240Hz, 360Hz+ (480-540-750-1000Hz) displays. Motion clarity for the win!

[Cyan]

Now with the arrival of DLSS4, quite probably FSR4 and the existence of Lossless Scaling, reaching 360fps or more is easier than ever. And motion clarity is part of the future.

High refresh rate monitors are no longer limited to esports, they can be used in single player titles, and it benefits both styles of gaming.

To obtain motion clarity, 8K resolution and Supersampling AA are not enough, monitors with many Hz are the ones that create that clarity of vision, which eliminates pixelated contours in 2D games, and creates a kind of "natural" antialiasing in 3D games.

If you find any interesting monitors that fit this criteriaof, let's put them here.

 

[Cyan]

been studying the case, and I got this monitor, the Dell Alienware AW2523HF -it also has a 500Hz version-. This is the rtiings review of the model I got, the 360Hz version.

Dell Alienware AW2523HF Review

The Dell Alienware AW2523HF is a 25-inch, 1080p gaming monitor with a 360Hz refresh rate that's part of Dell's Alienware lineup. It replaces the Dell Alienware A...

www.rtings.com

 

[Cyan]

Review and Hz aside, what I liked about this monitor is that you can move the screen in all directions, that it has 4 extra USBs that you can use for peripherals such as a mouse or gamepads etc.

It also has a native color depth of 10 bits -which honestly surprised me-, so no colour banding, although if you set it to 10 bits the maximum Hz it reaches is 300 Hz. 360 Hz with 8bit + dithering.

Dell is my favourite brand when it comes to monitors which helped. My 165Hz monitor is from Dell and I've had it for quite a few years, their technical service was exemplary with me, and I promised myself that if I ever got a new monitor it'd be a Dell, ever since.

Couple of YT reviews.

 

[Cyan]

A quite curious review of a 500Hz monitor by Linus Tech Tips, indicating whether or not it is worth it compared to a 360Hz or even 240Hz monitor.

I THOUGHT I Wanted This - AW2524H 500Hz Review

 

[Pressure]

Isn't part of the equation also input lag and pixel response time?

There is no point in having a 750Hz LED LCD when the pixel response time is much lower (we are talking 18ms versus 0.62ms on OLED). That means the OLED pixels can already have changed colors nearly 30 times compared to the traditional LED LCD.

It's the nature of the panels with OLED being emissive and can light up every pixel near instantaneous when applying a current to the backplane and LED LCD are transmissive that works by the liquid crystals blocking the backlight. It simply takes longer to rotate the liquid crystals and orientation after receiving the electrical current.

 

[Cyan]

Isn't part of the equation also input lag and pixel response time?

There is no point in having a 750Hz LED LCD when the pixel response time is much lower (we are talking 18ms versus 0.62ms on OLED). That means the OLED pixels can already have changed colors nearly 30 times compared to the traditional LED LCD.

It's the nature of the panels with OLED being emissive and can light up every pixel near instantaneous when applying a current to the backplane and LED LCD are transmissive that works by the liquid crystals blocking the backlight. It simply takes longer to rotate the liquid crystals and orientation after receiving the electrical current.

now that you mention it, Linus Tech Tips talked about it in the previous video, I put the exact timestamp, video should start at the 7 minutes mark:

In conclusion, the OLED 240Hz feels better in some instances than the Alienware 500Hz monitor, but not in every aspect. The video also mentions a TN 360Hz panel which has BFI, and it's a great monitor.

 

[Cyan]

some pictures on why motion clarity is important.

The Optical Flow -maths stuff- and the Phantom Array Effect. -this is also important for FG and apps like lossless scaling-

The video from which I took some screengrabs:

 

[Cyan]

If you want to see the difference in motion clarity between several refresh rates on your own monitor with your own eyes, first hand, this is the most known website.

Blur Busters TestUFO Motion Tests. Benchmark for monitors & displays.

Blur Busters UFO Motion Tests with ghosting test, 30fps vs 60fps vs 120hz vs 144hz vs 240hz, PWM test, motion blur test, judder test, benchmarks, and more.

www.testufo.com

There is also the smooth frog monitor test, although it is downloadable software afaik.

Aperture Grille

The most comprehensive and detailed reviews of gaming monitors on the internet.

www.aperturegrille.com

And with this the introductory part of this thread is completed I guess.

 

[Cyan]

Delivery date for the new monitor changed to tomorrow, it was to be delivered january 27th.

Might gain some space in my desktop table. I now use the Dell SD3220DGF 32" as my main monitor, and my 4K TV as a secondary one, which is a huge TV that doesn't fit on a 120cm long desk.

But once I get the 360Hz monitor, I'm going to remove the 4K TV, and use 3 screens.

