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.
> the gaming brands push the marketing numbers up and up.
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.
That doesn't actually contradict my point? Like the response times on that monitor are pretty good, per 4:17 it is generally 0.3ms to go from gray to black. But if for whatever reason you had to go from black to white the response time is 3.5ms - that is 285hz so your "540hz" monitor is not going to keep up with the signal. Talking about frame rates is sort of like talking about your fuel tank size - sure, there are cases where the extra gallons help, but practically most people care about horsepower. And similarly what actually matters for monitors is response time.
Apparently TCL didn't disclose any specs of the panel, just said "an LCD", so I wonder if the panel is actually new tech. They didn't even allow running screen tests. So it could be they just prototyped the controller and used a standard panel. Then the response times are horrible but nobody can tell because it's running a prerecorded demo that avoids showing the glitchy artifacts.
What I meant is that fps by itself, without other information, is meaningless for judging panels. Like if someone says they got a 500hz panel, it is not necessarily better than a 240hz - LCD vs. OLED for example. But if you are comparing panels from the same manufacturer, same tech etc. then of course it is relevant. And obviously if you have a panel it would be stupid to run it at anything less than max fps, if your system can keep up.
