Actual 240Hz monitors quality and 960Hz questions

Everything about displays and monitors. 120Hz, 144Hz, 240Hz, 4K, 1440p, input lag, display shopping, monitor purchase decisions, compare, versus, debate, and more. Questions? Just ask!
Chaps2
Posts: 12
Joined: 30 Nov 2017, 09:40

Actual 240Hz monitors quality and 960Hz questions

Post by Chaps2 » 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!

User avatar
Chief Blur Buster
Site Admin
Posts: 11647
Joined: 05 Dec 2013, 15:44
Location: Toronto / Hamilton, Ontario, Canada
Contact:

Re: Actual 240Hz monitors quality and 960Hz questions

Post by Chief Blur Buster » 13 Dec 2017, 15:58

Technological progress, alas, takes time..

Indies/Homebrew (2013) beat manufacturers (2016) to 240Hz monitors -- year 2013 video of 240Hz
Indies/Homebrew (2017) beat manufacturers (????) to 480Hz monitors -- our tests of a 480Hz display

Current expectations:
-- We currently expect commercial 480Hz+ around the year ~2020 by the big names (ASUS, Acer, etc).
-- Homebrew 1000Hz by ~2020
-- Enthusiast 1000Hz by ~2025 (ish).

Achieving ultra-high framerates on ultra-high Hz displays is extremely difficult at this time, but will be required for lagless/strobeless ULMB (aka blurless sample-and-hold) which requires using Hertz insanity to lower persistence (since persistence of flickerfree displays is (1/Hz)ms -- persistence is a refresh cycle -- it takes 500fps@500Hz to achieve 2ms persistence without CRT/flicker/impulsing/strobing, and 1000fps@1000Hz unstrobed to achieve 1ms persistence (likewise).

In addition GPU horsepower is an issue -- but will solve itself via frame rate amplification technologies (timewarping/reprojection/3D interpolation). Basically lagless and artifactless geometry-aware interpolation technologies, which is beginning to be used for virtual reality (especially Oculus) and will eventually filter down to making 1000fps possible on midrange GPUs by the mid 2020s or thereabouts -- maybe sooner if NVIDIA focuses on it. 1000Hz needs 1000fps to be really "strobeless ULMB" or "blurless sample-and-hold".

Crazy numbers to achieve blurless without strobing/impulsing/flicker technology (ala LightBoost, ULMB, DyAc, ELMB, strobe backlight, scanning backlight, pulsed OLED rolling scan, etc).

The world's best display scientists now agrees with Blur Busters in the need for 1000Hz+ eventually in humankind. As the world's first website to test 480Hz. After feasting eyes on what looked almost like "strobeless ULMB/LightBoost" via Hertz brute-force (albiet at only 960x540 resolution), we are now strong advocates of "blurless sample-and-hold" display technologies which requires ultrahigh Hz.

TL;DR; We're stuck with strobing/impulsing/flicker.....for now.
Head of Blur Busters - BlurBusters.com | TestUFO.com | Follow @BlurBusters on Twitter

Image
Forum Rules wrote:  1. Rule #1: Be Nice. This is published forum rule #1. Even To Newbies & People You Disagree With!
  2. Please report rule violations If you see a post that violates forum rules, then report the post.
  3. ALWAYS respect indie testers here. See how indies are bootstrapping Blur Busters research!

Q83Ia7ta
Posts: 761
Joined: 18 Dec 2013, 09:29

Re: Actual 240Hz monitors quality and 960Hz questions

Post by Q83Ia7ta » 14 Dec 2017, 05:50

Chaps2 wrote:-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...Cordialy!
Where from you got that bullshit?

Chaps2
Posts: 12
Joined: 30 Nov 2017, 09:40

Re: Actual 240Hz monitors quality and 960Hz questions

Post by Chaps2 » 14 Dec 2017, 07:48

Q83Ia7ta wrote:
Chaps2 wrote:-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...Cordialy!
Where from you got that bullshit?
https://www.lesnumeriques.com/moniteur- ... /test.html
https://www.lesnumeriques.com/moniteur- ... /test.html
https://www.lesnumeriques.com/moniteur- ... /test.html
https://www.lesnumeriques.com/moniteur- ... /test.html

etc. Prad.de also have the same results.

Mind your language.

daggertx
Posts: 23
Joined: 28 Nov 2017, 22:09

Re: Actual 240Hz monitors quality and 960Hz questions

Post by daggertx » 14 Dec 2017, 10:44

Yes but how are they testing it? Is that a 60hz test?

Chaps2
Posts: 12
Joined: 30 Nov 2017, 09:40

Re: Actual 240Hz monitors quality and 960Hz questions

Post by Chaps2 » 14 Dec 2017, 12:48

daggertx wrote:Yes but how are they testing it? Is that a 60hz test?
They use high speed cameras and additional hardware to test input lag. Lesnumeriques is a well known professionnal website designed for photo/camera testing and by popular demands they also started testing mainstream PC monitors since already a decade almost.

