Curved monitors with high Hz.

[Cyan]

So..., I've seen this news today and I've fallen for this 49" ultrawide monitor from Samsung, running at 240Hz, Freesync 2 and GSync compatible. Wish I had the money to get one of those.

https://www.theverge.com/2020/1/7/2...y-g9-super-ultra-wide-gaming-monitor-ces-2020

I've recently got this one, a 27" 1080p 240Hz monitor by Samsung, GSync compatible. It's fine for me, but one of those would be great.

https://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/samsung-27-crg5-240hz-gaming-monitor

 

[AlphaWolf]

You need more than money, you need a time machine. They aren't for sale yet.

 

[Cyan]

You need more than money, you need a time machine. They aren't for sale yet.

dreaming is free at least. But an ultrawide 34" could well do for me.

With high framerate I mean. I wouldn't want it to be 4k (though I have a 4k screen and it is incredible for productivity)..., but when it comes to games.. 4k: won't recommend for gaming, I think higher frame rate is more important.

 

[Deleted member 13524]

I have a 34" ultrawide 75Hz IPS with FreeSync support.

Honestly, I wouldn't care to upgrade for anything other than OLED at a similar size and wider VRR range, or at least something with thousands of local dimming zones.
I already find the difference between 75Hz and my laptops 120Hz so small I wouldn't ever care for 240Hz at all.

 

[Cyan]

I have a 34" ultrawide 75Hz IPS with FreeSync support.

Honestly, I wouldn't care to upgrade for anything other than OLED at a similar size and wider VRR range, or at least something with thousands of local dimming zones.
I already find the difference between 75Hz and my laptops 120Hz so small I wouldn't ever care for 240Hz at all.

the difference is not that big at first sight, but the OS is much more satisfactory to use, and games show a difference. The VA panel of a curved monitor also helps to get better contrast -though not as good as IPS when it comes to colours- and colours than TN.

I am pretty happy with my purchase for now -found it for sale at a site called PCComponentes-. The screen looks great, the colours, definition is nice for a 1080p -81ppi is not that big but being curved it looks fine- and well, the reviews are very good so far -that's why I got it-. It looks better than my 4k TN panel, save for the resolution, of course, but at a native 1080p everything looks beautiful.

https://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/samsung-27-crg5-240hz-gaming-monitor

 

[Cyan]

bad quality -my phone is not so good-, but this is how the curved 1080p 240Hz 27" VA panel monitor -left- looks side to side with my 4k 28" 60Hz TN monitor. Both are from Samsung:

 

[Cyan]

well, I've managed to play a few games. For the kind of games I've been playing -Age of Empires 2 Definitive Edition, Bloodstained Ritual of the Night.., a random indie developer game- the difference is not that big, BUT there are some facts that change things quite a bit.

In Bloodstained Ritual of the Night, which is fast paced at times, I could see the animations better and the controls feel smoother -perhaps GSync helps-. Seeing the animations of both enemies and you better makes you play better.

Age of Empires felt less or more the same.

Where I noticed a big difference is in Marvel vs Capcom Infinite. The game is very fast paced and I kinda got nervous playing it on my 4k screen. On this screen, again for some reason I see what's happening better and passed some arcade mode combats with flying colours.

Talking of colours, and I am not exaggerating here, but the games look like 100 times better compared to my 4k monitor, even games I run at native 4k on that screen, look less sharp and defined than in this screen at 1080p.

The entire Marvel vs Capcom Infinite is now a sight to behold at 1080p. It looks crisper than in may 4k TN panel. Gamora's face actually shines, the colours are hundred of times richer. The demon from Ghouls & Ghosts looks sooo, I dont know..., right.

Gotta try with Doom or Doom 3 at high framerates, those are some of the games that benefit the most.

 

[Cyan]

another game that benefits for the high framerate is PES 2019. It runs at 220-240 fps on my rig and the smoothness is very noticeable. Again, I am seeing animations I missed before and everything looks more natural, motion wise.

