ACER is prepping a gaming LCD with a refresh rate of 390Hz
Click here to post a comment for ACER is prepping a gaming LCD with a refresh rate of 390Hz on our message forum
kcajjones
I don't think it's absurd, it's just natural progression. Hopefully all displays will be 1000hz at some point, with at least 4k resolution and gpus which can push 1000+ fps. I know people will say that it's diminishing returns, but I think VR would benefit from such buttery smooth refresh rates!
Silva
It is absurd considering the pixel response time probably wont be able to keep up with 390Hz refresh rate.
Most monitors that say they do is with overdrive maxed and introduces horrible artefacts and overshoot, no one plays like that.
The ones that work introduce flickering that not everyone eyes can stand without inducing vomiting.
For 390Hz the maximum pixel response time has to be perfectly under 2.564ms, not seeing that happen without introducing issues.
PS: Anyone can see a huge difference between 60 and 144Hz but after that, only competitive gamers that play all day might see some clear difference that help them. That and the power of the hardware needed to run at those refresh rates, I think its better just going from 1080p to 4k.
MachinaEx
144Hz is more than enough for an average gamer, both anything above is only for eSports or professional needs.
Ssateneth
Truth be told... I didn't think I would have felt the difference between 144hz and 240hz when I moved up to a higher refresh panel, but mousefeel was noticeably smoother. This is going from ASUS MG279Q (27" 144hz IPS) to Acer XB323U GX (32" 240hz IPS). The Acer has a 270hz mode but it causes color artifacting. I uploaded a video to document the artifacting.
But if you go from 240 to 360+... It'd be hard pressed to find a noticeable improvement in feel. Plus you need to go down to 1080p so there is that...
insp1re2600
yes, only esport titles like cs go would even touch 360 fps to enjoy it, cant say any recent titles have gone over 144 on my 3090 lol
Aaron123
I agree. Anything obove 144hz wont be THAT noticeable
asturur
I think is not natural progression.
Keeping yourself locked at 1080p is not the general progression.
Those panels are both a marketing stunt and an edge case, a medal some brand wants to put up.
The natural progression is that we got 144hz and 165/170hz both at full hd, then at 1440p and now we have it at 4k too.
Videocards are getting able to push high framerates at 4k too, around 100 for latest AAA titles.
When also color accuracy and blur get better on those high speed/high res monitors together with other specs.
JamesSneed
I want a 1440p 144-165Hz mini led backlit monitor for a reasonable price. They just started making these this summer so IM sure they will be very high priced but I'm hoping next year things will come down to sane levels. Contrast is probably my other biggest issue which that would go a long way towards.
Undying
I would rather have a 32" oled at 120hz than a 1000hz lcd. So yeah, give us a damn oled monitor already.
sykozis
I'd just love to find 1440P 144hz monitors at a reasonable price..... I can find 4K/60hz monitors locally that are cheaper than 1440/60hz monitors.....but my poor RX5700 can't handle 4K.
I went from 60hz to 144hz and haven't noticed any difference.....
TheDeeGee
640x480 i guess, no other way to get 390 FPS these days.
vf
Quake Champions, Diabotical can hit 400+ fps, Doom 2016 is locked to 200fps while Doom Eternal can hit 240+ fps on 1080p.
There are even some Quake Champions Esport players/streamers hitting up to 700fps on their streams with Ryzen 59xx/3090/360Hz displays with their sponsored gear.
wavetrex
only possible with self-lit pixels.
LCD simply cannot switch that fast due to it's physical nature ( a tiny crystal that actually moves inside a "gel" )
OLED has a sub 0.1ms switch rate, however the electronics that drives it can't keep up (YET), in time it might be possible to have 1000 Hz oled display, when transmission bandwidth and processing power is fast enough for it.
Silva
If you have the hardware to push it, it's night and day.
Also depends on the games you play, you won't notice a difference playing RTS or RPG games.
Try something fast paced where you have to aim, and the difference will be there.
PS: 144Hz means nothing if the pixel response time can't keep up, many cheap (and expensive) monitors have the issue to be able to refresh at 144Hz but the pixel response time feels like 100Hz or less.
sykozis
I've compared monitors in BF4, BF1, BF5 and MoH.... I see, literally, ZERO difference.
Fact is contrary to your opinion. Not everyone is going to see some mythical "night and day" difference between a 60hz display and a 144hz display.
Silva
You either play 15 minutes a day, are visually impaired, your screen pixels response time is too low or your PC can't produce smooth 144 FPS.
More than 144Hz I believe there's negligible difference, but going from 60 to 144 is a really big difference.
Yes, there will always be people that don't appreciate that difference. Just get a 4k@60Hz monitor then!
Guru3Dmember
There's a noticeable difference between 280Hz vs 360Hz
Noisiv
those are fps-delivery wise excellently optimized games, which is why it might be harder to notice the difference
metagamer
Yep, I went from 165hz to 240hz and 240hz just feels more silky.
sykozis
Also compared in Diablo2 and Diablo3.....still can't see a difference.
Some of us will never notice a difference. That's a simple fact that people pushing high refresh monitors refuse to accept.