Prad.de is also a very professional website aimed at professional PC monitors (their main audiance is NOT PC gamers), they use same tests methodologies IIRC.

daggertx
Posts: 23
Joined: 28 Nov 2017, 22:09

Re: Actual 240Hz monitors quality and 960Hz questions

Post by daggertx » 14 Dec 2017, 14:23

Experts on this site disagree the lag on 240hz is that big a deal compared to 60hz lag.

For instance:

https://www.blurbusters.com/gsync/gsync ... ettings/3/

Chaps2
Posts: 12
Joined: 30 Nov 2017, 09:40

Re: Actual 240Hz monitors quality and 960Hz questions

Post by Chaps2 » 14 Dec 2017, 15:14

If you had read carefuly you could see 120/144Hz stated, nowhere do i talked about 60Hz. Comparison was with other 120/144Hz monitors. Best 120/144Hz monitors can do 9-10ms input lag, some 240Hz panels shows MASSIVE input lag of 33ms which even some 60Hz panels can beat easily. Depends on the panel you compare with.

The question remain as to why monitors don't have just 1 frame latency. It's almost like they have massive frame buffer. that could be the reason.

daggertx
Posts: 23
Joined: 28 Nov 2017, 22:09

Re: Actual 240Hz monitors quality and 960Hz questions

Post by daggertx » 14 Dec 2017, 18:12

Which of the current 240hz TNs on the market has the lowest?

I have played with a 60, 144, and a 240. While running a 1080Ti with no G-Sync, motion blur off, and no v-sync, and 240 felt much better. So if they DO have imput lag, I am not sure the average gamer can tell.

This was on my friends system, and I am currently still shopping for a 240hz myself. There is not a lot of info other out there on the these monitors, and I think this is because they are 1080p TN. As a FPS gamer who came from CRTs I care about motion blur, screen tearing, and the response time. For me, it means performance is more important that colors or viewing angles or anything else.

Blur Busters is one of the sites that seems to know what they are talking about when it comes to all of this stuff though.

User avatar
Chief Blur Buster
Site Admin
Posts: 11647
Joined: 05 Dec 2013, 15:44
Location: Toronto / Hamilton, Ontario, Canada
Contact:

Re: Actual 240Hz monitors quality and 960Hz questions

Post by Chief Blur Buster » 14 Dec 2017, 22:55

Garbage measurements when they do not even tell you what Hz the lag number is for.

All it says is 240Hz monitors aren't the lowest-60Hz lag.

Many sites only measure 60Hz lag.

Only a few sites including Rtings, BlurBusters, etc truly understand the lag-vs-hz relationships.

For example, RTings measures the XL2540 as being a crappy 15ms....at 60Hz.
But it is a supremely 60Hz-CRT-beating 3.7ms at 240Hz!
(60Hz CRT still is 8-9ms for lag to screen center, as done by common 60Hz lag testers which begin the lag-measuring time measurement from the blanking interval)

Lag numbers with missing Hz numbers = garbage lag measurements unless they tell you Hz numbers too.

Image

What is true, though, is 240Hz monitors aren't the world's lowest lag XboxOne/PlayStation4 monitors, but you aren't going to be using 60Hz timings with these 240Hz monitors. And 60fps@240Hz is lower lag than 60fps@60Hz so even PC-based 60fps (on these monitors) is lower lag than console 60fps.
Q83Ia7ta wrote:Where from you got that bullshit?
Damn right, lag numbers with missing Hz numbers, are all bullshit numbers.

Credit where credit due, many do make a caveat they only measure lag at 60Hz, but many sites omit this critical piece of info!

60Hz lag is NOT the same as 240Hz lag.

That said, 240Hz can be world's lowest lag at highest Hz, while simultaneously, performing worse at 60Hz than the best 60Hz monitors. But big whoop - unless you are doing both PC or console. Who plays CS:GO at 60Hz? :lol:
Chaps2 wrote:Mind your language.
I'm giving this a very rare forum-rules exception.

It's bullshit if Hertz numbers are not attached to lag numbers.

It's like giving you a hard disk benchmark without the brand name of hard disk.
It's like giving you a CPU benchmark without telling you how many gigahertz they benchmarked at.
Lag numbers with missing Hertz numbers are useless numbers, just like that.

Some sites hide the lag Hertz in tiny fine print, some sites don't even mention it at all.

See above image.
Head of Blur Busters - BlurBusters.com | TestUFO.com | Follow @BlurBusters on Twitter

Image
Forum Rules wrote:  1. Rule #1: Be Nice. This is published forum rule #1. Even To Newbies & People You Disagree With!
  2. Please report rule violations If you see a post that violates forum rules, then report the post.
  3. ALWAYS respect indie testers here. See how indies are bootstrapping Blur Busters research!

Post Reply