Acer Nitro Aopen 390hz

Comixbooks

Fully [H]
Joined
Jun 7, 2008
Messages
17,820


This monitor is going for big bucks because its one of the best. I have a 240hz Alienware but the IPS panel drives me nuts. So I use a 144hz VA instead.
 

UnknownSouljer

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Sep 24, 2001
Messages
7,138
Who is this for? It's in the ultimate extreme overkill category.
Even if I dropped my resolution to half this at 720p (in terms of pixels not width) - I would likely not even get the frame-times to fill 250fps.
Pricing this at $500 seems silly when <1% are going to have a CPU and a GPU combo fast enough to push this many frames at any resolution at any visual quality. It might as well be $5000 for all the good it will do. Even then a lot of this is moot with 100ms ping.
I'd love to see their test setup in any game actually showing 390 frames getting rendered a second in any modern game - this is a recipe for getting hyper CPU limited.

EDIT: So I watched the video, and he didn't bother to show if any of his games on his setup actually is hitting the top refresh. Even assuming he is, the games he mentions that are capable of hitting these frame times are few.
 
Last edited:

burburbur

Weaksauce
Joined
Mar 14, 2017
Messages
104
Who is this for? It's in the ultimate extreme overkill category.
Even if I dropped my resolution to half this at 720p (in terms of pixels not width) - I would likely not even get the frame-times to fill 250fps.
Pricing this at $500 seems silly when <1% are going to have a CPU and a GPU combo fast enough to push this many frames at any resolution at any visual quality. It might as well be $5000 for all the good it will do. Even then a lot of this is moot with 100ms ping.
I'd love to see their test setup in any game actually showing 390 frames getting rendered a second in any modern game - this is a recipe for getting hyper CPU limited.

EDIT: So I watched the video, and he didn't bother to show if any of his games on his setup actually is hitting the top refresh. Even assuming he is, the games he mentions that are capable of hitting these frame times are few.
These kinds of monitors are for competitive FPS games. You can consistently hit 400 FPS on a strong rig in games like CSGO, Overwatch, and Valorant. Its a niche product, just like the 1600 Nit HDR monitors are niche products for niche segments of consumers.
 

UnknownSouljer

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Sep 24, 2001
Messages
7,138
These kinds of monitors are for competitive FPS games. You can consistently hit 400 FPS on a strong rig in games like CSGO, Overwatch, and Valorant. Its a niche product, just like the 1600 Nit HDR monitors are niche products for niche segments of consumers.
Oh no, I see that. I just think it's crazy to buy a monitor for maybe 5 games.
At least with people buying an HDR monitor capable of 1600 nitts + local dimming, there is new HDR content being made all the time for it.
 

vegeta535

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Jul 19, 2013
Messages
7,793
Oh no, I see that. I just think it's crazy to buy a monitor for maybe 5 games.
At least with people buying an HDR monitor capable of 1600 nitts + local dimming, there is new HDR content being made all the time for it.
To a lot of people those 5 games are their life.
 

XoR_

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Jan 18, 2016
Messages
1,251
A lot of older games will hit crazy high frame rates on new PC's, especially at 1080p

I am curious if I would be able to tell difference between 120Hz and 240Hz and 360Hz in mouse responsiveness and motion clarity.
Motion clarity is most probably limited by LCD panel itself so would not get much better and nowhere close to CRT at 50Hz anyway
Responsiveness is more interresting. At 160Hz it feels pretty much instant already. But maybe once I would experience glorious 400Hz gaming it I will be able to feel lag at 160Hz... 🙃
 

TwistedMetalGear

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Jun 19, 2005
Messages
1,997
Is there scientific proof that these competitive FPS gamers really benefit from 390 hz vs. say 300 hz? At some point the diminishing returns become so damn miniscule that it makes no sense to go higher.
 

Murzilka

Gawd
Joined
Dec 11, 2011
Messages
1,008
I am curious if I would be able to tell difference between 120Hz and 240Hz and 360Hz in mouse responsiveness and motion clarity.
I can definitely tell the difference between 120hz and 144hz on an IPS monitor.
 

