-
We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.
viewsonic and samung 120hz monitors, 120hz and understanding refresh rates.
Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Times like this I wish I didn't delete this one program I had several years back. It showed two sets of rotating blocks, split screen. And on each screen you could pick the frame rate. Perfect for showing someone the difference between two sets of fps. I have looked for somewhere to redownload this program for years, still have not found it. It didn't have a memorable name.
Maxrep12, there is unfortunately one major flaw with your first post. This is thinking that the big difference noticed between running a CRT at 60hz and then at 160hz is from in game frame rate increase. That is extremely unlikely. CRTs operate by flashing their light on and off rapidly.(An LCD has a back light that never turns off) It is quite irritating on the eyes to look at a CRT when it runs at 60hz in the first place. Not so much at a significantly higher refresh rate.(Obviously a light that is flashing on and off fast enough looks like it is constantly on) A 60hz CRT appears to be flickering while a 60hz LCD does not. The massive difference people notice is not from an increase in game fluidity, but a severe reduction in eye strain. People would still go "wow the difference is amazing" even if your fps was locked at 30 and you switched your refresh rate from 60hz to 160hz.
<- Used to own an IBM P275 21" CRT.
That is not to say I think people can only see at 60fps. I personally have been able to notice a difference up to 80 or so using the aforementioned program.
Maxrep12, there is unfortunately one major flaw with your first post. This is thinking that the big difference noticed between running a CRT at 60hz and then at 160hz is from in game frame rate increase. That is extremely unlikely. CRTs operate by flashing their light on and off rapidly.(An LCD has a back light that never turns off) It is quite irritating on the eyes to look at a CRT when it runs at 60hz in the first place. Not so much at a significantly higher refresh rate.(Obviously a light that is flashing on and off fast enough looks like it is constantly on) A 60hz CRT appears to be flickering while a 60hz LCD does not. The massive difference people notice is not from an increase in game fluidity, but a severe reduction in eye strain. People would still go "wow the difference is amazing" even if your fps was locked at 30 and you switched your refresh rate from 60hz to 160hz.
<- Used to own an IBM P275 21" CRT.
That is not to say I think people can only see at 60fps. I personally have been able to notice a difference up to 80 or so using the aforementioned program.
ArchAngel777
Diamond Member
85Hz is where my eyes top out at as far as fluidity goes. The difference between 60Hz and 85Hz is slight for my eyes personally. I have tested this way back in my CRT days when you could cap the frame-rate for Quake 3. I tested with 60, 75, 85, 100 and 120. Once I hit 85, I noticed absolutely no difference, even for quick moves. I used to be competitive in the game too and in order to be good, you had to make quick moves. 85Hz is *MY* limit.
I don't notice the weight of the monitor, as I am not holding it, my desk easily supports it. What an odd statement you offered.
The geometry on my Sony FW-900 flatscreen crt is wonderful. Must have been unfortunate for you to have used a "bottom of the barrel" crt, when far superior models within the crt family were available. I can't be asked to defend your experience with cheap equipment, you have to own that one friend.
So, I'm torn between a 46" plasma panasonic 1080p (better blacks, way less motion blur than lcd) or theses 120hz monitor. I keep reading from the actually few owners that the fluidity is improved ALOT. thing as simple as moving your mouse on your desktop is more fluid.
I dont know if they are on crack, but if thats true.. thats a big plus.
If I could just buy one and return it without any restocking fees I would have bought one already but this is not the case, sadly, I need to rely on peoples persnonals reviews over the internet 🙁
About 2 months ago I was all over headfi reading about buying a soundcard + headphones, end up spending 600cnd total (halo claro xt with beyer DT150) and seriously I was not impressed at all.
So thats why I'm asking to have more advice than 2-3, because these monitors are like 450cnd, its not cheap for a crappy tn 22" panel.
I dont know if they are on crack, but if thats true.. thats a big plus.
If I could just buy one and return it without any restocking fees I would have bought one already but this is not the case, sadly, I need to rely on peoples persnonals reviews over the internet 🙁
About 2 months ago I was all over headfi reading about buying a soundcard + headphones, end up spending 600cnd total (halo claro xt with beyer DT150) and seriously I was not impressed at all.
So thats why I'm asking to have more advice than 2-3, because these monitors are like 450cnd, its not cheap for a crappy tn 22" panel.
I am familiar with screen flicker associated with lower refresh settings on crt monitors, and likewise, am aware that this is not a problem with lcd screens. That said, my focus of discussion has been soley on refresh rates, their limiting effect on maximum frame rates, and its corresponding relationship to visual fluidity of fast moving items being redrawn within each frame.
Viewing windows desktop, I cannot appreciate differences in frame rates. As objects begin to move more quickly across the screen, they are redrawn succesively at further intervals. Depending upon the velocity, an item may be redrawn every 10 pixels, or it could be redrawn every 100 pixels per frame.
