So DVI-D single link can go above 60Hz at 1920*1200, you're saying? Would a dual link provide more bandwidth or is it not worth it as today's LCDs simply aren't capable of rendering it?
Well, yes and no. First off I don't the exact numbers, but i do know that S-DVI should have the bandwith for 1920x1200. Above that, im not too sure, and i don't know how far you can push the cable before it starts to freak out.
A great example is Cat5e and Cat6 cabling. Cat6 was originally designed for 1000BASE-TX, but later was found to be able to handle 10GBASE-T speeds at the cost of maximum length.
A dual link would definitely provide enough bandwidth, although the monitor needs to be wired for it, which most likely it isn't (you may have a gem, im not sure). All the bandwidth hungry monitors such as 2560x1600@60 and 1680x1050@120 need to be dual link, but i don't see why a manufacture would go the extra mile to include something that most people wont care about.
And for the last question regarding how fast a LCD can render frames. That definitely depends on the monitor, and the response time of the entire color spectrum of its pixels (not rated response time). The very first thing that will alter the perceived framerate is the refresh rate (Hz), currently 75Hz in your case. Lets view the refresh rate as the maximum FPS the monitor will reach under perfect conditions. So right now you are getting 13.3 milliseconds between frames. Now we factor in the response time of each pixel individually. Lets say the monitor has a rated response time of 5ms GTG. In your game or whatever you do lets say the pixels need to do that exact color change. It takes 5ms, which is less than the 13.3 maximum refresh rate, so it doesnt affect stuff too much. However lets say in the exact same scene, your rendering something going from green->red, and the pixles can't retain that 5ms response. For extremes sake, lets say it takes 40ms. Even though the monitor is trying to update the pixel every 13.3ms, it physically cannot change green->red that fast so the actual framerate ends up being 25FPS for that area of the screen. You can view that effect here:
http://www.anandtech.com/video/showdoc.aspx?i=3601&p=6 (first video)
It is that phenomenon that in my personal opinion is the reason why we have a large group of people on the forum beat the shit out of you when you mention 120Hz lcds. You have millions of pixels basically being refreshed at slightly different times, which I believe is where the theory that the human eye can only see @ 60fps. 60fps on my old old old dell LCD looked pretty damn smooth. Put that against my 2233RZ @ 60, and my newer monitor looks choppy as hell. My theory is that since the RZ is rated for 120hz, the pixels are made to refresh faster and that most, if not all, of the pixels come in before the next frame is refreshed.
Anyone who doubts me still, and is on a Nvidia card, explore custom resolutions using interlacing and progressive scan. There is a HUGE difference between 30p and 60i (1/2 30p*2) despite having the exact same frame rate.
Facebook
Twitter