240hz is best Quantitatively

Discussion in 'Displays' started by tangoseal, Jun 26, 2019.

  1. xorbe

    xorbe [H]ardness Supreme

    Messages:
    5,981
    Joined:
    Sep 26, 2008
    I would have to experience 1000, 500, and 240 vs my 120 Hz to report if I can feel a difference while gaming. I am fairly certain at least synthetic videos could demonstrate a visual difference wrt motion smoothness. Whether it makes gaming more enjoyable like the jump from 60 to 120/144 is a separate question. 240Hz probably helps with high speed Pong ...
     
  2. Hagrid

    Hagrid [H]ardness Supreme

    Messages:
    8,182
    Joined:
    Nov 23, 2006
    Yeah, I can tell the difference between 60 and 120, but playing on this 240, no clue. I do not see anything though I have not put them side by side and really tried.
     
  3. P1x3L

    P1x3L n00b

    Messages:
    39
    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2012
    Totally... All these people bickering about not wanting a better technology... They go buy something from Fisher-Price and let us bigger boys push for bigger things!
     
    cybereality and Armenius like this.
  4. Ebernanut

    Ebernanut Gawd

    Messages:
    998
    Joined:
    Dec 15, 2010
    All 240 Hz monitors are crappy 1080p TN panels with aggressive overdrive, personally I would consider that a huge downgrade from my current(mediocre) monitor. It would be a downgrade in color gamut coverage, contrast ratio, viewing angles, color accuracy, contrast, size, and pixel density; that's a whole lot of downgrades for something the vast majority of people can't perceive in any meaningful way.

    While I believe there's a small number of people that can notice a difference between 120 Hz and 240 Hz I also think that it's a placebo effect for most people that claim to notice a difference and the difference is fairly minor for those that do since it is something you see diminishing returns the closer you get to your perceivable limit.

    I can understand how someone focused on competitive gaming might decide the trade off is worth it for any potential advantage however I don't think it's any more bleeding edge than 4k, 10 bit color, or HDR in fact I'd argue that HDR 1000 is the most bleeding edge Monitor tech right now.
     
  5. william_fontaine

    william_fontaine Gawd

    Messages:
    737
    Joined:
    Oct 26, 2006
    Bah, I've been here almost 15 years and I've always been about best-bang-for-the-buck.

    It doesn't make sense to spend 2x, 3x, or more on highly depreciating assets for performance or features that you don't need.

    My main exception is TN panels - I'm not getting one of those, no matter how low the price.
     
    Ripskin and IdiotInCharge like this.
  6. tangoseal

    tangoseal [H]ardness Supreme

    Messages:
    7,298
    Joined:
    Dec 18, 2010
    Your argument still doesnt refute that 240hz is superior for fps gaming.

    We dont care about gamut.

    Hdr

    Viewing angles

    Etc...

    None of that has to do with refuting that 240hz is the champions choice.
     
  7. Ebernanut

    Ebernanut Gawd

    Messages:
    998
    Joined:
    Dec 15, 2010
    I don't think it offers any noticeable difference for most but you seemed to completely ignore where I mentioned that I do think that it does for some and I can understand how that could be a more desirable feature for competitive gamers. That being said things like good contrast(HDR) and having viewing angles that don't create color shift towards the edges on a 24" display do offer a competitive advantage as well since it makes it quicker and easier to identify things, obviously high framerates is much more important but I wouldn't discount those features as strictly eye candy.

    More importantly your preference doesn't change the fact that for most people a 240 Hz TN panel would be a downgrade from any decent monitor which was my main point. My second point was that it's laughable to call it bleeding edge when 240 Hz monitors first came out over 4 years ago and the first HDR 1000 monitor came out less than a year ago.
     
  8. andrewaggb

    andrewaggb Limp Gawd

    Messages:
    423
    Joined:
    Oct 6, 2004
    Guess I'd have to try it. I can tell the difference on my 144hz monitor and my 60hz lcd monitors, though I'm not sure I'm better at any games as a result. As a kid the 60hz crt's gave me headaches and using at least a 72hz refresh rate was good enough to prevent them. I'm skeptical 240hz improves gameplay much though. We're talking about ~4 ms/frame (240) vs ~7ms/frame (144) and I think most people's reaction times are in the 200ms range. Many games use a 30hz tick rate, and while some are higher I don't believe any are 144hz let alone 240hz. Combine that with the various other delays, ping, etc, and I'm just not sure how much it matters competitively.
     
