the last loop's cycle. So if you have a 1:4 (eg 240hz) frame rate, what it's really doing is redrawing the same image 4 times, and unless there's a physics thing happening tied to the GPU rendering, you likely won't even notice the game loop is at 60hz. In many cases the higher refresh rates result in physics effects like jiggle effects and explosions/debris/destructible-environments from being exaggerated very much.

 

Some research on various MMO games say:

CS:GO, global tick is 64hz (custom games are 12) (15.625ms/frame)

Valorant, global tick is 128hz (7.8125ms/frame)

Overwatch global tick is 63hz (15.873ms/frame)

 

So a game that runs near 60hz, regardless of your GPU and Monitor, has no benefit in-game to running at a higher refresh rate than the game server does.

 

[warmongerp]

3 minutes ago, Kisai said:

The problem is you're comparing a TN panel, where a TN panel is basically rubbish for color, and you don't know what you're missing until you actually see it side-by-side. It's better to have cheaper UHD HDR monitors than higher-refresh rate HD monitors. 

 

All LCD panels operate at 60hz by default, and unlike a CRT (which has a noticeable flicker at 60hz), a LCD is a static image at any refresh rate, which is why VRR is even possible and doesn't look like a flickering seizure-inducing nightmare.

 

Most people don't notice, or don't care about >60hz because really the monitor doesn't improve over 60hz, that image retention from frame to frame still exists at any refresh rate, so a 60hz monitor and a 360hz monitor are still going to have the same effect otherwise they would appear to flicker by having to insert black frames between each cycle (thus really only having a 180hz refresh rate.) This why you can sometimes justify a 120 or 144hz refresh rate, because the monitor takes some effort to reduce the ghosting between frames this way. However as far as games go, 360hz just isn't viable, at any resolution.

 

At 60hz, your game has a 16.66ms input cycle, at 120hz it has a 8.33ms input cycle, at 240hz it has a 4.16ms input cycle, at 360hz it would be 2.77, So the difference between 240 being 4 and 360 being 3, is really not that different.

 

The actual peak framerate that anything really matters is 200 fps, because the timing loop is an even 5ms, and below that which network latency to a game host in your city might have. Or in other words, two players in the same city less than 100km apart might get 5ms to each other, so they might both be able to play at 200fps without one gaining an advantage.

 

However most MMO games don't even work that way, and the global clock is based on some arbitrary value. So if you think you need a 360hz monitor to play CS:GO or WoW, it doesn't benefit you to do so. It'll only ever be noticed in a game designed, knowing that players will play it at that refresh rate, which basically nothing but synthetic benchmarks ever run a game timing loop above 60hz on purpose, and even then I'd argue that no games do this on purpose because they would have to take into account variable frame rates. So instead the game loop is locked to some internal value (eg 16ms) and the rendering loop just fires off as many frames it can based on the last loop's cycle. So if you have a 1:4 (eg 240hz) frame rate, what it's really doing is redrawing the same image 4 times, and unless there's a physics thing happening tied to the GPU rendering, you likely won't even notice the game loop is at 60hz. In many cases the higher refresh rates result in physics effects like jiggle effects and explosions/debris/destructible-environments from being exaggerated very much.

 

Some research on various MMO games say:

CS:GO, global tick is 64hz (custom games are 12) (15.625ms/frame)

Valorant, global tick is 128hz (7.8125ms/frame)

Overwatch global tick is 63hz (15.873ms/frame)

 

So a game that runs near 60hz, regardless of your GPU and Monitor, has no benefit in-game to running at a higher refresh rate than the game server does.

 

This is a very good read, thanks.

[mockedarche]

Cool tech but IMO give me a 120hz/144hz 4k any day of the week.

[RGProductions]

As a not gamer

7 minutes ago, Kisai said:

The problem is you're comparing a TN panel, where a TN panel is basically rubbish for color, and you don't know what you're missing until you actually see it side-by-side. It's better to have cheaper UHD HDR monitors than higher-refresh rate HD monitors. 

 

All LCD panels operate at 60hz by default, and unlike a CRT (which has a noticeable flicker at 60hz), a LCD is a static image at any refresh rate, which is why VRR is even possible and doesn't look like a flickering seizure-inducing nightmare.

 

Most people don't notice, or don't care about >60hz because really the monitor doesn't improve over 60hz, that image retention from frame to frame still exists at any refresh rate, so a 60hz monitor and a 360hz monitor are still going to have the same effect otherwise they would appear to flicker by having to insert black frames between each cycle (thus really only having a 180hz refresh rate.) This why you can sometimes justify a 120 or 144hz refresh rate, because the monitor takes some effort to reduce the ghosting between frames this way. However as far as games go, 360hz just isn't viable, at any resolution.

 

At 60hz, your game has a 16.66ms input cycle, at 120hz it has a 8.33ms input cycle, at 240hz it has a 4.16ms input cycle, at 360hz it would be 2.77, So the difference between 240 being 4 and 360 being 3, is really not that different.

