LCDs with 100hz?

N

nahud

n00b
Joined
May 15, 2007
Messages
3
Hi,

I've been wanting to buy a better LCD since my current one has a response time of 16ms :> it produces really pretty ghosts while I play fps games :>

One of the good ones that are under my budget is the Samsung 226BW that you guys undoubtly know, however, I've been told to wait till 100hz LCDs arrive before I should invest in another LCD for FPS gaming. I've tried to google when these monitors will arrive, however I'm either googling the wrong keywords or not finding anything. Only an article of a 40 inch LCD TV with 100hz.

Anyone know an ETA for them? Or should I just invest in a 226BW?

Thanks
 
LOL, I didn't know ghosting was ever pretty!

Anyway, I have not heard of such a thing comming out, but what does it matter if its an LCD. Are you looking for better response times or what?
 
Our 60Hz LCD's limit you to 60FPS. The idea behind some of these upcoming 120Hz displays is that manufacturers can use the faster refresh rate to insert two frames - a blank frame (see BenQ's "black frame insertion") and the original. Thus, you are still limited to 60FPS, but you'll have less smearing because the blank frame cuts down on image persistence as perceived by the eye.

Some expensive LCD TV's already use this technology. I have no idea when it is coming to computer monitors or how good the result is.
 
There's no point in waiting for 100Hz LCDs if all you're after is a better response time. Refresh rates do matter on LCDs as Scyles pointed out, but it only really affects the maximum number of frames per second that the LCD can display. Some people use the terms "refresh rate" and "response time" interchangeably sometimes, but they are two entirely different things.

Scyles said:
The idea behind some of these upcoming 120Hz displays is that manufacturers can use the faster refresh rate to insert two frames - a blank frame (see BenQ's "black frame insertion") and the original. Thus, you are still limited to 60FPS, but you'll have less smearing because the blank frame cuts down on image persistence as perceived by the eye.
Click to expand...

That's too bad. I've been reading up on BFI, but I couldn't find any info either way as to whether it would actually increase the perceived smoothness.

The majority of LCDs being limited to 60 FPS is probably the biggest reason why I still use a CRT for gaming. It doesn't seem to bother some people, but I just don't think 60 FPS is anywhere near smooth compared to the 100+ you can see with a good CRT. Many games are nearly unplayable without V-Sync on a 60Hz display due to the tearing, as well.
 
Tosan said:
It doesn't seem to bother some people, but I just don't think 60 FPS is anywhere near smooth compared to the 100+ you can see with a good CRT.
Click to expand...
You do know that upping your refresh rate can actually make framerate drops more apparent, right?

When your display is locked at 60 FPS, you wont notice a temporary dip from 120FPS to 80FPS. When your display is able to display higher framerates, lets say 100 FPS, you'll get to see those framerate dips that would have otherwise been above the cap.

This does not, however, mean that you can tell the difference between a constant framerate of 80 and a constant framerate of 120. You may think you can see a difference when there is a sudden framerate drop, but what your actually seeing is your framerate decelerate. When your framerate decelerates the hang time between frame draws gets larger (which is something you CAN see once the time between frame draws gets large enough); once you level off at 80FPS, the hang time between frame draws goes back to normal, leaving no perceivable difference between 80FPS and 120FPS.
 
Well, I'm after a LCD that will be usable to play FPS games. So would the 226BW produce any unwanted results? :eek:

I would buy a CRT if my desk at my dorm was big enough :(
 
A while ago there was a review of a 100HZ LCD TV which was rather good.
They showed how it performed for Movie playback, gaming etc.
The net result was that video looked startlingly too real(?) and gaming was fantastic.

I've been waiting for these 100Hz LCDs myself.
There are also supoosed to be LCDs coming with higher bits per pixel. This will allow HDR to look unsaturated and max brightness will be higher too. They are also reputed to have a wider colour gamut which means better defined shades and deeper colours :)

What I really want is the laser projector!
A while back again, I read a comparison of Plasma, LCD and a Laser Back Projection TV.
The Laser won by a mile. One reason was it had a 100,000:1 contrast ratio lol.
I sooo want the forward projector version, I'm hoping they will appear soon (ie in the next 2 years).
 
Just wondering, since you mentioned something about Plasma TVs... Why don't we have plasma monitors?
 
The smallest plasmas are like, 40 inches and they're usually only 720p at that size.
 
I heard there bringing out the Samsung XL30 that will be out sometime this year the specs might look like this HDCP, LED Backlights,
2ms response time, gamut to an NTSC-busting 123% and 2560x1600 Resolution. Not sure if it has HDMI.
 
snowysnowcones said:
Just wondering, since you mentioned something about Plasma TVs... Why don't we have plasma monitors?
Click to expand...

LCD technology is better for smaller displays, generally up to 40 inches, even more so lately.

Plasma displays have to be recharged, which is expensive, and a pain in the ass. Plasmas can also leak gasses that are harmful.
 
There aren't any LCD monitors with 100/120 Hz, and there won't be any in the near future. The 100/120 Hz LCDs you've been hearing about are for LCD HDTVs, and they're not true 100/120 Hz. They're really 50/60 Hz with intermediate frames added by an image processor. This has to be done because HDTV does not go beyond 60 frames per second.

