viewsonic and samung 120hz monitors, 120hz and understanding refresh rates.

[FatMom]

Ive read some "reviews" of peoples who got these monitors, and its suposed to make video games looks more fluid.

As I always thought, refresh rate was only mean the actual fps limit your monitor can show. Looks like I was wrong, or they were high...

So, these screens refresh twice as fast, but even If I'm playing a video game at, let say, 40fps constant on both 60hz and 120hz monitor at the same time, it will look more smooth on the 120hz one?

Can someone explain this to me.

 

[videogames101]

It'll have what I call a budget tv production look, call me insane, but it looks fake and crappy to me. (120hz)

 

[FatMom]

*sight* I thought naming the actual displays would make sure that no one post about that stupid HDTV 120hz shit, ITS NOT THE SAME THING, HDTV CAN'T ACCEPT 120hz SIGNAL. its just 60hz processed to 120hz. it cant looks like that, because the monitor dont do any processing...

 

[mmnno]

Originally posted by: FatMom
Ive read some "reviews" of peoples who got these monitors, and its suposed to make video games looks more fluid.

As I always thought, refresh rate was only mean the actual fps limit your monitor can show. Looks like I was wrong, or they were high...

So, these screens refresh twice as fast, but even If I'm playing a video game at, let say, 40fps constant on both 60hz and 120hz monitor at the same time, it will look more smooth on the 120hz one?

Can someone explain this to me.

No, it will look like 40fps on both monitors, although tearing might be better (or worse) on the 120Hz monitor without Vsync.

60fps looks more fluid than 40fps though, and 120fps is even better. Also, if you use Vsync there's a smaller delay if the video card misses the buffer swap so your FPS won't take as big a hit.

 

[IlllI]

reminds me of those 10000000 'dynamic' contrast ratios some companies advertise

 

[Si7entSam]

also note that the human eye can only see about 72 FPS i think it is. *scratches head* so really theres not much of a point... It honestly doesnt look much better on my 120hz 46" that on my 28" 60hz LCD...

 

[FatMom]

Originally posted by: Si7entSam
also note that the human eye can only see about 72 FPS i think it is. *scratches head* so really theres not much of a point... It honestly doesnt look much better on my 120hz 46" that on my 28" 60hz LCD...

its not about what human eyes can see, its about of alot of 3d engine calculates physics with framerates (quake3 and 125fps anyone..) and liking having vsync

ASLO, your 46" IS NOT A 120hz DISPLAY. If you hook your computer on it, you wont be able to choose 120hz in your driver menu because the tv cant accept such signal, you need a dual link dvi input for it wich you dont have.

 

[FatMom]

Originally posted by: mmnno

Originally posted by: FatMom
Ive read some "reviews" of peoples who got these monitors, and its suposed to make video games looks more fluid.

As I always thought, refresh rate was only mean the actual fps limit your monitor can show. Looks like I was wrong, or they were high...

So, these screens refresh twice as fast, but even If I'm playing a video game at, let say, 40fps constant on both 60hz and 120hz monitor at the same time, it will look more smooth on the 120hz one?

Can someone explain this to me.

No, it will look like 40fps on both monitors, although tearing might be better (or worse) on the 120Hz monitor without Vsync.

60fps looks more fluid than 40fps though, and 120fps is even better. Also, if you use Vsync there's a smaller delay if the video card misses the buffer swap so your FPS won't take as big a hit.

have you SEEN it? again, not these crappy 120hz hdtv, either the samsung 2233 or the viewsonic 2265. On a 60hz lcd, pixels cant refresh faster than 16.7ms, since 120hz is twice as fast Ill let you do the mat.

I just read that someone claimed that their game looks more fluid on the 120hz (he didnt said however at what framerate he was playing) and I want to know if its true, or not.

Because if yes, I would gladly buy one and since theres no store with a return policy ...

 

[BFG10K]

Originally posted by: FatMom

So, these screens refresh twice as fast, but even If I'm playing a video game at, let say, 40fps constant on both 60hz and 120hz monitor at the same time, it will look more smooth on the 120hz one?

Yes, it can, especially if you don't run with vsync. If the framerate is lower than the refresh rate, things can still tear if the frames are not falling on the refresh cycles.

A 120 Hz display is less likely to tear than a 60 Hz display because the higher the refresh rate, the more full frames it can display per second.

As for the difference between 60 FPS and 120 FPS, this is quite obvious. Run a game on a CRT @ 60 Hz with vsync, then do the same with it set to 120 Hz, and you?ll see a massive difference in smoothness.

 

[ViRGE]

I had a chance to see a 22" Samsung 120hz monitor last week and I wasn't impressed. The game was TF2, and it didn't look any more fluid than it does at 60hz on my own monitor (this being a game that can actually hit and sustain 120fps on a good system). As far as I know not everyone perceives motion exactly the same, so YMMV, but I just can't imagine the gains being significant.

