480Hz Monitor Display Panel Prototype Spotted

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

  1. Fox2232

    Fox2232 Ancient Guru

    Messages:
    9,755
    Likes Received:
    2,203
    GPU:
    5700XT+AW@240Hz
    No, my 240Hz AW2518HF eats same 19W as my 120/144Hz XL2420T(Z). But for sure Alienware made back side larger and added fins for passive heat release.
     
    KissSh0t likes this.
  2. nhlkoho

    nhlkoho Ancient Guru

    Messages:
    7,716
    Likes Received:
    339
    GPU:
    RTX 2080ti FE
    Extremely easy to see the difference even on the desktop. Just drag a window around the desktop and notice how smooth it is and then go back to 60hz and notice how stuttery.
     
    Solfaur likes this.
  3. RzrTrek

    RzrTrek Ancient Guru

    Messages:
    2,345
    Likes Received:
    628
    GPU:
    RX 580 ❤ MESA 19.2
    Funny reading my own comment on page 1.
     
    Solfaur likes this.
  4. Solfaur

    Solfaur Ancient Guru

    Messages:
    7,148
    Likes Received:
    686
    GPU:
    MSI GTX 1080Ti Ga.X
    Haha, mine too on page 3. Like 3 months after my post I got my Dell S2716DG at a bargain price and couldn't be happier. I do miss my good ol' U2711 colors wise, but I'd take high refresh over that any day.

    I'm still looking for my dream 30+ inch, 1440p/4k, 144+ Hz, g-sync ips/oled monitor. The more time goes on, the further I see such tech combined coming out, yet alone other crazy high Hz specs people talked about here. :oops:
     
    RzrTrek likes this.

  5. vf

    vf Ancient Guru

    Messages:
    1,749
    Likes Received:
    65
    GPU:
    AMD Radeon™
    What's your in game handle?
     
  6. Killian38

    Killian38 Master Guru

    Messages:
    312
    Likes Received:
    88
    GPU:
    1060
    I have one of these. My screen saver is that of a fireplace. I use that screen saver during the winter. To bad i tossed a log at it tho =/
     
    0blivious likes this.
  7. 0blivious

    0blivious Ancient Guru

    Messages:
    2,583
    Likes Received:
    226
    GPU:
    MSi 1070 X / 970 / 780Ti
    I'm a 144hz 1080p user. 480 FPS? This doesn't sound like something useable or even all that useful. Even for hardcore FPS enthusiasts, the diminishing returns are off the charts. For the rest of us, as hardware advances, so do the games and the eye candy eats up the FPS.

    I think my sweet spot is over 100hz. I want a new monitor but everything I like (ultrawide) is crazy expensive so I wait. Someday, I'll pull the trigger. I can't go back to 60hz after using 144. Lunacy! :p
     
  8. Fox2232

    Fox2232 Ancient Guru

    Messages:
    9,755
    Likes Received:
    2,203
    GPU:
    5700XT+AW@240Hz
    Have to agree, 34'' Ultrawide 1080p IPS monitor costs about same as 52'' non-Ultrawide 4K IPS TV with some version of HDR. And both have Freesync.
     
  9. Neo Cyrus

    Neo Cyrus Ancient Guru

    Messages:
    9,240
    Likes Received:
    315
    GPU:
    GTX 1080 Ti @ 2GHz
    For anyone still thinking about a high refresh rate monitor, go for it. IMO going from 60 to 90, increasing the frame rate by 50% makes such a difference in perceived smoothness that you'll notice it in any scene. Sure you can feel the difference above that, but it's very much diminishing returns as mentioned, and going to 90 is such a huge improvement most people would be happy. I got a 1440p 144Hz monitor a while ago, and until (non-insanely priced) actually HDR compliant 1440p/144Hz+ monitors become a thing I don't see myself upgrading.

    What I'm saying is if any of you see a lower than 120Hz monitor, like 100 or something, and are considering it, go for it, going from 60 to 100 would be great.
     
