• Welcome to TechPowerUp Forums, Guest! Please check out our forum guidelines for info related to our community.
  • The forums have been upgraded with support for dark mode. By default it will follow the setting on your system/browser. You may override it by scrolling to the end of the page and clicking the gears icon.

ASUS Reveals 500 Hz ROG Swift Esports Monitor With E-TN Panel and G-Sync

lexluthermiester said:
‎Hi to you!‎

‎While this is a good point, higher refresh rates above human perception will not be useful to anyone.‎
‎Please forgive my Portuguese.‎
Click to expand...
‎Being able to have the option of seeing the image updated faster just as the character moved to our field of view is good yes.‎
‎It is not something that will always occur, given the limit of our eyes to the hz already mentioned, but it is an additional detail yes.‎

‎And it has another detail, the motion blur tbm tends to be smaller, or even to be imperceptive to our eyes, given the high rate of update of the pixel.‎

‎*Your Portuguese was totally understandable, very good yes.‎
 
Last edited by a moderator:
lexluthermiester said:
What? Have you never heard of OLED or QDLED panels? Both of those are LED types.
Click to expand...
OLED is tech. OLED vs LCD (TN/VA/IPS)... it's not type of backlight. QLED is also type of backlight. You pair QLED/LED with LCD which is TN/VA/IPS. You are really mixing up the stuff.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ARF
Evaldo_Brazil said:
‎Being able to have the option of seeing the image updated faster just as the character moved to our field of view is good yes.‎
‎It is not something that will always occur, given the limit of our eyes to the hz already mentioned, but it is an additional detail yes.‎

‎And it has another detail, the motion blur tbm tends to be smaller, or even to be imperceptive to our eyes, given the high rate of update of the pixel.‎

‎*Your Portuguese was totally understandable, very good yes.‎
Click to expand...
‎Again, that's a fair point. However, with refresh rates so high, the human eye will not see the difference. Even the screen can draw the image faster and be ready earlier for video card updates, our eyes just won't see the difference. Our eyes are physically incapable of such. Does that make sense?‎

BorisDG said:
OLED is tech. OLED vs LCD (TN/VA/IPS)... it's not type of backlight. QLED is also type of backlight. You pair QLED/LED with LCD which is TN/VA/IPS. You are really mixing up the stuff.
Click to expand...
No, I'm understanding things perfectly. Not mixing anything up here..
 
Last edited by a moderator:
lexluthermiester said:
No, I'm understanding things perfectly. Not mixing anything up here..
Click to expand...
Not really. See what I wrote and how stuff are in terms of types.

Panel types:
OLED
LCD (TN/VA/IPS)

Backlight types:
LED
QLED (Different phosphor coating of LED or Quantum-Dot layer)
CCFL

So your IPS and LED "types" are invalid.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ARF
BorisDG said:
Not really. See what I wrote and how stuff are in terms of types.

Panel types:
OLED
LCD (TN/VA/IPS)

Backlight types:
LED
QLED (Different phosphor coating of LED or Quantum-Dot layer)
CCFL

So your IPS and LED "types" are invalid.
Click to expand...
I think your understanding of how display technology works needs some updating.
 
Last edited:
Me or you? :) Think about. You are like the mainstream user when they go into the TV store... "I want LED TV... not LCD" ... lol
 
  • Sad
Reactions: ARF
It's already sold out to eSpors.
 
lexluthermiester said:
Almost correct. The human eye can not perceive individual frames of animation past 80hz, but can not perceive a difference of framerate beyond about 300hz to 320hz.

This is because of a WELL documented and proven physical limitation known as "persistence of vision". This condition is why we all easily enjoyed CRT screens BITD without actually seeing the individual scan-lines. Even at 50hz PAL standard, the human eye can not perceive the scan-lines of the electron gun. And before anyone says "It's because of the phosphor glow effect.", no it isn't. High-speed camera's have already debunked that nonsense.

This is why 300hz, 480hz and 500hz panels are a waste. They can not help the human eye see faster even if the screen can display a higher framerate.

People, if you need fast refresh rate, get yourselves a high quality screen that can do between 180hz & 240hz and call it a day. Anything faster is snake-oil and a waste on your eyes.


Take your own advice. He wasn't far off the mark.


Above a certain framerate, that is a myth..
Click to expand...
hi! just dropped by to say that you are wrong and misinforming people. elghinnarisa on the other hand is correct!