I'd love a true 120 Hz LCD monitor, but people have gotten the false idea that refresh rates don't matter on LCD monitors, so manufacturers don't care. Many LCD monitors don't even support 75 Hz properly. They still output 60 frames per second by skipping every 5th frame, which makes things even worse.

The Samsung 226BW supports 75 Hz at the native resolution without skipping frames, but it has a TN panel. I have yet to see a monitor without a TN panel that can do that. If anyone knows of one, I'd like to try it.
 
ToastyX said:
There aren't any LCD monitors with 100/120 Hz, and there won't be any in the near future. The 100/120 Hz LCDs you've been hearing about are for LCD HDTVs, and they're not true 100/120 Hz. They're really 50/60 Hz with intermediate frames added by an image processor. This has to be done because HDTV does not go beyond 60 frames per second.

I'd love a true 120 Hz LCD monitor, but people have gotten the false idea that refresh rates don't matter on LCD monitors, so manufacturers don't care. Many LCD monitors don't even support 75 Hz properly. They still output 60 frames per second by skipping every 5th frame, which makes things even worse.

The Samsung 226BW supports 75 Hz at the native resolution without skipping frames, but it has a TN panel. I have yet to see a monitor without a TN panel that can do that. If anyone knows of one, I'd like to try it.
Click to expand...

The Samsung LE4073BD is a 100Hz LCD and admittedly uses a form of blanking but it appears to work..
http://www.behardware.com/articles/641-1/1rst-lcd-at-100-hz-the-death-of-afterglow.html
 
Weenis said:
LCD technology is better for smaller displays, generally up to 40 inches, even more so lately.

Plasma displays have to be recharged, which is expensive, and a pain in the ass. Plasmas can also leak gasses that are harmful.
Click to expand...

Where are you getting your plasma info my man? lol
Plasma panels dont need to be (and cant be) recharged, the gas doesnt escape. You'd have to break the panel glass for the gas to escape. Oh, and the gasses they use (like neon) are harmless inert gasses. :D
Anyway, plasma monitors arent made in desktop sizes because manufacturing panels with pixels in the size needed is difficult and expensive.
 
Jaa-Yoo said:
Where are you getting your plasma info my man? lol
Plasma panels dont need to be (and cant be) recharged, the gas doesnt escape. You'd have to break the panel glass for the gas to escape. Oh, and the gasses they use (like neon) are harmless inert gasses. :D
Anyway, plasma monitors arent made in desktop sizes because manufacturing panels with pixels in the size needed is difficult and expensive.
Click to expand...

Weird, well I will admit I was wrong :) Just did a little research on them myself, bunch of people at BB told me that stuff about plasmas, and I know I read it somewhere.. damn misinformation ministers!
 
All LCD monitors for standard computers are using olny 60-75Hz refresh rate. We must wait for new technologies :) .
 
People get so confused about this, but the fact is LCD's don't flicker.

So if you display a static image on an LCD with 60Hz refresh, 75Hz, 1Hz, 1000Hz - you will see no difference at all. Why? Because there is no difference at all.

When an LCD pixel is switched ON, it stays on forever. Until you tell it to switch off again.

So telling it to be ON again 1 second later, 1/60th second later or a year later doesn't make any difference = its on anyway.

(This is *completely* different from CRT's where each "pixel" starts to die away after it has been initially switched on, which is why it needs to be refreshed.)

So what is the advantage of a higher refresh rate on an LCD? The *only* advantage is so that you can get a higher maximum frame rate. That's assuming you are running with vsync on. If you run with vsync off, then there is no advantage whatsoever.

Chip
 
Chippy said:
People get so confused about this, but the fact is LCD's don't flicker.

So if you display a static image on an LCD with 60Hz refresh, 75Hz, 1Hz, 1000Hz - you will see no difference at all. Why? Because there is no difference at all.

When an LCD pixel is switched ON, it stays on forever. Until you tell it to switch off again.

So telling it to be ON again 1 second later, 1/60th second later or a year later doesn't make any difference = its on anyway.

(This is *completely* different from CRT's where each "pixel" starts to die away after it has been initially switched on, which is why it needs to be refreshed.)

So what is the advantage of a higher refresh rate on an LCD? The *only* advantage is so that you can get a higher maximum frame rate. That's assuming you are running with vsync on. If you run with vsync off, then there is no advantage whatsoever.

Chip
Click to expand...
Refresh rate will permanently limit your FPS, if you have vsync on or off there is no difference, so if you have 60Hz than max FPS will be 60. I don't recommend basic LCD monitors for "hardcore" players. For playing games is better CRT monitor.
 
In response to Chippy,
A higher refresh rate on an LCD gives it the ability to change faster from a previous image to a new image.
A higher refresh rate will reduce ghosting (image persistence from the old image into the new image) and allow more frames per second to be displayed.
Ghosting occurs whether vsync is on or off so a reduction is most welcome!
 
Jaa-Yoo said:
Where are you getting your plasma info my man? lol
Plasma panels dont need to be (and cant be) recharged, the gas doesnt escape. You'd have to break the panel glass for the gas to escape. Oh, and the gasses they use (like neon) are harmless inert gasses. :D
Anyway, plasma monitors arent made in desktop sizes because manufacturing panels with pixels in the size needed is difficult and expensive.
Click to expand...

Just get a bigger desk...;)

America's Army looks unbelivable at 1360/768 on my 42inch. :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top