×
top 200 commentsshow 500

[–]aeonax 782 points783 points  (13 children)

Oof that's only 0.5kHz

[–]Nastyerror 228 points229 points  (5 children)

This dude is living in 2088

[–]shaysauce 14 points15 points  (1 child)

Oof that’s only ~ .21 Milliyears.

[–]VRgIMP27 21 points22 points  (2 children)

Naw, he's living in the 50s LOL 15khz used to be the standard.

[–]Agouti 17 points18 points  (1 child)

15 kHz was the carrier frequency of the signal, not the refresh rate. It's like saying my phone has a 9 gHz screen because it's 5g.

[–]aeonax 53 points54 points  (5 children)

Is this what 0.1 kiloVotes feels like?

Update: Finally i have also achieved 0.5kVotes. you can stop upvoting now

[–]Stachura5 140 points141 points  (6 children)

I'm not an e-sports gamer so it's not for me but still really cool to see such advancements in screen technology

[–]SamyBencherif 37 points38 points  (3 children)

ya that's what im here for. im sure this will be useful somehow

[–]Curse3242 56 points57 points  (1 child)

It will be useful in making every other monitor slightly cheaper whenever pros decide they need more screen hz

[–]No_Entrepreneur_8255 1 point2 points  (0 children)

No, not really. Applications that require that high frequency would be using CRT. That still doesnt match them. Also, thats commercial gaming monitor so its not even designed that type of use.

[–]KittenOnHunt 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Even csgo pros settled for 240hz while 360hz is available. There's just no point, 240hz is enough already and pros rather settle for good monitor options than higher hz

[–]RLDKA 619 points620 points  (169 children)

Why

[–]Leeiteee 326 points327 points  (64 children)

Big numbers sell

[–]Avieshek[S] 132 points133 points  (61 children)

"It's over 9000!"

[–]cowprince 74 points75 points  (59 children)

No, just over 499.

[–]Avieshek[S] 23 points24 points  (56 children)

But when will they stop?

[–]fullrackferg 60 points61 points  (1 child)

2440hz?

Real gamers refresh rate is higher than their res

[–]pairedox 18 points19 points  (0 children)

Ah yes, the refresh rate of my proteins

[–]deddead3 19 points20 points  (4 children)

In theory, 600hz.

Fucking everything goes into that evenly

24, 30, 40, 50, 60, 75, 100, 120, 200, 300

[–]Avieshek[S] 6 points7 points  (0 children)

The usual formula is 30, 60, 120, 240, 480

Since, there can be a huge gap between them while we were making gradual advancements at an impatient rate we had stopgaps like 75, 90, 144, 165 etc while those before 60 were more commanded by the capacity of camera advancements like 24-50

[–]DecorationOnly 4 points5 points  (0 children)

When it stops being profitable

[–]King_Tamino 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Certainly not at 8999

[–]BytchYouThought 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Over 9000!!!

[–]cowprince 4 points5 points  (26 children)

It's a fad. It'll be cool someday to play at 15hz.

[–]scheve_83 10 points11 points  (1 child)

CCTV simulator. Record the screen with a phone for streaming.

[–]CynicalQc 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Artificially bump up the latency for a life-like experience!

[–]Hrspwrz 1 point2 points  (22 children)

How much better is a 500hz LCD over a 120hz OLED

[–]techieman34 3 points4 points  (3 children)

It really only matters if your playing a shooter like CS:gO where you might actually have a chance of your computer actually being able to hit frame rates like that. And even then unless you have amazing reflexes it’s not going to make much of a difference. This LTT video does a pretty good job of explaining it. https://youtu.be/3iY0figLAwo

[–]IatemyBlobby 3 points4 points  (16 children)

a few years ago, 16k dpi was the best of the best for gaming mice. We’re getting close to 30k now I believe.

[–]el_kabong909 18 points19 points  (6 children)

Does anyone actually use those though? Anything higher than 800 and I'm flying all over the screen with no control.

[–]Aquafye 22 points23 points  (4 children)

Pretty sure higher DPI sensors allow for more accurate tracking at any DPI

[–]IatemyBlobby 11 points12 points  (3 children)

while true, theres a point where its too much. Same with 500hz. It “does” have improvements, but its unnecessary. Innovation and research funding is better spent elsewhere

[–]elton_john_lennon 1 point2 points  (1 child)

Same with 500hz.

As I pointed out in another thread, the difference between 360Hz and 480Hz in terms of response time, is just 0.7ms. 360vs500Hz is 0.78ms.

I'd like to see a double blind test of people who claim they could tell the difference that small.

[–]Avieshek[S] 6 points7 points  (0 children)

Just makes me lose control honestly.

[–]rvralph803 1 point2 points  (7 children)

gotta say man, I play post scriptum, which is a game in which winning depends heavily on putting your iron sights on just the right pixel.

