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

[porina]

30 minutes ago, Brooksie359 said:

You realize that 3% means the difference between winning and losing a fight in a fast pace fps game. Guess what happens when I click your head 3% faster than you do?

I agree with you, but think it may help to get some more context around this area since I don't care about that genre of gaming.

 

If we assume you're against an opponent with the same reaction time as you, assuming all else is perfectly equal, then if you spot each other at the same time, faster display owner wins regardless if it is 1ms or 10ms. Not questioning that. But just how consistent is a person's reaction time? If there's say 50ms variation, then the benefit of 1ms saving from display will give you a much smaller advantage. You push the odds slightly in your favour.

 

Then you get a technology arms race. To be the best performing, you need the best equipment. Eventually those that care enough will also upgrade and you lose the tech advantage against them. I presume this is the case in pro level competitions, where gear might be standardised, it is back to skill.

 

Basically better gear as a form of pay2win against those that can't afford it, not that it can offset a player's deficiencies. I'd still suck even if I had all the best kit.  

[Brooksie359]

3 hours ago, porina said:

I agree with you, but think it may help to get some more context around this area since I don't care about that genre of gaming.

 

If we assume you're against an opponent with the same reaction time as you, assuming all else is perfectly equal, then if you spot each other at the same time, faster display owner wins regardless if it is 1ms or 10ms. Not questioning that. But just how consistent is a person's reaction time? If there's say 50ms variation, then the benefit of 1ms saving from display will give you a much smaller advantage. You push the odds slightly in your favour.

 

Then you get a technology arms race. To be the best performing, you need the best equipment. Eventually those that care enough will also upgrade and you lose the tech advantage against them. I presume this is the case in pro level competitions, where gear might be standardised, it is back to skill.

 

Basically better gear as a form of pay2win against those that can't afford it, not that it can offset a player's deficiencies. I'd still suck even if I had all the best kit.  

I think something that is missed is that often players can make better plays and shots on a higher refreshrate monitor. You are seeing more frames and have more to work with when try to line up shots etc.. take the example I gave of getting of one or two headshots during the duration of a stun in overwatch. Before on 60hz monitor it was near impossible to get on in the time frame as by the time I could see the opponent stunned I didn't have enough time to line up the shot. This isn't even mentioning that at 60hz you sorta have to do more interpolation when trying to track and shoot making it downright harder to aim. Anyways my point is if you play esports games and are buying a high refreshrate monitor you might as well get the best one you can get. Granted at 500hz you are going to run into the issue that some games can't even run at that high fps because of engine limitations. 

[IPD]

I've read every post and rebuttal here, and I still see nothing that will convince me that the migration from 360 is long overdue and highly warranted. 

 

So instead, we're still stuck with 2160p DPI on a 40" panel that is abysmal at best.  2160p is double 1080p and triple 720p--which means I still don't get the fetish with the stop-gap of 1440p; let alone the perversion with 500hz 1080p.

 

Bring on the 4320p 120hz already.  Stop wasting my time with these junk "panel advancements".

[sub68]

As promise I got some research that my dad found.

So my dad is a professor of industrial engineering and human factors.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Industrial_engineering

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_factors_and_ergonomics

(said paper compares 60hz and 160hz CRT's)Yes I know CRT but the low response rate does help)

Basically he told me, photonicly there is a slight improvement between 60hz and 160hz, But the human factor says there is a significant difference.

Ophthalmic Physiologic Optic.pdf

[IPD]

20 hours ago, sub68 said:

As promise I got some research that my dad found.

So my dad is a professor of industrial engineering and human factors.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Industrial_engineering

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_factors_and_ergonomics

(said paper compares 60hz and 160hz CRT's)Yes I know CRT but the low response rate does help)

Basically he told me, photonicly there is a slight improvement between 60hz and 160hz, But the human factor says there is a significant difference.

Ophthalmic Physiologic Optic.pdf 484.34 kB · 1 download

But that's 160hz.  we're at 3x that fast.  No way those "human factors" are providing the same linear results.

[sub68]

2 minutes ago, IPD said:

But that's 160hz.  we're at 3x that fast. 

Yes I know but it scales up

4 minutes ago, IPD said:

No way those "human factors" are providing the same linear results.

