Refresh rate

L

lee63

Gawd
Joined
Jul 4, 2005
Messages
657
Im using the monitor in my sig for gaming it is set at 60hz, can I set the refresh rate higher ? if so how will it improve my gaming? I have always left the refresh rate alone but I have seen other people bumping it up, is that ok to do on a LCD?

Thanx in advance :D
 
Most everything I've read says it will not change anything. The LCD does not have a "refresh rate" like a CRT. I believe the refresh rate option is still there because it is a part of the "VGA spec" or something like that.
 
lee63 said:
Im using the monitor in my sig for gaming it is set at 60hz, can I set the refresh rate higher ? if so how will it improve my gaming? I have always left the refresh rate alone but I have seen other people bumping it up, is that ok to do on a LCD?
Click to expand...

You can adjust refresh but your responce time is 16ms which means at the best your monitor will show 62.5fps, so setting refresh higher than that is useless...
 
J-Mag said:
You can adjust refresh but your responce time is 16ms which means at the best your monitor will show 62.5fps, so setting refresh higher than that is useless...
Click to expand...

Some interesting math indeed, but my .25ms monitor seems to have no problem displaying 145 FPS at all. Strangely, it doesn’t ghost either.

You need to get out more and see different things and how they work.

And on yeah, why published specs mean nothing
 
BillR,
Your video card may be rendering 145fps, but the LCD is not actually outputting than many FPS.
 
Thanx for the replys :D now Im confused even more, I guess I will just mess with it and see ;)
 
Keetha said:
Most everything I've read says it will not change anything. The LCD does not have a "refresh rate" like a CRT. I believe the refresh rate option is still there because it is a part of the "VGA spec" or something like that.
Click to expand...


For some reason my does. I have a 2005 fpw and agp 6800 ultra and i can set the refresh rate to 60hz or 75 hz. 75hz seems to be better and I notice less blur while playing fast action games. I just go to my video setting, (right click desktop, property, setting, advance, montior refresh rate, click the box, It gave me 2 options) and change it.
 
BillR said:
Some interesting math indeed, but my .25ms monitor seems to have no problem displaying 145 FPS at all. Strangely, it doesn’t ghost either.

You need to get out more and see different things and how they work.
Click to expand...

Uhh... I need to get out more and you need a brain transplant.

there are NO (LCD) monitors with 0.25ms responce time. It is actually 25.0ms.

Were you home schooled or just not schooled at all?

Basics:
1sec = 1000ms
1000/25 = 40
Your monitor can display up to 40 frames a second.
 
Keetha said:
BillR,
Your video card may be rendering 145fps, but the LCD is not actually outputting than many FPS.
Click to expand...

Nope, at 25. ms the max it can out put is 40 FPS, but with no smear and no blur it does fool the eye.

The new 4. ms panels will in fact be able to do 250 true FPS, which is fact is faster then even the fastest gamer needs or can use.

Little white paper from View Sonic to read:

http://www.viewsonic.com/pdf/wp_4msResponseTime050205.pdf
 
J-Mag said:
Uhh... I need to get out more and you need a brain transplant.

there are NO (LCD) monitors with 0.25ms responce time. It is actually 25.0ms.

Were you home schooled or just not schooled at all?

Basics:
1sec = 1000ms
1000/25 = 40
Your monitor can display up to 40 frames a second.
Click to expand...

Sorry for the misplaced decimal point. Unlike you I'm not perfect, I do and can make mistakes.
 
BillR said:
Sorry for the misplaced decimal point. Unlike you I'm not perfect, I do and can make mistakes.
Click to expand...

Next time don't chime in when you don't know what you are talking about. Maybe you get out TOO much...
 
J-Mag said:
Next time don't chime in when you don't know what you are talking about. Maybe you get out TOO much...
Click to expand...

It’s a funny thing. Some people come here to learn and some come for other reasons.

You have now entered troll status, a person from whom no good useful information emanates.

You in your anonymity use a place like this to “be right” and shoot your mouth off all the while contributing nothing of value, except using this opportunity to further inflate your own ego.

Come back and talk to me when you have over 35 years in this business and when you have made no mistakes or given out any misinformation in any way shape or form.

By the way the word is not “responce” its “response”, see even you make mistakes.
 
Keetha is incorrect.
A LCD DOES refresh otherwise you would not see a new image. Refresh is simply the number of times per second a new image is drawn or requested by the MONITOR. For LCDs the refresh rate can be lower because the screen never goes blank, therefore, no flicker. Unfortunately, when it comes to fast moving graphics, a higer refresh helps providing more images per second so that the movement appears smoother.

Jmag is correct.
If your response rate is 16ms, your display is limited to 62 frames per second anyway.

Math: 1 second/ .016 seconds = 62

Therefore, a refresh rate of 60hz is adequate for your monitor and any increase will reap no benefit. As a side note, a monitor with a true response rate of 12ms can provide 83.3 frames per second.