The Dell Alienware AW2523HF 25" for gaming because of the 360Hz, the Dell SD3220DGF 32" for productivity and a 1080p TV that I've had for years and that works very well for productivity also connected via HDMI.

I'm leaving the 4K TV somewhere else for other things, I don't even know which ones yet. But I think it will be my last TV, from now on my idea is to buy only monitors.

Being a Samsung, it's cool that in TV mode it already comes with a ton of interesting channels without even connecting it to an antenna, as long as you have internet...., but I hardly watch TV, and at most what entertains me is some documentary.

 

[Cyan]

10-Bit vs. 8-Bit + FRC: Monitor Panel Difference

Monitor panel bit color depth may seem confusing, but this article will help simplify the pro's and con's of 10-bit vs 8-bit + Frame Rate Control (FRC).

www.benq.com

After reading this article I'm not sure playing at 300Hz native 10bits on the AW2523HF is going to be better than playing at 360Hz using 8 bit + FRC..., except maybe for games that I can't get to run at 360fps so 10bits and 300Hz is ok for those.

My current monitor, the Dell SD3220DGF isn't 10bits native, unlike the AW2523HF and it looks okay to me.

I'm very happy with that monitor, and I did my homework to buy it.

Here's Rtings' review of that monitor. It's been a while, but the SD3220DGF is still stoically there.

Dell S3220DGF Review

The Dell S3220DGF is an impressive 1440p gaming monitor. It has a curved design and it doesn't take up much room, even with the support stand attached. Gaming fe...

www.rtings.com

This is the monitor I got, 360Hz, the score is not the same on everything, but...

Dell Alienware AW2523HF Review

The Dell Alienware AW2523HF is a 25-inch, 1080p gaming monitor with a 360Hz refresh rate that's part of Dell's Alienware lineup. It replaces the Dell Alienware A...

www.rtings.com

In its top 5 global monitor recommendations, Rtings says that the AW2523HF is the best 25" monitor of 2025.

The 5 Best Monitor Sizes For Gaming - Winter 2025

In this article, we've listed the best gaming monitor sizes, from smallest to largest, so you can find the best size monitor for gaming for your needs.

www.rtings.com

And the best 25" monitor overall.

The 5 Best 24-25 Inch Monitors - Winter 2025

If you're looking for the best 24-inch monitor and don't mind getting a cheap display, check out the AOC 24G15N, which has a 24-inch, 1080p display.

www.rtings.com

This last article has some great tips for getting a cheap and functional monitor, which will make it easier to place several monitors on a desk.

 

[Albuquerque]

Still waiting for a proper Sammy 49" G9 Neo successor. I refuse to downsize from my current 35" UWHD 3440x1440@120Hz display...

 

[homerdog]

I have this monitor.

Q27G3XMN

aoc.com

I am not a 1337 FPS gamer anymore (nearing 40) so the motion response is good enough for me but could be better. The image quality is incredible in HDR mode.

That said if I'd known what a mess HDR is in games I would've gotten an IPS panel for better motion and skipped the HDR. I've found that most of the time I don't want a super bright image. This is what I feel like after some 1000nit gaming sessions

 

[Cyan]

Still waiting for a proper Sammy 49" G9 Neo successor. I refuse to downsize from my current 35" UWHD 3440x1440@120Hz display...

the Samsung 49" G9 Neo is a pretty recent monitor, right? It's like 2 years old.

The best monitor I've ever had was a 240Hz monitor from Samsung, 27" 1080p... VA.., my best friend from childhood played games on it with me and he said : "Wow it looks so fine". The 240Hz were a sight to behold too. But I had to return it, much to my dismay, 'cos it had 3 dead pixels, and didn't want the same model because I feared it might happen again.

Then I got the SD3220DGF and 5 to 6 years later, here it is with me still working like the first day. It's a Dell monitor and Dells is one of my favourite companies, their customer services is so exemplary. That's why when I saw that the Alienware is a Dell monitor, trying to get it was a no brainer.

 

[Cyan]

I have this monitor.

Q27G3XMN

aoc.com

I am not a 1337 FPS gamer anymore (nearing 40) so the motion response is good enough for me but could be better. The image quality is incredible in HDR mode.

That said if I'd known what a mess HDR is in games I would've gotten an IPS panel for better motion and skipped the HDR. I've found that most of the time I don't want a super bright image. This is what I feel like after some 1000nit gaming sessions
View attachment 12901

that monitor seems to be really good, and the ideal size for 1440p imho -I have a 32" VA 1440p 165Hz and the text looks okay but nothing to write home about-.

