DVI: 60Hz vs 75Hz

[mach3]

Hi,

I have a Dell 1905FP, running on DVI.

Before I installed the Dell driver, Windows XP was using its own driver. It was possible to choose among 60Hz, 70Hz and 75Hz and 75Hz was preselected.

I have installed the Dell driver for the monitor and now it is only possible to chosse among 60Hz and 70Hz. How can that be?

Is it dangerous to run 75Hz on the monitor with DVI?

Thanks.

 

[PKFGimpy]

I would like to know this too actually.

I tried forcing my 2405 up to 75 hz, and even though windows throught it was running at 75Hz, when I went to the Dell menu it actually said it was running at 60Hz.

 

[Flak_Monkey]

I've seen similar threads like this one and it seems that there is nothing higher than 70hz for the dells.

mach3: if you look on Dell's site you'll notice that they specify a 70hz max refresh rate for your monitor. So therefore, with the driver installed, you're running at your monitors spec.

The explanation for what was going on before you had the dell driver on was the windows driver was on and the 'hide modes that this monitor cannot display' was not checked. Therefore you were able to choose 75hz, but i'll bet you a dollar that if you would have gone into your monitor's menu, it would have said 70hz as that appears to be the max your monitor can do.

PKFGimpy: Your monitor has a max refresh rate of 76hz, so you shouldn't have to force it to 75hz. Do you have the driver on?

 

[decoded]

do you really see a noticable difference with the refresh rates? i can't tell a damn difference for my samsung 930b using dvi.

 

[ryanrule]

well unless your gaming is running over 60 fps, you wont see a diff

 

[decoded]

well unless your gaming is running over 60 fps, you wont see a diff

ahh. makes sense. thanks for clarifying.

 

[ryanrule]

ahh. makes sense. thanks for clarifying.

yup. now for crt's it makes a difference. since they are not a steady state system, but constanly refreshing, you want it to cycle as fast as possible do your eyes dont detect the flicker and give you a nasty headache

 

[decoded]

yup. now for crt's it makes a difference. since they are not a steady state system, but constanly refreshing, you want it to cycle as fast as possible do your eyes dont detect the flicker and give you a nasty headache

ya.damn crt's my old monitor I had on 60hz at 1280x1024 and thats the only way it would function at that high res. and it was dying aswell. stupid concave lines. oh well. now im happier then ever and my eyes don't hurt at all. now i can spend hours typing into VIM without my eyes bleeding.

 

[Flak_Monkey]

The only way you'll be able to tell the refresh rate difference on an LCD is if you game with V-sync on. Then you'll notice the capped rates of 60 or 75fps.

 

[peacetilence]

I don't mean to change the topic of the thread but what's the difference, and what's the point more-so, of having a higher refresh rate on LCD? I know the issue of tearing is prevalent in games but can be avoided by either, using v-sync, or what I do, crank up the game settings until the tearing isn't so bad. 15fps over 60fps max doesn't seem like a night and day difference to bother about.

 

[Flak_Monkey]

I don't mean to change the topic of the thread but what's the difference, and what's the point more-so, of having a higher refresh rate on LCD? I know the issue of tearing is prevalent in games but can be avoided by either, using v-sync, or what I do, crank up the game settings until the tearing isn't so bad. 15fps over 60fps max doesn't seem like a night and day difference to bother about.

Well LCD's don't constantly 'repaint' the screen like CRT's do, so really, there is really no benefit of having a high refresh rate *UNLESS* you use V-sync all the time and your FPS is capped at whatever V-sync's set at.... That would be the only benefit I see.

 

[mach3]

But why is it possible to select 70Hz and 75Hz with DVI? It does not make any sense. Is it dangerous for the monitor?

"Hide modes that this monitor cannot display" is enabled btw.

 

[1c3d0g]

The monitor *should* be able to protect itself if given a higher Hz than its able to display. Having said that, I'd have to be crazy to force it on that new 24" LCD... unless you have oodles of money... Now I'm not saying it's dangerous, but you have to decide for yourself if you really want to do it, much like overclocking. I just know that, personally, I'd never do it since I don't see a benefit, but it's all up to you.

 

[Rash]

i used to have a 20" viewsonic crt at 1600x1200 @100hz (a supported Refresh rate), it only lasted 6 months, i was told i left the monitor on too long at that res and refresh which vastly shortened the lifespan. man i was gutted. i just leave my lcds on 60hz now as its harder to tell the difference.

 

[Synful Serenity]

I don't think this serves any purpose at all for almost every LCD out now. I haven't seen any real world tests of the 4ms displays coming out yet , but many 8ms displays average 20ms or a similar number, which is only fast enough to render 50 distinct screen refreshes a second in a typical situation - enough for people with sensitive eyes to notice blurring. This goes for the fastest LCDs, and the vast majority of LCDs are slower than that. In fact, I am not yet aware of any LCD that has been conclusively and objectively measured to not blur whatsoever at 60Hz, regardless of the fact that most of the population might be too slow to notice it anyway. So why force a 75Hz rating on an LCD that isn't even fully utilizing 60? The only benefit I can think of is gaming performance. The extra refreshes will be sent to the screen and the game will run accordingly, but the visible effect won't be any better, and it might look even worse, especially if it's a slower screen. Winston856 explained it fully. You'll lose nothing keeping your screen at 60Hz...But I reckon that will change in the near future if these 4ms displays perform as advertised (far-fetched idea, I know ).