I used a shit combo Logitech mouse for a good while and sometimes just couldn't hit the pixels.

got that 32k razer now and I can go up and down. I can hit pixels within pixels now.

[–]IatemyBlobby 3 points4 points  (6 children)

that sounds like it could be a ton of things from better/more comfortable shape, accurate sensor, or different weight. The 32k sensor alone isn’t improving your gameplay.

[–]rvralph803 0 points1 point  (5 children)

It is. The mouse simply didn't have the resolution to move smaller distances even when I turned the sensitivity in game to the rock bottom value.

Also "accurate sensor" is exactly what high dpi means.

[–]keosen 0 points1 point  (0 children)

When they can't find any more idiots to sell their marketing turds.

[–]SurstrommingFish 118 points119 points  (20 children)

To play CS:gO at 640x480 at 500fps

/s

[–]AStorms13 34 points35 points  (18 children)

You can already get CSgO running at 600+fps at 1080p with current gpus and cpus

[–]_xiphiaz 49 points50 points  (0 children)

…but not current displays. Until this thing

[–]kappaway 35 points36 points  (4 children)

Yeah but what's your monitor going to render it at? A measly 240hz like a Neanderthal?

[–]ghostly_shark 22 points23 points  (2 children)

Here I am at 60 fps where I could literally take a dump waiting between frames

[–]SurstrommingFish 5 points6 points  (0 children)

That /s though

[–]me_irl_irl_irl_irl 0 points1 point  (10 children)

On some maps I can get 700 FPS at 2.5k res 144hz

CS:gO optimization is on another level compared to virtually every other competitive multiplayer game

[–]Wah_gwaan_Mi_Yute 6 points7 points  (9 children)

I mean it was released 10 years ago built to run on PCs built in 2008ish and up lol

[–]mikaturk 9 points10 points  (0 children)

Counter strike

[–]brimroth 53 points54 points  (28 children)

To give a real answer: Many people consider 1080p to be a good enough resolution and only want to improve on frame rate, latency and general feel.

But while that's happening they are building technologies to get absolutely insane amounts of visual data through a pipeline, and the some of the people who don't move up from 1080p to 4k for example use the reason of bad refresh rates, therefore necessitating improvements in panel technology.

Now we have panels that can show faster, and graphics cards that can run (some) games at frame rates greater than 400 and cables that can probably do the necessary 500hz (idk really I don't follow HDMI and DP). The technology is there because of other things, but if you have the tech to flex on the competition, surely you should use it. Being the technological leader should being you more marketshare provided you market your status correctly (read:Nvidia vs AMD)

It doesn't matter if the difference between 120 and 240hz is barely anything, it doesn't matter if 240 and 480 are indistinguishable for a regular bloke. What matters is that they have the better panel, and that it's the most premium, and that they came with it first.

That being said I'd love to try it out, even if my laptop can barely pull 60 fps in risk of rain 2

[–]ghostly_shark 2 points3 points  (0 children)

How dare you

[–]SamW_72 61 points62 points  (0 children)

I can do this Minecraft 2 chunks

[–]eulynn34 44 points45 points  (3 children)

Now I have to see if I can run quake at 500fps

[–]Sixinch420 203 points204 points  (170 children)

what's the point, after 240 hz is there much of a difference at all and if there is an actual difference is it worth the cost

[–]grahamBelmont 36 points37 points  (1 child)

240hz monitors still don't have motion clarity on par with CRT's. Honestly I'm not sure 500hz will either. But with higher refresh rates, we have more options for BFI which does a ton to improve motion clarity on sample and hold displays

[–]alman12345 3 points4 points  (0 children)

I'm pretty sure the bigger issue with the motion clarity would be the response time, which BFI would help with but more substantial gains are typically made with the panel type with TNs and OLEDs being the best.

[–]IngenAche 71 points72 points  (88 children)

Well it's 260hz difference but unless you have fighter pilot vision you'll not notice any appreciable difference.

[–]Tje199 182 points183 points  (71 children)

I remember when people said this about 60 Hz.

I'm not saying that won't be the case here, but I'm also not not saying that.

[–]Mister_Brevity 87 points88 points  (16 children)

When I went from 60hz to 144hz it was mostly noticeable when scrolling or moving windows around, more noticeable in games. I was surprised later to find out how much more noticeable it was drawing with a Wacom tablet, it made it hard to go back to drawing at 60hz.

[–]jerry855202 30 points31 points  (6 children)

Yeah, high refresh rate really does help a lot with use cases that requires hand-eye coordination.

[–]Mister_Brevity 18 points19 points  (4 children)

Yeah it’s one of those things where at first it was like… a slight improvement, but then I went back to a 60hz display with the Wacom and it was super super noticeable :)

[–]chingwoowang 7 points8 points  (3 children)

You ever tried with an iPad Pro? I find the apple pencil to be worse compared to the Wacom pen but sketching at 120hz is fantastic. going back to wacoms at work just feels laggy.