  10. Fox2232

    Fox2232 Ancient Guru

    Messages:
    9,755
    Likes Received:
    2,203
    GPU:
    5700XT+AW@240Hz
    It should be understood that bigger the screen, higher fps is needed for same feeling of smoothness. I expect that yours 1440p screen is bigger than my 23,5''. So, you need higher fps more than I do for comfort.
    And apparently some people are comfortable with motion blur, therefore they trick themselves that they see something smoother at cost of having higher input lag.
     

  11. RealNC

    RealNC Ancient Guru

    Messages:
    3,109
    Likes Received:
    1,339
    GPU:
    EVGA GTX 980 Ti FTW
    Really? It's a night and day difference:

    https://www.testufo.com

    If you can't see the huge clarity improvement of 120Hz there, then I must say there's something wrong with your eyes :p
     
  12. D3M1G0D

    D3M1G0D Ancient Guru

    Messages:
    1,964
    Likes Received:
    1,256
    GPU:
    2 x GeForce 1080 Ti
    Do a direct comparison. I have a dual-monitor setup with a 165hz monitor and a 60hz monitor and switching between them is like night and day (60hz seems incredibly choppy after playing at 144+hz). Games like Doom allow you to switch monitors mid-game and you can easily tell a difference. Play at 120hz for a while, then drop it down to 60 and you'll notice.
     
  13. -Tj-

    -Tj- Ancient Guru

    Messages:
    16,415
    Likes Received:
    1,498
    GPU:
    Zotac GTX980Ti OC
    I have it on steam
    The||Hunter

    But ingame shows it as TheHunter

    Can add me if you want and we can play sometimes, Im mostly at dm. Instagib it goes, but I need new mouse for that.. my main button saw better days at this ancient razer's copperhead, now it doesn't work always xD
     
  14. mdrejhon

    mdrejhon Member Guru

    Messages:
    103
    Likes Received:
    61
    GPU:
    4 Flux Capacitors in SLI
    Sometimes it's technological or expectations (e.g. expecting 60fps@120Hz to be better than 60fps@60Hz). It's unfortuantely common; see below.

    You do have to fix your mouse microstutters until your mouse isn't the stutter/motionblur weak link. As mice gets ultra-smooth -- good 1000Hz mouse with good mouse feet with proper ULMB-optimized tuning (center "Pointer Speed" setting in Control Panel, highest "accurate" DPI setting in Logitech/Razer app (usually 800dpi, sometimes 1600 if super-good sensor) and very low sensitivity in-game menus). A mouse configured for optimal ULMB smoothness (which are often settings slightly different than many competitive players) combined with a good eSports mousepad. That combo really smoothes out the "LightBoost amplified microstuttering" behaviour, and makes mouseturns as smooth as keyboard strafe left/right. It is a matter of personal preference, if your preferred mousefeel has more stutters for competitive, but when optimized for minimization of motion blur, you need drastic minimization of stutters.

    Remember that the lack of motion blur, reveals tiny microstutters normally hidden even by 240fps sample-and-hold. 240Hz sample-and-hold is still 4ms MPRT (1/240sec) and strobed/ULMB is still noticeably clearer to many people (1/1000sec) at least in TestUFO.

    "TestUFO perfect smoothness" in my games that way. It's VERY HARD to get a mouse to get "TestUFO smooth" in strobed mode, but you can do it if you tweak, tweak, tweak, buy the right mouse, buy the right mousepad, make sure you have a GPU capable of framerate matching refreshrate, use VSYNC ON or use the various low-lag VSYNC tricks to avoid the lag compromises of avoiding tearing & microstutters from unsynchronized framerates. Once you've ironed out many weak links, the benefits of 1ms MPRT becomes startingly visible (TestUFO perfect smoothness gets duplicated inside the game).

    Now on a related topic....MPRT 0.5ms

    I can even tell apart MPRT 0.5ms (which will require 2000Hz to avoid strobing) versus MPRT 1.0ms (which will require 1000Hz to avoid strobing) if the game runs at a framerate matching refresh rate.

