When will companies realize we like more than 60hz refresh rate for LCDs!

S

Spoudazo

Gawd
Joined
Apr 23, 2006
Messages
516
I have had two LCDs, a 17" and now a BenQ 20.1" LCD. I like the picture, how it's clear, etc. but when will companies realize that a lot of people who buy their LCDs (gamers) want more than 60hz refresh rate.

If you enable vsync, then the FPS just bounce off of 60fps and often stay in the 50s. If you disable vsync, the FPS shoots up in the 100fps (depending on system and the game of course) and causes tearing.

I love playing on my CRT at 100hz, but my LCD can't even come close. We need faster hz levels people! :mad:
 
When can you realize that A.) hardcore gamers make up the minority of the LCD market and B.) with that in mind the market for LCD monitors with high refresh rates isn't as large as you think?

EDIT: I also find it ridiculous that you are complaining about not being able to play your games at a solid 100FPS on your LCD monitor. Seriously it won't kill you to have a constant 58-60 FPS with VSYNC on. I bet if you turned the FPS counter off you wouldn't notice the FPS jumping around.
 
^ yeah, anything above 20 fps is playable. I play bf2 and guildwar on my 11" crt (old 17" broke so i'm on this small one, but you get used to it) the res is 1152 x 864. Its very playable.I lag sometimes in both games but i can still play it. Wait its actually like 25 fps but i have everything on low. You won't notice a difference between anything higher then 60 fps. After that its all bragging rights
 
Soemtimes tearing can be mroe distracting than low framerates. I ran my old CRT at 75Hz, only to reduce flicker (trying to use the 60Hz ones at achool was torture though), but as LCDs do not, I am not going to complain about that refresh rate. I doubt that I, or many other humans, could really do anything with that higher refresh rate.
 
Once you have played a game at 100hz/100fps, it's like a whole new "60fps" experience. When I first fired up my PC I built (with a 7800gtx at the time), I was amazed at the fluidity of the animations, explosions, etc. due to the amount of frames per second. I can see a big difference between 60 and 100, and 100 just makes it much more realistic.
 
LCD's don't have a refresh rate, they have a response time. I assume your talking about how Windows assigns a LCD a "60 Hz" refresh rate, that's just a value it assigns to it. If you want a quicker screen, you buy one with a lower response time.
 
Another thing about vsync is that some games play smoother (less hitching) with it off and others play smoother with it on. On an LCD you have no choice but to have it on as the tearing looks really bad on an LCD. That's why I dumped my LCD and bought a refurbished 21" Trintron tube CRT. For 3D gaming LCD's are crap, plus all the fast LCD's are 6bit colour and you can see dithering in certain situations, which is crap too, IMO. You'll have to pry my CRT from my dead cold hands! :)
 
LCDs don't refresh

what you are seeing is a limitation of Windows and games

if you play with vsync on you can force tripple buffering, this will fix the vsync ratio problem
 
Can anyone explain "Tearing"?
I'm wondering if it's the artifacting I'm seeing on my 2001FP on my SLI 7800GTX's
 
Tearing is when what the video card is sending to the screen changes mid-refresh.

So say the screen starts updating with Frame A, half way through the screen update the video card is done rendering Frame B. Instead of waiting for Frame A to finish being sent to the screen it immediately swaps Frame A with Frame B resulting in a split image. Its like 'tearing' a page in a book so you see the current page and the page after it.
 
The reason that most LCDs won't accept a refresh rate above 60hz for the DVI connection is simple. The DVI protocol has an artificially limited pixel rate which is already nearly topped out by most LCDs at their native resolutions and the 60hz refresh rate.

The highest pixel clock rate for single-link DVI is artificially capped at ~165mhz. A LCD display with a native resolution of 1920x1200 at 60hz already comes close to topping that out at around 154mhz. The capability to support high refresh rates just isn't there in the current DVI specification in single-link operation.

Now that pixel clock rate could be eliminated (well, almost) by using a dual-link DVI setup with an extremely high quality cable. The pixel clock rate in dual-link DVI mode isn't capped in any way and is only limited by the quality of the cable, hence the possibility for higher refresh rates at popular LCD resolutions is there. But no one has really used it yet for this purpose and instead dual-link DVI seems to be only used for supporting ultra high resolutions in very large LCD panels.... again at 60hz.


Someone earlier in this thread said that LCDs aren't designed with gamers in mind. That's not exactly true and in fact a large portion of LCD monitors today actually target gamers as their core buying audience. Quicker pixel response times, and all that. The sad truth is the DVI specification was NOT setup for gamers at all...


With all that being said I am still amazed by how LCD technology itself has progressed. I would never have seen myself gaming or watching movies on an LCD screen 10 years ago. And I love my LCDs now... I wouldn't go back to a CRT if my life depended on it. Well... except maybe that sexy 24" Trinitron that we've seen hocked on Ebay lately.
 
