77Hz vs 87Hz - Much visual difference?

[lung]

I'm at a bit of a sticking point on buying a new monitor. I'm looking at the Viewsonic GS790 and the P95F+B. They are both the same price, but with some slight differences. The main one is that at 1600x1200, the GS790 only goes up to 77Hz while the P95F+B goes up to 87Hz. I like the GS790 since it is a short neck monitor and would work a bit better on my desk, but if the refresh will be noticable, I will just have to accomodate the P95F+B.

So, in a room where I always only have minimal ambient lighting from below the monitor, will that 10Hz actually be visible? I know I wouldn't want to go any lower than 77Hz or else it will for sure, but I wonder if it would be better to just get the P95F+B for the higher refresh rates. I could even go with a higher resolution on that monitor as well, so that adds to my dilemna...

 

[Anubis]

you wont notice teh diff because everything over 70FPS is basically the same to teh human eye

 

[Woodchuck2000]

you wont notice teh diff because everything over 70FPS is basically the same to teh human eye

The human eye can't see much above 30FPS as far as moving objects go. With refresh rates however, it varies from person to person. I know people who can't see the difference between 60Hz and 100Hz. I can see flicker on displays running at 85Hz. Anything below 75Hz gives me a headache after about 45Minutes use. (I use a TFT monitor as there is no discernable flicker.) It really depends on how sensitive you are to refresh rates. As a rule higher is always better, especially at high resolutions. At 1600x1200, I'd highly recommend you go for the one which manages 87Hz.

 

[AnAndAustin]

Yup, it pretty much subjective, but the general concensus is that anything 75Hz+ is more than fine with 85Hz+ being preferable for the res you run Windows Desktop in. The refresh rate you can run is usually dictated by your monitor and the maximum will decrease as the res increases. As for the maximum wise res, it depends upon your monitor's size; 15" 800x600, 17" 1024x768, 19" 1280x960 although that's mostly for Windows Desktop use, for gaming one notch higher should be best ... IMHO anyway.

EDIT:

As for FPS visable to the human eye, best to check THIS out.

 

[lung]

AnAndAustin: Thanks for posting that link. I was going to mention that I read that article, but didn't have the link, so wasn't going to mention it.

Thanks for the input guys. I think that the best thing that I can do is to go home and put my current setup to 77Hz and see if I can notice the difference. That would be the closest thing that I can do...

 

[MatthewF01]

Right now I am running my display at 85 Hz. My desktop is set to 1024x768, but I play Soldier of Fortune II in 1280x1024. I just now tried to change the rate to 100 Hz, and it works. The alignment is off, so id have to stretch it out a bit, but do you think its worth bumping up to 100 or just stay at 85?

 

[Jeff7]

FPS and Hz aren't the same here though. A game running at 40fps will look good. A monitor refreshing at 40Hz would be painful to look at.
Where refresh rate is concerned, I tend to look for the highest I can afford. 75Hz is generally good enough for most people; some can still see flicker. I personally like 85Hz or higher so that I don't detect the flickering.
In my experience, the flicker seems to be more noticable at high resolutions - 75Hz at 800x600 is tolerable; the same frequency at 1600x1200 appears flickery.

What are you using the high resolution for? Are you planning to run 1600x1200 as the desktop resolution, or do you want it for gaming?

 

[BFG10K]

Yes, there is a big difference between 77 Hz and 87 Hz, especially if you're going to be staring at your monitor for long durations.

you wont notice teh diff because everything over 70FPS is basically the same to teh human eye

False.

The human eye can't see much above 30FPS as far as moving objects go.

False.

A game running at 40fps will look good. A monitor refreshing at 40Hz would be painful to look at.

No it won't. A game running at 40 FPS is a jerky slideshow and looks just as painful as a low refresh rate.

 

[Mingon]

I find 85hz uncomfortable when going back from 100hz, you eyes become accustomed quite quickly.

 

[rbV5]

If you want to run 1600 X 1200 on a 21" you want at least 85Hz IMHO. Flicker becomes even more apparent with a larger screen, especially if you have a document window or some other large light area.

Also, it would ultimately support a higher refresh rate at lower resolutions, which comes in handy if you are running vsync'd gaming.

 

[AnAndAustin]

Generally I'd say to run the highest refresh rate you can in each given resolution, but above 85Hz isn't noticably better to most people although dipping below 75Hz is. So MatthewF01 I'd suggest using 100Hz and adjust the settings to use the whole screen. You may want to use the same refresh rate for all possible res (ie 85Hz) if you are likely to switch back and forth frequently (from res to res and therefore refresh rate to refresh rate) as Mingon suggests.