    Dayaks and cybereality like this.
  9. Tup3x

    Tup3x [H]ard|Gawd

    Messages:
    1,831
    Joined:
    Jun 8, 2011
    Personally I find from 60 to 75 very noticeable jump. However, after that it doesn't have that big difference. Sure, it gets smoother but it's pretty much the point where things actually start to feel pretty smooth and fluid vs. 60 Hz. When I get a high refresh rate 1440p display, I'll likely use it at 100 Hz (because it's a nice multiple of 25/50).
     
  10. Snowdog

    Snowdog [H]ardForum Junkie

    Messages:
    8,806
    Joined:
    Apr 22, 2006
    I was thinking 120 Hz for similar reasons since common North American refreshes fit in even multiples (60Hz x 2, 30Hz x 4, and 24Hz x 5)
     
  11. RPGWiZaRD

    RPGWiZaRD [H]ard|Gawd

    Messages:
    1,025
    Joined:
    Jan 24, 2009
    People will always have their own preferences, some will want 240Hz, others prioritize picture quality, why fight over it. :p

    I will say on my BenQ 240Hz (it's the 1st generation one, don't know if the 2nd is improved in this regard) running it at 240Hz degrades picture quality slightly, contrast ratio is worse and slightly "fuzzier"/less sharp picture (although has to be said I have very good eye sight for my age). In the end I went for compromise setting of 144Hz + strobing (BenQ Blur Reduction turned on in service menu) as it provided better colors and sharper image (even at 60Hz I'd say is improves marginally but yea marginally). But at 144Hz these monitors do look good for a TN panel (after adjusting the piss poor standard settings), I've got an expensive VA panel TV in my room as well as at work we have only IPS monitors and the monitor doesn't really fall that noticeably behind (compared to my TV it's actually more neutral in color balance, never managed to adjust the colors to be a 100% neutral 6500k but close tho on the TV) and colors look neither desaturated or oversaturated but there are cases I've noticed slight loss of color depth compared to an expensive IPS monitor at work but that's about it. I would hardly call the 240Hz TN panels bad but ofc most people buy it for 240Hz use and at 240Hz the colors will degrade so if that's important to you I'd advise give 144Hz + strobing a go too, you might like it as it provides even smoother motion than 240Hz without strobing (at 240Hz + strobing it'll have slight added blur actually as the panel's response time isn't fast enough and it causes some reverse ghosting or whatever you call it)
     
  12. tangoseal

    tangoseal [H]ardness Supreme

    Messages:
    7,298
    Joined:
    Dec 18, 2010
    That new asus 3440x1440 va at 200 hz for 2000usd is a nice ass display. I'd take that over 240 anyday though.
     
    Dayaks likes this.
  13. elvn

    elvn 2[H]4U

    Messages:
    3,138
    Joined:
    May 5, 2006
    You aren't getting appreciable gains out of a higher Hz monitor unless you are filling it with newer, unique frames of action. This is even moreso when using VRR to enable you to crank up the graphics settings a bit more to straddle a frame rate on the most demanding games smoothly. So compared to 60fps/60Hz.. when you are at 120fps/120Hz you get around 50% sample and hold blur reduction and twice the motion definition, pathing articulation, and smoothness.. but not at 60fps/120Hz and not at 80fps/240Hz etc... It's also worth remembering that when people say "I get X Fps" on a game, they are talking about a frame rate Average which sinks up to 30fps lower (and higher) which looks like a seismograph or audio grapth when graphed.


    There are a few games that can get extreme frame rates with generally high common lows but they are the exception unless you want to play game engines from 2012 or otherwise easy to render games, or very very low settings, or perhaps lower resolutions.

    1000fps at 1000Hz would be ~1ms screen blur (essentially zero blur like a crt) and incredible motion definition if we ever get screens capable of such. Refresh rates are also dependent on response times though. For example, even the best gaming VA starts to outpace it's response time much past 120fps/120Hz (8.3ms per frame) .. even with really good overdrive. A 1000Hz monitor would probably require a really advanced interpolation to multiply frames too... 100fps x 10 to hit 1000fps for example.


