5 ms·

What would be the use case for such high refresh rates?

by SushiHippie 2y ago

xnorswap 2y ago
Does better fidelity need a use case?
- thom 2y ago
  There has to be some point of diminishing or indeed imperceptible returns.
  - lylejantzi3rd 2y ago
    According to LTT, that's somewhere between 240hz and 500hz. Does High FPS make you a better gamer? Ft. Shroud (60hz vs 144hz vs 240hz): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OX31kZbAXsA https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OX31kZbAXsA You don't deserve this monitor - does 360hz gaming make a difference?: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3iY0figLAwo https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3iY0figLAwo I THOUGHT I Wanted This - AW2524H 500Hz Review: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ewo8tt6bgZU https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ewo8tt6bgZU
    - aranelsurion 2y ago
      As a side observation, the clickbaitness of the titles seem to have increased with LTT over time.
wongarsu 2y ago
It's only 4 times more than the 240Hz gaming monitors sold by basically every brand. You are getting into diminishing returns. 30->60 and 60->120 are big steps up, both in terms of smoother motion and enabling better human performance. For example various experiments seem to show that tracking enemies in first person shooters is easier with 120Hz. 240Hz is already in the realm where it's better, but not much better. 1000Hz is probably a pretty marginal improvement. But people pay big bucks for marginal improvements all the time. The audio space does much crazier things for much less tangible improvements
- Dalewyn 2y ago
  As someone with a 240Hz, 1920x1080 IPS monitor from Dell, I definitely agree 120Hz -> 240Hz is nowhere as big an improvement as 60Hz -> 120Hz is. That being said, I would still buy a 240Hz instead of 120Hz if I had a choice and the price difference isn't that much. There is still a perceivable improvement as far as I'm concerned. On a tangential note, I frankly think 4K (let alone 8K) is a waste of money if you're still rocking 60Hz. The smoothness of 120Hz or above makes a far bigger impact than the higher DPI from rendering 4K. Everything from reading texts to watching videos to playing games benefits from higher refresh rates and to a greater degree than from higher resolutions.
  - ssl-3 2y ago
    > Everything from reading texts to watching videos Video is still generally 24, 25, ~30, 48, 50, or ~60Hz, is it not?
    - LightHugger 2y ago
      Video needs to catch up to higher refresh rates, but there are also those of us who regularly watch videos at 2x or higher speeds, so there is that edge case where a 60hz video can benefit from a 120hz monitor
      - mrob 2y ago
        Yes. And 1000Hz lets you get reasonable frame pacing even at non-integer multiples of 60fps.
    - deleted 2y ago
      [deleted]
    - fasa99 2y ago
      video is typically way less than 120 Hz for sure. There are ways to get your PC video player to increase / motion interpolate your video (similar to how some TVs do it and everything somehow looks like an old soap opera). I myself have found it to work via potplayer with "avisynth processing" enabled plus various tweaks you have to lookup (reddit thread somewhere) to make it work -- presumably it would crank to 1000 hz but never tried.
mrob 2y ago
1000Hz is enough for near-realistic motion clarity without strobing (which is visible well into the kilohertz via phantom array effect).
rixrax 2y ago
This is what I am wondering every time I am updating my TV (to a larger model, better HDR, etc. ]). I almost exclusively use the TV to watch movies. Movies that have been shot at 24fps, or 29.97 or 48fps. So this being my use case, all I need is that the player chain and the TV can change refresh rate to the actual movie refresh rate/fps. For my use case, is there anything I am missing here? Or have I been in the wrong all these years to brush off the TV sales guys at the store trying to push me 240Hz etc. latest fads?
- throwuxiytayq 2y ago
  If I recall correctly what a TV was, it’s not clear to me why you’d ever want to have one. This article is about monitors.
  - wegfawefgawefg 2y ago
    Okay you. Its common for people to call the big led/oled monitor you put in ur living room a tv. And as far as I know there's no difference between them tech wise. My tv is a 65inch 4k 120hz oled panel. Everyone calls it a tv. They are also still sold as "tv"'s online. Smart tv, etc. Sidenote the word monitor is also a pretty clear sign of age. If I hear somebody call my screen a monitor its like when my grandma calls the toilet the comode.
    - Filligree 2y ago
      There’s a pretty big difference between them technically, mostly the latency of the display chain. TVs can have signal input to picture on screen latencies of dozens of milliseconds, whereas a monitor would be considered defective if it was more than one frame. This only matters for interactive content, but it’s where a lot of the price difference comes from.
      - jasomill 2y ago
        Most TVs have a "game mode" that reduces latency to a single frame time, give or take a few milliseconds[1]. Not as good as the best monitors, but close, and certainly not dozens of milliseconds. [1] https://www.rtings.com/tv/tests/inputs/input-lag https://www.rtings.com/tv/tests/inputs/input-lag
Aurornis 2y ago
1000Hz is into the point of marketing gimmicks. Higher refresh rates in general produce smoother scrolling, lower latency screen updates, more fluid motion, and a generally more immersive computing experience. Going from 60Hz to 120Hz is a noticeable upgrade for most people, though others don’t notice much. Higher rates offer marginal improvements in smoothness and latency, but it’s really marginal. At 120Hz you’re getting a frame every 8ms (if the GPU can provide it), while 240Hz drops that to 4ms and 1000Hz to 1ms. Competitive FPS gamers will already push hardware and settings to 200+ fps for optimal smoothness. Add AI frame generation and you could get even higher rates, though frame generation introduces its own lag by necessity of having to interpolate between two frames.
chongli 2y ago
The ability to use touch and drag gestures without any visible delay [1]. This dramatically improves usability as a drawing and painting tool for artists. [1] https://youtu.be/vOvQCPLkPt4 https://youtu.be/vOvQCPLkPt4
- luyu_wu 2y ago
  Great video! This is more a problem of the various other hardware interfaces though, considering even a 120Hz panel has a maximum of 6ms of latency between it's refreshes. As a person who does some digital art from time to time though, I'm depressed we still don't have that tech 12 years later...
  - chongli 2y ago
    Well even with a 6ms refresh rate, you still have the inherent LCD grey-to-grey latency issue. Latency is a pipeline issue though. Every stage can add a bit of latency and the total is the sum of all the stages. So with a 120Hz panel you really have a minimum of 6ms latency, with more to be added by software and other hardware in the pipeline.
atoav 2y ago
One odd usecase is monitors that you can take videos from without weird flicker artifacts.
londons_explore 2y ago
There are various visual effects that can be done with high frame rates. For example, mount the screen on the wheel of a moving car and show an image spinning the opposite direction at the same speed and it appears stationary. But if you have a low refresh rate, it just appears blurred.
willis936 2y ago
Another blurbusters article has the answer. We're reaching for "allegory of the cave" tier visual reproductions. https://blurbusters.com/blur-busters-law-amazing-journey-to-future-1000hz-displays-with-blurfree-sample-and-hold/ https://blurbusters.com/blur-busters-law-amazing-journey-to-... https://www.lrc.rpi.edu/programs/solidstate/assist/pdf/AR-Flicker.pdf#page=7 https://www.lrc.rpi.edu/programs/solidstate/assist/pdf/AR-Fl...
layer8 2y ago
CRT-like motion clarity. It will also require higher brightness though, to compensate for black frame insertion.
prmoustache 2y ago
The simple fact that it is announced by a company selling refresh rate testing hardware shows the improvements in term of ergonomy/real world usage have plateaued past a certain refresh rate. The only remaining practical use case for increases is a metaphorical penis size contest.
- zamadatix 2y ago
  The site has been around since anything over 60 FPS was blazing and has been saying 1000 Hz is the ideal target for nearly as long, some articles on why are linked throughout.

