120hz vs 60hz

F

FatMom

n00b
Joined
Mar 15, 2009
Messages
34
I have asked this on a few other places and some users and I can't still make my mind.

Is it true, that a game running at 60fps will look smoother on a 120hz samsung/viewsonic display (not hdtv) than a standard 60hz display (can be either LCD monitor or LCD/PLASMA hdtv)

so far, its about 50/50 yes no.

My initial choice was buying a panasonic plasma since they handle motion blur MUCH better than lcd (dont even bother replying that you dont notice blur on your lcd) BUT now we have theses true 120hz monitor that have half the blur.

I'm all about gaming experience, I dont give a **** about movies and I dont even watch the tv. Some games like quake3, css and dods will calculate your physic with your framerate, while other like tf2 and l4d wont(its the same engine, but they made change).

I almost only play tf2 and l4d, so, if the 120hz dont make anything look more fluid unless you actually play at 120fps, then my choice will be the plasma.

exemple: you could jump higher in quake3 with 120fps and css/dods play so much better at 100fps. I can't stand playing without vsync, I always found vsync to smooth things alot.
 
It should appear much smoother over all at 60 fps doing 120hz. The main draw of 120hz is deblurring really , but another major plus of it is the lack of input lag due to how fast the entire monitor gets refreshed every second.

Overall if you can't stand the blurry nature of 60hz LCD's and prefer plasma like smoothness than you've already decided on a 120hz monitor.
 
Godmachine said:
It should appear much smoother over all at 60 fps doing 120hz. The main draw of 120hz is deblurring really , but another major plus of it is the lack of input lag due to how fast the entire monitor gets refreshed every second.

Overall if you can't stand the blurry nature of 60hz LCD's and prefer plasma like smoothness than you've already decided on a 120hz monitor.
Click to expand...

But I would prefer a 40+ inch display, however.
 
120hz is ONLY for TV mode. PC mode wont even allow you to change to 120hz on my samsung. It makes no difference whether you get a 60hz or 120hz screen for gaming.
 
FatMom said:
Are you talking about the refresh rates that the plasma INTERNALY refresh? That as nothing to do with the actual rates that the input can accept, wich is 60.
Click to expand...

yeah yeah, I know. I was just making a joke about how everyone is going crazy over specifications they see on TVs and Monitors that say 120hz refresh rates when there are specifications for other monitors for 480hz and 600hz and whatnot.

Like Cruis said, PC connections won't be outputting 120hz
 
Just games? You already answered the question for yourself. Go with a 60hz monitor. Luckily for you, you don't have to deal with an overpriced 120hz display.
 
A 120Hz TV will usually show each frame twice if the input is 60Hz, rendering the whole feature pointless. It doesn't reduce input lag apart from the fact that there's more numbers to round to (e.g. if a 60Hz monitor's input lag fluctuates between 2-3 frames, then a 120Hz one might fluctuate between 2-2.5 frames because anything over 2 gets rounded to 2.5 instead of 3). This is just hypothetical though and 120Hz monitors might not behave like this.

The only times 120Hz is useful over 60Hz are:

a) When using a CRT. My housemate's old 100Hz CRT showed a noticable reduction in flicker when 100Hz was enabled. This would not happen with an LCD/plasma.
b) When using a 120Hz input. AFAIK, no LCDs or plasmas accept 120Hz inputs and no graphics card/CPU combination is capable of playing the latest games at 120hz (when using a decent resolution), so this is a null point.
c) If the monitor actually interpolates between the frames it is given to artificially "upscale" to 120Hz instead of just using frame-doubling. In this case you will get reduced ghosting/motion blur but not everyone would like the effect (you might think it looks unrealistic etc.), especially in games because kind of feature is usually designed for video content.
 
b) When using a 120Hz input. AFAIK, no LCDs or plasmas accept 120Hz inputs and no graphics card/CPU combination is capable of playing the latest games at 120hz (when using a decent resolution), so this is a null point.

