A 500Hz refresh rate NVIDIA G-Sync compatible gaming LCD is in the works

#6019810

TheDeeGee

2022-05-24 10:04

For CounterStrike only i guess? Cuz no other game can do 500 FPS unless your run at Ultra Low settings perhaps.

#6019813

Kaarme

2022-05-24 10:07

With this screen, the fly sitting on your shoulder can enjoy watching your games.

#6019818

Ivrogne

2022-05-24 10:17

For pro FPS players, I guess? Because I can't think of any other practical use case scenario.

#6019821

Sylencer

2022-05-24 10:30

I never understood why “gaming” or competitive displays are 240hz (or higher). Pretty much most of the games can't even do stable 144fps nowadays, why bother with 240 or even more?

#6019825

fantaskarsef

2022-05-24 11:03

Sylencer:

I never understood why “gaming” or competitive displays are 240hz (or higher). Pretty much most of the games can't even do stable 144fps nowadays, why bother with 240 or even more?

Well if I understood it correctly, the theory goes as follows: Most frames = shortest delay between your input (mouse and keyboard usage) and output (which can only happen with the next following frame). So more frames means more smaller time units in which your input could get recognized by your PC, and subsequently, the game / server. That's also why you should always put graphics details to minimum settings to maximize frame output and pacing.

#6019827

Venix

2022-05-24 11:07

fantaskarsef:

Well if I understood it correctly, the theory goes as follows: Most frames = shortest delay between your input (mouse and keyboard usage) and output (which can only happen with the next following frame). So more frames means more smaller time units in which your input could get recognized by your PC, and subsequently, the game / server. That's also why you should always put graphics details to minimum settings to maximize frame output and pacing.

yeah the theory is that but the frame ms difference from 240 hz to 500hz ... is 4 ms to 2ms ... on top of the input delay ..... now 2thusands of a second .... i can not seem em even being conceivable to anyone even mlg 1337 players ... that said to the ones that compete for big fat prizes ... sure why not ! Non mlg players should not really care or worry about it

#6019828

TheDeeGee

2022-05-24 11:09

Sylencer:

I never understood why “gaming” or competitive displays are 240hz (or higher). Pretty much most of the games can't even do stable 144fps nowadays, why bother with 240 or even more?

True, i'm still on 60 FPS which looks smooth to me. I don't even play competitive games anyway. And being at 60 FPS means a cool and silent PC, which is just what i want 🙂

#6019830

Venix

2022-05-24 11:14

TheDeeGee:

True, i'm still on 60 FPS which looks smooth to me. I don't even play competitive games anyway. And being at 60 FPS means a cool and silent PC, which is just what i want 🙂

i am on 75 and playing most things on 75 fps ...honestly i can not tell it apart from 60 hz ... that said i might be able too if i just to 120 or 144 ... 60 to 75 hz i guess is not much of a difference !

#6019833

Silva

2022-05-24 11:26

TheDeeGee:

True, i'm still on 60 FPS which looks smooth to me. I don't even play competitive games anyway. And being at 60 FPS means a cool and silent PC, which is just what i want 🙂

If it looks smooth its because you don't play fast paced games or never seen 144hz in action. I highly recommend moving from 60hz up to 144hz even if you're just doing office, your eyes will thank you. Going past 144hz is when you get diminishing returns, a good 144hz is better than a crap 240hz one. Pixel response is important because some 144hz displays can't even update fast enough for a true 100hz experience (marketing is bs, look for reviews before you buy).

Venix:

i am on 75 and playing most things on 75 fps ...honestly i can not tell it apart from 60 hz ... that said i might be able too if i just to 120 or 144 ... 60 to 75 hz i guess is not much of a difference !

I too moved from 60hz to 75hz and I did notice some difference. That said most 75hz monitors suck and can't even pixel refresh to 60hz so its all BS. Get a good 144hz monitor and you'll never go back.

#6019839

Sylencer

2022-05-24 11:49

fantaskarsef:

Well if I understood it correctly, the theory goes as follows: Most frames = shortest delay between your input (mouse and keyboard usage) and output (which can only happen with the next following frame). So more frames means more smaller time units in which your input could get recognized by your PC, and subsequently, the game / server. That's also why you should always put graphics details to minimum settings to maximize frame output and pacing.

Well, I rock the lowest possible/competitive (graphic) settings (capping frames at 144 due to my monitor) on all multiplayer games I play, and maxed graphics capped at 60 fps for all single-player/non-competitive coop games. Works just fine for me. 144hz @ 1440p or even 1080p is plenty nowadays for gaming. If you want eye-candy and don't play competitive games you can go higher in resolution but refresh is just not worth it.

#6019840

iNerd

2022-05-24 11:50

Sylencer:

I never understood why “gaming” or competitive displays are 240hz (or higher). Pretty much most of the games can't even do stable 144fps nowadays, why bother with 240 or even more?

I can play fortnite stable between 340 and 360fps without big fps drops with 5900x / 3080Ti with not all low settings. Runs fluently. But no RTX on and all that. But it works even with Low settings like low shadows on DX11 not only on perfromance mode. 360hz PG259QN is already overkill. I dont understand what would i need 500hz for. Really not. But i can see difference between 240 and 360 🙂

#6019842

Richard Nutman

2022-05-24 11:55

I think anything over 200hz is overkill myself. 60 to 144hz has a very noticeable improvement in smoothness and improved responsiveness. Past that it's just bragging numbers. Fastest human reaction times are 150 milliseconds. And this monitor can push out a new frame every 2 milliseconds! 🙄

#6019848

asturur

2022-05-24 12:07

i think 100hz/120hz/144hz is the best compromise between smoothness and silence/power consumption. I also don't think all those milliseconds are then killed by your router/network card, ISP. Those things matter eventually just in lan cabled events with local server...

