Because we *need* 480Hz refresh rates. Gamers are being held back by 240Hz and 140Hz monitors. But is 480Hz too little? Yes, even that is too little. We **must have** even higher refresh rates! (For the easily confused. This is sarcasm.)
[ instead of that (bandwidth&power) demanding high refresh rates being 'standard', real 3D display options (without additional accessories) could be an upgrade(?) ]
I personally run my 144hz monitor at 120hz fixed in order to get 10bpc, otherwise its restricted to 8bpc. I've seen the same problem with some HDR displays that do 12bpc, but only at 100hz, which is still more than enough for most applications.
I have an nVidia card and just couldn't justify buying into that Gsync BS, so I keep vsync on with a 120hz refresh and tweak the settings for each game to not drop below 120fps. At 3440x1440, this sometimes results in medium detail, even on an RTX4080. But this way vsync prevents tearing and stutter because basically the fps is locked to the refresh rate, and ideally the fps will never drop below the refresh rate.
the technology required for high refresh at 4k enables even higher refresh at 1080 as a bonus side effect because displays are still based on scan lines that travel across total pixel counts, maybe you could stop being a whiny crybaby and use just a tiny bit of your brain
Umm, I was expecting laughter as a result of my comments, not criticism. No crying on my part was implied. But if you wish me to take this matter seriously, IIRC 480Hz can't even be registered by human vision.
[ How long for biological system homo sapiens vision to adapt for being capable recognizing(&interacting) on a 480Hz (0.002s for each pixel frame change) rate on light impressions (special forces, robots, advanced glasses for filtering)? Archaic homo sapiens is appearing within Europe about 100000yrs ago and on American continent ~15000yrs ago (appearing and coming from southern and eastern regions of Africa about 200000yrs ago). Every new generation of humans includes about/maybe ~50 mutations on genomic base different from parental genomic database, maybe there's exceptions for faster visual data reception, what's an increased brain's area compared to (most) other life on planet. Reaction time for humans is ~100-200ms-1/3second(~controlling a car) for visual stimuli, that are transferred to the brain within a ~20-40ms, whereas audio stimuli are conducted within a 8-10ms and reaction time is ~40ms faster compared to visual input. Yes "Yes, even that is too little. We **must have** even higher refresh rates!" that was funny, but also made me think about development and display industry. Another complex matter on this planet, with its own dedicated importance? ]
There is room for quad-mode with 7680 x 4320 being the base resolution, though 144 Hz support is challenging (DP 2.1 with DSC could do it). That'd permit 3840 x 2160 @ 280 Hz, 2560 x 1440 and 1920 x 1080 resolutions to also be supported.
I'm curious if any ultra wide displays will attempt to leverage this. Say 3440 x 1440 @ 180 Hz and 2560 x 1440 @240 Hz pillared on the same panel. Kind of niche but options are nice especially if they don't add anything to the cost.
1080p 480Hz / 2160p 240Hz seems a little extreme, but I can see 240Hz/120Hz being more practical. I'm not sure how I feel about a 120Hz/60Hz, 144Hz/75Hz, or 200Hz/100Hz. 4K60Hz feels too low. Many games don't have frame limiters outside of 30/60/120, so using 100Hz and 75Hz feels wrong.
We’ve updated our terms. By continuing to use the site and/or by logging into your account, you agree to the Site’s updated Terms of Use and Privacy Policy.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
9 Comments
Back to Article
ballsystemlord - Wednesday, January 3, 2024 - link
Because we *need* 480Hz refresh rates.Gamers are being held back by 240Hz and 140Hz monitors.
But is 480Hz too little? Yes, even that is too little. We **must have** even higher refresh rates!
(For the easily confused. This is sarcasm.)
back2future - Wednesday, January 3, 2024 - link
[ instead of that (bandwidth&power) demanding high refresh rates being 'standard', real 3D display options (without additional accessories) could be an upgrade(?) ]Samus - Thursday, January 4, 2024 - link
I personally run my 144hz monitor at 120hz fixed in order to get 10bpc, otherwise its restricted to 8bpc. I've seen the same problem with some HDR displays that do 12bpc, but only at 100hz, which is still more than enough for most applications.I have an nVidia card and just couldn't justify buying into that Gsync BS, so I keep vsync on with a 120hz refresh and tweak the settings for each game to not drop below 120fps. At 3440x1440, this sometimes results in medium detail, even on an RTX4080. But this way vsync prevents tearing and stutter because basically the fps is locked to the refresh rate, and ideally the fps will never drop below the refresh rate.
kn00tcn - Thursday, January 4, 2024 - link
the technology required for high refresh at 4k enables even higher refresh at 1080 as a bonus side effect because displays are still based on scan lines that travel across total pixel counts, maybe you could stop being a whiny crybaby and use just a tiny bit of your brainballsystemlord - Thursday, January 4, 2024 - link
Umm, I was expecting laughter as a result of my comments, not criticism. No crying on my part was implied.But if you wish me to take this matter seriously, IIRC 480Hz can't even be registered by human vision.
back2future - Thursday, January 4, 2024 - link
[ How long for biological system homo sapiens vision to adapt for being capable recognizing(&interacting) on a 480Hz (0.002s for each pixel frame change) rate on light impressions (special forces, robots, advanced glasses for filtering)?Archaic homo sapiens is appearing within Europe about 100000yrs ago and on American continent ~15000yrs ago (appearing and coming from southern and eastern regions of Africa about 200000yrs ago). Every new generation of humans includes about/maybe ~50 mutations on genomic base different from parental genomic database, maybe there's exceptions for faster visual data reception, what's an increased brain's area compared to (most) other life on planet. Reaction time for humans is ~100-200ms-1/3second(~controlling a car) for visual stimuli, that are transferred to the brain within a ~20-40ms, whereas audio stimuli are conducted within a 8-10ms and reaction time is ~40ms faster compared to visual input.
Yes "Yes, even that is too little. We **must have** even higher refresh rates!" that was funny, but also made me think about development and display industry. Another complex matter on this planet, with its own dedicated importance? ]
Kevin G - Wednesday, January 3, 2024 - link
There is room for quad-mode with 7680 x 4320 being the base resolution, though 144 Hz support is challenging (DP 2.1 with DSC could do it). That'd permit 3840 x 2160 @ 280 Hz, 2560 x 1440 and 1920 x 1080 resolutions to also be supported.I'm curious if any ultra wide displays will attempt to leverage this. Say 3440 x 1440 @ 180 Hz and 2560 x 1440 @240 Hz pillared on the same panel. Kind of niche but options are nice especially if they don't add anything to the cost.
ballsystemlord - Thursday, January 4, 2024 - link
That'd be useful.meacupla - Thursday, January 4, 2024 - link
1080p 480Hz / 2160p 240Hz seems a little extreme, but I can see 240Hz/120Hz being more practical.I'm not sure how I feel about a 120Hz/60Hz, 144Hz/75Hz, or 200Hz/100Hz. 4K60Hz feels too low. Many games don't have frame limiters outside of 30/60/120, so using 100Hz and 75Hz feels wrong.