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

OEM said:
I thought that hz wasnt an issue with LCD because the picture didn't refreash? It just...updated?:confused: Guess I got lied to.
Click to expand...

flicker because of a low refresh isn't an issue with LCDs. LCD's pixels stay the same state until they're "told" to change. CRT's use phosphors which immediately start fading after they're lit up. If the CRT doesn't refresh fast enough that fading will appear to be a flicker.
 
Gatticus said:
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..
Click to expand...

Not true whatsoever. There are plenty of panels with low response times, i.e. 8ms and lower, that are not 6-bit TN panels. S-IPS panels, like the one used in the NEC 20WMGX2 come to mind, for instance.
 
korrupted-drk- said:
Not true whatsoever. There are plenty of panels with low response times, i.e. 8ms and lower, that are not 6-bit TN panels. S-IPS panels, like the one used in the NEC 20WMGX2 come to mind, for instance.
Click to expand...

I thought S-IPS panels still had 11-14ms response times (although that's still pretty quick)
 
LCD's are doing pretty much the same thing as CRT's when it comes to refresh rate. At 60Hz, both are drawing to the screen 60 times every second, so both suffer the exact same side effects such as tearing.

The main advantage CRT's have is the ability to refresh at higher than 60Hz, partly due to the display technology, but also because they aren't restricted by the DVI spec.

LCD's have the additional complication of response time, which basically means how long it takes for a single refresh to actually appear on your screen. Even CRT's have response times, its just such a small number that no human being can percieve it. (probably like, millionths of a second or something like that).

Other than these things, there aren't really any differences between the way that CRT's and LCD's are drawing information to your screen.


Oh, and let me add that I have practically stopped playing FPS games ever since getting my LCD... I think its because of the HUGE difference I notice in loss of fluidity and responsiveness compared to playing the games on my CRT.
 
ryan_975 said:
I thought S-IPS panels still had 11-14ms response times (although that's still pretty quick)
Click to expand...

The newest IPS panels from LG.Phillips, at least the one used in the NEC 20WMGX2, is 6ms.
 
ryan_975 said:
Cool, I didn't know. Didn't mean any offense.
Click to expand...

It's all good. Just gotta make sure blanket statements (like the one I origianlly quoted) are true if you're gonna make em. :p

I can see where people get things like how the refresh rate of an LCD works vs the refresh rate of a CRT, because LCD tech has a lot of shit to keep up on, and is changing so quickly. Yes the drawing on a CRT vs LCD is similar, but the main difference that's worthy of noting is that at 60hz most people get headaches/eye strain from a CRT, where that same effect is not present on an LCD considering the difference in how the two draw an image on your screen.

That being said, I like vsync in games where it doesn't eat my FPS, but it's not needed in all games IMO. Although tearing is definately more noticable on an LCD, for sure. That being said, I could go for a higher refresh rating merely for the fact that it won't lock my max FPS @ 60 hz. I think we'll need a new connector for this, however. Especially considering that higher resolutions are becoming more popular, and are only going up in the number of total pixels.
 
korrupted-drk- said:
Not true whatsoever. There are plenty of panels with low response times, i.e. 8ms and lower, that are not 6-bit TN panels. S-IPS panels, like the one used in the NEC 20WMGX2 come to mind, for instance.
Click to expand...

How many gamers can afford S-IPS panels? Most people are using 6bit panels, whether they realize it or not.
 
Gatticus said:
How many gamers can afford S-IPS panels? Most people are using 6bit panels, whether they realize it or not.
Click to expand...

Looking at the hardware a lot of people on this forum run in their sigs, quite a lot can afford and S-IPS panel, I'm sure. And I can't say I see your point. I was correcting a false statement.

Not everyone labeled as a "gamer" is poor or can't afford an S-IPS panel. Being a gamer doesn't automatically make you poor, or young and unable to support yourself.
 
I agree with what was said before me. If you look at the sigs of what people at least claim to be running, there are a lot of people on these forums who have a lot of money. Look at some of the 3 and 4 grand systems that many are running and how often they change out parts. Sure, you always have that income from selling as you buy, but in most cases you pay more than you make with the way electronics run these days.

Just my two cents.
 
OK, lets do it this way then. If a poll was taken of people using 6bit or 8bit LCD monitors I expect the majority will be 6bit. Most fast response time LCD's, that gamers are buying, are 6bit. Whether they be rich or not.
 
Gatticus said:
OK, lets do it this way then. If a poll was taken of people using 6bit or 8bit LCD monitors I expect the majority will be 6bit. Most fast response time LCD's, that gamers are buying, are 6bit. Whether they be rich or not.
Click to expand...

Uhhh, wrong. I run an 8 bit panel and have been since last year. Gamers know the quality increase from a 6bit to a 8bit panel, wether or not that quality sways them towards purchasing one is a personal preference depending on demand
 
TN Film has been updated to 8 bit now. It's true that TN is still cheaper, but it now supports proper color depths.

SIPS is actually lagging behind when it comes to black levels compared to PVA and MVA. Also for whatever reason, a 2ms TN panel does not always look faster (i.e. display any less tearing / ghosting) than a 6ms P-MVA panel.

Here's a recent article on LCD technologies for those that care:
http://www.tftcentral.co.uk/articles/20inch_roundup.htm

As to the question who can afford SIPS - some of the Dells use SIPS panels (or their current variants), and they are among the cheaper LCD choices (compared to competing monitors of the same size).
 
sethk said:
T

As to the question who can afford SIPS - some of the Dells use SIPS panels (or their current variants), and they are among the cheaper LCD choices (compared to competing monitors of the same size).
Click to expand...

The sacrifice in return however is quality control.
 
I love my 21" flat screen CRT, 1600x1200 @ 85Hz. I for one, don't see myself getting an LCD unless of course, there is a tremendous sale on like 20"+ LCD's.
 
ajm786 said:
CRT @ 100hz+ refresh with Vsync ENABLED. Once you go there, no going back.
Click to expand...
Q-F-F***ing-T

Playing CS 1.6, best competition game IMO (I do play source too) at 100fps on a crt with 100Hz and vsync ENABLED is AMAZIMGLY smooth, like silky smooth, it doesnt compare to anything else. I would play with 75Hz vsync enabled on my LCD (easier on my eyes, thats why I have one), but 75fps makes your mouse sensativity different and it feels wierd and is harder to aim after playing with 100fps. So i disabled vsync and put up with tearing and play with 100fps.
 
biohazard_nz said:
Q-F-F***ing-T

Playing CS 1.6, best competition game IMO (I do play source too) at 100fps on a crt with 100Hz and vsync ENABLED is AMAZIMGLY smooth, like silky smooth, it doesnt compare to anything else. I would play with 75Hz vsync enabled on my LCD (easier on my eyes, thats why I have one), but 75fps makes your mouse sensativity different and it feels wierd and is harder to aim after playing with 100fps. So i disabled vsync and put up with tearing and play with 100fps.
Click to expand...


You can adjust your mouse polling rate and get better mouse accuracy (in most cases), just be aware that saome gaming leagues frown upon it (if you game in a league/clan)

Check your current USB mouse polling rate with the mouserate checker: http://tscherwitschke.de/download.html

USB mouserate enhanced driver:
http://sweetlow.at.tut.by/download/hidusbf.zip
 
Coldtronius said:
Uhhh, wrong. I run an 8 bit panel and have been since last year. Gamers know the quality increase from a 6bit to a 8bit panel, wether or not that quality sways them towards purchasing one is a personal preference depending on demand
Click to expand...

And you are representative of the average gamer? HardOCP forum users are not representative of what most people buy or have bought. People don't buy a new LCD every year so the majority are still on older 6bit panels.
 
biohazard_nz said:
I would play with 75Hz vsync enabled on my LCD (easier on my eyes, thats why I have one), but 75fps makes your mouse sensativity different and it feels wierd and is harder to aim after playing with 100fps.
Click to expand...

This is the big kicker in framerate, when talking about an FPS. It isn't just what you see, it is how much smoother your movement is, how much smoother a panning visual is, etc.

I've probably tried to explain that 100 times on forums to the goobers who like to say, "but the human eye can only detect blah blah blah blah blah".

Close my eyes, I can't detect anything, but I can still make a smoother snap-180 turn at 100fps than I can at 60fps.
 
sethk said:
SIPS is actually lagging behind when it comes to black levels compared to PVA and MVA. Also for whatever reason, a 2ms TN panel does not always look faster (i.e. display any less tearing / ghosting) than a 6ms P-MVA panel.
Click to expand...

The latest S-IPS panel from LG.Phillips, AS-IPS is actually pretty damn sharp when it comes to black levels. They make one statement about black levels in that article vs PVA but they note that it "doesn't quite" have the same black levels as a PVA panel. I'd hardly call that statement "lagging," especially since I've used panels of both types. It is significantly better than past S-IPS panels.

And in regards to the comments about how HardOCP people are not indicative of an "average gamer," it doesn't really matter where you go. Gamers almost always tend to have better, faster machines than the average consumer, and are additionally willing to pay more for hardware, in order to play the latest games at the best quality they can afford. Gamers tend to pay more, hands down.
 
I am no monitor expert, but windows likes to default my refresh rate from 75 to 60 on occasion, and I can tell the difference every time. Call me a liar, call me a n00b, but sometimes I exit a game from full screen and I notice my mouse is choppy, or windows move choppy. Never fails, whenever I notice this phenomenon and open display properties, it is set on 60hz and I switch it back. Problem vanishes. Even my LCD manual says the monitor has two types of refresh rates. Who should I believe? Me and the manufacturer of my monitor, or you strangers?

