166Hz Has Ruined 60 fps Forever

Discussion in 'Displays' started by cybereality, Nov 30, 2018.

  1. bigbluefe

    bigbluefe Limp Gawd

    Messages:
    509
    Joined:
    Aug 23, 2014
    Eh variable refresh makes this a non issue. This goes back to devs being lazy fucks again. If PowerDVD doesn't have a full screen exclusive mode that actually runs at 24hz (or 48hz) for G-Sync monitors, they suck cock. 24fps movies should not have juddering in a world with variable refresh displays.
     
  2. VanGoghComplex

    VanGoghComplex [H]ard|Gawd

    Messages:
    1,542
    Joined:
    Apr 5, 2016
    I know exactly how you feel, OP. I've been using 144hz+ monitors for a few years now, and when I recently purchased a budget gaming laptop with an admittedly nice IPS display, I realized immediately that 60hz was no longer enough for me. That panel got upgraded to a 120hz TN within the week.

    60hz isn't "garbage," "rubbish," or "unplayable" by any means. It's just that... well, once you get used to the silky smooth movement of higher refresh rates, 60hz becomes instantly apparent.
     
    euskalzabe and cybereality like this.
  3. Aluminum

    Aluminum Gawd

    Messages:
    551
    Joined:
    Sep 18, 2015
    The problem is you can only get it direct from SK, and when both DP 1.4 ports die a month apart to some strange glitch it does not bode well that they got the design totally correct on the controller. (its obvious its a dual zone of some sort)
    Basically perma-tearing on the exact middle row of pixels, image is there fine but god help you if you move anything on it. The hdmi ports are fine but fuck 60hz, I have much better displays for media.

    I'm working on sending it back as its still under warranty "in Korea" but boy is that a bitch. Thankfully I saved the really good packaging it came in.

    Also the panel is rather mediocre, granted I was stepping down from a JS9000 which is literally the cream of the crop on panel image quality (/gush) but still. The mangos have a pretty washed out too-blue IPS panel that you can't totally correct for.
     
    cybereality likes this.
  4. elvn

    elvn 2[H]4U

    Messages:
    2,999
    Joined:
    May 5, 2006
    Without supplying high frame rates to fill hz, you aren't going to get the motion clarity (blur reduction) and motion definition (more articulated pathing and smoother "glassy" motion, higher animation definition etc).

    So obviously a desktop/app use scenario outside game just moving a mouse and windows around should usually supply as many frames of motion as the monitor can handle but when you go into a game, especially a more demanding 1st/3rd person games and at higher resolutions, your frame rate is severely limited.
    Even the "frame rate" you meter and quote is a wider range of fluctuating frame rates +/- that that can be graphed.

    This is the blur reduction you get at different frame rates at 1000hz
    View attachment 64347
    And the image below shows a visual representation of the blur at each persistence amount via persuit camera. However realize that in a 1st/3rd person game you are moving the entire game world full of high detail textures and depth via bump mapping around relative to you in the viewport when mouse looking and movement keying, rather than a simple singular ufo btimap graphic.
    Note that while many of these replies are focused on blur reduction, higher frame rate on a high hz monitor (without using duplicated/interpolated frames) also provides greatly increased motion definition, motion path articulation, smoothness (and even animation cycle definition) of individual objects and of the entire game world moving in relation to you while mouse looking and movement keying in 1st/3rd person games So even if you had a 1000hz monitor using advanced interpolation, you would still need to run it at 100fps x 10 (or 125fps x 8, 200fps x 5) in order to get the greater motion definition benefit aspect of higher hz.






    I had fw900's . They aren't the answer. More of a pain in the end to keep looking good enough.. and the size of the screen sucks even if you dismiss the size of the monitor itself. I held on to using that for years with a lcd alongside but I'm well past that now.

    Most people avoid PWM like the plague. LCD strobing is essentially PWM. It will give you eyestrain. In order to use ulmb/lightboost properly you have to keep really high minimum frame rates. People are all looking to 3440 x 1440 and 4k resolutions now and are looking to HDR luminance ranges and color volumes. Strobing is really not applicable to the bar that modern premium gaming monitors are setting (High resolutions at high Hz, HDR luminance and color volume, VRR with higher graphics settings to avoid judder on dips and potholes, variance).

