Well I just saw that Asus announced a 180hz screen, which will be the official monitor of Valve's The International, so obviously 100 isn't enough after all according to Valve and Asus.
It's called marketing
Is 100Hz enough?
- Thread starter VTR
- Start date
It's called marketing
It's called marketing
Lol you're still at it. How old are you? 54? Vision? -20,20?
From Hilbert's review of the PG248Q
"It seems we are moving from 144 towards 180 Hz, and honestly, I have no idea why"
I'm sure baddass will be honest and say the same.
Were all confused why ridiculous 180Hz screens are needed, generally people that understand the technology think this.
It's marketing, its to willy wave, and its simply to say they are first to market with it and people will lap that up and that will sell.
I do agree that at the moment, once you reach a certain point you start entering the realms of diminishing returns with refresh rate. There's no doubt that on TFT displays there's a significant improvement as you go from 60 to 100Hz, allowing for higher frame rates, smoother motion, improved motion clarity (as a direct result of the increased refresh rate on a sample and hold display and the way our eyes perceive blurring on them) and also often an improvement in pixel response times. add all that up and you get an improved gaming performance and better motion clarity for sure.
There's still improvements as you then go from 100Hz to something like 144Hz although they aren’t as drastic as when you go from 60 to 100Hz. We were debating this in another thread, and some people don’t see the difference as much as others. Some are more sensitive to it though and will see and feel the difference, myself (and PCM2 from pcmonitors) included. The other benefits of going above 100Hz are that you provide a higher frame rate range for powerful systems, meaning you aren’t capped at 100Hz as your upper limit (with vsync). Technologies like G-sync and freesync work really well with wide ranges up to 144Hz as well, giving you a bit more room a the top end. Also they open the screen up to additional technologies like 3D vision (needs 120HZ to work) and blur reduction backlights which are only really provided on screens which support 120Hz+. So there is a benefit in pushing above 100HZ and up to 144Hz.
As we start pushing beyond 144Hz to overclocked refresh rates like 165Hz, 180Hz, 200Hz etc – and soon the new range of native 200Hz/240Hz panels – we are only getting smaller and smaller benefits really. like I say, we’re entering the realms of diminishing returns. At the moment, trying to power a screen at those kind of refresh rates and with the typical resolutions like 2560 x 1440 is a very big challenge, and so it’s questionable whether you’d ever really start seeing benefits even from an increased frame rate in today’s market. At some point in the future it will be easier to power those kind of bandwidths I'm sure as new graphics cards and processors are released, so you may see some small benefit in being able to achieve a higher frame rate above 144Hz. You should still get some minor improvements in motion clarity as a result of the increased refresh rate, but it will be the kind of thing that most people would never notice or see. It’s not entirely marketing, but I just don’t think many people would experience any real benefit compared to a 144Hz screen. I'm not saying that’s the “limit”, but although 200Hz for example might sound like a massive difference on paper, the reality of its performance is not as great. There will be a threshold for each person where it is something you can no longer see a difference from, although I'm sure manufacturers will continue to push the spec more and more as it certainly sounds good on paper and in marketing material!
Actually if you want a marked improvement in motion clarity on LCD displays at the moment we’ve reached the point where response times are no longer the determining factor – as 1 to 3ms G2G figures are common and achievable in practice. We’ve probably reached the point where refresh rate is no longer the determining factor either, as 120 – 144Hz is very common now as well. The major improvement then on these type of sample and hold displays comes with the addition of blur reduction techniques, most notably at the moment strobed backlights. This article discusses the whole thing in more detail by the way: http://www.tftcentral.co.uk/articles/motion_blur.htm
There are other considerations as well with the increased refresh rates, especially at the moment. This makes it even more of a marketing gimmick currently, although these things may change of course. For instance, when I tested the Asus ROG Swift PG279Q I tested the 165Hz overclocking feature. That actually had an adverse impact on the response time control we found, and so provided no real benefit in real use other than sounding good on paper. When I tested the Acer Predator Z35 I found the overclocked refresh rates above 144Hz to be largely pointless as the response times of the pixels were not fast enough to keep up with the frame rate demands. So again, the 200Hz sounds good on paper, but in reality it was pointless. So as these new higher refresh rates start to appear you need to keep in mind that one immediate requirement is whether the panel can realistically and reliably achieve the response times necessary to keep up. 180Hz will require 5.5ms G2G which should be achievable for a TN Film panel like that in the Asus ROG Swift PG248Q at least. 240Hz panels like those coming from AU Optronics later this year will need reliable 4.16ms G2G response times which should be ok for TN Film, but will be a challenge for IPS-type and certainly for VA-type panels.
There's still improvements as you then go from 100Hz to something like 144Hz although they aren’t as drastic as when you go from 60 to 100Hz. We were debating this in another thread, and some people don’t see the difference as much as others. Some are more sensitive to it though and will see and feel the difference, myself (and PCM2 from pcmonitors) included. The other benefits of going above 100Hz are that you provide a higher frame rate range for powerful systems, meaning you aren’t capped at 100Hz as your upper limit (with vsync). Technologies like G-sync and freesync work really well with wide ranges up to 144Hz as well, giving you a bit more room a the top end. Also they open the screen up to additional technologies like 3D vision (needs 120HZ to work) and blur reduction backlights which are only really provided on screens which support 120Hz+. So there is a benefit in pushing above 100HZ and up to 144Hz.
