Asus readies the 240-Hz ROG Swift PG258Q

Yes, you read that headline correctly. The ROG blog is teasing the PG248Q, an upcoming 24.5" monitor in the Swift series with a staggering 240-Hz refresh rate. That refresh rate isn't achieved through overclocking; it's a native, standard refresh rate for this 1920×1080 display.

To achieve that speed, the monitor is based on a TN film panel. As a result, it won't have the viewing angles or color reproduction of some of its peers equipped with fancier (but slower) panel types. Buying this monitor to look at still images is completely missing the point, though. Besides, some recent TN panels have largely closed the gap in color quality with their IPS peers. We didn't find the colors of the ROG Swift PG278Q particularly offensive, for example.

The new monitor supports Nvidia's G-Sync variable refresh rate technology, which most gerbils probably sussed out from the model number alone. Asus hasn't announced the variable sync range, but there's little reason to doubt that the monitor will work its G-Sync magic all the way up to 240Hz. Even considering the PG258Q's 1920×1080 resolution, gamers will still need some pretty serious hardware (and a well-oiled machine) to consistently hit that kind of frame rate.

Asus hasn't set a price on the PG258Q, but given the exclusive nature of its 240Hz native refresh rate, don't count on it being cheap. The ROG blog says the monitor will be available early next year.

Comments closed
    • Sabresiberian
    • 3 years ago

    I’m sure a lot of people will find this monitor’s pixel density acceptable, but the whole thing that started me on the “higher pixel density” kick was the 1920×1200 24″ screen I got a number of years ago (which had a slightly higher pixel density than this monitor will). 1440p @ 27″ is acceptable to me, in terms of pixel density, but anything lower isn’t.

    • orik
    • 3 years ago

    I hope this has Lightboost & 3D vision

    • The Egg
    • 3 years ago

    240hz uses quite a bit of connection bandwidth though. 1080p @ 240hz should be roughly equivalent to 4k @ 60hz.

    An online calculator tells me that 1440p @ 240 would be 26.54Gbit/s, and only the latest Displayport 1.4 would be capable of this.

    • I.S.T.
    • 3 years ago

    You know, I have to do wonder what a game like Left4Dead 2 looks like in 240 FPS, or something of that time frame with better lighting like, say, RE5 or 6… Alas, I don’t think my now lowly GTX660 could do those games… L4D2 wouldn’t be hard though. It ran at full speed at 1600×900 on my GTS 250 back in the day. The GTX 660 is many times faster than that.

    • Kretschmer
    • 3 years ago

    I now expect all TR reviews to include a 4.17ms frame time graph option.

    • mkk
    • 3 years ago

    It should get very popular on the CS:GO scene. Other than that not much, perhaps some Overwatch sniper-onlys.
    The rest would appreciate the huge bump in image quality on something like a 1440p 144Hz IPS display.

      • shaq_mobile
      • 3 years ago

      I feel like overwatch has such loose netcode, it’s probably not a huge benefit to get something like this. When i used to play that game, I felt like I always had 150 ping. I could see this being huge in CSGO or arena shooters, if they ever come back into vogue.

        • Platedslicer
        • 3 years ago

        That’s Blizzard’s philosophy: easy to learn (point and shoot), hard to master (ping-based deflection shooting)

          • shaq_mobile
          • 3 years ago

          I just figured they did it to save money on servers… I mean it has to be insanely expensive to pay for all that hardware, I imagine cutting traffic to a third(?) Of the average seems like a prudent move. I guess you could take a glass half full approach and say the funky behavior adds depth and skill cap. I’d really just prefer to have shots land where I expect them to. Then again, part of the charm in Arma is the ballistics. I guess having a low tick rate is sort of similar.

          Blizzard, for sure, has amazing marketing.

      • Krogoth
      • 3 years ago

      More like it be popular by ignorant-types who are absolutely convinced that having 100FPS+ framerate makes a meaningful difference because bigger numbers = better!

      It is the same crowd who buys into the ridiculous 4000+ DPI “gaming” mice full of bling and other non-sense.

        • Prestige Worldwide
        • 3 years ago

        Having 100+ fps is definitely better in many online games. The smoother and more up-to-date your screen is, the better.