What would be the use case for such high refresh rates?

xnorswap 2y ago

Does better fidelity need a use case?

thom 2y ago
There has to be some point of diminishing or indeed imperceptible returns.
- lylejantzi3rd 2y ago
  According to LTT, that's somewhere between 240hz and 500hz. Does High FPS make you a better gamer? Ft. Shroud (60hz vs 144hz vs 240hz): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OX31kZbAXsA https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OX31kZbAXsA You don't deserve this monitor - does 360hz gaming make a difference?: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3iY0figLAwo https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3iY0figLAwo I THOUGHT I Wanted This - AW2524H 500Hz Review: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ewo8tt6bgZU https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ewo8tt6bgZU
  - aranelsurion 2y ago
    As a side observation, the clickbaitness of the titles seem to have increased with LTT over time.

wongarsu 2y ago

It's only 4 times more than the 240Hz gaming monitors sold by basically every brand. You are getting into diminishing returns. 30->60 and 60->120 are big steps up, both in terms of smoother motion and enabling better human performance. For example various experiments seem to show that tracking enemies in first person shooters is easier with 120Hz. 240Hz is already in the realm where it's better, but not much better. 1000Hz is probably a pretty marginal improvement. But people pay big bucks for marginal improvements all the time. The audio space does much crazier things for much less tangible improvements

Dalewyn 2y ago
As someone with a 240Hz, 1920x1080 IPS monitor from Dell, I definitely agree 120Hz -> 240Hz is nowhere as big an improvement as 60Hz -> 120Hz is. That being said, I would still buy a 240Hz instead of 120Hz if I had a choice and the price difference isn't that much. There is still a perceivable improvement as far as I'm concerned. On a tangential note, I frankly think 4K (let alone 8K) is a waste of money if you're still rocking 60Hz. The smoothness of 120Hz or above makes a far bigger impact than the higher DPI from rendering 4K. Everything from reading texts to watching videos to playing games benefits from higher refresh rates and to a greater degree than from higher resolutions.
- ssl-3 2y ago
  > Everything from reading texts to watching videos Video is still generally 24, 25, ~30, 48, 50, or ~60Hz, is it not?
  - LightHugger 2y ago
    Video needs to catch up to higher refresh rates, but there are also those of us who regularly watch videos at 2x or higher speeds, so there is that edge case where a 60hz video can benefit from a 120hz monitor
    - mrob 2y ago
      Yes. And 1000Hz lets you get reasonable frame pacing even at non-integer multiples of 60fps.
  - deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
  - fasa99 2y ago
    video is typically way less than 120 Hz for sure. There are ways to get your PC video player to increase / motion interpolate your video (similar to how some TVs do it and everything somehow looks like an old soap opera). I myself have found it to work via potplayer with "avisynth processing" enabled plus various tweaks you have to lookup (reddit thread somewhere) to make it work -- presumably it would crank to 1000 hz but never tried.

