I've got a buddy who has the BenQ BL3200PT and the incredible native contrast ratio (~2500:1) makes me want an AMVA panel in my next display. I'd just like something with a higher refresh rate than 60Hz.
You'd be surprised what kind of silly, non-noticeable features enthusiasts of all ilks are willing to pay huge premiums for. 200Hz computer displays, "600Hz" TVs, all kinds of audiophile BS gear. Heck, I know bike entusiasts willing to double or triple the price of their bike to lighten the frame by a pound or so. People do love to pay for the placebo effect.
"non-noticeable" The panel is 825mm wide. For an object moving from the left edge to the right edge in one second: at 60Hz: 13.75mm jump per screen refresh at 144Hz: 5.73mm jump per screen refresh at 200Hz: 4.13mm jump per screen refresh Or in terms of pixels moved: 60Hz: 42.7 pixels per refresh 144Hz: 17.8 pixels per refresh 200Hz: 12.8 pixels per refresh
You can get even higher apparent object velocities when turning your view at high speeds (from left to right edge in well under a second). So no, higher refresh rates are DEFINITELY noticeable, at well above 144Hz.
You're neglecting what humans are capable of perceiving. I don't think anyone is saying that a 200Hz display wouldn't display a smoother motion of, say, an object moving from the left edge to the right edge in one second. The question is whether that *appears* smoother to *humans* than 120Hz or 144Hz. I think trying to argue that we can tell the difference between a 4.13mm jump every 5ms vs a 5.73mm jump every 7ms is beyond the capability of your average human vision acquisition system.
Humans do not see quantitatively. We see motion. The government has done test with fighter pilots to test that they can notice a different frame at nearly 250 frames per second. Now, I am not saying we have the vision of a fighter pilot but the smoother a video appears, the more realistic it appears. That is the same reason why the Oculus Rift recommends a higher end graphics card so that the video can play at a speed fast enough that we have a hard time noticing sluggishness. Also, higher FPS increases response time for videogames like CS:GO where professionals need really high fps for flickshots and other things.
Also, what the government tested under many different methods. For example how brief a frame can be seen, at constant amount of light -- e.g. how brief a glimpse occurs. This is different from the concept of refresh rate, as well as the concept of using over-bright pulses during strobe backlight (to compensate for the briefness of the frame), etc. Which they do not always test for.
250 frames per second changes quite a bit when there's different luminances (e.g. brightness) and resolution is different (e.g. pixels), as well as viewing distances. When it comes to computer monitors, the testing method is different than a quick glimpse a fighter jet uses. LightBoost has the motion-blur equivalence of 700fps@700Hz (1.4ms persistence) or 400fps@400Hz (2.4ms persistence), and many people can see it.
Mathematically, 1 pixel of motion blur per 1ms of persistence, during 1000 pixels/second motion -- as seen in www.testufo.com/eyetracking and at www.testufo.com/photo#photo=toronto-map.png -- that motion test will require persistence to be less than 2ms at 1000 pixels/sec in order for that test to be readable. It is completely unreadable at 144Hz.
....unreadable without a strobe backlight, that is. If you turn on LightBoost, it shortens the persistence via the strobes, and you can read it.
But to shorten persistence without strobing....well, that's a tricky matter. (Response time is different from persistence -- pixel change time versus pixel static time).
Of course it will be noticable. Try playing high motion games, e.g. StepMania, at 60Hz vs 144Hz, your brain will cry in delight at the higher framerate. It feels so much better.
edzieba gave a perfect example as to why a high refresh is important.
One of my family members is a pro cyclist and I can tell you right now that every ounce makes a difference. More weight means slower speed. The same goes for runners and lightweight sneakers. A small minority that have the right genes and training can probably overcome these things, but then those people would be even faster with less weight.
Now just because you don't/can't notice a difference doesn't make it silly or a placebo. Don't confuse real, practical use cases with marketing/snake oil like "600Hz subfield processing" or "speaker wire isolating stands" where there is no objective data to substantiate the claims.
Framerate means a lot for smoothness of motion and motion blur reduction. 144Hz is nowhere near diminishing returns on those. Eye-wise Michael Abrash from Valve (now Oculus) has stated that we'll be good at around 1000Hz.
