What cpu will i need for 500hz?

[rippy4500]

I know it sounds kinda stupid but this was just announced and i want one of them when they become available.

https://rog.asus.com/articles/news/the-rog-swift-500hz-shatters-boundaries-with-its-ultra-fast-panel/

 

will the 5600x @4.8ghz be enough or will i need to get ryzen 7000 or intel 13th gen when those come out?

[DoctorNick]

Just now, rippy4500 said:

I know it sounds kinda stupid but this was just announced and i want one of them when they become available.

https://rog.asus.com/articles/news/the-rog-swift-500hz-shatters-boundaries-with-its-ultra-fast-panel/

 

will the 5600x @4.8ghz be enough or will i need to get ryzen 7000 or intel 13th gen when those come out?

GPU is more important

[manikyath]

2 minutes ago, DoctorNick said:

GPU is more important

for very high refresh rate the cpu is actually a big issue. you can often lower graphics details to increase the fps you get out a card, but the cpu side for most games is a fairly linear 'cost per frame' no matter the settings.

 

on topic:

this is extremely game dependant, and i doubt anyone has bothered to benchmark this type of use case. generally the single core performance still mostly dictates how much fps you can get, but at the 500fps mark just about anything could be the limit, perhaps even pcie...

[DoctorNick]

Just now, manikyath said:

for very high refresh rate the cpu is actually a big issue. you can often lower graphics details to increase the fps you get out a card, but the cpu side for most games is a fairly linear 'cost per frame' no matter the settings.

 

on topic:

this is extremely game dependant, and i doubt anyone has bothered to benchmark this type of use case. generally the single core performance still mostly dictates how much fps you can get, but at the 500fps mark just about anything could be the limit, perhaps even pcie...

Yes depends on the game, hard to say if a ryzen 7000 would make much difference compared to 5600x

[mariushm]

It's really so ... ridiculously stupid to go for such monitors. 

Not only you're really unlikely to notice any more than 160 Hz (but let's be generous and say 240 Hz) but you'll also sacrifice image quality - the monitor will overdrive pixels and cause smearing and ghosting and shit all over the image to do 500 Hz AND you'd most likely also have to send crap image to the monitor ...

For example instead of sending Full RGB you'll probably send YCbCr 4:2:0 or 4:2:2 or use DSC (visually lossless real time compression) to squeeze 500 updates through the video cable. 

Wait for proper reviews from reputable sources and see the quality of that monitor before you rush to buy.

[rippy4500]

3 minutes ago, mariushm said:

It's really so ... ridiculously stupid to go for such monitors. 

Not only you're really unlikely to notice any more than 160 Hz (but let's be generous and say 240 Hz) but you'll also sacrifice image quality - the monitor will overdrive pixels and cause smearing and ghosting and shit all over the image to do 500 Hz AND you'd most likely also have to send crap image to the monitor ...

For example instead of sending Full RGB you'll probably send YCbCr 4:2:0 or 4:2:2 or use DSC (visually lossless real time compression) to squeeze 500 updates through the video cable. 

Wait for proper reviews from reputable sources and see the quality of that monitor before you rush to buy.

I can tell 240 from 280 so my ability to benefit from it is there.

im just worrried about cost and my pcs ability to take full advantage of it.

30 series can run 8k at 60fps which is equivalent to 900 something hz at 1080p in terms of raw data rate, so i wont have an issue with cables.

it aparrently uses some fancy e-tn or something panel for better response time so it probably wont be smearing.

[Andrewtst]

I doubt any GPU now can give you 500fps even on 1080p for new games unless you play in superb low graphics setting. But off course it still benefits others for example reduce input lag and etc. 

 

Wait for next generation GPU.

 

500hz sound wow! but when looking at others spec - 1080p, TN !!! 100% forget about it.

[Somerandomtechyboi]

500hz is just pointless, youll only benifit in esports titles like csgo where they can run 500+ fps, but if you play competitive esports then you may benifit but if you dont then just get a 240-360hz with the best image quality

[Dogzilla07]

Finally, and with new E-TN technology, specially designed and named (Esports-TN panels). And to add, yes CPU is the main limiting factor for 500Hz. And unfortunately it's game dependent.

 

But it's very likely as soon as Intel introduces 3D cache, that games will become more optimized for it, and so it will be easier to hit 500FPS +. Though 5800x3D will not necessarily benefit from this.

