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

[Bombastinator]

2 hours ago, tim0901 said:

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.

It reminds me of those idiotic “meta human” advertisements.  They made video game characters do non video game things, and created a marketing name to attempt to hide the reality.  Madam Tousad did better in the 19th century with waxworks.  

[Bombastinator]

13 minutes ago, ouroesa said:

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.

My suspicion is the sweet spot is going to be somewhere a bit north of 90hz. That was the point where even the flicker in type went away on CRTs. Sony and Microsoft chose 120hz.  I suspect they did testing. 

[sub68]

2 hours ago, IPD said:

Like I said.  Dick Measuring Contest.

3 minutes ago, ouroesa said:

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.

I don't think so.

I used to play a ton of osu and I regularly get up toward high 300-400 on a igpu on a i5 6500 YES A IGPU.

This clip was recorded at 720p at 60 FPS. (720p so that OBS doesnt mess up framerate when REC)

The map I choose is a AR9 map (ar= approach rate or how fast I have to click the circle) But I choose to have Relax on so I don't have to click.

 

I am bad at playing but I hope this drives a point.

[ouroesa]

4 minutes ago, sub68 said:

I don't think so.

I used to play a ton of osu and I regularly get up toward high 300-400 on a igpu on a i5 6500 YES A IGPU.

This clip was recorded at 720p at 60 FPS. (720p so that OBS doesnt mess up framerate when REC)

The map I choose is a AR9 map (ar= approach rate or how fast I have to click the circle) But I choose to have Relax on so I don't have to click.

 

I am bad at playing but I hope this drives a point.

As I said 'just a weenie measuring/basis for being a troll.'

You would be pretty much super human to descern the 4.4ms difference between 144hz (6.9ms) and 400hz (2.5ms). Think you are referring to the game running fast enough to not muck up or miss inputs. Doubt 4.4ms is going to make a difference there - for reference a quick blink is circa 100ms so you can feel something that can fit 22 times in a blink of an eye?
13ms is deemed the unperceivable limit for humans which is around 75frps but Ill halve that to give you the benefit of doubt. Stil 7.5ms .
Nah mate. Sorrry, but Nah.

[tim0901]

32 minutes ago, sub68 said:

I don't think so.

I used to play a ton of osu and I regularly get up toward high 300-400 on a igpu on a i5 6500 YES A IGPU.

This clip was recorded at 720p at 60 FPS. (720p so that OBS doesnt mess up framerate when REC)

The map I choose is a AR9 map (ar= approach rate or how fast I have to click the circle) But I choose to have Relax on so I don't have to click.

 

I am bad at playing but I hope this drives a point.

Pretty sure 'OSU' is what comes up when you look up the dictionary definition of an esoteric use case. It's just circles on a screen - you could probably run it at playable frame rates on a potato.

 

But seriously: yes there will be people who can - in theory - use this monitor to its full potential. I'm sure there are plenty of games from the 90s that could also be run at 500Hz+ on modern hardware. The question is whether it is actually worth buying over a much cheaper 240Hz monitor. Are there really that many people playing these sorts of games at a high enough level where they can not only notice the difference between this and a 240Hz monitor, but to whom spending a fortune on it is also a justifiable investment?

 

(Especially given this is a 27" monitor and most professional-level tournaments for games like CS:GO require you to use a 24" display such as this one. This reason alone will alienate a large amount of potential customers. )

[Bombastinator]

6 minutes ago, tim0901 said:

Pretty sure 'OSU' is what comes up when you look up the dictionary definition of an esoteric use case. It's just circles on a screen - you could probably run it at playable frame rates on a potato.

 

But seriously: yes there will be people who can - in theory - use this monitor to its full potential. I'm sure there are plenty of games from the 90s that could also be run at 500Hz+ on modern hardware. The question is whether it is actually worth buying over a much cheaper 240Hz monitor. Are there really that many people playing these sorts of games at a high enough level where they can not only notice the difference between this and a 240Hz monitor, but to whom spending a fortune on it is also a justifiable investment?

