New 360 Hz IPS Gaming Monitor by DELL

[AddictFPS]

360Hz is completely unnecessary.

Current high end hardware in some optimized modern FPS multiplayer games, can overcome 240FPS in random moments, with 240Hz GSync player need cap framerate at ~237 to avoid lag and tearing. Losing the benefits of reduced input lag of FPS spikes beyond 240. Need a monitor that never limit the framerate, beside not lose tearing free !

Is prepared for the future, new generation hardware, with current optimized games and old games, can take advantage of 240-360FPS range, without doubt. Not only for fast paced games, if include strobing for motion blur reduction, the fast scanout 2.77ms Vs 4.12ms help to reduce crosstalk at lower frequencies, more versatile gaming monitor. Not all games or game engine can go to stratosferic framerates, whe need a solution for this, reducing motion blur of course.

If you have enought with 240Hz, and you want reduced motion blur, 360Hz can help to strobe 240Hz with less crosstalk, if you trade a bit of input lag, worth it depend of game type. All are benefits, welcome 360Hz

GPUs with built-in frame rate amplification will come to the rescue in the next decade.

Is a very interesting solution for compare and choice, but i have some doubts, due to:

1) Input lag: For interpolate frames need to know the next to make and intermediate frame, so we are losing 1 frame + the time of frame interpolated processing time.

2) Random artifacts: issues in the interpolated frame. For linear motion FRA work without artifacts, but if the frames are very differents one from another... A easy example is make a 3D simulation of cannon shoting to the air thousands of small alluminun papers, this is a hell Add it side fans and rain. This example is very exaggerated, but is only to show that the challenge is enormous.

I'm not say it can't be possible, only that is very hard do it well in some heavy moments. TV manufacturers try do it perfect, but artifacts are in these type of scenes.

[STOPchris]

We need more powerful computers before we are going to see any benefit here. Even with my 240Hz screen, there are few times that I hit 240 frames per second. The game is either going to be really old, or optimized well enough that if I lower all of the settings I can hit those high frame rates. Usually, those games are FPS games. In everything else, I usually see that the game simply isn't optimized well enough to even get over 200 frames per second. For now, I'll stick to 240Hz monitors (max) as 360Hz is completely unnecessary. Matter fact, my main PC monitor is the PG279Q, which seems to still be the "sweet spot" for resolution and refresh rate.

GPUs with built-in frame rate amplification will come to the rescue in the next decade.

Going beyond about 360 Hz will likely require some frame rate amplification technologies.

I'll be one of the first to jump on one of these monitors, IF we get to the point where games can maintain at or around at least 240Hz or better. I for sure look forward to seeing it when it happens. My issue currently is that there are just far too many games today that are optimized for less than 240Hz, many times less than 144Hz. I'm sure this is linked to console technology, which is always behind PC tech.

[flood]

fresh mouse feet, and high-resolution mouse pad.

mouse feet worn by use on a cloth pad are actually smoother than most fresh mouse feet

there's no such thing as a high-resolution mouse pad. pretty much any pad that isn't a mirror surface has sufficient resolution.

[STOPchris]

Is a very interesting solution for compare and choice, but i have some doubts, due to:

1) Input lag: For interpolate frames need to know the next to make and intermediate frame, so we are losing 1 frame + the time of frame interpolated processing time.

2) Random artifacts: issues in the interpolated frame. For linear motion FRA work without artifacts, but if the frames are very differents one from another... A easy example is make a 3D simulation of cannon shoting to the air thousands of small alluminun papers, this is a hell Add it side fans and rain. This example is very exaggerated, but is only to show that the challenge is enormous.

I'm not say it can't be possible, only that is very hard do it well in some heavy moments. TV manufacturers try do it perfect, but artifacts are in these type of scenes.

