Actual 240Hz monitors quality and 960Hz questions
Posted: 13 Dec 2017, 13:30
Few technical questions from an enthusiast.
So if HDMI standards already supports up to 960Hz @1080p the question is, why does competitive gaming brands don't already release 960Hz 1080p monitors? Some TVs already does 960Hz, even if its duplicated frames, the pixels are still moving 960 times per seconds no? Or is it absolutly not 960Hz? Or is it just for benefits (selling 120->144->240->480->600->960Hz just to make more money)?
What are the limitations of LCD panels? What is the theorical max refresh rate an LCD can achieve (until hiting massive drawbacks or w/e)?
Some of the 240Hz 1080p monitors don't show more than 200 frames per seconds, some even have massive input lag like this one : Viewsonic XG2530 33ms input lag. And even the best like BenQ who could possibly show a little bit over 240 frames (4ms frame time) have input lag (higher input lag than some 120/144Hz panels).
Exemples :
-BenQ 2540 (240Hz 1080p) 4ms frame time, 15.5ms input lag = 3 frames lag at 240fps.
-Viewsonic XG2530 (240Hz 1080p) 4ms frame time, 33ms input lag = 8 frames lag at 240 fps.
-Acer Predator XB272 (240Hz 1080p) 3.5ms frame time, 16.2ms input lag, 3 frames lag at 240fps.
-AOC AGON AG251FZ (240Hz 1080p) 5ms frame time!!!, 200 fps, 14.8ms input lag, 3 fames at 240fps BUT this is a fake 240Hz as the pixel transition time is 5ms you cant have more than 200 fps shown...
So when concidering a monitor for fast paced games the refresh rate is only one part of the equation, we ned also low frame time (pixel transition time) AND LOW INPUT LAG.
There are few things that i don't understand, why do they make monitors with high refresh rate and yet input lag don't decrease. Why don't they make 960Hz 1080p monitors right now. I am sure there is a massive market for it. 144Hz still feel bad for high speed FPS compared to 200Hz CRT. For RTS/top down view its ok.
I hope my message was not too long.
Cordialy!
So if HDMI standards already supports up to 960Hz @1080p the question is, why does competitive gaming brands don't already release 960Hz 1080p monitors? Some TVs already does 960Hz, even if its duplicated frames, the pixels are still moving 960 times per seconds no? Or is it absolutly not 960Hz? Or is it just for benefits (selling 120->144->240->480->600->960Hz just to make more money)?
What are the limitations of LCD panels? What is the theorical max refresh rate an LCD can achieve (until hiting massive drawbacks or w/e)?
Some of the 240Hz 1080p monitors don't show more than 200 frames per seconds, some even have massive input lag like this one : Viewsonic XG2530 33ms input lag. And even the best like BenQ who could possibly show a little bit over 240 frames (4ms frame time) have input lag (higher input lag than some 120/144Hz panels).
Exemples :
-BenQ 2540 (240Hz 1080p) 4ms frame time, 15.5ms input lag = 3 frames lag at 240fps.
-Viewsonic XG2530 (240Hz 1080p) 4ms frame time, 33ms input lag = 8 frames lag at 240 fps.
-Acer Predator XB272 (240Hz 1080p) 3.5ms frame time, 16.2ms input lag, 3 frames lag at 240fps.
-AOC AGON AG251FZ (240Hz 1080p) 5ms frame time!!!, 200 fps, 14.8ms input lag, 3 fames at 240fps BUT this is a fake 240Hz as the pixel transition time is 5ms you cant have more than 200 fps shown...
So when concidering a monitor for fast paced games the refresh rate is only one part of the equation, we ned also low frame time (pixel transition time) AND LOW INPUT LAG.
There are few things that i don't understand, why do they make monitors with high refresh rate and yet input lag don't decrease. Why don't they make 960Hz 1080p monitors right now. I am sure there is a massive market for it. 144Hz still feel bad for high speed FPS compared to 200Hz CRT. For RTS/top down view its ok.
I hope my message was not too long.
Cordialy!