SOLUTION:
The goal is to have all variables equal to or greater than 75 frames per second.
Do some research and find a monitor that can sustain a response rate of 12ms for the entire spectrum of grey to grey and black to white. The monitor should also have a refresh of 75 hz. Plus you graphics card needs to push over 75 frames per second at all times for whatever game you're playing. Meet those requirements and you'll be gaming at AN OBSERVED 75 frames per second. Fall short in any of those requirements and you'll be seeing a bottleneck.

Hope this clears it up.
 
DocWonder said:
SOLUTION:
Do some research and find a monitor that can sustain a response rate of 12ms for the entire spectrum of grey to grey and black to white. The monitor should also have a refresh of 75 hz. Plus you graphics card needs to push over 75 frames per second at all times for whatever game you're playing. Meet those requirements and you'll be gaming at AN OBSERVED 75 frames per second. Fall short in any of those requirements and you'll be seeing a bottleneck.
Click to expand...

The question is though: Which manufacturer actually states the true black to white response time, when shady marketing Gurus are involved...
 
hence the research... plenty of reviewers of LCD monitors provide a graph for the full specturm response rate for a LCD.

The real question is: Is 75 frames per second good enough?
 
DocWonder said:
hence the research... plenty of reviewers of LCD monitors provide a graph for the full specturm response rate for a LCD.
Click to expand...

Do you have a preference for a review site that does this?
 
DocWonder said:
Keetha is incorrect.
A LCD DOES refresh otherwise you would not see a new image. Refresh is simply the number of times per second a new image is drawn or requested by the MONITOR. For LCDs the refresh rate can be lower because the screen never goes blank, therefore, no flicker. Unfortunately, when it comes to fast moving graphics, a higer refresh helps providing more images per second so that the movement appears smoother.

Jmag is correct.
If your response rate is 16ms, your display is limited to 62 frames per second anyway.

Math: 1 second/ .016 seconds = 62

Therefore, a refresh rate of 60hz is adequate for your monitor and any increase will reap no benefit. As a side note, a monitor with a true response rate of 12ms can provide 83.3 frames per second.



SOLUTION:
The goal is to have all variables equal to or greater than 75 frames per second.
Do some research and find a monitor that can sustain a response rate of 12ms for the entire spectrum of grey to grey and black to white. The monitor should also have a refresh of 75 hz. Plus you graphics card needs to push over 75 frames per second at all times for whatever game you're playing. Meet those requirements and you'll be gaming at AN OBSERVED 75 frames per second. Fall short in any of those requirements and you'll be seeing a bottleneck.

Hope this clears it up.
Click to expand...
Thanx for your response :D So basicly I should leave my response at 60 hz. And I can never see more than 62 fps even though my cards render alot more. 62 fps is more than enough for gaming and Im very happy with my LCD. Thanx guys :D
 
Dude, what you need to do is go get a friggin new monitor! Look at your damn specs! You got a damn sli configuration that can spit out oodles of framerates, yet your using a piss poor gaming monitor b/c it can only render images at 60 frames per second.

That's what i'm saying. LOL!
 
BillR said:
That’s a damn nice Monitor; I had the chance to play with one the other day, pretty impressive.

That being said, do yourself a favor, don’t bother wasting “facts” in this thread, so far they seem to have no bearing on anything, as you may have previously read :rolleyes: ;)
Click to expand...
Thanx man ;)
 
This has been talked about to death, but that's alright, it's worth repeating.
There is no such thing as a uniform response in an LCD. Depending on what colors the pixels are going to and from, the time to completely change from 1 color to the next will not be constant. For some combinations, it could take even 3 times as long as rated. One example is the 8ms Benq display, which did achieve its theoretical 8ms, but only in less than 10% of color transitions. It actually averaged 20ms over its entire range, which meant that in typical use, the screen would be able to fully render up to 50 screen refreshes without blurring. Of course, since its speed isn't constant, if most of what was being displayed on the screen were color changes that were closer to its max speed, then it might be able to average 10ms or so in that instance, giving the ability to refresh the screen 100 times without blurring. Similarly, if most of what was being displayed on the screen were the colors that take the longest to change over, it could end up being 25ms. Being that the 8ms is achieved under 10% of the time, chances are you would be getting closer to 20ms than 8ms in most games. This trend also holds for all the LCDs at 8ms and below so far. In fact, 6ms displays were shown to be only marginally faster than the 8ms ones because, like the 8ms displays, they hit their rated 6ms a small portion of the time, and performed nearly the same as the 8ms displays the rest of the time. However, if you consider that the 16ms displays of a year or 2 ago were hitting 40+ms at times, they have scaled up quite nicely. So if your 8ms LCD is only managing 20ms in a certain game, and you're running it at 60fps with the screen set to 60Hz, you probably won't notice lag unless you have fast eyes, because that's not too far above what the screen is capable of. That also means that since no LCD today fully takes advantage of 60Hz 100% of the time - yet - until a monitor is released with a sustained response time of 14ms or below, there's no real need to run an LCD at 75Hz. Besides, since the pixels are always on, 60Hz will appear smoother on an LCD than a CRT.