For great motion clarity CRT is the best, but hight Hz screens are getting there. Now that it's possible to run games at better framerates it's only a matter of time where high Hz monitors stop being limited to esports.

In regards to HDR, I only use it on the TV, which is 4K and has a way better HDR. It could be a game changer with a great HDR screen, but tbh I don't care about using it on my 1440p monitor -which is HDR 400 certified- and the monitor that I should have here by tomorrow -no HDR certification, but compatible-.

It's annoying, too much of a hassle, it has an important VRAM footprint, it adds some input lag, but most of all, it doesn't work well with Vulkan games, taking screengrabs can add strange effects to the images taken 'cos of tonemapping and so on. Windows handles it okay, but not perfectly, and the difference isn't staggering.

On my 1440p display even without calibration, SDR looks a thousand times better than HDR, the contrast is more noticeable, while when HDR is on, the image looks washed out and the colors are duller.

While it looks good on my TV, it isn't an unforgettable experience nor a must have. After two years with this TV I realised that TVs aren't for me. My far future screen is going to be a monitor.

TVs don't adapt too well to the PC. They don't enter sleep mode when the PC does, then you have to remember to use the remote to turn them off, sometimes my TV -it's rare, but it happens- doesn't detect that it's connected to a computer, to the point that sometimes I had to blindly turn off the PC. Little details like that make the experience worse, plus a big 4K TV is a power consumption hog, compared to my monitors.

 

[homerdog]

that monitor seems to be really good, and the ideal size for 1440p imho -I have a 32" VA 1440p 165Hz and the text looks okay but nothing to write home about-.

For great motion clarity CRT is the best, but hight Hz screens are getting there. Now that it's possible to run games at better framerates it's only a matter of time where high Hz monitors stop being limited to esports.

In regards to HDR, I only use it on the TV, which is 4K and has a way better HDR. It could be a game changer with a great HDR screen, but tbh I don't care about using it on my 1440p monitor -which is HDR 400 certified- and the monitor that I should have here by tomorrow -no HDR certification, but compatible-.

It's annoying, too much of a hassle, it has an important VRAM footprint, it adds some input lag, but most of all, it doesn't work well with Vulkan games, taking screengrabs can add strange effects to the images taken 'cos of tonemapping and so on. Windows handles it okay, but not perfectly, and the difference isn't staggering.

On my 1440p display even without calibration, SDR looks a thousand times better than HDR, the contrast is more noticeable, while when HDR is on, the image looks washed out and the colors are duller.

While it looks good on my TV, it isn't an unforgettable experience nor a must have. After two years with this TV I realised that TVs aren't for me. My far future screen is going to be a monitor.

TVs don't adapt too well to the PC. They don't enter sleep mode when the PC does, then you have to remember to use the remote to turn them off, sometimes my TV -it's rare, but it happens- doesn't detect that it's connected to a computer, to the point that sometimes I had to blindly turn off the PC. Little details like that make the experience worse, plus a big 4K TV is a power consumption hog, compared to my monitors.

It's a damn good monitor and it's HDR1000 so proper HDR looks amazing. I'm not necessarily disappointed with the monitor, but with the state of HDR standards and crappy implementations. And it's not an easy problem to solve. Microsoft alone can't fix this. Windows actually has fine support for HDR but many applications seem to completely ignore the profile, or they are somehow bugging out. Many HDR videos in browsers look totally fucked.

The solution is to turn off HDR but that negates one of the huge positives of this monitor. So I think you're making the right choice going with a high Hz non-HDR monitor. Though now that I'm used to 1440p I dunno how I'd fare going back to 1080p. DLSS starts to become super effective at 1440p, and many games look like crap without TAA of some kind, DLSS/DLAA being the best.

 

[Cyan]

It's a damn good monitor and it's HDR1000 so proper HDR looks amazing. I'm not necessarily disappointed with the monitor, but with the state of HDR standards and crappy implementations. And it's not an easy problem to solve. Microsoft alone can't fix this. Windows actually has fine support for HDR but many applications seem to completely ignore the profile, or they are somehow bugging out. Many HDR videos in browsers look totally fucked.

The solution is to turn off HDR but that negates one of the huge positives of this monitor. So I think you're making the right choice going with a high Hz non-HDR monitor. Though now that I'm used to 1440p I dunno how I'd fare going back to 1080p. DLSS starts to become super effective at 1440p, and many games look like crap without TAA of some kind, DLSS/DLAA being the best.

that's one hell of a monitor! 1000 nits monitors are such a rarity.... Enjoy it as many years as you can until you find something that you really like to switch to a future monitor.

Regarding the browsers, I used them to compare SDR vs HDR in real time sometimes. Chrome and Edge show youtube videos with HDR enabled just fine, while Firefox can't play HDR content.