Pastuch

Gawd
Joined
May 13, 2010
Messages
566
Oh no, I see that. I just think it's crazy to buy a monitor for maybe 5 games.
At least with people buying an HDR monitor capable of 1600 nitts + local dimming, there is new HDR content being made all the time for it.
5 games! I wish there were 5 games released in the last two years I enjoy. I've purchased dozens of games and 99% are story driven nonsense. Literally half a billion gamers want one thing, competition sweat fests in the form of Battleroyales. I'm at 1400 hours in Warzone with no signs of slowing down. We are the people that monitors like this are made for.

If I want a story I'll watch TV... give me the sweats!

I have no clue why anyone would want to play Apex or Warzone with hdr on or at 1600nits... if it doesn't help you win you turn that shit off.

Anyone that says you can't see higher refresh rates is blind, my 280hz monitor occasionally drops to 144hz in Warzone and it's instantly clear that I'm not getting 200hz plus and drives me crazy.

I will say that getting over 300fps in Warzone is impossible on current CPUs
 

burburbur

Weaksauce
Joined
Mar 14, 2017
Messages
104
People's sensitivity to refresh rates is extremely individual-dependent. I barely notice a difference between 60hz and 144hz and spent months trying to find ways to make sure my 144Hz monitor was actually working. But, I have friends who notice the difference between 120 and 144 and 144 and 165. I also have friends who could feel the input lag when playing fighting games on fast LCD TVs over CRTs.

But there are definitely diminishing returns. I think its unlikely that almost anyone notices a difference between 360 and 390 Hz. Most of the videos I've seen on this people can't consistently pick out 240 vs 360. I think we're likely to see these high refresh monitors stall out around 400 Hz. In most of these competitive shooters your network ping and the server tick rate is already a more limiting factor than the display input lag or refresh rate. Even if the game uses predictive netcode so you can see the enemy very quickly, you still can't shoot them until your input makes it back to the server and is read.
 

ZeqOBpf6

Gawd
Joined
Aug 24, 2014
Messages
803
Since I've finished CP2077 I don't think I've played more than ten hours combined in all non-CS:GO games combined. I average about 25 hours/week in CS:GO, so this would be perfect for me, but I'm not willing to go below 1440p, because I'm garbage at CS:GO(casual and Silver 2) and I use my PC for other things quite a bit.

But I'm certainly not alone in that group of people. For example, I'd take 400hz over HDR600. (or even 240hz)
 

KazeoHin

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Sep 7, 2011
Messages
8,398
I call bs on this.
I know its SUPER difficult to believe at first, but honestly, I've caught myself MULTIPLE times turning on my FPS counter in games because the game didn't "feel right" only to find that it was running at ~100FPS instead of my monitor's 120Hz max (With GSync enabled, BTW).

And playing on my friend's 165Hz monitor is a NOTICABLE difference.

Yes, you're getting logarithmic diminishing returns every time you double your FPS, but I TRULY believe people (especially ESports hardcores) when they say they can feel the difference and are willing to pay more for it.
 

sharknice

2[H]4U
Joined
Nov 12, 2012
Messages
2,731
LTT did a video on this:

To sum up their findings: Yes it makes a difference. But it actually made a bigger difference for the casual gamers than the pros. The pros have their timings, movements, etc. already developed and things are more like reflexes to them, whereas the casual gamers are playing more off the cuff and any extra information from the higher FPS helps them more because they're making constant adjustments instead of one quick reflexed response.

So higher FPS is always better, but yes there are diminishing returns. But higher FPS isn't just for pro gamers, it actually helps out casual gamers a lot more.
 

KazeoHin

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Sep 7, 2011
Messages
8,398
LTT did a video on this:

To sum up their findings: Yes it makes a difference. But it actually made a bigger difference for the casual gamers than the pros. The pros have their timings, movements, etc. already developed and things are more like reflexes to them, whereas the casual gamers are playing more off the cuff and any extra information from the higher FPS helps them more because they're making constant adjustments instead of one quick reflexed response.

So higher FPS is always better, but yes there are diminishing returns. But higher FPS isn't just for pro gamers, it actually helps out casual gamers a lot more.

I can believe it. I honestly love just experiencing HRR displays, even in normal Windows tasks. I long for the day when you can fling your mouse across the screen and see no cursor after-images.
 
Top