[–]elton_john_lennon 1 point2 points  (0 children)

You ever tried with an iPad Pro? I find the apple pencil to be worse compared to the Wacom pen but sketching at 120hz is fantastic. going back to wacoms at work just feels laggy.

There are two things here that are worth mentioning.

First is that a jump from 60 to 120Hz is pretty easy to see and feel, because the starting point -60Hz- is so low.

Second is that with a touch screen you have a physical point of reference, right there on the screen, that helps you see the lag even visually when it is happening.

Both of those go away in a discussion about nontouch 500Hz monitor, compared to, let's say, fastest so far - 360Hz nontouch monitor.

[–]Starilae 1 point2 points  (1 child)

I was thinking about switching to the Ipad myself but the software is just trash and you still cant transfer files to your (windows) computer via USB. I needed (can't work without it) this function a decade ago and they still haven't added it. I just don't think Apple stuff is really made for serious creators dealing with a lot of assets and they intentionally bork compatibility with Android and Windows. Probably the worst tech you could go with.

[–]tradinginternational 6 points7 points  (6 children)

Was it bc of that weird uncanny valley thing when 120hz TVs first came out and everything looked like a home movie? Curious why drawing wouldn’t benefit from it in your experience

[–]erthian 38 points39 points  (3 children)

That soap opera effect was actually from frame smoothing and not high refresh rates.

[–]Mister_Brevity 1 point2 points  (1 child)

Oh no it really was noticeable. Not so much at first but when I went back to a 60hz monitor it was a huge jump backwards.

[–]IngenAche 27 points28 points  (19 children)

I remember about a year ago on here someone claiming to be an eye test professional saying that the vast majority of people can tell a difference between 60-120hz but after that it's negligible.

I can't tell a difference between 80 and 120 so keep mine at 80.

[–]BababooeyHTJ[🍰] 19 points20 points  (3 children)

Yeah, I had an overclockable 1440p display a while back. Imo the diminishing returns is somewhere around 90hz. At least for me. For all I know it could be 80.

[–]zael99 16 points17 points  (2 children)

I can just barely tell the difference between 90hz and 144hz when the game swings between them but a solid 90hz vs a solid 144hz is negligible to me. If a game has an unstable framerate I'd rather lock it lower than deal with the swings

[–]Exevium 1 point2 points  (1 child)

This is actually a good point, I’d rather have my 1th percentile be close to my average than have 240fps with dips below 60.

[–]Recolino 5 points6 points  (0 children)

Ooof, imagine a game swinging between 500 and 30 fps, that's nightmare material

[–]callmesaul8889 16 points17 points  (6 children)

You can’t tell if you’re not used to it, but if you get used to 240hz then anything less feels less smooth.

Source: my non-fighter pilot eyeballs who have gradually gone from 60hz to 90hz to 100hz to a 240hz display. Every jump was noticeable after a few weeks or months using the higher refresh rates.

[–]elton_john_lennon 3 points4 points  (5 children)

I have no problem believing what you said, but I wouldn't assume it will be the same at level of 500Hz. As I wrote in another comment, there is only 0.78ms of difference between response time in 360 and 500Hz.

[–]beach-89 2 points3 points  (4 children)

It’s less of a response time difference and more of a motion clarity difference at fps that high.

https://blurbusters.com/blur-busters-law-amazing-journey-to-future-1000hz-displays-with-blurfree-sample-and-hold/

You might ask why do we need such motion clarity, but the same question goes for 4K. Plus we used to have much better motion clarity at much lower fps with CRT displays, so this is just getting back to what we had before.

[–]elton_john_lennon 1 point2 points  (3 children)

You might ask why do we need such motion clarity, but the same question goes for 4K.

Resoution is a different thing :)

First of all with resolution and screen a lot depends on the size of the screen and distance from it. You can usually get a bigger screen, or sit closer to it, to be able to see that 4K picture better. You can't do anything like that with refresh rate. 1 second is 1 second, you can't buy a bigger second, or sit closer to it, to better percieve higher refresh rate. And 4K isn't even something extreme. If anything, going from 360Hz to 500Hz I would compare to going from 16K to 20K on a 27" screen, rather than just using 4K.

Second thing is that what you are describing with motion clarity and CTRs, is actualy pixel response time rather than refresh rate. You can still have a relatively bad pixel response time with ghosting and blur, on a high refresh rate LCD monitor. And it wasn't about high refresh rate with CTR's, as you mentioned yourself they were sharp even at 60Hz.

[–]BababooeyHTJ[🍰] 1 point2 points  (1 child)

Resolution is all about pixel density and how far away you’re sitting. I still think that 1440p on a 27” display is the perfect pixel density for typical monitor distance

[–]elton_john_lennon 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I agree with that.