    Currently, MPRT 0.5ms is possible today with:
    1. BenQ DyAc/BlurReduction with "Pulse Width" reduced below 50
    2. NVIDIA ULMB with "ULMB Pulse Width" reduced below 50
    3. The very dark "RTC Extreme" setting on Acer monitors. (not usually usable because it's dark)
    4. An upcoming monitor that I'm working with a mainstream manufacturer (NDA)

    Unfortunately MPRT 0.5ms is extremely dark because it's a brief 0.5ms flash of the backlight today -- currently the only way to achieve MPRT 0.5 is via strobe backlight. So most people never use MPRT 0.5ms because it too goddamn dark.

    However, the human visibility benefit is indisputable when someone tries the TestUFO 3000pix/sec Panning Street Map Test -- you cannot read street name labels on the moving map until MPRT falls to approximately 0.5ms. Now, if we can get that blurlessly, brightly, laglessly, strobelessly, that would be totally amazing-- but that would require 2000fps@2000Hz to achieve MPRT 0.5ms without lag complaints, without darkness complaints, without tearing complaints, without flicker complaints. If we could bypass technological limitations of mouse microstutter and game microstutter. Today, far more than 50% of diminishing returns of displays are technolgical constraints, rather than human eye limitations.

    Eventually we'll get brighter strobe backlights capable of MPRT 0.5, and there will be additional ways to reduce mouse microstutters that hides the motion clarity improvements. Most mice setups prevent you from seeing clarity improvements beyond MPRT 5ms, because they stutter more than keyboard strafe left/right -- e.g. reading tiny text on walls while the walls scrolls horizontally. Getting that TestUFO-perfect is hard with a mouse, especially at 3000 pixels/second panning speed.

    For now, 1ms MPRT is definitely the sweet spot, and other weak links (the mouse pollrate granularity and mouse microstutter weak links) makes it difficult to get 0.5ms MPRT benefits visible in other software than TestUFO, but some advanced users already do today.

    That said, strobing (ULMB, LightBoost, DyAc, etc) doesn't eliminate the need for higher-Hz. Strobing doesn't eliminate phantom-arraying though (e.g. staring at the crosshairs, and seeing things stepper past your vision -- like dots of bright lights on dark background) -- it's the same problem as the mousearrow test I did at 480Hz -- you need ultra-high-Hz to fix those phantomarray effects without adding GPU motion blur effects (unwanted blur to solve the stroboscopic problem).

    As it is, many people's setups playing games 40-70fps on a 144Hz monitor, with stutters all over the place (GPU stutters overlapped with mouse stutters from a cheap mouse on plain desk surface, using microstutter-amplifying VSYNC OFF combined with microstutter-amplifying ULMB) -- and it's no wonder many don't see a big diff between 60Hz and 120Hz. 60fps@120Hz versus 60fps@60Hz is pretty much the same motion blur. In fact, sometimes stutters annoy people so much that they prefer 60Hz over 120Hz (unless using FreeSync/GSYNC to fix the stutters). You really need to jack-upwards your framerate and fix your microstutter weak links, and work both ends of the equation, to make 60Hz vs 120hz blatantly visible for many use cases like eye-tracking the flying ball in Rocket League, or a low-altitude helicoptor flyby at full framerate.

    Doubling the framerate halves sample-and-hold based motion blur, but higher Hz can make makes a specific stutter-amplitude twice as visible -- A 20 pixel error (stutter jump) is more visible at 120Hz 960pix/sec (960/120 = 8 pixels movement per frame), than at 60Hz 960pixels/sec (960/60 = 16 pixels movement per frame) because 20:8 is a bigger ratio than 20:16 .... So you definitely need to work harder to fix your stutters during higher Hz ... including mouse microstuttering. At 240Hz, your stutter error margin (stutter amplitudes) need to be less than 1/4 the amplitude it is at 60Hz, so a lot of optimization needs to be done along the whole chain (including the mouse and the game) -- otherwise, 240Hz benefits aren't as big as they should be.

    Likewise, same applies to strobing (e.g. ULMB). If your strobing reduces MPRT by 75%, you also need to reduce your microstutter amplitudes by 75% too. On 120Hz ULMB monitors, MPRT 1.0ms is 1/8th the refresh cycle of sample-hold 120Hz, so the same microstutter amplitude are about 8x more visible (which is why amplified visibility of microstuttering when you turn on ULMB). So if you wondered why your game looks so goddamn jittery when you turn on ULMB, now you know why. The disappearance of MPRT-related motion blur (that normally hides the microstuttering).

