Acer’s new gaming monitor is capable of reaching a 390Hz refresh rate

  • Thread starter Deleted member 41971
  • Start date
D

Deleted member 41971

Guest
when 244hz is just not enough hz for your eyes

CaXpture - Copy.JPG



 
Last edited by a moderator:
D

Deleted member 17413

Guest
Aside from the pointless rate, it looks really basic and cheap. Not a fan of it as a design at all.
Acer products have always kinda felt like that to me though... not a brand I would willingly choose when given options.

We all know what will happen though, the majority of people will see 390Hz and start drooling thinking of their framerates, totally unaware that given the exact same monitor, but with only a 120Hz, 144Hz, 165Hz or 240Hz differences, they would never know which was which without picking up the spec list...

Well, maybe the 120Hz...sometimes..
 

steaky360

Moderator
Moderator
Well, maybe the 120Hz...sometimes..
Without trying to derail the thread I can for sure tell the difference between my 60hz, 120Hz and 240Hz monitors on the desktop (wiggling the mouse and moving windows and what not - not so certain I'd be able to tell the difference mid game (I'm no competitive gamer, I am definitely a casual!) usually there's too much other stuff going on. Also no idea about >240Hz - not certain I'd be able to benefit from that or even notice :)
 
D

Deleted member 17413

Guest
You have better eyesight than me then!
I cant really tell the difference between 120Hz and 144Hz on my monitor... it can "overclock" to 165Hz but not tried that
Lower than 120Hz and I start noticing.
 

steaky360

Moderator
Moderator
I expect its because the jump from 120 to 240 is far larger than the jump from 120 to 144 :)

My eyesight isn't great.
 

Scott

Behold The Ford Mondeo
Moderator
Without trying to derail the thread I can for sure tell the difference between my 60hz, 120Hz and 240Hz monitors on the desktop (wiggling the mouse and moving windows and what not - not so certain I'd be able to tell the difference mid game (I'm no competitive gamer, I am definitely a casual!) usually there's too much other stuff going on. Also no idea about >240Hz - not certain I'd be able to benefit from that or even notice :)

I think you should take the Pepsi challenge :D
 

SlimCini

KC and the Sunshine BANNED
Physiologically you have about 4.5m cones across your two retina I think. And assuming each one has a refractory period of a ms or so, then let's say for the sake of it that each cone could send 500 new visual action potentials to your cerebrum every second.

So even if every cone was stimulated at EXACTLY the same time then you could feasibly 'send' up to 500 images to your brain every second and therefore 'see' in 500fps. But they're not stimulated at the same, all 4.5m could send at any point all at different points so you could theoretically be sending millions of still image action potentials to your cortex every second. So in reality visual info will be received by your cortex at almost infinite 'fps'. But then 'seeing' and 'vision' is achieved and built by the cortex, not the cones,so the limiting factor becomes how many visual processing images your cortex can build per second from the action potentials coming from the cones in order to build 'vision'. You've got 140m neurons in the visual cortex. Worst case scenario is they all theoretically fire at exactly the same time and have a refractory period of a couple of ms. That means, again, worst case your cortex could build up to 500 frames per second to give you moving vision at 500fps.

But assuming all of those 140m neurons can fire at different moments, then you increase that rate even further. It is likely to be consciously imperceptible if you go looking for it but I think your visual cortex can generate beyond 1000 images every second.
 

SpyderTracks

We love you Ukraine
Physiologically you have about 4.5m cones across your two retina I think. And assuming each one has a refractory period of a ms or so, then let's say for the sake of it that each cone could send 500 new visual action potentials to your cerebrum every second.

So even if every cone was stimulated at EXACTLY the same time then you could feasibly 'send' up to 500 images to your brain every second and therefore 'see' in 500fps. But they're not stimulated at the same, all 4.5m could send at any point all at different points so you could theoretically be sending millions of still image action potentials to your cortex every second. So in reality visual info will be received by your cortex at almost infinite 'fps'. But then 'seeing' and 'vision' is achieved and built by the cortex, not the cones,so the limiting factor becomes how many visual processing images your cortex can build per second from the action potentials coming from the cones in order to build 'vision'. You've got 140m neurons in the visual cortex. Worst case scenario is they all theoretically fire at exactly the same time and have a refractory period of a couple of ms. That means, again, worst case your cortex could build up to 500 frames per second to give you moving vision at 500fps.

But assuming all of those 140m neurons can fire at different moments, then you increase that rate even further. It is likely to be consciously imperceptible if you go looking for it but I think your visual cortex can generate beyond 1000 images every second.
That’s a very clever synopsis.