    Motion clarity (blur reduction) and Motion definition (more pages in an animated flip book and flipping it much faster, more dots per dotted line path) .. are very aesthetic qualities and not just valuable for twitch gaming "advantages".

     
    Last edited: Jul 5, 2019
    cybereality likes this.
  14. Hagrid

    Hagrid [H]ardness Supreme

    Messages:
    8,182
    Joined:
    Nov 23, 2006
    Haha. He gave me the wrong monitor. So now I have a 27" 144hz pg278q. I like it much better than the 4K and 1080. I can still see stuff.
    I do not notice from 240 back to 144. Shrug. Im old.
     
  15. tangoseal

    tangoseal [H]ardness Supreme

    Messages:
    7,298
    Joined:
    Dec 18, 2010
    You wont notice unless your hyper competitive fps gamer. If your not there isn't a difference between 100 and 240
     
  16. Hagrid

    Hagrid [H]ardness Supreme

    Messages:
    8,182
    Joined:
    Nov 23, 2006
    Yeah, I get my stuff from my middle son who is the FPS gamer.
     
  17. tangoseal

    tangoseal [H]ardness Supreme

    Messages:
    7,298
    Joined:
    Dec 18, 2010
    My 5 year old doesnt like my old 60hz. Tells me it sucks. He likes playing ABC learning frog on the 144. Not shitting you.

    So I'm gonna give him my 144hz
     
    Dayaks, cybereality and Armenius like this.
  18. Hagrid

    Hagrid [H]ardness Supreme

    Messages:
    8,182
    Joined:
    Nov 23, 2006
    Haha. Teaching him right! :)
     
  19. Vega

    Vega [H]ardness Supreme

    Messages:
    6,082
    Joined:
    Oct 12, 2004
    lol
     
  20. Criticalhitkoala

    Criticalhitkoala [H]ard|Gawd

    Messages:
    1,631
    Joined:
    Apr 17, 2015
    While I understand your desires Tango. Millions are made in Esports, but billions if not trillions are made on crappy 60hz monitor btw :) I mean...it's literally used by everyone else.

    I'm a IPS 165 HZ guy. I think there is a difference between 60hz and 165hz...but when my nephew and daughter uses my "Gaming Monitor" it's just another monitor to them. No hype train, etc. They don't come away from it as it's anything different. My Nephew does play on the level of competition, but unless I tell him why something is worth it, it's all the same to him anyways.
     
    defaultluser and tangoseal like this.
  21. tangoseal

    tangoseal [H]ardness Supreme

    Messages:
    7,298
    Joined:
    Dec 18, 2010
    Perception is important. Absolutely!
     
  22. sethk

    sethk [H]ard|Gawd

    Messages:
    1,615
    Joined:
    May 3, 2005
    For those who are not fans of TN, there is already one (albeit strange) IPS 240hz panel out - it's just a 17" 1080p 240hz panel that Asus announced for a portable monitor, and LG has announced another nano IPS 240hz 27" and AUO has at least 3 240hz panels on the way that are not TN - 2 IPS and one VA (a little skeptical of that last one).
     
  23. tangoseal

    tangoseal [H]ardness Supreme

    Messages:
    7,298
    Joined:
    Dec 18, 2010
    Nah VA can def do 240. Asus just released a 3440x1440 VA at 200hz. 4k. It's like a $2800 screen lol ouch
     
  24. Hagrid

    Hagrid [H]ardness Supreme

    Messages:
    8,182
    Joined:
    Nov 23, 2006
    Yeah I saw those. My son was looking at them, but seriously he mostly uses it for CSGO. Kids...
     
  25. elvn

    elvn 2[H]4U

    Messages:
    3,138
    Joined:
    May 5, 2006
    VA response times with the best overdrive implementation of certain models is better than ever but it still falls behind at the highest refresh rates where each frame's milliseconds are shorter. That is, assuming you fill those Hz with new frames of action and game world states and aren't just using a higher Hz monitor at lower frame rate ranges. They are generally tight to 120hz now (120FPS at 120Hz that is of course) unless their overdrive is not top notch. Much over 120FPS at 120hz (8.3ms per frame) and they start to lose it on the worst transitions. The farther you go "out of bounds" the more intrusive it becomes.

