1080P is a perfectly acceptable computing resolution.

1080p@380Hz??

Prima.Vera1080p@380Hz??

A: Because you can't just go out and buy a CRT or MicroLED display, and OLEDs are their own mess still.
Some of us very much appreciate faster and faster refresh rates.

Good to see non-TN panels reaching up there in refresh rates. Seeing multiple options of 240+hz VA, IPS, etc. are tempting upgrades over my 144hz VA.

Talking as if 2 million pixels isn't enough.

lexluthermiester1080P is a perfectly acceptable computing resolution.

As far as resolution goes, it's strictly low-end when it comes to gaming monitors though, but this one's targeted at e-sports... 380 Hz isn't even the fastest, Acer's had a 390 Hz-capable one out for a while.

www.acer.com/us-en/monitors/gaming/nitro-xv2/pdp/UM.KX1AA.F04

I guess pricing and image quality will make or break it, for what it was, the Acer monitor was quite well reviewed.

Prob same panel as 2020 version without GSYNC module.

I bought an ASUS PG259QNR for $306 USD with tax this past xmas (The extra desk mount is worth $50 alone)... Effectively making the monitor a $250 USD purchase.. PG259QN launched at $700 in 2020 w/o mount lol

It's okay (Build quality is really good), but I don't recommend unless you're pushing 300+ FPS in esports games. OD settings are limited due to GSYNC module.. and GSYNC helps with smoothness, but theres a slight gsync buffer delay. different feel than "real" monitor/input delay.

I prefer my 180hz 1440p LG for visuals/colors, but the only way to compromise between the two is to buy the new 1k+ USD 360hz ASUS.. which I wont do. lol. (I don't want that first gen LG 240hz OLED either)

Silly product for silly gamers.

I could live with FHD, but i can't live with IPS Glow.

TheDeeGeeI could live with FHD, but i can't live with IPS Glow.

It's a byproduct of a matte coating with IPS grid layout.

Glossy screens more or less nullify the issue, but this isn't glossy. Only way to compensate is adapting to lower brightness.

Only 24.5 inches... :sleep:

jaszyIt's a byproduct of a matte coating with IPS grid layout.

Glossy screens more or less nullify the issue, but this isn't glossy. Only way to compensate is adapting to lower brightness.

My Eizo CX240 from 2012 has zero IPS Glow and also has matte coating, but again that wasn't a cheap pos.

TheDeeGeeMy Eizo CX240 from 2012 has zero IPS Glow and also has matte coating, but again that wasn't a cheap pos.

Likely had a ATW polarizer (Expensive). Which isn't needed given glossy/glass coating circumvents the issue.

The issue does stem from standard 3M matte coating.. Which works best with TN IMO.

Only work around on modern monitors is to lower brightness sub 150nits and get used to it over time. Your eyes will eventually adjust.

Does't impact everyone, but I understand where you're coming from. (I couldn't use most matte IPS screens for the longest time). Very annoying issue.

jaszyLikely had a ATW polarizer (Expensive). Which isn't needed given glossy/glass coating circumvents the issue.

The issue does stem from standard 3M matte coating.. Which works best with TN IMO.

Only work around on modern monitors is to lower brightness sub 150nits and get used to it over time. Your eyes will eventually adjust.

Does't impact everyone, but I understand where you're coming from. (I couldn't use most matte IPS screens for the longest time). Very annoying issue.

OLED would be the way to go for me, but i'd like 27" 1440p then, no bigger.

Prima.Vera1080p@380Hz??

Exactly. 240hz should be considered the ceiling of performance as the human eye is incapable of seeing anything faster.

Dr. DroAs far as resolution goes, it's strictly low-end when it comes to gaming monitors though

Considering that most(85%+) of the gaming world runs on 1080p, no it isn't. 720p would be low-end. 1080p is the world standard EVERYONE optimizes games for, and that is a plainly obvious, provable fact.

lexluthermiesterExactly. 240hz should be considered the ceiling of performance as the human eye is incapable of seeing anything faster.

There are innate benefits to high refresh displays such as combined latency being lower from OD tuning around signal/response rate averages. While there are diminishing returns the higher you go (raw latency), the implementation per unit matters more.

A 240hz OLED doesn't perform like a 240hz TN or 240hz IPS. They're all different in perceivable motion clarity based on how response tune/OD works.


There is no ceiling, just better vs worse implementations of current technology.

jaszyThere are innate benefits to high refresh displays such as combined latency being lower from OD tuning around signal/response rate averages. While there are diminishing returns the higher you go (raw latency), the implementation per unit matters more.

A 240hz OLED doesn't perform like a 240hz TN or 240hz IPS. They're all different in perceivable motion clarity based on how response tune/OD works.


There is no ceiling, just better vs worse implementations of current technology.

You can just close up that can of worms.

lexluthermiesterYou can just close up that can of worms.

Yeah, it ends up being a plethora of factors, especially with adaptive sync enabled.

jaszyYeah, it ends up being a plethora of factors, especially with adaptive sync enabled.

That discussion could turn into a major debate. In reality, the differences are so small that they're not relevant above 60hz.

jaszyYeah, it ends up being a plethora of factors, especially with adaptive sync enabled.

I have a lot of respect for lexluthermiester, but I couldn't disagree with him more on this topic. My personal experiences also go against those presumptions*.

The seemingly factual statement of "...the human eye is incapable of seeing anything faster." is fundamentally incorrect (and, IMHO, a consequence of overly-trusting research over natural logic and personal observations.)
Biological vision is "analog", with infinite datapoints, and undefined/dynamic limits on speed-of-perception. The scientifically-defined limits are not actual limits, but 'normal, under given-conditions'.

