PDA

View Full Version : Do you notice a difference between 60Hz and 75Hz while gaming?


eastcoasthandle
01-02-2011, 09:49 AM
I've been seeing sporadic posts ever so often suggesting that some maybe seeing an improvements at 75Hz vs 60Hz while gaming :confused:. You have to check to see which resolution in game offers both 60Hz and 75 Hz. Is anyone noticing a difference online?

Twombly
01-02-2011, 10:44 AM
You also want to make sure your monitor can handle it. Not sure if newer ones do it too, but from what I understand you could/can really mess up your monitor if you mess with those settings and it doesn't support it.

masterchef341
01-02-2011, 10:59 AM
meh. if you can bring your minimum fps up you are doing a much better service for yourself than pushing up your maximum fps.

eastcoasthandle
01-02-2011, 11:13 AM
You also want to make sure your monitor can handle it. Not sure if newer ones do it too, but from what I understand you could/can really mess up your monitor if you mess with those settings and it doesn't support it.

You can do that by reducing the desktop resolution to see if it refresh rate increases or not. You could try 1280 resolution and go from there.

NoSkillz121
01-02-2011, 11:21 AM
I cant notice much difference, only about the length of time i play. Playing longer at 60 i get a headache much faster.

Zukabazuka
01-02-2011, 11:23 AM
Depends on the monitor, if its a old one you will kinda get a headache from watching a screen with 60hz, since it kinda flashes constantly. On the newer screens it doesn't matter that much. I think though 60hz means it can only refresh that much.

breakd0wn
01-02-2011, 11:29 AM
In my opinion, I don't notice too much difference. I would kill to get a 120 Hz LCD though, waiting for them to drop in price a bit. :)

CowHide
01-02-2011, 11:41 AM
Monitor Refresh isn't really that important for gaming. All it does is make the eye strain less. Don't worry about it in regards to the visual aspect of your game.

Digital_Beating
01-02-2011, 12:14 PM
Monitor Refresh isn't really that important for gaming. All it does is make the eye strain less. Don't worry about it in regards to the visual aspect of your game.

Actually it is to an extent, it is better because it reduces ghosting. There are still a few people who refuse to buy LCD monitors because they have been lacking 120HZ response rate. But most mainstream gamer screens should have fast MS response times because a majority of LCD screens are made from TN panels. So they have 3ms-5ms-8ms response rate on the LCD. Older models of LCD panels have 16ms response rates causing a little bit of slow down and ghosting on the screen with objects moving. Lower response times and higher HZ helps, it could mean the difference between finishing off an enemy in your favorite game or being finished off. It's good for people who are competitive.

From 60HZ to 75HZ there is not going to be much of a difference. But from 60HZ to 120HZ there is a tremendous amount of difference. A majority of 120HZ computer monitors are TN panels but their speed is unmatched so there is no display lag with 120HZ. I own a Viewsonic 120hZ VX2265 Fuhzion monitor. 120HZ makes a lot of difference, everything flows smoother on the screen, there is no display lag and it is as fast as a CRT monitor. Application screens move smoother, you can see the difference if you have good eyes. But for the majority of normal computer users, they will not need 120 HZ monitors. It's mostly targeted towards gamers and the people who refuse to buy a worthy LCD monitor. You need 120HZ for Nvidia's 3D-Vision and AMD's Stereoscopic HD3D. Only reason you'd want one is for gaming, Nvidia/AMD 3D technology, reduce ghosting, faster refresh rate, reduce eye strain.

I'm going to wait for OLED though, see if that goes anywhere.

evonc
01-02-2011, 12:33 PM
You should be running a CRT at atleast 75/85 hz if you don't want the annoying flickering effect. Most CRT monitors will do 85hz at 1280x1024 and that should be plenty.

When it comes down to frames, 85 hz = roughly 85 fps. Our eye finds 30 fps fluid and can only detect the fluidity of motion to 60 fps. After 60fps you really need to concentrate and have a good pair of eyes to detect any further changes.

The newer 120hz monitors/tv's are mainly aimed at people who are looking to make the switch to 3D since 120hz = 60hz in 3D which would result in roughly 60fps giving very fluid motion.

Also a lot of tv's are being sold at 120hz with stuff like MotionFlow (by sony) and other manufacturers using funky names. Basically all of them are related to the tv's ability to apply frame interpolation where it takes a standard 24fps signal from a video source such as your cable/satellite box and interpolating frames inbetween to bring it up to 48fps+ to make the motion fluid. A lot of people find this quite awkward with tv since it feels like the video is being fast forwarded. This technology is still not perfected and it does get very wierd when you are watching action scenes as some of them look very wierd at 24fps+ (basically makes a lot of them look like cgi stuff).

You can even do this stuff with a standard movie on your computer. Just search up "frame interpolation vlc" in google and there are guides on how to do that yourself.

