V-Sync Vs. Frame Limiter

Only if it's a cheap, uncalibrated screen. Most of the screens, both cheap and expensive, that I've seen in the last couple of years had a horrible default calibration.
Much too sharp, way too bright and too much blue.
As long as the screen "can" be calibrated correctly it's absolutely fine.

 

If 60 hz had been uneven this would have been correct. However if it is 'even', which I think we can assume in most cases, the baseline of your experience is the same and abbrevations from it would be equally noticed.

Also it depends on how you define 'additional lag'. Pingspikes? Packetloss? How do we measure, in percent? That would be equally noticable. In ms?

 

Show me 120Hz monitor with at least 8-bit color depth that doesn't cost fortune.

 

TN always has 6-bit, as you may know, so the only thing left would be those Korean panels that can be overclocked.
As I said (and measured), it's not an issue on a "high quality" monitor.

My biggest problem, practical problem, with TN displays is the high variation and bad default calibration.

@prophet: No network lag but simply something that lets me wait for something else. I get more frequent screen updates on a 120Hz screen which means I get to react quicker (in theory, at least). It's like a head start as all other latencies will come in on top of that anyhow.

 

Color banding is a result of inadequate color depth. 6-bit just won't cut it, no matter how perfect you'll calibrate your TN monitor. And dithering won't help much.

 

Not necessarily. I've checked numerous games that had very visible banding and compared the on my desktop screen and my TV. The problems remained the same, at least for the worst problems.
The issue wasn't the screen but simply a highly compressed image. Call of Duty menu screens for example always show very bad banding, the smoke on Skyrim's loading screens has it too.
Nothing to do with a bad screen. Just bad content (it's like listening to mp3 with audiophile gear, it won't sound better but even worse).

 

I got a BenQ XL2411T and color banding isn't that much of an issue, not really worse than some AMVA panels I tried as well with 6 bit LUT.
I tried also an Asus VG248QE and it was muuch worse, really banding outta hell. uke2:
Before I got an Eizo S1910 with 10 bit LUT ond of course it was much better in terms of banding.
I've pondered thoroughly if more Hertz are worth that loss in image quality from S1910 to XL2411T and the result is: I will surely never buy a display again with less than 120 Hertz.
Even with true 8 bit and 10 bit LUT there's is somewhere always banding, it's not perfect either. It would need a 10 bit panel with 16 bit LUT, I suppose, and then you need a Quadro and those displays have a terrible input lag.
-> waiting for OLED

 

I have color banding everywhere. And I mean EVERYWHERE.
And therefore I'm going for this one: http://www.prad.de/en/monitore/review/2012/review-eizo-foris-fs2333-bk.html

 

http://www.prad.de/en/monitore/review/2012/review-eizo-foris-fs2333-bk-part4.html#Image

 

There will probably still be banding with some nasty gray tones.
IPS panels have other issues like IPS glow, mediocre-to-bad black levels or that fugly crystalline effect.
Reaction time is worse too (more motion blur and shimmering or even flickering and color mixing).

 

Read that review. It's a gaming IPS monitor. For it's price you'll get fast reaction and almost zero input-lag.
Unfortunately, it's the only gaming IPS monitor.

 

I read it months ago: 7.5ms GtG is still noticeably worse than fast TN panels and you can also read about overdrive artifacts.
Input lag isn't an issue with most consumer displays anyway.
Just like TN, it's still a compromise, get over it.

 

And you who wonder why you should limit fps 1 frame below refresh rate when using Vsync, is to eliminate input lag.

If you don't, there will be som fps spikes, where you get 61fps even with vsync. And this will cause vsync to wait for the frame = input lag.

Why not limit to 60 instead of 59? Well I guess it's on the gamecode, because in BF3 for ex, you still get 61fps spikes even with 60fps limit. Just try switching between 59 and 60fps limit and feel how input lag is gone with 59fps. You might even have to limit to 58fps.

That's why nvidia have implemented this as a test option in drivers (found in nvidia inspector).

 

It has 3.4 ms G2G.

Overdrive has three settings and only the highest one produces noticeable artifacts.

 

Noticable is a relative term. Just like some people see color banding everywhere, or IPS glow, or whatever.

There's no single solution to the problem. One monitor may fix one thing but lack in other departments.
I wouldn't want to go back to 60Hz or a smaller screen at any time. I'd rather go larger and use something that has a 21:9 ratio.

 

LOL
And you are telling me to read the test?
EOD for me... :stewpid:

 

http://www.flatpanelshd.com/review.php?subaction=showfull&id=1352273669
Not only in it's specs, but the review clearly states that there is no issue with neither input lag or response time.

 

I'm on a 120hz TN panel (Asus VG236HE)..I've only just started to experiment with Frame Limiter, and capping fps at something your hardware can handle comfortably seems to be the best bet instead of using vsync as I can't notice any tearing capping at 60 fps.

 

So, after reading countless posts elsewhere, I'm going to buy 144 Hz after all. But how will game behave with VSync on and with FPS bellow 144 FPS? From experience on my current system on 60 Hz monitor it results into choppy and laggy movement. Will this the same happens with 144 Hz monitor?

 

Yes, the same will happen so don't use Vsync, congrats btw! :thumbup: