TechSpot

Asus releases 24-inch G-Sync display with huge 180 Hz refresh rate

By Scorpus
Jul 19, 2016
Post New Reply
  1. The Asus ROG Swift PG248Q is a pretty typical 24-inch 1080p gaming monitor, except for one key feature: through an overclocking utility built in to the display's software, gamers can push this panel's refresh rate up to a huge 180 Hz.

    To run this panel at 180 Hz, up from the default 144 Hz, users will need an Nvidia GeForce GTX 1060 or newer. The Tech Report speculates that the PG248Q includes DisplayPort 1.3, which is only found on Nvidia's latest graphics cards and can support extremely high refresh rates at 1080p.

    The rest of the PG248Q's hardware won't blow you away. To achieve such high refresh rates, Asus has opted for a WLED-backlit TN panel, with a rated contrast ratio of 1000:1 and maximum brightness of 350 nits. Response times are listed as 1ms gray-to-gray, and there's G-Sync variable refresh technology included as well.

    Those who are interested in purchasing this monitor should be able to find one this month, after it was featured as the official display of ESL One Cologne 2016, although Asus hasn't mentioned how much it will cost.

    Permalink to story.

     
  2. VitalyT

    VitalyT Russ-Puss Posts: 3,154   +1,429

    Well, technically, GTX 1080 and GTX 1070 are both older than GTX 1060, so,... out of luck then ? :)

    Anyhow, everything above 120fps is to waste. This product is for delusional gamers who believe in those extra fps, just as they believe the Matrix is real.

    "Wake up, Neo...", you are being brainwashed...
     
    Last edited: Jul 19, 2016
    BlueDrake and alabama man like this.
  3. Jack007

    Jack007 TS Booster Posts: 161   +34

    What use is an overclocked monitor that wont last for long. If its not native 180hz refresh rate it aint worth it
     
    alabama man likes this.
  4. Bao Nguyen

    Bao Nguyen TS Enthusiast Posts: 32   +23

    I'm afraid when stating something along the line "everything above 120fps is a waste" is just pure hindsight. The same way when Bill Gates said "640KB ought to be enough for anybody." What Bill said then is ridiculous now, what you said now will be ridiculous 20 years later. It's never enough because technology simply gets better over time, human gets better generations after generations too.

    Without much motions even 24fps probably enough to human eyes, with lots of fast motions though, there should be no cap, definitely not 120fps.
     
    soulsassassin, trgz and Steve like this.
  5. cliffordcooley

    cliffordcooley TS Guardian Fighter Posts: 8,555   +2,898

    That's assuming our perception of graphics will improve in the next 20 years. Somehow I doubt that, at least not with out bionic implants or similar upgrade to the human physiology.
     
  6. VitalyT

    VitalyT Russ-Puss Posts: 3,154   +1,429

    Evidently, some people do not have to wait for 20 years to make their statements ridiculous.
     
  7. BlueDrake

    BlueDrake TS Evangelist Posts: 350   +103

    It's all down to what you personally can see, and how clear things look at a higher refresh rate. Thing is that's always a key figure many look at, but response time is one a lot of people often overlook. 144hz is still perfectly fine for gaming, and you can notice subtle differences over time. You often don't want to go back down, without a perfectly good reason to at least.

    I enjoy 144hz over what was my 60hz monitor, but everyone's different in how they respond to higher refresh rates. Things are a lot less of a headache for me now, obviously need a bit more muscle to view that in newer titles though. Just for what I do play it's a really refreshing experience, to see the differences and how less horrible I feel.
     
    Burty117, alabama man and Steve like this.
  8. Darth Shiv

    Darth Shiv TS Evangelist Posts: 1,622   +377

    Yeah was wondering on that wording?
     
    BlueDrake, alabama man and trgz like this.
  9. Evernessince

    Evernessince TS Evangelist Posts: 1,193   +585

    We're all going to want AR at some point, might as well get a 2 for one implant while you're at it. With the recent advances in lense technology it would not be impossible to create an artificial cornea that could have multi-distance focus and the ability to be a display. Making it just a cornea would also mean that upgrades and replacements would be pretty easy.
     
  10. yRaz

    yRaz TS Evangelist Posts: 1,904   +951

    I have a feeling that we will be able to gauge that using call of duty sales since it will use the same engine 20 years from now
     
  11. Bao Nguyen

    Bao Nguyen TS Enthusiast Posts: 32   +23

    Fair enough if you think 120Hz is enough for you. Some people also said things like "anything beyond 1080p on the mobile phone is a waste", blah blah. Well for me I'll be looking forward to 24k screen with 240Hz on a mobile that will last for a week battery, that would make 12k per eyes with 240Hz that would provide the as humanly realistic VR/AR experience. Don't know when but I can see the technology won't stop evolving.
     
  12. Lionvibez

    Lionvibez TS Evangelist Posts: 1,103   +346

    lol you couldn't have followed up to his statement any better....than with another ridiculous one well done sir.
     