This is true for hdtvs BUT NOT PC MONITORS.samsung and viewsonic both have a 22" 120hz lcd monitor wich accept 120hz input, they are DUAL LINK DVI and most newer video card are compatible. its not frame doubling.
 
b) When using a 120Hz input. AFAIK, no LCDs or plasmas accept 120Hz inputs and no graphics card/CPU combination is capable of playing the latest games at 120hz (when using a decent resolution), so this is a null point.

This is true for hdtvs BUT NOT PC MONITORS.samsung and viewsonic both have a 22" 120hz lcd monitor wich accept 120hz input, they are DUAL LINK DVI and most newer video card are compatible. its not frame doubling.
 
Ah yes, if the input and display are both 120Hz then you get smoother motion. I still doubt you can play many modern games at 120fps and ~1920x1200 even with the best graphics cards, in which case Vsync will (should) cap the output to 60Hz anyway.
 
you forgot that the new tv coming out are 240 LOL

fatmon is correct nothing puts out 120 so its the tv pulldowns that determine this
They talked about 120mhz monitors 3 yrs ago and never did anything with it.

basically its a way for them to sell a monitor that they can say will play blu ray movies.
WOOOOOO I can't wait to watch my favorite blue ray movie on a little tiny screen. marketing bs
 
I have a recent Panasonic plasma (42PZ80B) and being the UK model, it is 100Hz not 120Hz.

The 100Hz smoothing works regardless of what material is being watched but the refresh rate must be set to 50Hz. It is compleltely automatic, if using 50Hz, smoothing is applied.
Its pretty easy to tell the difference but it isnt needed/wanted for gaming at 60Hz, as its just great anyway.
There is no 60Hz smoothing on my TV.
I imagine the US sets will either always use the smoothing at 60Hz or you will have the option to turn it off.
These sets have a very good 24p mode for movies (in case anyone wondered :))


If you do not intend to watch TV a lot, do NOT get a plasma as it will burn in without other random image media to smooth out any excess wear.
Dont make the mistake of thinking that image retention wears off if the set isnt used, it does not, it requires other images to be displayed.
Granted you can completely remove some pretty bad image retention if you play only video for a few days but without the video being played, you are looking at a more permanent burn-in situation.

However, if you do watch a lot of video/TV (at least 50/50 Video vs PC), the Panasonic plasmas make for a FANTASTIC gaming experience!!
I use my second monitor (22" CRT) for web browsing, for gaming and video I use the plasma.
Ace combo :)
 
Good luck building a gaming system to game at 120fps at a high resolution.

Know your not talking about it, but the HDTV 120hz frame upscale stuff pretty much only looks good on games lol. It makes you notice too much of the camera movement and draws more attention to the grandiose gestures actors make to overcome the typical frame rates.
 
1680x1050 @ 120Hz isn't too demanding. Well for Crysis and GTA4 perhaps but I doubt ppl interesting in 100Hz+ gaming see that as a problem. :p

I don't know how it works like on the LCDs with 120Hz support but on my CRT the smoothness comes mainly from 100 FPS not 100Hz alone, but it will have to be running at 100Hz in order for 100 FPS to look as smooth as it does of course.
 
I for one would love to see a variable/adaptive refresh rate displays. That way, the output will alway match the source frame for frame.

http://www.freshpatents.com/-dt20081218ptan20080309652.php


PS: For those who are unfamiliar with the concept, let me sum it up in few words. Rather than having fixed refresh rates, where only few source formats are compatible, VRR offers the ability to display the source frame for frame at any given moment.

This particularly useful for gamers as the frame-rate continuously varies. So if a game is rendered between 23-47fps, the motion will not appear smoothly on any fixed refresh-rate displays. Sure, one can enable v-sync, but it only reduces the problem as anything below 60fps is halved to 30fps, and anything below 30fps is halved to 15fps and so on (when the output is 60Hz). So having a GPU and display capable of VRR can really help maintain smooth motion.
 
Last edited:
DragonQ said:
Ah yes, if the input and display are both 120Hz then you get smoother motion. I still doubt you can play many modern games at 120fps and ~1920x1200 even with the best graphics cards, in which case Vsync will (should) cap the output to 60Hz anyway.
Click to expand...
WRONG! Vsync caps the framerate to the graphics card refresh rate. Thus, you're capped at 120Hz, not 60Hz, when you've configured the 120Hz output on the new 22" 120Hz display.