 

[Cyan]

I've tested other games. Ultra SF IV and Sonic All Stars Racing Transformed are locked at 60fps, no change here.

Also tested Doom 3 BFG Edition -the original Doom 3 doesn't support current hardware and resolutions well and the max that they allow by default is 120Hz. Great gameplay at that refresh rate.

However, I found this fix and now I'm running the game at 240fps.

https://steamcommunity.com/app/208200/discussions/0/1368380934293336917/

And....well, it's quite noticeable, specially when you rotate the camera or when a door opens, the motion is sooooo smooth.

 

[Cyan]

made a very nice discovery while playing Xenon Racer. The smoothness of 240Hz helps to hide aliasing a lot at 0 cost.

Racing games at 240fps make you feel as if you were so smoothly skating. It's incredible.

As for the "discovery", I set everything to low except textures to get the most framerate and at 240fps there are very few jaggies. Switched to 60 fps and aside from some sloppiness -though working fine- the game is a jaggies feast.

 

[Cyan]

two other games that make you feel you are softly floating in your car. Redout and Grip Combat Racing. Redout achieves 240 fps without sacrificing everything, and that's so cool.

this might explain why aliasing kind of disappears at high framerates in Xenon Racer.

Motion resolution

If your computer can play a game at a high enough frame rate to match a 120Hz or 240Hz monitor, you’ll see a noticeable change in the perceived sharpness of a moving image. Blurring occurs because of how the human brain processes the set of individual frames a monitor displays. The brain blurs together the series of frames to create a sensible moving picture, but some detail is lost along the way.

A higher refresh rate helps to decrease the blur by giving our brains more information to act on, in turn reducing perceived blur. However, unlike computer hardware, our brains aren’t all made to the same specification. Some people notice the difference between a 60Hz and 120Hz display immediately, while others can’t see what everyone is all worked up about. The difference between 120Hz and 240Hz is even more subtle.

https://www.digitaltrends.com/computing/do-you-need-a-120hz-or-240-hz-monitor/

 

[AlphaWolf]

while others can’t see what everyone is all worked up about. The difference between 120Hz and 240Hz is even more subtle.

https://www.digitaltrends.com/computing/do-you-need-a-120hz-or-240-hz-monitor/

That's me right there. I wouldn't say I don't notice a change above 60hz, I'd just say I wouldn't pay for the difference.

 

[digitalwanderer]

You mean you wouldn't pay for the difference? If so we're in the same camp. I've had the same IPS 24" 1080 monitor for years and I don't plan to upgrade anytime soon as it's doing great. (DellU2312HM, it might be a 22" or 23", not sure)

Got a 24" LG something smart TV on the desk next to it that doesn't suck. IPS panel and 1080, I just don't really like using dual displays. They don't work for me. Think I'm gonna toss my son's old PC guts in to my daughter's busted desktop and make her a home desktop setup again with the LG.

 

[AlphaWolf]

Fixed.

 

[Cyan]

That's me right there. I wouldn't say I don't notice a change above 60hz, I'd just say I wouldn't pay for the difference.

You mean you wouldn't pay for the difference? If so we're in the same camp. I've had the same IPS 24" 1080 monitor for years and I don't plan to upgrade anytime soon as it's doing great. (DellU2312HM, it might be a 22" or 23", not sure)

Got a 24" LG something smart TV on the desk next to it that doesn't suck. IPS panel and 1080, I just don't really like using dual displays. They don't work for me. Think I'm gonna toss my son's old PC guts in to my daughter's busted desktop and make her a home desktop setup again with the LG.

there is a difference, sometimes it's slight, very much, sometimes it's more pronounced.

Still not life changing, but even RTS games like Frost Punk -gamepass PC- feel incredibly smooth when you zoom in and scroll. You gotta believe your eyes, it's beautiful.

