Are there any LCD gaming monitors on the market, 22inch to 25inch, that offer a true 120hz so that 120 frames per second can actually be seen? I'm not speaking about 120hz hi def tv's, but computer monitors.
Can you use 120 hz at 22 inches? It says on my box you can't go do 120 hz at even 1680x1050. Not sure if that's true or not.
Your eyes can never process 120 fps. It humanly impossible. At best your eyes can detect up to 60-65fps, else it's either too fast or you won't notice any difference. deltatux
no sense. seriously.... it's not like he's not telling the truth. Granted there isn't really any concrete scientific proof that 60-65 frames per second is the fastest the human eye can see.... but it doesn't rule it out. If you ask anyone... there is ONE major issue with a game's framerate that is probably where people get this idea that they HAVE to have over 100fps in order to have the smoothest gameplay possible. That issue.... is framerate fluctuation. A game will appear much more smooth if it maintains a framerate, for example, in the 40-49fps range, than a game that freefalls somewhere around the 60-100fps range. It's the changes in framerate that are noticable, not the framerate. Tearing is another issue with framerates, and which is why people who are getting well into the 100fps average enable Vsync to lock the framerate at their monitor's refresh rate. I've actually found this, in my experience, to hinder performance, seeming to make most games less responsive control-wise than if it's running full-torque. You may think that the human eye is this almighty lens or something that can see EVERYTHING that goes on in the world.... but.... did you ever stop and wonder why flipbook cartoons can appear fluid in motion, or how movies on film could look so clear and play smoothly? How do you think your standard TV broadcast looks? it's not choppy or anything, is it? It's also not displayed remotely close to 60fps. You should seriously watch a documentary or something on the human eye, and find out how it functions. Motion blur was added to games for realism for a reason. The human eye and the human brain can only process so much information at a time. The human eye also functions kinda similar to a camera lens. Rods in the eye are able to detect light, but not color. Cones in the eye are able to distinguish colors, but require enough light to be able to distinguish colors. Also why it's difficult to tell exactly what color something is in dim light, or impossible to see colors in the dark.
Basically, once you hit 24fps, your eyes sees the motion as smooth and then once you hit 60fps it's real smooth. In fact most movies are shot in 25fps and upwards to 30fps. So really, anything over 60fps is really overkill. Just as long as games don't dip 30 fps, you won't really notice much of a difference. Remember, too fast of a framerate causes headaches. There is no reason why you need more than 60fps. It's quite solid as it is, it's twice the amount of fps in movies and TV shows. EDIT: I'm sorry, but my I should've generalized instead of setting a concrete 60-65 fps, but in all seriousness, there isn't much difference for your eyes between 60 and 70 fps really ... unless you're really nitpicky about it. TV companies advertise 120 Hz (if 1 Hz = 1 fps) as a marketing scheme, there's no broadcaster/movie makers that films anything over 30 fps. If you do video transcoding/editing you'll know that. deltatux
You only really need 120Hz if you're planning to use shutter glasses IMO, but i think youll see a lot more now that nvidia have gotten into the 3d market.
Since we're on the subject.... i coulda swore i read somewhere that a lot of the 120hz displays aren't ACTUALLY 120hz..... they just do something differently to, in a sense, artificially double the refresh rate. I could be wrong about that when it comes to computer displays though. that could just be with larger home theater TV's. On another side of the issue..... I just noticed use of the term "Gaming monitor" in the thread title. Let me ask you this. If 120hz displays was the true "gaming" standard..... why on earth would "gamers" be so obsessed with vSync? You'd need to have a LOT more computing power to hold a framerate over 120fps in a recent game. Since it wouldn't be possible.... vSync wouldn't be usable. And since you have a much higher monitor refresh rate.... wouldn't screen tearing be much more probable on a screen with a higher refresh rate, since there would be a lot more instances where frames might not be in sync with the monitor's refresh? i just seriously wish hardware manufacturers would quit the whole "gaming" gimmick BS. It cons people into thinking something mediocre is the greatest thing in the world, and will make them play better. It's like saying a new pair of sneakers will help you not suck at sports. Yeah... a ragged pair of sneakers will probably be seriously uncomfortable compared to a brand new shiny pair of Nike's, but if you suck at sports, you'll still suck at sports. Buying a keyboard, mouse, monitor, or any of these "gaming" lick-and-sticked peripherals is just the same. If you try out a keyboard that feels comfortable to type on.... or a mouse that fits the contours of your hand.... or a monitor with excellent color reproduction, high resolution, standard 60hz refresh, and for the hell of it, happens to match your decor.... you'll still be able to play just as well as you could if you had a "Gamer"-tagged product, that probably is quite uncomfortable to use. Kinda like how everyone PRAISES Razer mice. I honestly can't stand them. Messed with one of the display mice they had at Best Buy... and i think it's way too damn flat, and made my hand feel like it would cramp after a couple minutes of use. the MX Revolution, however, has a nice weight to it.... doesn't feel like a hollow plastic shell with a LED/laser... and i'm able to relax my rather large hand on it without any discomfort.
