cucaulay malkin:

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.

It can have 480hz 1080p looks like poo and you cant use upscaling becouse it will be even more poo. Wake me up when we can drive 4k/480hz with raytracing. 😀

Undying:

Wake me up when we can drive 4k/480hz with raytracing. 😀

1440p/144hz + rt will be good enough. true about 1080p, I ditched it as soon as I could get my hands on a r9 290 back in 2013. I really preferred 1440p at 50fps than 1080p at +60

cucaulay malkin:

1440p/144hz + rt will be good enough.

True i can live with that. 🙂

tsunami231:

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 🙄

flatpanel lcd is a deadend, They serve their purpose but for motion they will never be that good, tn + strobing is about as close as you can get. oled probably won't fully replace lcd at this point, as the cost is still too high, Will likely be qned or qd-oled hybrid, Worth noting that even if oled or qned replaces lcd, It still won't have the motion clarity without Black frame insertion , or rolling scan. BFI is available on some televisions, but the implementation leaves much to be desired, afaik there are no consumer oled monitors (displays that are <32ins) that offer BFI or rolling scan as of yet.

user1:

tn + strobing is about as close as you can get.

prefer fast ips without strobing, still super clear but less artifacts. tn+bfi will produce sharper image, but with more artifacts. fast ips with 0 overshoot or ghosting produces more natural result to me,will work with vrr,and there's no brightness issues.

Silva:

All I want is affordable 25'' 1440p 144hz with fast pixels true 8bit and nice colours. 500hz? ok then...

the upcoming OLEDs from the likes of LG, Gigabyte, Samsung should all be very good indeed and I can see them doing a 24/25" 1440p displays for the cheaper models. I really really want the alienware UW 165Hz freesync version in black. It looks so damn good! :P

It's a marketing, sell something with higher HZ just for the sake of it, thirsty fanboys will buy it for thousands. You cannot really see more than 80-100 FPS on a screen and even that only gives smoothness to motion but not decrease your reaction time. Visual perception in humans from eyes to brain is actually very slow. It can take well over 100 ms to process a change you are observing. Even low end LCDs from 20 years ago have like 20 ms response time which is still much faster than that. Save your money guys, don't buy 240 - 500 Hz monitors.

user1:

flatpanel lcd is a deadend, They serve their purpose but for motion they will never be that good, tn + strobing is about as close as you can get. oled probably won't fully replace lcd at this point, as the cost is still too high, Will likely be qned or qd-oled hybrid, Worth noting that even if oled or qned replaces lcd, It still won't have the motion clarity without Black frame insertion , or rolling scan. BFI is available on some televisions, but the implementation leaves much to be desired, afaik there are no consumer oled monitors (displays that are <32ins) that offer BFI or rolling scan as of yet.

flatpanel is only still around cause it flat weight next to nothing and take little space compare to CRT, none of tech match CRT in motion clarity imo, oled is only one that come close. If CRT was not abandoned do to size and weight it would been alot smaller and ligher by now and still better. I hooked up my CRT recently just to see if still worked, and was instantly remind why flatpanels suck ass in term of motion clarity. if i had the room and CRT has 1080p or even 1440p for matter i would still be using them. My first HD tv was CRT simply cause i hated flatpanels, but when it died i no choice but to flatpanel. to my eyes CRT is far superior then any flatpanel tech, where it matters which black being black and motion actual be clear and sharp, special moving text, flat panel tech is far superior in "slow" moving thing or static images though.

tsunami231:

flatpanel is only still around cause it flat weight next to nothing and take little space compare to CRT, none of tech match CRT in motion clarity imo, oled is only one that come close. If CRT was not abandoned do to size and weight it would been alot smaller and ligher by now and still better. I hooked up my CRT recently just to see if still worked, and was instantly remind why flatpanels suck ass in term of motion clarity. if i had the room and CRT has 1080p or even 1440p for matter i would still be using them. My first HD tv was CRT simply cause i hated flatpanels, but when it died i no choice but to flatpanel. to my eyes CRT is far superior then any flatpanel tech, where it matters which black being black and motion actual be clear and sharp, special moving text, flat panel tech is far superior in "slow" moving thing or static images though.

I would argue that crts were killed more so by outsourcing of manufacturing overseas, since they are pretty cheap to make maybe even cheaper than lcd due to their simplicity, the problem comes from shipping, weight aside, you can pack way more lcds into a shipping container than crts. more product shipped = more money. early gen lcds really sucked, so i think crts may have lasted to ~2010-2012 for a niche market at least, as did plasma. speaking of which ,talk about unrealized potential, plasma tvs could run at very high refresh rates (600hz), but they never recieved display controllers capable of actually displaying that from a source.

high end plasmas where indeed amazing. but i think they ran hotter and more wattage too? gaming on plasma looked better then most flatpanel tech at that time

tsunami231:

high end plasmas where indeed amazing. but i think they ran hotter and more wattage too? gaming on plasma looked better then most flatpanel tech at that time

plasmas did consume alot more power and also weighed at least 2x as much. what ultimately killed plasma was the difficulties shrinking the pixels, once 4k tvs hit the market , that was basically the end for plasma.

Raserian:

It's a marketing, sell something with higher HZ just for the sake of it, thirsty fanboys will buy it for thousands. You cannot really see more than 80-100 FPS on a screen and even that only gives smoothness to motion but not decrease your reaction time. Visual perception in humans from eyes to brain is actually very slow. It can take well over 100 ms to process a change you are observing. Even low end LCDs from 20 years ago have like 20 ms response time which is still much faster than that. Save your money guys, don't buy 240 - 500 Hz monitors.

people can definitely see more than 100fps, i will use the mouse trail illusion as an example, if you move your mouse around in a circle , you will see a number of after images, the higher the refreshrate the more duplicates you will see, this continues past 160hz, the limit would be when you see just a solid circle, reminder that delay between retina and perception is not the same as rate at which changes can be percieved, more fluid motion is always appreciated. however i do agree that very high refresh rate displays are a not worth the extra money.

user1:

plasmas did consume alot more power and also weighed at least 2x as much. what ultimately killed plasma was the difficulties shrinking the pixels, once 4k tvs hit the market , that was basically the end for plasma. people can definitely see more than 100fps, i will use the mouse trail illusion as an example, if you move your mouse around in a circle , you will see a number of after images, the higher the refreshrate the more duplicates you will see, this continues past 160hz, the limit would be when you see just a solid circle, reminder that delay between retina and perception is not the same as rate at which changes can be percieved, more fluid motion is always appreciated. however i do agree that very high refresh rate displays are a not worth the extra money.

sound bout right my uncle loves his 60" plasma that is only 720p, but that spits out some crazy heat. still uses it to this day, but 720p to me unbarreble to look at, to him it looks amazing still

TLD LARS:

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.

Ahhh, I didn't realize DLSS 3.0 was still upscaled; I thought it was frame generation only. That's fair then. I just got my 4090 build up and running, and I've been able to use DLSS 3.0 on The Witcher 3 with great results so far.