[–]Allison_Hell 4 points5 points  (3 children)

Saw a LTT video where he had shroud and other noteable gamers play at 60hz, 144hz, and 240hz through a variety of tests. The takeaway was for every single player, there was a vast level of improvement between 60 and 144hz, and a much more minsecule improvement at 240z, but the difference was still there. I've heard that people can determine a light source changing at up to 1000 times per second, although I dont know how true that is.

[–]fullrackferg 5 points6 points  (0 children)

Around 90-100 is the sweet spot I'd say, though it's nice to have numbers in the 120+ for added buffer when things get busy on screen. My 165hz 2440p is overkill really, but nice regardless.

[–]CruelFish 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I can tell the difference between 144hz and 300 in side to side testing but in daily use I don't think I would ever notice. 500hz would probably have a smoother experience than say 144 , even 300, but I doubt there are actual advantages. Our eyes are both a lot better and worse at picking up fast refreshed details than one would think... Hypothetically this would allow game designers to play with short frame time objects in say horror games or have some advantage in high speed shooters... I mean, it won't be much but it's there.

[–]Thaonnor 5 points6 points  (20 children)

I think once you start using it... it'll probably be noticeable. Just like its very noticeable today going from 144hz down to 60hz.

[–]callmesaul8889 10 points11 points  (19 children)

Yeah, wtf are the rest of these people talking about? “100hz is the sweet spot” is NOT the type of response you’d expect out of a bunch of people discussinggadgets”.

I have a 240hz monitor. I can play Rocket League at 240 on low settings or I can run it around 170hz on high settings…. And it’s immediately noticeable how much smoother the low settings are.

I thought that stupid old, “you have to be a fighter pilot” myth was dead, especially on Reddit, but holy shit y’all are sounding like some grandpas who “don’t need 4K, it already looks clear enough”.

[–]vraugie 5 points6 points  (1 child)

While you are right, I also believe there will be diminishing returns the higher you go. going from 30 to 60 was instantly obvious. 60 to 120 for me was certainly welcome and noticeable, but not as obvious. And when we get to 240 vs 500, I’d argue it’s going to be even more subtle. Especially considering the graphical fidelity hits one would have to take to get such frame rates. Not to mention the ungodly price these monitors will cost. So there is a logical argument in saying a 500hz isn’t needed. I applaud companies pushing the envelope, but I don’t think I’d recommend a 500hz monitor to anybody unless the price point was amazing.

[–]callmesaul8889 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Oh, without a doubt. It’s just like speakers or headphones… the difference gets harder and harder to notice, but that doesn’t mean there isn’t a difference.

Diminishing returns does NOT mean “you can’t tell at all”, it means you pay a lot for a fractional improvement at best.

[–]htoirax 1 point2 points  (1 child)

I have a 240hz, 200hz, 160hz, and 60hz monitor.

60-160 is a HUgE improvement.

160-240 I honestly can't even tell.

Your comparison has a LOT of different aspects to it, more-so than just hz, so it makes sense it's a big difference for you still.

[–]Recolino 0 points1 point  (12 children)

But... but the human eye can only see 60fps (some people still believe this)

[–]HiImTheNewguyguy 3 points4 points  (6 children)

There are diminishing returns to higher framerate, with each higher number improving smoothness by a smaller amount.

going from 144 to 300 Hz saves about the same time per frame as going from 60 to 75 did.

Personally I see little benefit above 120.

[–]Krolex 5 points6 points  (0 children)

Notice a difference likely not but provide advantage in competitive games, absolutely. See Linus experiment on refresh rates.

[–]HarithBK 11 points12 points  (0 children)

One of the issues with LCD displays it take 2 refreshes to get a clear image so a 500hz screen would give you crystal clear picture at 250 FPS.

So it deals with ghosting issues even if you can't play a game at 500 FPS.

[–]stillaras 3 points4 points  (0 children)

It's not about what you see but how the game "feels"

[–]bunkSauce 3 points4 points  (0 children)

I notice a big difference from 144 Hz to 240Hz.

I would at least like to see the next step up. Everyone said 240 is not noticeable, but it is now widepy accepted it is (by all who have actually gamed at 240, switching back to 120-144l.

[–]Tony_Omega 19 points20 points  (26 children)

I think the big thing here isn’t that you can see the difference it’s that you can feel it. Pretty sure refresh rate is still tied to performance of the actual game. I could be wrong though.

[–]callmesaul8889 43 points44 points  (20 children)

Refresh rate isn’t tied to the performance of the game per se, but if your game is running at 60fps and the monitor is 240hz, the monitor will be “refreshing” the same exact frame over and over while it waits for the next frame to be ready.

So visually, unless your game can run at 240fps, you won’t get the full benefit of a 240hz monitor. One frame for every refresh cycle.

