480Hz Monitor Display Panel Prototype Spotted

Discussion in 'Frontpage news' started by Hilbert Hagedoorn, Aug 14, 2017.

  1. sverek

    sverek Ancient Guru

    Messages:
    5,374
    Likes Received:
    2,269
    GPU:
    NOVIDIA -0.5GB
    Also depends on games they play. FPS and action games benefit much more from higher refresh rate than turn based strategy games or rpg.
     
  2. claydough

    claydough Active Member

    Messages:
    67
    Likes Received:
    4
    GPU:
    EVGA gtx 1080fe
    Is hz really limited by fps in videogames?
    Since the 90's I was under the impression that anything over 60hz added to the ease of eye fatigue burden.
    Even with a static display ( eg. Reading thru documents for hours everyday... static fps )
    5
    Does the framebuffer refresh in videogames negate this persistence benefit? ( isn't a constant hz refresh of even 1 frame a second at 480hz always going to be a superior image experience? Fidelity? )

    As a fan of 3d vision. I wish the tech was still active.
    Volta is around the corner and the next iteration of vega in quad crossfire might make much attainable ( if i was willing to go back to fhd... )
    In such an instance one man's 240hz might simply be another man's 120hz per eye. ( not sure what is possible with amd? Passive? )
    In which case, one man's over the top 480hz becomes that stereoscopic fan's overhead hopefully ( and finally ) allowing for gsync or ulmb to a "faster" active shutter experience which still suffers the fatigue of 60hz per eye )

    Come on industry... throw us a bone. If I cant game stereoscopically. (With 2 eyes like God intended... )
    I don't game at all.
     
    Last edited: Aug 14, 2017
  3. angelgraves13

    angelgraves13 Maha Guru

    Messages:
    1,439
    Likes Received:
    330
    GPU:
    RTX 2080 Ti FE
    This will be awesome if you want to run games and never enable VSYNC as you'll likely rarely if ever hit 480 fps in any modern game.
     
  4. mdrejhon

    mdrejhon Member Guru

    Messages:
    103
    Likes Received:
    61
    GPU:
    4 Flux Capacitors in SLI
    Chief Blur Buster here.
    This is a different subject....

    This question of "Can I identify a plane in 1/300sec" is different from "Does 300Hz look different from real life"?.

    Photograph xenon flash bulbs can flash for as little as 1/10,000 second, and we can still see a flash from that. It just looks instantaneous.

    Also, check out www.testufo.com/motionblurdemo -- as a good demo of low-resolution effects from low-ness of 60Hz. That one only becomes crystal sharp at 960Hz.
     
    yasamoka likes this.

  5. mdrejhon

    mdrejhon Member Guru

    Messages:
    103
    Likes Received:
    61
    GPU:
    4 Flux Capacitors in SLI
    Chief Blur Buster Here.
    Diminishing returns is true, but you need bigger steps up to see differences, like 60Hz->120Hz->240Hz->480Hz->960Hz.

    This is assuming LCD GtG isn't the limiting factor (yet). The best 240Hz monitors have half the motion blur of the worst 240Hz monitors (as TFTCentral posted side by side images of TestUFO tests showing that the Asus 240Hz had half the motion blur of the AOC 240Hz).

    100 vs 144 is extremely small, it's only comparing 10ms persistence versus 6.9ms persistence -- just a 3ms difference.

    However, 100 vs 1000 is a huge difference (bigger than the 50Hz->100Hz jump), since that's comparing 10ms persistence versus 1ms persistence.

    LightBoost uses 2ms persistence, and the only way to have "LightBoost without strobing" is 500fps@500Hz sample-and-hold to get 2ms full-persistence without black periods in between the refresh cycles (no BFI, no strobing, no CRT, no impulsing).

    Mathematically (excluding GtG), persistence equals the frame visibility length, and 1ms of persistence equals 1 pixel of motion blur at a motionspeed of 1000 pixels/sec. (TestUFO uses 960pix/sec because of that too -- a number divisible by 60, 120, 240, and, incidentially, 480.)

    - Persistence for a strobed display, that's the strobe flash length.
    - Persistence for a non-strobed display, that's the refresh cycle length.

    LightBoost uses ~2ms strobe flashes (see YouTube video). Therefore, to have "LightBoost without strobing", and have motion clarity, you need a ~500fps@500Hz display with ~0ms GtG. No CRT impulsing, no LightBoost strobing, no pulsed OLEDs -- just a 500fps@500Hz sample-and-hold display (non-flicker) to match LightBoost motion clarity.