    The real answer is fairly high frame rate to start with multiplied by advanced high quality interpolated (directly repeated not 'manufactured') frames combined with extremely high hz but that is still years off. The hz ceilings are making some progress now though at least.

    "So while they are saying 10,000hz fed massive fps at extreme resolutions would be indistinguishable from reality per se.. 1000fps (100fps interpolated 10x) at 1000hz would be essentially zero blur like a high end fw900 crt for the purposes of gaming"

    View attachment 76265


    As per blurbusters.com 's Q and A:
    -----------------------------------------------------
    Q: Which is better? LightBoost or G-SYNC?
    It depends on the game or framerate. As a general rule of thumb:
    LightBoost: Better for games that sustain a perfect 120fps @ 120Hz
    G-SYNC: Better for games that have lower/fluctuating variable framerates.
    This is because G-SYNC eliminates stutters, while LightBoost eliminates motion blur. LightBoost can make stutters easier to see, because there is no motion blur to hide stutters. However, LightBoost looks better when you’re able to do perfect full framerates without variable frame rates.
    G-SYNC monitors allows you to choose between G-SYNC and backlight strobing. Currently, it is not possible to do both at the same time, though it is technically feasible in the future.
    ......
    Main Pros:
    + Elimination of motion blur. CRT perfect clarity motion.
    + Improved competitive advantage by faster human reaction times.
    + Far more fluid than regular 120Hz or 144Hz.
    + Fast motion is more immersive.
    Main Cons:
    – Reduced brightness.
    – Degradation of color quality.
    – Flicker, if you are flicker sensitive.
    – Requires a powerful GPU to get full benefits. <edit by elvn: and turning down settings a lot more at higher resolutions>

    --------------------------------------------------------
    During regular 2D use, LightBoost is essentially equivalent to PWM dimming (Pulse-Width Modulation), and the 2D LightBoost picture is darker than non-LightBoost Brightness 100%.
    --------------------------------------------------------
    Once you run at frame rates above half the refresh rate, you will begin to get noticeable benefits from LightBoost. However, LightBoost benefits only become major when frame rates run near the refresh rate (or exceeding it).
    -------------------------------------------------------
    If you have a sufficiently powerful GPU, it is best to run at a frame rate massively exceeding your refresh rate. This can reduce the tearing effect significantly.Otherwise, there may be more visible tearing if you run at a frame rate too close to your refresh rate, during VSYNC OFF operation. Also, there can also be harmonic effects (beat-frequency stutters) between frame rate and refresh rate. For example, 119fps @ 120Hz can cause 1 stutter per second.
    Therefore, during VSYNC OFF, it is usually best to let the frame rate run far in excess of the refresh rate. This can produce smoother motion (fewer harmonic stutter effects) and less visible tearing.
    Alternatively, use Adaptive VSYNC as a compromise.
    -------------------------------------------------------------
    Pre-requisites
    Frame rate matches or exceeds refresh rate (e.g. 120fps @ 120Hz).
    1. LightBoost motion blur elimination is not noticeable at 60 frames per second.
    --------------------------------------------------------------
    Sensitivity to input lag, flicker, etc. (You benefit more if you don’t feel any effects from input lag or flicker)

    Computer Factors That Hurt LightBoost

    • Inability to run frame rate equalling Hz for best LightBoost benefit. (e.g. 120fps@120Hz).
    • Judder/stutter control. Too much judder can kill LightBoost motion clarity benefits.
    • Framerate limits. Some games cap to 60fps, this needs to be uncapped (e.g. fps_max)
    • Faster motion benefits more. Not as noticeable during slow motion.
    • Specific games. e.g. Team Fortress 2 benefits far more than World of Warcraft.
    • Some games stutters more with VSYNC ON, while others stutters more with VSYNC OFF. Test opposite setting.

    ==================================
    Easier to render games with very high fps work pretty well with ulmb.
    Running 1440p or higher rez with any kind of high to ultra settings on the most demanding games won't let you sustain high fps, only average it.

