Asus PG27AQN 1440p 360hz price!

[DarkSmith2]

According to the Asus shop the Monitor is listed at $1,049.00 (USD)
https://shop.asus.com/us/90lm0820-b013b0-rog-swift-360hz-pg27aqn.html

[Bombastinator]

I don’t get the premium for 360hz monitors myself.  It’s just not a refresh rate useful to most people.  I bought 144 and consider it possibly uselessly high for me.  Pro gamers need 240hz sometimes.  I don’t even play those games though.

[DarkSmith2]

10 minutes ago, Bombastinator said:

I don’t get the premium for 360hz monitors myself.  It’s just not a refresh rate useful to most people.  I bought 144 and consider it possibly uselessly high for me.  Pro gamers need 240hz sometimes.  I don’t even play those games though.

There is probably a lack of understanding what higher refreshrates can do for you. The biggest issue here is that most people think that you have to match the refreshrate in FPS to get any benefit out of it, which isnt true. F.e. 60fps on 60hz will always have more inputlag than 60fps on 144/240/360hz, Higher refreshrates make a smoother gaming experience while plagued with diminishing returns, it is a more enjoyable experience.

Im using 360hz for quite a while now, 144hz is sluggish, 60hz unusable even on the desktop. Its one of the things you cant easily go back from. Just the same as with higher resolutions or panel tech (for some people atleast). Switching back to 1080p from 1440p+ or going back to TN from IPS.

[Stahlmann]

4 hours ago, DarkSmith2 said:

There is probably a lack of understanding what higher refreshrates can do for you. The biggest issue here is that most people think that you have to match the refreshrate in FPS to get any benefit out of it, which isnt true. F.e. 60fps on 60hz will always have more inputlag than 60fps on 144/240/360hz, Higher refreshrates make a smoother gaming experience while plagued with diminishing returns, it is a more enjoyable experience.

There is probably a lack of understanding what a VRR is, which is a basic must-have feature on any modern gaming monitor.

 

You DO have to match your refresh rate to get any benefit of a 240Hz and 360Hz monitor. As long as you're using VRR (which most people do) a 360Hz monitor will just run at 100Hz when your game runs on 100 fps. There is NO advantage in this situation.

 

However if you play games that comfortably put out 300+ fps then yes, a 360Hz monitor will benefit you more than 60, 144 or 240Hz monitors.

 

But if you're fine with tearing and disable VRR alltogether, yes, a 360Hz monitor will have lower input lag than a lower refresh rate monitor in 100 fps content.

[DarkSmith2]

1 hour ago, Stahlmann said:

There is probably a lack of understanding what a VRR is, which is a basic must-have feature on any modern gaming monitor.

 

You DO have to match your refresh rate to get any benefit of a 240Hz and 360Hz monitor. As long as you're using VRR (which most people do) a 360Hz monitor will just run at 100Hz when your game runs on 100 fps. There is NO advantage in this situation.

 

However if you play games that comfortably put out 300+ fps then yes, a 360Hz monitor will benefit you more than 60, 144 or 240Hz monitors.

 

But if you're fine with tearing and disable VRR alltogether, yes, a 360Hz monitor will have lower input lag than a lower refresh rate monitor in 100 fps content.

You shouldnt be so confident in saying that "most people" are using VRR constantly. VRR is a practical feature with usecases and not a "full on / off" setting.

The higher the refreshrate of your Monitor is, the less noticable is tearing unless your FPS exceeds the refreshrate of the monitor.

 

So if you want immersion and full graphical enjoyment you can choose to use VRR (regardless of performance aswell), but most likely when doing so, its while playing a game where inputlag or fidelity/smoothness doesnt matter as much as the actual graphical impressions.

I mean its not like once you turned it on you cant turn it off again, i use a wide variety of settings for different stuff all the time, and thats how a monitor is intented to be used.

 

[Stahlmann]

4 hours ago, DarkSmith2 said:

You shouldnt be so confident in saying that "most people" are using VRR constantly. VRR is a practical feature with usecases and not a "full on / off" setting.

The higher the refreshrate of your Monitor is, the less noticable is tearing unless your FPS exceeds the refreshrate of the monitor.

 

So if you want immersion and full graphical enjoyment you can choose to use VRR (regardless of performance aswell), but most likely when doing so, its while playing a game where inputlag or fidelity/smoothness doesnt matter as much as the actual graphical impressions.

I mean its not like once you turned it on you cant turn it off again, i use a wide variety of settings for different stuff all the time, and thats how a monitor is intented to be used.

