Monday, August 14th 2017

480 Hz True Refresh Rate Monitor Spotted, Heralding a New Wave of Display Tech

A prototype true 480 Hz monitor has found its way to the hands of Blur Busters, who aptly tested whether or not that feature made their blur busting name irrelevant at some point in the future. The verdict? While 480 Hz refresh rates do offer a visible difference in step distances and blur reduction, things can be improved further. But we're talking about a refresh rate where most high-end monitors typically achieve 144 Hz - so 480 Hz is a totally different beast.

While display tech has seen some interesting evolutions as of late (mainly the introduction of OLED displays and HDR technology (which seems to be facing some delays of its own), refresh rates have somewhat stagnated in recent times. A true 480 Hz refresh rate will surely get some users drooling over it, and justify yet another round of upgrades to your entire system - though of course, the usability of such a high refresh-rate monitor begins to dwindle as resolution increases (and frame rates necessarily decrease.) Let's see where this goes.
Sources: Blur Busters, via HotHardware
Add your own comment

51 Comments on 480 Hz True Refresh Rate Monitor Spotted, Heralding a New Wave of Display Tech

#1
GoldenX
Good, now we can play GTA Vice City like true gamers.
Posted on Reply
#2
londiste
doesn't really look like 480hz to me. spec says 4k@120hz. are they just doing 1080p@480hz on the same panel, meaning they use 4 pixels for one?
Posted on Reply
#3
RejZoR
I think I came a bit. The 144Hz is already sublime and using it at 60Hz is literally a painful experience (could be just because it's made for 144Hz and works bad at 60Hz). Only thing bothering me is the brightness of the cursor. Look how dim it is on 480Hz screen. That can't be good.
Posted on Reply
#4
Prima.Vera
"londiste said:
doesn't really look like 480hz to me. spec says 4k@120hz. are they just doing 1080p@480hz on the same panel, meaning they use 4 pixels for one?
Yes, another lie and misleading marketing bs. The monitor is actually a 4K@120Hz, but also capable of displaying 480Hz at 1080p. Then again, who tf cares about 1080p on a 4K monitor in Windows desktop?!?!?!
Posted on Reply
#8
qubit
Overclocked quantum bit
I'd love to see a game run at 480fps with no dropped frames. I'll bet the feel would be amazing. It would have to be an older game, obviously.
Posted on Reply
#9
Nuckles56
Perfect for all those CS:GO players and their 300FPS
Posted on Reply
#10
RejZoR
This would also mean absolutely no need for any kind of V-Sync as tearing would be so minimal you wouldn't really notice it even if it was happening. And it would be minimal anyway since you'd pretty much never go past 480fps anyway.
Posted on Reply
#11
qubit
Overclocked quantum bit
"RejZoR said:
This would also mean absolutely no need for any kind of V-Sync as tearing would be so minimal you wouldn't really notice it even if it was happening. And it would be minimal anyway since you'd pretty much never go past 480fps anyway.
Indeed. If I switch it off, then it's not very noticeable at 144Hz refresh. The judder is quite noticeable though, depending on the exact situation. I still prefer it left on though as the animation is still better and there's not much difference to lag at this rate.
Posted on Reply
#13
cucker tarlson
Just for fun, what not ancient games can you think of that could run 1080p 480fps on, lets say, a GTX 1080 or 1080Ti ?

<div class="youtube-embed" data-id="ThTdPJhMeQ0"><img src="https://i.ytimg.com/vi/ThTdPJhMeQ0/hqdefault.jpg" /><div class="youtube-play"></div><a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ThTdPJhMeQ0" target="_blank" class="youtube-title"></a></div>
Posted on Reply
#14
TheDeeGee
What's the point if you can't play Crysis at 480 FPS?

