is higher or lower frequency better for monitors?

[aUt0eXebat]

I have a viewsonic g73f 17", with res of 1024x768......... is higher the frequency better?

 

[Ipno]

Better on your eyes for sure.

 

[Noriaki]

You should shoot for 75-85Hz. Most people can distinguish up to about 72 or so...you definately want to be past that threshhold.

Past 85 I find kind of useless...you can't see any difference (your eyes usually aren't that good). But I know some people that like 100Hz...I don't know...I think they are just tricking themselves into thinking they can see that high.

But yes Higher is definately better for your eyes, the usual default of 60 is terrible...that gives me headaches looking at it.

 

[thorin]

Higher is better. You should look for a monitor that supports 85Hz refresh at the primary resolution you plan to run it at.

ie: A 19" Monitor may be capable of going upto 1600x1200 but you will likely run it at 1280x1024 most of the time so as long as it does 1280x1024@85Hz that's what you need.

Thorin

 

[Eug]

My pet peeve, but the aspect ratio of 1280x1024 is incorrect at 5:4, vs. the monitor's aspect ratio of 4:3. For a 19" I recommend 1280x960 or 1400x1050, assuming your video card supports those resolutions. (I run at 1600x1200 because I cannot figure out how to add the 1400x1050 resolution under Win 2000 for my Radeon.)

And yes, 60 Hz sucks. 75 MHz is fine for me, 85 is good for the vast majority of people. I don't know anybody who can differentiate 100 from 85, but I'm sure there are a few people around that can.

 

[aUt0eXebat]

mine supports high frequencys at high res, its a sweet monitor. I have it set at 85Hz right now, I like it alot better then 72Hz

 

[Kingofcomputer]

higher is better,
but if your vga card has poor quality ramdac, you may get better output at lower frequency.
for example, my diamond stealth 2000 can output 85Hz but it's blurry, at 75Hz it's clear and sharp.
it's not the monitor problem, after upgrade to radeon le, 85Hz is clear and sharp as 75Hz now.

 

[Dufusyte]

As long as it is within the spec range of the monitor, do not worry about hurting the monitor.

As has been mentioned, higher hz tends to be better for the eyes since there is less flicker, but some hardware (monitor/vidcard) may become fuzzy at high hz.

I run 140hz on the desktop, and 160 hz when gaming. This is on a Princeton EO 750 (no longer manufactured) and a V5 (no longer manufactured).

I also have an Aureal card...all my equipment is graveyard.

The 3dfx cards are especially good for 2D. They do not become fuzzy at high hz.

 

[grant2]

Higher isn't ALWAYS better

going from 72hz -> 85hz on my monitor produces these silly ultra-thin (but annoying) black stripes between my pixel rows.

But definately stay above 70hz if you can. Most people can see the very annoying flicker at 60hz.

 

[MrHelpful]

Eug - Have you tried Entech Taiwan's Powerstrip?

 

[jamarno]

Lower is easier on the monitor components, and you should never operate a monitor at its maximum horizontal scan frequency all the time, especially if the monitor is not a quality make.

Higher is generally better until you start hitting the upper frequency limit of the video amplifiers, as Grant2 did.

Another solution is to find a monitor with a picture tube that has long persistence phosphor, which are designed specifically to give less flicker at lower scan rates. This can cause blurring with fast-moving pictures, but I've never seen this with any color tube.