60Hz 2ms or 120Hz 5ms for gaming

pacquiao

Does anyone have much knowledge in playing fps games using both?
Considering our pings aren't as great as some countries would the 12hz monitor even be a help in getting your shot off?

Genghiz Cohen

I've moved from a 2mS to a 8mS and I didn't notice any difference.

Tea_Bag

I moved from 2ms to 6 and I cant tel the difference.

Brian

Do you get 120 fps or more in the game in question?

Connavar

I saw an interview with a pro gamer and he was saying that it was making a difference for him, but I call bs on that.
Its way too small a time to make a noticeable difference, especially when people are using wireless controllers and such so commonly these days

Dublin_Gunner

surely once the grey-to-grey happens faster than the refresh, ghosting shouldn't be an issue?

As 120hz panel takes just over 8ms for each refresh, 5ms is perfectly fine.

In fact, I'd say anything of 8ms or below is fine, and you wouldn't notice the difference anyway.

uncle_sam_ie

Isn't 120Hz only necessary if you want to do 3D gaming?

Dublin_Gunner

uncle_sam_ie wrote: »

Isn't 120Hz only necessary if you want to do 3D gaming?

Its a requirement for 3D, but that's not the only purpose.

If you are getting a framerate of 120fps or more, the 120hz screen can seem significantly smoother than 60hz.

In fact, once you're getting over 60fps you should notice a perceivable improvement.

uncle_sam_ie

Dublin_Gunner wrote: »

Its a requirement for 3D, but that's not the only purpose.

If you are getting a framerate of 120fps or more, the 120hz screen can seem significantly smoother than 60hz.

In fact, once you're getting over 60fps you should notice a perceivable improvement.

I thought read that your eyes don't notice a difference above 30Hz or there abouts?

Edit Maybe that was 30Fps.

Dublin_Gunner

uncle_sam_ie wrote: »

I thought read that your eyes don't notice a difference above 30Hz or there abouts?

drop your monitor to 30hz or close to it, then put it back up to 60 and tell me you don't notice



Its all about how much you HAVE to take in - i.e movies have traditionally been 24fps, yet seem perfectly smooth.

Try playing BF3 at 24fps.

ShadowHearth

uncle_sam_ie wrote: »

I thought read that your eyes don't notice a difference above 30Hz or there abouts?

i call bull**** on this m8. there is a very noticeable difference between 30fps and 60fps m8. Even cod fanboy fell that .

i would take 120hz over 2ms etc. 120hz will be noticeable and benefitial. on the other hand you need huge amount of hamsters in that wheel to power up 120fps! :pac:

marco_polo

Dublin_Gunner wrote: »

drop your monitor to 30hz or close to it, then put it back up to 60 and tell me you don't notice



Its all about how much you HAVE to take in - i.e movies have traditionally been 24fps, yet seem perfectly smooth.

Try playing BF3 at 24fps.

And somehow movies look like cheap daytime TV soaps when viewed on a 100Hz TV with Motion Smoothing on (IMO anyway).

Dublin_Gunner

marco_polo wrote: »

Somehow movies look cheap daytime TV soaps when viewed on a 100Hz TV with Motion Smoothing on (IMO anyway).

It would be so much more preferable for the TV to drop its refresh rate to match the source if possible (or a factor of the source).

All this motion smoothing crap is just that - crap.

pacquiao

Dublin_Gunner wrote: »

surely once the grey-to-grey happens faster than the refresh, ghosting shouldn't be an issue?

As 120hz panel takes just over 8ms for each refresh, 5ms is perfectly fine.

In fact, I'd say anything of 8ms or below is fine, and you wouldn't notice the difference anyway.

Have i got this right ? 120/1000 is 8.33 ms . So if my monitor is 120hz a frame is shown every 8.33 ms ?
And ghosting is grey on grey taking over 8.33ms to happen?

uncle_sam_ie

I have a 2 year old running around under my feet so, it's hard to focus but here this is from Toms Hardware.

