Nvidia and Asus unveil a 360Hz gaming monitor designed for e-sports

Meeho said:
I don't get the hate. Even PQ guys should be happy for pixel response advances which all LCDs need.
Click to expand...

It's always the same guys coming up with the same ridiculous straw man arguments. Companies are not even marketing these screens as the best for the slow-ass games they play.

These are clearly esports monitors. But here's the thing, competitive players deserve to be looked down upon because we are all 12 year olds. This is what it boils down to.

That leaves us with trolling being the main reason for the usual vitriol.

I am not complaining, though. I guess even the glorious RPG master gamer race feels the ability to offload some baggage from time to time.
 
Domingo said:
You're only going to be able to play old games or games with the details straight-up disabled at that FPS.
Plus, it's 1080p and only 24 inches. I get it for specific circumstances, but that's pretty niche.
Click to expand...

Exactly. I can see why the E-sports players would want it, but not really anyone else.
 
Thunderdolt said:
I'm curious how they're moving the frames to the display. The raw data is 18Gbps without any overhead, and HDMI 2.0 can only move 18Gbps total, so they must be doing this over DP1.4 - but I didn't realize 1080p360 was a supported setup on DP1.4.
Click to expand...
Just because it's not officially supported doesn't mean it can't do it. It's just bits of data, after all. Look at everything DVI could do that was not officially supported.

1920 * 1080 * 8 bpc * 3 colors * 360 Hz = 16.6855 Gbps. Data bandwidth limit of DisplayPort 1.2 is 17.28 Gbps, which is enough for this resolution and refresh rate uncompressed. HDMI 2.0 has a data bandwidth limit of 14.4 Gbps, so it has to be using DisplayPort. Which is a given since it has G-SYNC hardware.
 
BIGGER NUMBERS BETTER!

Does this fall under the "Buy more save more" philosophy?


Good luck capping 360hz.
 
Krenum said:
BIGGER NUMBERS BETTER!

Does this fall under the "Buy more save more" philosophy?


Good luck capping 360hz.
Click to expand...
It's not entirely about capping the refresh rate. The idea of higher refresh rates for competitive gaming is to minimize the delay between when a frame is ready to be displayed and when it is actually displayed on your monitor, minimizing the impact to your reaction time. For top-tier players I can see the benefit going from 144 to 240 Hz, but I really question that this really provides a benefit above 240 Hz as you're dealing with exponential diminishing returns.
 
  • Like
Reactions: dgz
like this
5150Joker said:
What GPU will push those kinds of frames though? Apart from CS go, games like overwatch, Fortnite, pubg, r6:s and Apex won't get near 360 fps even with a 2080 Ti. I guess this monitor needs a top end Ampere or better.
Click to expand...
I have a 5700 XT in that rig, also tested with an RTX 2060. For older games it's totally possible (Left4Dead, HL2, etc.).
 
Armenius said:
It's not entirely about capping the refresh rate. The idea of higher refresh rates for competitive gaming is to minimize the delay between when a frame is ready to be displayed and when it is actually displayed on your monitor, minimizing the impact to your reaction time. For top-tier players I can see the benefit going from 144 to 240 Hz, but I really question that this really provides a benefit above 240 Hz as you're dealing with exponential diminishing returns.
Click to expand...

The big thing is that the frames are displayed on the same interval as they're sent out from the video card. On a fixed refresh display, this leads to smoother movement and ensure that the frame on the display right now is the current frame rather than an older one that was in the queue waiting to appear on the panel. This is the real benefit to VRR.

One twist to 360hz is that VRR doesn't really matter very much any more. At a locked 60hz, that's a frame every ~17ms. When it takes 18ms to render the frame, it then can't be display until 33ms after the previous one (ie, 30fps effective rate between those two individual frames). With VRR, that frame will get displayed at its "true" timing, which is only a millisecond late. At a fixed 360hz, a new frame appears every 2.8ms. If a frame arrives 1ms late, no big deal - it's only going to wait 1.8ms before it's displayed.

Thus, with a 360hz display, is there any point in bothering with VRR?
 
cybereality said:
Yes, VRR is still needed, because a missed frame would cause a slight hitch and could mess up aiming in a twitch shooter.
Click to expand...
Why would a frame be missed? Vsync is not needed at those framerates.
 