It’s such a personal experience like most things with humans. If you were to play an MP3 music file to a blind person they would without hesitation notice a gigantic difference between that and a high res or lossless digital format.

Likewise, a deaf person would be more sensitive than most to higher FPS.

Those are the extremes and then each of us fall somewhere in between with our individual sensitivities.

The majority of people won’t appreciate over about 120fps, but that’s not to say that will always be the case, like with anything, as technology and human understanding moves on, generally we as a race start to perceive things differently, it starts to matter more, and we understand better. Hopefully we further unlock parts of our brains that further improve our response times and capabilities.
 

Scott

Behold The Ford Mondeo
Moderator
Physiologically you have about 4.5m cones across your two retina I think. And assuming each one has a refractory period of a ms or so, then let's say for the sake of it that each cone could send 500 new visual action potentials to your cerebrum every second.

So even if every cone was stimulated at EXACTLY the same time then you could feasibly 'send' up to 500 images to your brain every second and therefore 'see' in 500fps. But they're not stimulated at the same, all 4.5m could send at any point all at different points so you could theoretically be sending millions of still image action potentials to your cortex every second. So in reality visual info will be received by your cortex at almost infinite 'fps'. But then 'seeing' and 'vision' is achieved and built by the cortex, not the cones,so the limiting factor becomes how many visual processing images your cortex can build per second from the action potentials coming from the cones in order to build 'vision'. You've got 140m neurons in the visual cortex. Worst case scenario is they all theoretically fire at exactly the same time and have a refractory period of a couple of ms. That means, again, worst case your cortex could build up to 500 frames per second to give you moving vision at 500fps.

But assuming all of those 140m neurons can fire at different moments, then you increase that rate even further. It is likely to be consciously imperceptible if you go looking for it but I think your visual cortex can generate beyond 1000 images every second.

As much as I was jesting, that's exactly the reason why @steaky360 can see the difference between 120hz and 240hz (At least I believe that's the case).

When you have an expected path of action our brains are VERY good at gauging difference. It's the same with measurement. We are great at comparison and interpolation, but not great at measuring or noticing unexpected change quickly. I remember watching a study of the differences between focal sight and peripheral sight. Our peripheral vision can often appear to be like a 6th sense as we perceive things we don't actually see. The tiniest of movement can be recognised in our periphery but when focused.... there is so much information in the detail that comparisons take longer to process.

Moving the mouse across the screen back and forth is a great example as you have a repeatable pattern that your brain can then process the differences very easily.

In gaming, it's reaction time and the time taken to process the variation between the images that's the key. Even when 500+ images are sent to the brain, the actual focus will be on the "high res" vision of the eye rather than the quick reacting peripheral vision. Of course, wrap around screens with high resolution, high refresh will help with this I imagine.

We all know the super human reactions for the high end gamers. I guess this is basically processing time to react to what their eye has seen. When you can react inside 2 milliseconds when the average is around 250 milliseconds then there may be an advantage.

With 120 fps you get to see the image change around 30 times by the time we have even started to react (on average).
 

ubuysa

The BSOD Doctor
Physiologically you have about 4.5m cones across your two retina I think. And assuming each one has a refractory period of a ms or so, then let's say for the sake of it that each cone could send 500 new visual action potentials to your cerebrum every second.

So even if every cone was stimulated at EXACTLY the same time then you could feasibly 'send' up to 500 images to your brain every second and therefore 'see' in 500fps. But they're not stimulated at the same, all 4.5m could send at any point all at different points so you could theoretically be sending millions of still image action potentials to your cortex every second. So in reality visual info will be received by your cortex at almost infinite 'fps'. But then 'seeing' and 'vision' is achieved and built by the cortex, not the cones,so the limiting factor becomes how many visual processing images your cortex can build per second from the action potentials coming from the cones in order to build 'vision'. You've got 140m neurons in the visual cortex. Worst case scenario is they all theoretically fire at exactly the same time and have a refractory period of a couple of ms. That means, again, worst case your cortex could build up to 500 frames per second to give you moving vision at 500fps.

But assuming all of those 140m neurons can fire at different moments, then you increase that rate even further. It is likely to be consciously imperceptible if you go looking for it but I think your visual cortex can generate beyond 1000 images every second.
So... that's a no then? ;)
 
D

Deleted member 17413

Guest
As a former biology student though, that was a very interesting read!
Also kinda insteresting to draw the parallels between humans and machines, in terms of how we function as biological machines...
 