#6019850

TheDeeGee

2022-05-24 12:19

Silva:

If it looks smooth its because you don't play fast paced games or never seen 144hz in action. I highly recommend moving from 60hz up to 144hz even if you're just doing office, your eyes will thank you. Going past 144hz is when you get diminishing returns, a good 144hz is better than a crap 240hz one. Pixel response is important because some 144hz displays can't even update fast enough for a true 100hz experience (marketing is bs, look for reviews before you buy). I too moved from 60hz to 75hz and I did notice some difference. That said most 75hz monitors suck and can't even pixel refresh to 60hz so its all BS. Get a good 144hz monitor and you'll never go back.

That's gonna add 10-15C to the GPU and CPU, which will ramp up fans, no thank you 🙂 I want quiet/silent opperation, and i don't have issues with my eyes at 60hz.

#6019854

Ricepudding

2022-05-24 12:33

Sylencer:

I never understood why “gaming” or competitive displays are 240hz (or higher). Pretty much most of the games can't even do stable 144fps nowadays, why bother with 240 or even more?

Yeah i gota 180hz screen, I just put it to 120hz... semi for coil whine and semi because 120-144hz is too small to notice

#6019858

Robbo9999

2022-05-24 12:54

These high refresh rate screens do matter and make a difference, Blur Busters have proven that there are benefits all the way up to 1000Hz in terms of motion clarity: https://blurbusters.com/blur-busters-law-amazing-journey-to-future-1000hz-displays-with-blurfree-sample-and-hold/ Me, personally, I've found a massive increase in enjoyment & ability by going from 75Hz to 144Hz, and then further benefits to overclocking to 180Hz. The higher the refresh rate the easier I can track targets in fps multiplayer games whilst in close quarter combat, quick mouse flicks onto enemy players when both players are close together & moving unpredictably & fast. You can just see the screen with greater clarity during these fast movements whilst also of course each frame is being updated within a shorter time span so you get more "snapshots" to guage what fast moving close targets are "doing" so you can guage their direction/intention/etc. I found you can play in totally different ways and styles when on a 144Hz+ monitor vs say 60Hz. It is difficult though to imagine GPU's & CPUs reaching 1000Hz in games, and I'd think 360Hz is probably the most sensible limit in today's landscape of technology & games.

#6019868

Sylencer

2022-05-24 13:12

iNerd:

I can play fortnite stable between 340 and 360fps without big fps drops with 5900x / 3080Ti with not all low settings. Runs fluently. But no RTX on and all that. But it works even with Low settings like low shadows on DX11 not only on perfromance mode. 360hz PG259QN is already overkill. I dont understand what would i need 500hz for. Really not. But i can see difference between 240 and 360 🙂

In one or two games that might be the case. But can you achieve that kinda frame rates on other competitive games? Most of them aren't properly optimized but still not even close to get 200 fps.

#6019874

southamptonfc

2022-05-24 13:33

Richard Nutman:

I think anything over 200hz is overkill myself. 60 to 144hz has a very noticeable improvement in smoothness and improved responsiveness. Past that it's just bragging numbers. Fastest human reaction times are 150 milliseconds. And this monitor can push out a new frame every 2 milliseconds! 🙄

I feel/see a big difference between running at 144hz and 240hz on my screen. I don't think reaction times are at all relevant since 1 frame every 150 miliseconds is a massive 7FPS.

#6019879

Richard Nutman

2022-05-24 13:45

southamptonfc:

I feel/see a big difference between running at 144hz and 240hz on my screen. I don't think reaction times are at all relevant since 1 frame every 150 miliseconds is a massive 7FPS.

Sure, but seeing something 1 or 2 ms sooner isn't going to make any difference either. It's getting as bad as audio with their pointless 96Khz samples rates 😉

#6019880

Robbo9999

2022-05-24 13:46

Richard Nutman:

I think anything over 200hz is overkill myself. 60 to 144hz has a very noticeable improvement in smoothness and improved responsiveness. Past that it's just bragging numbers. Fastest human reaction times are 150 milliseconds. And this monitor can push out a new frame every 2 milliseconds! 🙄

southamptonfc:

I feel/see a big difference between running at 144hz and 240hz on my screen. I don't think reaction times are at all relevant since 1 frame every 150 miliseconds is a massive 7FPS.

Yeah, reaction time isn't a part of the equation when it comes to high refresh rate monitors, it's more to do with the enhancement of motion clarity as you go further up the Hz range from 60Hz -> 120Hz -> 240Hz + EDIT: albeit the only difference in reaction time is the fact that a 60Hz screen will update every 16ms and a 180Hz screen will update every 5ms, so it's possible in a gaming scenario that a person with a 180Hz screen could see an enemy opponent as they came round a corner to face them around 10ms earlier, which would give them a 10ms advantage to respond. So there is an element of "reaction time" associated with high refresh rate monitors, but more significantly the increased motion clarity and increase in number of "snapshots" of action per second is what gives gamers an increase in clarity and awareness in fast moving situations.