:p
 
My LCD does 85mhz. Must be the DVI connection that allows that? Or is it because it is a 8ms LCD?

ccc85hz.JPG
 
Met-AL said:
My LCD does 85mhz. Must be the DVI connection that allows that? Or is it because it is a 8ms LCD?

http://www.iw.net/~dwagner/screenshots/ccc85hz.JPG
Click to expand...

According to the specs the VA1912 series are a rare beast, supporting higher than the usual 60hz even on the DVI input - although it's unclear wether that's actually true. You show a shot of the CCC display information panel where it is reporting the max detected refresh rate... question is are you actually running 85hz @ 1440x900?

If so enjoy it. :) If you have a nice video card you should enable vsync and enjoy some smooth and tear free gaming.

1440x900 @ 85hz still falls slightly under the max bandwidth that a single link DVI connection can handle, so it's perfecrly plausable.
 
I dont think it the above posters monitor is actually running at 85 Hz because when i force 85 Hz in windows it says that it is running at 85 Hz, but on the actual LCD GUI is still says 75 - and games with vsync still cap at 75Hz :(

So that person who posted that pic should look at what the actual LCD gui says ;) :)
 
I used a Dell 2405FPW for about 7 months. Switched to a Sony 24" FW900 CRT. Much better for games.
 
Blue Falcon said:
You can adjust your mouse polling rate and get better mouse accuracy (in most cases), just be aware that saome gaming leagues frown upon it (if you game in a league/clan)

Check your current USB mouse polling rate with the mouserate checker: http://tscherwitschke.de/download.html

USB mouserate enhanced driver:
http://sweetlow.at.tut.by/download/hidusbf.zip
Click to expand...


Although this helps a bit, it is miniscule at best. It doesn't make that much of a difference. I run my USB polling rate at 1000hz, with my Copperhead at 1000hz, or even with both at 500Hz, and it doesn't help me that much.

This is why I cannot use an LCD that has less than 75Hz, because that's what I'm seeing as the max these days for most 19inch LCDs, anyway. Unfortunately, most, if not all, newer LCDs cap out at 60Hz, especially the larger ones like the 20 inchers.

I totally lost my edge in UT2004 when I switched from a CRT to an LCD. I was running my CRT at 120hz w/Vsync ENABLED (but on LAN it's capped to 85hz anyway). I moved to an LCD with 75Hz, Vsync ENABLED (disabled causes horrible tearing), and it took 1.5 years to regain the lost edge.

This is why I cannot wait to get my hands on an LCD like the NEC 20incher, albeit with a higher refresh rate. That would be killer.

Edit: I think this is what we're looking for!!!

http://www.behardware.com/html/news/cat22/page3.html#8049
 
biohazard_nz said:
I dont think it the above posters monitor is actually running at 85 Hz because when i force 85 Hz in windows it says that it is running at 85 Hz, but on the actual LCD GUI is still says 75 - and games with vsync still cap at 75Hz :(

So that person who posted that pic should look at what the actual LCD gui says ;) :)
Click to expand...

I shall check that out tonight. Also, Windows says that the monitor is running at 85mhz in the monitor's display properties. The options are 60hz, 75hz, and 85hz. I'll see what the LCD's OSD says tonight when I get home.
 
Yea the refresh rate sucks.

Alot of you people don't realize, with VSync enabled, if your PC can't meet 60FPS, you are down to 30FPS! With higher refresh rates, this could be 40fps, or even 50fps.
 
jAkUp said:
Yea the refresh rate sucks.

Alot of you people don't realize, with VSync enabled, if your PC can't meet 60FPS, you are down to 30FPS! With higher refresh rates, this could be 40fps, or even 50fps.
Click to expand...


Well only if you are a goombah and don't enable triple buffering. :)
 
I gotta go with "just dont give a fuck" crowd. I still game just fine on my 2000FP. Yeah, its like 24ms, but it runs 16x12@60 just fine and Ive never noticed tearing, with or without vsync on.
 
Blue Falcon said:
Well only if you are a goombah and don't enable triple buffering. :)
Click to expand...
AKAIF triple buffering only works for OpenGL not DirectX :(. But its better than nothing. Go NVidia
 
B. W. said:
Some of you guys might be getting what you wished for.
Click to expand...

I'm wondering if input lag was killed with this new tech. Hopefully they'll have LCD monitors with this new tech. Right now I have a hitachi superscan 813 21". I game at 1400x1050 which is about the highest custom resolution I can use at 100hz

But I also picked that res cause at 100hz I get zero moire affect. I discovered that by accident the resolution and resfresh rate combos can make moire dissapear.

Anyway for now i'm waiting for LCD tech to get extremely close to CRT. Whats keep me away is basically several things. contrast ratio (think highest is 1000:1), input lag, refresh rates. I'm very sensitive to small things and I know if I got an LCD now i'd be returning it a week later.
 
Amazong, 120hz LCD, sounds like my kind of LCD!

Now, only if they can make it CHEAPER! :eek:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top