M76 said:
And I was on the side saying it is bs. And yes you can also see the difference between 60 and 120 fps. But you can't between 120 and 144. What you perceive between 144 hz and 240hz is actually dropped frames and out of sync frames. Which is of course less with a 240hz display, but if you use freesync or gsync that is a problem of the past. Even at low fps the big problem is not low fps but inconsistent frame times and stuttering. That's why it is possible to have a better experience at 50fps than at 120. I'm not saying frame rate doesn't matter, I'm saying there are other things that matter much more.

I doubt anyone will be able to tell the difference between a 240hz and 360hz monitor in a blind test.
Click to expand...
I needed a 120Hz refresh rate to be happy with a CRT. If I had to look at 60 Hz for more than a few minutes I'd want to tear my eyes out.
On a flatscreen 85 Hz is acceptable but can still perceive something up to 120 Hz.

I'm part of a picky minority and I can see problems with sync but otherwise 360 Hz is just marketing hype.
 
I think it is also about reducing things in the way. When you start taking away things like wifi lag, mouse lag, keyboard response, monitor refresh and input lag; you can push your limits further. No the monitor will not make you a better player, but it comes down to having the best tools to work with. I play at 165hz on my 1440p, can't really see much difference between that and 144 (except mouse cursor tails). But coming from 60hz it felt like a whole new gaming world to me.

I am glad for the esports industry, it does drive more money and development into pc gaming.
 
Nice size perfect for me anyway if the colors are junk I would never pick it up usually with monitors that small the pixel pitch is pretty decent where it won't bother you. I went from 1440P TN to 1080P VA.
 
Meeho said:
Why would a frame be missed? Vsync is not needed at those framerates.
Click to expand...
To simplify it a bit, average FPS is going to be generally smoother than each individual frame-time. Even with an average of 360 fps, some frames take shorter and some longer (for example, one frame could be 400 fps, the next 320 fps, and they would still average to 360).

Now, at 360 Hz, one frame is around 2.8 ms. If even one single frame takes longer than 2.8 ms (let us say 2.9 ms, which is not an unlikely scenario), then the frame update is skipped on a non-VRR display, and you wait an additional 2.8 ms for the next vblank, giving you a 5.6 ms delay versus 2.8 when the frame-time was running fast.

Maybe this sounds like nothing, but in a fast shooter, if you are spinning the camera around, these little delays and hitches can cause uneven motion and mess with your aiming. Turning off VSync does also fix this, but at the cost of tearing. Otherwise you will need VRR to completely resolve the problem without tearing.
 
cybereality said:
Though I don't play competitively anymore, I do like that 360Hz will now be a thing.


https://www.theverge.com/2020/1/5/21050309/asus-nvidia-360hz-gaming-monitor-rog-swift-360-ces-2020

And, yes, before it starts, I have a 240Hz monitor and I can see a difference. Cheers.
Click to expand...

I will buy the Literal shit out of this tech! I will sell my 240 and get 360. Absolutely!

I play Tiranfall 2 at 239 fps and I destroy everyone. Game is 144hzocked but using GeForce adaptive sync and Gsync you can trick the game and far surpass 144hz and it makes a massive difference in my twitch shooting.
 
M76 said:
And I was on the side saying it is bs. And yes you can also see the difference between 60 and 120 fps. But you can't between 120 and 144. What you perceive between 144 hz and 240hz is actually dropped frames and out of sync frames. Which is of course less with a 240hz display, but if you use freesync or gsync that is a problem of the past. Even at low fps the big problem is not low fps but inconsistent frame times and stuttering. That's why it is possible to have a better experience at 50fps than at 120. I'm not saying frame rate doesn't matter, I'm saying there are other things that matter much more.

I doubt anyone will be able to tell the difference between a 240hz and 360hz monitor in a blind test.
Click to expand...

The question shouldn't be, "can you blindly spot the difference between 60hz, 120hz, 144hz, 240hz etc?". It should be, "do you perform better in games with a higher hz monitor?". Linus Tech Tips actually did a study on this where they invited some pro gamers in and performed a variety of tests using CS:GO on different hz monitors. Very consistently, everyone performed better (more kills, greater accuracy, less time to complete a task etc) on the 240hz monitor compared to both the 144hz and 60hz monitors. Interestingly, I think also playing the game at a high fps (240+) on the 60hz monitor also increased performance relative to 60hz/60fps, but not as much as the 240hz monitor. I don't think dropped frames has anything to do with. The Linus study used high FPS cameras (1000hz I believe) to actually show the differences in the monitors and record how the reaction times of the players were affected.