    From the TFT central review of the Asus PG35VQ 21:9 .....
    =============================================================

    "The average G2G figure was measured at 7.5ms overall, or 5.1ms if we ignore the particularly slow transitions which drag the average down. This was with low levels of overshoot that were basically unnoticeable in practice. 73% of the transitions were beneath the 6.94ms threshold needed for 144Hz operation, with several of the others being very close to that figure, and only a few being considerably slower. This meant the screen worked fine at 144Hz."


    We also carried out some more thorough measurements at 200Hz for completeness. You can see that the transitions from black to dark/middle greys was a problem here, which is what leads to some black smearing on moving content. If we ignore those particularly slow transitions in the top row then the average G2G response time was an impressive 4.5ms here overall. 60% of the measured transitions were less than the 5ms threshold needed to make 200Hz useable, but the other 40% were a bit too slow to keep up. There were some low to moderate levels of overshoot on some transitions but nothing that created anything really obvious in practice. The mostly decent overall response times and low levels of overshoot made 200Hz far more usable than the older Acer Predator Z35 which is the only other 200Hz VA panel we've tested. We still felt 144Hz was optimal with better overall motion clarity, but Asus have done a nice job speeding up a lot of the pixel response times to at least make 200Hz an option. They even reached down to a very impressive 2ms in the best example! "


    =============================================================


    I personally am using a 32" LG GK850G 1440p g-sync VA which has one of the best response times and importantly one of the best VA overdrive implementations of any VA gaming monitor to date - and I don't bother overclocking it to 165hz. Typically I dial in my frame rate on demanding games to a goal of 100FPS-Hz average anyway, which is usually something like a 70 - 100 - 130 FPSandHz graph using g-sync.
     
    Last edited: Jul 9, 2019
    IdiotInCharge, tangoseal and Armenius like this.
  26. IdiotInCharge

    IdiotInCharge [H]ardForum Junkie

    Messages:
    10,240
    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2003
    I run mine at 120Hz, and the black smearing is very noticeable to me. No idea where to go from there.
     
  27. TheSlySyl

    TheSlySyl n00b

    Messages:
    56
    Joined:
    May 30, 2018
    I have a 1440p165hz monitor as well as as (dual) 4k60hz monitor.

    Depends on the game. If its something that more smoothness helps, i'll go 1440p165hz. If its something where I want visual quality, I'll go 4k.

    What I'll never, ever fucking do is go back down to 1080p. It's my goddamn computer monitor, I don't even like 1080p on my phone and its screen is only 5 inches.
     
  28. elvn

    elvn 2[H]4U

    Messages:
    3,138
    Joined:
    May 5, 2006
    I'm sure you know this but just in case, make sure the overdrive is on the highest setting because unlike some other overdrive implementations, the overshoot isn't bad when maxed and it makes a difference on the VA transition times. LG did a great overdrive implementation in that screen. Most other monitors are recommended at "medium" or "high" style overdrive settings rather than "extreme" or "max" overdrive so it's easy to fall into that habit on the LG GK850G

    It's still not 100% on the worst transitions but it's good, especially compared to most VA gaming monitors and compared to how much worse it is at higher fps+Hz than 120 and their shorter frame times. That said, there are specific high contrast stylized games with black outlines around a bright character that can exacerbate the issue. In general gameplay I don't really notice it , at least with my settings and games, and at 100fps+100hz average. The thing with a VA like the LG GK850G is that it starts to lose it more past 120fps at 120hz or higher (8.3ms frame times and less as you go higher).. but like practically all non-crts, it also suffers sample and hold blur at a "soften" blur at 120fps+120hz, and back down to smearing blur the more you dip under that toward frame rate graphs that are toward 60fps+60hz. So there is a "sweet spot" between smearing sample and hold blur, and exacerbated black smearing. I recommend running at least 100fps+100hz average at 120hz monitor setting and capping your frame rate using a game's in-game frame rate limiter or if the game doesn't have one, using rivatuner.
     
    Armenius and IdiotInCharge like this.
  29. IdiotInCharge

    IdiotInCharge [H]ardForum Junkie

    Messages:
    10,240
    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2003
    TfTCentral had a different recommendation, to my memory- and to your credit, I haven't messed with it yet. Guess it's time to play!
     