Unknown-One said:
Odd, I run my LCD at 75Hz over DVI...
Click to expand...

Me too, but that doesn't mean that's what is being displayed onscreen....it just helps me with Vsync and being able to run 37/50/75 instead of 30/45/60.
 
mathesar said:
CRT @ 100hz+ refresh with Vsync disabled , Only way to go :D
Click to expand...

True dat!

That's it, as soon as I have the extra money, I'm buying that $180 IBM CRT that does 1600x1200@100hz and calling it a day. Then I'll have 3 monitors on my desk, lol
:eek:
 
mathesar said:
CRT @ 100hz+ refresh with Vsync disabled , Only way to go :D
Click to expand...


I beg to differ with you there. You'll still see a heckuva lot of tearing with that type of setup, even moreso worse with an LCD.

Therefore:

CRT @ 100hz+ refresh with Vsync ENABLED. Once you go there, no going back.
 
ajm786 said:
I beg to differ with you there. You'll still see a heckuva lot of tearing with that type of setup, even moreso worse with an LCD.

Therefore:

CRT @ 100hz+ refresh with Vsync ENABLED. Once you go there, no going back.
Click to expand...

I'd like to see a system keep 100fps up with VYSNC with Quake 4 or the likes. Otherwise your gonna have nice framerate hiccups

60hertz is just fine for me. I"ll never go back to CRT's for my PC gaming ever again.
 
LCD don't need high hz....it's totally different principle from the CRT which is picture the whole screen verticlly one frame by one...
 
ajm786 said:
I beg to differ with you there. You'll still see a heckuva lot of tearing with that type of setup, even moreso worse with an LCD.

Therefore:

CRT @ 100hz+ refresh with Vsync ENABLED. Once you go there, no going back.
Click to expand...

Negative, Ive been running without Vsync for years and it works out great, Very little screen tearing to speak of. When I had an LCD the screen tearing was terrible even when comparing my 21" CRT at the same refresh rate (60hz). Anyhow I sold the LCD and went with a 24" Sony CRT, Best decision I ever made ;)
 
mathesar said:
Negative, Ive been running without Vsync for years and it works out great, Very little screen tearing to speak of. When I had an LCD the screen tearing was terrible even when comparing my 21" CRT at the same refresh rate (60hz). Anyhow I sold the LCD and went with a 24" Sony CRT, Best decision I ever made ;)
Click to expand...

Yeah,yeah, we know. You toot that horn in every fucking display thread. :rolleyes:
 
Spoudazo said:
True dat!

That's it, as soon as I have the extra money, I'm buying that $180 IBM CRT that does 1600x1200@100hz and calling it a day. Then I'll have 3 monitors on my desk, lol
:eek:
Click to expand...

Yuck!! Why would you play at such a low resolution. :eek:

30" running 2560 x 1600@60hz with Vsync. There is no going back. I can't stand gaming on monitors under 24" The screen is just so small!! :p

I prefer a Vsynced LCD over anything. As long as the FPS stays at 60 I am good. Tearing drives me nuts, and I'll take a slower Vsynced refresh rate over it any day. I generally keep a fast enough system that I can play most things pinned at 60 at my native.
 
It's amazing that this is still discussed. Like some people are saying, LCD's don't use refresh rates like CRT's, they use pixel response times. It doesn't matter what Windows shows as your refresh rate on an LCD, it's a meaningless number. I always laugh when I see people tinkering with the refresh rate on their LCD monitor and it's even funnier when they say it looks better at 75hz.

Unlike a CRT image which is drawn one line at a time, LCD pixels are always on and they're illuminated by a bright white light source behind the panel. That's why they never flicker, there is no refresh, only color changes in the pixels. The faster the pixel response time, the faster the colors change and the less ghosting you see.

You can pretty much determine your maximum game framerate by dividing 1000 by your pixel refresh rate. An LCD with a 20ms response time can't display more than 50fps. If you have a fast system capable of 100fps during a game, you get tearing since the pixels can't keep up. That's why you use Vsync, which locks your max framerate to match your monitor.

Another note is that most response times are listed a gray to gray and even those numbers are always exaggerated. Black to white numbers would be a better test of a panels speed. If you're playing a game you should always have Vsync enabled to get the best image. I love my Dell 2005FPW and I could never go back to a CRT.
 
Spoudazo said:
True dat!

That's it, as soon as I have the extra money, I'm buying that $180 IBM CRT that does 1600x1200@100hz and calling it a day. Then I'll have 3 monitors on my desk, lol
:eek:
Click to expand...

That's what I have, IBM P275 CRT. Better for games and better for Photoshop too. I notice the fact that lots of people above are ignoring the fact that fast response time LCD's are all 6bit displays and not 8bit. If a person can't tell the difference between an 8bit and 6bit display then they are blind and shouldn't be discussing monitors.
 