*How could I perceive 900-3000+Ft/Sec projectiles in-flight, and 400+hz 'flicker' if I cannot possible perceive more than 240 refreshes per second?
I can directly look at and 'see' 60hz incandescent bulbs 'pulse'. Which, IIRC is a smooth and sinusoidal 120hz. (120hz Refresh Rate vs. 144hz Refresh Rate is a very noticeable difference for me, as well.)
In my peripheral vision, I can perceive 400+hz, and even kHz-range LED flicker sometimes.

This topic is a bit of a pet peeve for me, as it seems to undermine and de-value biological life.

LabRat 891Biological vision is "analog", with infinite datapoints, and undefined/dynamic limits on speed-of-perception.

The human(and mammilian generally) optic nerve has electrical limits which have been proven. The optic nerve is NOT a perfect conductor, nowhere close. The limits of what we can precisely see can vary from person to person but fall within certain ranges of performance of the electrical impulses traveling along the pathways from the eye to the brain where they are further processed by the optic center of the brain itself. Those limits are defined by & yield to physics and not human opinion.

Physics defines what we can perceive at any given moment, those limits are known and are not infinite.

lexluthermiesterThe human(and mammilian generally) optic nerve has electrical limits which have been proven. The optic nerve is NOT a perfect conductor, nowhere close. The limits of what we can precisely see can vary from person to person but fall within certain ranges of performance of the electrical impulses traveling along the pathways from the eye to the brain where they are further processed by the optic center of the brain itself. Those limits are defined by & yield to physics and not human opinion.

Physics defines what we can perceive at any given moment, those limits are known and are not infinite.

I respect that highly rational PoV, but both my life and history are pockmarked with 'apparent scientific impossibilities'.

There are far more (and often occluded) variables influencing and interacting within a given scenario than are observable under controlled conditions.
Ex. the studies of 'memory' and cognition in humans are especially a mess. Last I recall (unintentional pun) academia suggests memory is processed and made in the brain. Yet, an overabundance of anecdotal evidence suggests that, at minimum, memory is a whole being/body process.

To me, The Sciences are more useful guidelines for engineering, than proper explanations of the workings (and limits) of physical reality. One only needs to cursorily glance at 'hard science' of decades- and centuries- past, to know how very fallible and short-sighted it is.

LabRat 891I have a lot of respect for lexluthermiester, but I couldn't disagree with him more on this topic. My personal experiences also go against those presumptions*.

The seemingly factual statement of "...the human eye is incapable of seeing anything faster." is fundamentally incorrect (and, IMHO, a consequence of overly-trusting research over natural logic and personal observations.)
Biological vision is "analog", with infinite datapoints, and undefined/dynamic limits on speed-of-perception. The scientifically-defined limits are not actual limits, but 'normal, under given-conditions'.

*How could I perceive 900-3000+Ft/Sec projectiles in-flight, and 400+hz 'flicker' if I cannot possible perceive more than 240 refreshes per second?
I can directly look at and 'see' 60hz incandescent bulbs 'pulse'. Which, IIRC is a smooth and sinusoidal 120hz. (120hz Refresh Rate vs. 144hz Refresh Rate is a very noticeable difference for me, as well.)
In my peripheral vision, I can perceive 400+hz, and even kHz-range LED flicker sometimes.

This topic is a bit of a pet peeve for me, as it seems to undermine and de-value biological life.

My point was that the actual "peak" refresh rate doesn't matter. 240hz OLED vs 240hz TN vs 240hz IPS vs 240hz VA are all going to have their own quirks.. It's not a linear experience.

360hz+ has innate benefits over 240hz in regards to absolute latency (this is measurable), but the latency will vary in terms of panel technology. (Averages and peaks for response rate/OD).

Signal latency depends on the controller MCU/FW in a individual unit and adaptive sync will add a layer/buffer based on the panels refresh rate.

Basically just saying "240hz is the ceiling" is nonsense as overall perception will vary from monitor to monitor, even of the same technology based on tuning.

I've personally used early 2nd gen 240hz IPS panels that felt and "look" worse than 144hz first gen TNs. (I've had too many monitors over the years).

lexluthermiesterThat discussion could turn into a major debate. In reality, the differences are so small that they're not relevant above 60hz.

A panel being 60hz could mean a lot of things on the end user side of things, but response rates of IPS/TN/VA are going to be innately high on a 60hz panel. A lot of these panels are also RNG for signal lag for obvious reasons.

I will firmly disagree that 60hz is "good enough" but I used to play competitive games at a high level around the era where CRTs were still being used at LAN.. The latency alone is clearly perceivable coming from a high performance display, worse if you add adaptive sync at a 16.7ms buffer.

Visual perception is another thing, but thats subjective and it's pointless to argue, I agree.

For me, I personally think 200hz (5ms) is the point of diminishing returns if the panel can respond instantly (OLED), but it will trade off in latency to higher refresh displays. (OLED will be 100% consistent in peak response as its innately low)

A high speed camera will clearly show 360hz+ IPS as smoother, but also "ghost" more than a 200-240hz OLED.


tl;dr: it's a complicated mess and only appeals to people that know what they want/subjectively prefer.

Been down this rabbit-hole too many times, I'm out.

lexluthermiesterBeen down this rabbit-hole too many times, I'm out.

Thats fine, but you can't really ignore that these things can be measured with empirical evidence.

If you subjectively cannot tell a difference, that's also fine. No one has a gun to your head.


I was arguing against your 240hz ceiling statement regardless. Nothing is really linear between LCD technologies, even if they share a specific refresh rate.

Hi, does anyone have the drivers for this monitor?