  13. Jamlad

    Jamlad TS Booster Posts: 59   +61

    I'm willing to bet you use the same ol' lossy VBR mp3 and normal earbuds just like everybody else. There is a limit to human sensory perception and a threshold where the reproduction is 'good enough' beyond which is overengineering for the vast majority. For example, CDs already sample at 48kHz, giving a possible reproduction (set by the Nyquist limit) up to 24kHz. BTW, pianos go up to 4kHz, and human hearing is limited to 20kHz, and that degrades as you age. You could easily halve that sample rate and only young professional musicians could tell the difference at that upper limit. Maybe.

    Otherwise, I've some gold braided, audiophile-grade, Monster CAT5 cables to sell you.

    Finally, the human eye is an optical system just like any other, and pretty poor one at that. It has an optical resolution defined by physical limits of about 0.02deg, which is ~0.05mm at a distance of 15cm. The iPhone 6s plus has a resolution of 401 ppi, which equates to 0.063mm pixel width. We're already roughly at the limits of a perfect human eye (of which most people don't have). Going any further than maybe ~800 ppi would be a waste.

    You could argue that resolution of our percieved reality is set by the wavelength of light (~0.0005mm) but why waste resources oversampling for a system than can't resolve them? We could start producing monitors with greater colour range. Hell, extend it into the infrared, but it would be completely worthless.
     
  14. Badvok

    Badvok TS Booster Posts: 121   +50

    Unless you have CCDs for eyes that are perfectly aligned with the display then the pixel dimension you should be using is the diagonal, which using your figures, would be 0.089mm, I.e. almost double the minimum that you claim the eye can see. Another concern is using these displays for VR which magnifies the pixels to create a larger field of view, it is for this reason we will see phone screens going to UHD and beyond.
     
  15. Badvok

    Badvok TS Booster Posts: 121   +50

    While it can be argued that the human eye can only really perceive changes at a certain speed the problem is that the eye is not a CCD and doesn't capture images a frame at a time and neither is it synchronised with the display. Each individual photoreceptor reacts in its own time frame allowing for response times much smaller than the inter-frame time of an electronic display, especially in the outer regions of the eye's view that are more tuned (by evolution) for fast response to changes.
    Add to this the poor implementation of some games (LoL) that tie their own responsiveness to the refresh rate of the display then you have a solid case for going very high with refresh rates.
     
  16. CaptainTom

    CaptainTom TS Booster Posts: 157   +61

    DP 1.4 is on the 480...
     
  17. koblongata

    koblongata TS Member

    Hm, there are definitely more visual cues for you to pick up, you will definitely have a better chance of reacting beforehand.
    Hi-Res isn't really about frequency response, it's more about transient response.
     
  18. koblongata

    koblongata TS Member

    There are definitely more visual cues for you to pick up and you will have a "better chance" of reacting beforehand.
     
  19. mrjgriffin

    mrjgriffin TS Booster Posts: 136   +51

    How is this even real? the only way to achieve near 180 frames constantly in the latest titles is with 2 gtx 1080s or something close paired with an intel processor that's $1k plus. then in 2 years it will all seem obsolete due to new "advancements." 144hz is all you need
     
  20. cliffordcooley

    cliffordcooley TS Guardian Fighter Posts: 8,555   +2,898

    I still say 60 frames per second is all you need, anything more is an excessive luxury.
     
  21. Tech420

    Tech420 TS Rookie

    I like to have super high refresh rates in Windows. I can sure tell the difference between 120 and 165hz which I have right now. Move your mouse or window across the screen real fast and you can see the difference. I am hoping for a sikly smooth 240hz or even 300 one of these days, every little bit counts as long as they are making progress!

    Some games can get to close to 200fps. There are tens of thousands of people who have 1080 sli setups, and I'm sure they would buy this as a secondary monitor as I'm sure their primary is a 1440p.
     
  22. Squid Surprise

    Squid Surprise TS Guru Posts: 866   +276

    "Need" is an irrelevant concept when it comes to gaming.... No one "needs" to game... We WANT to game... And therefore, the higher the specs, the better I suppose....

    I just wonder why we have to be limited to 1080p.... I want 4K res at 180 :)
     
  23. Axle Grease

    Axle Grease TS Booster Posts: 69   +20

    Human eyes are capped, though. When the refresh rate exceeds what the most keen sighted people can perceive, any higher spec is a gimmick. The question is, what is that refresh rate and have we now exceeded it? Also, Bill Gates did not say what you attribute to him.
     
  24. Axle Grease

    Axle Grease TS Booster Posts: 69   +20

    4K@120Hz per eye! AR/VR is the future of gaming. Actually, I don't notice any flicker at 90Hz in VR, but I say 120Hz just in case 90Hz might cause someone somewhere queasiness. In any case, it is just rude not to accommodate human freaks.
     
  25. Darth Shiv

    Darth Shiv TS Evangelist Posts: 1,622   +377

    There is a difference between consciously perceive and a frequency which your eyes are comfortable with.

    Also, you can't take Bill Gate's word for it re: that quote. After all it makes him look like an ***** considering how shortsighted that would have been to say so naturally even if he did say it, he wouldn't want Bill Gates t-shirts floating around with that on it for the rest of his life ;)
    Food for thought: https://imranontech.com/2007/02/20/did-bill-gates-say-the-640k-line/
     
    Last edited: Jul 21, 2016

Similar Topics

Add New Comment

You need to be a member to leave a comment. Join thousands of tech enthusiasts and participate.
TechSpot Account You may also...