It does display 120 FPS while you are limited to 60 FPS with a 60hz display. So while it doent have anything to do with what your card produces it has everything to do with displaying more FPS than a standard display.
AtenRa
Lifer
- Feb 2, 2009
- 14,003
- 3,362
- 136
I was referring to this post,
Smoothness in FPS (First Person Shooters) games has nothing to do with 60 vs 120Hz monitors but with FPS (Frames Per Second) your graphics card produces.
Take for example the following two PC systems.
PC 1 with 60Hz monitor and its GPU produces 45 FPS
PC 2 with 120Hz monitor and its GPU produces 18 FPS
The game will run smooth in PC 1 and not in PC 2
When in both systems (PC1 and PC2) the GPU produces adequate FPS (30-60 plus) then the 120Hz monitor will have less Blur effect but both systems will run the game smooth.
taltamir
Lifer
- Mar 21, 2004
- 13,576
- 6
- 76
I am going to be explaining thing in a simple manner using normal words:
Smoothness is a combination of both your FPS and your monitors refresh rate. But all monitors meet certain minimum requirements of smoothness, while its quite plausible to have a game run at settings that your video card cannot handle.
A 60Hz monitor changes what picture it displays 60 times a second... aka, it can display a maximum of 60 unique pictures per second. A 120Hz monitor can display a maximum of 120 unique pictures per second.
FPS is how many unique pictures per second your video card creates.
If your video card can only create 10 unique pictures per second (10FPS) then your game will be choppy. Your 120Hz monitor will only display 10 unique pictures that second, even though it refreshed 120 times. (it refreshed to the same image as before)
If your video card is capable of generating 3000 unique pictures per second, welll... only 60 to 120 (60Hz and 120Hz monitors respectively) will be displayed. Thus the 120Hz monitor will display twice as many as a 60Hz monitor and appear more smooth.
its slightly more complicated with micro-stutter and v-sync coming into play, but the above is the basic explanation.
AtenRa is not actually wrong, he is simply referring to "smoothness" as a threshold between "not horribly choppy" and "acceptable". This is believed to occur at about 30 FPS. Generally people consider a game to be "smooth" if it is above 30FPS. a 60Hz monitor will easily display 30FPS (since it has a max of 60) and thus be smooth, a 120Hz monitor will get identical performance displaying those same 30FPS.
However if you actually manage to render 120FPS and send them to 120Hz monitor, then you get an even smoother experience than the 60Hz monitor.
Smoothness is a combination of both your FPS and your monitors refresh rate. But all monitors meet certain minimum requirements of smoothness, while its quite plausible to have a game run at settings that your video card cannot handle.
A 60Hz monitor changes what picture it displays 60 times a second... aka, it can display a maximum of 60 unique pictures per second. A 120Hz monitor can display a maximum of 120 unique pictures per second.
FPS is how many unique pictures per second your video card creates.
If your video card can only create 10 unique pictures per second (10FPS) then your game will be choppy. Your 120Hz monitor will only display 10 unique pictures that second, even though it refreshed 120 times. (it refreshed to the same image as before)
If your video card is capable of generating 3000 unique pictures per second, welll... only 60 to 120 (60Hz and 120Hz monitors respectively) will be displayed. Thus the 120Hz monitor will display twice as many as a 60Hz monitor and appear more smooth.
its slightly more complicated with micro-stutter and v-sync coming into play, but the above is the basic explanation.
AtenRa is not actually wrong, he is simply referring to "smoothness" as a threshold between "not horribly choppy" and "acceptable". This is believed to occur at about 30 FPS. Generally people consider a game to be "smooth" if it is above 30FPS. a 60Hz monitor will easily display 30FPS (since it has a max of 60) and thus be smooth, a 120Hz monitor will get identical performance displaying those same 30FPS.
However if you actually manage to render 120FPS and send them to 120Hz monitor, then you get an even smoother experience than the 60Hz monitor.
Last edited:
AtenRa
Lifer
- Feb 2, 2009
- 14,003
- 3,362
- 136
Sorry if I can’t explain it better in English but after 60-75 FPS or Hz (sustained) there will be no difference in gameplay (depends on the game too). So by saying that a 120Hz monitor is better than a 60Hz monitor for FPS games or fast moving videos like car racing and sports like football (Soccer) etc, is only true if it is concerning the blur effect and not the gameplay or choppiness of the game/movie.
If by smoother we mean less blurring then YES 120Hz monitors are better than 60Hz monitor
If by smoother we mean less blurring then YES 120Hz monitors are better than 60Hz monitor
Last edited:
taltamir
Lifer
- Mar 21, 2004
- 13,576
- 6
- 76
I don't think its a language issue.
blur aka ghosting is a function of their response time not refresh rate. It is the time it takes a pixel's liquid crystal to physically change its orientation and thus color after the data has been refreshed and the electric current started being applied to it.