 

(Especially given this is a 27" monitor and most professional-level tournaments for games like CS:GO require you to use a 24" display such as this one. This reason alone will alienate a large amount of potential customers. )

The question is how many, and how many will buy it for merely placebo purposes?  I don’t know if there is even a difference for pro gamers or not.  My suspicion would be “no”, but no doubt someone will find out.  I know it won’t make a difference for me or anyone I know.  I don’t hang out in zoological research circles though.  If I did and wanted to run video tests on various animals I might get a couple.  I don’t know.

[sub68]

5 minutes ago, tim0901 said:

Pretty sure 'OSU' is what comes up when you look up the dictionary definition of an esoteric use case. It's just circles on a screen - you could probably run it at playable frame rates on a potato.

yes I know it can legit run on potatos.

But is it esoteric I don't think so.

Why?

As esport becomes more popular people are going to try to find way to become faster (both in speed and aiming) and osu is one way.

24 minutes ago, ouroesa said:

As I said 'just a weenie measuring/basis for being a troll.'

You would be pretty much super human to descern the 4.4ms difference between 144hz (6.9ms) and 400hz (2.5ms). Think you are referring to the game running fast enough to not muck up or miss inputs. Doubt 4.4ms is going to make a difference there - for reference a quick blink is circa 100ms so you can feel something that can fit 22 times in a blink of an eye?
13ms is deemed the unperceivable limit for humans which is around 75frps but Ill halve that to give you the benefit of doubt. Stil 7.5ms .
Nah mate. Sorrry, but Nah.

I am too tired to add on, but my dad is a industrial engineer I wonder what he will think.

Maybe I can set up a experiment, though I have only 60hz monitors.

[Mark Kaine]

1 hour ago, sub68 said:

I am too tired to add on, but my dad is a industrial engineer I wonder what he will think.

Maybe I can set up a experiment, though I have only 60hz monitors.

Just a question, does the game actually get faster the higher the framerate is, or is this just frametime thing? 

 

Because if the game isnt tied to the framerate there really  isnt an advantage going faster, because as already explained, human reaction time isnt actually that fast for this to matter otherwise.  

 

But i dont really want to argue about  that, i just wanna know is the game tied to the framerate, or not. ie does it actually physically get faster the higher the framerate?  (because, obviously *then* this would matter a lot regardless of how slow / or fast  human reaction time is, having the game go faster would still be a huge advantage, if the gameplay makes use of this)

 

 

 

 

[sub68]

1 hour ago, Mark Kaine said:

Just a question, does the game actually get faster the higher the framerate is, or is this just frametime thing? 

 

Because if the game isnt tied to the framerate there really  isnt an advantage going faster, because as already explained, human reaction time isnt actually that fast for this to matter otherwise.  

 

But i dont really want to argue about  that, i just wanna know is the game tied to the framerate, or not. ie does it actually physically get faster the higher the framerate?  (because, obviously *then* this would matter a lot regardless of how slow / or fast  human reaction time is, having the game go faster would still be a huge advantage, if the gameplay makes use of this)

 

 

 

 

No it’s tied to BPM of songs.

The problem is would higher refresh rates make it easier to hit.

[Mark Kaine]

53 minutes ago, sub68 said:

No it’s tied to BPM of songs.

The problem is would higher refresh rates make it easier to hit.

i guess that makes sense for a rythm game.

Conversely, and contradictory (seemingly) to what i said earlier, i always liked the 30fps PD games more, it seemed easier to hit notes, it makes sense too, if the framerate is only half you have twice as much "time"   than at 60 fps… 

 

It was kinda weird, i liked the 60fps games more visually (such as Dreamy Theatre) but i had way more *fun* playing the 30fps titles (such as Diva F) 

 

 

[Quackers101]

8 hours ago, ouroesa said:

Think I echo everyone when I say these high refreshrates are wasted resources

very high, yes.

but higher than 60? no.

