75hz refresh rate on LCDs and FPS in games

[cheap]

I want to get an LCD but my main concern is 75hz vertical refresh rates on them.

Particularly I'm looking at this one, and this one. I know it's not going to flicker cus it's all about response times on LCDs, but my concern is FPS in games. With 8 ms response time these babies should be able to do 125hz, but I've yet to see an LCD screen above 75hz. So I guess my questoin is, will 75hz refresh rate on LCD monitors limit my FPS in games to 75? That's the only thing holding me back right now, I preffer at least 85 fps and higher for extremely smooth experience in game. And yes, I can see the jittering difference bellow 85fps in games.

Thanx.

 

[lyssword]

yep, hz = fps that u can actually see

 

[cheap]

So is it the same on LCD and CRT? And why do they limit hz to 75 on LCDs? With 8ms response time you can bump the refresh rate to 125hz! Doesn't make sense.

 

[Matthias99]

Originally posted by: cheap
So is it the same on LCD and CRT? And why do they limit hz to 75 on LCDs? With 8ms response time you can bump the refresh rate to 125hz! Doesn't make sense.

Well, first off, the response time in reality is usually not less than 20ms or so.

Second, you can certainly have a framerate higher than your refresh rate, as long as you turn off VSync.

Third, you can still 'see' frames (or, rather, parts of frames) that are drawn at higher than the refresh rate of the display. LCDs and CRTs work identically in this regard. You'll get the same sort of tearing artifacts without VSync.

 

[mercanucaribe]

You CANNOT see 85fps. If you think you can, you're fooling yourself.

 

[imhungry]

You cannot SEE 85fps individually, but you can definately tell the difference between 75-85FPS and 1000FPS.

The sensitivity is higher with a higher hz as well.

 

[Matthias99]

Originally posted by: mercanucaribe
You CANNOT see 85fps. If you think you can, you're fooling yourself.

Most people can tell differences up to 100+FPS. Don't believe me? Search for a utility called FPSCompare and check it out yourself (you'll need a good CRT monitor that can run at 100Hz to really get the best results).

There have also been a number of LONG threads about this. The basic conclusion is that 'you can't see more than X FPS' statements are pretty much full of it unless X is at least 200. There is also some evidence reported that people are more sensitive to the 'framerate' of something that is giving them feedback (like an interactive game) than something they are just watching.

 

[cheap]

Originally posted by: Matthias99

Originally posted by: cheap
So is it the same on LCD and CRT? And why do they limit hz to 75 on LCDs? With 8ms response time you can bump the refresh rate to 125hz! Doesn't make sense.

Well, first off, the response time in reality is usually not less than 20ms or so.

Second, you can certainly have a framerate higher than your refresh rate, as long as you turn off VSync.

Third, you can still 'see' frames (or, rather, parts of frames) that are drawn at higher than the refresh rate of the display. LCDs and CRTs work identically in this regard. You'll get the same sort of tearing artifacts without VSync.

Ah, yes I forgot that response time actually varies greatly with colors. That explains it. I know about Vsync and absolutely hate tearing. It's especially bad in fps games cus all that ugly tearing really stands out when your gun's muzzle flash flashes rapidly across the whole screen. There is no way I'm going to blow $400 - $600 dollars on a display and inconvenience myself with screen tearing. Guess I'll give LCDs some more time to mature. I used to turn Vsync off all the time about 8 years ago in quake2 games so I could squeeze a couple of frames more out of my TNT2 video card. Tearing isn't so bad when your fps is less than your refresh rate. But the higher fps, the uglier the tearing gets. Absolutely no reason to turn Vsync off on 99% of games these days with all this monster hardware for relatively cheap price.

 

[xtknight]

8ms=125Hz only means the average crystal can change at 125Hz, not the whole screen. Transition times vary. In addition, it doesn't mean 125Hz blur-free.

 

[cheap]

Originally posted by: mercanucaribe
You CANNOT see 85fps. If you think you can, you're fooling yourself.