BFG10K, don't forget most of what's in discussion here is down to personal preferences and individual tastes. Although I disagree with 'everything over 70FPS is basically the same to the human eye' for the vast majority of people gains going above 70FPS aren't generally worth it, most people would prefer a higher res, more detail and more eye candy than simply 80FPS+. As for, 'a game running at 40fps will look good' I think the majority of people would hardly consider 40FPS a 'slide show' or horrible, of course 60-80FPS is more preferable but even 25-30FPS sustained are more than sufficient if you simply want to avoid a slide show, at least IMHO.

 

[Kingofcomputer]

Sometimes it's the cheapy video card or cheapy monitor causing problem.
Even both's spec are listed as 85Hz, they're not up to spec. You'll see unclear and unstable display, in this case, try 75Hz, you will see much clear and stable display.

 

[Goi]

Well, the question you should ask yourself is are you going to run at a resolution of 1600x1200. If so, can you stand 77Hz? My experience is that as you raise the resolution, lower refresh rates become more and more tolerable. Try this test - on your current setup, run 75Hz at the resolution you normally use, then run that resolution at the maximum rate. See if you can spot any difference. Next, shake your hands in front of the monitor, and see if you can see the image of your hand break up between you. At higher resolutions(>100hz) the breakup becomes less and the movement of your hand becomes more blurred and fluid, rather than jerky.

Also note that as you reach the limits of the monitor video bandwidth, image quality decreases. For example, I run at 1600x1200 on my Nokia 445Xpro, and there's a noticable difference in image quality between 80hz and 85hz(the maximum supported refresh rate of my monitor). IQ at 85hz is blurrer. Not significant, but noticable...

 

[Lonyo]

60 is very bad, and I personally could never stand it. 75hz doesn't seem that much better. I would say the minimum 'nice' refresh rate is 85hz, at any res (1600 x 1200 for me), and if you plan running your monitor at 1600 x 1200 I would go for the 85hz model.

 

[sash1]

"I think that the best thing that I can do is to go home and put my current setup to 77Hz and see if I can notice the difference. That would be the closest thing that I can do..."

That would be the bets thing to do. Personally, I can't stand anything under 85Hz. It's mostly whether you can notice it or not, I know sokme people who can't tell the difference between 70Hz and 85Hz. When staring at a monitor for a long period, tho, it tends to become stressful if you're running less than 85Hz.

"Although I disagree with 'everything over 70FPS is basically the same to the human eye' for the vast majority of people gains going above 70FPS aren't generally worth it, most people would prefer a higher res, more detail and more eye candy than simply 80FPS+. As for, 'a game running at 40fps will look good' I think the majority of people would hardly consider 40FPS a 'slide show' or horrible, of course 60-80FPS is more preferable but even 25-30FPS sustained are more than sufficient if you simply want to avoid a slide show, at least IMHO."

I see you seem to get off topic easily, Austin. FPS is so different from refresh rate. Playing a game at say 50fps and running your monitor at 85Hz are two totally different things. He's asking about refresh rate, not frame-rate. A monitor plays no part in frame-rate.

Anyways, it is your preference, if you would prefer the GS790 monitor "since it is a short neck monitor and would work a bit better on my desk," then by all means get it. No one can convince you that one refresh rate is better than the other, you have to decide it for yourself.

 

[spanner]

I can't stand anything bellow 85hz for still images but I hardly notice the difference between 85 and 60hz during gameplay

 

[AnAndAustin]

Originally posted by: AunixP35
"I see you seem to get off topic easily, Austin. FPS is so different from refresh rate."

I see you have trouble reading what was said before AunixP35. As in TheEvil1 and Woodchuck2000 both started talking about FPS before I entered this thread. I gave my comments on FPS, what the human eye could percieve (which also popped up) and answered the original topic of '77Hz vs 87Hz - Much visual difference?'. I never got off topic and you should look a little harder before criticising.

Originally posted by: AunixP35
"A monitor plays no part in frame-rate."

Although I understand your point here, and I wouldn't have brought up FPS if it hadn't been already by the time I got to this thread, but it is true to say that a monitor and the selected refresh rate in particular certainly can impact FPS and gaming perf significantly, when Vsync is enabled.

