5 ms·

Really? This is more like does anyone really need a car that goes 1000 mph

modeless 2y ago
I mean, if it has zero safety concerns and it's possible to actually go 1000 MPH on the freeway, then sign me up! Who wouldn't want to get there faster if there were no downsides?
- coffeebeqn 2y ago
  The cost I guess
  - necovek 2y ago
    That's an obvious downside, though one usually easiest to figure out with economies of scale. OTOH, it's freaking hard to figure out safety at even 100km/h.
  - modeless 2y ago
    Sure, but the cost only applies to people who want the feature, so it's fine, right? I'll buy the 1 kHz monitor and you can buy the 60 Hz one.
- lambdaxyzw 2y ago
  But there are safety concerns, and it's not possible to go 1000km/h on the highway. So there's not much point in having a 1000km/h car, because you will never use its full potential. Just like a 1khz display (supposedly).
  - modeless 2y ago
    The analogy is strained and no longer applicable. Sure, you won't be running Cyberpunk 2077 at 1 kHz, but you'll use a 1 kHz display to its full potential of imperceptible latency and eliminated motion blur in regular desktop use, with every movement of your mouse and scroll of its wheel. Even in gaming, less demanding games can hit 1000 Hz and console emulators will benefit from reduced latency too; you could actually beat CRT latency.
    - lambdaxyzw 2y ago
      Well, maybe I'm biased - I've tested a 120Hz monitor recently and I legitimately didn't see a huge difference between 60Hz. Maybe in mouse trails when I was intentionally looking for the difference. I can't imagine how insignificant the change to 1Khz would be for me. But I'm not a gamer and I've spent my whole life on screens like this, so maybe I'm just blind and other people are much more sensitive to this - in this case I agree my analogy doesn't make sense.
logicchains 2y ago
Driving a car isn't a good analogy because if we were driving a car remotely from a system with only 100hz refresh rate we'd definitely notice the difference even if only driving at 100 mph.

I mean, if it has zero safety concerns and it's possible to actually go 1000 MPH on the freeway, then sign me up! Who wouldn't want to get there faster if there were no downsides?

coffeebeqn 2y ago
The cost I guess
- necovek 2y ago
  That's an obvious downside, though one usually easiest to figure out with economies of scale. OTOH, it's freaking hard to figure out safety at even 100km/h.
- modeless 2y ago
  Sure, but the cost only applies to people who want the feature, so it's fine, right? I'll buy the 1 kHz monitor and you can buy the 60 Hz one.
lambdaxyzw 2y ago
But there are safety concerns, and it's not possible to go 1000km/h on the highway. So there's not much point in having a 1000km/h car, because you will never use its full potential. Just like a 1khz display (supposedly).
- modeless 2y ago
  The analogy is strained and no longer applicable. Sure, you won't be running Cyberpunk 2077 at 1 kHz, but you'll use a 1 kHz display to its full potential of imperceptible latency and eliminated motion blur in regular desktop use, with every movement of your mouse and scroll of its wheel. Even in gaming, less demanding games can hit 1000 Hz and console emulators will benefit from reduced latency too; you could actually beat CRT latency.
  - lambdaxyzw 2y ago
    Well, maybe I'm biased - I've tested a 120Hz monitor recently and I legitimately didn't see a huge difference between 60Hz. Maybe in mouse trails when I was intentionally looking for the difference. I can't imagine how insignificant the change to 1Khz would be for me. But I'm not a gamer and I've spent my whole life on screens like this, so maybe I'm just blind and other people are much more sensitive to this - in this case I agree my analogy doesn't make sense.

logicchains 2y ago

Driving a car isn't a good analogy because if we were driving a car remotely from a system with only 100hz refresh rate we'd definitely notice the difference even if only driving at 100 mph.