480Hz prototype display spotted

[WYP]

A true 480Hz display?



Read more on this 480Hz PC display.

 

[AlienALX]

Oh for god's sake. I hope this is not meant for gaming !

If you haven't played a game at 400 FPS I recommend downloading/finding the original Quake and running it on modern hardware. Blink and you're dead.

 

[Dicehunter]

Cool to see new tech but I've tried the Asus 240Hz display and I cannot see or "feel" the difference after 120Hz at all.

 

[Warchild]

Nothing wrong with this at all. Its purely for the esport hardcore competitive fps gamer. Up to now, the extreme fps shooter would practise on CRT screens for max fps. Now they have this.

Totally over the top for your average gamer or enthusiast, but for those who make a living from gaming. It's a potentially good option.

@ Dicehunter,

The difference was quite apparent to me. Just not as extreme as the difference we would see between 60 and 120hz, who many would also argue they dont see a difference. I guess it's all personal preference.

 

[AlienALX]

At 480 FPS a game is completely unplayable.

 

[NeverBackDown]

Nothing wrong with this at all. Its purely for the esport hardcore competitive fps gamer. Up to now, the extreme fps shooter would practise on CRT screens for max fps. Now they have this.

Totally over the top for your average gamer or enthusiast, but for those who make a living from gaming. It's a potentially good option.

@ Dicehunter,

The difference was quite apparent to me. Just not as extreme as the difference we would see between 60 and 120hz, who many would also argue they dont see a difference. I guess it's all personal preference.

You cannot see a difference, but you can feel it. If you played for a long time at 240hz then went back to 120hz you would feel a difference.

Human eyes cannot see above even 20 and that's a fact I've read from an eye doctor/optometrist. But you DO notice the movement differences.

 

[Warchild]

You cannot see a difference, but you can feel it. If you played for a long time at 240hz then went back to 120hz you would feel a difference.

Human eyes cannot see above even 20 and that's a fact I've read from an eye doctor/optometrist. But you DO notice the movement differences.

I really hoped you wouldnt answer like that. Mainly because I dont want to have that age old debate kick up when someone will jump in and say... "but you can blah blah". Not saying you are wrong, but someone is going to push it.

 

[NeverBackDown]

I really hoped you wouldnt answer like that. Mainly because I dont want to have that age old debate kick up when someone will jump in and say... "but you can blah blah". Not saying you are wrong, but someone is going to push it.

Well it's a known fact that our eyes detect movement better than visual differences. Especially in your peripheral vision. That's why people can not see the difference but can notice by "feeling" a difference. Because you cannot express how you know the difference is there visually so you cannot explain it. You can only come up with the word feel. Because it does indeed feel faster and smoother but again your eyes cannot detect it visually. Now when using super low refresh rates obviously you can tell. But as they get higher you notice it less and less but feel it more and more.

So people can indeed feel a difference with super high refresh rates. However saying you see the difference is wrong. People just use the terms interchangeably is my only issue

 

[Dicehunter]

You cannot see a difference, but you can feel it. If you played for a long time at 240hz then went back to 120hz you would feel a difference.

Human eyes cannot see above even 20 and that's a fact I've read from an eye doctor/optometrist. But you DO notice the movement differences.

Well then the place you got that info from is filled with actual retards.

Myelinated nerves can fire between 300 to 1000 times per second in the human body and transmit information at 200 miles per hour. What matters here is how frequently these nerves can fire (or "send messages").

The nerves in your eye are not exempt from this limit. Your eyes can physiologically transmit data that quickly and your eyes/brain working together can interpret up to 1000 frames per second but the end result after your brain has finished processing is roughly about 150-250 frames per second.

And here's info from the United States Air Force:

"The USAF, in testing their pilots for visual response time, used a simple test to see if the pilots could distinguish small changes in light. In their experiment a picture of an aircraft was flashed on a screen in a dark room at 1/220th of a second. Pilots were consistently able to "see" the afterimage as well as identify the aircraft. This simple and specific situation not only proves the ability to perceive 1 image within 1/220 of a second, but the ability to interpret higher FPS."

 

[MacLeod]

Yeah that's just wrong. Watch a 120 Hz TV and you can instantly and distinctly see the difference between it and a 60 Hz TV. Everything looks different especially the motion. I think much above 120 Hz is pushing it tho and 480 is just down right silly! I think it's more that manufacturers are pushing it, ya know, if 120 Hz is good then 240 is better and 480 is twice as good!

Monitor makers gotta give us some reason to upgrade. I mean there really hasn't been any great innovation in monitors in a long time aside from Gsync and FreeSync. I still have a 25" HP monitor I bought several years ago that still works and looks great. Only reason I upgraded was for a larger screen and the 144 Hz refresh rate. No real reason for me to upgrade any further unless I wanted a 32" screen which I don't necessarily need since I sit fairly close to my screen so.....moar resolution!!

 

[NeverBackDown]

No you guys are not reading what I am saying correctly.

