New 360 Hz IPS Gaming Monitor by DELL

[flood]

how about in time?

60hz = 16.67ms
90hz = 11.11ms
180hz = 5.56ms

is the improvement from 60hz to 90hz comparable to the improvement from 90hz to 180hz?

(i feel like 90 -> 180 is a bigger improvement than 60 -> 90. so this is not perfect either)

[RedCloudFuneral]

So this is obviously going to be a premium monitor.. how come we don't see >SRGB color gamut or other premium bits on these monitors? Why are we limited to 165hz monitors with this spec right now?

[Chief Blur Buster]

how about in time?

60hz = 16.67ms
90hz = 11.11ms
180hz = 5.56ms

I agree but it's too fast a curve.

That said, I do have one teaching that uses your path: Numbers-wise, "1000Hz vs 120Hz" is roughly as human visible as "120Hz vs 60Hz" talk, because:

60Hz = 16.7ms
120Hz = 8.3ms (8.3ms better)
1000Hz = 1ms (7.3ms better)

However, in real world blur in virtual reality, sometimes 120Hz-vs-1000Hz is much more dramatic than 60Hz-vs-120Hz because of a differential effect (blur difference between static images and moving images). Whereas 60Hz and 120Hz has noticeable blur differentials relative to static images, the dramatic lack of differential between moving-vs-static, creates a "120Hz-vs-1000Hz" being much more dramatic than ("60Hz vs 120Hz"). At 3000 pixels/second head turning on a 4K VR microdisplay, you have 50 pixels of blur at 60Hz, 25 pixels of blur at 120Hz, and only 3 pixels of blur at 1000Hz. You can emulate this via strobing (16ms persistence vs 8ms persistence vs 1ms persistence), and realize that 8ms-vs-1ms is a bigger difference in VR than 16ms-vs-8ms, despite being numerically smaller. This is because tiny text on sheets of paper on virtual desks and virtual walls go all motion-blurry during head movements which create perma-panning on VR displays == panning screen with fixed gaze point on 3D object that's scrolling back and fourth to stay fixed relative to the simulated world. This is because the blur delta between static and moving becomes the new motion-clarity reference point -- which amplifies our known "Vicious Cycle Effect" benefits amplification variables. The sudden-world-defocussing-during-headturns disappears when VR is below a threshold, like ~2ms, and marginal benefits still occur (Valve Index 0.3ms) to keep progressing MPRT improvements beyond. Some of this also kind of translates to real-world fixed desktop monitors during certain motion scenarios such as reading text while smoothscrolling, the text tends to lock tack-sharp beyond a specific point and the "delta between static and moving" disappearing threshold is a noticeable achievement (and more remarkable when achieved strobelessly). So, that's another variable of the Vicous Cycle Effect.

Also, by that specific math, the next step after 60Hz-vs-120Hz would be far beyond 1000Hz, just to get close to the 8.3ms jump. Metaphorically, by that "progress difficulty", you're advocating a technology innovation equivalent of an ultra-geometric VHS->DVD->16K skipping the 720p and 1080p and 4K and 8K steps. People would wait forever between DVD and 16K because so many intermediate steps are missed. Tech progress would die on the spot.

That requires users to wait a decade after buying their first 240Hz monitor. That makes no sense whatsoever, given the continued benefits of intermediate refresh rates before 1000Hz, given many are picky about motion clarity.

We have gone with the double-Hz philosophy as a recommendation that balances technology progress, upgrade frequency, product availability frequency, and human-benefits philosophy. Refresh rates are doubling approximately once every five years, which is more in sync with monitor upgrade cycles.

Also, it's easier to teach the Blur Busters math with doublings.
See Making Of: Why Are TestUFO Display Motion Tests 960 Pixels Per Second?

Advantages Of Doubling Hz
The bottom line is that the advantages of doublings are:

• Easier to teach
• Easier for users to math
• More in sync with technology progress
• Kind of a Refresh Rate Moore's Law is that Hz doubles every approx ~5-10 years or so
• More in sync with end-user TV and monitor upgrade cycles
• Sufficiently human visible differences
• Consistent with "doublings" progress in other arenas such as resolution progress (480p -> 1080p -> 4K -> 8K -> 16K)
• In sync with double resolution requiring double Hz to maintain pixel of motion blur
• Easier to demo via TestUFO tests, since half framerate on double-Hz, emulates the older half-Hz display
• People who've upgraded a Hz-double immediately gets familiar with the "double-Hz-halves-blur" effect (assuming GtG isn't slow), making them receptive to future Hz doublings.

It's teaching convenient, mathematically convenient, marketing convenient, recommendation convenient, using basic math, easier for average mainstream humans to understand. We're huge fans of geometric improvement, but we have to make it a "Blur Busters teachable moment" too!.

"Just right, not too much, not too little"
Indeed, there are diminishing curves. That is true. Just like for 1080p -> 4K -> 8K -> 16K. But going too geometric isn't technological-progress pratical. However, we do want to push harder beyond tiny incrementalism (144Hz->165Hz). If you are familiar with Goldilocks in "Three Little Pigs" (story), this is the metaphor:

• Very goldilocks (This Blur Busters advocacy of double Hz), is in sync with so many Blur Busters goals;
• Not too cold (fixed Hz incrementalism), killing user benefits ("I don't see improvement") and creating waste;
• Not too hot (millisecond count method), killing tech progress benefits ("The next step is too huge and decades away").

Easy To Teach
This way, I can successfully teach elementary school students about the refresh rate race. Many Fortnite players are not even in high school yet but screaming to get high-Hz monitors and loving 120Hz iPads already. I can successfully teach parents and grandparents about refresh rates, project managers, bosses, CFOs, and non-gamers, as long as I keep concepts sufficiently fun and simple.

