Samsung launches the first 500Hz OLED gaming monitor for $1,300 | Hacker News Reader

Samsung launches the first 500Hz OLED gaming monitor for $1,300

tomshardware.com

16 points01-_-20 comments

Odisay has such a crappy software that I don't recommend it to anyone and I am selling my own after few months because of it.

- 2 or 3 lengthy (a minut or so) popups each time it is turned on, without option to disable them

- Washed out colors randomly when switching to HDR

- TOS agreements that can't be agreed upon and stay on the screen

- Prevents computer to go to sleep mode, combined with OLED burnin that is mindblowing

- Physical problems like shaky parts

Hard skip, can't recommend it to anyone, despite good reviews all around.

The claim that "human eye can't see more than 24Hz" is rightly ridiculed, but I feel things are going a little too far in the opposite direction lately...

However, improvements in brightness and contrast are wonderful.

It makes a clear difference between 60Hz and 120Hz, but going from 120Hz to 240Hz didn't really make a difference for me tbh. I expect 240Hz to 500Hz would make even less of a difference.

(Experience from using the Samsung Odyssey Neo G9 57" 240Hz MiniLED Monitor)

https://www.testufo.com/

There is this test, which has different frame content in rows.

60Hz is extremely blurry compared to 120Hz. The difference from 120Hz to 240Hz is noticeable, but not by a lot.

The difference between 144hz and 60hz is so massive, I couldn't go back. But yeah, not sure if 500hz would still be as impactful. Maybe for pro-players that want zero latency / input lag.

Personally I find 120 to be the highest number that feels worth it. I’ve compared with higher and can see the difference, but it seems very minor.

It also helps that’s it’s a multiple of both 24 and 60. It’s only 50 that is missed out.

Several years ago, I wondered if I could see the difference of a high refresh rate monitor (60hz vs. more than that). I went to Best Buy to look at monitors, and I could tell. I've loved my 4k 144hz monitors ever since, and even bought more for my home office.

And with input that difference is even more apparent. Makes a huge difference if the time from mouse movement to display ia cut in half.

Is that kind of refresh rate even supported by current hdmi/displayport standards and graphics cards? Can I realistically expect to - for example - make a 4k hdr video at 500 fps, and play it back on that screen, connected to something like a newest macbook pro or a desktop with nvidia gpu, and actually get the correct output (verifiable by a high fps camera for example) ?

This is a 1440p monitor, not a 4K one, but if we assume someone did make a 4K HDR 500hz monitor then the answer is it depends on whether you can live with lossy compression over the wire.

In true lossless mode it's not happening, DP2.1 caps out at 267hz when pushing raw 4K HDR, but with lossy DSC it should be possible to push upwards of 500hz.

480Hz OLED is on the market for some time now. I don't see how 20 more is newsworthy.

Yes in 2024 Asus and LG both had them. This one though has extras:

> Of course, the headline feature is the 500Hz refresh rate, but there's also a 0.03ms response time (GTG) and QHD resolution, VESA Display HDR True Black 500 HDR, and HDR10+ Gaming.

I might prefer the 4k LG that does 240Hz and can switch to 480Hz for 1080p (if I were a meaningfully competitive gamer, which I'm not).

metal back, and fancy talk about heat management to prevent burn in, then brings up the unanswered questions of exactly how much power does this thing consume, how hot is it running, and how does that look from the point of long term reliability, and general comfort? add in a hot gpu, and other gadgets and what is the total heat output for a gaming set up likely to be?

Some of us live in cold climate. /s

I’m sure it will be a difference you can see!

Games tend not to correctly do motion blur.

When you don't do motion blur, certain scenes (eg. Something moving fast across the screen) look different even up to 1000 FPS.

However the real fix is to properly do the math of motion blur.

I always turn motion blur off. Why would I want something to show a blur instead of a crisp image?

Likewise I turn all other image quality reducing options off: depth of field, vignetting, chromatic aberration, bloom, etc.

Anti aliasing?

Motion blur is effectively anti aliasing but instead of in the spacial domain, it is the time domain.

Does it really matter above say 144?

2K at 27” is some crap though.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com