|
|
|
|
|
|
by spdif899
744 days ago
|
|
|
Their general conclusion is focused on competitive gaming performance, which while certainly a valuable litmus test (especially for their target audience) does not tell the whole picture. Optimum has reviewed some higher refresh rate monitors recently and provides some examples of where they can still give an advantage, not necessarily in reaction time but in smoothness and clarity in fast scenes. Here's a good example with a 540Hz display: https://youtu.be/nqa7QVwfu7s One advantage in the market that is overlooked in this type of "do we need X" challenge is the increased accessibility of things less than X. For example productivity monitors at 120, 144, even 240Hz are more affordable and easier to find, as panel production becomes cheaper and the gaming brands push the marketing numbers up and up. New 480/540Hz monitors cost what a 144Hz monitor cost ten years ago. |
|
|
There is a trend in the opposite direction, where people read books and such on low-fps e-ink displays. It's true that people complain they are expensive and the low fps makes it useless for a lot of tasks, but there is still a market because the "like paper" display is so readable. I think that makes it clear that people have a variety of needs. Your logic is something like trickle-down economics - it is certainly important to continue doing research into displays but this doesn't necessarily translate into cheaper panels. I would say the main reason you can get a cheap $100 monitor now that is the equivalent of a $700 CRT from 30 years ago is economy of scale. The manufacturing process is more automated and streamlined with fewer assembly steps, and there are many competing manufacturers.
Meanwhile 240hz is justifiable even for non-gaming, e.g. https://www.tomshardware.com/monitors/gaming-monitors/tcl-de... who says he noticed the benefits of 240hz just browsing and scrolling.