Reply to thread

Message: [QUOTE="Shamiso, post: 92527, member: 160"] A 720Hz display refreshes every 1.39 milliseconds, while 540Hz takes about 1.85 milliseconds, leaving a gap of roughly 0.46 milliseconds. LG Display’s [B][URL='https://goldmidi.com/community/threads/lg-display-has-begun-720hz-oled-panel-production.77890/']24.5-inch native 720Hz OLED panel[/URL][/B] therefore shortens the refresh window by 25 percent compared with 540Hz, even though the headline refresh number rises by a third. The marketing number makes the jump look huge. The clock says otherwise. Moving from 60Hz to 120Hz removes 8.33 milliseconds from each refresh interval, while moving from 540Hz to 720Hz removes less than half a millisecond. None of this makes 720Hz pointless. It means the remaining improvements are small and increasingly dependent on everything else in the PC. A faster panel does not fix a frame that the CPU, GPU, game engine, or input chain delivered late. [HEADING=2]The 540Hz baseline already leaves little timing on the table[/HEADING] At 540Hz, a fresh scan can begin every 1.85 milliseconds. At 720Hz, another scan can begin every 1.39 milliseconds, so the display gets more opportunities to put a newly rendered frame in front of you. Fast camera turns and moving targets can look a little cleaner when the game is supplying frames at the same pace. OLED helps because its pixel transitions are already extremely quick. Independent testing of the earlier 27-inch ASUS PG27AQWP-W measured actual OLED transitions around 0.2 to 0.3 milliseconds, despite the much smaller 0.02ms manufacturer rating. More importantly for this comparison, its measured processing delay stayed around 0.1ms in both 540Hz and 720Hz modes. Refresh rate therefore does not magically erase every other source of monitor latency. The higher mode mainly tightens the timing of frame presentation and scanout while the monitor’s processing portion can remain basically unchanged. Treating a 33 percent refresh-rate increase as a 33 percent reduction in total latency would be bad math. The same logic applies to 480Hz and 500Hz OLEDs. Their refresh intervals sit around 2.08ms and 2.00ms, so even 540Hz only trims a few tenths of a millisecond from those displays. Once you are already above 500Hz, the remaining gains fall into tenths of a millisecond. [HEADING=2]OLED motion clarity depends on the frames your PC can actually send[/HEADING] Sample-and-hold displays become clearer in motion as each frame spends less time sitting on screen. Raising OLED from 540Hz to 720Hz reduces that hold time, which can sharpen moving edges when the panel is receiving enough unique frames. Running a 720Hz desktop while the game hovers at 300fps does not create 720 different pictures every second. Frame consistency matters just as much at these speeds. A system bouncing between 700fps and 400fps will keep changing the time between fresh frames, even though the monitor itself remains capable of updating much faster. Competitive games with simple scenes and heavily tuned settings are the obvious place where 720Hz has room to stretch. A [B][URL='https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssaho.2026.102774']controlled FPS refresh-rate study[/URL][/B] involving 101 gamers found clear performance gains when moving away from 60Hz, but it found no significant target-acquisition advantage between 144Hz and 360Hz. The study did not test 540Hz or 720Hz, so it cannot settle this newer comparison. It does show why tiny timing gains at the top end should be tested rather than assumed. Perception varies too. A trained Counter-Strike player tracking fast lateral movement at 600-plus frames per second is dealing with a very different workload from somebody playing a cinematic shooter at 180fps. Both can use the same 720Hz monitor, but only one setup is regularly feeding the panel enough information to expose its maximum refresh advantage. [HEADING=2]The remaining gain lives inside the whole input chain[/HEADING] Mouse polling, game simulation, render queues, GPU time, synchronization settings, display scanout, and pixel response all contribute to what you finally feel. Shaving 0.46ms from the refresh interval changes only one part of that total delay. Poor one-percent-low frame rates can easily swamp the difference. High frame rates also change the practical comparison. A steady 720fps means each rendered frame arrives about every 1.39ms, matching the panel’s maximum cadence. At 540fps, frames arrive about every 1.85ms, so a 720Hz panel cannot invent the missing game states between them. For a machine genuinely pushing past 540fps, 720Hz gives the display more chances to show newer information and slightly reduces persistence blur. The advantage is measurable on paper and potentially visible in the right motion test. It is still 0.46 milliseconds of refresh interval, not a new class of responsiveness. Anyone comparing 540Hz and 720Hz OLED should start with the games they actually run, not the number printed on the box. Stable frame delivery near the panel limit matters more than chasing a maximum refresh rate your system reaches only while staring at the floor. [/QUOTE]

Name