[–]Tony_Omega 9 points10 points  (6 children)

Well that’s what I’m getting at. games that can run those above frame rates will benefit even if you can’t see it visually

[–]Tryaell 5 points6 points  (0 children)

This can work now though. It wouldn’t be hard to have a game render at 480 hz and cut every 3/4 frames to work on a 120 hz screen so that physics and movement inputs are calculated quicker. Once you can no longer notice the difference on the screen it becomes useless to improve that end

[–]_xiphiaz 1 point2 points  (7 children)

Does it actually run at a fixed frequency or does it do nothing while it’s waiting for a frame? I know nothing about monitors

[–]mushroomking311 1 point2 points  (3 children)

Non-gsync monitors will run at a fixed frequency, but one of the major benefits of g-sync (which the monitor in the post has) is that it will dynamically adjust the monitor refresh rate to match the framerate of the game, which eliminates screen tearing entirely.

I've been using a gsync display for a few years now and it's great, never want to go back.

[–]zurnout -2 points-1 points  (4 children)

Even if the physics engine and logic is running at 60fps, the rendering can draw an interpolation between current and next frame. Analogous to a grid based game where you can see you character moving and animating when it moves from one grid to the next.

This can help you aim more accurately because your brains get more information on how far your aim is from the target and how fast you crosshair is moving even though your fire command won't register until the next game logic frame

[–]DeUsuahiaALaQuiaca 18 points19 points  (5 children)

“You can’t tell the difference above 30fps anyway!” “You can’t tell the difference above 60fps anyway!” “You can’t tell the difference above 120fps anyway!”

[–]Untinted 8 points9 points  (3 children)

The thing is.. no one has really done any real research into whether it makes a difference or not.

In the 20th century no one thought it made sense to have 60 fps for anything. Today, with monitors up to 240Hz and competitive esports, we're seeing that even going from 120hz to 240 hz makes a noticeable difference.

Will 500Hz make a difference? I don't know, but the thing is, nobody knows.

It could be that there's a difference up to 10.000 fps, we just don't know.

So I think it's excellent news that products are coming out that test this frontier of knowledge.

[–]VincentNacon 2 points3 points  (0 children)

I wonder if this tech will end up being used for 3D or VR with the split screen frame shuffling. Basically 250hz for each eye. (Block one eye with something else and show the frame in the other eye, then switch on the next frame.)

[–]EnolagayFallout 5 points6 points  (0 children)

Many years ago what’s the point of 144hz. 60 is enough. Lol

[–]harzival 4 points5 points  (0 children)

You’d be surprised if it was 500hz for virtual reality compared to 240, it may even be night and day

[–]tabascodinosaur 4 points5 points  (4 children)

Nothing, and I bet the pixel response times on this monitor aren't all that great to boot. I'd rather have a high quality 165ish Hz display with a good panel than some meme machine 500hz, but maybe I'm wrong, maybe the panel here is awesome? Doubtful, it is TN after all.

[–]zero0n3 6 points7 points  (3 children)

What do you think refresh rate is?

Hard to have a 500hz monitor if the pixel response time is 5ms.

[–]tabascodinosaur 6 points7 points  (0 children)

Tons of monitors advertising 1ms response times that are more in the 8ms range in reality. Response time isn't simply Hz/time.

[–]Sevinki 9 points10 points  (0 children)

There are lots of monitors advertising 240hz that cant actually keep up with the pixel response times.

[–]Daffan 1 point2 points  (0 children)

You underestimate the amount of lying bs artists in the monitor market.

[–]Littleman88 -4 points-3 points  (12 children)

Some hardcore gamers will insist they can tell the difference, but that's normal, their elitism won't allow them to admit they're just like any another meat sack experiencing gradual physical and mental decline.

[–]cowprince 11 points12 points  (6 children)

gamer who started in the 80s here. Currently experiencing a gradual physical and mental decline. My goal in life is still to be like this old 70 year old guy that was at one of the LAN parties I was at, playing Battlefield 1942 with us, just sitting there, gaming, and chewing an unlit cigar.

Although I'm not much of a cigar person.

[–]ShutterBun 6 points7 points  (5 children)

I'm in a similar age bracket, and I benefitted greatly from going to 144hz. Any higher than that is going to have diminishing returns, I expect.

[–]cowprince 5 points6 points  (4 children)

going from 60 to 144hz is noticeable. I have a pair of Dell U2419H flanking a 144hz, so I can do direct comparisons on the same machine. Even non-gaming things are smoother on the 144hz, moving things between monitors you can see a noticeable difference. But I've seen 240 vs 144hz side by side as well (not on my daily personal machine, so I don't have long-term exposure) and with those two I couldn't see the difference in games or just desktop. But I'm middle-aged so it's only down hill from here.

[–]callmesaul8889 3 points4 points  (2 children)

You won’t get used to a higher refresh rate unless it’s your daily driver. And then anything less starts to become noticeable.

