OVERCLOCKING MY MONITOR!!!!

[butch84]

Ok, maybe not really . . . . .
I own a 19" Samsung SyncMaster 955df monitor. According to Samsungs specs, the monitor can do 1600x1200 @68hz. Now, windows doesnt allow me to do the odd rate of 68, nor does it let me select 65. I can use powerstrip to force windows to the 68 refresh, but is it bad on the monitor? Am i inadvertantly doing a monitor "overclock" here? I dont want to inadvertantly fry it or something (poor college student here). I just basically want to be able to run at high res without the problematic flicker effect. 68 is only marginally better than 60, but i will take what i can get!

Thanks,
butch

 

[Lord Evermore]

If Samsung says it will do it, it will. Windows only shows the rates that the drivers specifically define for it, or standard rates if you're using "default monitor" of "plug and play monitor".

65Hz is an odd rate as well, there's never been a monitor using that as a standard, that's why Windows doesn't show it.

 

[apoppin]

I have the same monitor and prefer 1152x864 @ 85hz.

HOWEVER, my ATI Radeon 8500 "allows" 1600x1200 @70hz.

Is there any practical reason I can't use 70hz instead of Samsung's "recommmended" 68hz for 1600x1200?

 

[Lord Evermore]

Only if you consider blowing out the monitor a practical reason.

I honestly don't know exactly what would happen if you went to such a slightly higher speed. It is possible it would do damage, but the monitor may just respond that it's outside the valid ranges, or end up with the image distorted.

I'm sure there are sites with information about this.

 

[apoppin]

It is less than 3% out of "spec" from 68 to 70hz.

I went ahead and "tried" it - 1600x1200@32 and everything looks "normal" if "tiny" (I guess I need higher magnification glasses).

The answer is really moot for me - although I am still curious if there is any "harm"- since I really prefer the lower resolution of 1152x864 and 85hz refresh rate (although 70hz didn't flicker too badly).

 

[blackinches]

a lot of times monitor companies seem to list the specs lower than they actually are.

 

[0roo0roo]

i'd run at a lower res. 85hz is minimum for my 1600x1200 use powerstrip, it lets you change by 1hz increiment

 

[apoppin]

So . . . do anyone really know if a 3% "O/C" is gonna "hurt" a monitor?

 

[Gosharkss]

Anytime you run something above what is was designed for you risk shorting the life of the unit. Most modern monitors have a protection circuit that puts them in energy save mode if either of the sync signals are out of the monitors recommended range.

If you get a unit that does not do this, yoke heating can occur and ultimately reduce (so some degree) the life of the unit. As long as you stay within the manufacturer recommendations the unit should last at least as long as the warranty period.

Another problem is the video amp may not have the bandwidth to provide a image that produces the blackest blacks and the whitest whites. For example: Black characters would look gray. This will not damage the video amp, just make text harder to read since the contrast ratio would be reduced and lead to eyestrain. Thus running faster refresh rates is not always the best thing to do.

 

[SickBeast]

I wouldn't run above the monitor specs...too risky. There is so much that can go wrong with a monitor, it's probably the most delicate component of your entire system.

CPU overclocking is a good thing tho, if done properly of course

 

[kapster]

I use to run my 955DF at 1600x1200 (70hz). after awhile I had this problem where it would flicker kinda. Its hard to explain, the screen would go dark really quick then back to normal. Then it also made this high pitch noise. slapping it fixed that though. After all that I set it back to 60 and its been fine. 65hz is no problem either but I never ran that as long as 70hz

 

[apoppin]

Originally posted by: kapster
I use to run my 955DF at 1600x1200 (70hz). after awhile I had this problem where it would flicker kinda. Its hard to explain, the screen would go dark really quick then back to normal. Then it also made this high pitch noise. slapping it fixed that though. After all that I set it back to 60 and its been fine. 65hz is no problem either but I never ran that as long as 70hz

Thanks for the answers . . . I didn't start this thread, but found it interesting.

As I said before, I am NOT interested in running it out of spec (even 3%) as I never intended 1600x1200 (way too small for my eyes on a 19 incher) . . . and even 70hz is a bit too low . . . 1152x864 @ 85hz is the "sweet spot" for me.

 

[butch84]

Yea, thanks for the responses guys. I find that while i like running at 1600x1200, i just cant handle 68hz. Its ok except for white background, which kills my eyes. I usually run at 1280x960 @75hz. I would prefer 85hz, but once again the 955df cant handle it. Too bad, 1600x1200 is so nice.

butch