SlimCini

KC and the Sunshine BANNED
As much as I was jesting, that's exactly the reason why @steaky360 can see the difference between 120hz and 240hz (At least I believe that's the case).

When you have an expected path of action our brains are VERY good at gauging difference. It's the same with measurement. We are great at comparison and interpolation, but not great at measuring or noticing unexpected change quickly. I remember watching a study of the differences between focal sight and peripheral sight. Our peripheral vision can often appear to be like a 6th sense as we perceive things we don't actually see. The tiniest of movement can be recognised in our periphery but when focused.... there is so much information in the detail that comparisons take longer to process.

Moving the mouse across the screen back and forth is a great example as you have a repeatable pattern that your brain can then process the differences very easily.

In gaming, it's reaction time and the time taken to process the variation between the images that's the key. Even when 500+ images are sent to the brain, the actual focus will be on the "high res" vision of the eye rather than the quick reacting peripheral vision. Of course, wrap around screens with high resolution, high refresh will help with this I imagine.

We all know the super human reactions for the high end gamers. I guess this is basically processing time to react to what their eye has seen. When you can react inside 2 milliseconds when the average is around 250 milliseconds then there may be an advantage.

With 120 fps you get to see the image change around 30 times by the time we have even started to react (on average).
Just picking holes in ONE point you made. No-one can consciously react in 2ms. Fastest human world record is 101ms apparently. Reflex reaction times can be ridic fast, but no-one reflex reacts in games, however much they might try and claim they're a pro and have ridiculous 'reflexes'. You can't just 'make' a response a reflex by doing it over and over again. You can't train a sodium ion to move into a neuron down a gradient more quickly. You can't train a neurotransmitter to diffuse a synapse more quickly. These are inherent delays that will be constant forever. You can train your cerebrum to send the conscious responding action potentials to travel to your muscles via your cerebellum more and more and then be ingrained in muscle memory and become auto-pilot, but this doesn't speed up the response into true reflex reaction speed.

Conscious reactions have to go through the cerebrum. This adds in hundreds of extra synapses to cross. Synapses slow things down because of neurotransmitter diffusion and that is a set speed. Some people just need less synapses and/or have microscopically slightly shorter synapse distances and therefore are in the low 100s for conscious reaction time in milliseconds. And these will be the people who are fighter pilots, F1 racers etc.

I think sprint races false start anyone who moves out of the blocks less than 100ms after the starting sound is made because you can't consciously possibly do that.
 
Last edited:

Scott

Behold The Ford Mondeo
Moderator
Just picking holes in ONE point you made. No-one can consciously react in 2ms. Fastest human world record is 101ms apparently. Reflex reaction times can be ridic fast, but no-one reflex reacts in games, however much they might try and claim they're a pro and have ridiculous 'reflexes'. You can't just 'make' a response a reflex by doing it over and over again. You can't train a sodium ion to move into a neuron down a gradient more quickly. You can't train a neurotransmitter to diffuse a synapse more quickly. These are inherent delays that will be constant forever. You can train your cerebrum to send the conscious responding action potentials to travel to your muscles via your cerebellum more and more and then be ingrained in muscle memory and become auto-pilot, but this doesn't speed up the response into true reflex reaction speed.

Conscious reactions have to go through the cerebrum. This adds in hundreds of extra synapses to cross. Synapses slow things down because of neurotransmitter diffusion and that is a set speed. Some people just need less synapses and/or have microscopically slightly shorter synapse distances and therefore are in the low 100s for conscious reaction time in milliseconds. And these will be the people who are fighter pilots, F1 racers etc.

That was my point.... I wasn't saying it in seriousness, I was drawing the comparison to highlight how ridiculous it would be to suggest that ability :)

The actual refresh rate of the screen doesn't have a great deal to do with gaming ability. It can help.... there is absolutely zero doubt.... but the amount of help is wildly variable depending on the characteristics of the person playing. Past 120hz...... IMO..... there returns fall off a cliff vs the value for the average gamer. You would need to be seriously dialled in for 200+hz.... by which time it's all about your ability of interpolation and micro adjustment rather than vision.

By the time you are over 300fps.... by the time the brain has caught up to what it has seen the event has already LONG past and I think you're into margin of error territory..... even with the elite.

300 FPS on a screen producing 60hz will provide the same outcome as 288fps on a 144hz monitor. You are just reacting to the most recent image that you have managed to process. The more recent that image is to begin with.... the better. The other 100 images that followed after it are pointless.
 
Top