That’s happened every time I get a new monitor. At first the higher refresh rates aren’t all that noticeable, and eventually you can just ‘feel’ when you’re not getting max frame rate because it feels stuttery or “sticky” as I like to describe it.

[–]schmaydog82 4 points5 points  (0 children)

I haven’t played a game in months and have a 75 hz monitor so I’m definitely not an elitist but you’d be silly to think there won’t be a noticeable difference

[–]grahamBelmont 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I'm 31 and can tell the difference between 60 and 120, and from 120 to 240. And it's not just 'lol my reaction times are next level', regardless of reaction times, more frames means more responsiveness and better motion clarity. Even just the act of moving the mouse on the desktop feels better at 240hz than 120hz even if I can't see a difference, because it's straight up twice as responsive

I have to assume the people who say they can't feel a difference are the same type of people as my parents who couldn't even tell their new TV had all of those awful "trumotion" frame interpolation settings on that totally destroyed the frame pacing of everything they watched

[–]SwanJumper 1 point2 points  (0 children)

nice projection there

[–]bestpsychosean 1 point2 points  (1 child)

Nice try guy, I can absolutely tell the difference between 144 and 120. Both of which people will say can't be made.

[–]nurley 0 points1 point  (0 children)

The jump from 60 to 144 is incredibly noticeable. From 144 to 240 it’s less noticeable but I mainly play on 240 so if I go back to 144 it seems stuttery. I’ve tried my friends 360 setup and can tell the difference slightly but don’t think it’s worth the price tag + lower res. I can’t imagine there’s much of a difference at all between 360 and 500.

[–]Snaz5 7 points8 points  (1 child)

competitive CS gamers already ordering 50 each

[–]Fire_is_beauty 87 points88 points  (42 children)

Is there even a graphic card powerful enough for this ? I mean for running actual games not tech demos and fossils.

[–]porkergoesham 96 points97 points  (36 children)

I can really only think of CSgO and Valorant in terms of games that will actually hit +500. Maybe there are others but this is made for those guys 100%

[–]Recolino 48 points49 points  (31 children)

League of legends

Some of the most played games in the world, there's a market

[–]jonathang147 32 points33 points  (15 children)

Will league really become very much better with a higher refresh rate though. I feel like you don’t really need that much frame rate for a game like lol.

I haven’t played it very much though so maybe I am just missing something.

[–]VioletBunn 11 points12 points  (2 children)

I have a 240hz main monitor and a 144hz side monitor. My 144hz used to be my main one. I have noticed zero difference in LoL since switching other than the colors are more vibrant on the 240hz, but hz is unrelated to colors.

You just don’t really need that high of hz for LoL, sure the game is running at like 300fps but that doesn’t mean you need all of those frames.

[–]RedPandaRedguard 17 points18 points  (12 children)

That's a not a game, that's a trash heap.

[–]Recolino 9 points10 points  (11 children)

It's the second largest competitive scene, you like it or not there's a market so whatever

[–]BlitzcrankBot 5 points6 points  (9 children)

second largest? what's the largest?

[–]pepecachetes 6 points7 points  (0 children)

We know, the game is trash, but we are addicted, dont play league my dudes

[–]renewalrobot 3 points4 points  (1 child)

Do you even need good fps for league of legends?

Edit: fuck, missed the word "need"

[–]gstpierre 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Overwatch is able to be run pretty high fps with low settings as most people run it. It’s engine limited to 400 fps though.

[–]moooogugus 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Even if there was you wouldn’t be able to find one

[–]The-Dudemeister 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I think the program would probably crash

[–]AidilAfham42 7 points8 points  (3 children)

Can you even run any games that fast to make full use of it?

[–]Zakke_ 14 points15 points  (1 child)

I want a 1 ghz screen

[–]anonymous__ignorant 4 points5 points  (0 children)

and at least 350w of power so you can cook your face evenly.

[–]Vrykolaka 23 points24 points  (23 children)

be begrudgingly still on 60 hz "ugh fine MAYBE I'll upgrade to 75"

[–]Kent_Knifen 19 points20 points  (10 children)

I splurged and got a 144Hz monitor. It's great. All that framerate and I waste it on RuneScape :D

[–]Vrykolaka 0 points1 point  (3 children)

Yeah I gotta buy one like yesterday. Really need that juicy refresh rate and HDR.

[–]Hiddieman 3 points4 points  (0 children)

good hdr monitors are almost impossible to find, there’s a couple of oled screens now though

[–]Hailgod 1 point2 points  (3 children)

75 is not a upgrade. 24 30 60hz content all look terrible.

[–]Beast0045 0 points1 point  (4 children)

60hz is terrible for a first person shooter

[–]Hoenirson 10 points11 points  (3 children)

It's perfectly fine for casual play.

