ASUS Radeon RX 7600 STRIX OC review
Corsair RM1200X SHIFT 1200W PSU Review
Intel NUC 13 Pro (Arena Canyon) review
Endorfy Arx 700 Air chassis review
Beelink SER5 Pro (Ryzen 7 5800H) mini PC review
Crucial T700 PCIe 5.0 NVMe SSD Review - 12GB/s
Sapphire Radeon RX 7600 PULSE review
Gainward GeForce RTX 4060 Ti GHOST review
Radeon RX 7600 review
ASUS GeForce RTX 4060 Ti TUF Gaming review
A 500Hz refresh rate NVIDIA G-Sync compatible gaming LCD is in the works
NVIDIA introduced a G-Sync compatible liquid crystal panel with a refresh rate of 500Hz at the keynote speech of COMPUTEX TAIPEI 2022.
SUS will reveal the "ROG Swift 500Hz Gaming Monitor," and the LCD panel will be the "Esports TN Panel," which is specifically intended for eSports. Furthermore, it has "NVIDIA G-SYNC Esports Mode" and supports "Esports Vibrance," which improves target visibility. Ghosting is greatly decreased compared to the standard model by supporting a refresh rate of 500Hz, allowing for more accurate targeting. As before, it features "NVIDIA Reflex Analyzer," allowing you to measure system delay while using an NVIDIA Reflex compliant mouse and GeForce series GPU.
Acer has introduced a 28-inch gaming liquid crystal display "Predator X28 G-SYNC" compatible with 4K / 152Hz, as well as Cooler Master "MM310" and "MM730" gaming mouse, as items compatible with "NVIDIA Reflex Analyzer."
Update: added ASUS press release
ASUS Republic of Gamers (ROG) today announced the ROG Swift 500Hz, the world’s first 500 Hz refresh-rate esports gaming monitor. The Swift 500Hz features a 24.1-inch FHD (1920 x 1080) display that utilizes Esports-TN panel (E-TN) technology to produce 60% shorter response times than standard TN LCD displays, making it the fastest LCD display ever. The Swift 500Hz includes NVIDIA® G-SYNC®, and the enhanced Esports Vibrance mode — specifically tuned for esports — built directly into the monitor firmware. It allows more light to travel through the LCD crystals, giving colors new levels of vibrancy. With latency a crucial factor in esports gaming, the Swift 500Hz also includes NVIDIA Reflex Analyzer, allowing gamers to measure latency with just a single click.
ASUS ROG has always pushed the boundaries of display technology. A decade ago, ASUS introduced the world’s first 144 Hz 1080p gaming monitor. In 2017, ROG introduced the first-ever NVIDIA G-SYNC 240 Hz gaming monitor. And in 2020, ROG unleashed the first 360 Hz gaming monitor.
Pushing the limits of display technology
"When we introduced the first 144 Hz monitor in 2012, people said the human eye can only perceive 60 frames per second,” explains Gavin Tsai, Display Product Manager for ASUS. “Then, when we introduced our 240 Hz monitor, they said the human can’t perceive the difference,” continues Tsai. “Today, in a market where 144 Hz and 240 Hz gaming monitors are common and standard specs, we are breaking entirely new ground with the incredibly fast ROG Swift 500Hz.”
With reduced motion blur, improved visuals and lower input latency, the ROG Swift 500Hz is designed to give professional esports gamers an advantage in tournaments. One of these impressive features – the extraordinarily low latency – is made possible in part through a vital partnership with NVIDIA. “The ROG Swift 500Hz with NVIDIA G-SYNC technology provides gamers the lowest latency available of any monitor on the market,” said Seth Schneider, Esports product manager at NVIDIA. “And with NVIDIA Reflex Analyzer on board, gamers can measure their latency with one click, ensuring the fastest response times for the most intense games.”
