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

cybereality

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Mar 22, 2008
Messages
5,001
Though I don't play competitively anymore, I do like that 360Hz will now be a thing.
At CES 2020, Asus is revealing the real thing: a 24.5-inch 1080p gaming monitor that runs at 360Hz with Nvidia’s G-Sync technology. Asus is claiming this is the world’s first 360Hz gaming monitor with G-Sync, and it’s designed with e-sports and competitive gaming in mind.
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.
 

viivo

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Sep 7, 2005
Messages
1,518
I'm glad monitor manufacturers are focusing on what's important. Who in their right mind would prefer a high res monitor with excellent picture quality and color reproduction when they could have a 24" 640x480 TN panel running at 900hz. Afterall, games are meant to be played, not looked at or admired as art.
 
Last edited:

cybereality

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Mar 22, 2008
Messages
5,001
Well, I'm not so much a fan of the 24" size, that is way too small, even for 1080p.

Personally I run a 34" 2560x1080 166Hz IPS panel, so it is a nice mix of everything. Nice picture quality, fast refresh, and comfortable size/aspect ratio.
 

Ragenrok

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
May 15, 2007
Messages
4,104
I'm glad monintor manufacturers are focusing on what's important. Who in their right mind would prefer a high res monitor with excellent picture quality and color reproduction when they could have a 24" 640x480 TN panel running at 900hz. Afterall, games are meant to be played, not looked at or admired as art.
I know your trying to /s right now but in the case of competitive gameplay this is the honest truth. Performance will trump visuals anyday in the comp scene, and honestly some newer games get very good frames without sacrificing much int he name of visuals, I know both Destiny 2 and the newest COD plays great even on my 1060, im sure a 2080ti would have no issues pushing 300+ fps.

For me personally I have a new 27" 1440p 144hz ips monitor on the way, i feel thats the perfect balance between performance and visuals for a not comp player.
 

dgz

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Feb 15, 2010
Messages
5,713
I am so glad high refresh rates are finally becoming a thing again. LCD was, and still is, a major regression in that department. My first LCD monitor forced me to drop Quake for a few years. 60 Hz is pain

You could have a full frame for every degree while doing a 360. That's amazing if you're a Quake player. Not so much if all you care about is colour reproduction
 

Mode13

Gawd
Joined
Jun 11, 2018
Messages
750
high refresh 1080P > high res in competitive shooters. period.
4k IPS @ 60hz > 1080P TN high refresh in adventure / RPG type games that lack super fast camera movement

taco bell for my stomach, cuz new years diets are for lamers anyway

I'd like to take the monitor for a whirl in CS:GO, since I do play that regularly and I'm still on 144hz. I doubt it will be remotely close to how 60hz to 144hz felt. That was mindblowing. Not to mention CS:GO is the ONLY game I have that would touch those frame rates :p
 

Mode13

Gawd
Joined
Jun 11, 2018
Messages
750
Can any game even run at that high of fps?
Rainbow 6 Seige and overwatch can probably get there

CS:GO Can easily do 360 fps, so that would probably the biggest use case.

The list isn't big, but the people who would be using such a monitor are the ones who log thousands of hours in any of the above titles..

Of course you can, same as homeopathy users can feel the healing effects.
Funny how long posts like this manage to get thrown out there. I can link threads from as far back as the early 2000s saying humans can't see above 30 or 60 FPS. Utter bs. There is an obvious visible difference from 60 to 144, and from 144 to 240. Anybody who plays competitive FPS games knows this. At 240hz when you flick in CS:GO everything stays crisp so you can track, at 60FPS everything turns into a blur while turning quickly. Whether this improves your actual skill level, probably not, but it looks astronomically better. period.

Diminishing returns do kick in though, so I can't imagine 240 to 360 would be that big of a deal..
 

limitedaccess

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
May 10, 2010
Messages
7,568
Can any game even run at that high of fps?
Competitive esports games can reach them.

Keep in mind people who play those games competitively also tune settings for competitive performance as opposed to static aesthetics, which means you're running near minimal settings. It isn't just for performance either as often lower settings cut down on what would be considered "noise" due to the lower fidelity.

Diminishing returns do kick in though, so I can't imagine 240 to 360 would be that big of a deal..
There's some ancillary benefits as well. Overwatch for instance has a maximum limit at 300 fps. So in theory now with a 360hz monitor you can play at the limit as well as not have screen tearing.
 

5150Joker

2[H]4U
Joined
Aug 1, 2005
Messages
3,590
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.
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.
 

limitedaccess

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
May 10, 2010
Messages
7,568
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.
I mentioned this above but you're thinking from a "max settings" perspective.

Competitive esports gamers do not run at max settings. Even without performance concerns (assuming an infinitely powerful GPU) you'd still adjust graphics settings down to optimize for visual acquisition by cutting down on excess "noise" as opposed to aiming for maximum fidelity.

