It's all about how soon your eye can see a change in game state. If the game engine changes state, what is the average latency to your eye seeing the result caused by a 60hz display vs a 300hz display?
The answer btw: a 60hz display updates every 16.7ms, so on average you wait 8.3ms for a new frame. A 300hz display updates every 3.3ms, so on average you wait 1.2ms for a new frame. Yielding a 7.1ms advantage to the pro-gamer with the 300hz display.
At these small numbers, the latency benefits end.... But there are other benefits such as less motion blur and stroboscopic effects. Doubling frame rate halves motion blur.
Such as this photo of a 480Hz display: https://i.imgur.com/PxvWkcK.jpg In tests, the benefits were clearly visible to more than >75% of humans, but you needed to double refresh rate to jumpstart the diminishing curve, e.g. 240Hz -> 480Hz -> 960Hz
CRT tubes had less than 1ms motion blur. It takes 1000fps at 1000Hz to achieve 1ms motion blur if you avoid strobing/impulsing/flickering/phoshor. Doing a flickerless blurless sample-and-hold display with CRT clarity, currently requires unobtainium refresh rates.
That's not really what he's talking about, by the way. He's talking about games which specifically start encountering issues when the engine's at a high framerate. Games like GTA V are well documented to have massive stuttering issues when you hit framerates over 150fps, but can stutter even at 110+ FPS, too. Emulated games often play at unrealistic speeds if the framerate gets uncapped, etc.
My point is that it doesn't matter if the game encounters an engine limit. Even if you have to framerate cap your game, you _still_ get an advantage out of your faster refresh display.
I get what your saying. Refreshing at 300hz whether or not you are getting a new frame has the advantage of a smaller worst case delta between a new frame and it being displayed on screen. It may even matter more if you are dealing with a game getting lower FPS because the frames themselves are updating so infrequently that it can a screen refresh a moment before a new frame would compound the issue.
But anyway, high refresh rates going above 60Hz are awesome, but above 144 Hz I'm willing to bet there are major diminishing returns and 300 Hz is probably placebo-effect territory for most people.
But if you can sell a $5000 "oxygen depleted" audio cable on Amazon, then I guess there's a market for these things too.
VR scientists have determined that the diminishing curve of returns doesn't end until far beyond 1000fps at 1000Hz, assuming a wide-FOV retina display.
Hope that laptop image isn't the intended target for the screen in question due to the poor placement of the keyboard. I'd hate to have to drag something to rest the heels of my hands on around with me just to tap out a quick e-mail.
fortunately this laptop will cost more than a few hundred dollars and be built in such low numbers than even when an obsolete version is cheap enough for you to consider buying used you won't be able to find one.
Since you've been living under a rock, this isn't the first time Asus has opted to place a keyboard at the bottom end of the laptop, side-by-side a narrow touchpad that doubles as a numpad. I get that not everyone would like this different design, but this is nowhere near the first time Asus has done this for one of their high-end thin-and-light gaming laptop models.
So this will be the new trend because I noticed Acer has one to with 300Hz display coming out. The problem is to bad the selected graphics cards will never get even close to being able to run most games at or near the FPS to take full advantage of this. In my opinion this is noting more than marketing speak to try to sell more laptops to those that see 300Hz 3.3ms and be so impressed they can not live without it. Maybe on the highest of end desktops this could be a thing and even then only a few games would run close enough to get all of the added perks of screens like this.
I sincerely doubt optical nerve can transmit that fast, after all refresh rate of chemical bridges between neurons is relatively slow...
I pointed that several times already, but I'd really be interested in an article that would put in educated biological/medical perspective to this holy ms race. We are not cheetah, our biology was evolving quite a while without single need to process that fast so there was no reason to evolve that way.
And at last with all the latencies before action of one person bubbling from mouse move all the way to servers and then to other person, processing, network stacks, input lags etc. etc. Removing 1-2 ms out of the loooong pipe seems a bit marketing bait...
Indeed higher refresh rates stop flickering, but there are several other noticeable improvements of higher refresh rates that are not placebos:
- Motion blur halves when you double refresh rate on a sample-and-hold display - Stroboscopic effects - Phantom array effects
Due to diminishing curve of returns, refresh rates need to approximately double, 240Hz -> 480Hz -> 960Hz, to still be somewhat noticeable, assuming motionclarity allows. For a 2ms refresh cycles (500fps at 500Hz strobless, sample-and-hold), that still generates 2 pixels of motion blur per 1000 pixels/sec, or 6 pixels of motion blur per 3000 pixels/sec.