One more thing that is often overlooked in rating an LCD is the consistency of its response time. If one LCD is slower by a few ms than another, but the display responds at roughly close to the same speed for most color transistions, that is preferable to one that is slightly faster overall, but has wide variations in its response time depending on the colors involved (i.e. a relatively stable 15 ms average, rather than jumping from 6ms to 18ms to 10ms to 21ms, etc, to average 12ms). The less stable display could produce patches of muddied blurry messes, or at the very least variations in color during movement, with the rest of the screen looking sharp as day. I noticed this myself before playing a FPS that had a lot of gray. The parts of the screen in the middle that were moving tended towards brown during fast movement. But I would imagine most higher-end LCDs don't do this. Also keep your eyes open if these Viewsonic 4ms displays are what they claim to be. Then you could really pump up the refresh!
 
Synful Serenity said:
This has been talked about to death, but that's alright, it's worth repeating.
There is no such thing as a uniform response in an LCD. Depending on what colors the pixels are going to and from, the time to completely change from 1 color to the next will not be constant. For some combinations, it could take even 3 times as long as rated. One example is the 8ms Benq display, which did achieve its theoretical 8ms, but only in less than 10% of color transitions. It actually averaged 20ms over its entire range, which meant that in typical use, the screen would be able to fully render up to 50 screen refreshes without blurring. Of course, since its speed isn't constant, if most of what was being displayed on the screen were color changes that were closer to its max speed, then it might be able to average 10ms or so in that instance, giving the ability to refresh the screen 100 times without blurring. Similarly, if most of what was being displayed on the screen were the colors that take the longest to change over, it could end up being 25ms. Being that the 8ms is achieved under 10% of the time, chances are you would be getting closer to 20ms than 8ms in most games. This trend also holds for all the LCDs at 8ms and below so far. In fact, 6ms displays were shown to be only marginally faster than the 8ms ones because, like the 8ms displays, they hit their rated 6ms a small portion of the time, and performed nearly the same as the 8ms displays the rest of the time. However, if you consider that the 16ms displays of a year or 2 ago were hitting 40+ms at times, they have scaled up quite nicely. So if your 8ms LCD is only managing 20ms in a certain game, and you're running it at 60fps with the screen set to 60Hz, you probably won't notice lag unless you have fast eyes, because that's not too far above what the screen is capable of. That also means that since no LCD today fully takes advantage of 60Hz 100% of the time - yet - until a monitor is released with a sustained response time of 14ms or below, there's no real need to run an LCD at 75Hz. Besides, since the pixels are always on, 60Hz will appear smoother on an LCD than a CRT.

One more thing that is often overlooked in rating an LCD is the consistency of its response time. If one LCD is slower by a few ms than another, but the display responds at roughly close to the same speed for most color transistions, that is preferable to one that is slightly faster overall, but has wide variations in its response time depending on the colors involved (i.e. a relatively stable 15 ms average, rather than jumping from 6ms to 18ms to 10ms to 21ms, etc, to average 12ms). The less stable display could produce patches of muddied blurry messes, or at the very least variations in color during movement, with the rest of the screen looking sharp as day. I noticed this myself before playing a FPS that had a lot of gray. The parts of the screen in the middle that were moving tended towards brown during fast movement. But I would imagine most higher-end LCDs don't do this. Also keep your eyes open if these Viewsonic 4ms displays are what they claim to be. Then you could really pump up the refresh!
Click to expand...
Wow thanx, I guess that answers my question. thanx for yor time :D
 
I'm kind of wrong, sorry. CRT refresh (85Hz or w/e you have it set at) means the CRT is redrawing the image 85 times per second. LCD refresh (60Hz or w/e you have it set at) does not mean the image is being drawn 60 times per second. The pixels are the one doing the drawing, and they have a set speed depending on the color it is and the color it is going to (the latency, 25ms for example). That's what I was trying to say.
 
lee63 said:
Im using the monitor in my sig for gaming it is set at 60hz, can I set the refresh rate higher ? if so how will it improve my gaming? I have always left the refresh rate alone but I have seen other people bumping it up, is that ok to do on a LCD?

Thanx in advance :D
Click to expand...

Flat-panel displays are brighter than CRT displays and many argue that they're sharper. And because they run at a slower refresh rate, the age-old CRT flicker problem is almost non-existent on LCDs. What, you say? Slower refresh rates battle the flicker problem? On flat-panels, yes. This is because the liquid crystal molecules have a dampening effect on flicker, and thus higher refresh rates aren't necessary. For those of you who spend hours upon hours in front of your monitor, this could mean a much less stressful viewing experience.

(got the above info at ars Technica)
 
No, the reason LCDs have no flicker is because the screen isn't being constantly redrawn. On a CRT set at 60hz, the image is completely redrawn 60 times per second, even when dealing with static images. Most people will notice this, and notice the flickering as it's redrawn. On LCDs, the pixels are always on, and don't "refresh", just change color when needed, therefor eliminating any kind of flickering like CRTs.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top