 

[Ranger8P]

Higher hz is better. Also, it does depend on how you react to the look. Everyone is different when it comes to this question. But I would recommend against pushing to above 85hz. First, your eyes do get use to it so you may have slight discomfort when looking at other monitors. Secondly, it puts more strain on the monitor itself, and you're more likely to wear out the monitor. Just find something comfortable.

 

[BFG10K]

A monitor plays no part in frame-rate.

At the simplest level FPS = refresh rate = screen updates per second. In reality you want both numbers to be as high as possible and while it's certainly true that you can see the difference between 120 FPS and 60 FPS on a 60 Hz monitor it's still far better to have 120 FPS on a 120 Hz monitor, for example.

 

[kylebisme]

ok i just lost ya there, how can you see more fps being displayed than the screen is refeshing?

 

[BFG10K]

You can see the effects of partially rendered frames in the form of better mouse sensitivity and responsiveness.

 

[kylebisme]

i still dont folow you, please tell me how you can see your mouse pointer being any more sensitivity and/or responsive than the image beeing refreshed on the screen wich in part is the mouse pointer to begin with? that just doesnt seem logical at all to me but im willing to admit that i could be overlooking something.

 

[FrustratedUser]

Well, the human eye see 30 fps as a smooth motion. However that does not mean that the human eye does not see the difference between 30 and 60 fps.
30+ fps for me is good enough although I prefer 40+ or higher.

 

[kendogg]

60hz absolutely kills my eyes. Im comfortable with 85hz.. I havent had the luxury to actually experience 100hz display =x

 

[kylebisme]

i use a 21" trinitron at 1600x1200 @ 85 hz, at that those settings all looks very nice to me and i have no complaints. at 75hz i can notice a little flicker when dysplaying complex meshes and/or fine grids but its nothing more than a minor anoyance. drop just 3hz to 72hz and i will get a headache from looking at the screen. at 60hz, within moments i start screaming about how what idiots nvidia are and how they will never be able to sell video cards if we all go blind trying to play games in 2000 and xp with their default driver settings. then i go track down one of the many fixes for it that i generaly forget to install untell i subject myself to the torture for a moment (if i lost you there its becuase you dont game in xp or 2000 or you dont have very sensitive eyes when it comes to screen flicker, either way trust me its no fun for us who do). as for fps, under 25fps is extreemly unplesent, 35fps is slighty anoying and over 40fps i dont i can tell any difference. but like other have said its all a rather subjective thing. i find people running their monitors at 60hz all the time and they dont complain one bit, it all depends on what works for you.

also i have some issues with the articals AnAndAustin linked that i would like to point out:

"I must stress the fact again that we live in an infinite world where information is continuously streamed to us."

aparetnty the partical/wave theory of light is nonsence and the understanding that any given light, relitive to its color, has a specific freqency is right out.

"Tell me the image on the screen is more clear, more presise than the image of the TV or the monitor itself. You can't, that's why the more frames per second, the better, and the closer to reality it really appears to us."

tell me a pound of bricks is heavier than a pound of feathers. you can't, thats why [insert point you would like to prove here] is true! or more to the point, would 10,000lb of bricks feel any heaver or lighter than 50,000 pounds of feathers if you tred to lift each one? of course not, your not going anywhere with either of them, they are both way out of your leauge.

anyway those may seem like small points in comparison to that articles but when it comes down to it they are the basis for the intier argument and repeated constantly thoughout the artical to "prove" a point that is simply not true. also there is the general lack of aprecation for modren physics that the author lacks as demonstrated here:

"Regardless of any objects speed, it maintains a fixed position in space time."

einstein would role in his grave if he heard that. normaly things travel on path though space-time, mantaing a fixed position would be quite a trick.

"With exact frames, those without blur, each pixel, each object is exactly where it should be in the set space and time."

ill bet werner heisenberg wishes he were alive today to ask this guy how he comes to know such things. i sure woudnt mind knowing how such things are possable.

so in conclusion,the arcticles intertaining and have some valid points in them but they also have serious errors as mentioned above and the author fails to present any scientific evedence to back his claims. i realy cannot consider them a good sorce of information. also, i am still looking forward to understanding how pushing more fps than your refresh rate can do you any good at all. the articles with all the retorical b.s. claiming the more fps the beter even conseded the point that the refresh rate is still the determining factor. even BFG10K tends to agree with for the most part asside from the bit about better mouse sensitivity and responsiveness wich i am hopeing to get an explanation for as i am compleately lost to the idea.