Not to mention all these console game developers are holding tech back.
Posted on Reply
#15
bogami
Nice !, and 480 FPS is not achievable in many games. It takes as many as four best GPUs for ultra-play on normal resolutions (1440x2560)..
Posted on Reply
#16
jabbadap
Why so negative? If it can do 144Hz at 2160p and 480Hz at 1080p, maybe it can do something in between at 1440p. The monitor that can run different games with different resolutions at high refresh rate, add some fancy VRR tech(or if not possible, fast sync/enhaced sync) that would be some ultimate gaming monitor right there.
Posted on Reply
#17
trog100
utterly pointless as long as people desire more pretties at higher resolutions..

we do have a total contradiction at work here.. two totally conflicting desires.. which do we go for cos its for sure we cant have both..

i am currently playing hellblade.. at a 1440 resolution with very high settings i am seeing frame rates that go as low as 40 fps at times all on my (possible) 165 refresh rate g-sinc monitor..

i cant help but feel the plot is being lost somehow.. he he..

trog

ps.. i have to add.. if i wasnt running fraps. i would not know how low my frames rates were going.. the game plays smooth and the game plays fine.. i just aint used to seeing lows of 40-ish fps..
Posted on Reply
#19
Manu_PT
TV market full of Oled HDR 3000nits, evolving daily. While on pc monitors we get 480hz as an evolution. No, thanks.
Posted on Reply
#20
jigar2speed
"Manu_PT said:
TV market full of Oled HDR 3000nits, evolving daily. While on pc monitors we get 480hz as an evolution. No, thanks.
LOL, please tell me this was a sarcasm, please
Posted on Reply
#21
qubit
Overclocked quantum bit
"Manu_PT said:
TV market full of Oled HDR 3000nits, evolving daily. While on pc monitors we get 480hz as an evolution. No, thanks.
We really need higher temporal resolution now rather than spatial, so this is a move in the right direction.
Posted on Reply
#22
cucker tarlson
For those who have had a chance to compare: what is better... 120Hz/120fps ULMB,240Hz/240fps g-sync or 120Hz/240fps ULMB ?

Damn that alienware 240Hz monitor looks sick, if it was $100-150 cheaper I'd go for it just for fun.

Aside from my question, you know what I think is the most ridiculous thing I ever heard in the fps/hz debate ? It's not about "human eye can see up to xxx fps", that I kind of understand, it may be some ppl's understanding of the concept of animation fluidity. Same as some see stutter some not, understandable. What is most ridiculous is some ppl say that blur reduction is redundant since blurry vision is natural and it's how we see the world when we move. What ? :laugh: If my vision had the same sort of blur that I can see when moving the camera at 60Hz my day would be nothing but walking around and throwing up.
Posted on Reply
#23
londiste
"cucker tarlson said:
For those who have had a chance to compare: what is better... 120Hz/120fps ULMB,240Hz/240fps g-sync or 120Hz/240fps ULMB ?
better how?
ulmb will reduce aliasing but also make picture darker, only allow half of possible refresh rate and no gsync.
gsync by itself is awesome and i much prefer it to ulmb.

edit:
sorry, not aliasing. blur and ghosting.
Posted on Reply
#24
cucker tarlson
"londiste said:
better how?
ulmb will reduce aliasing but also make picture darker, only allow half of possible refresh rate and no gsync.
gsync by itself is awesome and i much prefer it to ulmb.
strictly in terms of blur reduction. also, ulmb reduces aliasing ?
Posted on Reply
#25
OSdevr
"RejZoR said:
Only thing bothering me is the brightness of the cursor. Look how dim it is on 480Hz screen. That can't be good.
That's just a camera shutter effect.

IMHO part of the problem is that we still have FPS. LCD panels don't need a fixed refresh frequency, they can be updated as little or as often as you wish (as long as it isn't too fast). Screen tearing should never have been a problem on LCDs because a Gsync or Freesync like mechanism should have been present in modern interface standards to begin with. HDMI still has blanking intervals built in!
Posted on Reply
Add your own comment