Didyk etal.pdf

What my dad sumed up

[IPD]

2 minutes ago, sub68 said:

Yes I know but it scales up

Didyk etal.pdf 484.78 kB · 0 downloads

What my dad sumed up

That still shows 120hz at the high end.  Compelling evidence--for me, would be comparing something at 240hz to 500hz.  And let's say 120z is the baseline, and 60hz is the "control group".

[sub68]

1 minute ago, IPD said:

That still shows 120hz at the high end.  Compelling evidence--for me, would be comparing something at 240hz to 500hz.  And let's say 120z is the baseline, and 60hz is the "control group".

There is no experiments done on that yet.

(I don't think my dad wants to do it)

[Bombastinator]

8 minutes ago, sub68 said:

There is no experiments done on that yet.

(I don't think my dad wants to do it)

Some need to be done I think.  Find out if 500hz is good for anything besides esoteric research. It’s got to functionally beat 240hz  to make it worthwhile, and I’m not sure it does. The current breakdown atm seems to be 100 if you’re old, 144 if you’re young and fast or doing VR, and 240 if you play specific games on a professional athlete level. 

[sub68]

4 minutes ago, Bombastinator said:

Some need to be done I think.  Find out if 500hz is good for anything besides esoteric research. It’s got to functionally beat 240hz  to make it worthwhile, and I’m not sure it does. The current breakdown atm seems to be 100 if you’re old, 144 if you’re young and fast or doing VR, and 240 if you play specific games on a professional athlete level. 

yes, but I don't think the college my dad works at want to provide research by a son that had a internet argument.

But at the same time I think there is one on going for 360hz

[tikker]

21 hours ago, sub68 said:

As promise I got some research that my dad found.

So my dad is a professor of industrial engineering and human factors.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Industrial_engineering

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_factors_and_ergonomics

(said paper compares 60hz and 160hz CRT's)Yes I know CRT but the low response rate does help)

Basically he told me, photonicly there is a slight improvement between 60hz and 160hz, But the human factor says there is a significant difference.

Ophthalmic Physiologic Optic.pdf 484.34 kB · 2 downloads

 

1 hour ago, sub68 said:

Yes I know but it scales up

Didyk etal.pdf 484.78 kB · 1 download

What my dad sumed up

Man I love when actual science is thrown in. Interesting to see that upsampled 120 Hz was rated quite close to native 120 Hz in the context of that experiment.

 

I don't need 500 Hz, but I yearn for the day I can replace this 4k 60 Hz TV with something faster.

[sub68]

2 minutes ago, tikker said:

Man I love when actual science is thrown in.

The only "public study" people know about is the LTT one but I don't like that one because it just doesnt feel right.

But I love these studies because its really scientificly done and something I learned that is more helpful

[tikker]

1 minute ago, sub68 said:

The only "public study" people know about is the LTT one but I don't like that one because it just doesnt feel right.

But I love these studies because its really scientificly done and something I learned that is more helpful

Not that LTT's tests are invalid, but scientists value peer-reviewed literature more for good reason.

[sub68]

Just now, tikker said:

Not that LTT's tests are invalid, but scientists value peer-reviewed literature more for good reason.

I said they don't fit right not they are bad just I don't personally trust it because of bias IMO.

[tikker]

16 minutes ago, sub68 said:

I said they don't fit right not they are bad just I don't personally trust it because of bias IMO.

Neither did I. Those same biases will never disappear, but in published work they're usually at least addressed if only just in their existence, which is why that tends to hold more weight. That was all I said.

[sub68]

23 minutes ago, tikker said:

which is why that tends to hold more weight. That was all I said.

sorry about not really paying attention

[Bombastinator]

9 hours ago, sub68 said:

yes, but I don't think the college my dad works at want to provide research by a son that had a internet argument.

But at the same time I think there is one on going for 360hz

I forgot entirely about 360hz stuff.  If there’s nothing to 360hz the chances that there is anything to 500hz goes down.  Still not to zero though. Just sort of close. There might be one game or other it effectively causes additional glitches on just by being so far out from what devs expected designing the code for the game.  It’s just as likely to cause additional problems though. If I was a pro gamer with disposable cash, I might buy one just to keep it handy in case it does turn out to have some niche case advantage. One of the issues with weird stuff like this is it may have a real short run, and no one else may pick it up, so the availability window could be real small. 