    Even many monitors GtG/overdrive is not well optimized. Imperfect 1ms that resembles more like 2ms GtG. 2ms GtG is 50% of a 240Hz refresh cycle, and begins to interfere with MPRT. GtG limits becomes easily human visible when overdrive is imperfect -- nearly all of us can see artifacts from millisecond-scale imperfections in the GtG curve from 1ms verdrive! At 2000 pixels/second motion (a horizontal scroll of about one screenwidth per second at 1920-pixel-wide), 1ms equals 2 pixels. An imperfect overdrive can mean a 2 pixel corona (bright or discolored edge), for example. Usually the overdrive artifacts extends a full refresh cycle (4ms at 240Hz) so it's actually 8 pixel coronas or ghosts at 1000 pixels/sec, since it's just essentially uncontrolled pixel-transition momentum coasting until the next pixel-voltage-pass (refresh cycle). Either way, LCD engineering is really hard to get pixels to transition fast AND accurately. Getting great clarity (whether you need to strobe or not) requires _extremely_ good and clean GtG.

    Ideally, to keep GtG below visibility noisefloor, GtG should be only 1/4th a refresh cycle -- and that is exactly why I am excited about the new 0.5ms LCD panels for 480Hz.

    The 0.5ms panels (if properly overdrive-tuned) and will help 240Hz too -- such GtGs become much more important again in the Hertz stratosphere -- to reduce 240Hz ghosting problems we all see today that sometimes limits some of them from achieving the max theoretical clarity benefits of 240Hz (In many cases, perfect 240fps@240Hz motion looks only 1.5x sharper than perfect 120fps@120Hz motion -- when Blur Busters Law mathematics says it should be exactly 2x sharper for a given TestUFO motion. The best 240Hz monitors comes really close, about 1.8x or 1.9x sharper in unstrobed TestUFO than 120Hz but many 240Hz monitors don't even achieve that).

    Some of these weak links are in user control (proper configuring of mouse, proper configuring of game, upgrading the GPU to keep framerate at least matching refreshrate), though it can be an annoyingly fiddly tradeoff between lag-vs-smoothness.

    Currently, more than 50% of the diminishing-returns noisefloor problems are tech related instead of human vision related, so we've got a lot of optimizing over coming decades -- to do before we hit the human vision limitation brick wall -- most realize this when reading through to the bottom 2/3rds of the 1000Hz Journey article.

    Humankind is finishing the resolution race (retina achieved), and now working on the dynamic range race (HDR). This will gradually turn into a refresh rate race ("retina" refresh rates require well excess of 1000Hz). CRTs never could go retina due to phosphormask, and high-Hz are stymied by things like LCD GtG and mouse microstutters. Etc. In twenty to fifty years from now, it's possible 1000Hz displays may be a low-cost-add feature like retina displays no longer cost much more than low-resolution displays today (witness cheap phones & cheap 4K televisions). But it's going to be a long progress lasting decades, not nearly as fast as CPU progress or SSD progress. Dozens of display businesses are researching 480Hz already with a path to 1000Hz. I for one, welcome our 1000Hz overlords.

    Obviously, need to work on multiple weak link at a time. At the end user level. At the manufacturer level. At the game developer level. Etc. To lower the diminishing-returns floor bit by bit over the years.

    TL;DR: There's a lot of work to be done, technologically, to improve displays.
     
    Last edited: Nov 30, 2018
    yasamoka likes this.
  15. Corrupt^

    Corrupt^ Ancient Guru

    Messages:
    6,887
    Likes Received:
    260
    GPU:
    ASUS 1080GTX STRIX
    I actually don't believe our eyes are that great. What I do believe is that our brain is capable if picking up on things being "off" between both our sense of motor skills and what we visually perceive a lot more then we give it credit for. I have a similar issue in BF V with audio and visually seeing people. Some people hit you before coming around the corner due to latency issues. Do I think my eyes are that great? No, what I do think is that my brain is very capable of noticing something is "off" and out of sync between audio & vision.

