Corsair QL120 and QL140 RGB fan review
Promo: Windows 10 Pro for $13 With Office 2016 For $33
Corsair Void RGB Elite Wireless Headset review
Team Group PD400 Portable SSD review
AMD Athlon 3000G review
Team Group T-Force Delta Max 1 TB SSD review
Guru3D Rig of the Month - November 2019
ASUS ROG Rampage VI Extreme Encore review
Toshiba RC500 500GB NVMe M.2 SSD review
Promo: URcdkey Black Friday Windows 10 Pro for $12
ASUS PG248Q will be a 180 Hz Full HD monitor
It seems we are moving from 144 towards 180 Hz, and honestly, I have no idea why. But the ASUS PG248Q pushes it further, supporting an overclocked refresh rate of 180Hz and featuring Nvidia’s G-SYNC variable refresh rate technology.
This model is adopts the recent ‘ROG SWIFT’ styling, a series of gaming monitors of which this is a member as PC Monitors report:
Bezels are slender, although not remarkably so – unboundedly a limitation of the panel used which will have a moderate panel border to contend with. The stand appears to feature the ‘Light In Motion’ red ring. There is also a joystick (JOG button) for intuitive control of the OSD (On Screen Display) menu system. The stand is fully adjustable, with tilt, swivel, height and pivot adjustment.
It has a 1920 x 1080 (Full HD) resolution, TN (Twisted Nematic) panel type and a medium matte anti-glare screen surface for effective glare handling. On this monitor it is overclocked to 180Hz and combined with G-SYNC (30 – 180Hz), eliminating stuttering and tearing from the traditional frame and refresh rate mismatches on compatible Nvidia GPUs. A flicker-free WLED backlight is used, yielding a 350 cd/m² typical maximum luminance and a range of ‘Ulta Low Blue Light’ settings feature.
The stand attaches by 100 x 100mm VESA, allowing it to be detached and an alternative VESA compatible stand or mount used. DP 1.2 (with G-SYNC), HDMI 1.4, 2 2 USB 3.0 ports and a 3.5mm earphone jack feature. The monitor is now slipping out in the UK with an SRP of £399 (which is roughly 479 EURO).
ASUS PG248Q 24-in Full HD G-SYNC doing 180 Hz - 06/02/2016 07:41 AM
ASUS PG248Q pushes onwards and is supporting an overclocked refresh rate of 180Hz with Nvidia’s G-SYNC variable refresh rate technology. This model is adopts the recent ‘ROG SWIFT&...
Asus PG276H-Worlds largest full HD 3D monitor - 03/08/2010 11:06 AM
With Avatar demonstrating the effect of 3D on audiences worldwide, Asus has come up with an exhilarating lineup of screens to bring the experience home. Asus VG236H and the world's largest 120Hz gamin...
howiec
Junior Member
Posts: 10
Joined: 2010-12-17
Junior Member
Posts: 10
Joined: 2010-12-17
#5307897 Posted on: 07/18/2016 08:20 AM
... why do we need 50/60Hz ? Movies at 24 fps look just fine !
... why do we need 120Hz ? 60Hz is butter smooth !
... why do we need 144Hz ? 120Hz is already too fast, human eye can't perceive that
Because reality doesn't have frames per second.
There is one point of course in which detail and frames rate will be so high that our brains will perceive it as "reality", but we're not there yet.
I've read an article once about this (don't ask for link because I don't even have any clue anymore where I read it), scientist did tests with volunteers and some high-tech equipment to discover if people were noticing motion that was only happening for fractions of a second.
Apparently, even as short as 1/800 of a second -some- people still noticed the motion, but at 1/1000 nobody did.
So I'm guessing that when our monitors will reach 800Hz the moving image will be indistinguishable from reality, for EVERYONE... but we're now at 180 so... far far away from the possible max.
Unfortunately, we will keep hearing statements akin to "why do we need more Hz?" because most people are "mainstream" users.
The mainstream will typically say they don't need high-end products simply because they aren't high-end users or pro-gamers or can't/won't spend that much $ at the time.
The funny thing is that mainstream users slowly adopt high-end products (of that era) as the industry standard improves and products become obsolete and are replaced.
Guess what happens over time. The mainstream, after several generations of products have passed, are now using much higher-end products (compared to what they started with) and are still saying the same thing about the latest next generation products.
I wonder what the mainstream today would say if we tell them they don't need 120Hz/FPS and 1080p and should only use 60Hz/FPS and 1024x768 (and pay today's prices)?
