Alienware AW2524HF IPS Gaming Display with 500Hz AMD FreeSync Premium at $619 (updated)
Click here to post a comment for Alienware AW2524HF IPS Gaming Display with 500Hz AMD FreeSync Premium at $619 (updated) on our message forum
wavetrex
The race to 1000 continues !
Scientific papers (especially from the military) point that any image refresh that is faster than 1000 Hz is imperceptible even to the most trained fighter pilots.
Normal everyday humans are not even seeing any difference above 200, so all these monitors from 240 Hz and up are pretty much pointless...
reix2x
i can't spot any difference between 120Hz and 240Hz displays 🙁
Hulk12
For avoid any confusion, it's INCORRECT! "...reduces motion blur..." - bad but yes "...increases fade speed...". Or not "response" but yes "persistence" because learn - https://blurbusters.com/faq/oled-motion-blur/ 🙂
Neo Cyrus
You definitely would if you saw them side by side, or saw 240 capped to 120 in real time. Though I'm much happier with a 165Hz OLED (that I run at 157Hz) than I was with my 240Hz VA, the OLED has such better pixel transitions that it looks like it has more temporal data on screen at a given time... because it does in a way.
Long story short I'd rather have a 240Hz OLED than a 500Hz IPS or any VA.
deathnite
So many Hz. I'm still using a 32" 4K 60Hz display, hehe.
I do plan for an upgrade to a 4K 144Hz display, but there aren't many 32" options, especially at a decent price. At 27" the price goes down a lot.
I'm not sure why it's such a big gap between 27 and 32, I'm guessing less demand for 32.
Hulk12
I edited the post #4. 😉
Catspaw
Some time ago I had an exchange with someone from blurbusters where I claimed that diminishing returns on refresh rates drop drastically after 240Hz and other factors become more important for fluidity but we ended up disagreeing.
According the exchange, blurbusters had access to a 1000Hz prototype and it was a very large improvement (im recalling this from memory so take this with a larger grain of salt than usually).
I have a 240Hz TN, a 240Hz Oled and a 165Hz IPS.
As long as the game I am playing is not capped at 60FPS (I am looking at you dark souls 3), it is hard to tell the difference between anything past 100Hz.
Now, In some very fast paced games, there is a small improvement (I notice it mostly in overwatch 1.5), so I think there is a reason to keep pushing the tech.
But I would say that most people will be very happy even with 120Hz and something like a LG C2/C3 already is there.
pegasus1
Three games I regularly play at both 60fps (while recording) and 120/144 fps and differences i notice.
Far Cry - Differences in action and panning.
DCS flight sime - only when looking over my (pilot) shoulder or looking out of the cockpit at low level.
COH3 - No difference
Embra
This monitor is for bragging rights, although it's seems cheap for aleinware.
EspHack
maybe at 1000hz I can notice it over 120hz with the same significance than 60 vs 120
2 more years? :P
Neo Cyrus
Sure, then another 20 before a CPU can actually pump out that many frames for a game of its current era.
Robbo9999
That's not true, plenty of people can benefit from over 240Hz, and especially if you're playing fast paced games like online fps gaming. Here's what the man from Blurbusters had to say about High Refresh Rate Monitors, lots of interesting & useful stuff he's posted here, basically keep reading over the remaining pages in that thread all the way till the last page because he has included a number of really good posts from this point onwards in that thread:
https://forums.guru3d.com/threads/a-500hz-refresh-rate-nvidia-g-sync-compatible-gaming-lcd-is-in-the-works.443155/page-2#post-6020040
kakiharaFRS
something I discovered with the 240Hz oled monitor that I returned
240x 1440p was doable but did I want those fps ? no ! the massive heat was obvious and we weren't in summer, now that we are I am so very glad I went back to my 120hz tn with BFI
another problem of those ultra fast monitors..they are good at 240 but not that great at 120 and average at 60hz so you better play only super optimized games or you're out of luck
btw 240hz was starting to get close to BFI but not quite and the slightest stutter created massive blur frames disgusting and giving me a headache, the sync thing ? oh yeah it smoothed things..at a forced 60 or 120...not 240 so what's the point
picture quality was absolutely beautiful but the cost of running 240fps 1440p borderlands 3 was too high in watts/heat even in a triple rad custom loop I felt the heatwave already in the game menu
Neo Cyrus
@kakiharaFRS A forced frame rate sounds like an arbitrary software setting, not something that's a part of the monitor firmware. I run my monitor at 157Hz and everything capped at 154 fps, the only arbitrary limit I've seen (150 fps despite my cap being set to 154) is with vsync in some scenarios which I've seen on all monitors.
240Hz on an OLED is overkill, but still nice to have for the cases where holding that frame rate is possible.
wavetrex
For a long while, monitors were behind GPUs, with high-end ones being capable of pumping out hundreds of fps in DX9 games, while monitors were still stuck at 60 or 75.
Now we have the opposite, monitors are advancing fast, with these insane refresh rates and huge numbers of pixels, introduction of 5K and above, new interfaces to pump billions of pixels per second...
... and GPUs are stagnating, with today's gen barely any faster than last gen.
But I think in time things will even out, as 8K is completely pointless, no normal human is capable of noticing details that small on a desktop sized screen, and refresh rates above 165 are kinda pointless as well for 99% of us. A good portion of the people can't even tell the difference between 60 and 120, let alone above that ...
---
I think we are getting close to reaching "Peak Display", where there's absolutely nothing else that can be done to make the image better.
So it's just the pixels themselves getting more realistic, both in terms of how they look (rendering, raytracing, that stuff) and also brightness differences (as real life has very wild differences between bright and dark - in the order of tens of millions of times), today's HDR is not covering even 0.0001% of the real life brightness range.
Catspaw
Look, I agree that 1000Hz is going to be an improvement over 240Hz.
My questions is, does it matter?
If You can only run a few games that high fps (jesus, CS does not even reach 1000fps and that game is old), if you need other gear to also keep up with that Hz (can your mouse keep up with that fps? can your eyes? your reflexes? the game engine? the pixel response time? your internet? the GAME SERVER?!).
Maybe I am just getting old 😀.
Robbo9999
There's DLSS Frame Generation now though on NVidia cards - so AI creating additional "interpolated" frames, so this AI creation of additional frames could improve over the years to allow even more performance uplift in terms of fps. Ok, so they're not real real frames in terms of your mouse interacting with those frames so you don't get the same feeling of responsiveness as you would if they were real frames, but responsiveness is already very good at 240fps, and then if you had AI frame generation quadrupling that framerate then you're at 1000Hz territory - so you get the benefit of reduced motion blur (because of ~1000fps) whilst having the already very good responsiveness of 240fps, so praps that's pretty good.
Catspaw
To me, using frame generation defeats the purpose of having high frame rate in the first place. That might be a personal opinion thou.
Robbo9999
I'd have to try it before judging, but like I said the responsiveness is already perfect as far as I can tell at 240fps, and then if you use AI frame generation to take that up to 1000fps then you'll get "zero" motion blur whilst having the good responsiveness of the real 240fps.
GoldenTiger
Frame generation and vr like reprojection to the rescue!
