Pixel response test on 2ms.

Kozmo · 24 Jan 2007 at 03:04

So I used the Pixel response test program. At all resolutions I got the following:

11ms; 90.909091Hz @ 75hz
14ms; 71.428571Hz @ 60hz
15ms; 66.666667Hz @ 56hz

So 75hz is better for gaming, but to get 75hz in Windows I can't run in native resolution: 1280x1024, can't run in lower 1280x960 either, need to drop down to 1152x864 to allow 75hz to show in setup(safely). So 1152x864 @ 75hz is best for gaming?

_____________________________________________________________

I spent over £220 upgrading my 19" Samsung 930BF (4ms) to a 19" Viewsonic vx922 (2ms). The samsung does 15ms @ 60hz and 12ms @ 75hz... thats just 1ms slower! :mad:

What about this graph: HERE. Doesn't go over 10ms, or is that to do with something else? ( full link )

Rroff · 24 Jan 2007 at 04:00

um you can't measure a LCD reponse time with a program AFAIK...

Baddass · 24 Jan 2007 at 07:46

that program is only a very crude way of testing the black > white transition of a screen, which is pretty irrelvenat nowadays anyway. Modern screens with 2ms ratings are 2ms across some grey > grey transitions, with all TN Film panels being stuck at a wall around 11ms anyway at the old ISO "response time" measurement before the days of overdrive

fish99 · 24 Jan 2007 at 11:03

Kozmo said:
I spent over £220 upgrading my 19" Samsung 930BF (4ms) to a 19" Viewsonic vx922 (2ms).

Should have asked here first. I think most people would tell you the 930BF is already a very quick screen and it wouldn't be worth £220 for the difference between that and a VX922.
Also as already said above, that program is rather unreliable. It will always give different results in a different refresh rate, so it's not necessarily telling you the screen is responding quicker and/or that you will get less blurring.
Best way to game on a TFT is native res @ 60 Hz, v-sync on and then use DXTweaker to force tripple buffering to remove most of the framerate hit from v-sync. I didn't notice any less tearing at 75 Hz on my TFT.