[–]Beast0045 1 point2 points  (2 children)

I don’t know. I always explained it as you move your mouse in say 100ms 180degrees of view at 60hz you get 1 frame per 30 degrees, it’s actually disorienting to me. I find i need over 100hz minimum. Obviously frame rate starts to play into that.

Once i went to 144hz i will never go back.

[–]NitroFluxX 5 points6 points  (5 children)

Me who is here still very happy with my 3 year 144hz old monitor, i really don't see the point of this, most modern games even with a RTX 3090 can't push close to 200-300 at 1080p (except games like R6 and CSgO ) so why 500hz?.

[–]epoplive 1 point2 points  (2 children)

Yeah, I have a 240hz 1920 monitor, and I don’t see the point as my 3070 is starving for fps turning the settings up in new games. Until game makers can no longer use every ounce of video cards I’m not sure what the point is except marketing.

[–]EmpatheticRock 2 points3 points  (1 child)

144 at 2k is a absolute dream. gotta upgrade that monitor

[–]epoplive 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I don’t get 144fps solid with ray tracing even at 1920 so there’s no point, lol. Will be buying a 4k monitor for my Mac studio though, lol.

[–]zorn_ 13 points14 points  (1 child)

Noice- a 24" TN panel in 2022. I'm sure this will absolutely rock that little UFO man test if you want to stare at that page all day, otherwise I think most of us would prefer modern technology for our monitors.

[–]Recolino 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Heyyyy i'm using a 24" 1080p TN and I love it for gaming xDReally don't feel like I need more size than that at all, and increasing the resolution just eats SO MUCH of the framerate that i'd rather stay at 1080p and have more fps.

I'm not looking at it from the sides or from above or below, always sitting right in front, so it being TN doesn't have much of a drawback and improves the response time

[–]ByerN 4 points5 points  (1 child)

This display is probably made only to sell next-gen graphic cards.

[–]kejok 1 point2 points  (0 children)

How bad the color production would be? Most of high refresh rate monitor has shitty color reproduction

[–]LocustUprising 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I’m sure The e-sports players can’t wait

[–]greenTeaRex007 1 point2 points  (0 children)

great, now I can truly play CS:gO with 400+ fps.

[–]meerdroovt 1 point2 points  (0 children)

CSgO players are pleased

[–]Upstairs-Werewolf-49 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Cool now other players can see me rage quit with more draw frames per second. That is if they have monitor. I stick to my good old early 2000 CRT monitor and mechanical mouse. PS: anyone wanna play competitive overwatch, I think I’m starting to get better now that I optimized my computer to run the game at almost 30 FPS

[–]leapfrogmasterj 9 points10 points  (20 children)

People saying this isn't noticeable and can't see a difference between 80hz and 120hz (lol) need to realise these monitors are for games like CSgO at high level where every frame and pixel counts. And it's not as much about seeing the frames change as it is about input lag and the feeling of fluidity on your screen.

I use 240hz 0.1ms monitor and while the jump to 500hz for me would not be worth it, I can totally understand someone on a pro e sport team getting one or someone whose gaming is their job to use one.

Playing on anything under 120hz for me hurts my eyes and starts to give me headaches and I wouldn't even bother to game if I had to go back

[–]i7-4790Que 0 points1 point  (1 child)

Playing on anything under 120hz for me hurts my eyes and starts to give me headaches and I wouldn't even bother to game if I had to go back

Christ, people like you are honestly worse than the ones who say there's litrully no difference between 60/144 or the human eye can only see 30 fps.

You aren't getting fucking headaches from 60 Hz content unless it's a juddered out mess. You're just an idiot making up dumb shit in your dumb head because you feel the need to justify a purchase.

[–]ralphlaurenbrah 4 points5 points  (13 children)

I bet there’s a noticeable difference between 240 hz and 500 hz. It’s probably SOOOOOO smooth that point but I’m sure the difference isn’t THAT big unless you’re a pro gamer.

[–]picasso71 0 points1 point  (11 children)

Even if you are a pro gamer I doubt it's a big difference

[–]Recolino -1 points0 points  (10 children)

It's more than double the framerate... People who are used to 240hz notice very clearly a change back to 144hz, and that's only a 60% difference, 110% difference should be clearly noticeable

[–]jonathang147 8 points9 points  (6 children)

Increased Framerate has diminishing returns as you go higher. You can’t just use percentages to compare.

The difference between 15 fps and 30 fps is much more noticeable than the difference between 60 and 120 even though the percent change is the same

[–]SethDusek5 5 points6 points  (4 children)

It's often much better to look at changes in frametime than refresh rate.