120Hz generally have better response time, but they don't have to.
And there is most definitely a difference. A human can detect tens (or was it hundreds?) of thousands of FPS in the very center of our focus (a very VERY narrow band only a few degrees wide). The more peripheral the vision is, the less sensitive we become. But for someone who plays an FPS it can help. Nobody said its better for racing games though... racing games might have more ghosting due to fast moving objects, but its not the fast moving objects that matter... its how fast you need to react. In a racing game there is no need for fraction of a second reaction times. You see things ahead of time, and when you get in trouble its already too late to do anything but watch the fireworks.
In an FPS when you and another player see each other, if both are good players you will immediately shoot each other... the first of you to "hit" wins. A faster monitor shaves a little time. A 120Hz monitor refreshes every 8.333 ms. A 60Hz monitor refreshes every 16.666 ms. Those 8ms are not a lot, but they add up to the network connection, mouse speed, human reaction time, and many other slowdowns... I don't think it matters all that much in recreational play... but if you are playing professionally you want any advantage you can get.
Last edited:
I lost track of this thread with all the 560 watching and meant to ask something. I was considering the 25.5 inch asus on amazon, but was wondering if there was a monitor with the same specs in the 23 to 24 inch range. That asus just seems oftly large for a computer desk. If there isn't any alternative, I'm going to snag it before the rebate is over.
do you mean 16:10?
I saw a Dell Ultrasharp 24 inch, but its over $400 bucks. If 16:9 is OK there are a blue million of them in a variety of sizes...
I saw a Dell Ultrasharp 24 inch, but its over $400 bucks. If 16:9 is OK there are a blue million of them in a variety of sizes...
Yea, 16:10. I'm not worried at all about finding 1080. I did an amazon search for 1920x1200, and it's the only thing that's reasonable. If Amazon doesn't have anything else, I doubt anyone else will.
Edit: S**T. As soon as I wrote my post and refreshed the amazon page, they were sold out. Now $303 with no rebates or free shipping. This happened Monday, hopefully they will have a few more tomorrow or friday.
Last edited:
AtenRa
Lifer
- Feb 2, 2009
- 14,003
- 3,362
- 136
No way in Hell the 120Hz monitor has anything to do with lag and in no way it saves time.
60Hz monitors display 60 FPS and 120Hz monitors display max 120 FPS and it has nothing to do with lag.
Input lag occurs in HDTVs when they are running in 120Hz or more because the TV itself processes the 60Hz signal it takes (from DVD-Player for example) and through interlacing adds frames in order to get it to 120Hz/240Hz. Thats why you have to turn off the 120Hz/240Hz in HDTVs when you playing Games.
PC 120Hz monitors dont have Input Lag because they have dual DVI inputs and they get 2 x 60Hz (Frames) from the source (VGA).
So the myth that 120Hz PC monitors are better for gaming is only true if we talking about Blur or if you really want your monitor to display more than 60 frames per second.
Last edited:
taltamir
Lifer
- Mar 21, 2004
- 13,576
- 6
- 76
Just like nobody said racing games it, nobody ever said 120Hz monitor has anything to do with lag.
You keep on using terms that you clearly don't understand.
That is actually the very definition of what it does.
it refreshes every 8.33 seconds instead of 16.66. That is, you see a new unique picture (say, one that contains an enemy) up to 8.33 milliseconds earlier.
Its not a LOT of time, but it is time.
That is what I said.
1. This is false.
2. There is no such thing as a 240Hz TV... those 600Hz plasma TVs are just 60Hz TVs where marketing went wild with stupid claims. In fact, the maximium Hz of an HDMI 1920x1200 signal is just slightly above 130Hz. You need display port to get anything faster and I am not sure even it can transmit 240+Hz. (haven't done the math on it)
I am not even sure what you are trying to say here... I just know its false.
edit:
on careful inspection:
1. I wasn't talking about input lag, I was talking about display lag.
2. DVI hsa nothing to do with VGA... the source of DVI is not VGA.
3. Are you trying to say that 120Hz monitors have no "input lag" because they can display 120 FPS while a 60Hz monitor can display 60FPS? Because you didn't know or acknowledge it before I said so. Also its no explanation at all, its just using terms. The reason displaying 120 FPS is better than 60 FPS is because 120FPS means 8.33ms per frame while 60FPS means 16.66ms per frame. Which is what I have been saying all along.
I explained in detail why they have the advantage... but you seem to have completely misunderstood it and combined it with your misinformation about various technologies to come up with totally random stuff that I can't even decipher. (ex: the previous statement).
I really don't know how to argue with that...