It's already been confirmed; and playing old games (Quake 3 Arena) actually plays silky 120Hz natively at the full resolution on the new 22" monitor, WITH VSYNC ENABLED! Please check your facts...
 
From the experts: It can go both ways!

Easy answer:
60fps on CRT: Usually smoother at 60Hz than 120Hz.
60fps on LCD: Usually smoother at 120Hz than 60Hz.

Long complicated answer:
The reason: If you play 60fps on a CRT, CRT's are so excellent at fluidity at 60Hz due to their response speed and scanned nature -- that repeating frames hurt things (introduces motion blur where there wasn't any). Your frames are repeated twice at 120Hz, and this adds to a slight motion blur (introduces a little "LCD blur" to CRT). Most LCD's always shine the frame continuously, so there's an awful amount of LCD blur at 60Hz.
However, this is not always the case, different factors play against each other, so it is not always consistent:

Now, however, if you play 60fps on a LCD with *VSYNC OFF*, the higher the refresh the graphics card, the smoother the image will be. There are many reasons, read below:

If it takes 3/120th of a second to render a frame, you've gotten a more accurate frame because 3/120th of a second doesn't round cleanly to 1/60th or 2/60th. (This phenomenon actually also happens with VSYNC ON).

Also, you're more likely to see tearing at 60Hz than 120Hz. With the tearing artifact of VSYNC OFF, you're looking at a stationary tearing artifact longer (tearing artifact for that frame shows in the same location for a full 1/60th of a second, rather than only 1/120th of a second). When the graphics card is set at 120Hz, tearing artifacts disappear twice as fast, meaning tearing is half as visible. Tearing artifacts only show with VSYNC OFF, and are especially visible. (Also 60fps with VSYNC OFF is often not consistent, it may fluctuates 55-65fps at 120fps than at exactly 60fps)

Now, if you have VSYNC ON with triple buffering on, the benefits of playing an approx 60fps-limited game at 120fps is more apparent; frames that have been buffered shows up on the display as much as 1/120th of a second faster. This can result in faster reaction times during competition videogaming, for those gamers who really dislike tearing of VSYNC OFF.

Note -- I have worked in the home theater/manufacturing industry. I also wrote a famous 30fps-versus-60fps demo in the year 1992 in MS-DOS (in my Nostagilia Programming section at http://www.marky.com/programming) long before the days of 3D video gaming. It got widely distribut So I've had 17 years of research experience in motion/framerate/flicker/blur relationships. So my knowledge here is pretty real.

See, the dynamics can get quite complex
In the situation of when the game is running less than 120 frames per second

Tearing:
...Better at 120Hz than 60Hz

Stutter (framerate fluctuations):
...Better at 120Hz than 60Hz

VSYNC ON (games that run less than 60fps)
...Better smoothness at 120Hz than 60Hz, since there are more divisors of 120 (...60, 40, 30, 24, 20)

VSYNC ON (games that run above 60fps but less than 120fps)
...Better smoothness at 60Hz than 120Hz, since it runs perfect 60fps at 60Hz, no stutter to worry about.

VSYNC OFF
...Better smoothness at 120Hz than 60Hz (see tearing)

CRT or scanned displays (games that run consistent 60fps)
...Better smoothness at 60Hz than 120Hz (due to less repeated frames, see above)

CRT or scanned displays (games that run above 60fps)
...Better smoothness at 120Hz than 60Hz

LCD or continuously-lit displays subject to motion blur
...Better smoothness at 120Hz than 60Hz

CRT Motion Blur (games running less than 120fps)
...Better at 60Hz than 120Hz

LCD Motion Blur (games running less than 120fps)
...Better at 120Hz than 60Hz

CRT Motion Blur (games running near or more than 120fps)
...Better at 120Hz than 60Hz

Lag Effects (VSYNC OFF)
...Better at 120Hz than 60Hz (reduced lag).

