Overclock.net banner

1 - 20 of 445 Posts

·
badger pants
Joined
·
144 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
<a class="H-lightbox-open" href="http://www.overclock.net/content/type/61/id/2845794/"><img alt="" class="lightbox-enabled" data-id="2845794" data-type="61" src="http://www.overclock.net/content/type/61/id/2845794/width/500/height/1000/flags/LL" style="; width: 500px; height: 250px"></a><br><br><br>
wow.. hope is up for that 4k 120hz 24" monitor.. : O<br>
or maybe 1440 180hz.. market heating up! <3
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
101 Posts
thread title gave me heart-attack, this monitor is probably coming out in December. I remember reading a Japanese article that mentioned the Acer variant will have a December release.
 

·
Probably sleep deprived
Joined
·
5,585 Posts
<div class="quote-container" data-huddler-embed="/t/1608085/asus-pg258q-25-240hz-monitor-launched-0-o/0_100#post_25419248" data-huddler-embed-placeholder="false"><span>Quote:</span>
<div class="quote-block">Originally Posted by <strong>ruimfine</strong> <a href="/t/1608085/asus-pg258q-25-240hz-monitor-launched-0-o/0_100#post_25419248"><img alt="View Post" class="inlineimg" src="/img/forum/go_quote.gif"></a><br><br>
It's TN 1080p 240Hz monitor and it isn't launched.</div>
</div>
<br>
This<br><br>
<a href="http://www.144hzmonitors.com/monitors/asus-rog-swift-pg258q-24-5-inch-full-hd-g-sync-240hz-gaming-monitor/" target="_blank">http://www.144hzmonitors.com/monitors/asus-rog-swift-pg258q-24-5-inch-full-hd-g-sync-240hz-gaming-monitor/</a>
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
465 Posts
Some more recent info on this monitor..<br><br>
<a href="http://www.techradar.com/reviews/pc-mac/monitors-and-projectors/monitors/asus-rog-swift-pg258q-1327880/review" target="_blank">http://www.techradar.com/reviews/pc-mac/monitors-and-projectors/monitors/asus-rog-swift-pg258q-1327880/review</a><br><br><i>"Expected to land before March 2017"</i><br><br>
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.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
106 Posts
<div class="quote-container" data-huddler-embed="/t/1608085/asus-pg258q-25-240hz-monitor-anounced-0-o/0_100#post_25514761" data-huddler-embed-placeholder="false"><span>Quote:</span>
<div class="quote-block">Originally Posted by <strong>velocd</strong> <a href="/t/1608085/asus-pg258q-25-240hz-monitor-anounced-0-o/0_100#post_25514761"><img alt="View Post" class="inlineimg" src="/img/forum/go_quote.gif"></a><br><br>
Some more recent info on this monitor..<br><br>
<a href="http://www.techradar.com/reviews/pc-mac/monitors-and-projectors/monitors/asus-rog-swift-pg258q-1327880/review" target="_blank">http://www.techradar.com/reviews/pc-mac/monitors-and-projectors/monitors/asus-rog-swift-pg258q-1327880/review</a><br><br><i>"Expected to land before March 2017"</i><br><br>
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.</div>
</div>
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.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
242 Posts
Running games constantly over 240fps even simple graphic ones like CSGO is unlikely when several things occuring simultaneously on screen. So if anythin that's the one monitor where Gsync will have the most use ever.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,593 Posts
I may be hated for this post, but this is like 8K screens to me. Pointless. not only getting 240 fps is possible only on older titles on semi-terrible settings (low, medium at best @ monster GPUs), but also the diminishing returns nature of higher refresh rates make a gap between 144hz and 240 hz really small and in my honest opinion completely not worth it.<br><br>
But hey, another reason to sell a TN panel for ridiculous price <img alt="tongue.gif" class="bbcode_smiley" src="http://files.overclock.net/images/smilies/tongue.gif">
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
242 Posts
Diminishing return or not the difference between 120 and 144 is already very noticeable and thats only an increase of 20%, imagine how 144 to 240 feels which is a +67% increase.<br><br>
There's also the BenQ/zowie version <a class="bbcode_url" href="http://zowie.benq.com/en/product/monitor/xl/xl2540.html" target="_blank"><b>XL2540</b></a> with the same panel but no gsync and some kind of "flaps" idk if it's looks a bit like flimsy plastic, but probably far cheaper at 499 (asus price still unknown).
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,593 Posts
<div class="quote-container" data-huddler-embed="/t/1608085/asus-pg258q-25-240hz-monitor-anounced-0-o#post_25667509" data-huddler-embed-placeholder="false"><span>Quote:</span>
<div class="quote-block">Originally Posted by <strong>RevanCorana</strong> <a href="/t/1608085/asus-pg258q-25-240hz-monitor-anounced-0-o#post_25667509"><img alt="View Post" class="inlineimg" src="/img/forum/go_quote.gif"></a><br><br>
Diminishing return or not the difference between 120 and 144 is already very noticeable and thats only an increase of 20%, imagine how 144 to 240 feels which is a +67% increase.</div>
</div>
<br>
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.<br><br>
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.<br><br>
It's a marketing gimmick.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
242 Posts
Well nobody said this was a maintstream monitor, now when you start saying that nobody can see the difference between 240 and 144 that's wen you gotta stop.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,163 Posts
I think the argument about not getting enough fps to justify this monitor is a bit meh. I'm averaging well into the 200 fps range in overwatch with a 4790k and 980ti with some settings turned down.<br><br>
That said, i don't think i'd really ever want more than 144Hz or that i would even be able to tell the difference between 144Hz and 240Hz.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
594 Posts
<div class="quote-container" data-huddler-embed="/t/1608085/asus-pg258q-25-240hz-monitor-anounced-0-o#post_25667521" data-huddler-embed-placeholder="false"><span>Quote:</span>
<div class="quote-block">Originally Posted by <strong>Astreon</strong> <a href="/t/1608085/asus-pg258q-25-240hz-monitor-anounced-0-o#post_25667521"><img alt="View Post" class="inlineimg" src="/img/forum/go_quote.gif"></a><br><br>