    And, apparently, the 480Hz prototype does look like LightBoost in a sample-and-hold non-strobing mode. (slight glitches due to non-existent overdrive, but the point remains -- motion clarity of LightBoost is achieved without strobing!). So that confirms that, too. That's a boon for eSports players who'd prefer to have LightBoost clarity without LightBoost (and its problems). Main drawback is the very-low-resolution of the 480Hz mode, but other than that, it does look like strobeless LightBoost.

    So the mathematical equivalence of motion blur is fully confirmed, again:

    - Persistence for a strobed display, that's the strobe flash length.
    - Persistence for a non-strobed display, that's the refresh cycle length.

    GtG limitations are pesky, and will muddy this a bit -- especially without overdrive, but I can confirm: 1ms TN is actually still sufficiently milkable to 480Hz. With overdrive, motion clarity of 480fps@480Hz versus 240fps@240Hz should improve by approximately 5:3 (4ms refresh cycle + 1ms GtG) versus (2ms refresh cycle + 1m GtG). So it's not the 50% jump easily seen by 60fps@60Hz->120fps@120Hz (And 120fps@120Hz->"good 240fps@240Hz"), since we're starting to hit the GtG wall there, but, 480Hz is definitely certainly within TN LCD territory law-of-physics capabilities.

    The best displays have fairly accurate 1ms GtG (>80% complete) so 240fps@240Hz on the best 240Hz displays have practically half the motion blur of 120fps@120Hz in TestUFO tests. I boiled this down to overdrive differences, which increases/worsens the accuracy of the "1ms GtG". The bottom line, it's possible to get "1ms GtG" to be roughly 80% accurate/complete (GtG10->90%) which is sufficiently 'good enough' for a "halving-of-motion-blur" effect at doubling (Hz+refresh).

    Perfect 1ms GtG isn't needed (it's more ideal), but at 240Hz-480Hz, the quality of "poor inaccurate 1ms" versus "80% accurate 1ms" is massively, massively -- [MASSIVELY] -- amplified. It means the world of difference in fully matching "LightBoost+ULMB clarity" in a strobeless way.

    It is impossible to achieve LightBoost clarity in a "sample-and-hold" manner at anything less than 500fps@500Hz due to the law of persistence. The various TestUFO tests confirm that (Even with OLEDs, DLPs and 0ms GtGs). If you want a completely ZeroFlicker Sample And Hold Display, and you want LightBoost at the same time -- the only way to eat cake and have it too -- is..... yes. At least 500fps on at least 500Hz display. Yeah, it surprises many people, but it's actually mathematically very simple in motion blur physics.

    At 1000 pixels per second, 240Hz still has 4 pixels of motion blur (1/240sec = 4.1ms), so further improvements are noticeable. LightBoost (2ms persistence) has only 1-2 pixels of motion blurring (depending on pulse length), so we need higher-Hz to match LightBoost in a strobeless manner.

    Good animation demos include:
    I'll have a full article on the 480Hz tests soon.
     
    Last edited: Aug 15, 2017
    yasamoka likes this.
  6. mdrejhon

    mdrejhon Member Guru

    Messages:
    103
    Likes Received:
    61
    GPU:
    4 Flux Capacitors in SLI
    Chief Blur Buster here.
    To see the difference more clearly, you really need to double your frame rate, and you need to make sure for your specific model of 240Hz doesn't have poor overdrive.

    If www.testufo.com shows 120Hz and 240Hz looking almost identical, try doubling motion speed to 1920 pixels per second. If 240Hz doesn't have exactly half the motion blur of 120Hz in this situation, then your specific 240Hz monitor may have a GtG limiting factor, or you might be less sensitive to it.

    Also, if you are an eSports gamer that stares stationary at crosshairs only (letting enemies scroll past to shoot them) -- then you won't see the motion blurring -- that only happens during eye-tracking situations.

    Much more effective motion-blur use-cases in fast horizontal panning (e.g. Sonic Hedgehog type platformers -- or eye-tracking necessities like low-altitude high-speed helicoptor flybys in Battlefield 3 -- or things like Rocket League that forces you to track eyes to keep up with action).

    Obviously, you'd need >= 240fps, to consistently maintain "half-as-much-motion-blur-as-120Hz". Since 120fps@240Hz looks the same as 120fps@120Hz in terms of motion blurring. (TestUFO demos that.)

    TFTCentral (in their ASUS PG258Q review) showed side by side pursuit camera images of a better 240Hz that has half motion blur of a worse 240Hz. This was attributable to overdrive-quality differences, as its was the same panel.

    TL;DR: I've been able to confirm that the diminishing points of return stretches further than I expected. As one thing, 480fps@480Hz looks like "strobeless LightBoost", for example. (LightBoost = 2ms persistence = 2ms strobe flash, and 480fps@480Hz = 2ms persistence (2ms per frame) without needing black time between strobe backlight flashes.
     
