Is refresh rate important in LCDs?

[dguy6789]

One thing not talked about too often is that Vsync not only limits your frame rate to that of your refresh rate, but it can also actually hinder performance itself.

 

[PingSpike]

Originally posted by: dguy6789
One thing not talked about too often is that Vsync not only limits your frame rate to that of your refresh rate, but it can also actually hinder performance itself.

I don't know all this stuff for sure, but I read a piece on it that said that when the framerates drop below the refresh rate with vsync enabled, the refresh rate is dropped by 1/2, resulting in a framerate of 30fps even if the machine was capable of displaying say 55fps. (Which is a big difference in my experience). Without vsync you can get tearing instead (I notice it a bit, but it doesn't bother me). And I believe triple buffering is related to this. It's sort of a compromise solution if I understand correctly. Instead of halving the refresh, it reduces it by a third...or limits the FPS to 40 in this case. You're still taking a hit, but by providing more tiers so its effect is reduced. I think it requires more vram as well though to store the extra frame?

All of the above I'm not entirely sure on, I'll leave it to some one more knowledgable to confirm. As mentioned, I just turn vsync off because tearing doesn't bother me.

 

[Suspicious-Teach8788]

I cry when I read these threads.

How long does it take till people understand that REFRESH RATE does NOT MATTER for LCDs. It doesn't work the same way as CRTs. Refresh rate is efffeectively how often your monitor polls your graphics card for a change in imagery.

When your response time isn't even that fast, does it MATTER how high your refresh rate is? 60hz is FINE for LCD monitors.

Vsync should ALWAYS be on.

Remember back in CRTs? A lot of people still limited their frame rate, because it's better to see framerates at a constant FPS than to jump around all over the place. So even if your performance is awesome, it's fine to limit to 60 because your eyes can't notice the difference especially wtih LCD refresh rates capped at 60/75. Moreoever, tearing just destroys the game. For those of you who say it doesn't matter, it's far more noticeable than eyecandy features like AA and AF. Yet people talk about AA and AF. But when you're moving and spinning around all the time, does it matter THAT much? Well, to me it does, but then tearing is obviously a bigger issue because it happens even more often.

Vsync should be ON.

Except for benchmarks. Oh you will love your 3D Mark score wtih Vsync on

 

[Imyourzero]

Originally posted by: DLeRium
I cry when I read these threads.

/hands tissue

Originally posted by: DLeRium
How long does it take till people understand that REFRESH RATE does NOT MATTER for LCDs. It doesn't work the same way as CRTs. Refresh rate is efffeectively how often your monitor polls your graphics card for a change in imagery.

I'm not posting to argue with you, but rather for clarification. If refresh rate is defined as the above, then why wouldn't 75 Hz be better than 60 Hz? Wouldn't you be getting 15 more polls/refreshes per second at 75 Hz than at 60 Hz, thus making for faster gameplay?

And why do the 75 Hz LCDs drop every 5th frame, anyway? Why can't (or don't) they display all 75?

Originally posted by: DLeRium
When your response time isn't even that fast, does it MATTER how high your refresh rate is? 60hz is FINE for LCD monitors.

What do you mean response time? Don't you mean frame rate? If your frame rate is under 60 fps, then no it wouldn't matter if your monitor was running at 60, 75, or 800 Hz. And yeah, 60 Hz is fine for LCDs in terms of not noticing flicker (as CRTs @ 60 Hz give many people headaches/eye strain) because the technology is different.

Originally posted by: DLeRium
Vsync should ALWAYS be on.

Remember back in CRTs? A lot of people still limited their frame rate, because it's better to see framerates at a constant FPS than to jump around all over the place. So even if your performance is awesome, it's fine to limit to 60 because your eyes can't notice the difference especially wtih LCD refresh rates capped at 60/75. Moreoever, tearing just destroys the game. For those of you who say it doesn't matter, it's far more noticeable than eyecandy features like AA and AF. Yet people talk about AA and AF. But when you're moving and spinning around all the time, does it matter THAT much? Well, to me it does, but then tearing is obviously a bigger issue because it happens even more often.

I have experienced the tearing that comes with running with Vsync off, and I agree that turning Vsync on improves things noticeably. Was it the same way with CRTs? It's been so long since I've owned my G400...I usually played with Vsync off but I don't remember getting the tearing that I do with my LCD when Vsync is off.

And as far as the human eye not being able to detect more than 60 fps, I would LOVE to have a definitive answer on that because I've seen people argue about it until their faces turned blue (well, technically their fingers). But I've definitely seen people argue from both sides and I don't know what to believe. Supposedly, a game running at 170 fps will seem smoother than the same game running at 70 fps. But if we can't notice the difference above 60, why would that be?

And my last question is if running an LCD over 60 Hz is pointless then what's the big deal with the 100 Hz LCDs that are coming out? Why the push for them? There must be a reason, and I'm willing to bet there are some sort of real life improvements, not just a marketing gimmick. But if the system does indeed discard frames above 60 Hz (as with 75 Hz LCDs) then a 100 Hz LCD would seem pointless, as to a n00b like myself it would seem to mean only more discarded frames.

Sigh, it appears I have much to learn about video tech.

 

[imported_Seer]

In response to the OP: LCD refresh rate has nothing to with flickering, and really only deals with vsync and max framerates (as mentioned above).

Also, to the poster that said 60Hz is good enough because LCDs dont refresh that fast anyways: you're wrong. 1/60 of a second is ~17 ms, and most LCDs' Black-White-Black time, which would correspond to TWO frames, is under that time, much less the GtG times, which are now consistently under 8 ms.

So, there is a lot of room for improvement in LCD polling rates, but you can't take the this rate on an LCD and say its the same as 60Hz CRT, which kills my eyes.

Originally posted by: BladeVenom

Originally posted by: 91TTZ
How is it all in my head when I can see it without a problem? Not all of them seem to do it, either. But on some of them it's completely obvious.

Ok, which model. I don't remember seeing any new working LCD monitor that flickers.

I believe most LCDs use Pulse Width Modulation to control the brightness, instead of bothering with changing the voltage going to the light or other such stuff. (It's used in fan speed control, too.)
A higher brightness setting should have less flickering, because the backlight is on a higher % of the time, and 100% brightness should be no flickering. This might not be true though, for whatever reasons the manufacturer intended (heat? power? too bright?).