  30. MistaSparkul

    MistaSparkul Gawd

    Messages:
    921
    Joined:
    Jul 5, 2012
    I used the Fastest overdrive setting on my GK850G and it did not get rid of black smearing, although I guess it did help to reduce it somewhat? Anyways regardless of what overdrive setting you use or whether you use 120Hz or 165Hz it will still have black smearing, just to a different degree depending on your settings.
     
    IdiotInCharge likes this.
  31. elvn

    elvn 2[H]4U

    Messages:
    3,138
    Joined:
    May 5, 2006
    yes the quoted text I posted says that pretty much.

    You'll get less black smearing the longer your frame times are compared to the VA black transition times. 120FPS at 120hz is 8.3 ms per frame so it is not as far out of bounds on more of the transitions response time wise.. If you keep the Hz higher and don't cap your frame rate at 120 you can make the smearing worse. If you don't run at the highest overdrive settings you'll also make the smearing worse.

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

    ...When you are getting sub 100fps-hz average on any modern display (other than CRT/strobing).. you are getting down into smearing sample and hold blur.
    ..When you go above 120fps at 120hz.running high frame rate graphs off of a high frame rate average on a VA, you climb into more black smearing.

    So the "sweet spot" is..
    .. for the least black smearing transitions is capping your frame rate to 120fps and running the fastest overdrive (at least with the great overdrive implementation on the LG GK850G)
    ..for cutting smearing sample-and-hold blur during FoV/viewport movement at speed in 1st/3rd person games, keeping your average frame rate at 100FPS at 100hz or higher with VRR enabled for something like a 70 - 100 - 130 fps graph, (capped at 120fps for VA). Higher fps average capable games even better to bring up the low end.

    If you are getting well under 100fps at 100hz (10ms per frame), you are probably getting so much smearing sample-and-hold blur that any black smearing would be moot.

    So it really depends on what you are playing and at what settings vs your resolution and gpu power.

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

    Personally I will never go back to 860:1 , 980:1 and similar contrast ratios and their accompanying weak black depths. A modern gaming VA like the LG GK850G, while not anywhere near a VA TV , FALD array, or OLED's black depth and contrast ratios, is still three times higher contrast level and black depth than an IPS or TN.
     
    Last edited: Jul 12, 2019 at 11:22 AM
  32. ChernobylPizza

    ChernobylPizza n00b

    Messages:
    12
    Joined:
    Sep 4, 2011
    I just upgraded from a 60hz IPS to a 31.5" 75hz IPS which I paid $200 for. I have been playing some oldschool counterstrike 1.6 and I honestly can't notice a difference in terms of refresh rate. Back in 2002 I would play on a pentium III laptop that would struggle to prodice 9fps if someone threw a smoke grenade. THAT was a noticeable difference! Basically once I get to 60fps it's perfect as far as I can tell.

    We are talking about a maximum of 12ms (60fps vs 240). That's equal to a ping of 12 and my ping is usually 9-25. So add 12 to that. Is that worth paying another $300 for a better monitor (or buying an extra TN panel specifically for FPS gaming)? If I were a pro fps gamer, then sure. Otherwise no.
     
  33. Hagrid

    Hagrid [H]ardness Supreme

    Messages:
    8,182
    Joined:
    Nov 23, 2006
    WOW, even my old eyes can tell the difference between 60 and 144.
     
  34. MistaSparkul

    MistaSparkul Gawd

    Messages:
    921
    Joined:
    Jul 5, 2012
    Oh geez why do people think you HAVE to be a pro gamer to appreciate a 240Hz panel. There are people who claim you don't need anything above 60fps unless you are playing some twitch shooter, but personally I find higher fps to be a great thing even for RPG games like Witcher 3. And if I'm going to be playing an online multiplayer shooter and 240Hz is allowing me to play even better, then I would prefer to use it even though I'm not a pro who plays for prize money.
     
    elvn, Hagrid and IdiotInCharge like this.
  35. IdiotInCharge

    IdiotInCharge [H]ardForum Junkie

    Messages:
    10,240
    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2003
    That's... not how this works. It's not how anything works.
     
  36. elvn

    elvn 2[H]4U

    Messages:
    3,138
    Joined:
    May 5, 2006
    High Hz is great as long as you are filling the new screen refreshes (Hz) with new frames of action and game world states (otherwise known as frames or frame rate average, frame rate range, frame rate graph).