     
    Last edited: Dec 7, 2018
  5. tangoseal

    tangoseal [H]ardness Supreme

    Messages:
    6,549
    Joined:
    Dec 18, 2010

    I have a 240hz panel and yet people ON THIS FORUM tell me I'm a fool or an idiot or a dumbass and there is no way to tell. I also have 100hz x34 gsync and 144hz mg something or another free sync Asus panel. My 240 gsync is Acer. The 240 crushes the other panels and it actually looks nice too.
     
    Chimpee and cybereality like this.
  6. cybereality

    cybereality 2[H]4U

    Messages:
    3,668
    Joined:
    Mar 22, 2008
    Absolutely, I'm sure 240Hz looks sick!
     
    tangoseal likes this.
  7. VanGoghComplex

    VanGoghComplex [H]ard|Gawd

    Messages:
    1,542
    Joined:
    Apr 5, 2016
    I think a lot of this stems from folks who can't (or just won't) justify spending that kind of money on a monitor, though they secretly want to, and are telling themselves (and you, secondarily) that it's a dumb waste of money.

    Source: I've been that guy
     
  8. elvn

    elvn 2[H]4U

    Messages:
    2,999
    Joined:
    May 5, 2006
    Its possible but its dependent on your frame rate not just having a higher hz cieling.

    Without supplying high frame rates to fill hz, you aren't going to get the greater motion clarity (blur reduction) and motion definition (more articulated pathing and smoother "glassy" motion, higher animation definition etc) increase that a higher hz cieling is capable of.

    -----------------------------------------------
    The "slideshow" nickname is because there are few new frames of action being shown at low frame rates. The same frame being shown for a longer time time like a flip book animation with less pages being flipped slower
    At high fps on a high hz monitor, you will get much higher motion definition regardless of whether you have strobing or black frame insertion, crt redraw, etc.

    ------------------------------------------
    The Motion Clarity (blur reduction) aspect is also improved by running at high fps ranges on a high hz monitor, and is nearly pristine using backlight strobing (with some major, in my opinion critical, tradeoffs).

    Non strobe mode, at speed (e.g. mouse looking viewport around):
    60fps solid ... is a full smearing "outside of the lines" blur. -- At variable hz or at 60hz or at 100hz, 120hz, 144hz, 240hz.
    120fps solid .. halves that blur (50%) to more of a soften blur inside the masks of objects -- At variable hz or at 120hz, 144hz, 240hz.
    144fps solid .. drops the blur a bit more, 60% less blur -- At variable hz or at 144hz, 240hz.
    240fps solid .. drops the blur down to a very slight blur showing most of the texture detail -- At variable hz 240hz

    okw997s-png.png

    -------------------------------------------------

    So yes 240hz is capable of being better but only on games and settings supplying over say 200 fps average (or at higher frame rates than its nearest neghbors of 120 fps+hz, 144 fps+hz and 166 fps+hz. at least) and only on a monitor who's response time and overdrive could keep up with - 4.2ms frames.

    (similarly.. 166hz shows gains at over 120 or 144fps+Hz on monitor that can keep up with - 6ms frames)
     
    Last edited: Dec 7, 2018
  9. chris7191

    chris7191 n00bie

    Messages:
    62
    Joined:
    Sep 25, 2018
    There was still a dot pitch with CRTs. A lot of CRTs would accept resolutions they could not really display without blurriness. It is true you could go down pretty well, though. I could never go back to a CRT, honestly. They just have a softness I don't like compared to fixed pixel displays.

    Fixed pixel displays are here to stay. Single inorganic LED per pixel is going to solve the majority of the other problems (MicroLED).
     
    euskalzabe likes this.
  10. cybereality

    cybereality 2[H]4U

    Messages:
    3,668
    Joined:
    Mar 22, 2008
    CRTs were always a pain to me. Even at 85Hz, the flicker would cause noticeable eye strain and head-aches.

    For all the faults in sample-and-hold, at least it doesn't cause physical discomfort.
     