mrob 2y ago

1000Hz is enough for near-realistic motion clarity without strobing (which is visible well into the kilohertz via phantom array effect).

rixrax 2y ago

This is what I am wondering every time I am updating my TV (to a larger model, better HDR, etc. ]). I almost exclusively use the TV to watch movies. Movies that have been shot at 24fps, or 29.97 or 48fps. So this being my use case, all I need is that the player chain and the TV can change refresh rate to the actual movie refresh rate/fps. For my use case, is there anything I am missing here? Or have I been in the wrong all these years to brush off the TV sales guys at the store trying to push me 240Hz etc. latest fads?

throwuxiytayq 2y ago
If I recall correctly what a TV was, it’s not clear to me why you’d ever want to have one. This article is about monitors.
- wegfawefgawefg 2y ago
  Okay you. Its common for people to call the big led/oled monitor you put in ur living room a tv. And as far as I know there's no difference between them tech wise. My tv is a 65inch 4k 120hz oled panel. Everyone calls it a tv. They are also still sold as "tv"'s online. Smart tv, etc. Sidenote the word monitor is also a pretty clear sign of age. If I hear somebody call my screen a monitor its like when my grandma calls the toilet the comode.
  - Filligree 2y ago
    There’s a pretty big difference between them technically, mostly the latency of the display chain. TVs can have signal input to picture on screen latencies of dozens of milliseconds, whereas a monitor would be considered defective if it was more than one frame. This only matters for interactive content, but it’s where a lot of the price difference comes from.
    - jasomill 2y ago
      Most TVs have a "game mode" that reduces latency to a single frame time, give or take a few milliseconds[1]. Not as good as the best monitors, but close, and certainly not dozens of milliseconds. [1] https://www.rtings.com/tv/tests/inputs/input-lag https://www.rtings.com/tv/tests/inputs/input-lag

Aurornis 2y ago

1000Hz is into the point of marketing gimmicks. Higher refresh rates in general produce smoother scrolling, lower latency screen updates, more fluid motion, and a generally more immersive computing experience. Going from 60Hz to 120Hz is a noticeable upgrade for most people, though others don’t notice much. Higher rates offer marginal improvements in smoothness and latency, but it’s really marginal. At 120Hz you’re getting a frame every 8ms (if the GPU can provide it), while 240Hz drops that to 4ms and 1000Hz to 1ms. Competitive FPS gamers will already push hardware and settings to 200+ fps for optimal smoothness. Add AI frame generation and you could get even higher rates, though frame generation introduces its own lag by necessity of having to interpolate between two frames.

chongli 2y ago

The ability to use touch and drag gestures without any visible delay [1]. This dramatically improves usability as a drawing and painting tool for artists. [1] https://youtu.be/vOvQCPLkPt4 https://youtu.be/vOvQCPLkPt4

luyu_wu 2y ago
Great video! This is more a problem of the various other hardware interfaces though, considering even a 120Hz panel has a maximum of 6ms of latency between it's refreshes. As a person who does some digital art from time to time though, I'm depressed we still don't have that tech 12 years later...
- chongli 2y ago
  Well even with a 6ms refresh rate, you still have the inherent LCD grey-to-grey latency issue. Latency is a pipeline issue though. Every stage can add a bit of latency and the total is the sum of all the stages. So with a 120Hz panel you really have a minimum of 6ms latency, with more to be added by software and other hardware in the pipeline.

atoav 2y ago

One odd usecase is monitors that you can take videos from without weird flicker artifacts.

londons_explore 2y ago

There are various visual effects that can be done with high frame rates. For example, mount the screen on the wheel of a moving car and show an image spinning the opposite direction at the same speed and it appears stationary. But if you have a low refresh rate, it just appears blurred.

willis936 2y ago

Another blurbusters article has the answer. We're reaching for "allegory of the cave" tier visual reproductions. https://blurbusters.com/blur-busters-law-amazing-journey-to-future-1000hz-displays-with-blurfree-sample-and-hold/ https://blurbusters.com/blur-busters-law-amazing-journey-to-... https://www.lrc.rpi.edu/programs/solidstate/assist/pdf/AR-Flicker.pdf#page=7 https://www.lrc.rpi.edu/programs/solidstate/assist/pdf/AR-Fl...

layer8 2y ago

CRT-like motion clarity. It will also require higher brightness though, to compensate for black frame insertion.

prmoustache 2y ago

The simple fact that it is announced by a company selling refresh rate testing hardware shows the improvements in term of ergonomy/real world usage have plateaued past a certain refresh rate. The only remaining practical use case for increases is a metaphorical penis size contest.

zamadatix 2y ago
The site has been around since anything over 60 FPS was blazing and has been saying 1000 Hz is the ideal target for nearly as long, some articles on why are linked throughout.