Basically you are talking and referring in your links about the ability of humans to see individual frames and how that is not possible past certain point due to persistance of vision which "tricks" us into seeing an animation based on still images. However what we are discussing here is not about seeing individual frames obviously! it is about the fluidity of that animation created by those frames. The more frames, the more accurately we will perceive the movement occurring on the objects moving on that animation created by still frames. Hence the question should be how many FPS is too much for humans to notice and/or how diminishing returns occur on the perceived benefits of increasing FPS/hz.

Clearly we notice an improvement jumping from 60hz to 144hz. a huge one. most people still notice improvements jumping from 144hz to 240hz although much less obvious than the previous jump. From 240hz to 360hz it is starting to become questionable as probably most people wouldn't notice the gain unless spending many hours on high paced action games. Jump from 360 to 500 is even more likely to be questionable although make no mistake there is a difference as can be seen from still images taken showing "blur", this makes it harder to aim and therefor specially for esports players, they will notice a difference.

There is also the side fact that if you play on 500fps you will also have lower overall system latency than if you play on 360fps. Although once again highly unlikely for a non pro to notice, but it is measurable and the very top end players can notice a reduction in overall system latency of numbers as small as 3-5ms drops. But that is beyond the point, because you could of course run 500fps on a 240hz monitor anyway.

To sum it up, motion persistance is simply a different topic all together and nobody denies its existance or says is not proven. And improving on higher fps/hz although with diminishing returns on gains vs linear growth of fps/hz it still improves human perception of the fluidity of movements in a game at very least up to 500hz (as proven by mythbusters or https://www.nature.com/articles/srep07861 or many other places tbh).
 
Vision is organic, bio-chemical, and analog. It expects constant variable waveform being received by our sensory organs, not pulses.

As long as we're still making pulsed digital displays, every increase in refresh rate will be ever-shrinking 'diminishing returns'; but there will still be returns.
At the end of the day: the more visual information offered to the brain, the more 'smooth and clear' the perception. Trying to define a digital-like 'refresh limit' to biological vision is just silly.
 
The only real question is where the practical limitations to the technology limitations and human limitations intersect with each other.
 
I see the argument got quite heated, but let's not forget the fact that biological perception of the eyes is only one thing - besides that, you also have
1. psychological compensation in your brain (the device that makes you perceive 25 FPS movies as smooth),
2. reflexes that differ on an individual level (I was good at dodgeball at school, but I've always sucked at Counter-Strike for example), and
3. the "I don't care" factor. I, for one, couldn't give a damn if my games play at 100 or 200 FPS. I still game at 60 Hz, and if I have around 40-ish FPS on average, I'm good. Does any of you remember Pac-Man or Super Mario? Those games didn't run at 500 FPS, neither did Doom or Wolfenstein 3D. Nor did we have a 500 Hz monitor. Nor did we need one to perceive those games as smooth.

My point is that unless you're the new potential champion of the next Asian clicking competition, there's no point arguing for super high refresh rate monitors built around an ancient and outdated display technology.
 
Xex360 said:
Why not use OLED and bring true jump in both quality and performance.
We have two big manufacturers of OLEDs, and LG even has true RGB OLEDs.
Click to expand...
For one, OLED degrades as it’s used, regardless of how much spin companies throw down about warranties covering pixels for (x) years. It’s an eventual ewaste time bomb.
 
bobsled said:
For one, OLED degrades as it’s used, regardless of how much spin companies throw down about warranties covering pixels for (x) years. It’s an eventual ewaste time bomb.
Click to expand...

Absolutely it is. However they try to stop it with pixel shift or whatever the pixels will die or burn and there is no stopping it for now. It's a shame because OLED screens are the best lookers at the moment
 
Tigger said:
Absolutely it is. However they try to stop it with pixel shift or whatever the pixels will die or burn and there is no stopping it for now. It's a shame because OLED screens are the best lookers at the moment
Click to expand...
It's still enough for me to try to avoid it like the plague. I only swap monitors as they die. I don't want to shorten that period on purpose.
 
lexluthermiester said:
Yeah, nice try, shadow account. What strikes me as funny is the lengths people go through to protect and defend their fragile ego's..
Click to expand...
Dude what?
You first act like a child and make demands that other people provide proof to what they say or as you said cork their cakehole. When they do that, you again act like a child and provide nothing?