    If you are running a 60 fps average graph on a 165hz or 240hz monitor you are only filling 60 frames +/- (more like 30 - 60 - 90 "vibration" all over the place) , so you probably aren't going to notice a difference.

    I agree with MistaSparkul that high frame rates on a high hz monitor are a huge aesthetic benefit...

    120fps at 120Hz cuts the sample and hold blur down from 60hz baseline which is smearing blur of the entire viewport during mouse looking and movement keying in 1st/3rd person games, down to a much tighter "soften" blur within the masks or outlines of everything on the screen.. especially with a good overdrive implementation.

    It also increases the amount of new action states and world states shown so everything moves smoother and has more articulated pathing, even animation frames can be affected and the movement of the entire gameworld relative to you when moving the viewport around.

    So 120fps at 120hz cuts the blur by half and doubles the motion definition and motion smoothness.. Even 100fps at 100hz+ cuts that blur down a little (40%?) and has motion definition gains (5 frames at 100fps to every three shown at 60fps).. Personally that is the lowest I'll go for my frame rate average and that is for aesthetics on adventure games mostly. The higher the better but when I move my gaming display up to 4k 120Hz by end of 2019 or early 2020 it will make 100fps average even harder to achieve than now at high+ to ultra settings. Hopefully the next gpu die shrink will have decent gains.

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

    Motion Clarity/blur reduction examples



    Motion definition increase examples/simulations

     
    Last edited: Jul 13, 2019 at 8:25 PM
  37. cybereality

    cybereality [H]ardness Supreme

    Messages:
    4,377
    Joined:
    Mar 22, 2008
    So let me start by saying I had one of the first 120Hz monitors, a 144Hz monitor, a 166Hz monitor, and a 240Hz monitor. There is no doubt a difference.

    While the biggest gains are certainly going from 60 to 120, I have noticed a small difference, even going from 144 to 166 which I know some people don't believe but it is true.

    I don't play competitively, so I won't make any argument for multi-player performance, but I do notice an improvement in the fluidity and overall responsiveness of the games at high refresh.

    There are a few issues here. One, it is very much a personal preference. I've had 4K monitors and they are nice, but I'm currently on 1080p for high refresh and framerate and it still looks good enough for me.

    In that same way, a lot of people like 4K and are saying 60Hz is "good enough" but that is not the same as saying there is no difference, or the obtuse argument that the human eye can't possibly see a difference.

    One other point: how many people saying there is no difference at 240Hz actually own a 240Hz monitor, or played on one for a substantial amount of time? Or tried any modern TN panel? Spoiler: they have improved dramatically in the last 10 years.

    For a while I saw people on the forum saying IPS was it and that they would never go TN. I had TN for a while (since that was the only game in town for high refresh historically) and had no problem. It is all personal preference. It is better to look at it that way.

    I now game on a high refresh IPS, 166Hz G-Sync, and the quality is great. I would prefer VA or IPS over TN, but modern TN is acceptable still (my second machine has a 1080P 240Hz TN).

    So, yeah, there is a difference.
     
    IdiotInCharge likes this.
  38. Snowdog

    Snowdog [H]ardForum Junkie

    Messages:
    8,806
    Joined:
    Apr 22, 2006
    Without blind testing, this is a personal anecdote that may be colored by the placebo effect.

    When people buy theoretically "better" equipment, they are very much prone to believing they can tell the difference, even if that isn't really possible for them.

    We can see this at play for decades in the audiophile community where there are whole niches of high end audio supported by people who believe they can hear a difference, but when actually put to a blind test, they can't. You basically have entire market niches supported by the placebo effect. That gives some idea how powerful this effect is.

    I am not saying that is happening here, but without some decent testing, it's impossible to know that it isn't, which is why these kinds of personal anecdotes mean nothing.

    IMO, the original test posted was reasonable, so people can detect the difference between 60Hz and 240Hz. But that doesn't narrow down where the limit is or even hint where it might be, all it really shows is that it is higher than 60 Hz, which is zero surprise. It doesn't show that 240 Hz has value. It would be like testing if people can hear the difference between an audio speaker that's response ended at 8 KHz and one that ended at 80 KHz. Everyone telling the difference, doesn't mean everyone can hear to 80KHz, it just means they can hear above 8KHz, and the real limit is an unknown.

