Giving a reason to use high end cards on 1080p - BOE announces 500hz Display

[williamcll]

Screen manufacturer BOE has recently announced that they have developed a 1080p monitor that can hit 500hz, 20 more than what is commercially available. No details regarding price or availability are given however.

Quotes

Quote

With years of technology accumulation, BOE has made important breakthroughs in the field of oxide semiconductor display technology, overcoming industry problems such as copper (Cu) easy to diffuse, easy to oxidize, and easy to drill and engrave, and is the first in the industry to achieve mass production of copper interconnect stack structures. , and the integration of high refresh rate, high resolution, low power consumption oxide display technology, breaking the foreign monopoly, and continue to launch low power consumption, ultra-narrow bezel, 500Hz+ gaming display, super-sized 8K Oxide 120Hz, A series of high-end technologies and products such as frequency conversion refresh rate display. At the same time, great breakthroughs have been made in the research and development of high mobility 30+ cm 2 / Vsoxide technology, which has laid a technical foundation for the subsequent performance improvement of high-end products.

 

My thoughts

Considering BoE is more of an OEM provider I imagine this will likely end up as a ASUS ROG monitor rather than something of their own branding. FPS (Remember that CSGO can hit 600-700 frames at times) and Music games or even speedrunning are going to be great at this where players have superhuman response times. 

 

Sources

https://t.cj.sina.com.cn/articles/view/5899531978/v15fa3b6ca01900xr3f

https://videocardz.com/newz/boe-announces-worlds-first-27in-fullhd-500hz-gaming-display

[Bombastinator]

Reasons I can think of to do it:

1) you’ve only got a 1080p monitor.  

2) you’ve only got the one graphics card

3) You need really high refresh rates and you like hefty settings, 

4) You’re doing research on the visual acuity of animals.  I understand squid demand extremely high refresh rates before they even see moving pictures as moving.

 

I personally find anything over 100hz is more or less wasted on me.  I’m not everyone. 

[IPD]

#4 is about the only legitimate reason I can think of.  To borrow parlance from Bad Obssession Motorsport, "bypassed 'cheeky', way past 'downright stupid' and went directly to 'taking the piss'".

 

The fact that the media says it's a "Gaming display" says all you need to know.  And my sentiment is that unless your entire annual income depends on a refresh rate that is empirically beyond the acuity/measure/use of all but the 99.9999th percentile, this is just hype & hyperbole that has more to do with dick-measuring-contests than practical application in any way.  The refresh rate is double the usable upper limit for practically everyone.  Are competitive FPS gamers now competing in 3D and require 250hz per eye?  What sorcery is this?

 

p.s.

All this wasted tech effort/futility--that could have been spent trying to develop better 8k displays, refresh rates on 8k that is 240hz, etc.

 

What's next?  9000Hz 720p displays?

[Bombastinator]

3 minutes ago, IPD said:

#4 is about the only legitimate reason I can think of.  To borrow parlance from Bad Obssession Motorsport, "bypassed 'cheeky', way past 'downright stupid' and went directly to 'taking the piss'".

People only have what they have.  Also video cards are very difficult to get these days.  Either situation is imaginable.  I for example have multiple monitors but the only one that has a good driver is a 1080p monitor which would put myself in group 1.  Do I think a 500hz monitor is useful for anything but obscure research or medical tests? Probably not.  Pro gamers will probably still buy it though in the hopes that it nets some sort of intangible advantage.

[porina]

I'll wait for 1000 Hz displays so it can run synchronously with gaming mouse polling rate.

 

More seriously, doubt I can even see it vs 240 Hz. Even if I could, doubt I can react to it. 

[GhostRoadieBL]

200ms human response time (160ms for very very talented people) and a screen with 2ms frame to frame change time....

Hopefully the grey-to-grey time is <0.5ms or this monitor will smear like crazy.

 

[Quackers101]

still not a reason for 1080p, but I guess it could work in very selective few titles.

But isn't much different from going to something like 240hz

 

also like stated above, if it can hit "real 500hz refresh" and not having the performance of something like an 200hz display.

[RejZoR]

And you'll only get CSGO anywhere those framerates. Rather silly and only really useful for CSGO pros who need that last only advantage.

[goa604]

26 minutes ago, GhostRoadieBL said:

200ms human response time (160ms for very very talented people) and a screen with 2ms frame to frame change time....

Hopefully the grey-to-grey time is <0.5ms or this monitor will smear like crazy.