You guys are talking about motion and the ability to notice it. Dice, that test involves motion in a specific test. You cannot see a difference. It is easy to notice the aircraft because it's 220 slides of it. You're brain is smart enough to piece it together especially with a trained "eye" who's job is to identify aircraft in much more difficult situations. Interpreting the difference is the result of feeling it. You guys act like I am on the other side when I have said time again I am not. I merely said people use the words see and feel wrongly.

But I'd trust the sources I got from actual optometry research than the USAF. I know them, they don't do jack crap but complain to congress. My Uncle, Grandfather and his father, along with my Best Friend's brother were/are in the Air Force. They describe it as NASA's guinea pig.

 

[Warchild]

NBD,

I do know what you are saying. I agree. What people get confused with is the difference between seeing more fps and perceiving more fps.

This is why I didnt want you to answer in the way you did because if sparks this debate.
Human eye registers between 7 and 13hz. However it is possible for a person to register an image to stand out (depending on intensity) in a 500fps image. Tested and confirmed by pilots in the 70s. I tried to google this pilot test and came across this link.

Being an ex Air Force officer myself, I have done the test. And it is quite interesting. I did a matrix test which was to perform simple maths calculations, e.g. 14*9 = etc, at the same time as pushing coloured buttons depending on the colours that show up on screen, at the same time as listening to a typical hearing test and pushing a button when you hear a beep, as well as viewing an image on screen which was a circle outline very discreetly rising and falling approx 2mm in which an image would flash and we had to register which object we thought we saw. All this was done simulataneously for 10mins. Hectic as hell, but put your brain and senses on maximum alert. Because you aren't focussed on one task, your body doesnt consider any twitch reactions like jumping the start of a race waiting for the gun/greenlight.

So before people start calling each other retards, which is not necessary at all, we should be fully informed on this. Which 90% of the time, those crying foul, firing back etc, are not.

http://www.pcgamer.com/how-many-frames-per-second-can-the-human-eye-really-see/

I brisked through this, but while it provides valid points on both sides of the story. The latter half regarding what we PERCEIVE and not SEE makes more sense.

...and i get sucked into it even though i didnt want to...

 

[AlienALX]

The big problem is that games are not designed to run at this sort of FPS. It really is that simple. If you need proof? watch AdoredTV's review of the 64 Liquid. Fallout 4 breaks beyond repair. It flies along so fast you can't see what you are doing, then skips frames etc.

I know myself because I force disabled Vsync in the INI in order to get it to work with Adaptive Vsync and give me 70hz. I forgot to enable AVS at first and it was a fast horror show lol.

 

[Warchild]

The big problem is that games are not designed to run at this sort of FPS. It really is that simple. If you need proof? watch AdoredTV's review of the 64 Liquid. Fallout 4 breaks beyond repair. It flies along so fast you can't see what you are doing, then skips frames etc.

I know myself because I force disabled Vsync in the INI in order to get it to work with Adaptive Vsync and give me 70hz. I forgot to enable AVS at first and it was a fast horror show lol.

Pretty much all bethesda games and ubisoft ass creed series are incapable of 120hz + due to object mechanics becoming a pinball effect. But for the likes of CS GO, the higher the fps the better. Its twitch FPS shooting for a reason.

 

[War Machine]

Pretty much all bethesda games and ubisoft ass creed series are incapable of 120hz + due to object mechanics becoming a pinball effect. But for the likes of CS GO, the higher the fps the better. Its twitch FPS shooting for a reason.

QFT

I agree these monitor will be aim at the competitive gamer not the average gamer.

The again these monitors might only be at E Sports events only but who knows ATM.

 

[AlienALX]

Pretty much all bethesda games and ubisoft ass creed series are incapable of 120hz + due to object mechanics becoming a pinball effect. But for the likes of CS GO, the higher the fps the better. Its twitch FPS shooting for a reason.

At which point, IMO, it's cheating. I don't see minis racing against Ferraris.

 

[Warchild]

At which point, IMO, it's cheating. I don't see minis racing against Ferraris.

And that is why the professional gamers are still playing and practising on CRT. High fps with minimal input lag.

It's either that or pump themselves full of Adderall

 

[Bartacus]

I don't see minis racing against Ferraris.

Pretty sure I saw this exact thing on YouTube, but it was a Smart car with a Hayabusa engine, not a mini. It destroyed the Ferrari very quickly.

 

[AlienALX]

Pretty sure I saw this exact thing on YouTube, but it was a Smart car with a Hayabusa engine, not a mini. It destroyed the Ferrari very quickly.

haha yeah I've seen a few of those. They're amazing. Wouldn't want to crash one though !

 

[SPS]

The big problem is that games are not designed to run at this sort of FPS. It really is that simple. If you need proof? watch AdoredTV's review of the 64 Liquid. Fallout 4 breaks beyond repair. It flies along so fast you can't see what you are doing, then skips frames etc.

I know myself because I force disabled Vsync in the INI in order to get it to work with Adaptive Vsync and give me 70hz. I forgot to enable AVS at first and it was a fast horror show lol.

Games using fixed timestep simulation can deal with any refresh rate.

At a certain refresh rate though you're just going to see interpolated objects as the game logic won't be able to fully run in 2ms (480Hz).