Lag Effects (VSYNC ON)
...Better at 120Hz than 60Hz (reduced lag).
(NOTE: VSYNC OFF will have less lag than VSYNC ON at the same framerate. However, increased framerate can compensate for lag on VSYNC ON. Some have observed VSYNC ON 120Hz has similiar lag as VSYNC OFF 60Hz, for people who are looking for a tough compromise between tearing and lag/stutter. But it depends on the game, your eyes, and your sensitivity to lag and tearing)
_______

I realize these are just short answers, and there are situations that completely negate the answers too (so they aren't gospel either). I can give detailed no-nonsense explanations upon request why the situation happens, and conditions that reverse the situation. Also, when you combine different items, sometimes one item out-compete the other, so the best refresh rate answer is not always easy to come up when we're talking about situations where we're limited to approximately 60fps. You have to fiddle with your monitor to find out what is the best for your eyes for a specific game.

However, at the bottom line, it's pretty universal: If your videogame can run at/exceed 120fps (mostly old videogames only, or tons of horsepower such as Radeon HD 4870x2 at reduced game settings/resolution), then motion quality on native 120Hz displays (non-interpolated) will always outperform 60Hz displays, no matter the VSYNC setting, no matter CRT or LCD.
 
Last edited:
I found a FW900 real cheap and bought it and made my own experiment. I was using both display in extended desktop and was moving my mouse from screen to screen and the difference was HUGE. The mouse felt like in water on the lcd (wich is a 2ms/5ms btw) and just sliding on ice when on the crt.

Also, played some games in clone mode, as soon as I turn vsync on theres a big mouse delay on the lcd. I always knew something was off.. the crt was dead on with my mouse movement. Theres a tight feeling when moving/aiming in video games, I can't believe It used to be like this for years before switching to lcd.

The only thing the lcd do better is text sharpness and brightness. Reading stuff is much more enjoyable on the lcd. If the 120hz monitor really have the same tight feelings as crt, well I'm sold. but not 500$ for a 22" sold, will wait for a price drop or for this crt to die eventually.
 
I have the 120hz Samsung 22" monitor and I like it. The nice thing is that I can put vsync on and get well above 60hz in most games. The monitor also a lot less motion blur than my 27" viewsonic.

The biggest problem with a plasma is static images. If your using a Plasma as a computer display be very careful about how long you leave static images up. I have a Plasma 58" for movies/consoles/living room stuff. The manual for the TV states that while it's 'burn in resistant' it's not 'burn in immune'. This is for a less than a year old Panasonic Plasma display.

For general gaming the 22" 120hz monitor should be fine. Unlike a 120hz tv, the monitor does run at a full 120hz and it is very noticeable (smoother gameplay, less blur).
 
I have both and to be honest 120hz is fucking ghey
Click to expand...
Different things.

You're talking about motion interpolation, not refresh rate or frame rate.
Interpolated 120Hz (almost all "120Hz" in living room HDTV's are the 'interpolated' kind) is often not very good, but native 120Hz is even better.

They are totally different animals. Playing movies non-interpolated at 120Hz is always best (you need to turn off the interpolation) otherwise motion looks unnatural with the interpolated.

Bad: 120Hz movie interpolated on HDTV -- unnatural, too smooth, too artifical, gimmicky
Better: 60Hz movie on HDTV -- great
Best: 24Hz ("24p" as some say) or 120Hz movie native on HDTV -- BEST (beautiful) .... That's why they call it "1080p/24" on Blu-Ray. As long as it is a multiple of 24 (as 120 is), and the HDTV knows how to convert the 3:2 pulldown to a "more-movie-theater-natural" cadence. If your 120Hz HDTV can't do this, you're using a crappy HDTV that makes the movie look less theater like than more theater like, by using the 120Hz 'interpolation' gimmick. Unfortunately, a lot of "120Hz" HDTV's often make movies on television look more unnatural. 120Hz is a double edged sword gimmick, it can benefit or hurt the movie. Be careful when buying a "120Hz" HDTV, the gimmicks have 'different' appearances and quality. (Just like some resolution upconverters are better than others, some HDTV's make DVD look better or worse, depending on which HDTV - upconverter chips such as HQV or Faroudja, etc.)

This thread has NOTHING to do with the "interpolated" 120Hz gimmick you're talking about (The stuff that makes movies look weird)
 
Mark Rejhon said:
WRONG! Vsync caps the framerate to the graphics card refresh rate. Thus, you're capped at 120Hz, not 60Hz, when you've configured the 120Hz output on the new 22" 120Hz display.

It's already been confirmed; and playing old games (Quake 3 Arena) actually plays silky 120Hz natively at the full resolution on the new 22" monitor, WITH VSYNC ENABLED! Please check your facts...
Click to expand...

Hence I said "should" because 60Hz fits into 120Hz fine. Not my fault if games' vsync settings are not clever enough.
 
DragonQ said:
Hence I said "should" because 60Hz fits into 120Hz fine. Not my fault if games' vsync settings are not clever enough.
Click to expand...

You don't understand what Vsync does. Vsync limits the FPS to the Hz of the display. If the Hz of the display is 120Hz, then Vsync limits the FPS to 120.

There are a very few games that limit the FPS, but that is not Vsync - it's a stupid programming decision which should never be allowed into a released product. Prey is the only game I know of that does this.

Vsync has become necessary for 60Hz monitors because most games can exceed 60FPS. When the video card sends more frames to the monitor than the monitor can display, you get tearing. Vsync prevents tearing, but carries with it other costs. A 120Hz monitor will not have tearing problems until your video card is putting out more than 120FPS. In many games, you would need to turn on Vsync on a 60Hz monitor to avoid tearing, but be able to turn Vsync off on a 120Hz monitor.
 
Actually you get tearing even if the game runs slower than the monitor refresh rate. VSync forces the game to update during the monitor's refresh period (there is a small amount of time that new data is not being displayed by the monitor..in crt's this was the time it took the raster beam to go from the bottom right of the screen to the top left). Digital displays use this blanking period to setup for a new frame of data. This blanking period is often referred to as the 'VBlank period'

With VSync on, during the 'vblank period' the game tells your video card to display a different graphic. When the monitor starts displaying new data again you get a completely new image. Since the game can only update during this 'blank' period of time you are limited to the refresh rate of the monitor.

When VSync is off, this new data can be sent at any time. If the update happens when the monitor is visually halfway down the screen you will get half of the old frame from top to middle and then half of the new frame from middle to bottom. This update can occur at any time during the render so depending on the game you can get all sorts of screen tearing effects. A game that runs at 30fps on a 60hz monitor will get some screen tearing (since there is nothing controlling when the game updates the current frame). a 120hz game on a 60hz monitor will get more screen tearing(since your trying to display 2 frames for every 1 the monitor can display).

In theory, a game could internally run at 120fps per second, but only update visually at 60 fps.
 
Ulrick28 said:
Actually you get tearing even if the game runs slower than the monitor refresh rate. VSync forces the game to update during the monitor's refresh period (there is a small amount of time that new data is not being displayed by the monitor..in crt's this was the time it took the raster beam to go from the bottom right of the screen to the top left). Digital displays use this blanking period to setup for a new frame of data. This blanking period is often referred to as the 'VBlank period'

With VSync on, during the 'vblank period' the game tells your video card to display a different graphic. When the monitor starts displaying new data again you get a completely new image. Since the game can only update during this 'blank' period of time you are limited to the refresh rate of the monitor.

When VSync is off, this new data can be sent at any time. If the update happens when the monitor is visually halfway down the screen you will get half of the old frame from top to middle and then half of the new frame from middle to bottom. This update can occur at any time during the render so depending on the game you can get all sorts of screen tearing effects. A game that runs at 30fps on a 60hz monitor will get some screen tearing (since there is nothing controlling when the game updates the current frame). a 120hz game on a 60hz monitor will get more screen tearing(since your trying to display 2 frames for every 1 the monitor can display).

In theory, a game could internally run at 120fps per second, but only update visually at 60 fps.
Click to expand...

A game running at 30fps would not see tearing at 60hz. 29 or 31, sure, but since 30 is exactly 1/2, the display would hold the frame for two refreshes before it go new data.
 
Nope..it would not hold the frame before it got new data. That is not how vsync works.