HDR in general can be a bit of a hassle given how is handled. I.e. whenever I launch Doom 3 (PC GAmepass version, for which I paid the price of the game) the HDR seems to be disabled in the OS, so you have to uncheck, and then re-check it. This happened to me a plethora of times with other random situations.

Then you have HDR on Vulkan, it won't work with Auto HDR, and the games that have native support on Vulkan like Doom and Indy can look washed out. Well, Doom Eternal looks pretty good, since it has great calibration options.

But then you go to the desktop, it can mess with the HDR and when you return to the game, it looks horrible or washed out -typical of Indy-..

It's experiences like that that made me rethink about using it. It might be worth the hassle on good HDR displays, but on my monitors who have mediocre HDR it doesn't make sense to me. I also use multiple displays for productivity and having one with HDR while the other doesn't have it enabled feels kinda odd at times.

On a different note, my idea tomorrow is to try the new monitor for the first time using Rtings calibration and playing Resident Evil 2 Remake at 360fps without RT. It's one of my favourite games to date and can't wait to try it a shopping 360Hz.

That and simple games like VAmpire Survivors, where the framerate makes a HUGE difference in motion clarity taking into account how many crazy things happen on the screen at the same time.

 

[Cyan]

Though now that I'm used to 1440p I dunno how I'd fare going back to 1080p. DLSS starts to become super effective at 1440p, and many games look like crap without TAA of some kind, DLSS/DLAA being the best.

dunno tbh, 1440p is probably the most balanced resolution as of now, but as long as the resolution is native on the device you are using I don't think 1080p is going to look that bad on a relatively small screen -24,5"-. My fastest and best monitor like 5 to 6 years ago, a 240Hz 27" 1080p display looked good back in the day.

What I like about 1080p is that it isn't very demanding nowadays, and this gives you some freedom to experiment at native to find the sweet spot where games run great.

Maybe 360Hz is a bit of a stretch for my computer, I don't think I'd take advantage of a 540Hz monitor for instance, but we shall see with 360Hz and FG.

I am fine with FGx3, x4..., and FGx10 or more on 2D games, but 60Hz base FGx6 might be too demanding for my PC. The highest FG multiplier you use the more your base fps drop) and also the more frames generated in between the more input lag.

But 360Hz might be pretty manageable. If I can't run my games at 360fps, then switching to 300Hz -the max the monitor can achieve at native 10bits- might be helpful in those cases.

 

[arandomguy]

The solution is to turn off HDR but that negates one of the huge positives of this monitor. So I think you're making the right choice going with a high Hz non-HDR monitor. Though now that I'm used to 1440p I dunno how I'd fare going back to 1080p. DLSS starts to become super effective at 1440p, and many games look like crap without TAA of some kind, DLSS/DLAA being the best.

You don't really need to make the trade off to 1080p for higher refresh. 1440p at 165-180hz is basically already commoditized price wise and 240hz is likely next. If you're willing to pay the premium 360hz 1440p and even 480hz 1440p displays also exist as well.

Though personally I'm a bit skeptical about refresh rate compliance going beyond 240hz, especially if we're talking about 480hz (and higher in the future) without moving to OLEDs.

 

[homerdog]

dunno tbh, 1440p is probably the most balanced resolution as of now, but as long as the resolution is native on the device you are using I don't think 1080p is going to look that bad on a relatively small screen -24,5"-. My fastest and best monitor like 5 to 6 years ago, a 240Hz 27" 1080p display looked good back in the day.

What I like about 1080p is that it isn't very demanding nowadays, and this gives you some freedom to experiment at native to find the sweet spot where games run great.

Maybe 360Hz is a bit of a stretch for my computer, I don't think I'd take advantage of a 540Hz monitor for instance, but we shall see with 360Hz and FG.

I am fine with FGx3, x4..., and FGx10 or more on 2D games, but 60Hz base FGx6 might be too demanding for my PC. The highest FG multiplier you use the more your base fps drop) and also the more frames generated in between the more input lag.

But 360Hz might be pretty manageable. If I can't run my games at 360fps, then switching to 300Hz -the max the monitor can achieve at native 10bits- might be helpful in those cases.

1080p is great for pushing high framerates. Even a modest GPU can go very far at 1080p.

The thing I noticed is that using DLSS Quality at 1440p looks better than DLAA 1080p but the cost is very similar. The FPS difference is not noticeable but the quality improvement is. Keep in mind the pixels on a 27in 1080p monitor are gigantic, visible to the naked eye. 24in is much better for 1080p.

All in all I have no complaints about this monitor. I got it for $250 (~$280 after tax and shipping) which is just crazy.