Yup, this is my issue with this solution. We've seen it in TV's and those TV's have the issues that you said above. Unless we get true frame rates around or above 240Hz, I'll be sticking with my 240Hz monitor MAX. Matter fact, my PG279Q setup is used far more than my 240Hz monitor BECAUSE most games do not run anywhere near 240Hz right now. I say "most" because, like I said, there are some exceptions, but they are exceptions to the rule and not the rule.

[Chief Blur Buster]

fresh mouse feet, and high-resolution mouse pad.

mouse feet worn by use on a cloth pad are actually smoother than most fresh mouse feet

Yes.

Though, semantically, that's more like polished/optimized rather than degraded wear (referring to scratches, blemishes, dents, imperfections). I will adjust terminology to be clearer in the future.

Not all mouse feet wears the same way on all surfaces. Like a damaged melamine surface (sharp edges in scratches on hard desk surfaces) to being used on a rough wood desk surface (splinters scratching the feet). The scratches in the mouse feet that degrade smoothness of the mouse on any mouse pad.

Heavily scratched feet means you have to start anew, but that's easier than buying a whole new mouse all over again.

there's no such thing as a high-resolution mouse pad. pretty much any pad that isn't a mirror surface has sufficient resolution.

I admit high resolution may be the wrong terminology, the correct term may be "accurate tracking at high velocities"

One need something that glides smoothly, vibration free, stiction free, high contrast at high resolutions, doesn't have duplicate repeating patterns (can confuse a mouse sensor with jitter), etc. The mouse sensors are only a few pixels wide (like a 32x32 camera) and can easily get confused during high-velocity flick movements at high DPI, so one needs a good mouse pad that will track accurately at high velocities, by avoiding patterns that can confuse a sensor at high velocities (e.g. repeating patterns on a mouse pad at the microscopic levels).

A great cloth mouse pad can do a great job, if it's clean, fresh, not too perfect-grid-thread, well maintained (consistent) with the right amount of smoothness for a smooth mouse feel. The weaving grid of the threadwork of an overly perfect generic cloth pad (using very shiny textureless threads under microscope) create duplicate patterning that create microscale tracking imperfections at high velocities that degrades 1600dpi/3200dpi operation (I've seen it happen). Most esports cloth pads are fine, they're considered accurate enough.

Also better sensors are better at compensating for tracking imperfections. An older sensor that falses a wrong-direction track on a perfectly-weaved cloth "thread grid" may not apply to a newer mouse sensor that has enough quality/contrast/resolution to see the individual textures and micro-misalignments of individual threads, etc. Creating better tracking on the same cloth pad.

Either way, the accuracy-imporving intent is the same: A mouse pad that stays accurate at all tracking velocities with high-DPI, with mouse feet that doesn't have damage/scratches that degrade tracking, etc.

Appreciate the need for me to clarify.

So, more accurately, "Clean your mouse feet, and replace your mouse feet if damaged/scratched", as well as "Use a high quality mouse pad that remains accurate during high-velocity tracking".

Sometimes I have to clarify mainstream-massmarket words / semantics but the accurace high-velocity high-DPI tracking intent is important.

The problem is compressing into ELI5 formats (single sentence formats), which can become semantically wrong sometimes, so some clarification is important, indeed. The Blur Busters job of creating simple explanations.

__________________

Also more info, which is supplemental:

For other readers -- for those not fully understanding how DPI microstutters degrades strobe benefits:

This is because at 400dpi, tracking errors are not as visible as at 1600dpi. Mouse tracking impefections are more visible at higher velocities on higher resolution displays at reduced motion blur. However, low dpi can create very steppy mouse movements during slow panning / turning (creating the defacto equivalent of lower frame rates).

Slow mouse movements and medium-speed mouse movements become very steppy/granular if your sensitivity is high and your DPI is low. Especially if these generate still-eyetrackable motionspeeds during panning/turning/scrolling (e.g. 500pps to 5000pps range, similar to TestUFO speeds). 2000 pixels/sec at only 400dpi, at high sensitivity, can be more steppy -- an impression of a lower frame rate that creates a fps-mismatch-refreshrate which is not good for strobing.

