<Technical>
The bandwidth is no longer the primary limiting factor preventing 1000 Hz
We already have 8K 120Hz electronics, which means 1080p ~2000 Hz is possible under the same bandwidth parameters (color depth setting, DSC setting, etc).
The technical restriction is the number of microseconds spent injecting voltage into an LCD Pixel. Not enough time means you can't inject enough voltage in that brief time limit to execute a fast GtG. Often, when a panel gets overclocked far beyond limits, its pixel response becomes lethargic / slower (falling like a rock) because the scanout pulse is too extremely brief to do a really effective GtG.
A display cannot refresh all pixels at once. If you see
High Speed Videos of LCD Scanout, you will see that there's a wipe effect -- the LCD is refreshing one pixel row at a time, with a GtG lag (the fade zone).
The 360Hz LCD may theoretically be overclockable to 480Hz but you may see the contrast ratio drop by ~50% or see GtG suddenly slow down to 2ms, or other side effects -- like what happend to the 60Hz laptop display overclocked to 180Hz (the refresh cycles started badly smearing into each other like an old 33ms LCD). There's a huge yang to go with the ying.
Also, the velocity of pixel row addressing in panels isn't quite there in TCON/scalers (and whatever panel-edge electronics integrated into the glass). Zis had to do lots of shortcuts by going 1/4th vertical resolution in order to achieve overclocked 4x refresh rate on what is essentially an off-the-shelf 4K120Hz capable panel, in what looks like a simultaneous refreshing of 4 pixel rows at a time.
Many fast LCDs are now designed to refresh adjacent pixel rows in scanout sweeps. There are LCDs that will refresh two or four adjacent pixel rows at a time simultaneously, in their top-to-bottom scanout sweep. This gives more time to inject voltage into a pixel row, than if only one pixel row is voltaged at a time.
Adding more channels of simultaneous refreshing to an LCD panel or OLED panel, will help immensely. A panel that can refresh 8 pixel rows at a time instead of 4 pixel rows at a time, will be able to do double the refresh rate at the same scanout velocity.
The refreshing doesn't have to be adjacent pixel row, but could theoretically be subdivided into a defacto equivalent of multiple displays using concurrent scanouts,
like the 960 Hz OLED scanout pattern by treating a panel like 8 separate slices of 120Hz displays (scroll down for it). It's probably very dependant on how the panel is wired -- whether to concurrent-refresh contiguous pixel rows (most panels that have multi-row refresh do it this way), or concurrent-refresh distant pixel rows.
Bottom line -- it boils down to how much time per pixel row you have in injecting voltage into pixels. Double the Hz means you have half the time. So you have to spend either less time voltaging a pixel row (to begin GtG transitions) or double the number of channels (to maintain active-refreshing-time-per-pixel-row)
Early panels like IBM T221 (
YouTube Teardown, the first 4K monitor) had ribbon cables entering the panel-glass to both the top and bottom edges, to allow its early 2-channel refresh capability. But nowadays, most LCDs only have ribbon cables into one edge, and can multi-channel-refresh from one edge. The engineering world discovered that you have fewer artifacts if you keep simultaneous-pixel-row refreshing to contiguous pixel rows. In many cases, monitors are subdivided into multiple vertical strips internally and each strip has a synchronized scanout.
But there are
simple/clever workarounds to eliminating sawtooth multiscan artifacts if you horizontally segment-multiscan (treat the screen as multiple subdivided screens) -- there might be more opportunity to subdivide a panel into multiple displays and use that as a refresh rate increase method. But there are engineering challenges.
Theoretically, future panels can double Hz by going back to the "ribbon-cables-entering-panel-at-both-top-and-bottom", so a 720Hz refresh rate could be achieved with that 360 Hz panel that way with just today's technology -- if it was fabbed slightly differently using today's technology. But such a niche-manufactured LCD panel may be horrendously expensive (>$2000+) as we no longer have monitor motherboard standards for dual-edge-fed panels for commoditized desktop monitors.
It's still a technological option and also makes LCD capability to 1000Hz visualizable within this human generation (though ideally we need eventual <~0.5ms GtG90% across the whole GtG heatmap to really make that shine). It's still unobtainium, but no longer a pipe-dream unobtainium (like 4K in 1990s). Sources now tell me there is a roadmap to 1000 Hz LCDs by the decade of 2030s, but I don't know if it will be achieved that way.
Again, the bandwidth is not the problem. The GPU and the display currently is the weak links (but solvable)
</Technical>
...Hey, you asked for it. This is Blur Busters!