Deltatux, it's actually recommended that you play with a higher refresh rate/fps, so that it reduces headaches caused by low framerates. Also, the eye is capable of seeing far more than 24 or even 60 'fps'. 24 fps is only smooth if you have sufficient blurring and it's constant, ie you have either a 48 hz refresh rate or 120 hz. 120 hz displays will not have the same stutter that 50/60/100 hz displays do with movies. Plus it's perfect for 30 fps as well which is the standard in America. Also 120 hz displays update the image roughly every >8 ms rather than >16 ms for 60 hz. In theory this allows you to see your opponent faster and you get more information on their current location. If you play in CAL or another competitive gaming league, you shouldn't play with less than 100 fps unless you want to be at a disadvantage, even if you don't have a 100 hz display. 100-120 allows for better and faster control than 50-60 fps. EDIT: Elemental, whether or not you benefit from 'gaming' hardware depends on your own skill. If you're slow and can't aim, it's doubtful you will benefit from better hardware. As for the 120 hz comment, I'll add to the above that 120 hz vsynced will have less penalty on your overall fps than 60 hz, for obvious reasons.
My Samsung 2494HS supposedly uses a 120Hz capable panel, but I've no way to actually confirm this. However it seems to be just running at 60Hz, not that it's a problem for me.
Hi Jon, thanks for the response. I have no interest in attempting to educate those who have been conditioned with 60hz refresh rates - its their loss. The question posed is for a friend looking for a new gaming monitor for 1st person shooters. We both have a good amount of experience in this area. For myself, I am set with the Sony 24inch widescreen CRT fw-900. It has refresh rates upwards of 160hz. Moving quickly in battle, refresh rates become a premium concern. There is an absolutely astounding difference between 60hz, and 145hz. In actuality, the military has found that the human eye can detect frame rates in the mid 200's and beyond. I did find this: http://forums.legitreviews.com/about19198.html Sounds like the jury is still out on whether it actually can show 120unique frames per second as opposed to frame doubling, though it does look promising so far. Many of the responses so far have me chuckling. I could sit any of these guys down in front of my monitor with ut3 vsync'd at 60 hz and 60fps, then switch it over to 145hz and 145fps, at which point they would exclaim "Holy Sh!t, I had no idea". The difference is nothing short of jaw dropping. I can't get irritated though, as few folk have the opportunity to ever see what 150fps actually looks like - for most 60 fps is all they ever see. How would they know that a difference could exist? Those of you who are parroting the human eye 60fps nonsense, are just regurgitating bad information.
You can easily tell the difference going up from 60hz and I do miss my old iiyama crt but getting another one isnt practical now. Also moving aroung a big crt is a nightmare and they take up loads of room. I think its the people that are real hardcore fps heads need more than 60hz mind, you really dont need it if your an average gamer. There should be genuine 120hz lcds out as like I said theyre needed for 3d stereo displays to give an effective 60hz output., I think there are some "3d" tvs available already that do it but they will be expensive.
This hole LCD thing of 60hz ,120hz ,2ms ,4ms ,etc is all BS!! If the panel is faster enough to squeeze a third frame in the same time frame of two frames , why would 3 frames clear things up?? Thats a 50% more frames in the same time !! There would be a better chance of blurr.. The logic does not make sense !! There not telling us the full story ! Ok its not all BS , BUT most is , 16ms may blurr more that 4ms , but a ATI white paper saids that any faster than 16ms would not be any better ! Would a 8ms panel with 120hz be clearer than a 4ms 60hz panel .. That is this 3rd frame ? Its made up it and is not real , its a BS frame ! Something is missing in this chain of logic !!