I love it when non-gamer grandparents understand a strobe backlight & a 240Hz monitor; I'm one of the few people who can successfully teach that to someone who doesn't know what a refresh rate is! Can you teach a 70 year old that does not know what a refresh rate is? I have successfully done it, in a simplified ELI5 progression that goes all the way to 240Hz and strobe backlights. Doublings are easy concepts.

While I prefer to recommend 2x Hz as the upgrade cycle -- in reality I recommend roughly 1.5x Hz to be the minimum bar for sufficient upgrade worthiness. This falls within the 144Hz->240Hz upgrade and the 240Hz->360Hz upgrade cycles. Meaning, if you already have 240Hz, it might not be worth the little leap to 280Hz. And if you already have 144Hz, it might not be worth the little leap to 165Hz. We've seen users give up the refresh rate race because they did tiny upgrades and think the refresh rate race is dead. Whereas people who at least double Hz, clearly sees far more benefit.

Also display resolution sometimes go up simultaneously with refresh rate. The first 120Hz display in year 2009 was the Samsung 2233RZ and ASUS VG236H, both were 1600x900 panels. Today, the highest-resolution 240Hz panels are 2560x1440 (non-ultrawide) and 5120x1440 (Samsung ultrawide). Double resolution requires double Hz to keep number of pixels of motion blur constant. The simultaneous technology progress interacts with each other in the Vicious Cycle Effect. The sharper resolutions creates bigger delta between static images and moving images, forcing the refresh rate to keep up.

By 2030, we'll literally need 4K 480Hz just to maintain pixels-per-inch of motion blur of 1080p 240Hz. And -- no -- 4K 480Hz isn't unobtainium. There's an engineering path already that can be achieved even with today's technology, but GPU technology is behind for now. However, multiple parties are working on frame rate amplification technologies already (to generate more frame rate cheaply).

Blur Busters is why ASUS has roadmapped 1000Hz (they confirmed to me, to Verge, and to PC Magaizne, all at CES 2020 that it's their ultimate goal in a decade; ASUS specifically called me out). And why parties such as Doom Eternal creator saying their engine is futureproofed to 1000fps. We've taught so many people the human-visible benefits of the refresh rate race, much indirectly (people that I original taught, teaching people teaching people...), and tipping many dominoes, such as VR low persitence, etc.

It now sells itself but I had to push a lot of dominoes by simplifying down high-Hz teachings, including TestUFO, the world's first "autoconfigurable-motion-demo-in-a-link" system (example custom TestUFO autoconfig link; demos BFI don't need to be black). There are practically infinite (well...trillions) of different TestUFO tests if I use all possible combos of TestUFO autoconfigure parameter links.

My ability to just cite a simple "see for yourself" TestUFO motion test proof link to prove many kinds of arguments in the display sphere -- just pretty much do total-micdrops to lots of display debates -- and Blur Busters is the ones who can make something obscure such as a display motion test go mainstream/viral occasionally (i.e. LinusTechTips, or tweet by a million-subscriber esports athlete, etc).

Hey, I have been mythbusting 30fps-vs-60fps since 1993 (screenshot of my nearly 30-year-old TestUFO granddaddy). I was only a teenager when I created that.

That said, academically I agree with your milliseconds dissertation (with the exception of the Vicious Cycle Effect amplification effects, in VR experiments, as explained in the first few paragraphs near top). But alas, fixed milliseconds is technology-progress impractical and teaching-impractical. I've gone with the Hz-doubling industry-progress recommendation because it's more humankind-benefitting.

I think outside the box...

[pox02]

please benq 360hz to :C

[Chief Blur Buster]

please benq 360hz to :C

IMHO, all manufacturers of 240Hz need to up their game to 360Hz.

1.5x is what I consider a reasonable trigger point of a worthwhile Hz jump, though GtG limitations makes the difference closer to 1.3x to 1.4x improvements.

The GtG needs to improve to keep pushing the refresh rate benefits needle.

[forii]

Damn, now due to this I don't know if I should ship back my MSI MAG251RX, which I thought its best, when will this Dell come out?

Is it really worth to get 360hz even if I dont have stable 240 fps? 360hz for ~200 fps, idk if it's worth. the motion blur/clarity can look worse on 200fps on 240hz vs 360hz?

Edit.

Also Imo 360hz will be best with 3080ti, and for this gpu I also need to wait, I think its good to keep msi mag, and wait for best 360hz, dunno how this dell will competive vs others 360hz

[Chief Blur Buster]

200fps would look the same, motionblur-wise.

To bring these frame rates to more games, we will probably soon need upcoming frame rate amplification technologies, such as DLSS and temporally-dense raytracing, etc. I think we will see some developments come out in the next couple years to milk these refresh rate stratospheres.

[forii]

200fps would look the same, motionblur-wise.

To bring these frame rates to more games, we will probably soon need upcoming frame rate amplification technologies, such as DLSS and temporally-dense raytracing, etc. I think we will see some developments come out in the next couple years to milk these refresh rate stratospheres.

Would you keep on my place MSI Mag251rX (240Hz IPS)?

Or wait on 7 years old 144hz TN for these few years, same with 3080TI.

I think 240Hz is optimal choice, and 360hz without frame rate amplification technologies and better GPU is useless imo

[Kyneaz]

I guess i'm returning my PG258Q to amazon

[forii]

I guess i'm returning my PG258Q to amazon

why lol, imo 240hz is enough, and u will not get 360 fps in any new game, even in cod mw with 3080ti, unless u play old engine games then maybe, but still with 99% gpu load which will give u huge input lag