What happened to 75hz?

[drunkenmaster]

You can run everything at a constant 120hz, because thats a refresh rate 20fps, or 240fps, still will be a 120hz refresh rate.

As for 75hz, its a crapshoot, a lot of screens that say 75hz don't really do 75hz, only a few do. Single link dvi can't support above 60hz at 1920x1200, though it can do a bit faster at only 1080, vga cables are fully capable of higher hz at the higher res, and often vga/dvi lcd's are listed as 60hz dvi, 75hz vga, some really do it on vga, some don't.

Thing is basically most screens assume dvi use as primary, and won't have the electronics to do 120hz, so won't support dual link dvi connectors as it will cost more, which limits the dvi port to 60hz at max res, so they don't provide anything above that.

Theres basically entirely no reason whatsoever we haven't had 120hz for ages, and 75hz, or 85, or 100, whatever really, just standards and 99% of people being happy with 60hz so monitor makers simply not wanting to bother with the tiny portion of the market.

The ONLY reason they've bothered with 120hz, is 3d, because capping each eye to 30hz with crosstalk is just asking for woeful quality in 3d basically.

They've been capable of making 120hz for years, they just haven't wanted to, and while 3d is a gimmick(to me at least) at least it made some monitor manufacturers produce, almost accidentally, some decent 120hz screens finally.

Its pretty ridiculous, due to the drop in tearing, the higher fps, theres been a market for 120hz screens ever since lcd's first launched, with a huge number of top gamers refusing to leave their 120-160hz crt's for 60hz LCD's, the market has always been there and complete ignored.

 

[Mr Krugga]

It was more in reponse to Fernick as well as you, and I'm always mad but why do you think I sound mad, because I mentioned epeen?

Just thinking about Fernicks comment it would be nice if he elaborated, if he runs everything at 120hz, what actually is everything? and how is it possible to run everything at a constant 120hz? Quad SLI 580 GTX maybe!?

You don't have to run anything at 120 fps constantly (because that's what you mean now, I'm assuming).

It's enough when you go past the 60 fps barrier on average, be it in older, competitive titles or the latest games, to feel the difference between a 60 Hz and 120 Hz monitor.

Some content will be benefiting more, other less but the difference is noticeable in most configurations.

First Person Shooters are games that benefit the most from higher refresh rates. You won't get the annoying tearing and the image will be vastly more fluid, and your response times quicker.

 

[Relentless81]

It did feel a bit better but genuinely and honestly I couldnt really see what all the fuss is about it wasnt that much better, not as much as people seem to make out, maybe I just chose the wrong screen, I was so put off by the glossy finish and terrible colours that I didnt really have time to concentrate on how much of an improvement the refresh rate was

And I understand 120hz is the refresh rate buts its pointless if a game cant take advantage of it surely!? Plus I'm not fussed on 3d its a bit gimmicky and currently way overpriced

I think I'm just going to wait for Samsung to bring out a reasonable cost 120hz monitor without the built in 3d whenever that will be, I'm happy to stick with my current monitor for now

 

[drunkenmaster]

I'm getting more tempted by the day to get a LG "3d" screen, it doesn't come with any of the 3d stuff, just connections for the nvidia cack if you want to buy that separately, its only circa £150 though for a 120hz screen and is supposed to be really very very good for the money.

As for individual screens and quality, as always a useful improvement in tech, on a horrible quality screen isn't going to do much for you.

Anyway, yes theres numerous reasons a 120hz screen can help you even without an increased framerate, less ghosting is almost bog standard with a 120hz screen. Ghosting is mostly a problem with how far an image moves between refreshing, and being able to still partially see the older image, the further apart things on screen move between frames, the worse ghosting can appear. updates twice as often and the step between frames is smaller and ghosting can be reduced drastically.

This also happens with overdrive modes and the like, overshoot is the biggest problem with overdrive screens these days(which most are) and with smaller steps, theres less overshoot. Tearing aswell, again the more movement there is in a game the more tearing you get, the smaller the step between screens the smaller tearing is and the less you notice it, vsync is great, often, but not infallible, some games don't play well with it, some games are much better with it off.