I game on a 240hz monitor (mostly racing games and a few shooters like PUBG and TF2), and I love it. When a 360hz monitor is available, I'll be switching.
 
Just got my new monitor setup and my poor gtx 1080 feels so inadequate now lol. Trying to push 144hx @ 1440p is apparently a bit more taxing than 1080p, finally have to start using the resolution scaling in games. Dropped a few games to .8 scaling and I jump between 110-150fps which is good for now. But even at .8 scaling it still looks better than running 1080p on my 27" so it's a good trade off
 
Last edited:
Yeah, 1440p is about twice the pixels or 1080p, so it's going to be more intense. Especially when you are talking about high refresh, you need all the power you can get.
 
I'm so sick of shitty TNs and IPSs! Right now, VA is the only panel tech that even begins to look good to the eye, with OLED being the ideal. I'd rather have a solid and reasonably-priced G-Sync HDR 1440p 144Hz VA Quantum Dot monitor instead.
 
wyqtor said:
I'm so sick of shitty TNs and IPSs! Right now, VA is the only panel tech that even begins to look good to the eye, with OLED being the ideal. I'd rather have a solid and reasonably-priced G-Sync HDR 1440p 144Hz VA Quantum Dot monitor instead.
Click to expand...
Pixel response time of VA is nowhere close to being able to handle this refresh rate without looking like a smeared mess. The best VA panels have a response time of 6ms, which would be physically limited to 165 Hz while maintaining color integrity. More realistically you're looking at response times in the 8-10ms range, which would only be good for 100-120 Hz.
 
Armenius said:
Pixel response time of VA is nowhere close to being able to handle this refresh rate without looking like a smeared mess. The best VA panels have a response time of 6ms, which would be physically limited to 165 Hz while maintaining color integrity. More realistically you're looking at response times in the 8-10ms range, which would only be good for 100-120 Hz.
Click to expand...

Based on my [admittedly very limited] experience, I think there's also the confounding issue of the fact that most claimed response times appear to be total bunk. I forget what ASUS claims for the XG438Q, but in the quick cell phone video I posted of text scrolling on [H], the white to black time appears to be around 20ms. I think LTT's videos with their massively higher quality high speed camera indicated that displays claiming 1ms response were much more like 10ms in real life. I know LTT did not mention that specifically (#sellout), but you can figure it out by watching their clips and counting frames.
 
wyqtor said:
I'm so sick of shitty TNs and IPSs! Right now, VA is the only panel tech that even begins to look good to the eye, with OLED being the ideal. I'd rather have a solid and reasonably-priced G-Sync HDR 1440p 144Hz VA Quantum Dot monitor instead.
Click to expand...

VA looks gross af in fast motion games w/all its smearing. I relegated my 32" 144 hz VA panel as a secondary display and made my TN primary because VA was horrible in games. I'm not a designer or artist, I don't really care about VA's 2D image quality if it sucks balls in 3D.

While I initially derided this 360 hz display, it has admittedly piqued my interest since then and I'll most likey return my 240 hz aorus display and wait till this one is released and buy it. My old Asus TN 27" 144hz monitor (PG278Q) is quite nice so I can afford to wait for this 360 Hz one. Hopefully it has ULMB that can keep it's brightness like BenQ DyAc can.
 
Last edited:
T4rd said:
Relevant video:

Click to expand...



God I hate LTT and their fucking arm waving and gesturing. This guy is obviously trying to emulate Linus's style and it's really irritating to watch. Rather than all the gesticulation's, I wish they'd speak to their audience the way Digital Foundry does.
 
The newer VA panels are much better in terms of the ghosting. Still worse than TN, but good enough for 120hz. At least it's like that on my Samsung TV. Not sure if the VA monitors are using the latest tech.
 
5150Joker said:
God I hate LTT and their fucking arm waving and gesturing. This guy is obviously trying to emulate Linus's style and it's really irritating to watch. Rather than all the gesticulation's, I wish they'd speak to their audience the way Digital Foundry does.
Click to expand...

=/=Stokes(=/=folks)
 
cybereality said:
The newer VA panels are much better in terms of the ghosting. Still worse than TN, but good enough for 120hz. At least it's like that on my Samsung TV. Not sure if the VA monitors are using the latest tech.
Click to expand...
I just recently tried a AOC c27g1 which is a fairly nice 27" 144hz VA monitor and it looked great with amazing response times and super low ghosting. My biggest issue with it was I could see horrendous vertical banding in certain scenes/colour sets and it killed it for me.