This is the first time the curved screen has actually made sense to me.
While I don't game much, I think it would provide a more immersive experience - like multiple monitors without the borders. Also, the moderate resolution should allow for high framerates with current video cards.
The curve makes a huge amount of success on ultrawides, it's a really big difference. I've got a flat one and a curved one and use both daily and the curve is much nicer because you aren't looking at an angle when you look at the edge of the screen.
FreeSync doesn't have much MhZ to use or overclock to, so it'll be a worser monitor but at least it'll be usable more generically if that's what you're really aiming for (or anticipating switching back and forth between AMD and Nvidia GPUs the next few years).
I never heard anything about this but wouldn't higher refresh rates fix the problem of screen tearing altogeter as intuitively as the interval between refresh cycles decreases so would the period of time a refresh cycle composed out of 2 frames decrease. So displaying 40fps on 60hz should look siginficantly worse then 40fps on 600hz. This should pretty much make freesync / gsync unneeded if the refresh rate increases enough right?
so long as it fits the ratio's needed the you wouldnt perceive the stuttering/tearing, like 30fps on a 120hz monitor is fine, a waste of a 120hz monitor but it runs smoothly. it also depends on the 600hz implimentation, if its true 600hz i think it will barely matter, if its fake then it will appear smoother but laggier (for interactive media) at the same time because the tv/monitor is adding synthetic frames in between the real ones and it takes longer for the tv to process the frames.
I want three of those. Set up L, Center, R with the gaps between them as small as possible. Together with a high end throttle and flight stick, that should be pretty awesome with a flight simulator!
I won't buy this model (the 2560 x 1080 vs 3440 x 1440 kills it for me) but I WILL buy the 100hx X34 Predator (its 3440 x 1440, 100hz w/ g-sync).
100hz + refresh rates are noticeable, though I cant vouch for 200z. I currently game on the 34" LG 34uc97, 3440 x 1440 60 hz IPS. It looks fantastic in games, pushed by 2 x Titan X's in SLI. I briefly tried the Asus 27" PG278Q, the 144 hz TN panel. The speed was AMAZING. Though again, you need some heavy graphics hardware to max out games and hoping for 120+ FPS. I couldn't live with the small 27" and the poor colors of the Asus TN panel when compared to the 34" IPS LG.
But I can say that even in someone as mundane as dragging the mouse cursor across the windows desktop was noticeable more "laser like" at 144 hz than it was at 60 hz.
The PG279Q improves that in every way though their UltraWide version of that which released last month is tempting but seemingly too little too late since DisplayPort 1.3/1.4 and USB-Type-C connected Monitors are around the corner.
I want to wait till I see a DisplayPort 1.3 monitor (thus having significantly higher MHZ available)
We’ve updated our terms. By continuing to use the site and/or by logging into your account, you agree to the Site’s updated Terms of Use and Privacy Policy.
30 Comments
Back to Article
nathanddrews - Wednesday, September 2, 2015 - link
It's like the CRT days all over again! You can't hear me, but I'm laughing maniacally.Buk Lau - Wednesday, September 2, 2015 - link
I thought AUO's IPS equivalent is called AHVA not AMVAneo_1221 - Wednesday, September 2, 2015 - link
They make both, although they have been more focused on AHVA in recent years.http://www.tftcentral.co.uk/articles/content/panel...
Brandon Chester - Wednesday, September 2, 2015 - link
AHVA is an IPS competitor despite what the name sounds like. AMVA is still a type of VA panel. I'm surprised they still exist too.MrCommunistGen - Wednesday, September 2, 2015 - link
I've got a buddy who has the BenQ BL3200PT and the incredible native contrast ratio (~2500:1) makes me want an AMVA panel in my next display. I'd just like something with a higher refresh rate than 60Hz.fokka - Wednesday, September 2, 2015 - link
do people really care about framerates above 120/144hz?also i would like to know what the minimum framerate is on this thing.