I know what I can and can't see, and I tell you I see the difference. 75fps is noticably more jittery than 85 and 100 is noticably smoother than 85fps. I did test on a high quality Sony Trintron CRT with a high refresh rate. First you have to have a high refresh rate monitor to even see the extra frames to begin with. Second, make sure your Vsync is on, otherwise frames will get tangled up on top of each other, sort of like interlaced TV and will hide jitterness a bit at expense of visual quality (screen tearing). Start up an old game where you know performance won't be an issue, like quake2, load a map. In console type: +right to make your player spin evenly by himself. Then you can type cl_maxfps 60, cl_maxfps 75, cl_maxfps 85, cl_maxfps 100 to see at which point you stop noticing jitterness in frames and your player's rotation is completely smooth to you. Better yet, make binds for all those frame rate commands, so you can just stare at the screen and change frame rate at the push of a button. My eyesight is pretty good and I could see a change in all of those settings all the way to 100. I didn't test above 100 though cus then you have to run your crt at extremely crap resolution to get that refresh rate. How many frames a person can distinguish also depends on a person, but I think it's been agreed on that it's generally 100+ fps.

EDIT: you can also try it out with Quake3, commands are: cg_maxfps to 30, 40, 50, 60, 85, 100 ect. Where a number is number of frames per second you want.

 

[LOUISSSSS]

you seem to know a lot about this fps stuff. then why are you asking us for help?

 

[the Chase]

Another thing with all of this- Does anyone notice a "blur" on objects when using vsync. I don't know how to describe it but I use a CRT and if I enable vsync it seems as though stuff actually "moves" as I turn in a scene. Is this the vid card dropping the extra frames that it can't display if your fps is over your refresh rate when vsync is enabled?

 

[xtknight]

Originally posted by: the Chase
Another thing with all of this- Does anyone notice a "blur" on objects when using vsync. I don't know how to describe it but I use a CRT and if I enable vsync it seems as though stuff actually "moves" as I turn in a scene. Is this the vid card dropping the extra frames that it can't display if your fps is over your refresh rate when vsync is enabled?

You mean there is a bit of afterglow cast on moving objects?

 

[Matthias99]

Originally posted by: the Chase
Another thing with all of this- Does anyone notice a "blur" on objects when using vsync. I don't know how to describe it but I use a CRT and if I enable vsync it seems as though stuff actually "moves" as I turn in a scene. Is this the vid card dropping the extra frames that it can't display if your fps is over your refresh rate when vsync is enabled?

I'm not quite sure what you mean, but yes, if your framerate isn't high enough (either due to low performance or VSync capping it), objects may 'jump' significantly between individual frames when you are turning very quickly (or otherwise moving very rapidly) in an FPS-type game.

Example: if you rotate 180 degrees in half a second, and you are pushing 60FPS, you cover 180 degrees of rotation in 30 frames, and each frame rendered has the viewpoint rotated by six degrees!

Having a higher framerate alleviates this problem -- but unless the display also has a very high refresh rate, you'll get tearing artifacts (which, personally, I find worse than this phenomenon). To really 'fix' it, you'd need an engine that can do realtime motion blur (so that instead of seeing the object 'jump' if the framerate isn't high enough, it would be smoothly blurred like the image a film camera or your retina produces).

 

[the Chase]

Yeah kind of like an afterglow- its like the object is in its position longer than it should be. Probably what Mattias99 is refering to. That's annoying in itself. Maybe a lessor of two evils...Wish monitor tech would keep pace with vid card tech....

 

[cheap]

Originally posted by: LOUISSSSS
you seem to know a lot about this fps stuff. then why are you asking us for help?

Lol, well, I like fps games but I've never owned an LCD and was heavily concidering it. I just didn't know if that low LCD refresh rate would keep my frames in shooting games down or if it somehow worked differently. That was my question.

I like how sharp the text is on LCD ect compared to CRT but I dunno, even 10fps drop in shooting games will affect your aim because the mouse will not move as smoothly so I don't know if I want to put up playing with 75fps. Thinking about it. This LCD technology is moving along so slow, too bad everybody stopped making CRT screens before LCD fully matured.