On a related note, until we're at the point where you can't distinguish reality from the virtual, there's always room for improvement in HW or SW and there will always be a niche of people who want the improvement.
Now of course, if there's a scientific study that has a huge sample size and demonstrates the population percentiles that do not notice any significant marginal performance" gains per marginal increase in Hz, then that Hz value should be used to target and differentiate between consumers.
From my own experience I can say that for competitive first person shooters, there is a noticeable difference in clarity of movement and the overall experience between 120Hz and 240Hz. I can't comment on any higher Hz because I haven't tried it yet...
So until we reach a point where 99.99% of the population notices almost zero difference between the experience or performance of newer generation products and the old (which is probably going to be far, far in the future), we'll continue to hear the same stuff.
... why do we need 50/60Hz ? Movies at 24 fps look just fine !
... why do we need 120Hz ? 60Hz is butter smooth !
... why do we need 144Hz ? 120Hz is already too fast, human eye can't perceive that
Because reality doesn't have frames per second.
There is one point of course in which detail and frames rate will be so high that our brains will perceive it as "reality", but we're not there yet.
I've read an article once about this (don't ask for link because I don't even have any clue anymore where I read it), scientist did tests with volunteers and some high-tech equipment to discover if people were noticing motion that was only happening for fractions of a second.
Apparently, even as short as 1/800 of a second -some- people still noticed the motion, but at 1/1000 nobody did.
So I'm guessing that when our monitors will reach 800Hz the moving image will be indistinguishable from reality, for EVERYONE... but we're now at 180 so... far far away from the possible max.
Unfortunately, we will keep hearing statements akin to "why do we need more Hz?" because most people are "mainstream" users.
The mainstream will typically say they don't need high-end products simply because they aren't high-end users or pro-gamers or can't/won't spend that much $ at the time.
The funny thing is that mainstream users slowly adopt high-end products (of that era) as the industry standard improves and products become obsolete and are replaced.
Guess what happens over time. The mainstream, after several generations of products have passed, are now using much higher-end products (compared to what they started with) and are still saying the same thing about the latest next generation products.
I wonder what the mainstream today would say if we tell them they don't need 120Hz/FPS and 1080p and should only use 60Hz/FPS and 1024x768 (and pay today's prices)?
On a related note, until we're at the point where you can't distinguish reality from the virtual, there's always room for improvement in HW or SW and there will always be a niche of people who want the improvement.
Now of course, if there's a scientific study that has a huge sample size and demonstrates the population percentiles that do not notice any significant marginal performance" gains per marginal increase in Hz, then that Hz value should be used to target and differentiate between consumers.
From my own experience I can say that for competitive first person shooters, there is a noticeable difference in clarity of movement and the overall experience between 120Hz and 240Hz. I can't comment on any higher Hz because I haven't tried it yet...
So until we reach a point where 99.99% of the population notices almost zero difference between the experience or performance of newer generation products and the old (which is probably going to be far, far in the future), we'll continue to hear the same stuff.
Stormyandcold
Senior Member
Posts: 5232
Joined: 2003-09-15
Senior Member
Posts: 5232
Joined: 2003-09-15
#5307924 Posted on: 07/18/2016 09:40 AM
Totally agree. This only starts to matter for people who are playing competitive games.
It's took years for "lcd" (as a generic term to cover every flat screen) to provide higher hz-rates than old crt. I remember gaming in mid-2000's with a 24" Sony aperture grille running at 100hz and it was total ownage (hehe) in Half life deathmatch+adrenaline gamer.
I miss those low-latency days XD Thankfully, this higher hz-rate tech helps pave the way forward and in time will trickle-down to mainsteam.
Totally agree. This only starts to matter for people who are playing competitive games.
It's took years for "lcd" (as a generic term to cover every flat screen) to provide higher hz-rates than old crt. I remember gaming in mid-2000's with a 24" Sony aperture grille running at 100hz and it was total ownage (hehe) in Half life deathmatch+adrenaline gamer.
I miss those low-latency days XD Thankfully, this higher hz-rate tech helps pave the way forward and in time will trickle-down to mainsteam.
Click here to post a comment for this news story on the message forum.
Senior Member
Posts: 5232
Joined: 2003-09-15
Could be a nice csgo monitor.
On everything low, I get 400-700fps~ so this monitor would work really nicely. However, because of the great fps I now run at full-details except FXAA...that seems to introduce noticeable input lag so I've turned it off. I've been play with DSR as well and I do really enjoy this fake 4k+ image-quality.