ASUS ROG Swift PG259QN 360Hz Monitor review

Posted on: 06/20/2021 05:58 PM

---

@Hilbert Hagedoorn This would be a good monitor to test GPU coil whine on

The input filters on all GPU's are really pathetic. Here is buildzoid soldering on some decent caps(grey circular caps) for the input filters. This fixes coil whine and also will help with stability when OC'ing. The coil whine increases with the FPS being output from the card.


https://twitter.com/Buildzoid1/status/1405658209164087298?s=20


Thank full I dont heal coil whine in my GPU most cause I still game on 60hz and for most part all gpu can do 60 fps with coil whine these days. Even when I get 120hz + monitor I will probably still cap fps to 60fps for that reason, plus i dont care to buy gpu that do more there expensive enough

Posted on: 06/21/2021 06:24 PM

---

@Hilbert Hagedoorn This would be a good monitor to test GPU coil whine on

The input filters on all GPU's are really pathetic. Here is buildzoid soldering on some decent caps(grey circular caps) for the input filters. This fixes coil whine and also will help with stability when OC'ing. The coil whine increases with the FPS being output from the card.


https://twitter.com/Buildzoid1/status/1405658209164087298?s=20


My old 1070 had some hilarious whine. Never did get to test it on my new 144hz monitor.

Posted on: 06/24/2021 01:51 AM

---

Did anyone but the shittiest trolls ever really say that 24 fps is actually fine?

Any time I see a monitor/screen it looks like it's lagging horribly then a split second later I remember it's because most screens are 60Hz.

Posted on: 06/24/2021 11:22 AM

---

It's just peanuts though. The average latency in milliseconds of a specific refresh rate is:

1000 / Hz / 2

For 240Hz, that gives 2.08ms, for 360Hz it's 1.39ms. So 360Hz has 0.69ms lower latency. That's less than a millisecond.

So I'd say this has nothing to do with latency. If you want to decrease latency by a somewhat relevant amount, let's say almost 2ms, then you need a 3000Hz display :p With a 1000Hz display, you'd get a 1.5ms benefit. So it's clear that we're deep in diminishing returns territory.

Clearer motion is the actual benefit of very high Hz displays, not latency. If the framerate matches, of course. 360FPS@360Hz is going too look a bit clearer, but only if the panel's pixel response time is actually able to keep up. Keep in mind that these "1ms" or "0.5ms" pixel response times the monitors advertise are only valid for specific color transitions. The actual pixel response times you get in normal use are higher than that.

Clearer motion becomes more and more important the larger the screen gets. Here's a fun little fact many people don't know: 120Hz looks exactly the same as 60Hz looks like on a display that's half the diagonal. So 60Hz on a 15" display looks exactly the same as 120Hz on a 30". That's why playing Nintendo 64 Zelda (a 20FPS game) on that old, small TV in the 90s was OK, while playing it on a modern large screen makes you eyes hurt. You can test this yourself on your 1440p monitor. Play a game at 120FPS in fullscreen, then switch to 60FPS in 720p windowed mode unscaled. It feels exactly as smooth as 120FPS fullscreen. (For a 1080p display you'd use 960x540 windowed instead, if the game actually support that.)

This is also why a 30FPS console game is kinda OK-ish when you sit in your couch and relatively far away from your TV. But then a PC gamer tries a 30FPS game with the monitor right in front of them, they go into "how the hell are console peasants OK with 30FPS" mode.

The larger our displays get, the higher the Hz and FPS we're gonna need to keep games looking smooth.


Unfortunately, yes. Many people read something on the internet about why movies are 24FPS and then think that what they just read applies to other contexts as well. Being half-informed is often worse than not being informed at all.

Posted on: 06/24/2021 11:27 AM

---

If it was 24" or less I would consider this. But 25" 1080p, this PPI, I could commit suicide.