Most people use a monitor either like it is out of the box or on a "set and forget" basis. And when your GPU detects a VRR capable monitor this feature is enabled by default. Anything that is default is automatically the most used option. Even with insanely high refresh rates like 360Hz there is basically no reason to turn VRR off. Not even for the sake of input lag. VRR adds no perceptable input lag. And in my opinion the introduction of tearing isn't worth an extra split second of input lag. Anyone that actually claims there is a perceptable difference between VRR on and off in terms of input lag is lying to themself. It's basically placebo because CS:GO tryhards said it's a small benefit. 99% of all people are not even on the level where this small advantage will tip the scale against your opponents.

 

Sure, you're not forced to use it all the time, but like i said: Most people probably don't change their monitor or driver settings depending on the game they play. It's a set and forget type thing.

[Bombastinator]

10 hours ago, DarkSmith2 said:

You shouldnt be so confident in saying that "most people" are using VRR constantly. VRR is a practical feature with usecases and not a "full on / off" setting.

The higher the refreshrate of your Monitor is, the less noticable is tearing unless your FPS exceeds the refreshrate of the monitor.

 

So if you want immersion and full graphical enjoyment you can choose to use VRR (regardless of performance aswell), but most likely when doing so, its while playing a game where inputlag or fidelity/smoothness doesnt matter as much as the actual graphical impressions.

I mean its not like once you turned it on you cant turn it off again, i use a wide variety of settings for different stuff all the time, and thats how a monitor is intented to be used.

 

Most people technically is unlikely because “most people” have 1080p@60 monitors because they use them at work and cheaper.  I would say the vast majority of people that have high refresh ray monitors use Variable Refresh Rate though.   Myself i found high refresh rate nicer even for text, though there were diminishing returns after about 90hz. It’s  probably worth it to get high refresh rate monitors for employees as they can work longer without eye fatigue.  Human workers are horrifically expensive.

[DarkSmith2]

14 hours ago, Stahlmann said:

Most people use a monitor either like it is out of the box or on a "set and forget" basis. And when your GPU detects a VRR capable monitor this feature is enabled by default. Anything that is default is automatically the most used option. Even with insanely high refresh rates like 360Hz there is basically no reason to turn VRR off. Not even for the sake of input lag. VRR adds no perceptable input lag. And in my opinion the introduction of tearing isn't worth an extra split second of input lag. Anyone that actually claims there is a perceptable difference between VRR on and off in terms of input lag is lying to themself. It's basically placebo because CS:GO tryhards said it's a small benefit. 99% of all people are not even on the level where this small advantage will tip the scale against your opponents.

 

Sure, you're not forced to use it all the time, but like i said: Most people probably don't change their monitor or driver settings depending on the game they play. It's a set and forget type thing.

those people probably also try to dry their cats in a microwave.

[Bombastinator]

19 hours ago, DarkSmith2 said:

You shouldnt be so confident in saying that "most people" are using VRR constantly. VRR is a practical feature with usecases and not a "full on / off" setting.

The higher the refreshrate of your Monitor is, the less noticable is tearing unless your FPS exceeds the refreshrate of the monitor.

 

So if you want immersion and full graphical enjoyment you can choose to use VRR (regardless of performance aswell), but most likely when doing so, its while playing a game where inputlag or fidelity/smoothness doesnt matter as much as the actual graphical impressions.

I mean its not like once you turned it on you cant turn it off again, i use a wide variety of settings for different stuff all the time, and thats how a monitor is intented to be used.

 

Most people technically is unlikely because “most people” have 1080p@60 monitors because they use them at work and cheaper.  I would say the vast majority of people that have high refresh ray monitors use Variable Refresh Rate though.   Myself i found high refresh rate nicer even for text, though there were diminishing returns after about 90hz. It’s  probably worth it to get high refresh rate monitors for employees as they can work longer without eye fatigue.  Human workers are horrifically expensive.

[Bombastinator]

34 minutes ago, DarkSmith2 said:

those people probably also try to dry their cats in a microwave.

I might have gone with merely “those people probably also try to bathe their cats”.  Since the latter is not actually fatal but still usually a bad idea.  Cats are usually self cleaning.  I watched an LTT video in which the presenter voiced a very similar opinion to mine that there is limited usefulness to high refresh rate.  It makes me wonder if the adherence to very high refresh rate is a bit like audiophile theory.  It might produce lower latency but is it a useful amount?