On an experimental 480 Hz monitor, it was still quite noticeable. Photographic proof of improved stroboscopics at 480 Hz refresh rate: https://i.imgur.com/PxvWkcK.jpg It's actually noticeable in games capable of such frame rates (Quake Live, CS:GO)
At these refresh rates, the random variability in network latency and server response will probably begin to swamp any advantage for competitive gamers...
This is true, but you still get other different benefits such as reduced stroboscopics and reduced motion blur (see above).
Motion blur halves when frame rates doubles, if refresh rates allows, on a sample-and-hold monitor. 240Hz->300Hz is very incremental though.
We do need things like frame rate amplification technologies -- https://www.blurbusters.com/frame-rate-amplificati... -- to allow GPUs to reach ultra-high frame rates more cheaply. Oculus Rift already uses it to convert 45fps to 90fps (much better than interpolation), but the same tech can also be used to convert 240fps to 480fps laglessly/artifactlessly.
We’ve updated our terms. By continuing to use the site and/or by logging into your account, you agree to the Site’s updated Terms of Use and Privacy Policy.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
23 Comments
Back to Article
azrael- - Wednesday, September 4, 2019 - link
The headline pun would've been funnier with "Hertz" instead of "Hurtz".HollyDOL - Wednesday, September 4, 2019 - link
I'd be quite interested to see this...with 3ms g2g it doesn't seem to leave much time for stable colour representation, otoh if it passes Pantone...
HollyDOL - Wednesday, September 4, 2019 - link
erm, sorry, wasn't supposed to be reply on other commentIan Cutress - Wednesday, September 4, 2019 - link
I disagree 😁erinadreno - Wednesday, September 4, 2019 - link
The only games that could run at 300Hz would be either retro game or CS:GO. For others the game engine would hit a limit before the actual hardware.surt - Wednesday, September 4, 2019 - link
It's all about how soon your eye can see a change in game state. If the game engine changes state, what is the average latency to your eye seeing the result caused by a 60hz display vs a 300hz display?surt - Wednesday, September 4, 2019 - link
The answer btw: a 60hz display updates every 16.7ms, so on average you wait 8.3ms for a new frame. A 300hz display updates every 3.3ms, so on average you wait 1.2ms for a new frame. Yielding a 7.1ms advantage to the pro-gamer with the 300hz display.mdrejhon - Thursday, September 5, 2019 - link
At these small numbers, the latency benefits end.... But there are other benefits such as less motion blur and stroboscopic effects. Doubling frame rate halves motion blur.Such as this photo of a 480Hz display: https://i.imgur.com/PxvWkcK.jpg
In tests, the benefits were clearly visible to more than >75% of humans, but you needed to double refresh rate to jumpstart the diminishing curve, e.g. 240Hz -> 480Hz -> 960Hz
CRT tubes had less than 1ms motion blur. It takes 1000fps at 1000Hz to achieve 1ms motion blur if you avoid strobing/impulsing/flickering/phoshor. Doing a flickerless blurless sample-and-hold display with CRT clarity, currently requires unobtainium refresh rates.
JoeyJoJo123 - Wednesday, September 4, 2019 - link
That's not really what he's talking about, by the way. He's talking about games which specifically start encountering issues when the engine's at a high framerate. Games like GTA V are well documented to have massive stuttering issues when you hit framerates over 150fps, but can stutter even at 110+ FPS, too. Emulated games often play at unrealistic speeds if the framerate gets uncapped, etc.surt - Wednesday, September 4, 2019 - link
My point is that it doesn't matter if the game encounters an engine limit. Even if you have to framerate cap your game, you _still_ get an advantage out of your faster refresh display.Topweasel - Wednesday, September 4, 2019 - link
I get what your saying. Refreshing at 300hz whether or not you are getting a new frame has the advantage of a smaller worst case delta between a new frame and it being displayed on screen. It may even matter more if you are dealing with a game getting lower FPS because the frames themselves are updating so infrequently that it can a screen refresh a moment before a new frame would compound the issue.CajunArson - Wednesday, September 4, 2019 - link
It should have been "It Hertz So Good"But anyway, high refresh rates going above 60Hz are awesome, but above 144 Hz I'm willing to bet there are major diminishing returns and 300 Hz is probably placebo-effect territory for most people.
But if you can sell a $5000 "oxygen depleted" audio cable on Amazon, then I guess there's a market for these things too.
prophet001 - Wednesday, September 4, 2019 - link
Why tho?mdrejhon - Thursday, September 5, 2019 - link
VR scientists have determined that the diminishing curve of returns doesn't end until far beyond 1000fps at 1000Hz, assuming a wide-FOV retina display.PeachNCream - Wednesday, September 4, 2019 - link
Hope that laptop image isn't the intended target for the screen in question due to the poor placement of the keyboard. I'd hate to have to drag something to rest the heels of my hands on around with me just to tap out a quick e-mail.DanNeely - Wednesday, September 4, 2019 - link
fortunately this laptop will cost more than a few hundred dollars and be built in such low numbers than even when an obsolete version is cheap enough for you to consider buying used you won't be able to find one.JoeyJoJo123 - Wednesday, September 4, 2019 - link
Since you've been living under a rock, this isn't the first time Asus has opted to place a keyboard at the bottom end of the laptop, side-by-side a narrow touchpad that doubles as a numpad. I get that not everyone would like this different design, but this is nowhere near the first time Asus has done this for one of their high-end thin-and-light gaming laptop models.Peter2k - Wednesday, September 4, 2019 - link
Finally, a new frequency raceWho will make it to 1Ghz first this time
/s
rocky12345 - Wednesday, September 4, 2019 - link
So this will be the new trend because I noticed Acer has one to with 300Hz display coming out. The problem is to bad the selected graphics cards will never get even close to being able to run most games at or near the FPS to take full advantage of this. In my opinion this is noting more than marketing speak to try to sell more laptops to those that see 300Hz 3.3ms and be so impressed they can not live without it. Maybe on the highest of end desktops this could be a thing and even then only a few games would run close enough to get all of the added perks of screens like this.HollyDOL - Thursday, September 5, 2019 - link
I sincerely doubt optical nerve can transmit that fast, after all refresh rate of chemical bridges between neurons is relatively slow...I pointed that several times already, but I'd really be interested in an article that would put in educated biological/medical perspective to this holy ms race. We are not cheetah, our biology was evolving quite a while without single need to process that fast so there was no reason to evolve that way.
And at last with all the latencies before action of one person bubbling from mouse move all the way to servers and then to other person, processing, network stacks, input lags etc. etc. Removing 1-2 ms out of the loooong pipe seems a bit marketing bait...
mdrejhon - Thursday, September 5, 2019 - link
There is already a great article here about the refresh rate race, with scientific citations at: https://www.blurbusters.com/1000hz-journeyIndeed higher refresh rates stop flickering, but there are several other noticeable improvements of higher refresh rates that are not placebos:
- Motion blur halves when you double refresh rate on a sample-and-hold display
- Stroboscopic effects
- Phantom array effects
Due to diminishing curve of returns, refresh rates need to approximately double, 240Hz -> 480Hz -> 960Hz, to still be somewhat noticeable, assuming motionclarity allows. For a 2ms refresh cycles (500fps at 500Hz strobless, sample-and-hold), that still generates 2 pixels of motion blur per 1000 pixels/sec, or 6 pixels of motion blur per 3000 pixels/sec.
On an experimental 480 Hz monitor, it was still quite noticeable.
Photographic proof of improved stroboscopics at 480 Hz refresh rate:
https://i.imgur.com/PxvWkcK.jpg
It's actually noticeable in games capable of such frame rates (Quake Live, CS:GO)
boeush - Wednesday, September 4, 2019 - link
At these refresh rates, the random variability in network latency and server response will probably begin to swamp any advantage for competitive gamers...mdrejhon - Thursday, September 5, 2019 - link
This is true, but you still get other different benefits such as reduced stroboscopics and reduced motion blur (see above).Motion blur halves when frame rates doubles, if refresh rates allows, on a sample-and-hold monitor. 240Hz->300Hz is very incremental though.
We do need things like frame rate amplification technologies -- https://www.blurbusters.com/frame-rate-amplificati... -- to allow GPUs to reach ultra-high frame rates more cheaply. Oculus Rift already uses it to convert 45fps to 90fps (much better than interpolation), but the same tech can also be used to convert 240fps to 480fps laglessly/artifactlessly.