Blur Busters Forums

WELP, ive confirmed it.
Acer didn't bother adding any refresh rates and codecs when playing on hdmi. Basically they're HDMi 2.0 ports are useless for this panel


This explains why acer didnt provide any HDMI cables inside the box.
To me, it's very important necause i intended to play games via ps5 and series x on the moni
For the 98% of ppl, most dont find that a big deal and will enjoy the fast response times and low input lag.

Guys, the msi mag251rx is still king of 240hz ips. Even if the g sync predator can get over 60hz via hdmi, i hated the fact that i had to move my eyes so much since the screen size was too big. Eye movement=it will seem like u are playing on slow motion from the opponent's point of view.

Excessive Eye tracking and difficulty having the right focal point cost me plenty of games. I will never go back tp 27" 1080p.

Try it Click the test. Repeatedly. True, what is the point of achieving this on pc. If the console is still at 60.

RLCScontender wrote: ↑

27 May 2020, 06:00

Coming soon, the best(based off my tests) and fastest 1440p IPS monitors (that doesnt' cost $2000). unfortunately the asus tuf VG27AQ didn't make the cut.

LG 27GL850-b (144hz 1440p IPS monitor) (133% SRGB 98% DCI-p3)
Viewsonic Elite XG270QG (165hz 1440p IPS monitor) (133% SRGB 98% DCI-P3)
Asus ROG Strix XG279Q (170hz 1440p IPS monitor) (125% SRGB 95% DCI-p3)

vs

MSI MAG251RX (240hz 1080p IPS monitor) (133% SRGB 98% DCI-P3) (lottery panel)

can these 1440p REAL wide gamut IPS monitors be better than the MSI MAG251rx?(the overall best 240hz IPS monitor based off of my tests and my observations)


teaser

phpBB [video]

The monitor is locked to 100hz over HDMI for me, and it seems for others too:
https://www.reddit.com/r/Monitors/comme ... _to_100hz/

I'm guessing you tested using DP to get the 144hz? However, according to Blurbusters, DP is higher latency than HDMI:
https://www.reddit.com/r/GamingOptimisa ... splayport/

So, I'm guessing for this display it is best to use DP anyway because the increase in latency from DP is less than the difference between 100hz & 144hz? Can anyone confirm?

Unfortunately, I didn't realize this when purchasing my graphics card, which only has 1 DVI & 4 HDMI outputs.

EDIT: even more confusing is the manual, which states:
Max Resolution:
2560 x 1440 @ 144 Hz (HDMI)
2560 x 1440 @ 144 Hz (DP)

Recommended Resolution:
2560 x 1440 @ 100 Hz (HDMI)
2560 x 1440 @ 144 Hz (DP)

So xb273x can’t go beyond 60hz on hdmi 2.0? Well that’s a shame... I have this monitor coming on Monday. This is a deal breaker for me as well since sole intended purpose was for ps5 and Xbox series x.

nexina7350 wrote: ↑

18 Jun 2020, 16:56

Hello, I would like to correct a few points in a post made by RLCScontender.

I think both of you are somewhat correct, it's apples versus oranges. RLCSContender simplified way too much of a Blur Busters concept, that can lead to a misinterpretation (I've had to clarify that to him quite a few times).

I think 240 vs 280 is minor in many metrics but 240 vs 280 is not insignificant in other metrics.

Not all pixels refresh at the same time, aka scan-out latency: www.blurbusters.com/scanout

Lag is multiple numbers:
- Absolute latency (pixel for pixel in same location)
- First-response latency (first changed pixel of new refresh)
- Scan-out latency (sequential pixel refresh, one at a time)
- Latency variances (erratic latency)

However, understand that for a 40ms worth of refresh cycles, a 120Hz monitor is displaying about 5 refreshes, and a 240Hz monitor is displaying 10 refreshes.

Example1: 8ms refresh intervals (i.e. close to 120Hz), baseline
120Hz: 0ms, 8ms, 16ms, 24ms, 32ms

Example2: 4ms refresh intervals (i.e. close to 240Hz), 1ms more lag, but more frequent refreshes
240Hz: 1ms, 5ms, 9ms, 13ms, 17ms, 21ms, 25ms, 25ms, 33ms, 37ms

Even though the conceptual example 240Hz is 1ms laggier than the conceptual example 120Hz monitor, the increased refresh opportunities can sometimes compensate. So even though the lag is the same (or even laggier), the more frequent refreshing can reduce the difference between a monitor (finite refresh rate) and a real world (infinite refresh rate).

Screens are often simulated windows of real life. But lag is a complex topic. Even 120Hz and 240Hz with identical photodiode oscilloscope lag (aka what people refer to "absolute lag"), isn't necessarily identical in human-reaction-time real world lag, because of those additional refresh opportunities spraying photons to eyes sooner. So a slightly-laggier but much-higher-Hz can actually human-reaction-time-outperform a less-laggy but much-lower-Hz display because of additional refresh opportunities & reduced scanout latencies.