From 15FPS (66.67 ms between frames) to 30 FPS (33.33 ms between frames) is a huge leap

30FPS (33.33 ms) to 60 (16.67) is another improvement of 16 milliseconds

60 to 144 is going from 16.67 ms to 6.944ms, which is still a pretty big and noticable improvement

144 to 240 is going from 6.944 to 4.167ms, a smaller but still possibly worthwhile upgrade. (2.77 milliseconds)

240fps (4.167ms) to 500fps(2ms), which despite more than doubling the framerate/halving the frametime is an improvement of 2.16 milliseconds, which is actually less than the jump from 144 to 240, despite that only being a 66% improvement in refresh rate.

That being said, I think higher refresh rate and higher response times are still a welcome upgrade, and hopefully we'll have higher resolution (1440p) 300Hz monitors and the like too. However, with LCD panels atleast, the improvements also often get negated due to poor response times leading to a blurry mess compared to a well-tuned 240Hz monitor (see: Why I'm downgrading from 360Hz to 240Hz).

My dream monitor would probably be a high refresh rate, respectable resolution (1080p-1440p) OLED monitor, since those have near-instantaneous pixel response times. The only one I know of on the market right now is the Alienware QD-Oled.

[–]i_am_covered 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Ya know. I keep seeing people say this. Then I see the videos of people trying to pick the difference and failing. I just don’t think this is true anymore. There is a cut off. Your eyes take to many milliseconds to get the new information to your eyes for this to matter. It takes about .1 seconds for you to respond to visual stimulus. This monitor has rendered 50 frames between when the information you are looking at is generated and when your brain comprehends it.

[–]infinite_phi 3 points4 points  (4 children)

Nice if you're an eSports professional whose income could depend on being a millisecond faster.

Not interesting for anyone else. The jump from 144Hz to 240Hz, although quite small, is nice if you're a competitive FPS hobbyist, but anything after that isn't even worth it for hardcore enthousiasts who don't play profesionally.

Also 480Hz would be MUCH better for mixed use, as it can pull off 24, 30, and 60 fps content without any pulldown.

[–]videogamePgMER 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Everybody here is goin’ on and on about the refresh rate, but the key is that it’s g-sync compatible… that’s why this high of a refresh rate will be a game changer.

[–]Catchmycousin 1 point2 points  (0 children)

At what point do you just say that it's a gimmick? I played 1.6 at the elite level and the standard was to use 120Hz, CPL made sure to have 120Hz monitors at their events.

I had a very rare monitor that was able to push 200Hz at 800x600 and below. It did however mess with my mouse sensitivity and I needed to be able to perform on 120Hz in tournaments. After a while I settled for 150-160Hz as a compromise. I felt little effect at higher refresh rates and it wasn't too far off the sensitivity I got at 120Hz.

When the high refresh rate TFT monitors came I couldn't afford the first generation of 120Hz but I got myself a 144Hz monitor later on. Then I went balls out and got a 240Hz monitor and I really struggled to make out a difference.

[–]Random_Idiot_Online 0 points1 point  (10 children)

Of course it's just 1080p....

[–]Torak_wolf_renn 39 points40 points  (7 children)

Well to be fair, if you want to run game at 500fps you won't go higher than 1080p.

[–]Elite_Slacker 1 point2 points  (1 child)

Actually quite smart. Esports gamers play on 1080 for the most part and the consumer hardware doesn’t even exist to get 500fps on higher resolutions.

[–]CrankyOptimist 0 points1 point  (0 children)

This is like Axe Body Spray for gamers.

[–]samanime 0 points1 point  (0 children)

...why though?

At this point, we are well into the realm of diminishing returns. And most graphic cards couldn't run well at that resolution. You'd have to have a maxed out gaming computer just to run on Low...

[–]penfifteenfan 0 points1 point  (0 children)

YES YES YES 🙌🏼

[–]AVBforPrez 0 points1 point  (3 children)

NgL, I was so mindblown by the jump to 144hz that I bought a really expensive 27" 240hz monitor shortly after.

Can barely - if at all - tell the difference between 144 and 240hz, I have to imagine there are diminishing returns on these things after the 120hz-ish range.

[–]chillaxinbball 1 point2 points  (1 child)

Humans can perceive differences to about 1000hz (perhaps higher if looking for certain effects), but yeah, it hard to tell the difference the higher the rate. It doesn't matter as much with a standard display, but it's certainly needed for a HMD.

[–]rolfraikou 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I can't wait for people to tell me the sacrifice in color quality and viewing angles of taking this TN over something better like IPS, OLED, or even VA solely for the sweet sweet 500hz that they experience in one or two games they play.

[–]_DirtyDog 0 points1 point  (0 children)

What a fucking waste

[–]ltsochev 0 points1 point  (0 children)

At some point developers of competitive games need to start locking framerates and refresh rates and FoV lol. After going from 60Hz to 165Hz the difference is night and day. I wonder how much it would be at 500Hz lul.

[–]SirAlex505 -1 points0 points  (0 children)

This seems utterly pointless