Open link in next tab
Does anyone really need a 1,000 Hz gaming display?
https://arstechnica.com/?p=2025737
TCL's ultra-fast 4K LCD prototype has us musing about diminishing smoothness returns.
https://arstechnica.com/?p=2025737
TCL's ultra-fast 4K LCD prototype has us musing about diminishing smoothness returns.
I really hate it when questions are put this way. Forget about need. Needs are food, water, shelter, health, etc.
Why can't we just ask, "would anyone really benefit from 1khz gaming display?" Then we can discuss the merits of the subject and whether there's actually a reason to move to it or if it's just more marketing and dick waving points.
It feels like asking if anyone "needs" it is unnecessarily loaded with snark and judgment.
Need, no. Want, YES.
Going from 144 to 280 was great, so if 1k Hz could become the next best thing maybe 480/540 will become affordable.
Remember that blind test on LTT where no one, including an esporty player, could reliably differentiate between 120 und 240 Hz?
I know it's not exactly the most thorough experiment ever, but it's all I needed to know.
Remember "Monster Cables"? Everyone had to have car-battery cables to connect their speakers? Remember when somebody asked "audiophiles" to compare "Monster Cables" and alternatives? Their preferred speaker wire was just a straightened-out metal coat-hanger?
It's extremely easy to tell the difference. I can't tell you what's wrong with their experiment as I don't know exactly what they did, but they clearly fucked it. If you're looking at a static image, you can't differentiate 240Hz from 30Hz. You need a test that actually demonstrates the difference.
I have yet to draw the comparison in person (only have a 165Hz), but I mean, every time you double the FPS, the benefit of doubling them again halves. Going from 120 to 240 to 480 Hz is going from 8 to 4 to 2 ms in terms of frametime.
A 4 ms difference in delay might be somewhat noticeable, if you have a very well running game and amazing reflexes. Anything beyond 240 is marketing bs / e-sport 'I need every ms I can get'.
The benefits don't halve. It's the difference between noticing stroboscopic effects and not noticing them. Between not being able to comfortably track fast moving objects and being able to. 1000Hz is a point at which several limitations of LCD technology become invisible.
And I also remember in that same video the esports player performing better at higher refresh rates.
My processor has a boost clock speed of more than 4Ghz - My display just has to keep up with this, otherwise I wouldn't be a real gamer!!!!111oneeleven
Does anyone need quad core? Does anyone need 1Tb of storage? Does anyone need more than 4GB of ram? Does anyone need...? Is a question we've asked time and time again in the modern history of computers. And the answer is always the same; not right now, but yes
Clearly not the same thing. There's no mechanism built into your very physiology that makes you biologically unable to make any meaningful use of anything above a certain amount of computer memory.
I posted this in another thread but there are some applications where this display technology is actually needed. For example with VR/AR having a 1000Hz display would mean each frame is only displayed for 1ms. Being that quick would mean the headset would be able to better display the micro movements your head and body makes which inturn reduces the disconnect and motion sickness people get with VR/AR.
yes, but, it reduces the computation cycle for that frame to 1ms.
as a dev, that's daunting.
90hz is generally enough for most people to not get motion sick. Some headsets do 120 which is like 8ms frame time. Humans can barely detect a flash of light that lasts for that long.
You absolutely can tell the difference between 90Hz and 1kHz. Just draw a squiggly line! See this video for a rather dramatic demonstration:
This is a demonstration of latency, not frame rate. Did you intend to link something different?
A 1000Hz display necessarily has a latency of 1ms between frames. For 100Hz, that’s 10ms.
But this is only the lower bound. You have to include all other sources of latency, such as software, input hardware, drivers, graphics card, etc.
Ahhh, now I see the connection! It's the update interval. I had to chew on it for a minute but the math checks out.
The last sentence is simply incorrect. Humans can detect single photons in specific environments. https://www.nature.com/articles/ncomms12172
In real environments it depends very much on the brightness of the flash of light.
yeah, i changed that.
i only discovered that setting after a few months,
but now it has been on for years.
i can tell the diffrence if i actively look out for ghosting on my mouse coursor.
but unless i actively look out for it,
i dont notice it
One of the big benefits of 144 and 120 over 60hz display is actually how well they render lower frame rate content. Watching a 24fps (so cinematic!) movie on a 144hz ``display results in a new frame every 6 refreshes (or 5 for 120hz). With a 60hz display, you get an new frame every 2.5 refreshes. Generally this results in judder where every other frame is displayed for longer than the others
Not impossible at all, but there would be similar judder without some compensation. It's pretty normal for 144hz monitors to support being driven at 60fps, but it's pretty abnormal for a 60hz monitor to advertise 48 or 24fps via edid. Most modern 60+hz TVs are perfectly capable of doing so, though.
Either way, that's one reason I'm very happy with the 240hz wave that seems to be going on. You can display 24 and 60 fps content simultaneously with no judder, as well as even higher frame rate content.
That combined with the popularity of VRR and free/g sync makes me even more optimistic for people to see just about everything the way it was meant to be seen
I'm not sure, but know the tech would be great for vr. Every jump - from 60 dk1 to vive's 90 and index's 120 have been great.