Coldtronius said:
Oh I don't think its denial, its more like "ITS GETTING FUCKING OLD AND ANNOYING"
Click to expand...

Look nothing you say is going to stop me from expressing my opinion, Deal with it.
 
I know LCDs don't refresh the same way as CRTs do, but thing I'm saying is that NO LCD MONITOR CAN SHOW 80+ FPS of information. Therefore, character animations are choppier than 100fps.

For example, if I play Goldeneye Source (a HL2 mod) at 100hz, I am usually number 1 or 2 about of 10-12 people. However, if I switch to an LCD at 60hz, then I only have 60fps of information, and my aiming is not as good when they are moving around a lot.
 
Spoudazo said:
Once you have played a game at 100hz/100fps, it's like a whole new "60fps" experience. When I first fired up my PC I built (with a 7800gtx at the time), I was amazed at the fluidity of the animations, explosions, etc. due to the amount of frames per second. I can see a big difference between 60 and 100, and 100 just makes it much more realistic.
Click to expand...
Haha you sound like some audiophiles "once you spend $500 dollars on this and $70 on that do to this and that it's a whole new plane of listening, anything less just can't compare." You, much like them are making things up trying to fulfill some hope that your money was well spend.
 
Gatticus said:
That's what I have, IBM P275 CRT. Better for games and better for Photoshop too. I notice the fact that lots of people above are ignoring the fact that fast response time LCD's are all 6bit displays and not 8bit. If a person can't tell the difference between an 8bit and 6bit display then they are blind and shouldn't be discussing monitors.
Click to expand...



especially if you are into gfx design or anything which relies on color accuracy :)

i love my viewsonic vm2025xm :)


For the person above is the refresh rate is "meaningless" as you saythen it wouldnt affect your FPS by changing it from 60mhz to 75.....



Iam on the wagon that i would rather have a steady 50-60FPS then say 120+ then drops down to 40, then back up!

idid that yesterdayplaying Cs:S as ijustgot my x1900 XT - tried with vsync on and off, and it was worse off, didnt see any tearing but the large jumps between max and min framerates was very noticeble.
 
I swear is one more person says that LCDs don't use refresh rates and therefore they are meaningless, I am going to find them and personally stomp them in the balls hardcore.

While the LCD PANEL itself might not have a 'refresh rate' the data is still sent from the output device (video card) to the eletronics in the panel over the DVI cable in a raster format. One line at a time, blanking intervals and all... just like your CRT and just like using a DSUB connection. The only difference with DVI is that the data is being sent digital instead of analogue. That LCD screen is still being refreshed/redrawn at 60 times a second, just like your CRT would be at 60hz.
 
Yeah, and it is per pixel refresh, so you isn't like a strobe light at 60hz. :)

I *WOULD NOT* mind using VGA for an LCD if it was 100hz. I really don't see that much of a difference, if at all. If you see a lot of difference, you may just have a cheap cable or hookup on your monitor. ;)
 
Blue Falcon said:
I swear is one more person says that LCDs don't use refresh rates and therefore they are meaningless, I am going to find them and personally stomp them in the balls hardcore.

While the LCD PANEL itself might not have a 'refresh rate' the data is still sent from the output device (video card) to the eletronics in the panel over the DVI cable in a raster format. One line at a time, blanking intervals and all... just like your CRT and just like using a DSUB connection. The only difference with DVI is that the data is being sent digital instead of analogue. That LCD screen is still being refreshed/redrawn at 60 times a second, just like your CRT would be at 60hz.
Click to expand...

I agree it is annoying when people try to explain the difference and confuse the hell out of you in the process with misinformation...the botton line is just like you said ,when it comes to Vsync being enabled and max framerates the monitors current refesh rate means the same thing on both LCD & CRT .. 60hz = 60FPS Max , 75hz = 75FPS Max etc.
 
Blue Falcon said:
... One line at a time, blanking intervals and all... just like your CRT and just like using a DSUB connection....
Click to expand...

Not to be an annoying pest, or anal retentive or anything, but the video card sends data out one pixel at a time, This is true for MDA, CGA, EGA, VGA (et al). DVI I believe sends color information one bit at a time per clock rate? Correct me on that aspect of DVI as I don't fully understand it.
 
brom42 said:
Yuck!! Why would you play at such a low resolution. :eek:

30" running 2560 x 1600@60hz with Vsync. There is no going back. I can't stand gaming on monitors under 24" The screen is just so small!! :p

I prefer a Vsynced LCD over anything. As long as the FPS stays at 60 I am good. Tearing drives me nuts, and I'll take a slower Vsynced refresh rate over it any day. I generally keep a fast enough system that I can play most things pinned at 60 at my native.
Click to expand...

Best thing I read in this thread. I love my 3007 and it's perfect for me with Vsync enabled. Wouldn't change it for anything else right now.
 
I thought that hz wasnt an issue with LCD because the picture didn't refreash? It just...updated?:confused: Guess I got lied to.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top