Although its not only about higher HZ too, the panel has to be fast enough and give good image quality when doing so, while the software side has to work too. (GPU, G/Vsync, frame timings etc). I would say that 144-175 could be a fine range and will get better experience. Like others say, not everyone are going to feel it and might need to do a comparison between them. However it will still give benefits to everyone to double the HZ from 60. Better animation and more, of course if one can have enough FPS and isn't locked to 60. So any game that does a lot of visuals and can run above 60 fps with little delay, would look better. Also to the HDR experience. QD OLED

[Moonzy]

11 hours ago, IPD said:

Like I said.  Dick Measuring Contest.

i like to have larger PP (performance points) than the rest

 

at 500Hz, i think pixel response times matters more than refresh rate at this point

imo, our current (gaming) panel just isnt suitable to be driven at high refresh rate, everything just becomes blurry even though the animation is smooth

[sub68]

5 hours ago, Mark Kaine said:

i guess that makes sense for a rythm game.

Conversely, and contradictory (seemingly) to what i said earlier, i always liked the 30fps PD games more, it seemed easier to hit notes, it makes sense too, if the framerate is only half you have twice as much "time"   than at 60 fps… 

 

It was kinda weird, i liked the 60fps games more visually (such as Dreamy Theatre) but i had way more *fun* playing the 30fps titles (such as Diva F) 

 

 

I know this is werid but the thing about osu is since it played differently, as in mouse or tablet to aim and game mechanics like AR, etc...

is high refresh has some use cases.

[IPD]

The fastest reaction time a human can have is about .15 sec.  MIGHT be able to get that down to .10 or .09 if you are a professional athlete; but doubtful.  500hz is .002 sec; so 40x faster than even a godly .08 reaction time.

 

I'm calling shiens on this being of use, even for OSU die-hards.

[Moonzy]

7 hours ago, Mark Kaine said:

Just a question, does the game actually get faster the higher the framerate is, or is this just frametime thing? 

Off topic, but osu circle appearance time is not fixed, but there's a parameter that affects that called Approach Rate (AR), which affects the time the circle appear before it should be hit.

Higher AR means the circle will appear later, and higher difficulty songs will have higher AR, not because higher AR is harder, it's to balance the density of notes on the screen, as, given the same AR, higher BPM songs will have more notes on the screen, making reading of the beatmap tough

low AR vs high AR, same song

Spoiler

 

What higher refresh rate allows in osu is smoother cursor movements so you can read the cursor position better (though muscle memory is more dominant in this regard) and, more importantly, helps with reading high AR maps, namely above AR10

I used to read AR11 (higher available AR in the game) on 60Hz screen, it's doable but definitely much easier on 240hz

 

19 minutes ago, IPD said:

The fastest reaction time a human can have is about .15 sec.  MIGHT be able to get that down to .10 or .09 if you are a professional athlete; but doubtful.  500hz is .002 sec; so 40x faster than even a godly .08 reaction time.

 

I'm calling shiens on this being of use, even for OSU die-hards.

do not confuse response time with motion smoothness
besides, by your logic, if 150ms is best human response time, monitors shouldnt be above 8Hz, because it doesnt matter?

also, human response time is 150ms, 60hz to 500Hz is 16ms to 2ms, 14ms difference, or about 10% of the human response time

do you know how much 10% matters?

I'm just sick of people saying "lul 240hz dont matter over 144hz" when they probably never used one and just saying it based off of reviews or something

i went from 240hz to 144hz and i can feel it, it may not matter to 99.9% of the people out there but to outright say that it's useless for everyone is just bullshit

[Bombastinator]

18 minutes ago, IPD said:

The fastest reaction time a human can have is about .15 sec.  MIGHT be able to get that down to .10 or .09 if you are a professional athlete; but doubtful.  500hz is .002 sec; so 40x faster than even a godly .08 reaction time.

 

I'm calling shiens on this being of use, even for OSU die-hards.

I thought .15 was the professional athlete.  Apparently they can test it by watching videos of professional baseball players batting

[IPD]

Ok, but we aren't talking about 60hz vs 500hz.  We're talking 240hz or even 360hz vs 500hz; and that's where absurdity in diminishing returns comes in.  If 60hz is your only alternative, sure, 500hz all day long.  But that's not even remotely the case.

