480Hz 24" 1080p TN gaming monitor

[Doobeedoo]

So we knew rumors about it and it's somewhat revealed actually now so yeah. AU Optronics (AUO) demoed it along other products. There were rumors about IPS model possibly from LG so we'll see.

AMD also is working to Certify 480Hz Freesync displays.

 

Summary

Basically in short a next step in increased refresh rate while still using LCD tech.

 

Nothing really to quote though.

 

 

My thoughts

 So expected to see refresh rate getting increased further no doubt, we're still not at limits that can have benefits regardless if something lower is fine. What I'm interested is to see how long they'll keep pushing LCD and how much blur it can have. Also I'd like to see it tuned by Blur Buster it would make sense to make it as clear as possible. Really I eventually expect to see next step like 1000Hz to use like QD-OLED it's a no brainer at this point.

 

Sources

 

https://www.overclock3d.net/news/gpu_displays/au_optronics_teases_480hz_desktop_and_laptop_gaming_displays

480Hz Monitor Panel Spotted and it's 24" in Size, has a 1080p Resolution and is TN Film - TFTCentral

 

 

Edit 1:

So just stumbled on this

 

[IPD]

...Or you can go with 2160p @ 144hz and not ever notice the lower refresh rate in about 99% of test cases....

[Brooksie359]

@IPDWell 144hz doesn't matter much when you are running at 60 to 40 fps lol

[HenrySalayne]

10 hours ago, Brooksie359 said:

@IPDWell 144hz doesn't matter much when you are running at 60 to 40 fps lol

Well, 4k 120 Hz and 1080p 480 Hz are exactly the same amount of Pixel/sec. It would be even more difficult to get 480 Hz in a lot of games with today's top of the line CPUs.

So 4k 120 Hz seems to be the a more plausible scenario with the same hardware compared to 1080p at 480 Hz.

11 hours ago, Doobeedoo said:

Also I'd like to see it tuned by Blur Buster it would make sense to make it as clear as possible. Really I eventually expect to see next step like 1000Hz to use like QD-OLED it's a no brainer at this point.

We actually don't need higher refresh rates, just faster pixel response time. With current technology each frame takes basically 50% of the frame time to build up.

That's why an OLED at 120 Hz looks way better than a TN panel at 480 Hz.

[Moonzy]

33 minutes ago, HenrySalayne said:

It would be even more difficult to get 480 Hz in a lot of games with today's top of the line CPUs

The target audience for such a panel probably play games that are capable of reaching those fps

[Brooksie359]

1 hour ago, HenrySalayne said:

Well, 4k 120 Hz and 1080p 480 Hz are exactly the same amount of Pixel/sec. It would be even more difficult to get 480 Hz in a lot of games with today's top of the line CPUs.

So 4k 120 Hz seems to be the a more plausible scenario with the same hardware compared to 1080p at 480 Hz.

We actually don't need higher refresh rates, just faster pixel response time. With current technology each frame takes basically 50% of the frame time to build up.

That's why an OLED at 120 Hz looks way better than a TN panel at 480 Hz.

I would have to disagree to that as most games that people want to run at 1080p 480 hz are very easy to run like csgo and valorant where the graphics aren't amazing. Also the reverse is true for 4k as to really appreciate 4k you need a game with nice visuals which are harder to run making 4k 120hz incredibly hard. Compare that with esports games and you can see why you would probably be more likely to high fps at 1080p than to hit high fps at 4k for games that people would actually want to play at those resolutions. 

[Arika]

Can't wait for the 14 year olds to come here saying how they need this monitor and how to run it in 4:3 480hz for CS:GO on their clearly underpowered pc.

[xg32]

guess it's time for a 12900ks+6950xt+this monitor for CSGO

[Cyberspirit]

I'm super interested in how noticable will 480Hz be compared to 240Hz. Can't wait for reviews!

[CTR640]

5 hours ago, HenrySalayne said:

Well, 4k 120 Hz and 1080p 480 Hz are exactly the same amount of Pixel/sec. It would be even more difficult to get 480 Hz in a lot of games with today's top of the line CPUs.

So 4k 120 Hz seems to be the a more plausible scenario with the same hardware compared to 1080p at 480 Hz.