If you have sensitivity sufficiently high enough to move a cursor 2000 pixels over 400dpi, your mouse will granularly skip about 5 pixels for the tiniest mouse movement. If you mouseturn very slowly with high-sensitivity and low-DPI, you see the crosshairs move 5 pixels at a time (That can also degrade distant aiming a bit too). This will vary from person to person how their DPI is configured -- some people like to use low sensitivity at low DPI, this will hide this more.

For a specific situation of mouse at 400dpi, with in-game sensitivity configured to 2000 pixels per physical inch, linear, no acceleration:

If you move mouse slower, 500 pixels (one quarter inch), you only have 100 mouse positions. If you move over the course of 1 second, that's only 100 frames per second of panning! Only 100 frames per second of scrolling! Only 100 frames per second of turning! So, it is a defacto fluidity equivalent of 100 frames per second. Regardless of your monitor's refresh rate.

In this sense, the lowness of mouse DPI can essentially sabotage the frame rate of the screen scrolling (turning/panning/scrolling/strafing) of your game during mouse slowturns and mouse medium-speed turns. Whether be FPS or RTS or other situation that generates a full-screen scrolling-type movement.

Now, move the same mouse even, 250 pixels over the course of one second -- then you only have 50 positions per second. 50 frames per second! Much like drag-scrolling a browser bar slowly on a very tall/long webpage that is many screenheights tall -- it step-scrolls (At low frame rate) rather than smoothscrolls (at max frame rate).

Even with sufficient DPI, there's still minor aliasing effects between the DPI-granularity and the refresh rate. For 1000 pixels/sec on a 400dpi with sensitivity configured to pan/turn/scroll 2000 pixels per physical inch -- you have 200 positions. That may sound enough for 144Hz. It is. But, now, we already know perfect 200fps at 144Hz still has slight microstuttering even with keyboard srafing (due to framerate-vs-Hz missync). 200fps at 144Hz jitters/microstutters slightly during strobing because of the fps-vs-Hz mismatch (ignoring the mouse, for a non-mouse situation -- e.g. keyboard strafe left/right while looking at high-resolution posters on walls during strobing). Now throw in the microstuttering of 200 mouse positions during 144Hz, and it can be yet another microstutter weak link thrown into the mix.

Fortunately, raw input + game rendering is subpixel, so overkill DPI compensates despite not perfectly rounding-off to Hz or fps. Having extremely high DPI pushes certain microstutter weak links below the human-visible noisefloor, but it also increases requirement for good sensors + accurate mousepads that doesn't have repeating microtextures + undamaged mousefeet (non-coarse/non-dirty).

In addition, the microstutter of aliasing against refresh rate too, As we all know, motion blur reduction looks best with framerates-matching-refreshrates. And the tiny mouse microstutter is often hidden in motion blur, but if you eliminate motion blur, then the DPI problem becomes visible even at higher frame rates.

Now, raising DPI increases the demand for sensor-tracking accuracy -- from the sensor perspective, mouse pad perspective, and mouse feet perspective. 400dpi hides it all better, 1600dpi shows imperfections more often. So the recommendation of higher DPI for strobing (motion blur reduction), also requires making sure your equipment is capable of staying accurate at higher DPI.

Overkill sample rate is your friend in decreasing mouse microstutter error margins. 1600dpi and even 3200dpi makes strobed mouse movements much better.