Try this; on your windows desktop, move your mouse pointer back and forth at different speeds. Your pointer movements are fluid when the to an fro motion is slow. As you increase the pace at which the pointer is moved back and forth, you see a very noticeable difference in the redraw gaps of your mouse pointer on the screen. "What on earth is going on here", you ask yourself? Plain and simple, you are seeing individual frame rates, which according to to internet folklore, is just not possible beyonds 60 frames per second. Your eyes easily detect this. It does not take glasses, lasic, or "spidey" vision.
As BFG10K has no doubt experienced, it is tiresome to explain to owners who have married a 60hz lcd screen, that significantly better gaming frame rates can be enjoyed. Those of you who wish to to defend the honor of your lcd screens, perhaps a big group hug would make it all better. And don't you let your self be worried over the mouse pointer skipping all over the desktop.....for surely I couldn't know what I'm talking about?
That monitor was $2500 when it was still in production. Only being discontinued and previously used has brought its price down. You can't even pay that much for any non-professional LCD monitor.
LCDs brought quality at a price point most everyone can afford. The CRTs most people would have been in the market for pale in comparison. For anyone who didn't own a Sony GDM series tube, we're in a golden age now.
Yes, I understand your position, but I am saying the difference being noticed has absolutely nothing to do with fluidity. Changing your refresh rate on a CRT interferes with the test. You are changing two variables and when someone notices a difference, blaming the difference noticed on the one variable you are trying to show makes a difference. I am saying that the refresh change is what people would notice, not the frame rate change.
This happens on CRTs with refresh rates of 160hz as well. I am more inclined to say this is related to the way Windows intentionally draws the mouse cursor and has nothing to do with frame rate. A more accurate test would be to load up Quake 3 on your CRT. Have your refresh rate set to whatever maximum you can. Use in game console commands to limit the frame rate to 60. Move your view around. Then try 80, then try 100, then try 150, then try unlimited. You will stop seeing any difference at all a little above 80. 60 hardly limits the gaming experience as much as you claim it does.
I've already mentioned that I have owned a top of the line CRT. I understand the strengths and weaknesses of it.
"This happens on CRTs with refresh rates of 160hz as well. I am more inclined to say this is related to the way Windows intentionally draws the mouse cursor and has nothing to do with frame rate. A more accurate test would be to load up Quake 3 on your CRT. Have your refresh rate set to whatever maximum you can. Use in game console commands to limit the frame rate to 60. Move your view around. Then try 80, then try 100, then try 150, then try unlimited. You will stop seeing any difference at all a little above 80. 60 hardly limits the gaming experience as much as you claim it does."
So, theses guys were right saying the games seemed "more fluid" while playing on the 120hz panel? (considering he was NOT playing at 120fps)
So, theses guys were right saying the games seemed "more fluid" while playing on the 120hz panel? (considering he was NOT playing at 120fps)
Schmide
Diamond Member
I've never experienced a 120hz LCD personally and I've only heard of the tearing in the TV.
The main advantage of having a 120hz refresh rate is the improved sampling rate. This can be seen at any frame rate including lower ones.
For example. Displaying a PAL video (25fps) on a 60hz monitor will always cause some issues. As the monitor and the card drift in and out of sinc they will vary updates between 2 and 3 60hz frames.
in this sequence
2 3 2 3 2 2 3 2 3 2 2 3 2
or int( 60 * (pal frame#+1) /25) - ( int( 60 * (pal frame#) /25)
Which equates to a 1/60th variance almost every other frame
Of course 50hz or 75hz would be ideal for a pal video producing a 2 2 2 update frame or 3 3 3 (no variance)
Now on a 120hz monitor the sequence will run
5 5 5 5 4 5 5 5 5 4
or int( 120 * (pal frame#+1) /25) - ( int( 120 * (pal frame#) /25)
Which is 1/120th variance every 5th frame.
Now can you notice this? I don't know but the mathematical advantages are there.
The main advantage of having a 120hz refresh rate is the improved sampling rate. This can be seen at any frame rate including lower ones.
For example. Displaying a PAL video (25fps) on a 60hz monitor will always cause some issues. As the monitor and the card drift in and out of sinc they will vary updates between 2 and 3 60hz frames.
in this sequence
2 3 2 3 2 2 3 2 3 2 2 3 2
or int( 60 * (pal frame#+1) /25) - ( int( 60 * (pal frame#) /25)
Which equates to a 1/60th variance almost every other frame
Of course 50hz or 75hz would be ideal for a pal video producing a 2 2 2 update frame or 3 3 3 (no variance)
Now on a 120hz monitor the sequence will run
5 5 5 5 4 5 5 5 5 4
or int( 120 * (pal frame#+1) /25) - ( int( 120 * (pal frame#) /25)
Which is 1/120th variance every 5th frame.
Now can you notice this? I don't know but the mathematical advantages are there.
ArchAngel777
Diamond Member
Classic troll response. You don't even know what CRTs I owned. Until you can defend your prized monitor as having perfect geometry, our discussion is over. All CRTs have that weakness, some more than others, so I don't expect us to continue this discussion as you will not be able to provide evidence that the geometry on your unit is perfect - as far as the naked eye will allow.
