Asus is selling a monitor with 280Hz support in Taiwan, store page reveals

[yRaz]

I started with a simple statement that pixel response times are much more important than hitting higher refresh rates than 120hz. The majority of VA panels can't support the refresh rate they want to hit (it is empty marketing and they are not good gaming monitors, IPS does much better). I gave you an example of a typical problem where a VA monitor is boosted much higher than it should be (like most of them, they have horrible response times with dark content). Any CRT at 120hz will beat a 300hz LCD. OLED too even. That's it. Good day.

I understand exactly what you were trying to say, doesn't stop you from being wrong.

I've personally bought 240hz TN monitors and they were garbage (Dell one specifically was full of ghosting errors). So far I like the Asus IPS and the LG IPS and the rest for the most part I don't really even consider to be high speed.

I don't believe this statement for a minute. TN panels have always been known for their super fast response times. That's the whole reason people have put up with their VASTLY inferior image quality. The first high refresh rate monitors to be released were TN panels because they were the only ones that could handle it without ghosting.

With improvements in pixel chemistry and sub structure we have been able we have been able to make HUGE improvements in LCD tech.

I don't know what Dell monitor you're talking about, but if you think ghosting is an issue today, you should have seen VA panels 15 years ago. The only purpose VA panels had was photo editing for color accuracy because you still got pointer trails.

People also play with their settings and see something called pixel speed (this name varies by manufacture) and sets it to "fast". What this does is increase the voltage to the pixel to help with color switching. However, by overdriving the pixel in this manner you leave a static charge in the pixel and leaves an after image. You were probably playing with your settings and had no idea what you were doing if what you're saying *is* true.

I'd like you to post the Dell monitor you're referring to so I can look up reviews for it because I don't believe it exists or that you go through as many monitors as you do.

 

[Ravalo]

Check the link you sent me: "This assumes that GtG is not a bottleneck." read it in the fine print, that was the point of my comment

Until we move away from LCD entirely GtG will be a bottleneck. The article you linked was precisely about how OLED would allow meaningful 240hz screens. Still you won't get a competitive advantage above 120hz as you generally are not shooting while wildly moving the camera.

Uhhhhh tf2?

Btw I have a va panel and it has a 4ms GtG response time, which is pretty decent for 144hz

 

[KingAlistair]

Uhhhhh tf2?

Btw I have a va panel and it has a 4ms GtG response time, which is pretty decent for 144hz

There are no VA panels with 4ms as far as I'm aware. Ignore any measurements the manufacturer provides as they can just use massive overdrive with error even though you'd never use that setting.

https://www.tftcentral.co.uk/images/acer_nitro_xv273x/response_7.png

 

[bandit8623]

AOC's New Gaming Monitors Have a 0.5ms Response Time

The 27-inch and 24.5-inch models support AMD FreeSync and have a 240Hz refresh rate, but they are only 1080p, not 4K displays.

www.google.com

Not sure why u keep saying lcd won't ever be good. They have .5ms(1/2ms) now.

Even my Dell 1ms 1440p 165 is a huge improvement over my older 1ms 120hz. If you cant see the difference you just don't have the eyes. There are people that just can't see it. And to those people it doesn't make sense to spend the extra money. Even on web scrolling 165 from 120 is so much better.