[flood]

as long you're not getting stick-slip effects, your mousefeet are smooth enough.

for mouse sensors and pads, it's more of a thing where either it tracks accurately, or it tracks with very obvious glitches. the newest sensors from pixart (33xx) generally don't have issues with any pads.

i've actually taken some pictures from a sensor here:
https://www.overclock.net/forum/24151235-post133.html

The weaving grid of the threadwork of an overly perfect generic cloth pad (using very shiny textureless threads under microscope) create duplicate patterning that create microscale tracking imperfections at high velocities that degrades 1600dpi/3200dpi operation (I've seen it happen).

the size of the weave in all mousepads i've seen is large enough that "duplicate patterns" is never an issue.

esports cloth pads

esports cloth pads are just regular cloth pads plus a brand. absolutely nothing special about them.

to give an example of how i think about this:
suppose some old mouse with sensor A tracks perfectly on mousepad X but has glitches on mousepad Y
how would i expect a new mouse with sensor B to perform on mousepad X vs Y? I would expect sensor B to track perfectly on both.

btw if you're concerned about sub millisecond effects, there are other things that become important:
1. jitter in processing usb input: see e.g. https://www.overclock.net/forum/375-mic ... st28448322
2. sensor framerate (typically few thousand hz)

also many sensors increase "smoothing" at higher dpis, so one should not assume that high dpi doesn't have drawbacks.
afaik, 1600dpi is never worse than 400dpi. 3200 could be, depending on the mouse/sensor and the firmware.

[Jason38]

What if you were running say an emulator with Nintendo games would you show improvement with this monitor? I know most these games run at 60FPS but do you get the advantage of the 360hz at least from a motion blur stand point? If that's the case it would be worth it to me even if it added some input lag. These games don't have high requirements on your system either. Sometimes for us flicker sensitive people I feel like playing these old games is just not great at the moment unless you can tolerate BFI.

[AddictFPS]

What if you were running say an emulator with Nintendo games would you show improvement with this monitor? I know most these games run at 60FPS but do you get the advantage of the 360hz at least from a motion blur stand point? If that's the case it would be worth it to me even if it added some input lag. These games don't have high requirements on your system either. Sometimes for us flicker sensitive people I feel like playing these old games is just not great at the moment unless you can tolerate BFI.

+1

Hope this monitor has unlocked and optimized single strobing in all fixed frequency range, including 60Hz of course, for 60FPS games or 60p streamings with motion blur reduction, otherwise, no bucks. And i'm sure we are not alone in this petition !

I play currently 60FPS games with 21" CRT monitor, and DisplayPort to VGA lag-less adapter Sunix DPU3000, small flicker is assumed, no problem, need to emulate this phosphor decay on LCD backlight, to trade motion blur with flicker, and users choice what prefer.

[Chief Blur Buster]

also many sensors increase "smoothing" at higher dpis, so one should not assume that high dpi doesn't have drawbacks.
afaik, 1600dpi is never worse than 400dpi. 3200 could be, depending on the mouse/sensor and the firmware.

Yep, I've written about this many times in many of my previous posts last year that you should not use the maximum DPI of the mouse, as there is smoothing algorithms. THat's why I shorten this to also include a mention of upgrading your mouse sensor, since newer sensors are more likely to do 1600dpi and 3200dpi as accurately as 400dpi.

There are some unexpected factors where 1600dpi can be worse than 400dpi in revealing error margins of a surface.
- The notching effect (step-step) of high-sensitivity low-DPI can sometimes be viewed as an advantage instead of a disadvantage
- The 400dpi filters out imperfections that shows up at 1600dpi

At 400dpi, it kind of smooths out to an extent. The stepping effect is sometimes also a convenient "notching" or "aliasing" affect (i.e. An enemy 20 pixels to the side of crosshairs is five 400dpi positions away, basically "5 notches away". If you've trained your mouse habits based on the step-step effect, the disappearance of the step-step effect (essentially going notchless) may produce a disadvantage for that specific gamer).

Let's say we've configured 400dpi sensitivity to go 1600 pixels per physical inch, no acceleration. Movements will jump on average of 4 pixels. Now, there are sometimes effects where the mouse cursor jumps 5/1600ths or 3/1600ths instead of 4/1600th distance, because the low DPI is hiding tracking deficiencies. For example, it may be jumping 0,3,9,13,17,20 pixels instead of 0,4,8,12,16,20 pixels in a move movement sequence, because of a very slightly imperfect mouse surface.