 

Online shooters are finally gonna be almost perfectly pleasent to play, so very soon! And at this rate we're gonna hit 1000Hz maybe even before 2030.

[Stahlmann]

2 hours ago, rippy4500 said:

I can tell 240 from 280 so my ability to benefit from it is there.

Yeah sure. In a blind test you won't be able to tell a difference. Even the best e-sports pros often go for 240Hz even though you can already buy 360Hz monitors. At some point there are more important things than just refresh rate, like for example motion clarity. And a good BFI implementation will always be more effective at reducing motion blur than just going for a higher refresh rate.

 

A 500Hz TN panel is just something we don't need. We're already way past diminishing returns with refresh rate and with TN we're going backwards in terms of image quality.

[Dogzilla07]

1 hour ago, Stahlmann said:

A 500Hz TN panel is just something we don't need.

Absolutely disagree. The faster we get 500Hz TN, the faster 1000Hz TN will come. There's no need to dis TN, there's gonna be a little bit for everyone afterwards, when it trickles down to other panel technologies.

 

360MHz is a mid-step with tight Nvidia control. That's one of the main reasons why pros are on 240Hz still. For wide adoption 480Hz with proper ULMB, strobing, etc, they'll be there.

 

Competitive shooters, are competitive shooters.

[Stahlmann]

7 minutes ago, Dogzilla07 said:

Absolutely disagree. The faster we get 500Hz TN, the faster 1000Hz TN will come. There's no need to dis TN, there's gonna be a little bit for everyone afterwards, when it trickles down to other panel technologies.

 

Competitive shooters, are competitive shooters.

And why do we need 1000Hz? Like i said above, 360Hz is already WELL PAST the point of diminishing returns, even when you're playing on a sweaty hardcore level. At some point other things are more important than just scratching every ms out of the latency line. In the end you're still human (i hope) and are limited by your own reaction times.

 

Linus did the test with Shroud and some other competitive pro players alongside some casuals like Paul from Paul's Hardware. There was a big jump in their ingame performance between a 60Hz and 144Hz monitor, but going from 144Hz to 240Hz almost had no impact. And the higher you go, the less difference it makes. Diminishing returns.

 

Just like 1000Hz should be technically achievable, it should also be technically achievable to make my PC scratch my back. That doesn't mean it makes sense to implement it, or pull resources away from developing features that make more sense.

[Doobeedoo]

Definitely you'd want top specs but yeah like 5800X3D with fast tight RAM for sure. I mean even better next gen with 3D cache since it can really help at certain games.

[Doobeedoo]

6 hours ago, mariushm said:

It's really so ... ridiculously stupid to go for such monitors. 

Not only you're really unlikely to notice any more than 160 Hz (but let's be generous and say 240 Hz) but you'll also sacrifice image quality - the monitor will overdrive pixels and cause smearing and ghosting and shit all over the image to do 500 Hz AND you'd most likely also have to send crap image to the monitor ...

For example instead of sending Full RGB you'll probably send YCbCr 4:2:0 or 4:2:2 or use DSC (visually lossless real time compression) to squeeze 500 updates through the video cable. 

Wait for proper reviews from reputable sources and see the quality of that monitor before you rush to buy.

I mean depends on user how they may or not notice. Also nobody really cares about image quality looking for such monitor. 

[Tan3l6]

Needs really good response times to be any good. But I guess Asus already knows this.

[Doobeedoo]

4 hours ago, Stahlmann said:

Yeah sure. In a blind test you won't be able to tell a difference. Even the best e-sports pros often go for 240Hz even though you can already buy 360Hz monitors. At some point there are more important things than just refresh rate, like for example motion clarity. And a good BFI implementation will always be more effective at reducing motion blur than just going for a higher refresh rate.

 

A 500Hz TN panel is just something we don't need. We're already way past diminishing returns with refresh rate and with TN we're going backwards in terms of image quality.

Yeah because there are faster 240Hz or more clear in image. But I wouldn't say we're past diminishing returns. For LCD yeah maybe. We need QD OLED already. Also BFI too.

[Doobeedoo]

2 hours ago, Stahlmann said:

And why do we need 1000Hz? Like i said above, 360Hz is already WELL PAST the point of diminishing returns, even when you're playing on a sweaty hardcore level. At some point other things are more important than just scratching every ms out of the latency line. In the end you're still human (i hope) and are limited by your own reaction times.

