the OLED PG27AQDM is a winner it's the down-sized version of the 42" panel w/all the same specs and features. but it's not a "good" deal. the 42" lists @ $1,399 (if you can find it at that price) and the 27" is sure to be over $1000 still it would be one of the first OLEDs at that size, which is the best selling monitor size category

And here I was thinking 360Hz was unnecessary. 240Hz seems to be the upper practical limit, and even then, 144Hz seems to be sufficient in the vast majority of cases.

schmidtbag:

And here I was thinking 360Hz was unnecessary. 240Hz seems to be the upper practical limit, and even then, 144Hz seems to be sufficient in the vast majority of cases.

Yep +1 even more in OLED that does not suffer from the TN ips an even more ... VA smear and ghosting

schmidtbag:

And here I was thinking 360Hz was unnecessary. 240Hz seems to be the upper practical limit, and even then, 144Hz seems to be sufficient in the vast majority of cases.

diminishing returns means we will need much bigger jumps to notice a difference, skip all that 160-240-360hz nonsense, 500hz might be a worthwhile jump from 120hz, if not, 960hz for sure

EspHack:

diminishing returns means we will need much bigger jumps to notice a difference, skip all that 160-240-360hz nonsense, 500hz might be a worthwhile jump from 120hz, if not, 960hz for sure

Generally speaking I'd agree with you, but for this I don't think so. The average human's response time is around 0.013 seconds 30Hz is 0.03 seconds 60Hz is 0.017 seconds 90Hz is 0.011 seconds, which is fast enough to accommodate the response time of the fastest humans, and is probably why VR headsets recommend this as the minimum. 144Hz is 0.007 seconds 240Hz is 0.004 seconds, and is the point where the average gamer will have a hard time seeing a noteworthy difference when playing normally (as opposed to aiming rapidly all over the screen) 360Hz is 0.0027 seconds 540Hz is 0.0019 seconds Like with the Nyquist theorem, you want to double the frequency that [ideally] meets your requirements to prevent any chance of sampling error. So, since 90Hz is typically enough to outpace the human response time, 180Hz is probably the fastest you ever need in order for the refresh rate to not hold you back. Of course, there's more to human capabilities that we have to factor in, like the response time of the rest of the hardware or the fact that even at 540Hz i'm sure you could still perceive individual frames (at least in some situations, like a top-down shooter) but you have to draw the line somewhere. For me personally, that line is where there is no chance that my abilities will be compromised by frame rate. 144Hz is "close enough" to 180, so, that's what I'd pick as my upper limit if I cared enough (which I don't).

schmidtbag:

And here I was thinking 360Hz was unnecessary. 240Hz seems to be the upper practical limit, and even then, 144Hz seems to be sufficient in the vast majority of cases.

I won't settle until...

@schmidtbag you are over estimating the average human reaction by a factor of 20 the average human instantaneous reaction is around 250 ms or 0,25 with e sports players and trained on reflexes approaching 150 ms an unoptimized gaming setup might even reach 80 and 100ms delay till you see the frame , while a system that you went nuts can drop a bit billow 20ms... While that would make a difference on a lot of eSports... Especially after 144hz you get diminishing returns to a point that it does not matter for even the hardcore home user. Other than that I agree with you !