          • Krogoth
          • 3 years ago

          Actually, it bring even less benefits for online gaming. It can arguable make it worse (makes it easier to see packet drops and other networking shenanigans) .

          The smoothness and pace of your online gaming experience is limited by the netcode of the application in question and laws of physics (the mean distance between clients and server).

            • Prestige Worldwide
            • 3 years ago

            Sweet baby djesus, you really don’t have a clue.

            • Krogoth
            • 3 years ago

            Nah, just dispelling marketing non-sense for those who don’t understand animation/motion picture 101 and networking.

            They are playing on the good, old “bigger numbers = better!” tactic for those who don’t know any better.

            • GrimDanfango
            • 3 years ago

            So, to mitigate the effects of network latency on a game, you should add *more* latency into the pipeline?

            I certainly agree that 240 over 144 is probably a diminishing-return too far, but your argument is complete nonsense! Whatever limitations the netcode brings, if someone has the information 3ms earlier, it obviously *could* make a difference.

            • Krogoth
            • 3 years ago

            You don’t understand how most network games actually work. The framerate and what is being displayed on client systems have nothing with the actual game state in a mulitplayer session.

            The server does all of the work and doesn’t care for framerate of the “clients”. It is only concerned about network latency (to compensate for shortfalls/differences), heartbeat of clients, sending/relaying packets to the connect clients. The server itself hard-locks the framerate in its game state to be used as a “common reference” point. That’s why you tend to see strange behaviors in online game such as getting a “headshots” from a hitscan weapon that wasn’t aim anywhere near the hitbox on “client” end. It is why you see clients with a high latency tend to be “jumping” around and move erratically.

            Besides, the difference between a modest 60FPS (16ms) and 120FPS (8ms) framerate is 8ms of latency. That difference pales in comparison to the general network latency you find commonplace in a typical non-localized online game.

      • Bensam123
      • 3 years ago

      So anyone that plays FPSs.

    • Meadows
    • 3 years ago

    I believe a 120 Hz display is “good enough” for several years as long as it’s not TN. It’s even pretty good if it *is* TN.

    Refresh rate is like colour depth, we’re getting diminishing returns. Very diminishing ones.

      • travbrad
      • 3 years ago

      Yeah I think the last “step” I can actually tell a difference between on my 144hz monitor is going from 100hz to 120hz, and even that is a much smaller difference than from 60hz to 85hz or 85hz to 100hz. Obviously I can’t say for sure without trying it but I’d be surprised if there is much difference at all between 240hz and 144hz.

      • Bensam123
      • 3 years ago

      60hz was ‘good enough’ because we can’t see faster then 60fps(TM) right?

      Good enough is for old men who don’t want anything to change around them so they don’t have to.

        • travbrad
        • 3 years ago

        There is a dramatic difference between 60hz and 120/144hz though. Can the same be said for 240hz vs 144hz? And is the difference worth the additional cost, especially when very few games run at/near 240FPS even with high-end GPUs and CPUs?

        Even for the “money is no object” crowd it seems like there are possibly some better options. 1440p, IPS, larger screen size, etc. Granted those are “only” available at 144hz, but those will make a difference in EVERY game you play, not just a few old Source Engine games.

          • Krogoth
          • 3 years ago

          It completely depends on the source material.

          If the content doesn’t involve rapid pace-motion and jerking the screen around like a meth-junkie. You don’t *need* 120-144 framerate for a smooth experience. I would be willing to bet that the majority of the users out there would have difficulty seeing any meaningful difference beyond 100FPS.

          • Bensam123
          • 3 years ago

          Yeah, what is ‘dramatic’, but completely subjective? ‘Good enough’ is also entirely subjective.

          You can hit 240fps in a lot of FPS’s. Here is a key to success: Turn down your graphic options. This is a time tested trick since then beginning of vidja games to get more fapspersecond. Anyone that cares about performance or can tell the difference does it.

          I can hit 160-230FPS in Overwatch with a R9-290 and a 4690k. That’s hardly stellar hardware nowdays and I have it artificially capped at 100fps to reduce CPU load as it causes input latency.