Venix
Senior Member
Posts: 3116
Joined: 2016-08-01
Senior Member
Posts: 3116
Joined: 2016-08-01
#6020362 Posted on: 05/25/2022 07:00 PM
I can instantly thell when I drop bellow 48 fps because of the freesync range .... Hard to explain like everything was swimming in water and suddenly the water is thick as mud and a bit framey .... 48 to 75 Hz I can not tell and mind you I had no issues with hitting elden rings iframes ! But this was the first thing in long time I had to test my gaming reflexes .... In general I am not into shooters etc anymore!
Personally i can definitely see the difference between 100fps and 60 fps. When my games drop in the 60 i can tell without checking at the fps. I can't tell the difference between anything over 80ish fps. If i got 120fps and i drop to 85fps i wont notice anyway not enough for me to care. But if i drop from 100 to around 60 i'll definitely notice it in a bad way like it doesn't feel as smooth.
I can instantly thell when I drop bellow 48 fps because of the freesync range .... Hard to explain like everything was swimming in water and suddenly the water is thick as mud and a bit framey .... 48 to 75 Hz I can not tell and mind you I had no issues with hitting elden rings iframes ! But this was the first thing in long time I had to test my gaming reflexes .... In general I am not into shooters etc anymore!
Loobyluggs
Senior Member
Posts: 5038
Joined: 2008-09-07
Senior Member
Posts: 5038
Joined: 2008-09-07
#6020364 Posted on: 05/25/2022 07:05 PM
I can see the difference between infinity and nearly infinity.
I can see the difference between infinity and nearly infinity.
iNerd
Senior Member
Posts: 192
Joined: 2021-09-30
Senior Member
Posts: 192
Joined: 2021-09-30
#6020370 Posted on: 05/25/2022 07:31 PM
To be honest i read your post and first thing i‘ve done was to google for abx blind test and read what that is
so the answer is: No. Just a personal user feedback… no pro tests or similar. As i said 99+% i will not see any difference but there are some moments where i could see it like that one movement in that one game and i need to add: I would never replace this IPS monitor for a 500hz tn pannel. I have upgraded from 240hz tn panel to 360hz ips and would never go back to tn again… next upgrade would be 30+ inch 240hz or 27inch 360hz but it is too expensive since i dont use it for work
In a blind ABX test? Because Ive never seen anyone pass a blind test after 144Hz, but I have seen a lot of people fail it.
To be honest i read your post and first thing i‘ve done was to google for abx blind test and read what that is
so the answer is: No. Just a personal user feedback… no pro tests or similar. As i said 99+% i will not see any difference but there are some moments where i could see it like that one movement in that one game and i need to add: I would never replace this IPS monitor for a 500hz tn pannel. I have upgraded from 240hz tn panel to 360hz ips and would never go back to tn again… next upgrade would be 30+ inch 240hz or 27inch 360hz but it is too expensive since i dont use it for work
tunejunky
Senior Member
Posts: 3469
Joined: 2017-08-18
Senior Member
Posts: 3469
Joined: 2017-08-18
#6020372 Posted on: 05/25/2022 07:39 PM
While normally I'm all in favour of pushing for higher refresh rates, I have to agree that after 120Hz other aspects become far more important. True blacks/real HDR, VRR + strobing working properly at the same time, along with accuracy, and the lowest possible overshoot are FAR more important than higher refresh rate once you're already at 120.
I bought a 240Hz monitor not too long ago, and while yes it's noticeably smoother than 120Hz, it's such severely diminishing returns that I'd definitely favour other improvements over just raw refresh rate. Honestly, to me the point of "good enough" is roughly 110-120 fps, beyond that it's "that's nice, but whatever".