We actually don't need higher refresh rates, just faster pixel response time. With current technology each frame takes basically 50% of the frame time to build up.

That's why an OLED at 120 Hz looks way better than a TN panel at 480 Hz.

A month ago I had the LG 42C2 and it's the best OLED monitor/tv I ever had and it's true OLED looks way better. In my case I run games at 1440p/60 because of 1080Ti. However, I rather use my current VA monitor because of the fucking annoying ABL that we're not allowed to disable it.

 

And TN...? Lol, does that shit still exists in 2022?

[Doobeedoo]

6 hours ago, HenrySalayne said:

We actually don't need higher refresh rates, just faster pixel response time. With current technology each frame takes basically 50% of the frame time to build up.

That's why an OLED at 120 Hz looks way better than a TN panel at 480 Hz.

Both really. 120Hz I'd say is just a todays baseline for any display. Saying 120Hz OLED looks way better than say 480Hz TN is arguable. Are we using strobing for both? Either way, while OLED in general is faster and can be more clear, you're still seeing much less frames vs 480Hz even though they may be a bit more blurry, So no I wouldn't say 120Hz OLED is automatically better. Even because it's faster response OLED on 120Hz and no motion blur you can even notice frames more though, hence need for higher Hz too.

[Cyberspirit]

2 hours ago, CTR640 said:

And TN...? Lol, does that shit still exists in 2022?

It's a perfectly fine panel type for this kind of purpose imo. I have a 240Hz TN panel for fast paced games and it does what it needs to perfectly while displaying an alright image.

 

I also have a 4k IPS display for everything else that needs to look good. I don't get why people seem to hate TN so much.

[Urovah]

I cant wait to get one so I can play csgo with more HZ and change down to 4:3, sucks I'll be running it on a potatoe.

[Senzelian]

20 hours ago, Doobeedoo said:

interested is to see how long they'll keep pushing LCD

Until there is finally something that can effectively replace it.

Every technology of which we thought should replace LCDs has had issues. And even new LCD technologies didn't work out the way we wanted to.

After all these years the only viable solution to all of our display problems are still Micro LEDs.

[Stahlmann]

3 hours ago, Cyberspirit said:

I'm super interested in how noticable will 480Hz be compared to 240Hz. Can't wait for reviews!

Spoiler alert: It won't be noticeable. 240Hz is already past diminishing returns, 360Hz barely feels different (if at all). 480Hz will be insignificantly faster. A human won't be able to play better because of the slightly lower input lag coming form higher refresh rates. I can't say how it is with lizard people and androids playing CS:GO though. There is a reason why even most Esports pros don't use a 360Hz panel. At some point the refresh rate is high enough and there are other things that become more important.

 

If this is about motion clarity, heck a 60Hz OLED display using BFI is already better. So that's a moot point. And current 24" 240Hz IPS monitors can already get damn near OLED motion clarity using BFI.

 

Also, this is a TN monitor. I didn't think i'd ever see "TN" and "premium" in the same topic ever again.

 

WIth OLED displays 1000Hz refresh rates would be possible, but it's completely unnecessary. Before putting any effort into this kind of stuff, they should focus more on implementing BFI into more 120Hz+ OLED displays and especially make it compatible with VRR.

[Doobeedoo]

1 hour ago, Senzelian said:

Until there is finally something that can effectively replace it.

Every technology of which we thought should replace LCDs has had issues. And even new LCD technologies didn't work out the way we wanted to.

After all these years the only viable solution to all of our display problems are still Micro LEDs.

I mean yeah, so far QD-OLED has entered monitors market. It's better in every way and glad LCD is getting replaced on high end by it. Yes Micro LED is the best and future tech. But that will take quite some time.

[Senzelian]

45 minutes ago, Doobeedoo said:

It's better in every way and glad LCD is getting replaced on high end by it.

Not quite. Burn in will likely still be an issue and it currently has color fringing issues.

[WereCat]

6 hours ago, Cyberspirit said:

I'm super interested in how noticable will 480Hz be compared to 240Hz. Can't wait for reviews!

Faster by 2ms ... on paper. Because that does not account for pixel response time delay and input lag so 2ms is the best case scenario. Realistically you're looking at 1ms improvement or less and thats being generous. As of right now we need panels with low pixel response times to get advantage of faster refresh rates. TN is just not good enough, even IPS catched up with TN and even exceeded it on modern displays. OLED seems fine for this but too expensive.