  11. Dan_D

    Dan_D [H]ardOCP Motherboard Editor

    Messages:
    52,529
    Joined:
    Feb 9, 2002
    Absolutely. I agree with you in most cases. They also had an aperture grill that effected the shape of the dots. You also had Sony's with their "horizontal stabilizer" horseshit which put a horizontal line in the lower 3rd of the screen. And yes, there are resolutions that would cause the screen to appear blurry, typically when you went to the edge of its capabilities.
     
  12. l88bastard

    l88bastard 2[H]4U

    Messages:
    2,473
    Joined:
    Oct 25, 2009
    I got mine from Daysale out of California. Its my second one, the first one I had only had one DP working.
    As Vega said, the Mangos picture quality leaves alot to be desired...especially when compared to the X27 or OLED.

    However, its the only game in town if you want a massive high refresh display. Personally, I am eagerly anticipating the 43" BFGD and 4k120 OLEDs
     
  13. elvn

    elvn 2[H]4U

    Messages:
    2,999
    Joined:
    May 5, 2006
    yeah not worth the price tag and quality, lack of features compared to just waiting for 2019 models, sizes, hdmi 2.1, 4k 120hz native 4:4:4, full hdr 1000+, p3/high % rec 2020 color, va and fald black depths, etc. I did pay $600 for my 32" lg but that was about as far as i was willing to go for a monitor just to hold me over. I've had it several months already too. The closer the premium specs and hdmi 2.1 gets the less sense it makes to buy anything as a temporary placeholder imo.
     
    Last edited: Dec 8, 2018
  14. l88bastard

    l88bastard 2[H]4U

    Messages:
    2,473
    Joined:
    Oct 25, 2009
    Yea, the waiting game. But how long do you have to wait 3 month, 6 months, 1 year, 2 years. I have been waiting for 4k120hz OLED for years now and 2020 looks like the best case scenario at this point.

    How about the 43" BFGD? I would love that, but what are we looking at? 6 months at least I think.

    At least in the here and now I can get my ass whipped in PUBG @4k120hz while I wait for those other displays
     
    cybereality likes this.
  15. cybereality

    cybereality 2[H]4U

    Messages:
    3,668
    Joined:
    Mar 22, 2008
    l88bastard likes this.
  16. l88bastard

    l88bastard 2[H]4U

    Messages:
    2,473
    Joined:
    Oct 25, 2009
  17. RPGWiZaRD

    RPGWiZaRD Gawd

    Messages:
    957
    Joined:
    Jan 24, 2009
    It saddens me that there is no 31.5" IPS 144Hz with strobing (144Hz strobing capable preferably, but with 120Hz + strobing I would still consider).

    I'm annoyed by the fact they jumped from 27 to 31.5" makes no sense, 30 or 30.5" had been better standard. Still even 31.5" is slightly higher density than 24" 1080 which I feel comfortable with or 24.5" in my case so it's even marginally higher "upgrade" but I disliked 27" 1440p when I've used it at work, had to use some zoom to get a "comfortable" view. But it's not what's easy on the eyes only but I dislike when GUI or objects appear "tiny" proportional wise from that point of view I prefer roughly in the range 91 - 96 PPI that seems ideal for me so that's why I won't go above 1440p in the very distant future as it would require such a large 4K display to even get close to the PPI value. Games cannot be zoomed in like Windows can be. There's a balance with everything, object proportional percieved size (immersion factor and to slightly less aspect the competitive shooter factor where it's easier to hit guys in shooters with lower pixel density) vs image quality for me. I hardly see ppl speak anything other than image quality, too high density isn't good either IMO, reasonable always best. High PPI and display size are things that I consider ppl being "crazy" with in these days like bigger and more pixels can't be enough of both... I don't think I'd want a bigger than 31.5" monitor honestly.
     
    Last edited: Dec 10, 2018
  18. elvn

    elvn 2[H]4U

    Messages:
    2,999
    Joined:
    May 5, 2006
    when it's in up to $1k or more territory I prefer to pick my battles, especially when I know 2019+ will have 4k 120hz tvs and monitors. So I am not as trigger happy but personalities and budgets differ of course. I'm really not into spending that kind of money on ips and tn black levels ever again either but again that's my taste and spending path.
     