Now, 240 vs 280 is very minor for most people. But it can be big when people are earning a living playing competitive games (aka esports). In this situation, 240 vs 280 can be big for some people.

Lag is complex.
Lag is not a single number.

There are also other reasons where a millisecond matters The Amazing Human Visible Feats Of The Millisecond. In some situations, 10ms is invisible to >90% of population. In other situations even 0.1ms becomes blatantly human visible to >90% of population.

It's the context where the millisecond occurs in terms of display mechanics. We have a rule of respecting the millisecond on Blur Busters, because within the millisecond, lurks many scientific surprises in display research.

(A) Now, I do agree that 240Hz vs 280Hz is extremely minor to most.
(B) However, I do also agree that 240Hz vs 280Hz is major to others.
I don't want any party to misrepresent (A) or (B)

Chief Blur Buster wrote: ↑

18 Jun 2020, 19:30

nexina7350 wrote: ↑

18 Jun 2020, 16:56

Hello, I would like to correct a few points in a post made by RLCScontender.

I think both of you are somewhat correct, it's apples versus oranges. RLCSContender simplified way too much of a Blur Busters concept, that can lead to a misinterpretation (I've had to clarify that to him quite a few times).

I think 240 vs 280 is minor in many metrics but 240 vs 280 is not insignificant in other metrics.

Not all pixels refresh at the same time, aka scan-out latency: www.blurbusters.com/scanout

Lag is multiple numbers:
- Absolute latency (pixel for pixel in same location)
- First-response latency (first changed pixel of new refresh)
- Scan-out latency (sequential pixel refresh, one at a time)
- Latency variances (erratic latency)

However, understand that for a 40ms worth of refresh cycles, a 120Hz monitor is displaying about 5 refreshes, and a 240Hz monitor is displaying 10 refreshes.

Example1: 8ms refresh intervals (i.e. close to 120Hz), baseline
120Hz: 0ms, 8ms, 16ms, 24ms, 32ms

Example2: 4ms refresh intervals (i.e. close to 240Hz), 1ms more lag, but more frequent refreshes
240Hz: 1ms, 5ms, 9ms, 13ms, 17ms, 21ms, 25ms, 25ms, 33ms, 37ms

Even though the conceptual example 240Hz is 1ms laggier than the conceptual example 120Hz monitor, the increased refresh opportunities can sometimes compensate. So even though the lag is the same (or even laggier), the more frequent refreshing can reduce the difference between a monitor (finite refresh rate) and a real world (infinite refresh rate). Screens are often emulators of real life, and 120Hz and 240Hz with identical photodiode oscilloscope lag, isn't necessarily identical in human-reaction-time real world lag, because of those additional refresh opportunities spraying photons to eyes sooner.

Now, 240 vs 280 is very minor for most people. But it can be big when people are earning a living playing competitive games (aka esports). In this situation, 240 vs 280 can be big for some people.

Lag is complex.
Lag is not a single number.

There are also other reasons where a millisecond matters The Amazing Human Visible Feats Of The Millisecond. In some situations, 10ms is invisible to >90% of population. In other situations even 0.1ms becomes blatantly human visible to >90% of population.

It's the context where the millisecond occurs in terms of display mechanics. We have a rule of respecting the millisecond on Blur Busters, because within the millisecond, lurks many scientific surprises in display research.

(A) Now, I do agree that 240Hz vs 280Hz is extremely minor to most.
(B) However, I do also agree that 240Hz vs 280Hz is major to others.
I don't want any party to misrepresent (A) or (B)

Thanks chief, I think you explained some of the message I was trying to convey, but better. Don't get me wrong, I know fractions of milliseconds are important but I wanted to show that in my opinion, the reasons given in the post I quoted were not valid. I might be pedantic but these small details matter to me.

I also think the hyperbole is good for explaining the relationship between refresh rate and delay / lag (I know there are multiple sources of those). To anyone arguing that refresh rate is all that matters, I love giving the example of the 1000hz monitor with a 1 second delay. It would be super smooth, and could be perfect for watching movies or sports (assuming the audio could be delayed also!), but gaming on it would feel horrible! Any player movement would appear 1 second later on the screen.

Now...

For the majority of people I recommend 1.5x refresh rate upgrades, and better yet, at least 2.0x refresh rate upgrades.

Professionals, however are exempt from this rule.

Personally I can see a difference between 240Hz and 280Hz just fine.

But it's easier to see 240Hz-vs-360Hz (1.5x).

And much easier to see 144Hz-vs-360Hz (2.5x) which is actually much more comparable to the upgradejump of 60Hz-vs-144Hz (2.4x).