Valantar - Thursday, September 3, 2015 - link
You'd be surprised what kind of silly, non-noticeable features enthusiasts of all ilks are willing to pay huge premiums for. 200Hz computer displays, "600Hz" TVs, all kinds of audiophile BS gear. Heck, I know bike entusiasts willing to double or triple the price of their bike to lighten the frame by a pound or so. People do love to pay for the placebo effect.edzieba - Thursday, September 3, 2015 - link
"non-noticeable"The panel is 825mm wide. For an object moving from the left edge to the right edge in one second:
at 60Hz: 13.75mm jump per screen refresh
at 144Hz: 5.73mm jump per screen refresh
at 200Hz: 4.13mm jump per screen refresh
Or in terms of pixels moved:
60Hz: 42.7 pixels per refresh
144Hz: 17.8 pixels per refresh
200Hz: 12.8 pixels per refresh
You can get even higher apparent object velocities when turning your view at high speeds (from left to right edge in well under a second). So no, higher refresh rates are DEFINITELY noticeable, at well above 144Hz.
joex4444 - Thursday, September 3, 2015 - link
You're neglecting what humans are capable of perceiving. I don't think anyone is saying that a 200Hz display wouldn't display a smoother motion of, say, an object moving from the left edge to the right edge in one second. The question is whether that *appears* smoother to *humans* than 120Hz or 144Hz. I think trying to argue that we can tell the difference between a 4.13mm jump every 5ms vs a 5.73mm jump every 7ms is beyond the capability of your average human vision acquisition system.JewsOfHazard - Thursday, September 3, 2015 - link
Humans do not see quantitatively. We see motion. The government has done test with fighter pilots to test that they can notice a different frame at nearly 250 frames per second. Now, I am not saying we have the vision of a fighter pilot but the smoother a video appears, the more realistic it appears. That is the same reason why the Oculus Rift recommends a higher end graphics card so that the video can play at a speed fast enough that we have a hard time noticing sluggishness. Also, higher FPS increases response time for videogames like CS:GO where professionals need really high fps for flickshots and other things.mdrejhon - Monday, September 7, 2015 - link
Also, what the government tested under many different methods. For example how brief a frame can be seen, at constant amount of light -- e.g. how brief a glimpse occurs. This is different from the concept of refresh rate, as well as the concept of using over-bright pulses during strobe backlight (to compensate for the briefness of the frame), etc. Which they do not always test for.250 frames per second changes quite a bit when there's different luminances (e.g. brightness) and resolution is different (e.g. pixels), as well as viewing distances. When it comes to computer monitors, the testing method is different than a quick glimpse a fighter jet uses. LightBoost has the motion-blur equivalence of 700fps@700Hz (1.4ms persistence) or 400fps@400Hz (2.4ms persistence), and many people can see it.
Mathematically, 1 pixel of motion blur per 1ms of persistence, during 1000 pixels/second motion -- as seen in www.testufo.com/eyetracking and at www.testufo.com/photo#photo=toronto-map.png -- that motion test will require persistence to be less than 2ms at 1000 pixels/sec in order for that test to be readable. It is completely unreadable at 144Hz.
mdrejhon - Monday, September 7, 2015 - link
....unreadable without a strobe backlight, that is. If you turn on LightBoost, it shortens the persistence via the strobes, and you can read it.But to shorten persistence without strobing....well, that's a tricky matter. (Response time is different from persistence -- pixel change time versus pixel static time).
DesktopMan - Friday, September 4, 2015 - link
Of course it will be noticable. Try playing high motion games, e.g. StepMania, at 60Hz vs 144Hz, your brain will cry in delight at the higher framerate. It feels so much better.Xtreme649 - Monday, October 12, 2015 - link
100% Totally true and I think the same !!! Cant wait to see 200hz from my eyes :)nathanddrews - Thursday, September 3, 2015 - link
edzieba gave a perfect example as to why a high refresh is important.One of my family members is a pro cyclist and I can tell you right now that every ounce makes a difference. More weight means slower speed. The same goes for runners and lightweight sneakers. A small minority that have the right genes and training can probably overcome these things, but then those people would be even faster with less weight.
Now just because you don't/can't notice a difference doesn't make it silly or a placebo. Don't confuse real, practical use cases with marketing/snake oil like "600Hz subfield processing" or "speaker wire isolating stands" where there is no objective data to substantiate the claims.