 

Human reaction time is something a lot different from what our eyes perceive. Have you ever wondered how fast your monitor backlight needs to strobe so you dont notice it strobing?  

[GhostRoadieBL]

11 minutes ago, goa604 said:

Human reaction time is something a lot different from what our eyes perceive. Have you ever wondered how fast your monitor backlight needs to strobe so you dont notice it strobing?  

My point was between seeing and doing anything about it is 100frames on this monitor, regardless of how fast the monitor is this is basically a fixed amount of time.

 

Training your own reaction time on any monitor will have a larger change in performance than just making a faster monitor.

[Bombastinator]

35 minutes ago, RejZoR said:

And you'll only get CSGO anywhere those framerates. Rather silly and only really useful for CSGO pros who need that last only advantage.

It would have to be tested to see if there even is one.  There might be I suppose.  Most likely there isn’t though.  

[Bombastinator]

22 minutes ago, GhostRoadieBL said:

My point was between seeing and doing anything about it is 100frames on this monitor, regardless of how fast the monitor is this is basically a fixed amount of time.

 

Training your own reaction time on any monitor will have a larger change in performance than just making a faster monitor.

Usually yes.  My understanding is that in some edge situations in some games advantage can be gained in hit box locations.  It struck me as a situation where it is effectively something of a glitch.  Running a monitor 4 times faster than what the game was created for could produce glitches, or not.

[sub68]

58 minutes ago, RejZoR said:

And you'll only get CSGO anywhere those framerates.

Laughs with OSU

[Helpful Tech Witch]

2 hours ago, Bombastinator said:

personally find anything over 100hz is more or less wasted on me.  I’m not everyone

Im glad you added the last part.

I’ve seen more than enough people who are like “the difference between 60 and 120 is hard to notice for me so it’s useless for everyone to have a 120hz or higher

[Bombastinator]

1 hour ago, Helpful Tech Wiard said:

Im glad you added the last part.

I’ve seen more than enough people who are like “the difference between 60 and 120 is hard to notice for me so it’s useless for everyone to have a 120hz or higher

I’m old and slow, and I wasn’t fast when I was young. Assuming everyone is like me is ridiculous.

[Arika]

Sometimes i feel like i'm the only person who DGAF about refresh rates on my monitors. only reason i have a 75hz instead of a 60hz right now is because it was on massive sale at the time of purchase.

[Error 52]

7 minutes ago, Arika S said:

Sometimes i feel like i'm the only person who DGAF about refresh rates on my monitors. only reason i have a 75hz instead of a 60hz right now is because it was on massive sale at the time of purchase.

I really enjoy 120hz+ monitors, and it really does make a big difference in games and just in using the computer.

 

500hz is almost comical, though. You are well past the point of diminishing returns at that point.

[Bombastinator]

11 minutes ago, Arika S said:

Sometimes i feel like i'm the only person who DGAF about refresh rates on my monitors. only reason i have a 75hz instead of a 60hz right now is because it was on massive sale at the time of purchase.

I didn’t used to.  The difference can be quite tangible though it all depends on what you are doing.  For 90% of what people do on computers it doesn’t. 

[IPD]

5 hours ago, Bombastinator said:

People only have what they have.  Also video cards are very difficult to get these days.  Either situation is imaginable.  I for example have multiple monitors but the only one that has a good driver is a 1080p monitor which would put myself in group 1.  Do I think a 500hz monitor is useful for anything but obscure research or medical tests? Probably not.  Pro gamers will probably still buy it though in the hopes that it nets some sort of intangible advantage.

Like I said.  Dick Measuring Contest.

[tim0901]

20 minutes ago, Arika S said:

Sometimes i feel like i'm the only person who DGAF about refresh rates on my monitors. only reason i have a 75hz instead of a 60hz right now is because it was on massive sale at the time of purchase.

Can't say I care either. Personally they don't pass the "real life" test for me.

 

Like sure, I can 100% see the difference if it's side by side with a 60Hz monitor, or when looking at the UFO refresh rate thing. But when I'm actually using it in day-to-day life? Doesn't cross my mind at all. Like, at no point have I ever picked up my 120Hz iPad and thought "man, that's some really smooth scrolling" compared to my 60Hz phone. The whole concept of high refresh rate monitors having "spoiled 60Hz" for people is completely alien to me - I have to go actively looking for it to notice the difference, even when swapping between displays. As such I would take a higher-resolution or more colour-accurate display over a high refresh rate one if given the choice.

