As the story titles states, AOC will be releasing two 1440p monitors that will get an ultra-low 0.5 ms response time. They will do so in the year 2018. These will be 27" TN based monitors at 256... AOC To Launch two 1440p monitors with 0.5 ms response time in 2018
Guess I'll have to wait yet another year for my monitor upgrade, although I will most likely NOT wait that long for another damn TN panel. My only hope is they somehow refine the older generation of IPS 1440p g-sync panels to not be such an extreme lottery like it is now.
Many sites report 400 nits (cd/m²) as maximum brigntness for AG273QCX so looks like this is just another false advertised "HDR" monitor which can take HDR signal, but can't reproduce high-dynamic-range (HDR) image on the screen. Nvidia use specifications from Ultra HD Premium and HDR10 standard for "G-SYNC HDR". Screenshot shows "G-SYNC" only, so second monitor is definetelly not HDR. https://images.nvidia.com/content/gsync/pdf/g-sync-hdr-whitepaper.pdf Related Information: Human eye experiences up to 90 000 nits (cd/m²) per day. These popular standards exists to cover this: * HDR10 for LED (0.05 nits black, ≥1000 nits peak, 10-bit color depth) * HDR10 for OLED (0.0005 nits black, ≥540 nits peak, 10-bit color depth) * Dolby Vision for Cinema (0 nits black, ≥4000 nits peak, 12-bit color depth) "Ultra HD Premium" standard from UHD Alliance with HDR range: * HDR10 + 3840×2160 resolution, ≥90% DCI-P3 color space)
Why do people get so worked up over the response time of panels? What matters is the response time of the entire chain, and the response time of the panel is only a small fraction of that total. If you think you can tell the difference is a four millisecond panel and a 0.5 millisecond panel, much less the difference between a 1 ms and .5 ms panel, then you need to realize that it's in your head, and that you are falling for marketing tactics.
It depends on whether we're talking about input lag or pixel response time. This little announcement makes it sound like they're talking about pixel response time (especially since it's a TN panel), so you'll probably notice a difference when it comes to ghosting VS some other similarly sized IPS panels, depending on which method they're using to measure the response time. But you're right that you're not going to notice a difference if we're talking about input lag.
For fast and competitive games fast TN panels are still the go to. Long ago I let go of TN in favor of IPS, I value much more colour reproduction. Sadly, only TN panels have been pushed to this extreme response times and refresh rates...
I currently have an Asus PG278QR. I've had the PG278Q when it came out and then the PG279Q also when it was released. The 278Q was in it's box while I was using the 279Q, one day I decided to sell the 278Q but I wanted to make sure it worked, I had sent it out for repair when it failed while waiting for the 279Q. Anyway I tested the 278Q in a fast multiplayer FPS and I thought it looked different, the image remained much clearer when moving quickly. I then set both the 278Q and 279Q side by side and I could not tell a difference in image quality on the desktop, browsing, images, videos. I could see the viewing angle difference but also the massive bleed and glow of the 279Q. Basically I knew that for fast paced gaming the TN 278Q was much better without in my opinion sacrificing much if anything of the image quality. Finally I got the 278QR when it was on offer, the panel is even a bit better and the 165Hz brings a little extra responsiveness. So yeah IPS panels can be better, but not all of them are, especially these gaming IPS, they are neither good for gaming and neither to they have a particularly good image quality.
I went through the same drama, but I also tried the Acer edition of the 279Q (also terrible bleed or glow especially in the bottom right and top right corners). Unfortunately, I kept the 279Q. Because IPS just has to be better, right? It was a mistake. I should have just kept the 278Q.
No. It's a huge difference that becomes obvious with motion blur reduction (strobing backlights, like ULMB). On a 5ms panel, ULMB has clearly visible crosstalk. On 1ms, the crosstalk is much less visible. If the claims of 0.5ms on this panel are true, then motion blur reduction on it should have even less crosstalk (perhaps imperceptible?) Without motion blur reduction though, you are right. 0.5, 1, 5, not much difference with 144Hz and lower. Still big difference with 180Hz and higher though (180Hz has a pixel persistence of 5.5ms. If the pixel response is higher than the pixel persistence of a specific refresh rate, then that refresh rate is kind of being "wasted" on that panel and doesn't look much better than lower refresh rates.)
I'm skeptical that the VA panel will have 0.5 pixel response time without large trails. Would love to be wrong though.