Last edited:
AtenRa
Lifer
- Feb 2, 2009
- 14,003
- 3,362
- 136
You clearly said that and by no way this is true, Refresh Rate DON’T add to the network
Input lag is a phenomenon associated with some types of LCD displays, and nearly all types of HDTVs, that refers to latency, or lag measured by the difference between the time a signal is input into a display and the time it is shown by the display. This lag time has been measured as high as 68ms,[1] or the equivalent of 3-4 frames on a 60 Hz display. Input lag is not to be confused with pixel response time.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Input_lag
Here is your 240Hz HDTV
SAMSUNG 9000 Series 3D 1080p LED HDTV
Real 240Hz™ Refresh Rate
http://www.samsung.com/us/video/tvs/...ZFXZA-features
1.There is no display lag between 60Hz and 120Hz, we only have input lag on 120/240Hz HDTVs
2.As VGA source I was referring to the VGA (Graphics Card) of the PC. That is the source the PC monitor gets the signal from.
3.HDTVs are at 1920x1080 and 60Hz, that means the TV only gets 60Hz(Frames) from the source. In order to get to 120 or 240Hz the HDTV through interlacing adds frames and this process takes time so we have input lag.
120Hz PC Monitors have a dual link DVI and they don’t have input lag because they get 120 fps from the source.
To sum up,
Just because you display 120 FPS instead of 60FPS that don’t add to any time saving and you will not see your opponent faster that he will see you if both of you have the same network lag.
If you think that you can see the difference between 120 FPS and 60FPS while playing BF2142 or any other First Person Shooters then get 120Hz monitor. 120Hz monitor will not help you aim faster or better, it will not help you see the enemy faster but you could have less blur and that’s all.
Last edited:
Here's a list & pricing of 1920 x 1200 Monitors still available:
http://computers.pricegrabber.com/f...s/p/37/st=sort/popup40[]=10:301/sortby=priceA
.
Thanks man. I looked through them, but looks like the asus is the only one with over 60hz refresh. I told JR to notify me if they get them back in stock. TigerDirect has them too, but it's $315 shipped. Guess I could use my $10 off to help a bit.
taltamir
Lifer
- Mar 21, 2004
- 13,576
- 6
- 76
you misunderstood completely.
The network causes network lag (you clicked, but it takes time to reach server). The refresh rate causes display lag (you see something earlier or later). Human reaction time causes reaction lag (your nerves need to transmit signals, your brain must process them). Mouse communication speed causes "input lag" (signal must be transmitted and processed), and so on.
I was clearly referring to how all of these add up to a delay before you are considered to have "killed" your opponent in a game. In no way shape or form do I imply that refresh rate magically affects network lag.
No, that is display lag. Input lag has to do with input devices, like a mouse or keyboard.
Wikipedia is not a reliable source. And even if it was, its not relevant to your misunderstanding.
which part of "false marketing BS" did you fail to understand?
TVs claim 600Hz on their 60Hz plasma displays... Some manufacturers claim as low as 0ms response time and infinite contrast ratios.
Also they claim oleds are better because they are "organic" which magically produces "easier on the eyes and better quality light"
Now, samsung is actually one of the only two manufacturers to have a true 240Hz panels... http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2338779,00.asp
HOWEVER, Your HDMI connection is single link and limited to ~130Hz... you need dual link DVI or display port in order to get real 240HZ image... which is doable only when using a PC as the output.
The graphics card is GPU not VGA... VGA is an obsolete analog signal/plug that is rarely found in modern components.
1. That would be display lag not input lag, input lag has to do with input devices like mouse or keyboard. But some might incorrectly refer to it as input lag.
2. Interlacing does not add frames, it replaces full frames with 2 half frames. And it is not used on modern TVs, everything is deinterlaced. If it was used it will produce a shit image (ignore the part at the beginning talking about effective doubling of bandwidth, that part is total BS as is expected in wikipedia; While they were right about only being used in old CRTs, and how it looks terrible on progressive scan media like LCD. I am not linking wikipedia as a source for my claims, but so that you could see some examples of how bad it looks on LCDs).
3. 120Hz is perfectly doable over single link DVI/HDMI without need for anything fancy. As the max is about 130 FPS. 240Hz is doable on dual link DVI, that is a computer connection not a TV connection. If you plug your 240Hz monitor via HDMI it will have the capability to operate at 240Hz but will only operate at 120Hz.
Dual link DVI will actually allow 260Hz monitors, single link allows up to 130Hz... If your connection wasn't fast enough your 120Hz monitor will be working at a slower Hz, not magically adding nonexisting frames via interlacing.