 

[Zebo]

Originally posted by: mercanucaribe
You CANNOT see 85fps. If you think you can, you're fooling yourself.

Don't try and pass off your disabilities on the rest of us. I have no problem discering 75 from 85 or 85 from 100..it's after about 110 it gets nebulous.

 

[UltraWide]

He is talking about how fluid a game looks, if the frames per second is constant @ 75 or 85 then you probably won't notice, but if it fluctuates below a certain threshold then I think that is what you are noticing.

Anyway, back to the original question. Most LCDs are designed to run @ 60Hz refresh rate. Some can do up to a max of 75Hz but only for certain resolutions. I would check the manufacturer's specifications and see if the panel supports whatever resolution you game at @ 75Hz natively.

 

[firewolfsm]

i can barely tell the difference between 40 and 100, you're being spoiled

 

[Medellon]

Man you guys are spoiled! Seriously, 75 fps not good enough?! Games running at 60 fps are smooth as silk for me. Just be glad you all don't remember the days of Doom and Quake 1 when you had to jump through hoops to get to that elusive 25-30 fps at which point you were in heaven.

 

[Mardeth]

We arent discussing fps, but refresh rate. Looking at 75hz on a CRT made my eyes sore. But on a LCD it doesnt feel as bad.

 

[Zstream]

Originally posted by: Matthias99

Originally posted by: mercanucaribe
You CANNOT see 85fps. If you think you can, you're fooling yourself.

Most people can tell differences up to 100+FPS. Don't believe me? Search for a utility called FPSCompare and check it out yourself (you'll need a good CRT monitor that can run at 100Hz to really get the best results).

There have also been a number of LONG threads about this. The basic conclusion is that 'you can't see more than X FPS' statements are pretty much full of it unless X is at least 200. There is also some evidence reported that people are more sensitive to the 'framerate' of something that is giving them feedback (like an interactive game) than something they are just watching.

No one needs to search it is SCIENCE or the way you are born. A human eye cannot see more then 30-40 fps, they only thing you see is the way the game is lagging or jittery. It has nothing to do with your eyes you fools. I swear geeks think they know more then millions of scientist.

 

[cheap]

Originally posted by: Mardeth
We arent discussing fps, but refresh rate. Looking at 75hz on a CRT made my eyes sore. But on a LCD it doesnt feel as bad.

Because LCDs don't refresh, the pixels are always on, CRTs on the other hand, the pixels start to fade, so the electron has to scan whole surface over and over again and light them up. That's why you see flicker at lower refresh rates, pixels were given enough time to fade.

Zstream is an idiot, first he says a human eye cannot see above 40 then he says you can see jitterness. DUH. Those are frames. Higher frame rate will give you less jittery screen and smoother mouse aiming. Millions of scientists, lol, the guy trying to look like a smart ass without knowing what he's talking about.

 

[xtknight]

Originally posted by: Zstream
No one needs to search it is SCIENCE or the way you are born. A human eye cannot see more then 30-40 fps, they only thing you see is the way the game is lagging or jittery. It has nothing to do with your eyes you fools. I swear geeks think they know more then millions of scientist.

So, provide a link to these "scientists" claiming that? Besides, just because they posted a theory doesn't mean it's right.

 

[Matthias99]

Originally posted by: Zstream
No one needs to search it is SCIENCE or the way you are born. A human eye cannot see more then 30-40 fps, they only thing you see is the way the game is lagging or jittery. It has nothing to do with your eyes you fools. I swear geeks think they know more then millions of scientist.

Search for the old threads, or download the program and try it yourself. Most people can see differences up to at LEAST 100FPS. Try it yourself if you don't believe me; I would be very surprised if you couldn't tell the difference between 30FPS and 60FPS, or 60FPS and 100FPS.

One of the threads had some info about an Air Force experiment where they tested some fighter pilots and found that some of them could identify images flashed for as little as 1/200th of a second.

That said, the guy whining about 75FPS not being enough is just being too picky IMO. Perhaps my perspective is somewhat different having had to deal with playing Quake (1) in SOFTWARE rendering, where getting 20FPS consistently at 640x480 was difficult.