Performance often in the above use case becomes more CPU if not memory limited with respect to current hardware even on mid range type GPUs (last gen ones, not this gen).
 
Last edited:

T4rd

Fully [H]
Joined
Apr 8, 2009
Messages
16,976
And, yes, before it starts, I have a 240Hz monitor and I can see a difference. Cheers.
Converting Hz to milliseconds, there's a much smaller difference between 240 and 360 than there is between 60 to 120 or 120 to 240 Hz.

60Hz = 16.6ms between frames
120Hz = 8.3ms (-8.3ms)
240Hz = 4.17ms (-4.13ms)
360Hz = 2.8ms (-1.37ms)

So highly debatable that you would see the <2ms difference between 240Hz and 360Hz even if you could tell a difference between 120Hz and 240Hz.

I can tell a small difference betwen 120 and 240Hz as well when I compared them side by side, but for the single-player games I mostly play and the IQ drop required for 120+ Hz gaming, I'll take 60-120 Hz with VRR all day over anything higher. Hell, I'm even good with 30 FPS on my console games as long as it's not dropping frames a lot, as is the norm on the PS4 and Switch exclusives I play a lot of.

For eSports, I can still see the appeal, as they'll want any advantage they can take, however negligible, just like any other professional sports equipment where you want the absolute best tools/equipment you can get. But even for enthusiasts at home, 360Hz seems pretty superfluous to me, never mind the smaller display size, IQ, and resolution restrictions.
 
Last edited:

5150Joker

2[H]4U
Joined
Aug 1, 2005
Messages
3,590
I mentioned this above but you're thinking from a "max settings" perspective.

Competitive esports gamers do not run at max settings. Even without performance concerns (assuming an infinitely powerful GPU) you'd still adjust graphics settings down to optimize for visual acquisition by cutting down on excess "noise" as opposed to aiming for maximum fidelity.

Performance often in the above use case becomes more CPU if not memory limited with respect to current hardware even on mid range type GPUs (last gen ones, not this gen).
I'm not thinking max settings. FYI I run a 240 hz Aorus KD25F w/a 2080 Ti so I'm speaking from experience.
 

limitedaccess

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
May 10, 2010
Messages
7,568
I'm not thinking max settings. FYI I run a 240 hz Aorus KD25F w/a 2080 Ti so I'm speaking from experience.
I'm not seeing how you don't think you can reach those fps numbers? Unless you're really CPU/Memory limited?

At least for Overwatch I'm sure you can hit the max fps cap of 300 even with a GTX 1060 assuming fast enough CPU/memory.

Siege, Fortnite, should be able to reach >240fps as well.
 

5150Joker

2[H]4U
Joined
Aug 1, 2005
Messages
3,590
I'm not seeing how you don't think you can reach those fps numbers? Unless you're really CPU/Memory limited?

At least for Overwatch I'm sure you can hit the max fps cap of 300 even with a GTX 1060 assuming fast enough CPU/memory.

Siege, Fortnite, should be able to reach >240fps as well.
Yeah I stand corrected on the Siege/Overwatch benchmarks, it's been a long time since I played them and I remember them hogging my fps even w/a Titan X Pascal but I guess they've been optimized since then. I mainly play Apex Legends and for sure you can't hit 300 fps w/that game even w/my setup (5 ghz 9900k + 2080 ti) and custom very low exec. I haven't been able to find any low setting benchmarks for fortnite, seems everyone tests on high.
 

exlink

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Dec 16, 2006
Messages
4,467
I know everyone’s sensitivities are different but I have a hard time differentiating refresh rate at about 100Hz. I feel like 360Hz is now more of a marketing gimmick than anything else.
 

RPGWiZaRD

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Jan 24, 2009
Messages
1,076
I remember in 2007-2009 how I was stubbornly clinging onto Trinitron CRTs and was complaining how you couldn't get a 120Hz LCD yet and so I switched to the first 120Hz LCDs later at the end of 2009 when they arrived as couldn't find any good condition CRTs anymore locally. Then here we are at the introduction of 360Hz frigging Hertz. :) How times have changed. As a motion smoothness enthusiast I'm getting questionable about moving past 240Hz, mostly because I think this will have bad effect on the image quality. There were overclocked 144Hz panels to 180Hz which looked like 2004 standard LCDs in contrast levels when running that high refresh rate, while 240Hz panels have better equipment it still drops image quality (sharpness and contrast) slightly too, for that reason I stuck to 144Hz + strobing on mine to get best of both worlds, good motion smoothness and image quality. I wonder how these panels will fare at 360Hz with that in mind.

What I'd love to see now would be to bring more 165~200Hz 27" and 31.5" 2560x1440p 10bit IPS panel alternatives (pricerange: 749-$999) for non e-sports market with ULMB+GSYNC or Freesync+strobing capabilities where you try to aim for both best possible motion resolution and image quality at the same time (HDR and all that fancy stuff if you like). But I'm sure the CSGO e-sports scene will love this 360Hz monitor. :) Bet BenQ must also release one soon or they'll loose an important market for them, the BenQ 24.5" 240Hz monitor is currently most pro gamer's favorite because of the built-in features with different aspect ratio formats, brightness EQ (makes shadows brighter without overexposing bright scenes) and built in saturation boost option etc.
 
