ASUS to make a 1080p 24" version of the ROG Swift

[WYP]

ASUS is going to make a 1080p 24" version of their popular ROG Swift G-Sync monitor, offering a refresh rate which could be as high as 165Hz.

Read more on ASUS' upcoming 24" 1080p ROG Swift G-Sync monitor.

 

[Dicehunter]

Having tried the PG279Q at a workmates place I can honestly not see the difference between 144Hz and 165Hz.

 

[Dawelio]

Having tried the PG279Q at a workmates place I can honestly not see the difference between 144Hz and 165Hz.

Isn't that kinda like most can see the difference between 60Hz and 100Hz, but not really 100Hz and 144Hz?.

Isn't it mostly professional gamers who would be able to see the difference?...

 

[SPS]

Isn't that kinda like most can see the difference between 60Hz and 100Hz, but not really 100Hz and 144Hz?.

Isn't it mostly professional gamers who would be able to see the difference?...

At that point I imagine it's more the feel than seeing a difference.

 

[tinytomlogan]

Youd need said games running at 144fps and 165fps dont forget

 

[Wraith]

Isn't it mostly professional gamers who would be able to see the difference?...

It's not about seeing the difference with the "Pros" it's all about the feel, MLG want zero latency in their gaming it's all about speed.

As we discussed before:

For the perfect balance with zero lag.
60FPS - 60Hz
120FPS - 120Hz
144FPs - 144Hz

Obvs the higher you go the more grunt required.

 

[Dawelio]

But will it be stuttering or something, if you for example have a 34" curved 60Hz monitor, but the GPU is outputting 144fps?...

 

[tolagarf]

Having tried the PG279Q at a workmates place I can honestly not see the difference between 144Hz and 165Hz.

Not only that, a few reviewers pointed out that the screen runs better at 144Hz. Less input lag, less odd behaviour with colors etc. I would settle for 120/144Hz, anything above is just hype at this point.

 

[SPS]

But will it be stuttering or something, if you for example have a 34" curved 60Hz monitor, but the GPU is outputting 144fps?...

If the GPU renders 144FPS the monitor will just pick the frame available every 16ms regardless. I'm not sure what you mean by stuttering?

 

[NeverBackDown]

But will it be stuttering or something, if you for example have a 34" curved 60Hz monitor, but the GPU is outputting 144fps?...

You would get screen tear. That jagged line that starts from the top and goes down a little is the result of higher FPS than the refresh rate.

165hz monitors are pointless. You increase the input lag and which just defeats the purpose of high FPS gaming. Better off with 144, 165 is just for marketing purposes.

 

[Dawelio]

If the GPU renders 144FPS the monitor will just pick the frame available every 16ms regardless. I'm not sure what you mean by stuttering?

You would get screen tear. That jagged line that starts from the top and goes down a little is the result of higher FPS than the refresh rate.

165hz monitors are pointless. You increase the input lag and which just defeats the purpose of high FPS gaming. Better off with 144, 165 is just for marketing purposes.

Not sure what the correct term is. I was just thinking like if your monitor can only output 60Hz and your GPU is outputting twice the amount, maybe it may get too many frames occassionally and mess up the image. I.e, screen tear, I believe as Mr NBD pointed out.

 

[Wraith]

That's what V-Sync is for

 

[NeverBackDown]

That's what V-Sync is for

Defeats the purpose of high fps gaming. You end up introducing input lag anyway as it would otherwise do if you were at 165hz.

 

[Dawelio]

That's what V-Sync is for

Defeats the purpose of high fps gaming. You end up introducing input lag anyway as it would otherwise do if you were at 165hz.

Kinda makes my point and what I'm trying to get at here...

Although, this is more of a topic regarding HZ/FPS difference and not on topic for this monitor in itself.

 

[NeverBackDown]

Kinda makes my point and what I'm trying to get at here...

Although, this is more of a topic regarding HZ/FPS difference and not on topic for this monitor in itself.

The point you talked about was regarding screen tearing. This is on topic. We are talking about the monitor.. we are talking about its specs

 

[Dawelio]

The point you talked about was regarding screen tearing. This is on topic. We are talking about the monitor.. we are talking about its specs

Fair enough then.

 

[NeverBackDown]

The point I made was 165hz is pointless when you can get better results at 144hz due to the higher refresh rate having a large jump in input lag. It's not a big enough increase from 144hz that would make it a more meaningful competitive option. Now if you just want the latest tech and aren't pro gamer or a serious gamer than it would still be better than the 60hz most people have now

 

[Dawelio]

The point I made was 165hz is pointless when you can get better results at 144hz due to the higher refresh rate having a large jump in input lag. It's not a big enough increase from 144hz that would make it a more meaningful competitive option. Now if you just want the latest tech and aren't pro gamer or a serious gamer than it would still be better than the 60hz most people have now

Okay, but why regarding the larger jump in input lag?... I don't quite get that to be honest.

And I'm not a pro gamer or serious one, barely game these days... But still want the Dell U3415W, but not sure regarding the 5ms and 60Hz though

Since been using my Swift ^_^

 

[SPS]

There would be less input lag at 165Hz with VSync on.

Outputting a higher FPS than a monitor refresh rate doesn't guarantee screen tear. Screen tear is caused when the monitor's VBLANK (the signal issued when it clears the screen and requests a new image) is not synced with the GPU, when this happens the monitor can grab an image before it has been fully rendered by the GPU.

With VSync on, the graphics driver waits/blocks the present command until the VBLANK signal has come from the monitor to ensure it presents a full and complete image. A side effect of this is that the game is then waiting/blocked for this command to pass before it can begin work on the next frame. (The present command is called at the end of rendering frame to flip the backbuffer to the front).

When you run higher refresh rate monitors with VSync on, the time waiting/blocking in game is reduced, as 6ms (165Hz) is shorter than 16ms (60Hz).

Hope that helps!

 

[NeverBackDown]

There would be less input lag at 165Hz with VSync on.

Outputting a higher FPS than a monitor refresh rate doesn't guarantee screen tear. Screen tear is caused when the monitor's VBLANK (the signal issued when it clears the screen and requests a new image) is not synced with the GPU, when this happens the monitor can grab an image before it has been fully rendered by the GPU.

With VSync on, the graphics driver waits/blocks the present command until the VBLANK signal has come from the monitor to ensure it presents a full and complete image. A side effect of this is that the game is then waiting/blocked for this command to pass before it can begin work on the next frame. (The present command is called at the end of rendering frame to flip the backbuffer to the front).

When you run higher refresh rate monitors with VSync on, the time waiting/blocking in game is reduced, as 6ms (165Hz) is shorter than 16ms (60Hz).

Hope that helps!

It may still be better than 60hz(obviously) but compared to the input lag it gets from being overclocked higher than 144hz the input lag from everything gets raised, turning vsync on may help in a scenario or two but on or off it still raises the input lag from M/KB above what it is for 144hz. Think it was Anandtech who did testing on this to show the increases