          This can also be offset with simply buying a better hardware, just like any other sort of demanding task like 4k or even 1440p.

        • Meadows
        • 3 years ago

        I said no such thing, because 60 Hz was never good enough.

          • Bensam123
          • 3 years ago

          It wasn’t what you said, it’s what people say when they don’t think something is better without trying it or without personally being able to see the difference. In this case, for you, 120hz.

            • Meadows
            • 3 years ago

            I have no need of your straw men. If you reply to me, then reply to me.

    • Chrispy_
    • 3 years ago

    The G-Sync tax is getting silly though. Here are two near identical 144Hz monitors:

    [url=http://www.ebuyer.com/746749-acer-xz271-27-led-curved-freesync-gaming-monitor-um-hx1ee-019<]Freesync, £310 MSRP, £230 street price.[/url<] [url=http://www.ebuyer.com/746752-acer-predator-z271-27-curved-monitor-with-g-sync-um-hx1ee-023<]G-Sync, £500 MSRP, £480 street price.[/url<] That's a £250 street price difference (which is something like $325). For $325 there's no way in hell I'd buy [b<]*any*[/b<] monitor that small and especially not a TN one, let alone a $325 surplus tax on an already expensive monitor. Newegg has five 24" gaming monitors for under $200 right now with 144Hz 1ms panels. [i<]edit:[/i<] Oh, just realised that's an AMVA, curved, 144Hz 27" monitor with Freesync for only £230. Impulse buy completed successfully!

      • YukaKun
      • 3 years ago

      4ms response time? Isn’t that screaming “ghosting” all over it?

      Also, this one is way better, even if TN: [url<]https://www.overclockers.co.uk/aoc-g2460pf-24-1920x1080-tn-freesync-144hz-1ms-gaming-widescreen-led-monitor-black-red-mo-030-ao.html[/url<] According to specs, it's 35Hz to 144Hz of FS range. That is *quite* good fro the price. Also, I have it with a RX480 behind it. Quite the decent purchase I must say. Cheers!

        • morphine
        • 3 years ago

        [quote<]4ms response time? Isn't that screaming "ghosting" all over it?[/quote<] Not really, if the overdrive circuitry is good. I have an IPS-AHVA display with IIRC a quoted 5ms response time, and there's not a lot of ghosting with overdrive on. It gets particularly good with the "Extreme" setting, if the frame rate is really high.

        • Chrispy_
        • 3 years ago

        Firstly, most panel specs should be taken with a grain of salt but the best TN panels that claim a sub-1ms response time have been measured to have an average response time of over 3ms. The AMVA panels used by Acer in these monitors claim 4ms but are typically closer to 10ms. That means there will be some minor ghosting in some transitions but these days pretty much every panel on the market is good enough for gaming because sample-and-hold blur is a bigger problem than response time blur. OLED screens with their 0ms response time still cause precisely one frame of blur because of the way they work. Before you get all worried about the difference between a 3ms panel and a 10ms panel, remember to add 7ms of response between frames for sample-and-hold blurring. It means that your ultra-fast sub-1ms panel (as advertised) is giving you a real-world, pursuit-camera-proven 10ms of blur. The slow VA panel with its advertised 4ms is giving you 17ms of real world blur, and thats at 144Hz. At 60Hz the sample-and-hold blur is 17ms making the difference between the two panels more like 20ms and 27ms. Neither numbers are even remotely close to the “advertised” <1ms or 4ms as quoted by the manufacturer 😉

        Secondly, AMVA has outstanding contrast. 3x better than anything outside of OLED and given that I’m playing a lot of dark games at the moment, that is probably highest on my list. Higher even than 144Hz or colour accuracy.

        Thirdly, AMVA does not have contrast shift in the vertical plane, so it’s better than even the best TN monitors in this regard. The fact it’s curved means that the minimal contrast and colour shift in the horizonal plane that VA suffers from is significantly reduced, possibly to zero. I’ll find out tomorrow I guess 😉

        Lastly, it’s 27″ not 24″ so more immersive for gaming when sitting at the same viewing distance.