 

The actual peak framerate that anything really matters is 200 fps, because the timing loop is an even 5ms, and below that which network latency to a game host in your city might have. Or in other words, two players in the same city less than 100km apart might get 5ms to each other, so they might both be able to play at 200fps without one gaining an advantage.

 

However most MMO games don't even work that way, and the global clock is based on some arbitrary value. So if you think you need a 360hz monitor to play CS:GO or WoW, it doesn't benefit you to do so. It'll only ever be noticed in a game designed, knowing that players will play it at that refresh rate, which basically nothing but synthetic benchmarks ever run a game timing loop above 60hz on purpose, and even then I'd argue that no games do this on purpose because they would have to take into account variable frame rates. So instead the game loop is locked to some internal value (eg 16ms) and the rendering loop just fires off as many frames it can based on the last loop's cycle. So if you have a 1:4 (eg 240hz) frame rate, what it's really doing is redrawing the same image 4 times, and unless there's a physics thing happening tied to the GPU rendering, you likely won't even notice the game loop is at 60hz. In many cases the higher refresh rates result in physics effects like jiggle effects and explosions/debris/destructible-environments from being exaggerated very much.

 

Some research on various MMO games say:

CS:GO, global tick is 64hz (custom games are 12) (15.625ms/frame)

Valorant, global tick is 128hz (7.8125ms/frame)

Overwatch global tick is 63hz (15.873ms/frame)

 

So a game that runs near 60hz, regardless of your GPU and Monitor, has no benefit in-game to running at a higher refresh rate than the game server does.

 

That last part about tickrates isn't strictly always true, as some things are handled client side and render every frame, and there are other advantages than just more information, such as reduced motion blur. This i just coming from my CSGO experience though, so it could be game dependent. IMO 95% of this stuff is feel, if it feels better you're going to game better. 

[EnVii]

8 hours ago, Stahlmann98 said:

I'd love to know what games actually run at 360 fps.

There’s no MP game I have any issues getting 360+ on 1080p with a mix of Medium/High/Ultra settings. 
 

So pretty much all / any of them. 
 

 

[EnVii]

8 hours ago, Escanor said:

Im still waiting for 1440p 240hz gsync panel or gsync compatible panel

Ive already had that for almost a year. 
 

I referenced that in my OP,

 

Ive got a YouTube video of the Lenovo Y27gq. 
 

It’s a 1440p 240Hz G-Sync Ultimate display. 

[EnVii]

2 hours ago, Vanderburg said:

This shouldn't be expensive at all.

For $700,

 

As a worlds first,

 

I don’t think it is at all. 

[EnVii]

1 hour ago, Kisai said:

The problem is you're comparing a TN panel, where a TN panel is basically rubbish for color, and you don't know what you're missing until you actually see it side-by-side. It's better to have cheaper UHD HDR monitors than higher-refresh rate HD monitors. 

 

 

????

 

A 2nd Gen 8-bit TN panel is actually very close to a standard sRGB IPS panel. 
 

I highly doubt you’ve seen one, so I can’t think you understand my comparison. 
 

Ive seen original Gen 1 TN panels and yes, they’re horrible. 
 

I’ve seen every type of display,

 

IPS, TN, VA, OLED. 

 

I know the differences. 
 

Completely disagree with the rest of what you said. 
 

Night and day difference in 144 & 240Hz. 
 

Im sure 50% extra frames every SECOND will make a difference. 
 

 

[EnVii]

1 hour ago, Ohsnaps said:

Cool tech but IMO give me a 120hz/144hz 4k any day of the week.

I had 4K 144Hz and as nice as it was,

 

It’s not as good as 1440p 240Hz and I’m sure I’ll say the same about 360Hz. 

[Bombastinator]

10 hours ago, Stahlmann98 said:

I'd love to know what games actually run at 360 fps. I know CS:GO will do it easily but idk about any other game, even on competitive settings. In my own experience i couldn't tell the difference between a 240Hz and 120Hz monitor in terms of input lag. Maybe with the jump to 360Hz this will change.

 

Does it have ELMB sync or just static backlight strobing at 360Hz?

 

Also the problem with almost all 240Hz panels right now is, that you cant use them at anything lower than 240Hz or the overshoot and input lag will get ridiculously bad unless you change the overdrive setting for each game depending on the fps you expect. I really hope, Asus will include 1 overdrive mode that works all the way from 60 to 360 Hz without the need to change it. This is possible through the included G-Sync scaler.

 

So depending on the performance throughout the refresh rate range this might be a great option for 699$. I might have a look at this one.

 

Edit: Overlooked you already stated the pricing in the OP.

They did testing  many months ago with pro gamers using experimental monitors, who were the only ones that got any material benefit out of 240 over 144.  They couldn’t find any advantage in 360 over 240.  Remember 360 is only a 50% improvement over 240 and to get a material gain they needed a near 100% improvement to get from 144 to 240z. It went 24 to 30, 30 to 40, 40 to 60, 60 to 90, 90 to 144(or 120 depending on how you count it) and 144 to 240.  Diminishing returns.   The next step up wouldn’t be 360, it would be nearer 500.