 

[mmnno]

Originally posted by: FatMom

Originally posted by: mmnno

Originally posted by: FatMom
Ive read some "reviews" of peoples who got these monitors, and its suposed to make video games looks more fluid.

As I always thought, refresh rate was only mean the actual fps limit your monitor can show. Looks like I was wrong, or they were high...

So, these screens refresh twice as fast, but even If I'm playing a video game at, let say, 40fps constant on both 60hz and 120hz monitor at the same time, it will look more smooth on the 120hz one?

Can someone explain this to me.

No, it will look like 40fps on both monitors, although tearing might be better (or worse) on the 120Hz monitor without Vsync.

60fps looks more fluid than 40fps though, and 120fps is even better. Also, if you use Vsync there's a smaller delay if the video card misses the buffer swap so your FPS won't take as big a hit.

have you SEEN it? again, not these crappy 120hz hdtv, either the samsung 2233 or the viewsonic 2265. On a 60hz lcd, pixels cant refresh faster than 16.7ms, since 120hz is twice as fast Ill let you do the mat.

I just read that someone claimed that their game looks more fluid on the 120hz (he didnt said however at what framerate he was playing) and I want to know if its true, or not.

Because if yes, I would gladly buy one and since theres no store with a return policy ...

What are you quoting me for? I know exactly which monitors you are talking about.

 

[FHDelux]

The way i understood 120Hz monitor tech is that its really only for 3d. Now don't quote me on this but what i think is happening is that its "like" having two LCD panels stacked one in front of the other, both running at 60Hz. One LCD panel displays the picture for left eye, and the second panel for the right eye. When 3d mode is not enabled, only one of the panels would be operating. The reason they need 120Hz is so that both eyes can see 60Hz and not 30Hz which would appear choppy to most people.

So to answer your question (because i asked the same one), no, 120Hz as they intended to use it, wont make your gaming any smoother except for the fact that the panel probably has a really low refresh rate and is a good quality panel. If windows will allow you to adjust your Hz rate up to 120 within display properties then there might be something to it, but i don't know anyone who owns one so i have no way to know for sure.

 

[bunnyfubbles]

Originally posted by: BFG10K

Originally posted by: FatMom

So, these screens refresh twice as fast, but even If I'm playing a video game at, let say, 40fps constant on both 60hz and 120hz monitor at the same time, it will look more smooth on the 120hz one?

Yes, it can, especially if you don't run with vsync. If the framerate is lower than the refresh rate, things can still tear if the frames are not falling on the refresh cycles.

A 120 Hz display is less likely to tear than a 60 Hz display because the higher the refresh rate, the more full frames it can display per second.

As for the difference between 60 FPS and 120 FPS, this is quite obvious. Run a game on a CRT @ 60 Hz with vsync, then do the same with it set to 120 Hz, and you?ll see a massive difference in smoothness.

I'm pretty sure he's ranting about the deceptive advertisement of supposed 120Hz LCDs. Of which when concerning TVs means they're converting things to 120 and then playing at 60 (useful for making 24fps movies look like an absurdly fluid 60fps), and when concerning desktop monitors has mostly to do with 3D display technology where its 60Hz for each eye, not a true 120Hz.

As far as whether or not the TV can make the game look more smooth, it can, however at a cost of input delay as the TV has to do some processing. If you can get the game to run at a constant 60fps (with vsync) then 120Hz LCD will do nothing for you.

 

[FatMom]

Ok, this is true for 3d, if you are playing a video game with stereoscopic enabled in the nvidia panel, the video card does send 2 image a 60hz, HOWEVER, if you are in the desktop or play normaly, it WILL be a single one at 120hz.

I'm asking this because someone claimed that playing a game with 2 lcds (120hz and 60hz) in clone mode, the 120hz looks more fluid even if the game isnt even running at 60fps, because the pixel are refreshing faster than 16.7ms.He also said the mouse pointer on the desktop was more fluid (if you make small circles real quick, you will notice that the mouse actually skip.. its not perfectly smooth) is it true? i dont know and dont want to drop 500$ for a 22" tn panel just to find out.


Again, theres no additional input delay because of the 120hz, this is a problem related to HDTVs and I think I made it pretty clear that I'm not talking about this, but computer monitors accepting a true 120hz signal. pleaaaaase no more hdtv talking.

Heres a screen of the input delay of the viewsonic, wich is very impressive. http://img19.imageshack.us/img19/7513/img0621x.jpg

 

[Boundless]

That linked picture is from my thread @ hardocp, nice.

