144Hz IPS

[othertomperson]

http://www.geforce.co.uk/whats-new/articles/nvidia-g-sync-worlds-first-144hz-ips-monitor-unveiled

 

OK something's troubling me a little about this.

 

Engineered by Acer, the 2560x1440 XB270HU is the world’s first 144Hz IPS gaming monitor, the world's first IPS G-SYNC gaming monitor, the first IPS gaming monitor to also support NVIDIA Ultra Low Motion Blur (ULMB) technology, and one of the world’s first IPS monitors with a response time of only 4ms G-to-G.

 

This is saying that this monitor has a response time of 4ms, Tek Syndicate said that a similar Asus monitor at CES had a response time of 5ms. The issue I have is that the frametime of an image refreshing at 144hz is 6.9ms. These monitors are going to spend almost the entire time a frame is up responding to it. How is this going to appear as anything but a blurry mess?

[orangecat]

Even a good high quality IPS panel is going to have some kind of motion blur or ghosting there is no way around it. Either way i'd be happy with a 144hz IPS panel even if there is a bit of ghosting its obviously going to be worlds ahead of the monitor I'm using now anyways.

 

Unless your a competitive player a little bit of ghosting isn't going to kill you.

[Sauron]

That's an interesting point. I suppose that's what NVIDIA's ULMB tech comes in to correct. It's just a wild guess though, we'll need to see reviews to know how it actually looks.

[Glenwing]

http://www.geforce.co.uk/whats-new/articles/nvidia-g-sync-worlds-first-144hz-ips-monitor-unveiled

 

OK something's troubling me a little about this.

 

This is saying that this monitor has a response time of 4ms, Tek Syndicate said that a similar Asus monitor at CES had a response time of 5ms. The issue I have is that the frametime of an image refreshing at 144hz is 6.9ms. These monitors are going to spend almost the entire time a frame is up responding to it. How is this going to appear as anything but a blurry mess?

Response time doesn't mean much, and it's not a uniform number across all transitions. Just look at the EIZO FG2421, its lowest rated response time is 4ms but its slowest transitions were measured at over 40ms, and it wasn't a blurry mess. Response time numbers are extremely vague and imprecise, and theorycrafting predictions based on those numbers won't really get you anywhere

[othertomperson]

Even a good high quality IPS panel is going to have some kind of motion blur or ghosting there is no way around it. Either way i'd be happy with a 144hz IPS panel even if there is a bit of ghosting its obviously going to be worlds ahead of the monitor I'm using now anyways.

 

Unless your a competitive player a little bit of ghosting isn't going to kill you.

 

Not necessarily. It's not much of an issue at 60hz because then the frametime is close to 17ms, which is appreciably more than the inherent response time of the display. If the two become comparable, though, that's when I don't see it working terrifically.

 

 

Response time doesn't mean much, and it's not a uniform number across all transitions. Just look at the EIZO FG2421, its lowest rated response time is 4ms but its slowest transitions were measured at over 40ms, and it wasn't a blurry mess. Response time numbers are extremely vague and imprecise, and theorycrafting predictions based on those numbers won't really get you anywhere 

 

This is true. "Grey to grey" is an ambiguous term. Unless you know exactly how those numbers were generated it could mean anything. I would, however, expect the numbers used to advertise the product to be best case scenario though, and not one that in itself could potentially be a problems.

[Toddwjp]

honestly response time only matters when you know how they measured it.

[Glenwing]

This is true. "Grey to grey" is an ambiguous term. Unless you know exactly how those numbers were generated it could mean anything. I would, however, expect the numbers used to advertise the product to be best case scenario though, and not one that in itself could potentially be a problems.

Yeah, and you would think you can tell what the ghosting/motion blur will be like from looking at the response time numbers, but you really can't. Have a look at the "Motion Blur Tests" section of this review to see how blurry this 4ms VA monitor was: http://www.tftcentral.co.uk/reviews/eizo_fg2421.htm

And also have a look at this collection of tests, particularly the bottom two. The level of ghosting you'll get on a monitor doesn't really follow directly from the given response time number.

Until these monitors are on sale and reviewed, we can't tell how much ghosting they'll have, response time numbers won't tell us that (despite theory saying they should).

[othertomperson]

Yeah, and you would think you can tell what the ghosting/motion blur will be like from looking at the response time numbers, but you really can't. Have a look at the "Motion Blur Tests" section of this review to see how blurry this 4ms VA monitor was: http://www.tftcentral.co.uk/reviews/eizo_fg2421.htm

And also have a look at this collection of tests, particularly the bottom two. The level of ghosting you'll get on a monitor doesn't really follow directly from the given response time number.

Until these monitors are on sale and reviewed, we can't tell how much ghosting they'll have, response time numbers won't tell us that (despite theory saying they should).

 

Interesting. Guess we'll just have to wait then

[orangecat]

 

Not necessarily. It's not much of an issue at 60hz because then the frametime is close to 17ms, which is appreciably more than the inherent response time of the display. If the two become comparable, though, that's when I don't see it working terrifically.

 

Well i'm sure Linus will get one a review it and until them i'm still pretty sold. I know that the pixel response won't be as good as a nice high end TN display but at 144Hz assuming the panels aren't total crap I'm sure it would look great.