    Last edited: Aug 15, 2017
  7. mdrejhon

    mdrejhon Member Guru

    Messages:
    103
    Likes Received:
    61
    GPU:
    4 Flux Capacitors in SLI
    Chief Blur Buster here.
    No, it is not.

    CS:GO, now over a decade old, is still a very popular game today -- and even has had million-dollar eSports prizes awarded today. This game runs regularly at >1000fps with top-of-the-line GPUs.

    Our extensive tests showed that (both at 60Hz and 240Hz)

    [​IMG]

    [​IMG]

    Takeaways:
    - Increasing framerate reduces lag
    - Increasing refresh rate reduces lag
    - Increasing framerate reduces min/avg/max spread (see 1000fps apples-vs-apples)
    - Increasing refresh rate reduces min/avg/max spread
    - Doing all the above, created the best competitive results during VSYNC OFF situation.

    I love variable refresh rates, especially for my videogames whose frame rates that can't exceed refresh rate. However, for practically a million players running CS:GO and other popular Source Engine games, doing VSYNC OFF + 1000fps still reigns supreme in uber-low input lag.

    As a rule of thumb:
    • Person getting low and stuttery frame rates -- use GSYNC/FreeSync
    • Person who hates motion blur and consistent framerates -- use ULMB/LightBoost at 85fps@Hz, or 100fps@100Hz or 120fps@120Hz
    • Person who likes near-lagless VSYNC ON -- Reduced-lag VSYNC ON look is achievable via GSYNC/FreeSync + frame cap. For example 60fps for emulators = 2 less frames of lag than VSYNC ON 60Hz.
    • Person who needs ultra-low-lag & ultra-high frame rates -- use VSYNC OFF + older engine + beefy GPU + Ultra high Hz monitor for lowest lag

    Not hard-n-fast rules, but good general guidelines for common situations.

    Lag consistency can be quite important too. Some people are sensitive to erratic lag, so the 240Hz upgrade can help indirectly even if not sensitive to the "visible" improvement.
     
    Last edited: Aug 15, 2017
  8. Reddoguk

    Reddoguk Ancient Guru

    Messages:
    1,741
    Likes Received:
    137
    GPU:
    Guru3d GTX 980 G1
    I think it's just like anything else, meaning that if you could play @ 480fps/hz then eventually going back to 120/144 would be horrendous.

    Like going from 144hz back to 60hz is just bad, so bad in fact that it makes me feel sick playing @ 60hz.

    With a 480hz monitor you'd most likely have to play @ 800 x 600 just to be able to reach 480fps.
     
  9. ubercake

    ubercake Master Guru

    Messages:
    214
    Likes Received:
    44
    GPU:
    EVGA 2080 Ti XC Blk
    I saw it in 3d and HFR (High Frame Rate - that's what the movie people called it). I thought it looked amazing.
     
  10. Stormyandcold

    Stormyandcold Ancient Guru

    Messages:
    5,212
    Likes Received:
    145
    GPU:
    MSI GTX1070 GamingX
    lol, yeah, CSGO is the only game I can think of right now that would "benefit" from such a high refresh rate. However, considering how big CSGO is, I have no doubt that there's a market for this product. I certainly wouldn't complain having such a monitor.

    I can see the pro-gaming scene jumping on this. Will we see a future where pro-gaming starts limiting the hz-rates allowed in competition? Interesting times ahead.
     

  11. Prince Valiant

    Prince Valiant Master Guru

    Messages:
    693
    Likes Received:
    59
    GPU:
    EVGA GTX 1080 ti
    Any chance you guys could do some testing in other games/engines? I'd be curious to see how other old engines stack up (ie. Id or Unreal) and something more modern as well.
     
  12. holler

    holler Master Guru

    Messages:
    220
    Likes Received:
    39
    GPU:
    2x AMD Radeon VII
    Nice, my life is complete; I can run half life 2 at 480 fps in all its refresh rate glory.
     
  13. Labeled90

    Labeled90 New Member

    Messages:
    5
    Likes Received:
    0
    GPU:
    GTX 770 ACX 2GB
    I disagree that it is overkill, getting 480fps in csgo is very plausible, I don't think these would be aimed at mainstream games anyway, and if they come with Gsync or freesync it gives you plenty of headroom for any title.

    Generally I've noticed faster refresh-rates are just easier to look at for extended periods of time.
     
  14. sverek

    sverek Ancient Guru

    Messages:
    5,374
    Likes Received:
    2,269
    GPU:
    NOVIDIA -0.5GB
    You probably gonna need 256 tick server to make better use of it though.
     