    Our brain imo is VERY good at perceiving these things when you combine information from more then 1 of the 5 senses. Especially when it's a task involving repetition such as muscle memory.

    I notice a few milliseconds (sub 10 ms) of smoothing on older 3310 sensor mice, I'm not claiming I can see it, but it feels... "off" for lack of a better word. It's one of the reasons I keep telling people: pick a shape you like, but make sure it has a 3360 sensor in it.

    Also, as much as I believe higher Hz is great, when games their FPS drops below the refreshrate, it's very noticeable.

    Maybe... just maybe with a 1000 Hz monitor, the latency is so low that it actually sort of gets back in sync somewhat, but currently, dipping below 120 fps feels really weird on a 120 Hz monitor.

    Also, higher mouse Hz reduces screen tearing because of smoother camera movement (it would take me a ton of digging on another forum, but someone posted high res, high fps camera footage comparing 1000 vs 500 Hz on mice).

    Though I do think banning latency all together is a good thing as long as we do it on every frontier: reduce audio latency, reduce input latency, reduce visual latency, ... . Mice can actually go up to 8Khz on USB 3.0.
     
    Last edited: Dec 1, 2018

  16. -Tj-

    -Tj- Ancient Guru

    Messages:
    16,415
    Likes Received:
    1,498
    GPU:
    Zotac GTX980Ti OC
    120hz vsync and bellow feels strange, but on 144hz it doesnt. Even at 90fps..
    E.g. gta5 @120hz, I have to set it back to 144hz and looks and plays smooth again.
     
  17. alanm

    alanm Ancient Guru

    Messages:
    8,946
    Likes Received:
    1,311
    GPU:
    Asus 2080 Dual OC
    144hz displays were introduced as a more suitable refresh rate for 3d monitors, since when the frames are split in 2 (for the 3d effect), its 72hz, which is divisible by the 24 frames per second for movies allowing smoother motion. 144hz then spread to other monitors and became the standard. Maybe some can can tell the diff between 120hz vs 144hz, but doubt very many can at that narrow range. Its not entirely the refresh rate that matters, the screen tech is another factor. Monitors with LightBoost capability @ 120hz kills 144hz (or higher hz) displays without Lightboost. Gsync, Freesync, etc, can run at lower refresh rates and FPS smoothly. I've owned an LB capable one (Samsung Sa950d 120hz) and it was near CRT quality motion. Only problem is, 1080p. But each to their own, I prefer large 4k screens even at the penalty of 60hz. No competitive gaming, leisurely, slower paced games do fine with me, as they do with millions of other people (console gamers). I dont "puke" at 60hz. Sure I can tell a difference, but other factors (screen size, higher res) are more important to me.

    Not all people have the same visual or motion sensitivity or who may care enough to make compromises for one way or another. Anyone who tells you all peoples preferences must defer to some absolute standard regardless of other factors or aspects they may prefer, just laugh and walk away. Have a feeling you would still prefer your large widescreen over a smaller, lower res one irrespective of refresh rate.
     
    HandR likes this.
  18. Corrupt^

    Corrupt^ Ancient Guru

    Messages:
    6,887
    Likes Received:
    260
    GPU:
    ASUS 1080GTX STRIX
    I'll know when my 27 inch 120 Hz monitor breaks I guess, because they're all 144Hz or higher now. Though I don't use VSync.
     
  19. K.S.

    K.S. Ancient Guru

    Messages:
    1,748
    Likes Received:
    404
    GPU:
    RTX 2080 GAMING OC
    Could see the application for Pilot simulation in attempts to increase hand-eye coordination but beyond that currently not sure... Boeing ... Airforce... *shrugs*
     
  20. Corrupt^

    Corrupt^ Ancient Guru

    Messages:
    6,887
    Likes Received:
    260
    GPU:
    ASUS 1080GTX STRIX
    I think it doesn't really matter what for, anything requiring solid coordination between multiple senses could benefit from reduced latency on all fronts. That's kind of my point. Pilot simulation is but 1 IRL example.
     

Share This Page