 

Linus did the test with Shroud and some other competitive pro players alongside some casuals like Paul from Paul's Hardware. There was a big jump in their ingame performance between a 60Hz and 144Hz monitor, but going from 144Hz to 240Hz almost had no impact. And the higher you go, the less difference it makes. Diminishing returns.

 

Just like 1000Hz should be technically achievable, it should also be technically achievable to make my PC scratch my back. That doesn't mean it makes sense to implement it, or pull resources away from developing features that make more sense.

Why, because 1000Hz will still help motion clarity regardless if average person may not notice or care. And this is a fact. Researches done on it. But we also need to ditch LCD already and focus on QD OLED along with BFI and other features. Because there will still be blur on this monitor especially without BFI though. 

 

That Linus test with Shroud and others while fun it's not really a good example though. Mostly done with a lot of stationary tests and not all pros or actual in game fights. So much more to it really.

 

Why would developing 1000Hz pull resources from developing other features? With DP 2.0 we can have HDR 4K 240Hz and with dual spec display 1080p 1000Hz too, make it a QD OLED monitor with features like sync strobing and whatever else. I'd buy that for sure! 

[Stahlmann]

21 minutes ago, Doobeedoo said:

Why, because 1000Hz will still help motion clarity regardless if average person may not notice or care. And this is a fact. Researches done on it. But we also need to ditch LCD already and focus on QD OLED along with BFI and other features. Because there will still be blur on this monitor especially without BFI though.

A 240Hz OLED monitor using BFI will have the same motion clarity as a 1000Hz OLED monitor using BFI. Again, higher refresh rates than we already have won't help with anything. Even if OLED is technically capable of 1000Hz if we're talking about pixel response times, a good BFI implementation - especially while also using VRR - is more important than just pushing refresh rate.

 

Your next problem is that games don't even get close to 1000 fps, even on competitive settings.

 

21 minutes ago, Doobeedoo said:

That Linus test with Shroud and others while fun it's not really a good example though. Mostly done with a lot of stationary tests and not all pros or actual in game fights. So much more to it really.

It also included 1v1 fights between the participants. There you have your fights.

 

21 minutes ago, Doobeedoo said:

Why would developing 1000Hz pull resources from developing other features?

Because the engineers working on 1000Hz monitors could work on something else instead, like focusing to make BFI and VRR at the same time a more standard feature.

 

21 minutes ago, Doobeedoo said:

With DP 2.0 we can have HDR 4K 240Hz and with dual spec display 1080p 1000Hz too, make it a QD OLED monitor with features like sync strobing and whatever else. I'd buy that for sure! 

If you have enough bandwidth available, dual spec displays don't make sense. If a monitor can handle 4K and 240Hz there is no reason to limit it to one or the other. And with DP 1.4 using DSC we already have enough bandwidth to make 4K 240Hz 10bit HDR a reality now.

[Doobeedoo]

5 minutes ago, Stahlmann said:

A 240Hz OLED monitor using BFI will have the same motion clarity as a 1000Hz OLED monitor using BFI. Again, higher refresh rates than we already have won't help with anything. Even if OLED is technically capable of 1000Hz if we're talking about pixel response times, a good BFI implementation - especially while also using VRR - is more important than just pushing refresh rate.

 

It also included 1v1 fights between the participants. There you have your fights.

 

Because the engineers working on 1000Hz monitors could work on something else instead, like focusing to make BFI and VRR at the same time a more standard feature.

 

If you have enough bandwidth available, dual spec displays don't make sense. If a monitor can handle 4K and 240Hz there is no reason to limit it to one or the other. And even with DP 1.4 we already have enough bandwidth to make 4K 240Hz a reality now.

What makes you say that. Because at lower refresh and enabling BFI frames become more noticable since no blur. So like 120Hz OLED with BFI still feels jittery vs say 240Hz because while frames are clear you see less of them and no blur between.

There's no limit choosing what to push, those things can all work together. The help with anything saying I mean it will further improve motion clarity and not just on paper. And yes synced strobing definitely a feature to have on future monitors. With LCD they were more limited and had to do more tuning to make it well.

 

Yeah those 1v1 many of stationary. It was a very basic test with average players that's it. There are more hectic fights situations and other games. Don't take that test literally.

