High refresh rate thread

[cucker tarlson]

I think we need a thread like this to discuss our experiences with high refresh/vrr displays and keep up with newly released monitors, although the I gotta admit the changes in the field have been super slow. I've had my S2716DG for almost 2 years now, and for the love of God I can't find any new monitors to be worthy of replacing my current one. I thought by now I'd be able to find a 200Hz 1440p 8-bit TN, but it looks like there's been nothing noteworthy released for the last year or two. IPSes still cost an arm and a leg and come with QC issues, VA's got better but they still have issues with ghosting and slow transitions.
Is there anything interesting being released in the near or further future ?

 

[Vayra86]

High refresh is still niche, and beyond 144hz the useability and benefits diminish heavily. Already you'd need a serious CPU to even reliably stick to 144 fps.

Display tech is not stagnant though, but there is a major issue with OLED: extremely costly, faster degradation than any other panel tech on the market.

IPS is reasonably fast by now and I would honestly never even consider TN anymore despite the on paper faster response times; real life advantage is rather low, and again, with inherent drawbacks.

VA is still my personal best of worlds tech. Higher static contrast which is something neither TN or IPS can deliver. Ghosting on a fast VA is also no worse than it is on IPS, response times are just as good, hovering between 4-10ms G2G. Color accuracy is often slightly less good than IPS, but for gaming this isnt relevant. Bonus points for VA are super deep blacks that you pay for with a little bit of black crush in the darkest tones. But also: no backlight bleed and no IPS glow.

Right now there is a strong offering of monitors for all purposes, we have Ultrawide, 1440p, 4K and they are quite refined by now.

Bottom line: whats left to improve within current tech? Little to none.

 

[P4-630]

http://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20170914005073/en/LG-Samsung-invest-€25-million-CYNORA

 

[cucker tarlson]

Well you have a point that the choice is now wide enough for anyone to pick something decent and call it a day, but I feel there's still a lot of room for improvement. IPSes are not any better than TNs for strictly gaming uses, their color accuracy is good but they still have crap contrast,issues with glow, blb and all at a hefty price. To be honest I would not even consider an IPS as a viable high refresh gaming rig option unless you need color accuracy to do some photo/video/color accurate content on your gaming PC as well. Not at that price with all those issues I listed.
I'm very tempted to try a high refresh VA but while their contrast is amazing I cannot live with any overshoot,blur or ghosting. I put a lot of effort into adjusting my s2716dg for lowest possible blur,overshoot or trailing, but I can still see it's got minor shortcomings. That's why I feel like I'd be disappointed with a VA and I'm asking around for better TN panels.

 

[Vayra86]

Well you have a point that the choice is now wide enough for anyone to pick something decent and call it a day, but I feel there's still a lot of room for improvement. IPSes are not any better than TNs for strictly gaming uses, their color accuracy is good but they still have crap contrast,issues with glow, blb and all at a hefty price. To be honest I would not even consider an IPS as a viable high refresh gaming rig option unless you need color accuracy to do some photo/video/color accurate content on your gaming PC as well. Not at that price with all those issues I listed.
I'm very tempted to try a high refresh VA but while their contrast is amazing I cannot live with any overshoot,blur or ghosting.

Then the only thing that will satisfy you is OLED and if you think IPS is costly, well...

Display tech is ALWAYS a choice of evils, ever since we lost CRT. That said, a high quality VA like the one Im running (Eizo FG2421), if the game runs steady 120fps, its ridiculously close and ghosting is really hard to even notice. Worth a look. Its honestly still a monitor Im in love with, the wow factor is still there even today. 5000:1 static is mental.

 

[cucker tarlson]

that FG2421 is crazy good tho, if they released a 1440p one I'd not think twice.

 

[INSTG8R]

My monitor does 144 but I can only think of one game I use it. I run at 90hz it’s my max FreeSync range and it’s enough

 

[cucker tarlson]

My GTX 1080 is struggling to get anywhere near 144 fps in many titles, I believe 90 would suffice for Fury. BTW that's what I don't like about AMD's sketchy tactics of selling freesync as cheaper alternative to g-sync. Their freesync range can be pretty limited, same as their low standards for freesync 2 HDR monitors. I can think of many games that run at 100-150 fps most of the time but would still dip to 60s frequently, fast paced open world games like dying light come to mind first. That's when you appreciate the full 30-144/165hz range. Anyway, there's still plenty of older (2011-14) titles I have not yet played but would very much like to, and it's there where I'd like to see a 1440p 200hz monitor put to some serious action.

 

[erocker]

I use this: https://www.amazon.com/dp/B071G6PGP7/?tag=tec06d-20

Pretty happy with it, though I've just been playing mostly racing games and PUBg.

 

[cucker tarlson]

Unfortunately nixeus and viewsonic are not available in Poland, we're stuck with Asus' mixed QC on PG279Q. Racing games are definitely what I wanna get back into this fall. What do you recommend that's fun to play and runs well on GTX 1080 ?

