They're here. 1000hz monitors

[AluminumHaste]

I predicted we'd have them by the end of 2025 so I was off by about 6 months.

 

https://www.tomsguide.com/computing/monitors/samsung-just-broke-the-speed-limit-with-first-1-040hz-gaming-monitor-and-it-comes-with-qhd-support

 

While you need to play at 720p to hit those rates, you can still enjoy 600hz at 1440p with gorgeous OLED quality. 

[jaxa]

https://blurbusters.com/blur-busters-law-amazing-journey-to-future-1000hz-displays-with-blurfree-sample-and-hold/

https://blurbusters.com/announcing-testufo-version-3-upgraded-display-testing-suite/

https://www.tomshardware.com/monitors/gaming-monitors/worlds-first-1-080-hertz-gaming-monitor-with-dual-mode-support-announced-hkcs-super-speedy-panel-hits-peak-speeds-at-720p-steps-down-to-540hz-at-1440p-will-reportedly-feature-dp-2-1-uhbr20

There was also a 1080 Hz monitor announced.

I'm guessing we'll see the ultra-fast monitors settle in around 960-1200 Hz while people figure out what to do with them. Increasing the resolution would also be nice, but it could take years.

[chakkman]

8 hours ago, AluminumHaste said:

I While you need to play at 720p to hit those rates, you can still enjoy 600hz at 1440p with gorgeous OLED quality. 

Unfortunately, you need a super computer to do so. And, even with a super computer, you won't get more than 100 FPS in some modern games...

[jaxa]

2 hours ago, chakkman said:

Unfortunately, you need a super computer to do so. And, even with a super computer, you won't get more than 100 FPS in some modern games...

For what it's worth, frame generation could be used to hit 1000 FPS. There's a lot of skepticism over the technology, but one of the better cases for it is turning an already high frame rate into a much higher frame rate. For example, 250 FPS to 1000. That cuts down on the motion artifacts and latency issues that would be apparent with e.g. going from 30 FPS to 120.

Another possibility is foveated rendering. There are glasses-free 3D monitors coming out that use eye tracking to produce the 3D effect. In principle, such a display could use the eye tracking for foveated rendering at the same time. If that works, it could cut down the complexity by at least a factor of 2, if not more, probably working better if you're sitting closer to the screen. Foveated rendering is definitely in the cards for VR headsets, where eye tracking will become practically mandatory for varifocal dynamic focus adjustment.

These 1000 Hz displays that are coming out are delivering the highest refresh rate only at 720p. It's going to be more feasible for a modern game to hit that frame rate at that resolution than 1080p/1440p. You shouldn't need the latest HDMI/DisplayPort cables for 720p1000 either. That's not a resolution anyone likes to use for gaming though, so some tricks are going to be needed to get it up. Lots of upscaling, fake frames, and foveated rendering all together could do the trick.

[chakkman]

Everything above 200 Hz is total nuts for me anyway (and I doubt that most will see a difference). Big numbers = big deal for many people, it seems.

[grodenglaive]

That's crazy, even in VR I can barely tell the difference between 90 and 120 Hz. It would be a waste of my GPU power, I'd rather it was rendering higher res textures, etc.  

[jaxa]

2 hours ago, grodenglaive said:

That's crazy, even in VR I can barely tell the difference between 90 and 120 Hz. It would be a waste of my GPU power, I'd rather it was rendering higher res textures, etc.  

The journey isn't over: https://testufo.com/

[HMart]

On 12/30/2025 at 11:24 AM, chakkman said:

Everything above 200 Hz is total nuts for me anyway (and I doubt that most will see a difference). Big numbers = big deal for many people, it seems.

I bet on a blind test very few people, if at all, will see the diference between 240hz and 1000hz.  People don't understand but at 240hz the monitor is already swapping the frame at 4 milliseconds already!

To achieve this speed at 4k on a modern raytraced or path traced game at max settings, you will need to have more power than even a 5090 can provide.

Yes you can activate FSR/DLSS and frame generation but then, you have to deal with fake frames sh that introduces artifacts in motion, for absolute no advantage whatsoever, at lest not on single player non competitive games. For me for a single player game, 120hz is more than enough and I have a 240hz monitor.

Hell I even play some games at 60hz, despite me agreeing is time to go above that but with no other choice, I'm perfectly happy with smooth 60hz. 

And people also forget that the more speed you ask from your monitor and GPU, the less game effects you can push to the max (if you don't want to use upscalling...) also more heat they produce, more energy they waste, less time they live and more money you lose.  All just you can see a big number changing on a fps counter. 

Just my opinion. 

[grodenglaive]

1 hour ago, jaxa said:

The journey isn't over: https://testufo.com/

Handy site. I just realized my phone has higher resolution and refresh rate than my PC screen.

[chakkman]

3 hours ago, HMart said:

Hell I even play some games at 60hz, despite me agreeing is time to go above that but with no other choice, I'm perfectly happy with smooth 60hz. 

It's a matter of minutes to get used to it. Some games like Skyrim or Fallout 4 can't be played with anything above 60 FPS, or the physics will break.

That said, I definitely think that higher framerates make the games look more realistic. There's something about the smoothness of the movements on higher framerates, that makes them look more natural.

But, as you say, it becomes ridiculous at some point, and, that point is 200 Hz plus for me. Very little gain, a lot of system ressources required.

[AluminumHaste]

14 minutes ago, chakkman said:

It's a matter of minutes to get used to it. Some games like Skyrim or Fallout 4 can't be played with anything above 60 FPS, or the physics will break.

That said, I definitely think that higher framerates make the games look more realistic. There's something about the smoothness of the movements on higher framerates, that makes them look more natural.

But, as you say, it becomes ridiculous at some point, and, that point is 200 Hz plus for me. Very little gain, a lot of system ressources required.

I don't play Fallout 4 so I'm not sure, but Skyrim has had a mod to fix broken physics at high fps for years now.

Last time I played it I was at 240 FPS without physics issues.

https://www.nexusmods.com/skyrimspecialedition/mods/15946

https://www.nexusmods.com/skyrimspecialedition/mods/34705

[chakkman]

Yes, there are mods to remove that limit, I'm aware of that. Not sure how well they work though.

[AluminumHaste]

Worked great last time I tried it.

No more exploding rooms when opening doors.