What ultimately made me return the 120hz viewsonic came down to a few major things (to me):

1. 120hz ONLY works at 1680x1050 ( I wanted to use it at lower resolutions too - for older games such as quake3 or warsow - how could this could not be allowed seems strange )

2. No OSD ( cannot tweak anything on the monitor - brightness control didn't even work - absolutely ridiculous - software tweaks only go so far - and everytime I executed a different profile in ATI CCC it seemed to reset settings)

3. If the monitor was running at 60hz @ 1680x1050 instead, it looked awful compared to other 60hz monitors I had used (LG L227WTG-PF and Samsung 226bw s-panel mainly)

4. etc, etc - other minor reasons

HOWEVER: The games I was able to maintain 120fps with vysnc enabled / 120hz looked amazing. Left4dead, warsow, quakelive all seemed "better" and definitely more "fluid". The thing is though, it is nice to run vsync on LCD monitors - but good luck keeping 120fps in new titles akin to crysis or call of duty 4, etc. For those games it would have been nice to have the 60hz or even 75hz usable with this first gen 120hz monitor. I was expecting the monitor to have refresh rate settings reminiscent of CRT where you can force 60-120hz in whatever resolution up to native rez. Unfortunately not the case this time around.

I'd look at the samsung 2233rz next. Input latency seems higher than what I'd want (since I always strive to get monitors with as close to 0ms as possible) but the 120hz would at least cut 8ms off (16ms = 60hz) and have more fluid gameplay hopefully overshadowing that issue.

 

[AzN]

Originally posted by: BFG10K
As for the difference between 60 FPS and 120 FPS, this is quite obvious. Run a game on a CRT @ 60 Hz with vsync, then do the same with it set to 120 Hz, and you?ll see a massive difference in smoothness.

It's not the monitor that makes the game smooth it's the video card and CPU that dictate frame rates.

 

[yusux]

It should smooth out the monitor, I tweaked mine from 60hz to 64hz and I can see a slight improvement already, just don't xpect the 120hz monitor to give u good fps, I wish they'd make some 27", 30" 120hz panels already

 

[BFG10K]

Originally posted by: bunnyfubbles

I'm pretty sure he's ranting about the deceptive advertisement of supposed 120Hz LCDs. Of which when concerning TVs means they're converting things to 120 and then playing at 60 (useful for making 24fps movies look like an absurdly fluid 60fps), and when concerning desktop monitors has mostly to do with 3D display technology where its 60Hz for each eye, not a true 120Hz.

I'm not talking about those rubbish display that claim 120 Hz but aren't really. I'm talking about the real 120 Hz displays that can accept a discrete 120 images per second, like the new ones from Samsung and Viewsonic for nVidia's glasses.

Those are true 120 Hz, it's the glasses that do 60 Hz per eye by delaying one of the images relative to the other. That's exactly why current 60 Hz LCDs are unsuitable for the task as they can?t handle 120 discrete images per second.

 

[BFG10K]

Originally posted by: Azn

It's not the monitor that makes the game smooth it's the video card and CPU that dictate frame rates.

A monitor has a huge impact on perceived smoothness because it's responsible for displaying the images. You can?t see directly into the framebuffer can you? Of course not. Therefore it?s the display that determines what you actually see, and not all displays are created equal.

A 60 Hz display can at most display 60 full frames per second, while a 120 Hz display can display up to 120 FPS. That means double the framerate (assuming the system can sustain it) with vsync, and less tearing with vsync off.

 

[maxrep12]

Originally posted by: BFG10K

Originally posted by: Azn

It's not the monitor that makes the game smooth it's the video card and CPU that dictate frame rates.

A monitor has a huge impact on perceived smoothness because it's responsible for displaying the images. You can?t see directly into the framebuffer can you? Of course not. Therefore it?s the display that determines what you actually see, and not all displays are created equal.

A 60 Hz display can at most display 60 full frames per second, while a 120 Hz display can display up to 120 FPS. That means double the frame rate (assuming the system can sustain it) with vsync, and less tearing with vsync off.

Kudos to BFG,

Your observations are exact. For myself, I am set with the Sony 24inch wide screen CRT fw-900. It has refresh rates upward of 160hz. Moving quickly in battle, refresh rates become a premium concern. There is an absolutely astounding difference between 60hz, and 145hz. In actuality, the military has found that the human eye can detect frame rates in the mid 200's and beyond.

Many of the responses so far have me chuckling. I could sit any of these guys down in front of my monitor with UT3 vsync'd at 60 hz and 60fps, then switch it over to 145hz and 145fps, at which point they would exclaim "Holy Sh!t, I had no idea". The difference is nothing short of jaw dropping. I can't get irritated though, as few folk have the opportunity to ever see what 150fps actually looks like - for most 60 fps is all they ever see. How would they know that a difference could exist between higher frame rates and the run of the mill 60 fps that lcd's generally provide.