Last edited:
AtenRa
Lifer
- Feb 2, 2009
- 14,003
- 3,362
- 136
Lets take it from a different point of view,
Lets say we have a monitor at 200Hz, that means that the monitor can display 200fps
Now we have two PCs,
PC 1 Graphics Card can produce 60 FPS
PC 2 Graphics Card can produce 120 FPS
The more FPS will not make you see your opponent faster or aim better and thats what we are talking about here, the difference between a 60Hz and a 120Hz monitor will not have an impact on gameplay only on blur.
Lets say we have a monitor at 200Hz, that means that the monitor can display 200fps
Now we have two PCs,
PC 1 Graphics Card can produce 60 FPS
PC 2 Graphics Card can produce 120 FPS
The more FPS will not make you see your opponent faster or aim better and thats what we are talking about here, the difference between a 60Hz and a 120Hz monitor will not have an impact on gameplay only on blur.
taltamir
Lifer
- Mar 21, 2004
- 13,576
- 6
- 76
1. Monitor refresh rate (its hz) has nothing to do with blur. It is either caused by filming limitations (non existent in rendered video) or is caused by the monitor's response time (how many ms it takes to change pixels, typically listed as g2g)
2. You are wrong, the player on PC2 will see his opponent 8.33ms earlier.
A fact you failed to understand until I explained it to you... which makes it all the more insulting when you use it on me condescendingly.
Last edited:
You are wrong. I have spent hours gaming on a 120Hz display and it most defiantly has a effect on gameplay, you have time advantage on anyone running lower speed(hz) displays. This is why i went to SLI 460's and am currently saving up for a 120hz display. You have obviously never used one, or are not a good twitch FPS player if you did not notice the difference after a few hours(it took me over 4 hours before i started to notice and was becoming used to it). Obviously you will need a GPU(s) that can keep up with 120FPS to get the full effect, i was playing on a system with SLI 470's.
taltamir
Lifer
- Mar 21, 2004
- 13,576
- 6
- 76
that 8.33ms difference is well within human's ability to detect.
http://amo.net/NT/02-21-01FPS.html
220th of a second is 4.54545 (repeating) miliseconds. and yet they not only perceived it, but were able to identify the plane shown in the picture for that mere 4.5ms
Last edited:
Its not even just the 8ms, its hard to explain. After 10+ hours on a 120hz display you get used to how much, well smoother for lack of a better word it is you are just able to line up shots that much better. Its hard to explain if you have never used one and played a twitch FPS game on one for a prolonged period of time. At least in my limited experience so far, hopefully within 60 days ill have a 120hz display of my own
A good test to why refresh rate matters is to view 3dvision at 60hz. (doable on CRTs) its a slide show since your effectively viewing each eye at 30hz even though your gpu can be reporting 100+ fps.
refresh rate is everything when it comes down to it. your quad sli gfx cards might produce some theroetical insane fps figure, but your hardware still can only refresh the screen 60 times a second.. 60hz is still sufficient which is why its been a standard for so long, but I know I can perceive a difference at 120hz.
for people skeptical about CRTs still superior for gaming I suggest you read this thread:
http://www.hardforum.com/showthread.php?t=952788
refresh rate is everything when it comes down to it. your quad sli gfx cards might produce some theroetical insane fps figure, but your hardware still can only refresh the screen 60 times a second.. 60hz is still sufficient which is why its been a standard for so long, but I know I can perceive a difference at 120hz.
for people skeptical about CRTs still superior for gaming I suggest you read this thread:
http://www.hardforum.com/showthread.php?t=952788
taltamir
Lifer
- Mar 21, 2004
- 13,576
- 6
- 76
CRTs are obsolete crap. They are inferior in a dozen different ways that die hards refuse to acknowledge, their advantage (which wasn't enough to offset all the bad) was that they could do higher than 60Hz earlier than LCDs could, and didn't require time to change pixel colors (which was not necessarily an advantage, since flickering is as bad as ghosting). Modern LCDs can do 120Hz and on a PC (only on a PC, it must have dual link DVI which makes it not suitable for TV's HDMI interface, where they are limited to ~130HZ) they can even do 240.
Besides all of that, CRTs are also completely obsoleted by plasma. In CRTs you excite phosphorous compounds to produce light, the specific phosphorous being excited is controlled via powerful magnets which divert the electron stream across the screen (aka, scanning it). A plasma also uses phosphorous which is being exited, except each pixel has its own micro "pit" generating its own electrons...
Plasma is a direct evolution of CRT and eliminates most of its drawbacks.
LCD is a competing technology that has drawbacks and advantages compared to plasma, but demolishes CRTs in all aspect, although early on it had advantages and disadvantages (mostly advantages, very few disadvantages).
I picked up the Asus. It's not 120mhz, but it's 85 @1920x1200. Figured that is good enough since I mostly play single player games.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 23K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter