Yes. It's to make it more expensive. We will have AOC 240Hz withot G-Sync this year. I hope their overdrive isn't much bad comparing to g-sync.Originally Posted by velocd
Some more recent info on this monitor..
http://www.techradar.com/reviews/pc-mac/monitors-and-projectors/monitors/asus-rog-swift-pg258q-1327880/review
"Expected to land before March 2017"
Why does this monitor have G-Sync? Marketing gimmick to make it more expensive? No competitive gamers are going to use it. Tearing at 240Hz/4.17ms frame time is nigh invisible.
Maybe for you. I stop seeing differences at 110, TBH. I'm of course not saying you're not in the (figuratively, I don't have precise data on the matter) 1% population that can distinguish 144 from 240 with enough ease to justify buying a crappy TN panel. Most people won't, though.
You're so wrong about this. There is absolutely no ounce of a doubt we can see the difference between 250 and 500hz or 144 and 240hz.Originally Posted by Astreon
Maybe for you. I stop seeing differences at 110, TBH. I'm of course not saying you're not in the (figuratively, I don't have precise data on the matter) 1% population that can distinguish 144 from 240 with enough ease to justify buying a crappy TN panel. Most people won't, though.
I also don't think you understand what diminishing return means in this scenario. 250hz vs 500hz is +100% and I'm positive you would not spot any sort of difference no matter how hard you tried. 144 vs 240 - maybe you would see some differences, but they would be on the edge of perception and completely not worth it.
It's a marketing gimmick.
I am unsure how to respond to this because the kind of zeal you people are showing here reminds me of those ridiculous audiophile forums where freaks swear by heart that they absolutely can hear a difference between a gold 5000$ cable and an ordinary 10$ one - only to be constantly humiliated in blind tests that show they absolutely cannot hear any difference whatsover (google James Randi challenge for more info - there's a 1 million USD reward to be claimed yet nobody ever managed to). But I'll try, in a respectful manner.Originally Posted by Hasty
You're so wrong about this. There is absolutely no ounce of a doubt we can see the difference between 250 and 500hz or 144 and 240hz.
Until stroboscopic stepping artifacts and persistence based eye tracking motion blur becomes imperceptible (which will happen when we reach several thousands frames per second at several thousand refreshes per second), this debate about "diminishing returns" is plain ridiculous and needs to stop.
It's ok. Some people prefer 60Hz to 120Hz. Some men prefer men instead women. Nothing wrong.
I suppose you didn't conduct the eye test against moving objects, that would be an odd optometrist if I ever meet one. Perception of motion is an entirely different category to visual acuity. Your eyes may have good angular resolution, but reaction time and sensitivities to motion also has to do with the brain. "See better" is just a generalization in that context. Nothing personal, just want to get the science right. I have some serious myopia; OS -6.25 & OD -7.00 to be exact, but when corrected, I can distinguish 120FPS to 165FPS no problem, though differences are minor.Originally Posted by Astreon
[
I am unsure how to respond to this because the kind of zeal you people are showing here reminds me of those ridiculous audiophile forums where freaks swear by heart that they absolutely can hear a difference between a gold 5000$ cable and an ordinary 10$ one - only to be constantly humiliated in blind tests that show they absolutely cannot hear any difference whatsover (google James Randi challenge for more info - there's a 1 million USD reward to be claimed yet nobody ever managed to). But I'll try, in a respectful manner.
There is absolutely no ounce of doubt I can't see the difference between 144 and 240 hz. I tested it personally and I totally can't. And I mean ordinary games here, not some weird test patterns that are completely meaningless in real life applications. I see it this way: if I have to work my butt to actually see a difference, it's not worth a single dime to pay for it. A difference is only worth $$$ if it's instantly and undoubtedly obvious from the 1st second.
I am a healthy, 30 year old guy with 20/18 eyesight (yes, it's above what's considered "great" 20/20, I have a slight "oversight", I tend to see better than ordinary people). If I'm unable to see what you can see, then either I'm that low on gaussian distrubution for "eye-brain coordination", or you're that high. Thing is, if even ONE person says he doesn't see the difference (like me), than all your authoritarily written theories are rubbish and you have to use an indication that it applies to YOU PERSONALLY, or people like you. Alternatively, you can link respected scientific articles on the matter, from a credible source. Ignoring both, your posts are nothing but subjectivity, and thus, highly ignorable - like mine, if reality works different for you. Sorry.
I would not be surprised if you were a seller or producer of high hertz monitors and thus living of ripping kids off "super fast gaming monitors" of ridiculous price for garbage TN panels. No offense, because average guy doesn't get into heated debates defending "high hertz monitors" - out of simple respect that someone feels/sees otherwise.
TL;DR version: you like 240 hz? use it. Stop saying however that your perception universally applies to everybody.
In other words Astreon claims we can't see the difference between 4ms image persistence and 2ms image persistence !
As a result of moving objects that are tracked by the eye being less blurry. (persistence based eye tracking motion blur)
Did you completely IGNORE the picture I posted above?