[Doobeedoo]

52 minutes ago, Senzelian said:

Not quite. Burn in will likely still be an issue and it currently has color fringing issues.

I mean it is better. We've yet to see over time for burn in but I doubt we'd even see it on consumer monitors if it isn't any better. That fringing has nothing to do with tech it self but their just sub-pixel layout. I too would prefer a regular RGB one and maybe we will get those in other models. This is just a first monitor.

[Doobeedoo]

3 hours ago, Stahlmann said:

Spoiler alert: It won't be noticeable. 240Hz is already past diminishing returns, 360Hz barely feels different (if at all). 480Hz will be insignificantly faster. A human won't be able to play better because of the slightly lower input lag coming form higher refresh rates. I can't say how it is with lizard people and androids playing CS:GO though. There is a reason why even most Esports pros don't use a 360Hz panel. At some point the refresh rate is high enough and there are other things that become more important.

 

If this is about motion clarity, heck a 60Hz OLED display using BFI is already better. So that's a moot point. And current 24" 240Hz IPS monitors can already get damn near OLED motion clarity using BFI.

 

Also, this is a TN monitor. I didn't think i'd ever see "TN" and "premium" in the same topic ever again.

 

WIth OLED displays 1000Hz refresh rates would be possible, but it's completely unnecessary. Before putting any effort into this kind of stuff, they should focus more on implementing BFI into more 120Hz+ OLED displays and especially make it compatible with VRR.

It's not past diminishimg returns though, sure common folk won't care much but still. For 360Hz number of people say there is difference. 480Hz is another step though I feel doubling the refresh rate from one to another monitor is more noticable upgrade. 

Many esports that may not use 360Hz is reason one because sponsor like Zowie and another because there are faster 240Hz than those 360Hz in terms of clarity. And yes with higher refresh rates other things need to follow eventually in the chain like polling rate.

60Hz OLED while tech is faster it's still much worse than high refresh rate LCD though. But yeah 240Hz with good BFI is good. While IPS improved alot TN did too and it still can clearly be pushed more. These monitors sole purpose is that.

1000Hz OLED will not be unnecessary, it will definitely improve motion clarity still. There is research about, Blur Busters do a lot about this stuff, a lot to read. 

DP 2.0 can do 1000Hz and OLED definitely can. 

But yea strobing and vrr for sure in such future monitors. 

[Demonking]

23 hours ago, Brooksie359 said:

@IPDWell 144hz doesn't matter much when you are running at 60 to 40 fps lol

The latency is what you'll notice, higher refresh rates lowers latency, and that's really important for fighting games. Why a lot of street fighter V players have switched to PC along with other FG players outside of smash for the obvious reason.

[Brooksie359]

39 minutes ago, Demonking said:

The latency is what you'll notice, higher refresh rates lowers latency, and that's really important for fighting games. Why a lot of street fighter V players have switched to PC along with other FG players outside of smash for the obvious reason.

Sure but again I doubt I am playing a game at 4k because I am really in need of the lower latency. From a practical standpoint you would be better off running at 1080p high refreshrate if you really cared about latency as you can ensure higher fps than at 4k. 

[Guest]

18 hours ago, Arika S said:

Can't wait for the 14 year olds to come here saying how they need this monitor and how to run it in 4:3 480hz for CS:GO on their clearly underpowered pc.

Just playing UT99 is better, even CS 1.6

[suicidalfranco]

Just give me an ultra wide CRT monitor

[RejZoR]

People need to stop dissing TN LCD tech just because it was shit 15 years ago. I've had ASUS gaming monitor with 144Hz TN panel before my current one and I was super happy with it. Ridiculously responsive, no ghosting, fringing or backlight bleeding. I was buying a larger one and after reading how IPS is all the rage, I decided to go with one. I'm not that happy with it. Viewing angles are maybe slightly better, but it has worse ghsoting and terrible backlight bleeding, especially in lower right corner. If I'm honest I'd rather have another good TN monitor than IPS ever again. Or you really need to speend 1000€ to get a decent high refresh rate IPS. Which is a bit much.