I just found out the MAX hz on my monitor is 75, is that bad?

[erikiksaz]

I bought this Mag 15 incher back in 96, and so i guess it's pretty much ancient as of now. after installing win2k, i realized that i may have that 60hz refresh rate problem. so i download the program that fixes it, and i noticed, my monitor only supports up to 75hz in most resolutions. now, do you guys consider this to be a bad refresh rate? i've been using this monitor ever since 96, would this low refresh rate hurt my eyes in any way.

 

[sitka]

75Hz has been found to cause migraine headaches in some people, usually though it just affects your depth perception for a few hours after extended use.

 

[QwErTyBk]

75 hertz is not too low. At 60 hertz, a monitor is not tolerable...at least to me. Hurts (no pun intended) my eyes Anyway If you are running at 75 you should not have a problem...that is unless it is hurting your eyes. Personally, 75 hz is fine on my eyes. Good luck!

 

[dkozloski]

75 Hertz is the VESA standard.

 

[damocles]

75Hz is the bottom end of acceptable. I don't think it would hurt your eyes though

 

[maxhdwdotcom]

75 is normal for a 'older' monitor. Most monitors produced in recent years will be around 85Hz at spec resolution. I personaly love my 145hz, maybe over the top, but what the hell

 

[VBboy]

Bottom line:

85 Hz is much better and is only noticeable by very few people under certain lighting conditions. 90 or 100 Hz is perfect. It will also help in games (if you have a fast PC) because normally the frame rate is limited by the V-sync, which is 75 Hz in your case. You will need to either turn off the V-sync or increase the refresh rate.

 

[VBboy]

erikiksaz,

What are you, running your poor Mag at 1600x1200?
My Mag Innovision 15" couldn't display text very well at anything above 800x600. So I suggest you go back to 800x600, there you can have at least 85 Hz.

 

[Scouzer]

I run at 60hz 1024x768...maybe thats why my eyes are starting to get worse (I spend 340930293402932 hours a day in front of the screen... doesn't hurt my eyes or head. 15" Proview

 

[maxhdwdotcom]

60, erk

Is that healthy?

 

[Scouzer]

Probably not but I'm saving up to get a new Samsung True Flat 17" that can do 85hz at 1024x768 ASAP

 

[maxhdwdotcom]

Good good

Seriously, some of the crap Dell kit we got at work runs at 60hz, I can't use it, fries my eyes.

 

[erikiksaz]

hah, this monitor sucks though. 75 is the max on all resolutions, besides 1280x1024 (max rez), which is 60. this monitor does cause eyestrain though. i've been noticing it more than ever since it's summertime, and that equates to lots of free time.

 

[VBboy]

erikiksaz

<< hah, this monitor sucks though. 75 is the max on all resolutions, besides 1280x1024 (max rez), which is 60. >>


That can't be right. If you get 60 Hz at the max resolution of 1280x1024, then the monitor is capable of 1280x1024x60 = 78643200 Hz. This is 75 MHz, so your monitor is capable of 75-MHz bandwidth (you should be able to confirm this by looking in the back of the monitor's manual).

There may be a slight discreptancy because monitors sometimes &quot;overscan&quot; and use wider area than you actually see.

Now we take 800x600, and divide the 78643200 by it.
You get 78643200 / (800x600) = 163 Hz. Of course you may not have a videocard capable of the 163 Hz refresh rate.
Similarly, at 1024x768, you will get 78643200 / (1024x768) = 100 Hz.

Note that the bit depth does not matter here (e.g. 8 bit will not help you get higher refresh rate vs. 32 bit).