Now raise to 1600dpi, you may have more visible coarsenesses showing up that looks more like 0,0,2,3,5,6,8,8,10,11,12,12,12,14,15,16,18,18,19,20 instead of 0,1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11,12,13,14,15,16,17,18,19,20. (An unfineness that remains that does not have the advantages of the notches of low-granularity). To some, it feels less predictable than the 400dpi equivalent of "0,3,9,13,17,20 pixels instead of 0,4,8,12,16,20".

These error margins may need to be traced to physical and electronic causes (hand unsmoothness, mouse vibration, stiction, sensor filtering algorithm, sensor mistrack, etc) but this unfineness often exists at the micro scale level. This is a situation where I believe some gamers prefer 400dpi over 1600dpi because of various side effects and conveniences (error filtering, notching advantages, etc).

I am also scientifically deducing that multiple additional factors are probably at play above-and-beyond what I've posted here. Mudane things like a mouse going over a hard mouse pad, or has dirty feet, can cause the mouse to vibrate (harsh scraping noise = vibration) that adds jitter during high-DPI operation. The hand is not a perfect linear motion device, some mousepads helps some hands glide smoother than others (by giving the right amount of weight and friction to allow hands to glide mouse smoother) since momentum and slight friction are good jitter-absorbers, while other gamers prefer more direct handfeel (ultralight mice, ultra-low-friction mousepads) which may amplify hand jitter (but that might be a preferred advantage for that individual).

Either way, all these likely layers upon each other, to amplify mouse microstutter at the tiny scales. Some may be below human noise floor, and others not, or they layer upon each other enough (in the light of the Vicious Cycle Effect of higher resolution, higher Hz, bigger FOV, etc), to become a limiting factor. Either way, it is hard to trace all these errors down, but it could be a good academic study for students looking for a research topic. One still has to acknowledge the "human preference" angle, though.

For real-world gamers aiming for smoother strobed mousefeel, the best we can do is delete these error marginss en-masse (typically shortened into my typical "Make sure the sensor can handle 1600dpi accurately, use clean & undamaged mouse feet, and choose a mouse pad that works well at high DPI" recommendation for 1600dpi.

Or even the slightly less-accurate but correctly-intentioned extra-simplified recommendation you see "Upgrade sensor, replace your mouse feet, and upgrade your mouse pad". This forces the human to at least look at these ("Oh! I'm using my desk surface. And I see my mouse feet is dirty/scratched")

The interesting 400dpi vs 1600dpi debate has unexpected side effects when one looks closer.

Nontheless, the advantages of high mouse DPI is very advantageous to strobed displays -- provided you keep your microstutters under good control.

[Chief Blur Buster]

What if you were running say an emulator with Nintendo games would you show improvement with this monitor? I know most these games run at 60FPS but do you get the advantage of the 360hz at least from a motion blur stand point?

No, you don't get advantages (by default).

Sample-and-hold 60Hz, 120Hz, and 360Hz look identical for 60fps at 60Hz. You have 16.7ms of motion blur.

Nintendo games were designed to be blurless for CRTs (impulsed displays). Having blurless low frame rates can only be done via an impulsed display.

If the 360Hz ELMB has 60Hz within its ELMB range, then yes, you can emulate a 60Hz CRT with a 360Hz monitor's ELMB running at 60 strobes per second. However, historically, manufacturers have artificially limited their strobe-range to not include 60Hz strobing. The 360Hz wouldn't be a benefit to 60Hz, except in the fast scanout making it much easier to reduce strobe crosstalk (1/360sec scanout leaves 5/360sec to hide LCD GtG in the black periods between strobe flashes).

See the thread Dear ViewSonic: Please Add 60 Hz Single-Strobe for PureXP on XG270 as an example, but it applies to all monitors with strobing. It's technically theoretically only 1 line of firmware code change to enable 60 Hz strobing.