In your case there isn't much need for it, I agree. But I was stuck with a 2 years old 4k panel (TN, bad colours, bad everything save input response) and I dont like 4k that much but good framerates. The 4k panel is great for some productivity stuff though.

Now that I recently got a GTX 1080, great framerates are within reach.

 

[digitalwanderer]

I'm not ready to go 4K yet, it still isn't worth it for me.

 

[Cyan]

I'm not ready to go 4K yet, it still isn't worth it for me.

it isn't. You will do fine, and just dont pay attention to those siren songs trying to convince there's nothing like 4k.

I've had a 4k monitor for more than 2 years now and it is okay but image quality is several times (by several I mean like 100x) better on my 1080p monitor. Pixel count isn't the only measure to get the best image quality. Every game I played look more crisp on my 1080p 240Hz monitor. Not to mention the smoothness of the motion. That's the true spectacle for me.

Maybe on a 50" screen 4k will look better than a 1080p 50" monitor, but then there are ultrawide monitors that should look better than 4k at certain resolutions. This 4k craze is just commercial stuff and I am sorry for next gen consoles if 4k 30 fps is the way to go -once again- for developers, such a waste.

 

[BRiT]

Shame that HDR is still such a cluster on PC, because those two should go hand in hand, 4K HDR.

 

[Cyan]

Shame that HDR is still such a cluster on PC, because those two should go hand in hand, 4K HDR.

well, now that you mention it, HDR is something that really helps image quality a lot. 4k...it depends. On a certain monitor size, it doesnt do much.

What a delight playing Halo Reach at 240 fps. I got a grunt in the air when he was jumping from one of the Covenant air vehicles.

The gameplay is super super smooth.

 

[Silent_Buddha]

two other games that make you feel you are softly floating in your car. Redout and Grip Combat Racing. Redout achieves 240 fps without sacrificing everything, and that's so cool.

this might explain why aliasing kind of disappears at high framerates in Xenon Racer.

Motion resolution

If your computer can play a game at a high enough frame rate to match a 120Hz or 240Hz monitor, you’ll see a noticeable change in the perceived sharpness of a moving image. Blurring occurs because of how the human brain processes the set of individual frames a monitor displays. The brain blurs together the series of frames to create a sensible moving picture, but some detail is lost along the way.

A higher refresh rate helps to decrease the blur by giving our brains more information to act on, in turn reducing perceived blur. However, unlike computer hardware, our brains aren’t all made to the same specification. Some people notice the difference between a 60Hz and 120Hz display immediately, while others can’t see what everyone is all worked up about. The difference between 120Hz and 240Hz is even more subtle.

https://www.digitaltrends.com/computing/do-you-need-a-120hz-or-240-hz-monitor/

WRT to temporal resolution (motion resolution), I find that it's easier to explain to someone by breaking it down to the amount of data that is being presented to the viewer's eyes and brain.

In motion 1x 4k frame at 60 FPS presents very roughly a similar amount of information to your visual system as 4x 1080p frames at 240 FPS.

However, with 4 frames of 1080p content per 1 frame of 4k content not only are you getting a similar amount of visual data, but it fills more temporal "space" leading to less judder/stutter/etc.

That said, when not in motion, 1080p versus 4k is going to look perceptibly worse even if you see 4 frames of 1080p for every frame of 4k. Also, while it may help to remove some aliasing artifacts, most will still remain even in motion.

That's where temporal reconstruction comes in. You get the benefits of temporal resolution (higher perceived resolution with lower resolution or lower data at same resolution per frame) while in motion while also retaining the benefits when not in motion. As well, depending on the reconstruction method, this will address many forms of aliasing artifacts as the developer can choose what data is presented in each frame (kind of like multi-sample AA but instead of it being in one frame, it's spread over multiple frames).

However, temporal reconstruction breaks down at 30 FPS where each frame is presented too slowly to mask differences between frames.

It's why I believe that at least MS if not Sony as well, want to move the baseline rendering speed from 30 Hz to 60Hz or even 120 Hz.

Regards,
SB