I had honestly never seen banding before so I had to Google wtf it was I was seeing to figure it out. Returned it and grabbed a pixio px7 which so far has been beautiful, 27" 1440p 144hz IPS but of course right after I got it the LG 27GL850 went on sale so I've got one on the way to compare to my pixio.

Never seen banding before and maybe it was just a defective panel but switching to a nice ips panel it has completely disappeared, ended up spending alot more that I planned but I figured a good monitor is a long term investment so fuck it lol
 
Last edited:
5150Joker said:
God I hate LTT and their fucking arm waving and gesturing. This guy is obviously trying to emulate Linus's style and it's really irritating to watch. Rather than all the gesticulation's, I wish they'd speak to their audience the way Digital Foundry does.
Click to expand...
LTT's primary audience is young teenagers, that's why. DF's audience is probably at least 10 years older, so they speak to you like an adult.
 
wyqtor said:
I'm so sick of shitty TNs and IPSs! Right now, VA is the only panel tech that even begins to look good to the eye, with OLED being the ideal. I'd rather have a solid and reasonably-priced G-Sync HDR 1440p 144Hz VA Quantum Dot monitor instead.
Click to expand...
Every VA panel I have used for a television or monitor looked like absolute shit when panning around in games. The lighter areas turn darker and it is annoying as hell.
 
Armenius said:
It's not entirely about capping the refresh rate. The idea of higher refresh rates for competitive gaming is to minimize the delay between when a frame is ready to be displayed and when it is actually displayed on your monitor, minimizing the impact to your reaction time. For top-tier players I can see the benefit going from 144 to 240 Hz, but I really question that this really provides a benefit above 240 Hz as you're dealing with exponential diminishing returns.
Click to expand...
Diminishing returns are still returns and if you are a pro every tournament legal advantage is an advantage you want. It’s certainly not a product for me but I can see this being used for tournaments going forward especially ones sponsored by ASUS, so that’s means people participating in those tournaments will probably need them, practice on the hardware you will use.
 
OK I'm definitely getting the new zowie, hopefully Amazon gets it in asap. I think this will be better than the Asus because of dyac.
65E36725-98D6-4604-BA9F-A010E4320B6D.png FB47E0E1-20CC-41DD-AE93-D77840B12362.png
 
^ I assume ASUS also has something corresponding to "DyAc", was it called ELMB (Extreme Low Motion Blur)? But very doubtful if up to 360Hz would be supported, I think even as a TN it probably just ain't fast enough for it to look artifact free, 240Hz is pushing it already.
 
RPGWiZaRD said:
^ I assume ASUS also has something corresponding to "DyAc", was it called ELMB (Extreme Low Motion Blur)? But very doubtful if up to 360Hz would be supported, I think even as a TN it probably just ain't fast enough for it to look artifact free, 240Hz is pushing it already.
Click to expand...

That and BenQ over engineers their panels so DyAc retains its brightness where nobody else has done this.
 
I’d rather have additional sharpness to my image so I’ll probably replace my 1440p 144hz monitor with a 1440p 240hz+ when they become available. I still plan on getting a 48” OLED this year though for everything that isn’t multiplayer FPS.
 
Lakados said:
Diminishing returns are still returns and if you are a pro every tournament legal advantage is an advantage you want. It’s certainly not a product for me but I can see this being used for tournaments going forward especially ones sponsored by ASUS, so that’s means people participating in those tournaments will probably need them, practice on the hardware you will use.
Click to expand...
Most tournaments actually use Benq monitors. At least in CS:GO ones.
 
5150Joker said:
I think I've found my next monitor: https://zowie.benq.com/en/product/monitor/xl/xl2746s.html

If it was available now I'd buy it but it's due out in a month or two. DyAc+ alone should make it worth it. If the Asus 360 Hz has weak/dark ulmb, the BenQ will be the better choice imo.
Click to expand...
Benq's monitors are definitely the best when it comes to maximising their monitors fully, but 360hz is a lot and you'll for sure be able to perceive a difference. At the moment Asus and AOC with their 360hz panel is exclusive to Asus for 6 months, but I'm pretty sure we will see 360hz from Benq later this year. That Benq monitor will definitely be the best 240hz monitor, no doubt.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top