20" Monitor that can do 75hz at 1600x1200?

[cpacini]

Does anyone know if this monitor will do 75hz at 1600x1200? I checked samsung's site and could not find any details. If not, anyone have any sugestions?

 

[JMWarren]

I doubt it.
It's an LCD why does refresh rate matter to you?

 

[cpacini]

Because when vsync is enabled it limits you to whatever the refresh rate is set to. I know it really doesnt make a difference as far as how the monitor itself opperates, but it would be nice to be able to get >60 fps

 

[MercenaryForHire]

Originally posted by: cpacini
Because when vsync is enabled it limits you to whatever the refresh rate is set to. I know it really doesnt make a difference as far as how the monitor itself opperates, but it would be nice to be able to get >60 fps

The ability to get 75 vs 60fps is negligible - an average or minimum FPS of 60 is perfectly sufficient.

- M4H

 

[cpacini]

While I agree with you for the most part, there are a few games (which are probably poorly coded) that I can tell the difference in. In most cases I am ok with > 40, but there are a few exceptions.

On another note, is could I create a custom resolution in the driver with that refresh rate? If so would/could it damage my monitor?

 

[Tig Ol Bitties]

Well, I have this monitor, and you can certainly "force" the 75 Hz resolution through nVidia's CP, but its not even needed. The difference between 60 and 75 Hz is, as already mentioned, negligible. Its not likely to damage your monitor, but the life of the monitor will decrease. It's like overclocking a GPU or CPU in a sense...people do it all the time because they don't keep their components long enough to actually see them die. But LCDs DO NOT refresh like CRTs, so 60 Hz is enough.

 

[cpacini]

Originally posted by: Tig Ol Bitties
Well, I have this monitor, and you can certainly "force" the 75 Hz resolution through nVidia's CP, but its not even needed. The difference between 60 and 75 Hz is, as already mentioned, negligible. Its not likely to damage your monitor, but the life of the monitor will decrease. It's like overclocking a GPU or CPU in a sense...people do it all the time because they don't keep their components long enough to actually see them die. But LCDs DO NOT refresh like CRTs, so 60 Hz is enough.

I realize that they don?t refresh like regular monitors, that?s not the issue. The issue is being limited to 60fps, which in a FEW (albeit not many) situations is noticeable to ME. I am assuming that the 1600x1200x60hz limit is more of a result of bandwidth thought a single ink DVI connection, not anything to do with the panel itself. The monitor will do 1280x1024x75hz with out a problem, and it is more or less doing the same amount of work as displaying 1600x1200 since it is still using all of the pixels on the screen. I'm just concerned that running that resolution at that refresh setting will damage the internals of the monitor in some way.

Edit: I chuckled at your name, BTW

 

[JBT]

I doubt it will do 75 but... If using Vsync without triple buffereing 37FPS is alot better than 30FPS. Although unless your frame rate is lower than 75 you'll be seeing 37 more than 60.

 

[cpacini]

Nah, that's not an issue, I'm not talking about running FEAR or the like

 

[CP5670]

I don't think I've ever seen a 1600x1200 monitor that can do 75hz. It seems to be a DVI bandwidth limitation like you said. From the wikipedia article on DVI, it looks like 1600x1200 at 60hz is close to the limit of single link DVI without the reduced blanking signals.

I also find that there are some games where 60fps feels too slow, but I think the ghosting generally becomes an issue well before the actual framerate limit is reached.

 

[Tig Ol Bitties]

Originally posted by: cpacini

Originally posted by: Tig Ol Bitties
Well, I have this monitor, and you can certainly "force" the 75 Hz resolution through nVidia's CP, but its not even needed. The difference between 60 and 75 Hz is, as already mentioned, negligible. Its not likely to damage your monitor, but the life of the monitor will decrease. It's like overclocking a GPU or CPU in a sense...people do it all the time because they don't keep their components long enough to actually see them die. But LCDs DO NOT refresh like CRTs, so 60 Hz is enough.

I realize that they don?t refresh like regular monitors, that?s not the issue. The issue is being limited to 60fps, which in a FEW (albeit not many) situations is noticeable to ME. I am assuming that the 1600x1200x60hz limit is more of a result of bandwidth thought a single ink DVI connection, not anything to do with the panel itself. The monitor will do 1280x1024x75hz with out a problem, and it is more or less doing the same amount of work as displaying 1600x1200 since it is still using all of the pixels on the screen. I'm just concerned that running that resolution at that refresh setting will damage the internals of the monitor in some way.

Edit: I chuckled at your name, BTW

Haha...well, honestly, what you're concerned about is still a rather unresolved question. It's certainly a risk to force refresh rates outside of native specs, and a lot of hardware sites emphasize on the risk down the road of possibly damaging the monitor to the point of no video output or buzzing and flashing bands and such. But a lot of these sites are way out of date.

OTOH, there are many users from other forums (Google it) that have done it and had no problems. I, too, also forced a 75Hz rate for a few months and didn't see any problems, but I went back to 60 Hz out of nervousness after reading what some hardware sites had to say...my eyes aren't that sensitive so I couldn't really even tell a difference. Even when you go into nVidia's CP to force it, you will have to agree to a disclaimer about taking full responsibility for changing the rate that is not offered natively through the monitor. So it's certainly a risk, but lots of LCD users seem to have no problems taking them.