ArchAngel777
Diamond Member
There is no doubt that it is a great monitor. And I am sure it is one of the best CRTs ever built. I am also sure the geometry is the best in its class. But it is a CRT, so it will exibit geometry issues. Whether you notice or not, is an entirely different thing. Some people can't see tearing, but I can. It really does come down to personal preference and opinion. The fact is, both techs have trade-offs. Anyone who denies this is fooling themselves. Live and let live.
LokutusofBorg
Golden Member
This phenomenon is called "pulldown" in video editing parlance and manifests itself as some slight juttering (frame pacing) in HDTVs and vsync for monitors, and tearing in non-vsync for monitors. BFG10K has also explained this well already. (True) 120Hz will display with more smoothness in almost all cases because it simply is capable of putting out more frames per second. If your source framerate doesn't exactly match the refresh rate of your display then you will either experience pulldown or tearing, one of the two.
If you're in love with vsync and your computer isn't capable of putting out more than 60fps then 120Hz isn't for you. If you're not a member of that very small minority then 120Hz will be more smooth.
Schmide
Diamond Member
Are you sure you mean tearing, because that is not an issue exclusively to LCDs or CRTs. In fact it should happen equally on both. It's really a video card/program issue. Basically when the data is being sent out to the monitor a program comes in and updates it during that cycle, thus causing a tear in the scene between the older data above and the new data below.
BFG10K
Lifer
Again, if you're running with vsync off, 60 FPS @ 60 Hz is more likely to tear than 60 FPS @ 120 Hz. This is because the 120 Hz display has a refresh cycle every ~8 ms, while the 60 Hz display has one every ~16 ms.
Therefore, when a new frame is ready, the 120 Hz display only has half the chance of tearing because it?s twice as likely to have a refresh cycle available than the 60 Hz display.
Now with vsync on, you might be getting 60 FPS simply because of vsync, not because your system can?t manage more. So with a 120 Hz display & vsync on, you?ll hit up to 120 FPS as a side-effect of the new display, so you?ll benefit there too.
Go into a store and try it. Seriously, you can't really be told stuff like this. If you're happy with the plasma then get it and don?t worry about 120 Hz displays.
Downgrading from a 46" 1080p plasma to a 22" 1680x1050 TN is a lot to ask based solely on random internet posters like us. You might not even see a difference between 60Hz & 120 Hz, but you sure as hell will see a difference in display size, quality, and resolution.
BFG10K
Lifer
It's called FPS compare:
New version: http://www.tweakguides.com/fil...PSCompare_v05_beta.zip
Old version: http://www.tweakguides.com/files/FPSComp_Old.zip
BFG10K
Lifer
Exactly; tearing is a function of the GPU sending a new frame before the display has finished drawing the old one.
LCDs tend to tear more because 60 Hz is quite a bit lower than typically used CRT refresh rates. Incidentally, this is why LCD users tend to use vsync more than CRT users.
ArchAngel777
Diamond Member
Correct, I didn't mean to imply tearing is specific to only LCDs or CRTs. I wanted to point out that some people can't even see tearing, so they are not bothered by it. It was to show how something can be inferior, yet have no impact on the visual experience of some users - trying to reinforce that many of these things are personal preference.
LCDs do tear more often and are more noticable because their refresh rate is lower. I absolutely abhor tearing. I hated it on my CRT and I hate it on my LCD. So I enable Vsync with Tripple Buffering for ALL games. Lucky for me that I do not notice any input lag so it works out perfectly.
Thanks for the confirmation, Schmide.
ArchAngel, I would have to agree with Schmides observation. However, the point of this thread is determining the value of higher refresh rates in gaming monitors, and whether gamers should pursue higher refresh options available. The FW900 has served as an invaluable tool in viewing frame rates reaching 160 fps, and confirming the ability to perceive those frame rates.
On a side note, it may be worthwhile to revisit that mouse pointer excercise I recommended earlier in the thread. I would also like to throw out a "call for references" with regards to your statement;
"I am more inclined to say this is related to the way Windows intentionally draws the mouse cursor and has nothing to do with frame rate."
With the mouse cursor being quite a focal point of desktop usage, it makes little sense to infer that windows purposefully withholds redrawing a pointer for each new frame. Are you of the opinion that the pointer, if redrawn each frame, would unnecessarily tax the cpu?
Try the experiment again. This time making quick circles with the pointer preferably over a dark background. Doing 3 to 4 circles per second, and estimating the number of mouse pointer images seen in each circle, you easily view 60 individual pointer images per second with a 60hz refresh. According to internet folklore, the human eye just cant do that. Also, note how non fluid fast moving items can be be at 60 fps.
Myth busted
The best way to see the jerky mouse cursor is to compare it with 75hz on an LCD. Some of the 19" LCDs can do 75hz properly, and the mouse pointer is exactly where you see an immediate improvement over 60hz.
What LCDs do real 120hz at this point? Do they actually support it fully and let you use a 120hz setting in Windows and games? (and not require stereoscopic drivers to work)
What LCDs do real 120hz at this point? Do they actually support it fully and let you use a 120hz setting in Windows and games? (and not require stereoscopic drivers to work)
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 24K
-
-