          • nicktg
          • 3 years ago

          The gap between TN and IPS panels seems to be getting smaller than that actually. The fastest IPS monitors are now achieving a response time in the region of 6ms on average according to TFT central. While this is still slower than the best TN models, in real life the difference is probably marginal. More importantly, those panels are finally fast enough to reliably display 144 frames per second.

          It is really a pity that G-sync monitors are so overpriced because they also include a stroboscopic backlight which makes them the best gaming monitors at the moment.

          • YukaKun
          • 3 years ago

          Thanks for the detailed explanation. Much appreciated.

          I can say, subjectively, that the AOC has very good colors compared to my previous 120Hz monitor from Samsung (S23A700D). What I can also say, it has a very complicated gamma curve, so reaching a good point is very hard to do.

          I think the biggest selling point for that particular AOC monitor is the range for Freesync it has.

          Cheers!

        • credible
        • 3 years ago

        Got my son this one, CS freak and he is in heaven as he was already ‘good’ but now its off the charts.

        [url<]http://www.canadacomputers.com/product_info.php?cPath=22_1195_700_1104&item_id=066723[/url<]

        • arbiter9605
        • 3 years ago

        ghosting issue has been known to happen on freesync panels, been pretty much 0 issues with it on g-sync side.

          • Airmantharp
          • 3 years ago

          G-Sync and FreeSync aren’t related to the panels- typically, monitors with the same panels will ship with each technology under separate SKUs.

          That’s not to say that there can’t be a difference in terms of ghosting, the circuitry behind the overdrive technology is certainly related, but I’d have to see proof first.

            • Chrispy_
            • 3 years ago

            I think he’s referring to very early reviews when the only G-Sync options were 144Hz TN and the first, very early Freesync options were 75Hz IPS with retrofitted display controllers that couldn’t seem to handle overdrive and variable refresh at the same time.

            It was a very apples-to-oranges comparison in the first place using a 1ms TN panel against a 5ms IPS panel, but also the reviews pitted the polished, second-gen G-Sync against the Mk.I retrofit Freesync. Not only that, it was also before Freesync had matured to what it is today with LFC and extra-VRR vsync handling options.

            As always, the quality of the end result relies upon the monitor more than anything else, but in a lot of cases there are near-identical products for Freesync and G-Sync; Take the two I linked The differences are limited to red paint vs silver paint on the desk stand, and the G-Sync model has a Predator logo instead of an Acer logo. Oh, and the G-Sync model costs [i<]more than twice as much[/i<] :rolleyes:

            • arbiter9605
            • 3 years ago

            Early Freesync monitor’s had a bit of ghosting issues even til now some still do, its not a panel issue but a hardware issue of controlling the voltage to panel to change a pixel to the color it needs to be. Both can use same panel though Nvidia restricts the panels you can use for their’s to ones they allow and have tested to work well doing VRR. AMD has pretty much left it to the makers to figure out what works. Some makers have even limited their 144hz monitor to 90hz in freesync mode as a work around to minimize ghosting.

            • Chrispy_
            • 3 years ago

            I think those times are in the past now. Acer, Asus, Benq, Dell are all offering near-identical monitors for both Freesync and G-Sync now. Apart from the cost and perhaps a logo or two they’re the same thing with the same panel and the same performance.

            G-Sync models like to justify the higher cost with higher specs but this is just a lie, the Z35 I have used did not manage to reach the advertised 200Hz. It is in fact a native 144Hz panel and anything beyond that is not guaranteed. It is exactly the same panel as the 144Hz XZ350CU, and even has the same stand and OSD functions, it just costs £800 instead of £550.

      • Airmantharp
      • 3 years ago

      Honestly as Nvidia develops better SoCs, G-Sync should get cheaper, though it will likely never be as cheap as FreeSync given the inherent advantage in G-Sync’s implementation. Should certainly be able to get the cost difference to <US$50, though.

        • chuckula
        • 3 years ago

        There’s still a noticeable difference the lower you go like down to 1080p.
        In higher-end monitors the difference isn’t anywhere nearly as big.

          • Airmantharp
          • 3 years ago

          I didn’t mind the cost difference for a 27″ 1440p IPS G-Sync display, but I agree if I were looking for TN monitors I’d be a bit peeved myself.