 

[INSTG8R]

Y

My GTX 1080 is struggling to get anywhere near 144 fps in many titles, I believe 90 would suffice for Fury. BTW that's what I don't like about AMD's sketchy tactics of selling freesync as cheaper alternative to g-sync. Their freesync range can be pretty limited, same as their low standards for freesync 2 HDR monitors. I can think of many games that run at 100-150 fps most of the time but would still dip to 60s frequently, fast paced open world games like dying light come to mind first. That's when you appreciate the full 30-144/165hz range. Anyway, there's still plenty of older (2011-14) titles I have not yet played but would very much like to, and it's there where I'd like to see a 1440p 200hz monitor put to some serious action.

Yeah well that’s not a fair assessment either. Mine like “Gen 1” FreeSync so mine is rare. That said I’m happy as long as I’m getting 60 anyway so 90 is more than enough.

 

[vega22]

been using a qnix 2710led oc @ 110hz for ages. past that i can't tell the difference.

tbh i wish i had gotten a few at that time now :|

 

[toilet pepper]

I've been using the Samsung SA27A950D 120Hz and the only complaint I have is the viewing angle when watching something around 7 feet away. All I can say is I can't go back to gaming on 60Hz. I tried it and it made me nauseous after a few minutes. Even if you are not hitting 60 frames on a high refresh rate monitor there seems to be a difference. It maybe is just me.

 

[Xzibit]

My GTX 1080 is struggling to get anywhere near 144 fps in many titles, I believe 90 would suffice for Fury. BTW that's what I don't like about AMD's sketchy tactics of selling freesync as cheaper alternative to g-sync. Their freesync range can be pretty limited, same as their low standards for freesync 2 HDR monitors. I can think of many games that run at 100-150 fps most of the time but would still dip to 60s frequently, fast paced open world games like dying light come to mind first. That's when you appreciate the full 30-144/165hz range. Anyway, there's still plenty of older (2011-14) titles I have not yet played but would very much like to, and it's there where I'd like to see a 1440p 200hz monitor put to some serious action.

If your running at 144 and dip down to 60hz or lower your still going to notice that dip just not induce tearing. You will be able to tell in game while interacting.

The VRR is there to eliminate tearing and give the appearance of tear free smooth game play.

10 frame variance above 120hz you might not tell. Once you go below 120 those 10 fps frames start being more apparent with VRR. The lower you go and so on. Consistency is what matters more.

Like your example a game can be running around 100-150 be smooth and then dip to 60. That drop will be noticed but with VRR the difference is that its tear free not that it goes away.

 

[Beastie]

Playing games like Automobilista (which is very undemanding), I can max out my monitor, TBH I can hardly tell the difference between 120hz and 165hz.
On the other hand the difference between 60hz and 75hz is way obvious.

Now that I'm spoilt by high refresh, anything less than 60hz looks terrible but I find returns diminish above 120hz.

Of course that is my personal perception, maybe other folk may see differently.

 

[Rehmanpa]

What do you guys think of the Acer predator z35p?
https://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16824011126

3440x1440 100hz native (120hz overclock). It's a VA panel ultrawide and looks really attractive, minus the price tag of course
Not saying I will buy it, but what kind of issues could I experience if I did get it?

 

[jboydgolfer]

the refresh rate is SO high in here im getting Screen tearing.



i feel like a peasant, running the same monitor since 2007.... 1200p, and still has better options, and image/colors than some built 10 years later, but still too cheap to spend when it aint broke

 

[cucker tarlson]

If your running at 144 and dip down to 60hz or lower your still going to notice that dip just not induce tearing. You will be able to tell in game while interacting.

The VRR is there to eliminate tearing and give the appearance of tear free smooth game play.

10 frame variance above 120hz you might not tell. Once you go below 120 those 10 fps frames start being more apparent with VRR. The lower you go and so on. Consistency is what matters more.

Like your example a game can be running around 100-150 be smooth and then dip to 60. That drop will be noticed but with VRR the difference is that its tear free not that it goes away.

Yes. That's what I meant.

 

[Frick]

I've read at several places that a high refresh rate is good for "normal" use as well, ie browsing, office stuff and so on. What is your experience in that regard?

 

[INSTG8R]

I've read at several places that a high refresh rate is good for "normal" use as well, ie browsing, office stuff and so on. What is your experience in that regard?

I tried running 144 all the time but my monitor would get fussy and drop frequency. It’s happy at 90.

 

[trog100]

i think a monitor refresh rate needs to match a games frame rate.. mine always does.. i think once refresh and frame rates are in sync there is no need for super high refresh rates..

but moving into my "dotage" none of my "senses" are quite what they used to be.. maybe the difference is there and i just cant see it..

trog

 

[Frick]

I tried running 144 all the time but my monitor would get fussy and drop frequency. It’s happy at 90.

Do you notice any improvement to things like eye fatigue and stuff like that? Especially when dealing with code/text?

 

[P4-630]

i think a monitor refresh rate needs to match a games frame rate.. mine always does..

LOL yeah mine too... It's G-Sync magic!

 

[Liviu Cojocaru]

To be honest, I can see a difference between the 100hz that I have and the 144hz refresh rate. The GSync does a good job to diminish the effect in fps drops. Probably my next monitor will be something with HDR and at least 144 hz

 

[Boatvan]

I have to say, I would and do take higher refresh rate over higher resolution. I think it makes games look great and regular computer use is smooth as well. I game at 1080p @ 144Hz. Granted I used to game at 1080p @60Hz so I never tried both high res and high refresh. I also only spent 200 bucks on my monitor.