 

The BFI VRR is neat but no point when not well tuned, and that will cost money. Also nore work needed with LCD panel. Need to move away from it. 1000Hz is just bandwidth so DP 2.0 will have it.

 

What do you mean dual display doesn't make sense? 4K 240Hz HDR or switch to 1080p 1000Hz that's awesome. Not saying 4K or 240Hz. But above.

DP 1.4 4K 240Hz like that Samsung monitor is not 4:4:4 HDR but compressed, using chroma subsampling. We will see a review but a pass for me for more reasons. 

[Stahlmann]

23 minutes ago, Doobeedoo said:

What makes you say that. Because at lower refresh and enabling BFI frames become more noticable since no blur. So like 120Hz OLED with BFI still feels jittery vs say 240Hz because while frames are clear you see less of them and no blur between.

There's no limit choosing what to push, those things can all work together. The help with anything saying I mean it will further improve motion clarity and not just on paper. And yes synced strobing definitely a feature to have on future monitors. With LCD they were more limited and had to do more tuning to make it well.

 

Yeah those 1v1 many of stationary. It was a very basic test with average players that's it. There are more hectic fights situations and other games. Don't take that test literally.

 

The BFI VRR is neat but no point when not well tuned, and that will cost money. Also nore work needed with LCD panel. Need to move away from it. 1000Hz is just bandwidth so DP 2.0 will have it.

I hope the high-end market will move away from LCD. BFI is fairly simple on OLED as there are no timings involved. And integrating VRR compatibility should be much easier there.

 

23 minutes ago, Doobeedoo said:

What do you mean dual display doesn't make sense? 4K 240Hz HDR or switch to 1080p 1000Hz that's awesome. Not saying 4K or 240Hz. But above.

DP 1.4 4K 240Hz like that Samsung monitor is not 4:4:4 HDR but compressed, using chroma subsampling. We will see a review but a pass for me for more reasons. 

The upcoming Samsung monitor has no reason to use chroma. DP 1.4 can support full RGB at 4K 240Hz 10bit HDR. If it does use chroma than that's a pretty big downside without a real reason. They just have to use DSC, which they already do with their current G7 and G9 models.

[Dogzilla07]

1000Hz is paramount for future twitch esports shooters and VR afterwards.

 

Past 1000Hz is the first range where its debatable how noticeable it is. Below that military tests showed people noticing and benefiting from changes

[Doobeedoo]

1 hour ago, Stahlmann said:

I hope the high-end market will move away from LCD. BFI is fairly simple on OLED as there are no timings involved. And integrating VRR compatibility should be much easier there.

 

The upcoming Samsung monitor has no reason to use chroma. DP 1.4 can support full RGB at 4K 240Hz 10bit HDR. If it does use chroma than that's a pretty big downside without a real reason. They just have to use DSC, which they already do with their current G7 and G9 models.

Right. Still even if DSC it's still not great and can have issues. Really odd choice they didn't go with DP 2.0 though. I mean we don't know the details but yeah.

I just want them to do a QD OLED version next.

[ewitte]

8 hours ago, Stahlmann said:

A ...TN panel is just something we don't need. 

My stance on TN....

[Stahlmann]

4 hours ago, Doobeedoo said:

Right. Still even if DSC it's still not great and can have issues. Really odd choice they didn't go with DP 2.0 though. I mean we don't know the details but yeah.

I just want them to do a QD OLED version next.

Kinda makes sense to not go DP 2.0. There are NO GPUs with that connector on the market atm. So literally no one could use it.

[rippy4500]

Just now, Stahlmann said:

Kinda makes sense to not go DP 2.0. There are NO GPUs with that connector on the market atm. So literally no one could use it.

they may add it or something like it with the rtx 4000 series but idk.

 

5 hours ago, Doobeedoo said:

Right. Still even if DSC it's still not great and can have issues. Really odd choice they didn't go with DP 2.0 though. I mean we don't know the details but yeah.

I just want them to do a QD OLED version next.

oled would be better yeah. the reason there isnt too many super high refresh rate monitors like 360hz, 500hz, or even higher. is because the response time of lcd can barely keep up, oled would completely get rid of that problem since it has close to 0ms response time. a 500hz oled would look amazing because of its better colors and response time. However its price would probably be insane.