Edited October 11, 2022 by Bombastinator

[DarkSmith2]

25 minutes ago, Bombastinator said:

I might have gone with merely “those people probably also try to bathe their cats”.  Since the latter is not actually fatal but still usually a bad idea.  Cats are usually self cleaning.  I watched an LTT video in which the presenter voiced a very similar opinion to mine that there is limited usefulness to high refresh rate.  It makes me wonder if the adherence to very high refresh rate is a bit like audiophile theory.  It might produce lower latency but is it a useful amount?

I dont know. But until we are at 1000hz and 0 delay like we had on CRTs it will go on.

[Stahlmann]

22 minutes ago, Bombastinator said:

Most people technically is unlikely because “most people” have 1080p@60 monitors because they use them at work and cheaper.  I would say the vast majority of people that have high refresh ray monitors use Variable Refresh Rate though.   Myself i found high refresh rate nicer even for text, though there were diminishing returns after about 90hz. It’s  probably worth it to get high refresh rate monitors for employees as they can work longer without eye fatigue.  Human workers are horrifically expensive.

I was obviously talking about gamers in a thread about a 360Hz monitor.

 

21 minutes ago, Bombastinator said:

I might have gone with merely “those people probably also try to bathe their cats”.  Since the latter is not actually fatal but still usually a bad idea.  Cats are usually self cleaning.  I watched an LTT video in which the presenter voiced a very similar opinion to mine that there is limited usefulness to high refresh rate.  It makes me wonder if the adherence to very high refresh rate is a bit like audiophile theory.  It might produce lower latency but is it a useful amount?

Anything past 240Hz is definetly way past diminishing returns. The difference between 144Hz and 240Hz already is pretty hard to notice. The people shopping for 360Hz (or 500Hz) monitors are definetly in the same ball park as audiophiles imo.

 

Even competitive pros rather go for a 240Hz monitor with good backlight strobing rather than just the lowest possible latency. At some point better motion clarity is more beneficial than 1 ms less latency. It seems like 240Hz is that point. Case in point: The BenQ Zowie XL2546K is a lot more popular than any of the 360Hz IPS monitors that are available.

[Bombastinator]

1 minute ago, DarkSmith2 said:

I dont know. But until we are at 1000hz and 0 delay like we had on CRTs it will go on.

CRTs didn’t have zero delay.  Physics doesn’t allow for that.  It was quite small though. This gets into human perception ability.  This is also an issue with nvme.  A quarter second is twice as long as one eight of a second, but both are “quite short”

[Stahlmann]

8 minutes ago, DarkSmith2 said:

I dont know. But until we are at 1000hz and 0 delay like we had on CRTs it will go on.

You're kidding yourself. We're already past the point where our human reaction times are fast enough to really get an advantage out of every last ms, for example in 1000Hz monitors. Even with people like Shroud the skill difference between using a 144Hz and 240Hz monitor is tiny.

 

All we need is a 240Hz OLED monitor that supports BFI. That will result in a completely motion blur free experience with 0 perceptable input lag.

[Bombastinator]

9 minutes ago, Stahlmann said:

You're kidding yourself. We're already past the point where our human reaction times are fast enough to really get an advantage out of every last ms, for example in 1000Hz monitors. Even with people like Shroud the skill difference between using a 144Hz and 240Hz monitor is tiny.

 

All we need is a 240Hz OLED monitor that supports BFI. That will result in a completely motion blur free experience with 0 perceptable input lag.

The number mentioned by the guy in the video was below or at 144.  It wasn’t clear to me what  refresh rate he was laying the minimum at.  For me it’s somewhere a bit above 90hz,  but I’m old and my reaction time was never great even when young.  It’s probably going down.

 

Edited October 11, 2022 by Bombastinator

[DarkSmith2]

23 minutes ago, Stahlmann said:

You're kidding yourself. We're already past the point where our human reaction times are fast enough to really get an advantage out of every last ms, for example in 1000Hz monitors. Even with people like Shroud the skill difference between using a 144Hz and 240Hz monitor is tiny.

 

All we need is a 240Hz OLED monitor that supports BFI. That will result in a completely motion blur free experience with 0 perceptable input lag.

you dont even get the point, it has nothing to do with your reaction time. The lower the delay the higher your advantage no matter of the starting point.
So it doesnt matter if its shroud or Paul from Pauls hardware, there is even statistically a higher improvement on "normal" users because pros have "compensation strategies" you should maybe watch LinusTechTips videos about that matter.

Also in games higher refreshrates will always be better, being able to almost negate peakers advantage is a huge huge competitive advantage.
So you might educate yourself on the topic before talking smack.

The reason for "pros" going back to 240hz is bc the Pixel responsetimes of the first 360hz panels wasnt on par with the refreshrate, leading to motionclarity issues.
After all its preference.