![[H]ard|Forum](/styles/hardforum/xenforo/logo_dark.png){kind=logo}
response time VS refresh rate
- Thread starter cjm18
- Start date
BillLeeLee
[H]F Junkie
- Joined
- Jul 2, 2003
- Messages
- 13,486
In simple terms:
If your refresh rate (CRT) is 60 Hz, that means your monitor is capable of 60 FPS.
Same thing with LCDs I believe.
However, if you disable vertical sync, then it doesn't matter and you can have a frame rate higher than refresh/response rate, though you might notice stuff like tearing.
If your refresh rate (CRT) is 60 Hz, that means your monitor is capable of 60 FPS.
Same thing with LCDs I believe.
However, if you disable vertical sync, then it doesn't matter and you can have a frame rate higher than refresh/response rate, though you might notice stuff like tearing.
i read somewhere that viewsonics dont ghost as much and that the 25ms response time on this monitor did better than the 25 ms on other monitors...this was at tomshardware i think in a comparison of like 8 lcd monitors
in doom 3 i have tearing when VSYNC is off
so that means im getting more fps than the refresh rate of 60 . ... This also means response time has no bearing on fps? but yet ppl say i cant play movies faster than 40fps
is the 25ms response time a MAX or an avg
in doom 3 i have tearing when VSYNC is off
so that means im getting more fps than the refresh rate of 60 . ... This also means response time has no bearing on fps? but yet ppl say i cant play movies faster than 40fpsis the 25ms response time a MAX or an avg
Synful Serenity
[H]ard|Gawd
- Joined
- Jun 4, 2004
- Messages
- 1,256
It's definitely not a max...in fact it's closer to a minimum. Usually the max response time is 3 to 4 times rated ms for the worst cases. I'm not sure of your monitor's exact measurement standards, but even so the difference between manufacturers is annoying, with a 25ms display being able to outperform some 16ms displays. It's not an exact number, so treat it as more of an average, though its not really computed as an average. Basically, keep in mind there will be variance.
Manufacturers do their best to make the numbers seem as fast as possible, at the expense of accuracy (and relevancy). I think its a big disservice to buyers, and makes understanding relative performance of monitors unnecessarily difficult. Because of this, people will believe that all 12ms monitors outperform all 16ms monitors, and that a 16ms screen will have no blurring at 60fps because they think the 16ms is an exact number, when in fact in most real-world use you will probably be getting a lot less than that, and you won't be able to achieve 60 distinct (meaning no trace of the previous frame into the next) frames a second. The upside to this though is that some people don't notice this, and they will be satisfied. That's why it's important to see the displays for yourself . The 8ms Benq display was tested and found to have a response time of about 24ms in some cases, with the 8ms being attained in a single-digit percentage of cases. The average value across all transistions was about 20ms.
To truly use an average such as this would be much more useful but since people are already used to hearing 12ms and such, they would not swallow such an across the board decrease in rating, even though the display's actual performance would be the same!
It's kind of like how car manufacturers release next year's models earlier and earlier in the current year, sometimes near the beginning, when in fact it would be more accurate to say it was the current year's model. But people like to think of their cars as newer than they are. It's all marketing!
Manufacturers do their best to make the numbers seem as fast as possible, at the expense of accuracy (and relevancy). I think its a big disservice to buyers, and makes understanding relative performance of monitors unnecessarily difficult. Because of this, people will believe that all 12ms monitors outperform all 16ms monitors, and that a 16ms screen will have no blurring at 60fps because they think the 16ms is an exact number, when in fact in most real-world use you will probably be getting a lot less than that, and you won't be able to achieve 60 distinct (meaning no trace of the previous frame into the next) frames a second. The upside to this though is that some people don't notice this, and they will be satisfied. That's why it's important to see the displays for yourself . The 8ms Benq display was tested and found to have a response time of about 24ms in some cases, with the 8ms being attained in a single-digit percentage of cases. The average value across all transistions was about 20ms.
To truly use an average such as this would be much more useful but since people are already used to hearing 12ms and such, they would not swallow such an across the board decrease in rating, even though the display's actual performance would be the same!
It's kind of like how car manufacturers release next year's models earlier and earlier in the current year, sometimes near the beginning, when in fact it would be more accurate to say it was the current year's model. But people like to think of their cars as newer than they are. It's all marketing!
omg, synful have u ever thought of preaching? cuz i just realized im a consumer whore from ur post, but theres nothing i can do about it, haha. but couldnt the same arguement be used against 25ms lcds? i know theres a decrepency, but couldnt 25 ms lcds have an average of say 40 ms? i think that as long as u keep to the same scale (granted not everyone plays by the rules) you'll be fine...
thank u for your replies, so is this a true statment? so w. my 25ms response time, i can get more than 40fps but there will be ghosting .. which is defined as disapearing pixels(in fact when i move my mouse really fast on the desktop. the dark black becomes a lil lighter ).....as opposed to crts that have trails of pixels
Synful Serenity
[H]ard|Gawd
- Joined
- Jun 4, 2004
- Messages
- 1,256
Think of ghosting as extreme blurring...caused by the fact that part or all of the pixels on the screen are still in transition to the current frame's color by the time the next frame is due to be drawn. So technically its still a blur, but it's slow enough to cause a visible afterimage. The dropout with the arrow you talked about is a consequence of the fact that ghosting and blur is a screen-wide issue. People tend to think of ghosting as trails, but that's not the whole truth. When you move the cursor across the screen really fast, it will indeed look like it's leaving a trail. But as you move the arrow, once the arrow hits the next row of pixels, those pixels never have time to change completely to the arrows color before the arrow passes over it, so the stationary part of the screen at any given time in front of the arrow is also leaving a trail on the arrow! As for the CRTs, the phosphor persistence is artificially kept higher to cut down on flicker. Otherwise, they individually have a response time in billionths of a second. The nature of phosphor decay makes any trailing quite indistinct, and is mostly observable where there is light movement in dark areas. Because the rise time is so fast, at all times the arrow is clear and distinct no matter how fast you move it. In LCDs the most current image of the arrow will not appear fully due to the slow rise time. The speed of a CRT could allow for thousands of frames a second without blurring if supporting hardware such as the video card could do it.
It all depends on your eyes whether you will see ghosting at 60fps on your LCD, but since people have noticed ghosting and blur on the 2001fp, which is considered among the fastest displays out now, then I would say the answer is yes. You might not notice it though....but the chances are greater that you would since it is a slower display.
But I would rephrase the question...You can't treat the 25ms as an exact number and arrive at 40 frames a second. In fact, if you notice ghosting at 60fps on this monitor, I wouldn't be surprised if you noticed it at 40fps also. The average response time for all color transistions is certainly going to be less than 25ms. But again, it might not be too bad if that 25ms was a conservative estimate. That's pretty much what I've been saying...the LCD makers are exceedingly liberal with their ratings.
It all depends on your eyes whether you will see ghosting at 60fps on your LCD, but since people have noticed ghosting and blur on the 2001fp, which is considered among the fastest displays out now, then I would say the answer is yes. You might not notice it though....but the chances are greater that you would since it is a slower display.
But I would rephrase the question...You can't treat the 25ms as an exact number and arrive at 40 frames a second. In fact, if you notice ghosting at 60fps on this monitor, I wouldn't be surprised if you noticed it at 40fps also. The average response time for all color transistions is certainly going to be less than 25ms. But again, it might not be too bad if that 25ms was a conservative estimate. That's pretty much what I've been saying...the LCD makers are exceedingly liberal with their ratings.