Those of you who are parroting the human eye 60fps nonsense, are just regurgitating bad information. My monitor allows me to run the same resolution at 60hz with intermittent increases in the refresh up to 160hz. My rig has enough horse power to run all of these refresh rates vsync'd with never a drop in frames. Its a perfect test bed, though you have tried to allude that it is not. I can play at a rock solid 60fps, 80fps, 100fps, 120fps, 140fps, and 160fps where each and every frame per second setting matches the refresh rate.

In a fast moving first person shooter where your field of vision rapidly changes, the relevance of high frame rates becomes crystal clear. Its not a matter of opinion, or personal taste, the difference is astounding.

 

[BFG10K]

Excellent first post maxrep12. You get two thumbs up from me, buddy. :thumbsup: :thumbsup:

It?s actually quite ironic that over the last few days I?ve been having a ?discussion? with someone by email who claims the human eye can?t see more than 30 FPS because it?s been scientifically proven at a German university. LMAO.

Furthermore, I was called a ?fool? because I attempted to dismiss such rubbish.

I thought this nonsense died 10-15 years ago when 3dfx?s ball demo proved what a huge difference 60 FPS makes over 30 FPS, but I guess not.

And you?re quite right, there is a big difference between 60 FPS and 120 FPS. There are numerous titles out there that feel choppy and laggy even at a constant 60 FPS, and any CRT capable of going significantly higher can demonstrate this.

 

[FatMom]

thanks guys for your help. however, I think you guys misread what I asked, its not about 120fps on a 120hz vs 60fps ona 60hz, its about 60fps ON BOTH display, I cant understand how 60FPS on 120HZ will look more smooth (NOT MORE FPS) than 60FPS on 60HZ.

Its pretty obvious that 120fps is more smooth that 60fps, but thats not what I asked.

 

[maxrep12]

OK, I understand your question I think. I'll give it a shot...

If your gpu and cpu are not up to the task of maintaining 120 fps at your desired resolution, and you have your heart set on utilizing vsync, then 60hz on an lcd would be just fine. I dont think that there would be a marked difference on a 120hz lcd screen that was displaying a constant 60 fps vs. a 60hz lcd screen displaying 60fps.

That said, in a fast moving first person shooter where your field of view moves rapidly, you would do much better to go with a 120hz screen, turn down your res, detail levels, turn off AA, etc, in an effort to rise to 120fps. The difference is that important. If you are playing online Wheel of Fortune, or a driving game that has slower field of view changes, frame rates are not near as crucial.

LCD screens are producing a generation of gamers that cannot appreciate refresh rates, just as mp3 files prevent youth from understanding what hi fidelity audio realy is. Most advances in technology are true advances. Though the slim and sexy nature of an lcd monitor has its aesthetic advantage, I am of the opinion that the lcd monitor moved two steps forward in a fashion sense, and bedazzled consumers failed to see the new screen move 5 steps backwards in refresh rates, color rendition, contrast, motion blur etc.

I have seen the Sony OLED screen in person. Now that is an advance in display tech my friend! unlimited refresh rates, say 500-1000hz or more, and a million to one contrast ratios with color rendition that is unmatched.

 

[mmnno]

Originally posted by: FatMom
thanks guys for your help. however, I think you guys misread what I asked, its not about 120fps on a 120hz vs 60fps ona 60hz, its about 60fps ON BOTH display, I cant understand how 60FPS on 120HZ will look more smooth (NOT MORE FPS) than 60FPS on 60HZ.

Its pretty obvious that 120fps is more smooth that 60fps, but thats not what I asked.

It won't, unless you're using Vsync. With Vsync, a higher refresh rate reduces the stuttering that occurs when your GPU fails to render a frame in time for the display to start drawing it.

 

[ArchAngel777]

Originally posted by: maxrep12
LCD screens are producing a generation of gamers that cannot appreciate refresh rates, just as mp3 files prevent youth from understanding what hi fidelity audio realy is. Most advances in technology are true advances. Though the slim and sexy nature of an lcd monitor has its aesthetic advantage, I am of the opinion that the lcd monitor moved two steps forward in a fashion sense, and bedazzled consumers failed to see the new screen move 5 steps backwards in refresh rates, color rendition, contrast, motion blur etc.

I have seen the Sony OLED screen in person. Now that is an advance in display tech my friend! unlimited refresh rates, say 500-1000hz or more, and a million to one contrast ratios with color rendition that is unmatched.

Even though you stated in an ealier post that it isn't opinin, I would beg to differ. Did you enjoy the 80 pound beast sitting on your desk? I didn't. Did you enjoy the head-aches from looking at the display? I didn't. Did you enjoy the distorted geometry? I didn't. See, that is OPINION, mine to be exact. The geometry of a CRT sucks so badly. I don't enjoy non-straight lines. To each their own.

There are pro and cons to BOTH techs. For me, I will take an LCD over a CRT any day. Even a sub-par LCD.