120hz Windows Desktop (2D performance)

I can definitely see a difference (immediately) in windows between 60 and 120 Hz.
 
jeremyshaw said:
And on another note, most films are made/rendered at the old analoug holdover of 23.96 fps.
Posted via Mobile Device
Click to expand...

23.976.

The FPS of 99.9% of movies you download. Only exceptions are if source is PAL, or some guy ripped a DVD incorrectly and left it at 29.970 FPS. Or some other, even more obscure reason.
 
Some Blu Rays run at 24fps instead of 23.976 (and yes there's a slight difference, last time I ripped one of my own I wasn't careful and set the fps to 24 instead of 23.976 and the audio went out ouf sync at some point in the film)

The only Blu Ray I ever saw running at 25fps was actually an upscaled DVD (or a TV rip maybe), I thought it was funny that they would still sell it as a Blu Ray when it was clearly NOT a Blu Ray by any means (horrible picture despite the 1080p and awful sound despite the DTS-HD audio). Crap film too and I'm glad I only borrowed it at the library :p
 
Content in NTSC is 30000/1001 (29.97) or 24000/1001 (23.976) FPS. The closer your monitor refresh rate to a multiple of the FPS of your movie, the smoother the motion e.g. a 120Hz monitor would be pretty close, so an improvement over say 85Hz or 100Hz, but not perfect as in 120000/1001 FPS. Interpolation does exist to try and make things less bad but it is still not that good. Some people do prefer it, though. I do not.
 
I can see the difference between 60 and 85 Hz on my CRT, not to mention 120 Hz so I'm pretty sure I'd be able to do so on an LCD as well.
 
quantum112 said:
I can see the difference between 60 and 85 Hz on my CRT, not to mention 120 Hz so I'm pretty sure I'd be able to do so on an LCD as well.
Click to expand...

Nope. That's not how it works. I can see flicker at 85Hz on many CRT monitors but LCDs do not refresh the same way.
 
They don't refresh as differently as you might think, many people think the entire screen refreshes at once on an LCD, as far as i know, that is not true.
 
Inu said:
They don't refresh as differently as you might think, many people think the entire screen refreshes at once on an LCD, as far as i know, that is not true.
Click to expand...

It's not true, but on a CRT, the pixels start fading right as the electron beam leaves to go elsewhere. That doesn't happen on an LCD.
 
Question for the people who can tell the difference between 60 vs 120 fps. Is the jump from 60 to 120 fps just as noticeable as the difference between 30 versus 60 fps? When you go from 30 to 60, the difference is night and day. Do you still get the same night and day difference when you go from 60 to 120?
 
Skakruk said:
No, it's not as drastic, but it's still very much there. And once you get used to it, it's very hard to go back.

After a spell of gaming in an old title where I can maintain 120fps, I find it very difficult to adjust back to ~60fps in a modern game with a more demanding engine. Luckily most such games have motion blur to mask the low framerate.
Click to expand...

Awesome, thanks for the info! One of these days, will definitely get a 120 hz display just for gaming. :) Oh, and if I'm enthralled with 120 fps as much as I am with 60 fps, may need to change my username to "addictedto120fps." ;)
 
In case you are still gathering intel- I can see the difference, it's a surprise to know that some people cannot. Though, maybe it's like the ringtones at ultra low frequencies that some can hear and others cannot.

hardware- Ati hd5870, asus vg236h
 
To get back to the topic of 2D Windows performance. I noticed that on an AMD 5570, the idle clocks were too low to support the full 120Hz. At default, it was only getting around 30fps, and maxing at 60fps (as reported by FRAPS). By overclocking the idle 2D core clock speed, I was able to increase the frame rate. However I am not sure if that is the only aspect. Using my GTX 470, the clocks are much faster and I still feel like it could be smoother. I mean, it is an improvement over 60Hz, but I know it can be better, since I've seen it. There must be some other setting I'm missing here.
 
I figured it out. It was my mouse. I was using a Logitech M500 wired USB laser mouse. Not a gamers mouse by any means, but I did pay like $60 for it. However, it seems the mouse itself is capped at 60Hz. I switched to a spare mouse I had, and now everything works perfectly. It looks smooth as butter! The mouse I'm using now is some cheapo $5 USB optical mouse, also Logitech, which I got for $5. Just goes to show you: sometimes you *don't* get what you pay for. Anyone have any recommendations for good gaming mice?
 
I could notice the difference immediately between 60hz and 75hz on my old 2209wa. The cursor was much smoother as soon as I switched, as was page scrolling. I didn't even need the OSD to tell me that I had finally locked it into 75hz because as soon as I got the settings to stick and moved the mouse I knew the refresh rate was higher.

60 and 120? I can't believe anyone wouldn't notice that right away...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top