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.<br><br>
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.<br><br>
It's a marketing gimmick.</div>
</div>
<br>
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.<br>
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.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,593 Posts
[
<div class="quote-container" data-huddler-embed="/t/1608085/asus-pg258q-25-240hz-monitor-anounced-0-o/10#post_25674697" data-huddler-embed-placeholder="false"><span>Quote:</span>
<div class="quote-block">Originally Posted by <strong>Hasty</strong> <a href="/t/1608085/asus-pg258q-25-240hz-monitor-anounced-0-o/10#post_25674697"><img alt="View Post" class="inlineimg" src="/img/forum/go_quote.gif"></a><br><br>
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.<br>
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.</div>
</div>
<br>
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.<br><br>
There is absolutely no ounce of doubt <b>I</b> 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.<br><br>
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.<br><br>
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.<br><br>
TL;DR version: you like 240 hz? use it. Stop saying however that your perception universally applies to everybody.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
106 Posts
<div class="quote-container" data-huddler-embed="/t/1608085/asus-pg258q-25-240hz-monitor-anounced-0-o/0_100#post_25667521" data-huddler-embed-placeholder="false"><span>Quote:</span>
<div class="quote-block">Originally Posted by <strong>Astreon</strong> <a href="/t/1608085/asus-pg258q-25-240hz-monitor-anounced-0-o/0_100#post_25667521"><img alt="View Post" class="inlineimg" src="/img/forum/go_quote.gif"></a><br><br>
I stop seeing differences at 110</div>
</div>
It's ok. Some people prefer 60Hz to 120Hz. Some men prefer men instead women. Nothing wrong.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
594 Posts
Astreon. You are misinforming people, which is why I commented.<br><br>
We are able to see the difference between these refresh rates.<br><br>
I can demonstrate it to you. It's not rocket science.<br><br>
You only need 4 things:<br><br>
- basic knowledge about how finite refresh rate display artifacts (persistence based eye tracking motion blur and stroboscopic stepping) scale.<br><br>
- the speed of the motion to be portrayed<br><br>
- the motion resolution of the display<br><br>
- a simple rule of three.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
539 Posts
If you stop seeing difference at 110fps then maybe your eyesight isn't as good as you think it is. Nothing wrong with that but please stop giving us lectures about stuff you know nothing about. Thanks.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
28 Posts
<div class="quote-container" data-huddler-embed="/t/1608085/asus-pg258q-25-240hz-monitor-anounced-0-o/10#post_25674941" data-huddler-embed-placeholder="false"><span>Quote:</span>
<div class="quote-block">Originally Posted by <strong>Astreon</strong> <a href="/t/1608085/asus-pg258q-25-240hz-monitor-anounced-0-o/10#post_25674941"><img alt="View Post" class="inlineimg" src="/img/forum/go_quote.gif"></a><br><br>
[<br>
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.<br><br>
There is absolutely no ounce of doubt <b>I</b> 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.<br><br>
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.<br><br>
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.<br><br>
TL;DR version: you like 240 hz? use it. Stop saying however that your perception universally applies to everybody.</div>
</div>
<br>
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.<br><br>
At the end of the day your post actually apply to the majority, in that they are never conditioned to high refresh content in their lives because they don't need to. For enthusiasts though, I would not be surprised if we can distinguish a broader range of motions and fluidity, simply due to how adaptable the human body is and how action-based video games have conditioned us. This is akin to pilots able to distinguish higher framerates due to the standard of their work or the training required, just in a more amateurish manner. Of course, when more factors are involved such as age, or the fluctuations in frametime of the content itself, then these demographics are even more likely to see a difference.<br><br>
I would argue that the best advice is not to even tell somebody if it is worth or not, but ask him to try themselves. No consumer is worse off knowing more about a product.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
646 Posts
I'll probably try one of the 240hz gsync monitors when they come out (assuming their price isn't crazy - something like $700+ would be absurd for a 1080p TN regardless of it's features). I'm fully expecting to not notice a difference compared to 144-165hz even though my eyes have always been very sensitive to fps-related stuff, but hey - I'll try it before dismissing it.<br><br>
I notice a huge difference between 60 and 100hz, a very noticeable difference between 100 and 120, a very small/barely noticeable difference between 120 and 144, and no difference between 144 and 165.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
109 Posts
From my own silly experiment with xl2540, there is a quite different but only when your game reach that target 240 fps+ like in counter strike. motion is much more stable but not necessary much cleaner than 144hz. It also has almost zero tearing when reaching higher frames. Its like playing with gsync but actually without gsync. Coming from 144hz different is not that "huge" if that is a right word for it but when you are going back to 144hz then you can clearly see differences between two. Overdrive aka ama in benQ is decent and could be better imo. Also about the colours, it has a decent colour performance and nothing to write home really, it has same colour performance like their previous 144hz monitor like xl2430t with same features.<br><br>
PROS: it has really smooth motion when it reach over 240fps, 99% no tearing at higher frames, Very bright panel, colour preset, slick and slim design.<br>
Cons: PRICEY!<br>
Little conclusion: Its basically xl2430t on steroids.
 
1 - 20 of 445 Posts
Top