I don't get it, 144Hz combined with 7ms response time, I don't really see the point of that - it'll be blurry, and the whole point of 144Hz is that you see crisp & clear clarity in motion, makes no sense. I think they should have just stuck to a TN screen that has a 1ms response time for their 144Hz - much better!

Robbo9999:

I don't get it, 144Hz combined with 7ms response time, I don't really see the point of that - it'll be blurry, and the whole point of 144Hz is that you see crisp & clear clarity in motion, makes no sense. I think they should have just stuck to a TN screen that has a 1ms response time for their 144Hz - much better!

as Hilbert stated "we are not sure yet" about the 7ms response.. still it would be a disappointment if it's true. by the way did anyone notice the GL503 on ASUS international page, it's there specs and support and all, but i do not recall an announcement about it, or maybe i missed that one.

Robbo9999:

I don't get it, 144Hz combined with 7ms response time, I don't really see the point of that - it'll be blurry, and the whole point of 144Hz is that you see crisp & clear clarity in motion, makes no sense. I think they should have just stuck to a TN screen that has a 1ms response time for their 144Hz - much better!

http://www.tftcentral.co.uk/reviews/acer_xb270hu.htm#detailed_response

With high refresh rates it it important that the response times can keep up with the demands of the frame rate. At 60Hz a new frame is sent to the screen every 16.6ms, at 120Hz every 8.33ms, and at 144Hz every 6.94ms. The response times need to be at least as fast as this to keep up, and thankfully they are on this screen.

So 7ms is enough for 144hz, if it's lower/higher, you get ghosting and other artifacts.

Fat ugly laptop with 7ms response time that can't be upgraded. It will cost twice as much as a desktop with the same specs and be just as non-portable due to its hefty size and weight. It's like they just up and decided to make a laptop that is completely opposite to their max-q zephyrus. What a pointless escapade.

FeDaYin:

http://www.tftcentral.co.uk/reviews/acer_xb270hu.htm#detailed_response So 7ms is enough for 144hz, if it's lower/higher, you get ghosting and other artifacts.

Ah, that's better then. However, 7ms is just over the 6.94ms limit though for 144fps, so I think it would still probably benefit from having a faster response time than 7ms. Also, it means that there's not any room to further overclock the screen if you wanted to, because the screen's response time is already right at the limits for 144fps. Not that many people really want more than 144Hz, but there are benefits to be had above 144Hz if you're willing to go there - I've got a 144Hz monitor & it overclocks to 180Hz - I noticed a competetive difference in Titanfall 2 at 180fps vs 144fps - in fast panning close combat situations - difference can also been seen on the Blur Busters UFO Test website page. (Possible to 'hack' Titanfall 2 to display more than the 144fps limit the game normally imposes - apply V-sync in game menus of actual game, then disable V-sync in NVidia Control Panel)