^ THIS w/ mdrejon's comment
marketing people get their hands on numbers and get it twisted for two reasons; A) they don't understand the subject matter's basic principles, B) they look for the most impressive (seeming) numbers and if there's a substantial difference they will flog it like hell regardless of applicability, OR, C) all of the above.
a few good (modern) examples are "gtg" (only applicable on LCD and all modern sets are "good enough")
and brightness. yes a monitor needs to put out light, but all that light needs is to be is of a balanced spectrum, so quality over quantity.
frame rate is similar (in marketing going wild re: spec) Neo Cyrus is entirely right. i bought a 144Hz monitor for my gaming system and have a 120Hz monitor w/ htpc and workstation. i don't play quick twitch shooters but my nephew claims he can tell the 144Hz is better for C.O.D. for me there is no difference worth paying for.
but for a reality check on the brightness thing - a True Black 400 blows away HDR 600 unless you're in a very bright room. and for the eye searing specs on some (way cool) mini-leds - totally unnecessary (1200 nits+) even if you're in a very modern south facing room with floor to ceiling glass.
mind you, the mini-leds are self emitting like OLED pixels so they have True Black, so that kind of number is marketing overkill as for function in a bright room you wouldn't need more than 600(ish) nits
but my main point is IDK if even competitive league gamers can even gain an advantage considering latency at other points and at one point the frame rate not going to help w/ lag.
but hey e-peen enhancement is a steady business
While normally I'm all in favour of pushing for higher refresh rates, I have to agree that after 120Hz other aspects become far more important. True blacks/real HDR, VRR + strobing working properly at the same time, along with accuracy, and the lowest possible overshoot are FAR more important than higher refresh rate once you're already at 120.
I bought a 240Hz monitor not too long ago, and while yes it's noticeably smoother than 120Hz, it's such severely diminishing returns that I'd definitely favour other improvements over just raw refresh rate. Honestly, to me the point of "good enough" is roughly 110-120 fps, beyond that it's "that's nice, but whatever".
^ THIS w/ mdrejon's comment
marketing people get their hands on numbers and get it twisted for two reasons; A) they don't understand the subject matter's basic principles, B) they look for the most impressive (seeming) numbers and if there's a substantial difference they will flog it like hell regardless of applicability, OR, C) all of the above.
a few good (modern) examples are "gtg" (only applicable on LCD and all modern sets are "good enough")
and brightness. yes a monitor needs to put out light, but all that light needs is to be is of a balanced spectrum, so quality over quantity.
frame rate is similar (in marketing going wild re: spec) Neo Cyrus is entirely right. i bought a 144Hz monitor for my gaming system and have a 120Hz monitor w/ htpc and workstation. i don't play quick twitch shooters but my nephew claims he can tell the 144Hz is better for C.O.D. for me there is no difference worth paying for.
but for a reality check on the brightness thing - a True Black 400 blows away HDR 600 unless you're in a very bright room. and for the eye searing specs on some (way cool) mini-leds - totally unnecessary (1200 nits+) even if you're in a very modern south facing room with floor to ceiling glass.
mind you, the mini-leds are self emitting like OLED pixels so they have True Black, so that kind of number is marketing overkill as for function in a bright room you wouldn't need more than 600(ish) nits
but my main point is IDK if even competitive league gamers can even gain an advantage considering latency at other points and at one point the frame rate not going to help w/ lag.
but hey e-peen enhancement is a steady business
Click here to post a comment for this news story on the message forum.
Posts: 4872
Joined: 2009-08-29
There probably will be a few people that get tricked into buying this, but most of the world is going to slowly move towards OLED.
Once you go past 165Hz its more up to the quality of the panel rather than the refresh rate (remember that you actually have to have the panel be fast enough to take advantage of the 500Hz).
I am afraid you got it wrong. BlurBusters claim there is a law of persistence that is potentially applicable to up to 1000FPS, they did not prove there is one.
What is the difference?
That they assume "everything else being perfect". That is NOT how monitors work now, its not how monitors worked in the past and it is unlikely they will work that way in the future.
The claim is only valid in a vacuum, meaning "everything else being equal and scaling linearly" higher frame rate is better to reduce motion blur. It is that "scaling linearly" part that is important.
You have to consider undershoot and overshoot (the higher the refresh rate, the harder it becomes to keep these in check), that will introduce blur, the whole thing that ultra fast refresh rate monitors are trying to solve.
You are misrepresenting BlurBuster's claims and demonstrations. If you carefully went over the material and explanations on display there, you would see that all these aspects of display technology are addressed.