 

24 FPS and 30 FPS for shows/movies wouldn't have become a standard, if it wasn't acceptable for humans.  Then we moved to 120hz to eliminate motion blur.  Then we moved to 240hz so you could do that in 3D.  Beyond that though, and most people will go " I don't see anything different".  Keep in mind that 120hz wasn't arbitrary.  It was the lowest common multiple of 24 and 30.

 

From wikipedia:

 

With regard to image recognition, people have been found to recognize a specific image in an unbroken series of different images, each of which lasts as little as 13 milliseconds.^[4] Persistence of vision sometimes accounts for very short single-millisecond visual stimulus having a perceived duration of between 100 ms and 400 ms. Multiple stimuli that are very short are sometimes perceived as a single stimulus, such as a 10 ms green flash of light immediately followed by a 10 ms red flash of light perceived as a single yellow flash of light.^[5]

 

So if consecutive stimulus at 10 ms are perceived as a singular one instead of distinct--which is equivalent to a refresh rate of a 100hz monitor--why would something 5x as fast be of legitimate value, based on the limits of human capacity?

[Bombastinator]

1 minute ago, IPD said:

Ok, but we aren't talking about 60hz vs 500hz.  We're talking 240hz or even 360hz vs 500hz; and that's where absurdity in diminishing returns comes in.  If 60hz is your only alternative, sure, 500hz all day long.  But that's not even remotely the case.

 

24 FPS and 30 FPS for shows/movies wouldn't have become a standard, if it wasn't acceptable for humans.  Then we moved to 120hz to eliminate motion blur.  Then we moved to 240hz so you could do that in 3D.  Beyond that though, and most people will go " I don't see anything different".

 

From wikipedia:

 

With regard to image recognition, people have been found to recognize a specific image in an unbroken series of different images, each of which lasts as little as 13 milliseconds.^[4] Persistence of vision sometimes accounts for very short single-millisecond visual stimulus having a perceived duration of between 100 ms and 400 ms. Multiple stimuli that are very short are sometimes perceived as a single stimulus, such as a 10 ms green flash of light immediately followed by a 10 ms red flash of light perceived as a single yellow flash of light.^[5]

 

So if consecutive stimulus at 10 ms are perceived as a singular one instead of distinct--which is equivalent to a refresh rate of a 100hz monitor--why would something 5x as fast be of legitimate value, based on the limits of human capacity?

I thought the move to to240 had nothing to do with motion blur as a visible difference between 144 and 240 could not be detected without equipment, but did make a difference in hit boxes on fps games

[Moonzy]

1 minute ago, IPD said:

We're talking 240hz or even 360hz vs 500hz; and that's where absurdity in diminishing returns comes in.

this is where i agree, but i wont say it's useless until i tried it personally because 240hz vs 144hz does make a difference for me
 

2 minutes ago, IPD said:

So if consecutive stimulus at 10 ms are perceived as a singular one instead of distinct--which is equivalent to a refresh rate of a 100hz monitor--why would something 5x as fast be of legitimate value, based on the limits of human capacity?

flickering might not be an issue as it's static. I dont perceive my 50/60hz incandescent lightbulb to be flickering to me even though cameras picked it up back in the days

 

but motion is different

[IPD]

2 minutes ago, Bombastinator said:

I thought the move to to240 had nothing to do with motion blur as a visible difference between 144 and 240 could not be detected without equipment, but did make a difference in hit boxes on fps games

That may well be.  But the 240hz genesis--as I understand it, was for 3D.  120hz per eye.

[IPD]

1 minute ago, Moonzy said:

this is where i agree, but i wont say it's useless until i tried it personally because 240hz vs 144hz does make a difference for me
 

flickering might not be an issue as it's static. I dont perceive my 50/60hz incandescent lightbulb to be flickering to me even though cameras picked it up back in the days

 

but motion is different

My eyestrain comes from noticing the difference in pixel density.  Sure, if you get low enough on refresh rate, it causes eyestrain.  But I'm the guy who can look at something from an oblique head angle, and see color shift--even though I'm still centered on the display.  LED's without diffusers are notorious like this.  And there's an auditorium at work with a jumbotron--and it has the same problem.  Hasn't given me any headaches, but it is consciously present and annoying.  I also notice aliasing far sooner on most displays than others might.

