Technology @lemmy.ml schizoidman @lemmy.ml 5mo ago

TCL demonstrates 4K gaming monitor with a 1,000 Hz refresh rate

www.tomshardware.com TCL demonstrates 4K gaming monitor with a 1,000 Hz refresh rate

Now wait for 1,000 Hz content and capable GPUs.

71 comments

"Now wait for 1,000 Hz content and capable GPUs."

Forget the content and GPU, you need an input port capable of that.

HDMI 2.1 and Display Port 1.4 cap out at, what? 240?
- With DSC DP 1.4 can do 4k 360 but it still ain't close to 1000
  
  So you just need 3 4090's with 1 displayport each to the monitor and a whole new version of sli.
  
  Isn’t 4k 360hz equivalent to 1080p 1440hz? I wouldn’t expect 1000hz at 4k any time soon but 1080p in competitive FPS is easy
  
  If you want 1000fps, 4k and DP are the least of your problems
- Easy, just connect 4 cables!
- “Now wait for 1,000 Hz content and capable GPUs.”
  
  Now wait for humans who can see the difference
  
  Here's a real-world use case where this difference is noticeable to the average person. We don't need to render video games at 1000 Hz, but many things that can be rendered with comparatively low GPU power could be made a better experience with it. The real question is whether/when the technology becomes cheap enough to be practical to use in consumer goods.
  
  90hz is enough to prevent motion sickness in vr. That's a frame per 11ms and that's basically the limit of human perception. 120 is allegedly even better, but beyond that there's no point. Yeah we're rehashing the 30 vs 60 fps debate again but this time for reals.
- I'm sure some people will demand it. But for 99.9% of the population you don't need 1000Hz content. The main benefit is that whatever framerate your content is it will not have notable delay from the display refresh rate.
  
  For example if you are watching 60Hz video on a 100Hz monitor you will get bad frame pacing. But on a 1000Hz monitor even though it isn't perfectly divisible. the 1/3ms delay isn't perceptible.
  
  VRR can help a lot here, but can fall apart if you have different content at different frame rates. For example a notification pops up and a frame is rendered but then your game finishes its frame and needs to wait until the next refresh cycle. Ideally the compositor would have waited for the game frame before flushing the notification but it doesn't really know how long the game will take to render the next frame.
  
  So really you just need your GPU to be able to composite at 1000Hz, you probably don't need your game to render at 1000Hz. It isn't really going to make much difference.
  
  Basically at this point faster refresh rates just improve frame pacing when multiple things are on screen. Much like VRR does for single sources.
  
  Here's a big part of why they want 1000Hz. You don't need to fully re-render each frame for most cases where 1ms latency is desirable - make a 100 Hz (or even 50 Hz) background and then render a transparent layer over it.
Who needs 1000hz refresh rate? I understand it's impressive, but 120hz already looks smooth to the human eye.
- Yeah, for me, I'm looking for prettier not fastest after 120 Hz or so
- Who needs 4K when 1080 already looks sharp to the human eye.
  
  Humans can't see more than 24 fps anyways
  
  Depends on the size of screen, surely.
  
  Dumb comparison
  
  Angular definition. You have to factor in screen size and distance to observer, otherwise it's meaningless
  
  Who needs 1000hz 4k when 120hz 2k is already stupidly expensive to achieve with most AAA games
- The obvious awnser would be VR and AR where the faster the refresh rate is the less likely you are to get motion sick. A display with a refresh rate that high would be displaying a frame every millisecond meaning if the rest of the hardware could keep up a headset using this display would be able to properly display the micro movements your head makes.
- Here's a real-world use case that also won't require insane GPU power.
  
  Here is an alternative Piped link(s):
  
  Here's a real-world use case
  
  Piped is a privacy-respecting open-source alternative frontend to YouTube.
  
  I'm open-source; check me out at GitHub.
- It's not about how smooth video is, it's about latency. You can easily notice the difference between 1ms and 10ms.
- I have a 280hz monitor and it doesn't look smooth in motion
I would be happy with a 240hz 4k that doesn't have a subtle hum when it's going that hard. It's hard to test for because shops are too loud to hear it, but in a quiet office it gets very noticeable.
Please stop
- Why?
  
  (Genuine question.)
  
  Genuine answer is that it's just not necessary. Current displays are sharp and smooth enough. I'd rather a display that lasts for a few decades, since the only reason to replace these is when they break down.
  
  Your eyes can't possibly tell the difference. We're past the max eye resolution at this point.
So it's not really a 4K 1000Hz screen then, if it's just togglable between being a 4k 240 Hz screen and a 1080p 1000 Hz screen.
- From what I understand in the article the prototype TCL panel being demonstrated is actually 4k@1000hz. They mention a few competitors with multiple modes right after which could be where the confusion comes from.
- That's not what the article says?
  
  Oops, I misread, that was a different monitor
After having a TCL smart TV that constantly smells like burning plastic, even a year after using it, I'm not sure I would want another of their product in my home.
- It's so that you know it's working hard
- Mine burnt out half the led strips in 3 years. Will never buy again. Idc how affordable they are. I miss when appliances and electronics were built to last, not break after a few years.
Call me old-fashioned but... I'm not 100% confident that the industrial power draw necessary for 4k 1,000 Hz is worth it for the average gamer, guys.
- Or the average GAME TBH.
Now tell us the pixel response time.
Then they injected ads on it.
"Create your own penis showing game"

That's what the tech world has come to recently, especially with monitors and smartphones.
- I don't understand this comment; are they not supposed to improve?
  
  They would rather everyone shut up about it so they don’t have to battle FOMO lol
- Recently?
  
  Tech has always been about pushing boundaries. And that's not a bad thing
  
  Screen technologies for a lot of things has gotten to the point where your eyes literally can't tell the difference, but sure, dump money into a placebo.
- You must be new
JFC nobody needs that kind of refresh. Your eyes literally can't tell much past what, a 150? And 60ish is good enough.
Why only 4K? We have 8K monitors now.
- Performance Mode > Quality Mode ( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)

71 comments