  15. stereoman

    stereoman Master Guru

    Messages:
    739
    Likes Received:
    69
    GPU:
    MSI 1070 Seahawk EK
    The sweetspot for me is 120hz anything below that and I can perceive it, I run my Gsync monitors at 144hz though and I haven't used 60hz in years, even my projector is 120hz which is great with frame rate interpolation using SVP,

    480hz does seem overkill though but i'd have to see it first.
     

  16. jorimt

    jorimt Member

    Messages:
    43
    Likes Received:
    10
    GPU:
    EVGA 1080 Ti FTW3
    I think one point is being missed here (and in the general discussion about the original 480Hz announcement across the sites that posted it); The ultimate aim is to achieve 1:1 input response and lossless visual feedback to user input. Even 480Hz doesn't provide that.

    Until there is no perceivable motion blur incurred by the display, and no input latency incurred by the system, input device or display, we are still adding an extra layer to the human response element, which is already a limit in itself.

    I don't think anyone is arguing that the jump from 144Hz to 240Hz is subtle visually when compared to the initial jump from 60Hz to 120Hz, but to conflate that with the necessity to more accurately simulate instantaneous response to user input, and diminish that need is a mistake; just because technology started with a limitation does not mean it should remain with it because "diminishing returns."

    Also, just because one can't have it now, does not make it useless.

    And on a side note, there is always an immediate benefit with the increase in refresh rate: scanout speed. Frames are being scanned in and delivered faster at higher refresh rates regardless of the framerate, as my article shows:

    [​IMG]
     
    yasamoka and claydough like this.
  17. drac

    drac Ancient Guru

    Messages:
    1,747
    Likes Received:
    30
    GPU:
    Strix RTX2080 Ti OC
    The whole you need the same fps as the hz mentality really isn't such a hard and fast rule as people think. Yep you'l see more benefit when this is the situation. Though there is a noticeable difference between say 60fps at 60hz and 60fps at 144hz, so I bet this holds true at even higher hz.

    480hz at 4k is gunna rock btw!
     
  18. Neo Cyrus

    Neo Cyrus Ancient Guru

    Messages:
    9,240
    Likes Received:
    315
    GPU:
    GTX 1080 Ti @ 2GHz
    480Hz at 4K... 4K is 4x 1080p, 480Hz is 8x 60 for a nice total of 32x more GPU power required than an average system (give or take 15% based on the game's scaling). Good luck powering that, ever, especially considering even if it's not GPU limited, due to the (bad?) way games are coded these days even if you have the CPU power it's still going to be a limiting factor because no game seems to properly make use of available CPU resources beyond 4 cores.

    I've seen 144Hz, I've seen 240Hz of the exact same thing, 240 is obviously smoother but it's not the end of the world going back to 144Hz. Hell, I'd be happy with 120 considering I'm stuck with 60 for the foreseeable future. I look forward to the day that games can be played at 1440p @ 144Hz without having to pay $2000 for GPUs.
     
    HonoredShadow likes this.
  19. ZippingPear

    ZippingPear New Member

    Messages:
    5
    Likes Received:
    0
    GPU:
    16 GB
    Honestly, I'm perfectly happy with 60hz 99% of the time. I have a 144hz TN panel which I rarely use these days, and I just don't notice any difference compared to 60hz except in very rare cases in some high speed racing games with motion blur turned off. I feel like high refresh rate monitors are never going to be worth the money for me. I guess my brain gets easily fooled into perceiving smooth motion and that could only be a good thing for my pocket and game experience.
     
  20. Jonathanese

    Jonathanese Member

    Messages:
    30
    Likes Received:
    11
    GPU:
    STRIX 1070 1200/9200
    At 480Hz you ARE going to see a difference in some situations but it has more to do with those image copies as I feel like 480Hz is well beyond what the eye can react to even at the highest of contrast ratios and brightnesses.

    The thing is, this is exactly what motion blur is there for. It is basically anti-aliasing for frames. In fact, it is a great comparison.

    A lot of people like to say that "4k is such a high resolution that you don't need anti-aliasing". That's not what anti-aliasing does. It's not what it's for. You will still get shimmering and moire as it is simply the nature of rendering without some data "between the pixels" being incorporated into the pixel color.

    In the same way, if you were sampling something 1000 times per second, but moved it 1000m/s, you would get a series of images 1m apart.

    This is one of the reasons 24fps has been able to last so long in film. It is incorporating a infinite number of samples between the frames. I imagine it would be virtually impossible to distinguish a 240Hz from 120Hz if the source material was recorded on film.

    So the function of a 480Hz monitor would have little to do with the eye itself, and everything to do with input response and games without motion-blur (or bad motion blur that isn't worth using.)
     

Share This Page