[Mark Kaine]

1 hour ago, sub68 said:

I know this is werid but the thing about osu is since it played differently, as in mouse or tablet to aim and game mechanics like AR, etc...

is high refresh has some use cases.

I can definitely see certain games benefitting from higher refresh rates, but as should be clear theres a limit, plus high refresh rate also has its downsides, especially if its not synced properly , ghosting, etc…

 

Personally, honestly, i dont care if its 60, 120 or 240 *as long the framerate is in sync* otherwise this gives me nausea and rather literally hurts my eyes - hence for me a 60hz screen is more than fine…  i have a 165hz msi monitor … its stashed away cause i kinda hate it, i think Gsync doesn't actually work, like it works for a few minutes and then everything keeps getting choppy, plus theres tons of ghosting too… so either the monitor is bad or not , personally i really  dont need it, to me color accuracy etc is more important.

 

 

But, yeah, it does depend on the screen  too, my laptops screen is really  good… barely any ghosting etc, and i can play at "500" fps and it feels still smooth  (weird effect tbh)

 

definitely doesn't seem to work on bigger screens, i notice every time its out of synch, its just really choppy (most of the time)

 

35 minutes ago, Moonzy said:

low AR vs high AR, same song

Ah, i see, yeah, thats also a problem  in PD games, the "approach time" doesn't change, i think, but notes on highest difficulty come so fast its really hard to see, not to mention react… for *most* people at least. Also it seems more practice and memorizing than anything… which is fun too of course, but it can also get really stressful, and yeah, its simply not easy to see, makes actual reaction time kinda secondary (and indeed not many can do perfect runs on highest difficulty)

 

 

35 minutes ago, Moonzy said:

also, human response time is 150ms, 60hz to 500Hz is 16ms to 2ms, 14ms difference, or about 10% of the human response time

do you know how much 10% matters?

i mean sure 10% makes a difference, but most people dont have these reflexes, average is more like 250, plus typically this isnt done in quick succession either, fatigue becomes a real issue quickly, although of course i guess it can be trained, but again certainly not by everyone.

 

 

 

 

[Doobeedoo]

Cool to see. I wonder what panel it is, really how much will they push LCD though. In the end it still can't be as good due to it's slow nature. But yeah QD-OLED in time.

Obviously it's for esport fast paced games, don't get how some people are upset. Or really straight up posting false, inaccurate or without a context info. Like just posting straight up numbers with limited understand or context behind it. Why be so vocal about something you don't care, use or have interest? I don't get it. Just to add, our eyes don't see like a camera, as some think.

Current monitors are still slower than CRTs though. Maybe some never used those but yes, motion clarity is better on them. For slow LCD tech to come to such clarity you need much higher refresh rate. Still it's and LCD and not as fast as modern OLED for example. This monitor will still have blur for that reason. But yeah it will be fun to see it, I'd expect BFI option too, we'll see.

 

Really there's more to it than many think, for those who want to learn more for start you can check this:
https://blurbusters.com/blur-busters-law-amazing-journey-to-future-1000hz-displays-with-blurfree-sample-and-hold/

[Moonzy]

13 minutes ago, Doobeedoo said:

I wonder what panel it is,

From the photo, 1ms liquid crystal, so not OLED probably

Which is a tad disappointing

[WereCat]

If you notice difference between 144Hz and 240Hz then going from 240Hz to 500Hz will be almost the same amount of upgrade in terms of ms.

 

But if you're already at 300/360/400/480Hz then this is almost a sidegrade... yes, even from 300Hz.

 

And that's assuming you're actually getting the framerate to match the refresh rate and ignoring the panel response times. 

 

With panel response times and ghosting... you will likely be hard pressed to see a difference but can't really comment on that until we know how well will the panel actually perform. 

 

Anyways, I see this as a huge positive and also likely a stop gap for a very long time since pushing to 1000Hz just for a 1ms improvement seems meaningless considering all the other factors in play. 

 

Definitely a meaningful upgrade for people using up to 240Hz but depends on price as well ofc.