  19. Ryom

    Ryom [H]ard|Gawd

    Messages:
    1,504
    Joined:
    Oct 11, 2006
  20. Chief Blur Buster

    Chief Blur Buster Owner of BlurBusters

    Messages:
    46
    Joined:
    Aug 18, 2017
    Speaking of the Hz debate, it's worth noting that the 144Hz-vs-165Hz blur differences vary a lot.

    LCD GtG becomes a huge bottleneck once it hits the majority of a refresh cycle, so we need to keep true GtG to as tiny a refresh cycle as possible. That's easy at 60Hz, but incredibly hard at 240Hz and will be a mountain at 480Hz. Since "mostly imperfect 1ms GtG" can be too slow for good 480Hz.

    Though well-overdriven 1ms TN can now finally be sufficiently good enough for 480Hz, I've seen many unoptimized 240Hz monitors that where 240fps@240Hz quite exactly halve motion blur of 120fps@120Hz. With good GtG that doesn't bottleneck -- then perfect 240fps (at full Hz) has exactly half the motion blur of perfect 120fps (at full Hz) without using blur reduction modes.

    If we're talking about IPS, the 5ms GtG really bottlenecks (1/200sec GtG) so 144Hz-vs-165Hz becomes really subtle, being bottlenecked by LCD GtG. Often it SHOULD look 165/144ths better than 144Hz, but doesn't quite reach that, because GtG starts hiding the magnitude of improvement as the refresh rate starts enroaching into GtG time.

    That said, even ignoring GtG issues.... The 1/165sec spacing in phantomarray effects does make 165fps (or 166fps) look smoother than 144fps by a bit.

    project480-mousearrow-690x518.jpg

    (...You probably recognize this image from the 480Hz tests and the 1000Hz-journey articles on Blur Busters)

    The 165Hz would be roughly 33% of the way between 120Hz and 240Hz in terms of mousearrow-spacing (and likewise, the phantomarraying effect of bright objects past your crosshairs when fixed-gaze on crosshairs while you turn).

    We definitely indeed need to jump bigger up the curve. 60Hz -> 120Hz -> 240Hz -> 480Hz ..... Incremental improvements are quite minor, especially if you get so much stutter, have GtG more than half a refresh cycle, and a stuttery mouse.... that all muddies all the high-Hz benefits.
     
  21. /dev/null

    /dev/null [H]ardForum Junkie

    Messages:
    13,578
    Joined:
    Mar 31, 2001
    So my main gaming box is 1070 SLI with 60mhz ips @ 1440p. Monitor is fantastic for work & works OK for gaming.

    Just picked up an XG2402 to play Metro Last Light Redux on with my spare box (RX 580/4GB) and wow! What a difference with FreeSync/144hz on! With all details up @ 1080p I hit 80-115 fps. I think I may finish the game on my RX580
     
    cybereality likes this.
  22. cybereality

    cybereality 2[H]4U

    Messages:
    3,668
    Joined:
    Mar 22, 2008
    Nice. I've been meaning to play Redux. I beat the first 2 original games, and they were awesome.

    Right now I'm playing Black Mesa (fan made HL1 remake). Then I will play the rest of the HL2 series.

    Trying to go back and play game series I liked. Probably do Bioshock at some point too.

    Always nice to see older games looking and playing way better than they did originally (for example, at higher refresh rate).
     
  23. VanGoghComplex

    VanGoghComplex [H]ard|Gawd

    Messages:
    1,542
    Joined:
    Apr 5, 2016
    While it's awesome when that works, I find it depressingly uncommon that it does - especially with console ports like Bioshock which often have their physics engines timed by the framerate and thus get really wonky when you increase it. =(
     
  24. Tup3x

    Tup3x [H]ard|Gawd

    Messages:
    1,803
    Joined:
    Jun 8, 2011
    To me even 75 Hz is so large improvement over 60Hz that I can't go back to 60 Hz. I can live with 75 Hz since it's noticeably smoother.
     
    linuxdude9 and cybereality like this.