Last edited:

kalston

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Mar 10, 2011
Messages
1,033
Diminishing returns yes but not placebo. The further reduction in sample & hold blur is very very welcome... assuming the pixels can keep up 100% of the time without ugly artefacts. Not entirely sure LCD is the right tech for that.

But yeah it's welcome news for the industry regardless. Niche use case for now though.
 

readeh

Limp Gawd
Joined
Apr 1, 2013
Messages
296
There's some ancillary benefits as well. Overwatch for instance has a maximum limit at 300 fps. So in theory now with a 360hz monitor you can play at the limit as well as not have screen tearing.
It's possible to get 400hz in Overwatch with some tweaks, but most games top around there as physics gets weird in games at higher hz.
 

Armenius

I Drive Myself to the [H]ospital
Joined
Jan 28, 2014
Messages
20,708
Converting Hz to milliseconds, there's a much smaller difference between 240 and 360 than there is between 60 to 120 or 120 to 240 Hz.

60Hz = 16.6ms between frames
120Hz = 8.3ms (-8.3ms)
240Hz = 4.15ms (-4.15ms)
360Hz = 2.08ms (-2.08ms)

So highly debatable that you would see the ~2ms difference between 240Hz and 360Hz even if you could tell a difference between 120Hz and 240Hz.

I can tell a small difference betwen 120 and 240Hz as well when I compared them side by side, but for the single-player games I mostly play and the IQ drop required for 120+ Hz gaming, I'll take 60-120 Hz with VRR all day over anything higher. Hell, I'm even good with 30 FPS on my console games as long as it's not dropping frames a lot, as is the norm on the PS4 and Switch exclusives I play a lot of.

For eSports, I can still see the appeal, as they'll want any advantage they can take, however negligible, just like any other professional sports equipment where you want the absolute best tools/equipment you can get. But for even enthusiasts at home, 360Hz seems pretty superfluous to me, never mind the smaller display size, IQ, and resolution restrictions.
360 Hz is actually 2.78 ms per frame and 240 Hz is 4.17 ms. Nobody is going to feel a difference of 1.39 ms, I don't care who you are. The only advantage refresh rates this high would have is motion clarity, but you need fast pixel response with minimal over- or undershoot to go with it while maintaining a smooth consistent framerate. The fastest monitors out there have a 2.5 ms gray to gray response time, and that is going to vary depending on color.
 

readeh

Limp Gawd
Joined
Apr 1, 2013
Messages
296
Diminishing returns yes but not placebo. The further reduction in sample & hold blur is very very welcome... assuming the pixels can keep up 100% of the time without ugly artefacts. Not entirely sure LCD is the right tech for that.

But yeah it's welcome news for the industry regardless. Niche use case for now though.
That's what is going to be the issue moving forward as I'm sure we can get higher hz, but there is going to be limitations with crosstalk, motion blur and artifacts the further refresh rate is pushed.
 

T4rd

Fully [H]
Joined
Apr 8, 2009
Messages
16,976
360 Hz is actually 2.78 ms per frame and 240 Hz is 4.17 ms. Nobody is going to feel a difference of 1.39 ms, I don't care who you are. The only advantage refresh rates this high would have is motion clarity, but you need fast pixel response with minimal over- or undershoot to go with it while maintaining a smooth consistent framerate. The fastest monitors out there have a 2.5 ms gray to gray response time, and that is going to vary depending on color.
Ahh yeah, you're right, I just kept halving it for some reason. Fixed now.

Yeah, I've seen LTT vids where he covers 240+ Hz monitors and how bad they can overshoot pixels, like it's just as bad as ghosting or even worse in some instances, as it adds an outline/halo effect around moving objects. So yeah, I'm good with my 34" UW 3440x1440 120Hz monitor for the foreseeable futures.
 

GoodBoy

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Nov 29, 2004
Messages
1,721
Cool. If they are getting up to 360hz refresh, it should mean that higher quality displays can now reach higher FPS while maintaining the picture quality, are possible or soon to be. Like the Asus PG32UQX that Erek linked, but even faster. Soon that quality will be reaching 160hz, 200hz. I really want to get a faster display, just giving it a bit more time for the quality to go up. Plus think they will need displayport 2.0 to have the bandwidth needed, so waiting for that.
 

Domingo

Fully [H]
Joined
Jul 30, 2004
Messages
17,550
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.
 

M76

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Jun 12, 2012
Messages
10,309
Funny how long posts like this manage to get thrown out there. I can link threads from as far back as the early 2000s saying humans can't see above 30 or 60 FPS.
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.
 

Thunderdolt

Limp Gawd
Joined
Oct 23, 2018
Messages
431
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.
 
Top