How about this
1. Put up, or put a cork in it. Like your so fond of saying.
2. How far does one have to sink and demean their own character to try and accuse others of what in this case, a shadow account? Seriously? Oh well if you think thats true, by all means, ask a mod, or admin. They arn't allowed either so it would be 100% in your right. I doubt you would though, since that would prove you to be wrong and then you just act like a child again.
3. Back to point 1, if you missed it.
4. How about you stop pushing your narrow agenda on others, huh?
 
lexluthermiester said:
Almost correct. The human eye can not perceive individual frames of animation past 80hz, but can not perceive a difference of framerate beyond about 300hz to 320hz.

This is because of a WELL documented and proven physical limitation known as "persistence of vision". This condition is why we all easily enjoyed CRT screens BITD without actually seeing the individual scan-lines. Even at 50hz PAL standard, the human eye can not perceive the scan-lines of the electron gun. And before anyone says "It's because of the phosphor glow effect.", no it isn't. High-speed camera's have already debunked that nonsense.

This is why 300hz, 480hz and 500hz panels are a waste. They can not help the human eye see faster even if the screen can display a higher framerate.

People, if you need fast refresh rate, get yourselves a high quality screen that can do between 180hz & 240hz and call it a day. Anything faster is snake-oil and a waste on your eyes.


Take your own advice. He wasn't far off the mark.


Above a certain framerate, that is a myth..
Click to expand...
How many Hz is equivalent to seeing something the size of a BB go almost 1000mph? 1450feetpersecond.
 
bobsled said:
For one, OLED degrades as it’s used, regardless of how much spin companies throw down about warranties covering pixels for (x) years. It’s an eventual ewaste time bomb.
Click to expand...
OLEDs have burn in risk, CRTs are large and consume a lot of power, LCDs have horrendous quality.
In an ideal world, I would have an OLED for watching movies, CRT for gaming and LCD for work.
 
Xex360 said:
OLEDs have burn in risk, CRTs are large and consume a lot of power, LCDs have horrendous quality.
In an ideal world, I would have an OLED for watching movies, CRT for gaming and LCD for work.
Click to expand...

I'd love a 27" wide 1440p CRT with a 144hz refresh.
 
marcingens said:
Unfortunate that instead of replying on topic you rather attack me, oh well.
Click to expand...
elghinnarisa said:
Dude what?
You first act like a child and make demands that other people provide proof to what they say or as you said cork their cakehole. When they do that, you again act like a child and provide nothing?

How about this
1. Put up, or put a cork in it. Like your so fond of saying.
2. How far does one have to sink and demean their own character to try and accuse others of what in this case, a shadow account? Seriously? Oh well if you think thats true, by all means, ask a mod, or admin. They arn't allowed either so it would be 100% in your right. I doubt you would though, since that would prove you to be wrong and then you just act like a child again.
3. Back to point 1, if you missed it.
4. How about you stop pushing your narrow agenda on others, huh?
Click to expand...
I'm tired of aggressive users attacking me and the FACTUAL information being shared. It's gotten very old and I've got ZERO tolerance for it. You want to debate your baseless arguments, tell it to a wall, because I don't care. I've done the research on this subject and understand the science behind the conclusions made by educated scientists. If you don't agree, that's ok, but take your factless shit-posting elsewhere. And stop creating new accounts to continue your arguments while simultaneously pretending to be someone else after I add you to my ignore list. It's pathetically transparent.

Oh, and for the record...
LabRat 891 said:
Vision is organic, bio-chemical, and analog. It expects constant variable waveform being received by our sensory organs, not pulses.

As long as we're still making pulsed digital displays, every increase in refresh rate will be ever-shrinking 'diminishing returns'; but there will still be returns.
Click to expand...
...this is statement from someone who understands the science of human vision. Beyond 320hz, those diminishing returns are so insignificant as to be effectively useless in any meaningful way to human perception.

Xex360 said:
OLEDs have burn in risk
Click to expand...
Newer QDLED screens don't suffer from that problem so far. Of course they are brand new.

Tigger said:
I'd love a 27" wide 1440p CRT with a 144hz refresh.
Click to expand...
Same here! I would actually like a 4k 1ms 240hz 27ish" screen. I'm not so picky about colour gamut. 97%RGB would be fine with me.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top