Wow! My son has 165 Hz G-sync I only had 60hz and now 500 Hz?! You need to have one Hell of a card to push something like that I would assume?
So glad they are phasing out old 60hz Monitors it pains me to even think abt gaming on one of those things.
Wow! My son has 165 Hz G-sync I only had 60hz and now 500 Hz?! You need to have one Hell of a card to push something like that I would assume?
So glad they are phasing out old 60hz Monitors it pains me to even think abt gaming on one of those things.
500Hz is so high that you'll commonly run into a CPU bottleneck even if you don't run into a GPU one. Or in some cases, an engine limit.
Unless you're a hardcore gamer playing primarily fast twitch games, 165Hz is enough. I believe that enough that I'm switching from my 240Hz Odyssey G7 (1440p VA) to a 165Hz Alienware AW3423DWF (UW 1440p QD-OLED), I already ordered it a while ago.
Wow! My son has 165 Hz G-sync I only had 60hz and now 500 Hz?! You need to have one Hell of a card to push something like that I would assume?
So glad they are phasing out old 60hz Monitors it pains me to even think abt gaming on one of those things.
I wonder if DLSS 3.0, with its frame-generation doubling, would work well here; take an already very high frame rate of 200fps and double it to 400fps. I imagine the added fluidity would be noticeable, but any artifacting would be very hard to spot?
I play AAA games mostly, nothing can run those above 120FPS in majority. Can I PLEASE get a monitor with 120hz. Freesync/Gsync and 16:10 acpect ratio? No? Thanks....
I wonder how this'll go since for the broader industry outside esports with narrow few games that are actually tailored to run at such framerates.
Otherwise both older and modern games will never hit such framerates due to entirely different reasons.
As a person owning 165Hz panel i can certainly see a difference between 60 and 120Hz, whether i would see one with 240 or 300+ Hz i've no idea, past certain point i feel we're running into severely diminishing returns when looking at millisecond values behind those refresh rates.
Still i would still like to see the difference with my own eyes, at least once.
Rofl, 500hz, why not 1000hz so I can play at 320x200 with all settings on low on my 4090 gtx super mega titan at 1000 fps.
Getting back to reality, I am perfectly happy with anything that runs at 2k - 4k with ultra settings and 90-120 fps.
My current dreams are a 21:9 5040x2160 at 144hz which is a tall order, I will be waiting for the Nvidia 5k series to see if that will be possible.
It's an interesting point - frame per second and movement detection by human beings. Did you know that most esports players of counter strike use a 1.33:1 ratio on a 1.78:1 monitor?
Reason being that we, as humans, have very sensitive eyes that detect lateral movement and so by accentuating lateral movement by stretching the image laterally gives you an advantage over those who do not.
As for frames per second - any advantage in esports is an advantage.
There was a hard-coded limit in Windows of 512Hz. Also for the maximum pixel clock. Not sure if MS removed that recently. With the way things are going, high frame rate ML-based interpolation might arrive rather soon(-ish,) at which point 1000Hz might not sound that strange.
I wonder if DLSS 3.0, with its frame-generation doubling, would work well here; take an already very high frame rate of 200fps and double it to 400fps. I imagine the added fluidity would be noticeable, but any artifacting would be very hard to spot?
DLSS at 1080p would be 800p or something like that, I would pick <200hz at better image quality any day over 400-500hz.
As far as I know frame generation can not be turned on without upscaling.
500Hz is so high that you'll commonly run into a CPU bottleneck even if you don't run into a GPU one. Or in some cases, an engine limit.
Unless you're a hardcore gamer playing primarily fast twitch games, 165Hz is enough. I believe that enough that I'm switching from my 240Hz Odyssey G7 (1440p VA) to a 165Hz Alienware AW3423DWF (UW 1440p QD-OLED), I already ordered it a while ago.
I did the same thing kind of. 240hz 1080p < 165hz 1440p. But I would love to try 500hz or even 360.
they should look into fixing the inherent issue with flat tech panels with there response times, instead jack up refresh rate to unreleasitc number most gpu can not and will not be able to feed.
60hz crt show motion a hell of lot better then 120hz flatpanels oled is only thing that come close 60hz vs 60hz. not saying the higher hz dont make the motion look clearer cause it does, but 60hz crt vs 60hz flatpanel are not even in the same ballpark of clarity
I will probably be dead before Oled panel are affordable at monitor sizes 🙄
better to find a balance, but I'm very curious what 480fps feels like on a 480Hz screen in sth like DOOM.
resolution just needs to be good enough, for me it's 1440p, 1080p looks like crap, 4K is better but too demanding. 1440p is decent enough and easy to drive.
7900XTX: