![[H]ard|Forum](/styles/hardforum/xenforo/logo_dark.png){kind=logo}
Can you explain that a bit? I mean, doesn't a higher screen refresh rate mean that there is support for higher FPS? On a 60 Hz display the max is 60 FPS, on a 120 Hz display the max is 120 FPS - provided of course that your computer can run a game at that FPS.
Or have I completely misunderstood something?
Can you explain that a bit? I mean, doesn't a higher screen refresh rate mean that there is support for higher FPS? On a 60 Hz display the max is 60 FPS, on a 120 Hz display the max is 120 FPS - provided of course that your computer can run a game at that FPS.
Or have I completely misunderstood something?
Fixed. Just because you don't have a use for it doesn't make it pointless for everyone. For gaming there is a significant improvement with 120hz.
60 fps and 120 fps are discernibly different not because human perception registers the extra frames individually, but because it allows the eye to follow a moving object on-screen with less motion smear. Even on an LCD with a stroboscopic backlight, or on a CRT, 120 Hz + 120 fps will look smoother because the stroboscopic nature of the motion will be better hidden. This is not because the eye is directly perceiving the extra frames, but because it is perceiving a kind of "temporal smear" or average of the frames.
) which makes things "feel more fluid" It's true that a higher displayed frame rate will reduce total lag (the time between when the user provides input and when the result of that input is seen), even if both the 60 Hz and 120 Hz displays have zero input lag, because of the intrinsic lag due to buffering. However, this effect is going to be very slight. Most of the benefit of 120 Hz, and perception of increased fluidity, comes from the reduction of motion smear, and the reduction of gaps between frames in the perceptual motion trail.refer to Anand's article on triple buffering and vsync ("Triple Buffering and why we love it") for more explanation, basically it does look more "fluid", not because of the redraw per se, but because you've reduced input lag on the system (as I said, in theory, doubtless some of these new 120hz panels will bork that
), and yes it will have less input lag, yes these are both good things, but neither relates to our ability to actually "see" the extra frames (and in most cases its likely to be wasted "fluff", but like Tim Allen says, more power) nor does it improve our response time or anything of the sort, its just one angle of "smoothing" an imageHow is it at all relevant whether or not we're actually "seeing" the extra frames, as long as they improve the perception of smoothness? It's of academic interest only.yes, the TAA effect of a 120hz display is somewhat more accurate, in theory (again we're assuming that manufacturers can manage to not bork something
How to Increase USB Sample Rate in Windows Vista/7
dig up the anand article in this case, you want triple buffering
you're comparing apples to oranges with film and real-time digital content (and there are graphics cards capable of TMB in hardware (true, none modern), and TMB is already making its way into new software), but I think we're ultimately arriving at the same point from different sides: basically its all a matter of how TAA is being achieved, however this is FAR and away from the original discussion
yes, the TAA effect of a 120hz display is somewhat more accurate, in theory (again we're assuming that manufacturers can manage to not bork something
The method that digitalversus uses to measure input lag is quite flawed. In most cases the only number that means much will be their "minimum", which in this case is 0 ms and is probably the real input lag of the Acer GD245HQ. (Sometimes digitalversus has a stray outlier that screws up the minimum, but that does not appear to be the case here.)