Antronman - Monday, September 7, 2015 - link
Just because you have the eyes and ears of a worm doesn't mean there aren't droves of people with eagle eyes and very sensitive ears.usernametaken76 - Thursday, September 3, 2015 - link
The minimum framerate is 1.DesktopMan - Friday, September 4, 2015 - link
Framerate means a lot for smoothness of motion and motion blur reduction. 144Hz is nowhere near diminishing returns on those. Eye-wise Michael Abrash from Valve (now Oculus) has stated that we'll be good at around 1000Hz.DCide - Wednesday, September 2, 2015 - link
This is the first time the curved screen has actually made sense to me.While I don't game much, I think it would provide a more immersive experience - like multiple monitors without the borders. Also, the moderate resolution should allow for high framerates with current video cards.
xthetenth - Wednesday, September 2, 2015 - link
The curve makes a huge amount of success on ultrawides, it's a really big difference. I've got a flat one and a curved one and use both daily and the curve is much nicer because you aren't looking at an angle when you look at the edge of the screen.bizude - Wednesday, September 2, 2015 - link
Make a FreeSync version of this monitor and I'm sold.lilkwarrior - Wednesday, March 16, 2016 - link
FreeSync doesn't have much MhZ to use or overclock to, so it'll be a worser monitor but at least it'll be usable more generically if that's what you're really aiming for (or anticipating switching back and forth between AMD and Nvidia GPUs the next few years).stangflyer - Thursday, September 3, 2015 - link
Make this exact monitor in 3440x1440 and I will own one!qlum - Thursday, September 3, 2015 - link
I never heard anything about this but wouldn't higher refresh rates fix the problem of screen tearing altogeter as intuitively as the interval between refresh cycles decreases so would the period of time a refresh cycle composed out of 2 frames decrease. So displaying 40fps on 60hz should look siginficantly worse then 40fps on 600hz. This should pretty much make freesync / gsync unneeded if the refresh rate increases enough right?Or am I looking at it all wrong
Asomething - Friday, September 4, 2015 - link
so long as it fits the ratio's needed the you wouldnt perceive the stuttering/tearing, like 30fps on a 120hz monitor is fine, a waste of a 120hz monitor but it runs smoothly. it also depends on the 600hz implimentation, if its true 600hz i think it will barely matter, if its fake then it will appear smoother but laggier (for interactive media) at the same time because the tv/monitor is adding synthetic frames in between the real ones and it takes longer for the tv to process the frames.qlum - Friday, September 4, 2015 - link
Still the refresh rate race could eventually for gaming at least make adaptive-vsync / gsync unneeded at some point by going down the brute force way.V900 - Sunday, September 6, 2015 - link
I want three of those. Set up L, Center, R with the gaps between them as small as possible.Together with a high end throttle and flight stick, that should be pretty awesome with a flight simulator!
skypine27 - Monday, September 7, 2015 - link
I won't buy this model (the 2560 x 1080 vs 3440 x 1440 kills it for me) but I WILL buy the 100hx X34 Predator (its 3440 x 1440, 100hz w/ g-sync).100hz + refresh rates are noticeable, though I cant vouch for 200z. I currently game on the 34" LG 34uc97, 3440 x 1440 60 hz IPS. It looks fantastic in games, pushed by 2 x Titan X's in SLI. I briefly tried the Asus 27" PG278Q, the 144 hz TN panel. The speed was AMAZING. Though again, you need some heavy graphics hardware to max out games and hoping for 120+ FPS. I couldn't live with the small 27" and the poor colors of the Asus TN panel when compared to the 34" IPS LG.
But I can say that even in someone as mundane as dragging the mouse cursor across the windows desktop was noticeable more "laser like" at 144 hz than it was at 60 hz.
lilkwarrior - Wednesday, March 16, 2016 - link
The PG279Q improves that in every way though their UltraWide version of that which released last month is tempting but seemingly too little too late since DisplayPort 1.3/1.4 and USB-Type-C connected Monitors are around the corner.I want to wait till I see a DisplayPort 1.3 monitor (thus having significantly higher MHZ available)
lilkwarrior - Wednesday, March 16, 2016 - link
LG's UltraWide Thunderbolt Monitors are sync nonetheless; wish it was Thunderbolt 3.0