        • jts888
        • 3 years ago

        Is G-Sync even implemented as an ASIC yet?
        Last I heard they were still using FPGA boards…

          • Airmantharp
          • 3 years ago

          They’re up to at least a second generation unit that takes HDMI, and that’s been out for at least a year- so a third-gen should be available soon, and is probably featured in the monitor above (needed a DP update too for all that bandwidth).

          The SoC/ASIC solution is my own assumption, but it’s the most straightforward way for them to drop prices, and they desperately need to do that.

      • credible
      • 3 years ago

      Yes that impulse buy just got me this and I did not realize it was a TN panel but you know what I am still very happy with it and where I have it situated on my desk its not going to matter anyways.

      [url<]http://www.canadacomputers.com/product_info.php?cPath=22_1195_700_1104&item_id=084312[/url<]

    • Cannonaire
    • 3 years ago

    240Hz would be fantastic for several reasons:

    1. Obviously, you’ll see frames as soon as they’re available. The main reason for this existing is for fast twitch gaming, generally with vsync off.

    2. If you use vsync on, the quantization shouldn’t be nearly as bad as with slower panels. That’s not exactly the point of a high-refresh display like this, but it would help tremendously.

    3. Continuing with the vsync benefits, 240Hz would make Lightboost (Nvidia’s low-image-persistence implementation) much better. I could imagine 240Hz with Fast Sync and Lightboost being a great combination for MOBAs and many other genres. Maybe first-person games, as well.

    4. 240Hz is evenly divisible by 24, 30, 48, 60, and 120. The panel probably isn’t great for content creation requiring color accuracy, but it could be very useful for video editing and animation. Well, assuming you could work efficiently within 1920×1080.

    5. (Take this one with a grain of salt)
    [spoiler<]I've heard from a few different sources that framerates north of about 160 make things look much more lifelike. One of those sources is PCPerspective on a 165Hz monitor. Another source (I can't remember) said something about 180Hz being a normal limit for people to identify things within a frame, and still another source (Reddit post) claimed fighter pilots can identify differences at 255Hz.[/spoiler<] I have no idea how accurate this last one is, but I'd love to see for myself.

      • chuckula
      • 3 years ago

      I can definitely see a bell-curve distribution for human perception at high rates of change where trained fighter pilots and similar people would be at the high-end of the curve.

      • jts888
      • 3 years ago

      The frame duration tests come from pretty old studies of how brief a flashed image could be identified by a pilots, etc., and it turn out that sufficiently bright images at as low as 1/1000s could be reliably discerned by trained individuals.

      Motion clarity is a different deal, and there is no hard limit on what seems real enough or not, as it depends almost entirely on the source material and the viewing parameters. For example, subjective angular velocities matter a lot, so the same video content will look smoother in a small window than blown up to full screen on a large monitor.

      So realistically, 240 Hz is nice on a 24″ display but would be a lot more beneficial on 30″-40″ displays, which in turn need higher resolutions for equivalent sharpness. Overall bandwidth requirements thus scale cubically with physical linear FOV and linearly with the maximum angular velocity of apparent object motion or camera panning, for equivalent levels of subjective spatial and motion clarity.

      • Meadows
      • 3 years ago

      The last point is quite accurate, however it is worth pointing out that the “lifelike” quality is mostly due to the tear-free, latency-free seamless updates. That is something you can achieve just as well with a 75 Hz G-Sync display or something. TR themselves have claimed that you don’t even need 120 Hz and the difference is still night and day.

      • Voldenuit
      • 3 years ago

      [quote<]3. Continuing with the vsync benefits, 240Hz would make Lightboost (Nvidia's low-image-persistence implementation) much better. I could imagine 240Hz with Fast Sync and Lightboost being a great combination for MOBAs and many other genres. Maybe first-person games, as well.[/quote<] I find ULMB to be very useful in first person games, because it helps with shape and object identification during quick flicks. So much so that I have switched my monitor settings from G-Sync to ULMB 120 Hz for Overwatch.