Basically ghosting, overdriver, tearing are all likely to be improved on a 120hz screen, at any framerate, then any framerate from 60fps and up, a 120hz can display them and 60fps can't.


I've been waiting for a decent screen that can do more than 60hz for a while, there are reasons they have gone to 120hz, 3d, but also they've put a lot of time and effort, as has windows and numerous chip makers, to work on chips for screens, and software to sync video to 60hz, and so 120hz makes most of that software, most of the chips fairly compatible, timing, dropping frames, keeping smooth video are all fairly large issues with screens.

I haven't pulled the trigger yet, first they started with small crap screens and not good quality, the first 1920x1080 screens were, not good. The LG is great price wise, but for every person that thinks its great, someone hates it, but thats pretty standard with 3d screens, some people hate 3d, some love it, and so its very hard to know how good it is as a 120hz screen ignoring the 3d.

 

[Relentless81]

Very interesting thanks, I've noticed that with the LG too, its very 50/50 split with opinions.

I currently have a Samsung 226BW and the 120hz monitor I tried was the 23" Glossy screened Asus, I really didnt get on with that glossy screen at all, taking it back and setting the Samsung back up was like getting into your own bed after a two week holiday, so I'm also biding my time and seeing what makes an appearence but I'm really not interested in paying for built in 3d like the new Samsungs, I'd rather have a 120hz without so its initially cheaper and have the option to go 3d later

 

[drunkenmaster]

Thats the other thing, it almost doesn't matter how crap a screen you have and how good a screen you move on to, when you are used to one screen, using another will feel rather alien, or as you said, like not sleeping in your own bed.

I swear to christ the renaissance Marriot in time square, best bed I ever slept in, in my entire life, 3 nights of the best sleep ever, yet somehow getting home to my crap bed in a student house felt "like home".

Not with my first LCD, but when i started using a second screen I was using my old pretty awesome Iiyama crt alongside a very decent NEC LCD, separately they were both awesome, the CRT for years alone, and the LCD alone, but together, my eyes simply couldn't adjust from one screen to another, not helped by obviously being vastly different tech, 2 different LCD's is far less bad.

But the same held true later on when switching from one LCD to another, one isn't worse than the other, but the new screen was just brighter, and "felt" different, and took a couple weeks before I felt comftable with it.

Eyes are adaptable, as is the brain, which makes it ruddy hard to tell a better screen from a worse screen that you happen to be used to

Thats what makes screens so damn hard to get right, you might have found using the glossy screen for a month then trying the old screen, feeling like the old screen was awful.

There is a very nice looking LED Viewsonic thats launching soon, its £350 with nvidia 3d glasses/receiver though, which I have no interest in. Samsung have a few £550+ screens coming aswell, led, thin, really quite awesome looking screens(in terms of specs/tech), but all a little expensive, hopefully we'll get some cheaper end, 120hz without intergrated 3d versions in not too long.

 

[Relentless81]

I hope so as I'm about to take on a mortgage and wont be able to buy PC parts any where near as frequently as I'm used to, to be honest my max budget for a monitor is approx £250 and theres nothing around that price range thats doing it for me at the moment, its a shame because I wanted one in time for BF3 but I suppose the positive of the situation is that at my current 1680x1050 native res my 560 GTX will be able to display more eye candy than it would at 1920x1080

Thanks for the help, let us know if you decide on anything as will I.

 

[Mr Krugga]

I hope so as I'm about to take on a mortgage and wont be able to buy PC parts any where near as frequently as I'm used to, to be honest my max budget for a monitor is approx £250 and theres nothing around that price range thats doing it for me at the moment, its a shame because I wanted one in time for BF3 but I suppose the positive of the situation is that at my current 1680x1050 native res my 560 GTX will be able to display more eye candy than it would at 1920x1080

Thanks for the help, let us know if you decide on anything as will I.

1920x1080 is only 17% higher resolution than 1680x1050 and you get the added bonus of 1:1 pixel mapping in movies.

 

[phil128]

As per title, what happened to 75hz monitors?

Nothing.

http://www.overclockers.co.uk/showproduct.php?prodid=MO-031-AS&utm_source=froogle

Is a 75Hz monitor.