Geometric jumps up the diminishing curve of returns is necessary to maintain improvement visibility.
60Hz->120Hz->240Hz->480Hz->960Hz

However, 280Hz-vs-240Hz is a minor upgrade more similar to a 60Hz-vs-70Hz LCD. 1.1x to 1.2x is quite minor to my eyes.

That said, undoubtedly a professional can still notice better performance on a 70Hz monitor than a 60Hz monitor (of the same quality and lag), and likewise for 280Hz versus 240Hz. Assuming the game performance is adequately compatible with the monitor, ala CS:GO.

1000WATT wrote: ↑

18 Jun 2020, 18:12

Try it
120.jpg
Click the test. Repeatedly. True, what is the point of achieving this on pc. If the console is still at 60.
IMG_20200619_020625.jpg

8 hrs of trying to get 120hz to work from 60hz via HDMI

Followed this and WOW! it worked. It looks like the acer predator xb273 x will be a permanent purchase. The input lag and response times are just too good to pass up. I also tested it with my xbox one x and yes, I am able to get 120hz.

btw, strangely enough, i'm able to get fake "g-sync(g-sync compatible) if i use HDMI, but not the benefits of native G-sync hardware(DP port) but "g-sync compatible" version. It says "display not recognized as a g sync compatible". Literally, a native G-sync panel when used via HDMI on nvidia control panel is considered "not validated as g sync compatible" LAWL

i tried the g-sync compatible and it's garbage. i can already tell, there's no variable overdrive and the input lag clearly was there. (unlike when i use native g-sync where there's no input lag since the G-sync scaler inside the MONITOR waits for the GPU for new frames, not the other way around.

This was monumentally helpful considering, this was a very expensive purchase and i was really apprehensive about returning it.

RLCScontender wrote: ↑

18 Jun 2020, 17:37

WELP, ive confirmed it.
Acer didn't bother adding any refresh rates and codecs when playing on hdmi. Basically they're HDMi 2.0 ports are useless for this panel


This explains why acer didnt provide any HDMI cables inside the box.
To me, it's very important necause i intended to play games via ps5 and series x on the moni
For the 98% of ppl, most dont find that a big deal and will enjoy the fast response times and low input lag.

Guys, the msi mag251rx is still king of 240hz ips. Even if the g sync predator can get over 60hz via hdmi, i hated the fact that i had to move my eyes so much since the screen size was too big. Eye movement=it will seem like u are playing on slow motion from the opponent's point of view.

Excessive Eye tracking and difficulty having the right focal point cost me plenty of games. I will never go back tp 27" 1080p.

i remembered weeks earlier u were arguing your point that 27inch 1080p is no difference to 25 inch 1080p and u can sit further back bla bla or push the monitor further. Now you change your mind?

we all along had mention that for 1080P, 25 inch is the max size to go due to peripheral vision and u blatantly argued. Now u changed your mind? lmao.

just because now u claim the mag251rx is the best, another defending the purchase talk.

Didnt we told u that earlier that 25 inch is the way to go for 1080p like long ago? You still created a lengthy paragraph to state that 27 inch just need to sit further back and all those bullshit pixel ratio bla bla. hahaha. oh well.

jnashville wrote: ↑

18 Jun 2020, 21:26

RLCScontender wrote: ↑

18 Jun 2020, 17:37

WELP, ive confirmed it.
Acer didn't bother adding any refresh rates and codecs when playing on hdmi. Basically they're HDMi 2.0 ports are useless for this panel


This explains why acer didnt provide any HDMI cables inside the box.
To me, it's very important necause i intended to play games via ps5 and series x on the moni
For the 98% of ppl, most dont find that a big deal and will enjoy the fast response times and low input lag.

Guys, the msi mag251rx is still king of 240hz ips. Even if the g sync predator can get over 60hz via hdmi, i hated the fact that i had to move my eyes so much since the screen size was too big. Eye movement=it will seem like u are playing on slow motion from the opponent's point of view.

Excessive Eye tracking and difficulty having the right focal point cost me plenty of games. I will never go back tp 27" 1080p.

i remembered weeks earlier u were arguing your point that 27inch 1080p is no difference to 25 inch 1080p and u can sit further back bla bla or push the monitor further. Now you change your mind?

we all along had mention that for 1080P, 25 inch is the max size to go due to peripheral vision and u blatantly argued. Now u changed your mind? lmao.

lol you okay man? Do you always patronize people based off your past vendettas?

But yes, given the choice of a 24.5" monitor vs a 27" at 1080p NOW, i will choose the former. So i stand corrected.

There, is what what you wanted me to say? You win i guess. congrats LOL. Gotta love blurbusters, they do have some nutty characters in this forum.

[Moderator Note to RLCSContender: Please see this post about forum warning]