        • Cannonaire
        • 3 years ago

        Oh, I wouldn’t doubt that ULMB would be great for FPS games (I haven’t used ULMB yet though). What I meant was that vsync can be a problem in FPS games. I’ve been using vsync off almost exclusively for only the last couple years, and now sometimes things just feel off until I look in the corner and realize my framerate is capped because vsync is on.

        • jts888
        • 3 years ago

        I think there’s a strong consensus at this point that strobing is a higher quality boost than variable sync, but they’re clearly in drastically different performance segments.

        Strobing is for people who can maintain a solid 120/144/+ fps, whereas variable sync is mostly used to make 40-50 fps on a 60 Hz display more bearable.

        On something like a 240 Hz display, I’m not even sure variable sync is needed, since v-sync frame jitter has to be a lot more subtle at those kinds of frequencies.

      • Chrispy_
      • 3 years ago

      Quantization will definitely improve, even with a fixed refresh that means that a dropped frame is still 120Hz, and if a third frame is dropped it’s still 80Hz between refreshes.

      The problem with lightboost is that in the current 144Hz panels, the LED lamp still has some latency going from full bright to off. It’s about 1ms if you look at oscilloscope reviews on places like tftcentral and prad.de, which means if you need a strobe every 4ms for 240Hz, you’re going to be spending at least half of your strobe period just “warming up” and “cooling down” the LED. This will have a massive effect on the overall brightness, but at the same time, the sample-and-hold blur will be so little at 240Hz that you may as well not worry about ULMB anymore and enjoy the animation fluidity of G-Sync.

      144Hz panels can be run at 120Hz which gives you all the content creation requiring 24/30/48/60/120 too, but means you can have an IPS panel and get colour accuracy too.

      As for the fighter pilot thing, that is single-frame silhouette testing. 180 for mere mortals and 250+ for fighter pilots sounds about right, but your brain doesn’t work that way for a continuous animation. Human vision studies have backed up computer imagery with analogue pinwheel tests to show that your average human cannot identify individual frames much beyond about 42Hz but can identify increased fluidity up to about three times that (so 130Hz or so). I’d be curious to read the PCPerspective views on 165Hz though, I’ve personally never seen anything higher than 160Hz (CRT) and know that my own limit was somewhere between 120Hz and 160Hz, which correlates with the studies.

      • meerkt
      • 3 years ago

      What about 23.976Hz? 🙂

      • Krogoth
      • 3 years ago

      240hz is pure placebo effect for almost every source materials out there. It is only useful if you want to accurately depict super-fast and fluid animation i.e a race car zooming pass you at 150MPH+, jet planes making a quick pass, high-RPM motions. Do see the problem?

      It does [b<]absolutely[/b<] nothing for you in twitch shooters and MOBAs. Your own musculoskeletal and nevrious systems are larger bottlenecks in "reflexes" then your own visual system (which itself is limited your own brain not eyes). There's a reason why methamphetamine and amphetamine abuse is a big problem in esports. It is the same reason why people loathe playing against "AI/bots" in twitch shooters/MOBAs. The cost/benefits of trying to obtain a consistent ~240FPS framerate are not there for the overwhelming majority of animations out there. There's a reason why visual media settled for 24 and 60FPS for majority of their material out and most people have difficulty discerning any meaningful difference beyond 85FPS+ framerates.

        • meerkt
        • 3 years ago

        24 fps is due to a combination of old cinema technology limitations and being “good enough”.

        60 fps stems from the limitations and legeacy of CRT technology, old LCD technology, broadcast, and good enough.

        Whether 240 fps is needed over 120 fps is a separate question, but 24 fps is definitely not good, and also 60 fps is not the bee’s knees.

          • Krogoth
          • 3 years ago

          It depends on the source material in question. 240hz and 120hz are not some magical panacea. The problem is that maintaining such rates have massive costs while offering little or no benefit outside of accurately depicting super-fast motion/animation (high-RPM fans/motors, high-speed vehicles/objects zooming by at close range). Blame your visual cortex on this one.

          Outside of flight/racing simulators and certain sports genres (baseball at the batting plate eyeing on a fastball). There really isn’t that much benefit to 120hz and 240hz. It has even less benefits to online gaming which itself limited by netcode and mean distance between clients and server.