Back to the topic in terms of standard computer use. If you have an lcd monitor you are fine with 60hz. For a crt, anything around 75hz and above should be fine.


Edit*

In terms of refresh rates by monitors anything 5ms and under is perfect. Just make sure it is black to black and not grey to grey. A lot of manufacturers like to fake the performance by writing 2ms refresh times but these are grey to grey which basically ends up being 5ms black to black.

eastcoasthandle
01-03-2011, 10:16 AM
Anyone else tried it?

Kalabalana
01-03-2011, 10:24 AM
Well, considering no human can really see past 72 FPS in a video, and most monitor's don't display faster then 60 FPS at gaming resolutions, hard to set up a test bed.

120Hz TVs are not for 3D (despite how good that would be), they interpolate preceding and succeeding images in usually a 30 FPS feed to create a new frame, creating a smoother overall experience. Also 75 Hz is identical to the timing of 75 FPS. You will not see any "display lag" on a monitor past 72 FPS with video synchronization enabled. OLED is what I'm waiting for as well.

Funfact: Super seers can see some LED lights flashing. If you can see some every day LED flashing at 60 Hz or higher (if you see it, this is the range it's flashing above), you're a super seer. I am ;)

laazrockit
01-03-2011, 11:31 AM
Well, considering no human can really see past 72 FPS in a video, and most monitor's don't display faster then 60 FPS at gaming resolutions, hard to set up a test bed.


This is completely false... So sick of people making up these "human eye can only see past xx fps" out of thin air.

72% of statistics are made up on the spot.

.parkeR
01-03-2011, 11:35 AM
Indeed I can certainly see a difference between 72fps or whatever other number people like to throw about and for example 125.

But I hardly see much of a difference at all on my LCD between 60 and 75hz

Kalabalana
01-03-2011, 11:47 AM
This is completely false... So sick of people making up these "human eye can only see past xx fps" out of thin air.

72% of statistics are made up on the spot.

Naw it's from a NASA study for training and scouting jet fighter pilots. Important stuff when you're spending a fortune to train someone, and then giving them a multi-million dollar aircraft. The top candidates peaked out at 72 FPS in a moving video, where as we've been able to see up to the 200 and above FPS speed when looking at a single frame, not a part of a video, just a single offset quick flash of a frame.

(HINT: When certain game engines, like Valve's Source engine default the max fps to 72, it seems they might be educated on the subject as well. Also, be careful on your comments, especially if you're not prepared to allow the possibility that you could be wrong, could make you look quite foolish)

(I've seen this debate so many times, so I found out the facts years ago)



Actually, you know what, scratch everything I've said, I'm wrong. It's easier this way.

mad1723
01-03-2011, 11:52 AM
I made the switch between a 60Hz monitor and a 120Hz and it does improve the smoothness and response time, even in 2D. It does change the gameplay a bit, but you need to experience it to see if it does make a difference or not. As the 120Hz monitors are quite expensive still, you might wanna wait for them to drop in price. Going from 60 to 75Hz might not make a whole world of difference, but 60Hz and 120Hz does make a difference ;)

laazrockit
01-03-2011, 01:43 PM
Source does not cap fps at 72... I get over 72 fps in l4d and tf2 with no config file or console commands messed with.

cpmaguy
01-03-2011, 01:49 PM
theres a huge difference between 60 hz and 75 hz

75hz is ALOT smoother then 60hz already , but only if you reach 75 fps ofcourse

i personally have a 120hz monitor and the difference between 120 hz and 75hz is HUGE aswell. its eye candy smooth but you need to reach 120 fps

it also improves your aim

people who say there is no difference between 30 fps and 60 fps and more then 60 fps and 60 fps and 60 hz and 75 hz .. its all bull♥♥♥♥

theres a reason why competitive players ( not in bfbc2 ) play always more then 60 hz

you can try it.

put your native resolution @60hz and put all graphics down to reach 60 fps
then put something like 1024x768 @ 75hz ( most lcds handle that) and put all graphics down to reach 75 fps

you will see a difference i garantuee

i play with 120 hz now for like 3 month and you have to imagine like this 120 hz actually feels like 120 fps and if you go back to 60 hz and 60 fps it will actually feel like 20 fps, choppy and laggy as hell

just my 2 cents

Kalabalana
01-03-2011, 02:47 PM
Source does not cap fps at 72... I get over 72 fps in l4d and tf2 with no config file or console commands messed with.

fps_max is a variable that limits the FPS in source games, it is by default set to 72, and it can be set above that number as well. I hope this clears up your confusion over the matter.

NoSkillz121
01-03-2011, 03:46 PM
EDIT: Nevermind

Dynasticality
01-04-2011, 03:12 AM
fps_max is a variable that limits the FPS in source games, it is by default set to 72, and it can be set above that number as well. I hope this clears up your confusion over the matter.

The default value is 300, not 72.