Is there a point to getting over 60 fps with an LCD that is 60hz?

[Jumpem]

Thanks!

 

[AndyHui]

LCDs don't use refresh rates in the conventional manner that CRTs use, so the 60Hz number is actually meaningless.

What you want is an LCD screen with a lower pixel response time. Lower response times means less blurriness. Generally you see numbers quoted at 25ms, 16ms or even lower. Most screens on the market are 25ms or 16ms. 25ms gives you around 40 frames per second, while 16ms gives about 60 frames per second.

 

[Brian48]

I don't think you should take fps in account when it comes to refresh rate. They're two separate issues.

Regardless of the refresh rate, there's no point in getting over 60 fps if you can guarantee that you never go below that number on the low end. Usually, a 60 fps average benchmark using a typical, in-game timedemo means it can crawl at 20 fps during heavy action or fly at 100 fps when you're standing still against a wall. The 60 fps "average" is exactly that, an average. The assumption is that the higher the average, the higher your "low-end" fps will be.

A higher or lower refresh rate should not effect your fps, but it does effect eye strain. The higher the rate, the easier it is on your eyes. Stare at a monitor to with a really low refresh rate for an hour and you'll know what I mean.

 

[Jumpem]

I understand what you guys are saying, and I have a 2001FP on the way. However, I thought an LCD at 60hz would redraw the screen 60 times per second. SO if the creen is only being refreshed 60 times, what is the point of having a 9800 pro giving me 150fps?

 

[Confused]

You want a more powerful graphics card so that you have a constant, or minimum, of 60fps.

A constant framerate of 40 fps will look smoother than an average of 60fps when it's going down to 20fps and up to 100fps. You will notice the times it slows down more than the times it will speed up.

 

[waylman]

Originally posted by: Jumpem
I understand what you guys are saying, and I have a 2001FP on the way. However, I thought an LCD at 60hz would redraw the screen 60 times per second. SO if the creen is only being refreshed 60 times, what is the point of having a 9800 pro giving me 150fps?

with most new games you'll never see 150fps anyway...especially when you have a high res and AA on

 

[hahher]

Originally posted by: AndyHui
LCDs don't use refresh rates in the conventional manner that CRTs use, so the 60Hz number is actually meaningless.

What you want is an LCD screen with a lower pixel response time. Lower response times means less blurriness. Generally you see numbers quoted at 25ms, 16ms or even lower. Most screens on the market are 25ms or 16ms. 25ms gives you around 40 frames per second, while 16ms gives about 60 frames per second.

why does the option to change regresh rate exist then while using lcd? it doesn't affect anything at all?

 

[Nebor]

You can change the refresh rate on LCDs... But god only knows what it does. Seriously, even anandtech LCD guru Kristopher couldn't tell us what the refresh rate on an LCD actually does.

 

[Sureshot324]

The refresh rate is how many images per second the video card sends to the monitor. An lcd has built in circuits that decide how to change the pixels based on those images (not really sure how this works). Setting the refresh rate higher than 60 won't really make a difference since the monitor will receive more images per second, but won't be able to make use of them because it can't change the pixels fast enough. I don't think the human eye can see more than 60 fps anyway.

 

[grant2]

no

 

[grant2]

doublepost

 

[x3m]

Originally posted by: Jumpem
I understand what you guys are saying, and I have a 2001FP on the way. However, I thought an LCD at 60hz would redraw the screen 60 times per second. SO if the creen is only being refreshed 60 times, what is the point of having a 9800 pro giving me 150fps?

Good choice of monitor.

But the monitor will not - unlike a CRT - refresh the picture 60 times per second, it will only update a certain pixel when needed.

The point of having a 9800Pro w/ your 2001FP is that you can run games in 1600*1200, aka native resolution. Interpolation isn't something you want do to - the picture will look noticeable worse in 1280*1024, or 1024*768 or whatever except for 1600*1200 where it looks terrific.

And - use the DVI ! The difference between analogue and digital interface is like day and night.

 

[0roo0roo]

from what i remember, pixel response time is measured from black to white transistion, the fastest. doing color is even slower. 25ms best case scenario is 40fps, but we don't game in black and white

super fast video cards are so u can jack up the settings to max, and at those max settings even 500 dollar video cards don't go much over 60fps in many games with max max settings possible..full AA etc.

and yes theres the minimum fps kinda deal...

 

[grant2]

Originally posted by: x3m
The point of having a 9800Pro w/ your 2001FP is that you can run games in 1600*1200, aka native resolution. Interpolation isn't something you want do to - the picture will look noticeable worse in 1280*1024, or 1024*768 or whatever except for 1600*1200 where it looks terrific.

And - use the DVI ! The difference between analogue and digital interface is like day and night.

Dude, running your LCD in lower than native res is like free AA. Sure it looks worse on the desktop. But being able to get AA at 1280x1024 resolution lots of people pay good money for!

And if someone see a "day & night" difference between analog & DVI, they need to hit their auto-adjust button. On my Dell 17" lcds I couldn't notice any difference between the two (and I had 2 exact same models side by side)

 

[Regs]

there's no point in getting over 60 fps if you can guarantee that you never go below that number on the low end

Exactly. Was going to say the same thing.


Also, I have a CRT that refreshes at 85 Hertz. But almost every game I play I use the most stressful settings to get around 50-70 FPS on average. Anything above 60 FPS is useless. Sorry, but it is. If you can tell the difference between 60 and 100 FPS , good for you, but I want to know what hardware you use to run games at such high FPS rates with good or maxed details. Must be a machine I never heard of before. However, I can tell you one thing though, I can certainly tell the difference between 60 FPS with max detail and 100 FPS with low-mid quality settings.

You pay for a 9800 and a 16ms/25ms LCD screen to get the best visual quality available for a very little performance hit.

 

[0roo0roo]

i'm sure someone can dig up a site that explains how people can percieve things faster then 60fps

 

[THUGSROOK]

you can try and explain it all ya want, but its simple: more fps = smoother gameplay & screen panning