          Again, this whole thing is pretty much the whole “bigger number = better!” marketing at work for those who don’t know any better.

    • odizzido
    • 3 years ago

    I’d be interested in checking this monitor out simply to find out if I could tell the difference between 120 and 240hz. Maybe I could test it with mafia 3.

      • chuckula
      • 3 years ago

      [quote<]Maybe I could test it with mafia 3.[/quote<] I see what you did there.

      • Vhalidictes
      • 3 years ago

      I’m wondering if a 240Hz monitor is pointless.

      At some point (and I’m betting this monitor is affected) you’re going to get pixel smearing and ghosting regardless of the underlying refresh rate of the panel.

      LCD pixels have an internal refresh capability and it doesn’t matter what the panel is rated for if they can’t keep up.

      The “1ms” gray-to-gray rating claimed is unlikely at best in real-world conditions.

        • jts888
        • 3 years ago

        For 240 Hz, you only need ~4 ms pixel transition times plus strobing and preferably “compressed” panel write-out (i.e., buffered then written out as fast as possible), as done by at least some ULMB/G-sync displays.

          • GrimDanfango
          • 3 years ago

          Not exactly. At ~4ms transition times, a 240hz panel would spend almost 100% of the time transitioning.
          Ideally, even with ULMB turned on, you’d want no higher than 2ms, so at least the image can settle for the length of a pulse each frame.

    • Neutronbeam
    • 3 years ago

    “(and a well-oiled machine)”…I use sesame oil for my rig because of the enticing nutty aroma; it’s great for fan bearings and keeping RAM shiny. What do y’all use?

      • chuckula
      • 3 years ago

      +3 for use of “nutty aroma” in a post discussing monitors.

        • morphine
        • 3 years ago

        My machine has a creamy center. So do I.

    • DPete27
    • 3 years ago

    When will [url=https://techreport.com/news/30577/upcoming-samsung-cf791-is-a-high-contrast-freesync-ultrawide<]Samsung's new monitors[/url<] be available? I want me some HDR FreeSync.

      • wizardz
      • 3 years ago

      careful, this stuff is gonna blow up in your face.

      • jts888
      • 3 years ago

      I’m waiting (read as: praying) for large DP 1.3/1.4 displays, so we can finally get 40″+ UHD@120Hz displays.
      The price floor for 40″-50″ UHD TVs has fallen out, but as far as I’ve seen, nobody’s put out the scalers that would be needed for these panels to be used as monitors yet.

    • Platedslicer
    • 3 years ago

    I’m as big a fan of high refresh rates as anyone, but 240 Hz seems a tad overkill, especially since it can hardly be expected to come for free… and even 144 Hz monitors aren’t exactly cheap themselves!

    Still, if it turns out to make a difference in smoothness, I might be sniffing around for a deal on one of these. Or one like it, without the G-Sync premium.

      • jts888
      • 3 years ago

      I think the bigger advantage of 240 Hz is that you can have strobing backlights with no eyestrain problems for almost anyone.

      120/144 Hz flicker is above the threshold for most people to consciously perceive, but it is still uncomfortable for a sizeable minority of people under sustained use.

        • Firestarter
        • 3 years ago

        don’t count on it supporting backlight strobing at 240hz, most 144hz monitors don’t even do it at 144hz, instead you have to drop the refresh rate to 120hz to get strobing

    • cmrcmk
    • 3 years ago

    I’ll wager this will be priced at or north of 1 kilodollar. I can only look forward to this tech trickling down to cheaper panels in coming years.

      • chµck
      • 3 years ago

      what’s a kilo?

        • Meadows
        • 3 years ago

        Greek for “a thousand”.

          • caconym
          • 3 years ago

          There are eight bits in a byte, and there are also eight bits in a dollar. I never realized that until just now.

      • derFunkenstein
      • 3 years ago

      PSYCH! There’s no thousand-dollar bill!

        • Philldoe
        • 3 years ago

        But there is. The last one was printed in 1934 with Grover Cleveland on it.

Pin It on Pinterest

Share This