Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
CRT draws very differently. Personally I prefer 85hz, and better yet 96hz - 100hz on a fw900 crt. Due to the way a crt redraws, crt's exhibit no blur/smear on fast motion.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Refresh_rate
In the case of modern, low response time + overdrive 120hz*input* LCD computer monitors - the response time compensation ~ overdrive combined with the screen update rate to the pixels (not the fps) comes into play from what I understand. According to this article, at 8.3ms per screen update (120 screen updates/second ~ 120hz) on high/very high overdrive, the pixels "relax" much faster than at longer screen updates of 60hz at 16.6 ~ 16.7 ms each. These updates are sent regardless of your frame rate, resulting in some duplication at lower frame rates, but the overdrive at 8.3ms per screen update should still reduce the smearing.
.
If this review is correct, it might give some insight. It also has some nice diagrams and further details on the page linked beyond what I pasted below, and on the 60hz testing on the page that comes before it.
http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/monitors/display/samsung-sm2233rz_10.html#sect0
What about 120Hz then? Subjectively, RTC artifacts disappeared when I changed the refresh rate, but why?
The response time does not change much. The average is 3.3 milliseconds (GtG), which is only 0.1 less than at 60Hz. This difference may be just due to measurement inaccuracies.
The RTC error in percent is somewhat lower: an average of 7.3% and a maximum of 40%. This is better than at 60Hz (9.6% average) but not much different.
The RTC error relaxation time is the answer. The diagram is made to the same scale as for the 60Hz refresh rate so that you could easily see the difference. The average relaxation time was 15.2 milliseconds but now is only 6.6 milliseconds. It means that the RTC errors are not just lower but also vanish from the screen faster!
I want to illustrate this with a series of pictures showing the movement of a black square along a gray background at 60Hz and 120Hz refresh rates. The square is moving from left to right and its movement is captured each 8.3 milliseconds – the picture update period at a refresh rate of 120Hz.
The gain of nearing 120fps+ average or going higher (to maintain the fps vs scene complexity dips) in reaction based gaming would be that you would be see more "recent" or "current" action every 8.3ms - always providing a new unique frame per screen update of 120hz, as opposed to every 16.6ms. Some games tear worse than others though and some people are proponents of keeping their frame rate below the refresh rate of the monitor in an attempt to avoid tearing.
* note that the review I quoted is not the 750D but relates to 120hz input + high overdrive technology. It is also comparing vs 60hz setting on the same low response time TN monitor with overdrive (RTC - response time compensation). A 60hz ips would have a much worse response time and smear the whole scene badly on FoV movement in games.
snippet
It still does makes a massive difference. Just not as much motion blur reduction as a TN 120Hz panel.Korean model yamasaki monitors can go above 60hz but even then not all of them are created equal and I think i heard some reports of people claiming that even though the board could deliver 120hz signals to the lcd the lcd could not physically change colors fast enough for it to make a real difference.