Wake me up when they reach 1000. /s

They can add all the Hz they want but I'm not paying a cent more than I would for a 144Hz monitor

More hz is fine, i figure at 300hz, we can totally drop any kind of sync tech like freesync and gsync, no need for them at that rate. Even at 144hz they are pretty much not needed anymore. Its not a question of how many fps you get really..

Abc666:

More hz is fine, i figure at 300hz, we can totally drop any kind of sync tech like freesync and gsync, no need for them at that rate. Even at 144hz they are pretty much not needed anymore. Its not a question of how many fps you get really..

Errrr frames and hertz go hand in hand pointless with out the other

you can get tearing at any frequency... 60, 144, 360, doesn't matter. If the GPU's output is out of sync with the monitor's frame redraw, it will show tearing even at 1000 Hz (which is technically possible with OLED, but no electronics and data bus today is capable of such high pixel rate) Sync is here to stay.

i would be happy with a standardization of 120hz !!!!

Abc666:

More hz is fine, i figure at 300hz, we can totally drop any kind of sync tech like freesync and gsync, no need for them at that rate. Even at 144hz they are pretty much not needed anymore. Its not a question of how many fps you get really..

The Adaptive syncs are not meant as a ceiling, so you want them at what ever rate unless your cards constantly manage to keep up all the way to max.

Abc666:

More hz is fine, i figure at 300hz, we can totally drop any kind of sync tech like freesync and gsync, no need for them at that rate. Even at 144hz they are pretty much not needed anymore. Its not a question of how many fps you get really..

technologies like freesync do actually have other uses, the primary reason it will stay, is because it saves power, infact the displayport adaptive refresh standard is based off of a powersaving feature from eDP to only update the screen when necessary(panel self refresh).

I dont undersrand the diffrence between fps and Hrtz lol. All I know is I can spot Tearing & games feel better at at a Higher Refresh rate 60hz vs 120hz, playing on the later on 1080p makes the game feel smoother and faster in my humble opinion but iam Far away from undersranding how it all works together somehow.

nz3777:

I dont undersrand the diffrence between fps and Hrtz lol. All I know is I can spot Tearing & games feel better at at a Higher Refresh rate 60hz vs 120hz, playing on the later on 1080p makes the game feel smoother and faster in my humble opinion but iam Far away from undersranding how it all works together somehow.

That is a valid and genuine concern that is not being addressed by major hardware reviewers. I find the lack of information disturbing. I posted about this in these threads recently. https://forums.guru3d.com/threads/got-a-new-monitor-today-and-have-a-couple-questions.432615/ https://forums.guru3d.com/threads/gsync-leave-vsync-on-or-off.412647/page-3 Switching from a 1080p 60hz monitor to 1440p 95hz was a major upgrade and there is a lot to learn. Long story short, get a Display Port 1.2 cable. HDMI is dead.

jbscotchman:

HDMI is dead.

Explain that to LG which is making TV's capable of HDMI 2.1 that does 4K @ 120 Hz with FreeSync support and can also do 8K @ 30 Hz

Well a young man/faster than average man is going to feel the difference between 144 and 360 in competitive/fast motion game, and those are usually easy to run and are popular, so I can see why companies are making these products. Personally as much as I'd like a higher refresh rate than 144, I'm perfectly happy with that considering it feels more than adequate. That feeling of weight at 60, and especially blow, are gone with the lower delay. I often can't get 140 fps anyway, because the GPU market is fracked to the moon and beyond, and I don't see that changing anytime soon. Right now I'd just be happy if asshole companies stopped capping games at 60 fps, particularly fighting games with things timed to 2 fracking frames. Even considering how much those games work based on skilled prediction (otherwise such tight timings would be impossible to play with, aside from hardware, the human lag would be too much) that's just stupid imposing such limits for no legitimate reason. For monitors I'm waiting for what I said I'm waiting for probably 5 years ago... a nice HDR or close enough to HDR experience at 1440p 144Hz+ for less than its own weight in gold. I use ReShade to blow out the blacks and whites to create a nicer image (at least to me) despite the information loss, which I often have to back up on due to being just too much lost in darker scenes. I also watch a good deal of Sci-Fi where space if often shown, and dark scenes in general are common... those make the information loss I cause with ReShade seem paltry. Sometimes I can barely tell what's going on in a scene on my IPS panel. The only true HDR screen I have is on my Galaxy S9+ so I often watch space shows on that, just to be able to properly see. So I guess the TL;DR is wake me up in another 5 years?

Thats actually a very good point, i will take back my statement according to that. The other post about getting tearing at 360hz... Yeah it is there, but in practice you will not see it.

Abc666:

More hz is fine, i figure at 300hz, we can totally drop any kind of sync tech like freesync and gsync, no need for them at that rate. Even at 144hz they are pretty much not needed anymore. Its not a question of how many fps you get really..

I had 144Hz screen w/o G/Free-sync. Now I have 240Hz with Freesync. 144Hz Vsync vs no-sync vs Adaptive-sync is a big difference. I would not ever run V-Sync on 240Hz screen when I can have adaptive. Because maximum frametime variance from VSync is 1/[frequency Hz] in ms. That can introduce microstutter of close to 4ms. When you are used to that kind of screen, you'll notice game is not as fluid as it should be. Now to the math. If you have 1000Hz screen in Vsync range versus 240Hz screen w/ G/Free-sync. And game does 220fps. 240Hz screen with G/Free-sync still provides better end user experience. There is no objective reason to drop modern syncing technologies for variable refresh rate. - - - - And as for tearing, you'll still see it. Thing is that if you have for example around 60fps on 240Hz screen. There is 1 in 4 refreshes where new image comes in and display shows tearing, but next 3 are repeats of same image that's already completely in display. In other words: "Tearing happens, but it is corrected in following frames." But if you run 240fps in such screen, you can run into situation where all frames end up being out of sync in way that you see tearing on every single one. (Quite unlikely, but opportunity exists with each single frame in such scenario.) That's why sync is needed.