"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?
this post was submitted on 19 May 2024
94 points (95.2% liked)
Technology
34971 readers
170 users here now
This is the official technology community of Lemmy.ml for all news related to creation and use of technology, and to facilitate civil, meaningful discussion around it.
Ask in DM before posting product reviews or ads. All such posts otherwise are subject to removal.
Rules:
1: All Lemmy rules apply
2: Do not post low effort posts
3: NEVER post naziped*gore stuff
4: Always post article URLs or their archived version URLs as sources, NOT screenshots. Help the blind users.
5: personal rants of Big Tech CEOs like Elon Musk are unwelcome (does not include posts about their companies affecting wide range of people)
6: no advertisement posts unless verified as legitimate and non-exploitative/non-consumerist
7: crypto related posts, unless essential, are disallowed
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
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.
.. I actually wonder if the graphics cards could multiplex across multiple dp to a single display.
I vaguely remember that being a thing for early commercial 8k projectors, but I don't know anything about the implementation.
Two ports at once have been used for Samsung's 5120x1440 240hz monitors. Each port refreshes half of the screen and there are two scanlines going from left to right. Using the calc here you might be able to use two DP2.1 UHBR80 cables with DSC and nonstandard timings to run 4k 1000hz 10bit.
Ez
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
load more comments
(1 replies)
load more comments
(2 replies)
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.
load more comments
(1 replies)
load more comments
(1 replies)
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.
load more comments
(1 replies)
load more comments
(1 replies)
Who needs 1000hz refresh rate? I understand it's impressive, but 120hz already looks smooth to the human eye.
Who needs 4K when 1080 already looks sharp to the human eye.
Yeah, for me, I'm looking for prettier not fastest after 120 Hz or so
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.
Competitive (professional) gamers?
Seems there are diminishing returns, but at least some gains are measurable at 360.
In thought that 60Hz was enough for most games, and that for shooters and other real time games 120 or 144 was better. However, it reaches a point where the human eye can't notice even if it tried.
Honestly, going up in framerate t9o much is just a waste of GPU potency and electricity.
A better way to look at this is frametime.
At 60 FPS/Hz, a single frame is displayed for 16.67ms. At 120 Hz, a single frame is displayed for 8.33ms. At 240 Hz, a single frame is displayed for 4.16ms. A difference of >8ms per frame (60 vs 120) is quite noticeable for many people, and >4ms (120 vs 240) is as well, but the impact is just half as much. So you get diminishing returns pretty quickly.
Now I'm not sure how noticeable 1000 Hz would be to pretty much anyone as I haven't seen a 1000 Hz display in action yet, but you can definitely make a case for 240 Hz and beyond.
It's pretty easy to discern refresh rate with the human eye if one tries. Just move your cursor back and forth really quickly. The number of ghost cursors in the trail it leaves behind (which btw only exist in perception by the human eye) is inversely proportional to the refresh rate.
Sure, but wasting double or triple the resources for that is not fine. There's very limited places where that even is a gain on games, because outside those super competitive limited games it's not like it matters.
Yeah I agree with you, but I was just refuting your claim that it's not perceivable even if you try.
load more comments
(1 replies)
load more comments
(2 replies)
Here's a real-world use case that also won't require insane GPU power.
load more comments
(1 replies)
load more comments
(1 replies)
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
I'm hoping that people stop giving an actual fuck at around 400 so that they can just simply produce that and 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.
load more comments
(5 replies)
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.
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
Hitting a locked 1000 Hz and nitpicking the frame-pacing is not the point of high refresh rates. It makes exact framerate irrelevant. Even for mundane double-digit framerates - this would work the same as FreeSync. Frames would appear the instant they are ready. There is no difference between 60 FPS and 59 FPS.
You can limit an efficient game to 240, and if it doesn't hit that, who gives a shit.
Now tell us the pixel response time.
Then they injected ads on it.
view more: next ›