    I'd love to see the same blind test comparing 100, 120, 144, 165 Hz to 240 Hz to get some actual useful information, instead of anecdotes potentially flawed by the placebo effect.
     
  39. Comixbooks

    Comixbooks Ignore Me

    Messages:
    12,980
    Joined:
    Jun 7, 2008
    I'm glad they are still making smaller monitors in the 23.8" or 24.5" range for esports people it just goes to show the esports guys like the smaller monitors for faster reflexes.
    I want to try a 240hz monitor but I wish there was a 1440P version because not really willing to downgrade. Even though you would need a super graphics card to power something like that.
     
  40. elvn

    elvn 2[H]4U

    Messages:
    3,138
    Joined:
    May 5, 2006
    A few points...

    Higher Hz only Appreciable when at much Higher Frame Rate ranges
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    --The one I keep reiterating is that you aren't going to get appreciable gains out of higher Hz without filling much of that new ceiling with new frames of more current world states and actions.
    So having a 400Hz monitor is pretty meaningless running 80FPS average for example. For a 240Hz monitor you'd need to be much, much higher than 144fps and 165fps to tell a difference because those would essentially be 144Hz and 165hz rates, and averages at that.
    Using g-sync/VRR to tap into a 240Hz ceiling at all - you'd probably want to be over 200fps average at least, around 210fps average so that at least part of your graph scales into 240 at the highs. Optimally, to fully realize any higher Hz ceiling you'd need to have your common frame rate LOWs close to or at that Hz. GPUS can't really handle that on modern demanding games, (especially with the push to 4k), but there are a few older games and easy to render games (CSGO, TF2, L4D2, etc) and perhaps some MOBAs that are capable of this so those would probably have to be the ones to test with. The reason everyone says " I even notice a huge difference on the desktop" is that the desktop is giving them an overabundance of frame rate compared to in demanding games. On the desktop they are getting full frames vs the Hz capacity.


    The Higher the Hz and Frame Rate (Both) reach toward 1000FPS at 1000Hz, the more Sample-and-Hold Blur Reduction
    -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    --The higher we get toward 1000FPS at 1000Hz (most likely using interpolation x10 to boost the frame rate at that point), the closer we get to essentially "zero" sample and hold blur like a professional crt of old. Sample and hold blur reduction makes a huge aesthetic difference in 1st and 3rd person games where you are moving the entire game world viewport around relative to you constantly when mouse-looking and movement keying (or controller panning). Most people would recognize the difference between smearing blur, soften blur, a tighter haze blur, and zero blur on the entire viewport and game world during viewport movement. That is the whole game world and all of the high detail textures, depth via bump mapping and lighting, FX etc.hazing, softening out, or smearing. Having run a fw900 graphics professional crt in the past, I'm well aware of what "zero" sample and hold blur looks like when viewport panning as a comparison.
    Decreasing sample and hold blur through higher frame rates with higher Hz capable screens is valuable and aesthetic (looks much better), and it's capable of being tested.


    Higher Hz at very high Frame Rates increases the motion definition and pathing articulation
    -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    This is a huge aesthetic difference as well, especially in 1st/3rd person games where the entire game world is moving around relative to you when mouse-looking and movement keying as well as individual virtual objects moving around. However motion definition increases would likely have diminishing gains well before 1000fps at 1000Hz, unlike the sample and hold blur reduction increases all the way along toward the goal of essentially eliminating the blur at 1ms/1px. Blurbusters' article suggested something like 100fps solid interpolated x10 as a goal (125fps x 8 interpolated would also work).


    Blur Busters Law: The Amazing Journey To Future 1000Hz Displays

    Remember this blur affects the entire viewport during mouse-looking, movement-keying, controller panning and all high detail textures, depth via bump mapping, fx, etc.. even text and signs, labels. It's not just a single simple bitmap cartoon ufo graphic that is affected, that is only used for testing purposes. Also remember that the frame rates he is quoting are solid frame rates, not averages.


    KlIRG0B.png

    ............................................................

    As an aside, commenting on what Comixbooks said about smaller monitors - from my experience with different monitors, I'd guess that having a smaller screen (or a larger screen far enough away) would allow you to keep the entire scene within your focal view so you wouldn't have to dart your eyes to see things. Something like shooting flies in a bucket vs on a wall ("fish in a barrel").
     
    Last edited: Jul 14, 2019 at 10:45 AM