AU Optronics shows off 480Hz laptop and desktop displays

Tudor Cibean

Posts: 160   +10
Staff
Why it matters: AU Optronics, a major manufacturer of display panels, just demoed several new display technologies they're working on at SID's Display Week 2022. The showdown included a 480Hz 24-inch desktop monitor, a 480Hz 16-inch laptop panel, ultrawide and notebook AmLED (Adaptive mini LED) screens, and a laptop display with integrated cameras.

AUO's latest 24-inch 480Hz panel is aimed at monitors, while the 16-inch panel is intended for notebook displays. Both are advertised to have response times around 1ms, full HD resolution, and use TN technology.

It's interesting to see TN still in use for high-end displays, considering that we've been getting more and more high refresh rate IPS and VA panels.

AUO didn't mention when we're going to see the first products using these displays on the market, although TFTCentral claims they are planned to go into production sometime this year.

Also see: Hitting 360Hz with the Asus ROG Swift PG259QN

It's worth noting that Blurbusters tested a prototype 480Hz monitor a few years ago, although it was only capable of handling that refresh rate at a resolution of 960x540. In that article, they found that there is a noticeable difference between 240Hz and 480Hz, albeit with significantly diminishing returns.

There's also the question of whether graphics cards can render games at such high frame rates. These displays are mainly going to be used for esports titles, such as Valorant and CS:GO, where hitting 500+ FPS at 1080p is possible with a decent GPU and the right CPU.

AUO also showed off a couple of AmLED panels (Adaptive mini LED, not to be confused with AMOLED), a laptop display with integrated cameras designed to get rid of notches and thick bezels, several screens made for automotive use, a color ChLC tablet panel which uses ambient light instead of a backlight, and more.

Permalink to story.

 

VitalyT

Posts: 6,399   +7,180
The verdict is in the title, it's just a "show-off".

Tests have been conducted in the past, concluding that most players can't even tell a 360Hz monitor from 240Hz one. A monitor with 480Hz is a marketing nonsense, like the number of megapixels in a camera before.

A human eye sees the world in 3D, for which 120Hz per eye is plenty enough, so it cannot detect a higher refresh frequency. So when dealing with a VR, 120Hz is the maximum ever needed for each eye. When observing reality as flat, on a flat screen in front of us, the refresh rate needs to be doubled, to 240Hz, in order to compensate for flattening the reality (that's how our brain works). So, the maximum needed - 120Hz per eye inside a VR set, or 240Hz on a flat screen.
 
Last edited:

kiwigraeme

Posts: 1,302   +951
I turned side on to my screen - can't see refreshing - apparently side vision more perceptible to that stuff .
As Vitaly said 360 Hz is probably the piece of mind level for those that just need 240Hz in twitch games

If really is interesting as we max various settings - but manufacturers will dream up 8K is probably piece of mind - yet they are working on 12K
12bit colour is probably piece of mind - though we all seem fairly happy with 8bit
You look at the sdr , DCI- P3 and BT2020 - we are getting closer to full BT2020 - yet there that is not the human full range - I think those outer areas are just colours and huge brightness intensities - so do you really need something like that - often viewing such light sources you will be wearing protective eye wear - ND filters - neutral density
 

hahahanoobs

Posts: 4,674   +2,654
A niche monitor for sure.
The latency "advantage" 360Hz has over 240Hz is a little over 1ms if 360fps @ 360Hz vs 240fps @ 240Hz. Nothing anyone would notice. I know a pro-caliber player on youtube that even downgraded from 360 back to 240Hz.
 

Nobina

Posts: 3,957   +4,540
This will be bought by someone who thinks monitor refresh rate is what holds him back from being a good FPS player.
 

Gimp65

Posts: 81   +163
The verdict is in the title, it's just a "show-off".

Tests have been conducted in the past, concluding that most players can't even tell a 360Hz monitor from 240Hz one. A monitor with 480Hz is a marketing nonsense, like the number of megapixels in a camera before.

A human eye sees the world in 3D, for which 120Hz per eye is plenty enough, so it cannot detect a higher refresh frequency. So when dealing with a VR, 120Hz is the maximum ever needed for each eye. When observing reality as flat, on a flat screen in front of us, the refresh rate needs to be doubled, to 240Hz, in order to compensate for flattening the reality (that's how our brain works). So, the maximum needed - 120Hz per eye inside a VR set, or 240Hz on a flat screen.

All that only applies if you are using frame sync tech like freesync or g sync. When running without it the higher refresh is certainly beneficial, id be happy to take a 500hz over current 144hz
 

Geralt

Posts: 1,300   +2,080
The verdict is in the title, it's just a "show-off".

Tests have been conducted in the past, concluding that most players can't even tell a 360Hz monitor from 240Hz one. A monitor with 480Hz is a marketing nonsense, like the number of megapixels in a camera before.

A human eye sees the world in 3D, for which 120Hz per eye is plenty enough, so it cannot detect a higher refresh frequency. So when dealing with a VR, 120Hz is the maximum ever needed for each eye. When observing reality as flat, on a flat screen in front of us, the refresh rate needs to be doubled, to 240Hz, in order to compensate for flattening the reality (that's how our brain works). So, the maximum needed - 120Hz per eye inside a VR set, or 240Hz on a flat screen.
Another bluff. Crossing 120Hz it is very difficult to notice a difference, in my case.
 

Burty117

Posts: 4,600   +2,901
They did just that, there was a showcase a ~week ago. 4K 120Hz Sony TV.
I recently took delivery of the Samsung S95B QD-OLED TV, 120Hz 4k is indeed a thing now.
People out there have even been pushing it to 144Hz but due to HDMI bandwidth limitations you can't get it running at 144Hz without sacrificing some colour information.

I wonder if we'll see more high refresh rate 4k screens when DisplayPort 2.0 properly takes off and we have the bandwidth for it.
 

Skjorn

Posts: 712   +586
The verdict is in the title, it's just a "show-off".

Tests have been conducted in the past, concluding that most players can't even tell a 360Hz monitor from 240Hz one. A monitor with 480Hz is a marketing nonsense, like the number of megapixels in a camera before.

A human eye sees the world in 3D, for which 120Hz per eye is plenty enough, so it cannot detect a higher refresh frequency. So when dealing with a VR, 120Hz is the maximum ever needed for each eye. When observing reality as flat, on a flat screen in front of us, the refresh rate needs to be doubled, to 240Hz, in order to compensate for flattening the reality (that's how our brain works). So, the maximum needed - 120Hz per eye inside a VR set, or 240Hz on a flat screen.
Sounds like a bunch of nonsense. 120Hz per eye? Lol yall come up with funniest ****.

How fast do my eyes need to be to see something traveling at 1400feetpersecond? Or is that beyond our 120Hz max refresh organic eyes?
 

MakeMSGreatAgain

Posts: 51   +49
I think the human eye has trouble *SEEING* over 144 Hz or so.. but FEELING or seeing it from mouse input or other controller input is another matter. You can tell when something isn't moving quite right, both in how fast and accurate its response is, and visually with how many frames you are seeing of the moving object. For instance, move a mouse pointer around in small circles on a screen really fast in 60 hz, or 144 hz and as long as the screen and mouse is capable of it, you'll see the difference. Same applies for higher refresh rates.

I only have first hand experience with 144 Hz, but I imagine I could feel faster if I had it as I sometimes find 144 Hz feedback in my games insufficient.