 

That being said, I'm not an FPS guy. I use my PC primarily for looking at static elements- mostly in Photoshop or Visual Studio - and when I do game I primarily play strategy games. Refresh rate means jack shit in those scenarios - I would probably do perfectly fine with a 30fps monitor - and so it makes sense that I don't care about 120Hz+ displays. If you're really into your FPS games or whatever then sure - go ahead. I can see how it would be helpful to you. For me though it just isn't that big of a deal as a feature and certainly isn't worth the huge price increase it warrants in most products.

 

It just bugs me that high refresh rate displays are working their way into more and more devices (such as phones and tablets) where they greatly increase the cost of the device while - to many people - they provide little-to-no benefit. Everyone I've ever personally talked to who has a high-refresh-rate phone has either turned the setting off to save battery life or doesn't know the feature exists, which I think is pretty telling as to the real-world impact of the feature. I'm all for technological innovation, but that doesn't mean you need to shoehorn a feature into a product where it doesn't belong. High-refresh-rate phone screens make about as much sense to me (outside of a gaming-focused device) as 4k phone screens did.

[IPD]

Yep ^.  Odd how the same people complaining about battery hogs and GPU limitations making 2160p "pointless"--are often the same troglodytes who clamor over refresh rates that are way beyond diminishing returns.

 

Now if you show me the practical application necessity of 500Hz, I'll consider it (like I said, 240Hz for each eye in 3D gaming?)  Yet there's a LOT more reasons I can think of to push for higher resolution displays and maximizing PPI.  I would say that every display--regardless of size, needs a PPI of at least 200 before "diminishing returns" comes into play.  And we ain't even close to that yet.

[Bombastinator]

18 minutes ago, IPD said:

Yep ^.  Odd how the same people complaining about battery hogs and GPU limitations making 2160p "pointless"--are often the same troglodytes who clamor over refresh rates that are way beyond diminishing returns.

 

Now if you show me the practical application necessity of 500Hz, I'll consider it (like I said, 240Hz for each eye in 3D gaming?)  Yet there's a LOT more reasons I can think of to push for higher resolution displays and maximizing PPI.  I would say that every display--regardless of size, needs a PPI of at least 200 before "diminishing returns" comes into play.  And we ain't even close to that yet.

Your eyes are faster than mine.  I can get by with 120 just fine.  I can’t even tell the difference between 120 and 144.

[Bombastinator]

50 minutes ago, IPD said:

Like I said.  Dick Measuring Contest.

It’s definitely possible.  I haven’t seen one.  Anything over about 100hz is invisible to me so I don’t know one way or another.

[MultiGamerClub]

2 hours ago, Arika S said:

Sometimes i feel like i'm the only person who DGAF about refresh rates on my monitors. only reason i have a 75hz instead of a 60hz right now is because it was on massive sale at the time of purchase.

When i upgraded from a 60hz to a 144hz.. i only noticed it in the start.

 

But now i almost cant see the difference between 100 or 144.

Same goes with 144 or 240hz.. Barely any difference unless i look closer.

 

Would have gone for a 100hz monitor ultrawide 32inch or 35inch if that was cheaper than 650€ than the G7 i got on sale some time ago..

And boy what rma adventures have this G7 given me lol.

 

Anything beyond 100 seems like a waste "for the normal deadly gamer" i guess.. or maybe i dont notice much difference anymore.

 

edit: If the G7 dies for a third time, think i'll invest in a 4K monitor thats atleast 100hz with g-sync support.. or maybe asking the last part is asking a bit much.. G-sync expensive go brr.

Edited January 31, 2022 by MultiGamerClub

[ouroesa]

Think I echo everyone when I say these high refreshrates are wasted resources, for extremely isoteric usecases and just a weenie measuring/basis for being a troll.

Going from 60 to 144hz was very noticible to me and now (after 4+years) I struggle to game at 60fps. Working on my work computer (1 x 60hz and 1x 72hz), I don't notice the lower refreshrate, unless I really try. But when the whole image moves, along with input (such as games) - it is quite another thing.
 

I now have a 1440p@175hz and a 1080p@144 hz (same LG trange, just different models) and I would very much prefer 1440p@72hz over 1080p@120hz (60 is just a tad t0o slow and noticible). Gsync also helps a lot. Goign form 60hz to 72 is a huge difference, then to 120 slight and anything more than that is really difficult to tell (for me). I cant tell the difference between a solid 120hz and 175hz in game.