VSync acts like a gatekeeper that forces the refresh during a specific time period of the display. When VSync is off, this gatekeeper is off, which means the game is able to update the frame whever it feels like it. A game can run at 30fps but since each frame is going to take slightly longer or shorter to render it will update the screen at some variable point of time.

Try running a game at 30fps without vsync (maybe crisis is a good example since most games will run 60+ on a decent machine nowadays). You will see some tearing.
 
Ulrick28 said:
Nope..it would not hold the frame before it got new data. That is not how vsync works.

VSync acts like a gatekeeper that forces the refresh during a specific time period of the display. When VSync is off, this gatekeeper is off, which means the game is able to update the frame whever it feels like it. A game can run at 30fps but since each frame is going to take slightly longer or shorter to render it will update the screen at some variable point of time.

Try running a game at 30fps without vsync (maybe crisis is a good example since most games will run 60+ on a decent machine nowadays). You will see some tearing.
Click to expand...

Of course there's some timing variation. Even at 60fps there can be tearing because of how the timing can be off between rendering and refreshing.
 
FatMom said:
I found a FW900 real cheap and bought it and made my own experiment. I was using both display in extended desktop and was moving my mouse from screen to screen and the difference was HUGE. The mouse felt like in water on the lcd (wich is a 2ms/5ms btw) and just sliding on ice when on the crt.

Also, played some games in clone mode, as soon as I turn vsync on theres a big mouse delay on the lcd. I always knew something was off.. the crt was dead on with my mouse movement. Theres a tight feeling when moving/aiming in video games, I can't believe It used to be like this for years before switching to lcd.

The only thing the lcd do better is text sharpness and brightness. Reading stuff is much more enjoyable on the lcd. If the 120hz monitor really have the same tight feelings as crt, well I'm sold. but not 500$ for a 22" sold, will wait for a price drop or for this crt to die eventually.
Click to expand...

I was beginning to think I was alone in this sentiment. It's amazing to me that people don't recognize the difference. I've been trying out a few LCD the past couple days and they don't even hold a candle to this 22" P1230 Diamondtron when it comes to gaming smoothness. They didn't ghost, they didn't didn't have input lag, they were just not smooth and crisp like the CRT is. I don't care so much about the color reproduction superiority of the CRT either or the crispness and brightness advantage of the LCD; I just want my games to run silky smooth, and apparently LCDs still don't offer that.

The only reason I bothered was because a few people I know recently switched and were raving about their newfound LCD glory. Unfortunately those people have all been filed under my retard list now.
 
Then you need a 120Hz LCD, ViewSonic VX2265WM and Samsung 2233rz being the only choices right now. These will have the same smoothness in motions as CRTs but the downside is the price premium and quality, why I'm personally holding onto my CRT a bit longer. However it's nice to finally see LCDs start matching CRTs in gaming smoothness too.

I'd just hope the manufacturers would see that people aren't interested in 120Hz LCDs only cuz of 3D gaming. Personally I think the 120Hz is more attractive for people than the 3D gaming concept. :p I don't see why they're not yet showing any bigger interest in producing 120Hz LCDs when they can put like tons of "gaming" advertisement on the products that they do on motherboards and even PSUs these days xD.
 
RPGWiZaRD said:
Then you need a 120Hz LCD, ViewSonic VX2265WM and Samsung 2233rz being the only choices right now. These will have the same smoothness in motions as CRTs but the downside is the price premium and quality, why I'm personally holding onto my CRT a bit longer. However it's nice to finally see LCDs start matching CRTs in gaming smoothness too.

I'd just hope the manufacturers would see that people aren't interested in 120Hz LCDs only cuz of 3D gaming. Personally I think the 120Hz is more attractive for people than the 3D gaming concept. :p I don't see why they're not yet showing any bigger interest in producing 120Hz LCDs when they can put like tons of "gaming" advertisement on the products that they do on motherboards and even PSUs these days xD.
Click to expand...

Theres no need to have true 120hz hdtv beside 3d.
 
FatMom said:
Theres no need to have true 120hz hdtv beside 3d.
Click to expand...

Given that you knew enough to be able to make a post, one has to assume you can read.
However, in this case it doesnt seem so.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top