Why is high refresh rate a premium?

[Arkelliss]

In the early 2000's we could get monitors that could push 1600 x 1200 @85hz for 500 US.  Why are we settling for this over priced LCD technology.

[sazrocks]

Because LCDs are harder to make that refresh that fast? CRTs and LCDs work on completely different technologies. 

[Arkelliss]

Its been as many decades we've had LCD's as we have had CRT's at that point, relatively speaking.

 

[sazrocks]

4 minutes ago, Arkelliss said:

Its been as many decades we've had LCD's as we have had CRT's at that point, relatively speaking.

 

lolwut? CRTs were first used in 1925, LCDs were first demonstrated in 1970. You're off by 27 years.

[SquintyG33Rs]

6 minutes ago, Arkelliss said:

Its been as many decades we've had LCD's as we have had CRT's at that point, relatively speaking.

 

yeah well the market has decided that average joe only needs 60Hz and only a small subset of consumers want more than that aka gamers. so by supply and demand it costs more. because litterally only gamers use it. on the other hand bigger resolutions and different aspect ratios have a bigger market and will get lower prices faster.

 

because to be fair we've had 144Hz TN pannels for a long ass time and it's still much more expensive even if it's ugly af.

[SquintyG33Rs]

2 minutes ago, sazrocks said:

lolwut? CRTs were first used in 1925, LCDs were first demonstrated in 1970. You're off by 27 years.

early LCD tech is nothing like what we use today. basic LCD segment display with no backlight isn't exactly a IPS TN or VA panel

[sazrocks]

4 minutes ago, SquintyG33Rs said:

early LCD tech is nothing like what we use today. basic LCD segment display with no backlight isn't exactly a IPS TN or VA panel

So my point is even more valid?

[D13H4RD]

Because demand for high refresh rate monitors is still fairly low. Many consumers are just fine with a basic 60Hz display.

 

Not to mention LCD tech has advanced over the past several years. We have VA and IPS technology along with the switch from CCFL to LED backlights and we’re moving over to Quantum Dot sometime as well.

[Arkelliss]

My point is that a Viewsonic PS790 that I used close to 20 years ago, compared to a similarly priced LCD panel hasn't brought that much to the table other than thinness.  the question is why the price is still so high?

[RAM555789]

What are you talking about, you can find plenty of LCD monitors at 144Hz for under $300. The only drawback is their 1920x1080p. Maybe your thinking of monitors with G-Sync? There super expensive but that's because of the technology put into them.

[Arkelliss]

Maybe Im just stuck in the past when you could get 10 bit color, a great refresh rate, and resolution for a good price.  Mitsubishi Diamond Pro, Sony Trinitrons etc, in my mind, pale in comparison with the exception of bulk.  Its just frustrating trying to reach a compromise these days as it was easier to to get all those things in one product.

[JoostinOnline]

50 minutes ago, Arkelliss said:

Its been as many decades we've had LCD's as we have had CRT's at that point, relatively speaking.

 

That's in no way related.  LCD doesn't start to act like CRT just because more time has passed.

 

I just bought a 24" 1080p 144hz monitor for $200 too.

[Damascus]

5 minutes ago, Arkelliss said:

Maybe Im just stuck in the past when you could get 10 bit color, a great refresh rate, and resolution for a good price.  Mitsubishi Diamond Pro, Sony Trinitrons etc, in my mind, pale in comparison with the exception of bulk.  Its just frustrating trying to reach a compromise these days as it was easier to to get all those things in one product.

You can still buy a crt, though it will be difficult.  You are comparing Apple's to oranges here

[Damascus]

Ok, let's take the ps790, a monitor that I assume (based on your comments) came out in 1998 for $500 USD

 

It was 19" display with variable refresh rate and resolution, ranging from 1600x1200 at 76hz down to 640 x 480 at 180hz

 

1600 x 1200 / 76 Hz
1280 x 1024 / 88 Hz
1024 x 768 / 116 Hz
800 x 600 / 146 Hz
640 x 480 / 180 Hz

 

So, taking inflation into account that's a monitor that costs 763 2018 USD - enough to get any of these:

 

240hz, 1920x1080 locked (about 3.2x what the crt was capable of)

 

https://ca.pcpartpicker.com/product/63cMnQ/aoc-ag251fz-245-1920x1080-240hz-monitor-ag251fz

 

144hz 27" locked in at 2560x1440p IPS display (I honestly don't know how to calculate the difference as the gap between them is so massive)

 

https://ca.pcpartpicker.com/product/28TPxr/pixio-px277-n-270-2560x1440-144hz-monitor-px277-n

[Jurrunio]

Simply, production scale of high refresh rate monitor is nowhere near as large as slow refresh rate (60Hz) ones. Price per unit goes up when production scale goes down, so the price sits high.

 

Simple economics, dont even have to take classes to understand.

[Mira Yurizaki]

One thing to note is that LCDs are digital technology. Their limitations were due to how much bandwidth they were getting and how fast their display controllers were. CRTs were analog devices and you could pretty much drive any signal as long as the components could manage it. Have a higher end monitor? It could probably handle "higher end" settings.

 

Aside from technology catching up, the economics of scale aren't there yet. Most people are fine with 60Hz displays and there's really no reason to move beyond 60Hz outside of a desktop environment. If all you use your computer is to browse Facebook and watch cat videos on YouTube, high refresh rates aren't going to make things all that better.

 

What I think we should really get going is having variable refresh rates in more displays. It's just too bad one company doesn't want to hop on the industry standard and another seemingly isn't interested in it at all.

[sazrocks]

30 minutes ago, Arkelliss said:

My point is that a Viewsonic PS790 that I used close to 20 years ago, compared to a similarly priced LCD panel hasn't brought that much to the table other than thinness. 

What the!? Are you kidding me!?

That monitor cost $400.

For $400 you can get:

An ips 3840x2160 60Hz monitor (That's 6246400 more pixels!)

A 2560x1440 165Hz G-sync monitor (2.17x the refresh rate and 1638400 more pixels!)

A 1920x1080 240Hz monitor (3.16x the refresh rate and about the same number of pixels!)

 

Not to mention that that last one normally pulls 30 watts from the wall whereas your CRT demanded 130 watts.

 

So no, LCDs have definitely brought more to the table than thinness.

[emosun]

I feel like google could have answered most of your questions here.

this seems more like a dude who wants to brag about the one aspect of an older technology that is just barely superior to the average current technology.

 

next he'll be talking about 15k rpm hard drives and how average drives today aren't that high of rpm......

[Damascus]

3 minutes ago, emosun said:

next he'll be talking about 15k rpm hard drives and how average drives today aren't that high of rpm......

Excuuuse me sir, today's drives are a pathetic mark upon the legacy of pc enthusiasts!

 

Sorry, what now?  You think a pathetic ssd can stand against me?  I say good sir,  the only difference between my 15k hdd and your ssd is size

[emosun]

2 minutes ago, Damascus said:

Sorry, what now?  You think a pathetic ssd can stand against me?  I say good sir,  the only difference between my 15k hdd and your ssd is size

that 15k hdd is no match for my 72x cd rom drive!

[Damascus]

2 minutes ago, emosun said:

that 15k hdd is no match for my 72x cd rom drive!

Game, set and match, you can't stand against the might of my X-10 Accelerated floppy drive!

[Glenwing]

The price of high refresh rate screens has been getting continually lower over the last few years. I must say, I'm curious as to what the OP's expectations are in terms of what he thinks should be available and for what price.