As we start pushing beyond 144Hz to overclocked refresh rates like 165Hz, 180Hz, 200Hz etc – and soon the new range of native 200Hz/240Hz panels – we are only getting smaller and smaller benefits really. like I say, we’re entering the realms of diminishing returns. At the moment, trying to power a screen at those kind of refresh rates and with the typical resolutions like 2560 x 1440 is a very big challenge, and so it’s questionable whether you’d ever really start seeing benefits even from an increased frame rate in today’s market. At some point in the future it will be easier to power those kind of bandwidths I'm sure as new graphics cards and processors are released, so you may see some small benefit in being able to achieve a higher frame rate above 144Hz. You should still get some minor improvements in motion clarity as a result of the increased refresh rate, but it will be the kind of thing that most people would never notice or see. It’s not entirely marketing, but I just don’t think many people would experience any real benefit compared to a 144Hz screen. I'm not saying that’s the “limit”, but although 200Hz for example might sound like a massive difference on paper, the reality of its performance is not as great. There will be a threshold for each person where it is something you can no longer see a difference from, although I'm sure manufacturers will continue to push the spec more and more as it certainly sounds good on paper and in marketing material!
Actually if you want a marked improvement in motion clarity on LCD displays at the moment we’ve reached the point where response times are no longer the determining factor – as 1 to 3ms G2G figures are common and achievable in practice. We’ve probably reached the point where refresh rate is no longer the determining factor either, as 120 – 144Hz is very common now as well. The major improvement then on these type of sample and hold displays comes with the addition of blur reduction techniques, most notably at the moment strobed backlights. This article discusses the whole thing in more detail by the way: http://www.tftcentral.co.uk/articles/motion_blur.htm
There are other considerations as well with the increased refresh rates, especially at the moment. This makes it even more of a marketing gimmick currently, although these things may change of course. For instance, when I tested the Asus ROG Swift PG279Q I tested the 165Hz overclocking feature. That actually had an adverse impact on the response time control we found, and so provided no real benefit in real use other than sounding good on paper. When I tested the Acer Predator Z35 I found the overclocked refresh rates above 144Hz to be largely pointless as the response times of the pixels were not fast enough to keep up with the frame rate demands. So again, the 200Hz sounds good on paper, but in reality it was pointless. So as these new higher refresh rates start to appear you need to keep in mind that one immediate requirement is whether the panel can realistically and reliably achieve the response times necessary to keep up. 180Hz will require 5.5ms G2G which should be achievable for a TN Film panel like that in the Asus ROG Swift PG248Q at least. 240Hz panels like those coming from AU Optronics later this year will need reliable 4.16ms G2G response times which should be ok for TN Film, but will be a challenge for IPS-type and certainly for VA-type panels.
Why are they not needed? They are needed as long as Blur Reduction/Black Frame Insertion/Lightboost isnt a standard or OLED is standard. If a 200hz fast TN could achieve something close to Lightboost, I would prefer that to Lightboost, why? No loss of Brightness, no flicker.
But whatever, according to you, we dont need more than 100hz, heck not more than 60 either cus thats what you're actually playing at, you're not pushing 100fps in 3440x1440.
Last edited:
Ofcourse the benefits get smaller because the pixel responsetimes cant keep up so you get ghosting and more blur.
Associate
I'm sensitive to framerates for sure, but as has already been said, the move to ultrawide more than makes up for it.
Indeed! 21.9 is just pure awesome, it is the future and the master race
And the fact that there are more 2560x1080 + 3440x1440 than 4k users according to the steam survey shows this #hatersgonnahate
Last edited:
I was curious by 21:9, hated the curve, still do but I can see past it and sort of get what its trying to do, but it wasnt till I seen one in the flesh at the Scotland games show OCUK were at, and at their stall that I was completely blown away.
It really is amazingly awesome to game on.
It really is amazingly awesome to game on.
Soldato
Cant feel the difference between 100 & 144 IPS screens.
Ultra wide for the win.
Ultra wide for the win.
Soldato
Hi, can you explain that one a bit more please?
Thanks
Nvidia explains this better than I could - http://www.geforce.com/hardware/technology/mfaa/technology. Essentially you set 2xAA in the game but with MFAA active in Nvidia Control Panel it looks pretty much like 4xAA with MFAA disabled. Without anywhere near the same performance hit.
Quite a thread bump!
I have an Acer X34A (100Hz) that's served me well for years. Would I see a benefit jumping to something that's say 1ms response time and 180Hz? I have no issues with my X34, but have had it since 2016 so tech has moved on a bit since.
Contract is also 1,000:1 , I see more modern screens are 3,000:1. Dont know how much that helps things.
I have an Acer X34A (100Hz) that's served me well for years. Would I see a benefit jumping to something that's say 1ms response time and 180Hz? I have no issues with my X34, but have had it since 2016 so tech has moved on a bit since.
Contract is also 1,000:1 , I see more modern screens are 3,000:1. Dont know how much that helps things.
Last edited:
Soldato
i think what you may notice the most with an upgrade is panel quality especially if you go with some variety of oled. You will see an improvement going from 100-180+
i used to have a 34a though, perfectly serviceable screen loved having it!
Thanks, maybe ill just jump to oled at some point.
Am I correct in thinking they’re prove to screen burn? Id hate that as often leave my desktop for hours and the screen hasnt turned off for some reason.
I’ve owned X34A in the past and always found it laggy.
Input lag on it (running at 100hz) was noticeably higher than my 120hz oled TV or my 144hz laptop that I also owned at the time.
So yes you should be able to easily see the difference going to 180hz or more.
Yea they are unfortunately so you do need to take care of it if you want it to last.
You do get 3 years burn in warranty with some models tho.
Soldato
Everyone has different thoughts about this, but personally, I think LCD is good up to 90Hz or so and beyond that you really need OLED. I mean, I have two screens sat next to each other, both are 144Hz, one is OLED and the other is LCD. The OLED is noticeably smoother than the LCD. Even at 90Hz, there is a significant difference. So, personally, with LCD, I would want to see anything above 90Hz to ensure that I am buying something worthwhile.