[cmndr]

On 2/1/2022 at 2:45 AM, Brooksie359 said:

You realize that 3% means the difference between winning and losing a fight in a fast pace fps game. Guess what happens when I click your head 3% faster than you do? I end up winning the duel. Also I find it hilarious when people think that higher hz monitors don't give a distinct competitive advantage. I played overwatch when it first came out on a 60hz monitor and peaked at about high gold low Plat. I got a 240hz monitor and then I went from that to high diamond low masters in about a couple months so I call bs on your stats because statistically 60hz vs 240hz isn't that large when you have a reaction time of 150ms yet the improvement it had to my gameplay was incredibly significant. I mean one very distinct things I remember when I got the monitor was that it was way easier to hit headshots during the duration of mccrees stun as you can actually see the stunned person sooner and more clearly. This was a huge game changer as especially against tracer players as if you get the flashbang stun plus headshot off on the tracer they are dead. Anyways I think you are seriously underestimating the advantage higher hz gives and while stats might make it seem like a negligible advantage I would say it's not nearly as negligible as you think. 

1. Most games are not high paced. RTS, RPG, etc. aren't going to be won on a marginal difference in responsiveness.
2. 99.999% of people have 0 consequences for NOT having a marginally faster system. Worst case scenario auto-match will place you against people who are slightly worse.
3. Even in those fast paced scenarios OTHER things matter more (e.g. getting enough sleep, team coordination, etc.)

If you're not getting 8 hours of sleep and exercising regularly, those things will generally matter 10x as much. Similar story for keyboard responsiveness and mouse responsiveness.

[Elijah Kamski]

Finally I can play Minesweeper at 500 FPS.

[Brooksie359]

8 hours ago, cmndr said:

1. Most games are not high paced. RTS, RPG, etc. aren't going to be won on a marginal difference in responsiveness.
2. 99.999% of people have 0 consequences for NOT having a marginally faster system. Worst case scenario auto-match will place you against people who are slightly worse.
3. Even in those fast paced scenarios OTHER things matter more (e.g. getting enough sleep, team coordination, etc.)

If you're not getting 8 hours of sleep and exercising regularly, those things will generally matter 10x as much. Similar story for keyboard responsiveness and mouse responsiveness.

It's crazy how you explained how clearly this monitor isn't targeting everyone when I don't think anyone is denying that. I think people are saying this does have a target audience and for them a 500hz monitor is probably worth it. I would absolutely agree that 500hz monitors are more for people who are into esports games. That being said as monitors get cheaper its hard not to get something like a 240hz monitor if you are going to play at 1080p anyways as they are so cheap now. It's sorta like getting a 144hz 1080p monitor makes more sense than getting a 60hz when the prices are super similar. I mean for me I tend to get the best regardless as monitors last quite a awhile and if you can afford the best why not get it? I mean I play mostly at 1080p so getting the 360hz monitor that I currently have made sense because I play alot of esports games and it's not like it's crazy expensive anyways. 

[IPD]

I'm an elitist.  So i question the sanity of people buying 1080p as of 2022.

[Moonzy]

2 hours ago, IPD said:

I'm an elitist.  So i question the sanity of people buying 1080p as of 2022.

if there's a 4K/8K display with 500Hz panel (assuming the rest of the system can keep up)

i would definitely buy it

 

but as it stands, i prefer to have 1080p240 over 1440p144 for the games i play, speaking from experience
1440p is definitely nice for other things tho, display real estate is real (UI scaling in some apps sucks)

[IPD]

1440p/240hz is already a thing though....

[Bombastinator]

16 hours ago, cmndr said:

1. Most games are not high paced. RTS, RPG, etc. aren't going to be won on a marginal difference in responsiveness.
2. 99.999% of people have 0 consequences for NOT having a marginally faster system. Worst case scenario auto-match will place you against people who are slightly worse.
3. Even in those fast paced scenarios OTHER things matter more (e.g. getting enough sleep, team coordination, etc.)

If you're not getting 8 hours of sleep and exercising regularly, those things will generally matter 10x as much. Similar story for keyboard responsiveness and mouse responsiveness.

I’m not sure if there’s 5 9s on it, but definitely one or two

[Moonzy]

3 hours ago, IPD said:

1440p/240hz is already a thing though....

but 1080p have higher refresh rate

so if there's 1440p 360hz then i would probably grab it

 

i am THAT close on getting samsung G9 because it's almost everything in one, then there's the issues

if there's a G9 without issue, that might be the golden ticket