That CRT,LCD argument is really old. You can't really compare the two technologies Of course, on the CRTs, the higher the hz, the less strain on the eyes and the better everything looks. Most LCDs are at 60hz (at native resolution) and produce very little strain on the eyes. I didn't say "no", as it would depend on who's eyes. P.S. mine will do 75hz at a lower resolution, but what's the point of that? It's rather senseless IMO.
there are 120hz lcds but they are for nvidia new stereo 3D so there not really 120hz. there 60hz. it just you need them for the nvision glasses. as for lcd strain, 60 never strain my eyes on lcd, which why one of the reason beside the heat the crt put out and there weight is why i dont use crts no more,I stop years ago. If there people who dont mind the weight , the size and heat of the crt then let them enjoy it. Because I surey isnt about to go back to one reguardless.
Flicker was the problem with CRTs @ less than 60hz , But its motion blurr with LCDs . But the input would be the same .
I believe most of the problems we SEE are because the screen size is much larger and we SEE more problems than with the smaller screens of the past ! 17" is a little blurr and a 24" and a 52" are big blurrs !If you have a blurr problem . I for one rarly have a problem with blurr , I do see it , but 9 of of 10 times its the input source and not the panel , the freeze button will prove that !!! You can't freeze blurr if its the panel only the input source. That should help most of you to see were the real problem is ..
This thread had nothing to do with eye strain related to crt or lcd refresh rates. I specifically asked about product availability. On a side note, which seems to escape the minds of a few forum members here, visible frame rates are in fact limited to the refresh rate. Period. To help this fact soak in, read this paragraph two or three more times. Rinse and repeat. Experience with the tools necessary to observe actual frame rates up to 160fps: http://www.amazon.com/Sony-GDM-FW90...nitor/dp/B00004YNSR/ref=cm_lmf_tit_20_rdssss0 This monitor is considered by many to represent the pinnacle of display capabilities. When you kids have actually spent some time playing a fast moving 1st person shooter at a true 150fps, then come talk to me about your visual observations. Reminds me of kids that have grown up on 128kb mp3 files, and they think that is hi-fidelity! Ha! Like virgins trying to describe what sex might be like....
uh huh.... so what you're saying is that you enjoy kinca contradicting yourself? Everyone knows about the fact that a monitor can't show a higher framerate than it's refresh rate.... so seeing as you said you don't want to play at less than 100fps, even if you don't have a 100hz display.... what would be the difference if you were playing at a flat 60fps on a 60hz display? Again.... HUH?!? if you're seeing a "stutter" in movies... than i think you need to get a non-broken TV, or a working player. And you're also kinda contradicting yourself again. 120hz is perfect for 30fps? So you're saying that showing what, in essence, could be considered as every fourth frame, is perfect? i'm pretty sure 30fps at 60hz would be more ideal. maxrep: as for your comment about the military "Finding" that the human eye can detect framerates up into the 200fps range and beyond.... i'd like to see a link stating just that. The only thing i have ever really seen remotely relevant to that was that they found that fighter pilots were sat in front of a screen, and an image of a jet was flashed on the screen for something like 1/200th of a second, and they were actually able to tell that it was a jet, and were usually also able to say what model it was. This isn't really confirming anything about humans being able to see insanely high framerates, and thinking such is idiotic. It's simply pulling a 180 and referring back to how the human eye works, taking in information, and having an after-image of sorts for a very short time in between. This site also states that 60hz/60fps is adequate, while 72hz/fps is overkill. http://www.daniele.ch/school/30vs60/30vs60_3.html You don't notice the FRAMERATE..... you notice the CHANGES in that framerate.... again, going back to how i said that thinking about it logically, playing a game at say 80-100fps on a 120hz LCD wouldn't appear as smooth as the same framerate on a 60hz LCD. And stop bringing up CRT bullsh*t. Yes.... we all know they have higher refresh rates. We also know they weight a sh*tload more than any LCD. 24" CRT with a 100lb shipping weight? thanks, but no thanks. If that's what you're using.... and what you're showing your friends UT3 at 60hz vSync'd and 145hz vSync'd, and they're saying "Holy sh*t"..... then you sir, are a MORON! Not only does everyone know CRT's have a much higher refresh than LCD's, but we also know that CRT's tend to have a bit of issues at lower refresh rates.... namely flicker, which ISN'T really noticable on LCD's at 60hz.