"as a general rule 30 fps is the minimum you should aim for.
on consoles they can get away with 25 fps because tv's usually have a slower responce rate @around 14ms compared to an average lcd monitor's 5ms
this will introduce bluring which helps disguise low fps. to a point...
if you have a screen with a solid 30 fps and another with a solid 60 you wont be able to tell the difference. what you would notice is if the fps dropped suddenly to say 45 then back to 60 you dont notice the fps as such you notice the change in smoothness a drop form 60 to 55 would go unnoticed by most people. so as long as the frame rate is constant you wont notice an increase in game smoothness over 30 fps... some people will refute this but it has been scientifically proven. you notice the change because your eyes are made that way"

Dublin_Gunner

pacquiao wrote: »

Have i got this right ? 120/1000 is 8.33 ms . So if my monitor is 120hz a frame is shown every 8.33 ms ?
And ghosting is grey on grey taking over 8.33ms to happen?

Its not necessarily grey-to-grey, that's just one method of measuring how quickly the pixels can switch that a lot of manufacturers use.

Or indeed they'll give you the grey-to-grey measurement, but blue to red may take much longer.

In general, the shorter the response time, the less chance of ghosting occurring.

Anything below 8ms response time and you should not notice ghosting (in general on any LCD screen, regardless of refresh rate).

Dublin_Gunner

uncle_sam_ie wrote: »

I have a 2 year old running around under my feet so, it's hard to focus but here this is from Toms Hardware.

"as a general rule 30 fps is the minimum you should aim for.
on consoles they can get away with 25 fps because tv's usually have a slower responce rate @around 14ms compared to an average lcd monitor's 5ms
this will introduce bluring which helps disguise low fps. to a point...
if you have a screen with a solid 30 fps and another with a solid 60 you wont be able to tell the difference. what you would notice is if the fps dropped suddenly to say 45 then back to 60 you dont notice the fps as such you notice the change in smoothness a drop form 60 to 55 would go unnoticed by most people. so as long as the frame rate is constant you wont notice an increase in game smoothness over 30 fps... some people will refute this but it has been scientifically proven. you notice the change because your eyes are made that way"

30fps is 1 frame every 33ms~. I can tell you now that I can certainly notice a difference between 30fps and 60 if you were to place both side by side.

I wouldn't be alone in that respect either.

pacquiao

Dublin_Gunner wrote: »

Its not necessarily grey-to-grey, that's just one method of measuring how quickly the pixels can switch that a lot of manufacturers use.

Or indeed they'll give you the grey-to-grey measurement, but blue to red may take much longer.

In general, the shorter the response time, the less chance of ghosting occurring.

Anything below 8ms response time and you should not notice ghosting (in general on any LCD screen, regardless of refresh rate).

Ya i can't say I've ever seen ghosting on any monitor I've had.
What are your thought's on the 120hz versus the normal 70hz monitor if your playing fps games at 100fps?

Dublin_Gunner

pacquiao wrote: »

Ya i can't say I've ever seen ghosting on any monitor I've had.
What are your thought's on the 120hz versus the normal 70hz monitor if your playing fps games at 100fps? Would it be enough to make you react faster say when you run around a corner. Or is that just a result of our crap pings here in ireland?

Its all to do with the perception of smoothness.


If you're getting 100fps, but using say 60hz screen, you'd be best using a frame rate limiter to limit your cards output to 60fps.

The extra fps are being wasted, causing tearing, and using unnecessary power and generating excess heat for no reason.


However, 100fps on a 120hz screen will seem a lot smoother (even if technically 1/5 of each frame is being drawn again, causing slight tearing).

pacquiao

Dublin_Gunner wrote: »

Its all to do with the perception of smoothness.


If you're getting 100fps, but using say 60hz screen, you'd be best using a frame rate limiter to limit your cards output to 60fps.

The extra fps are being wasted, causing tearing, and using unnecessary power and generating excess heat for no reason.


However, 100fps on a 120hz screen will seem a lot smoother (even if technically 1/5 of each frame is being drawn again, causing slight tearing).

I have cs on 100fps with 70hz and i do notice some tearing im going to change that. It does make sense what you're saying. Would interlaced or progressive have any impact on the games? I read about how they interlace blank images every second frame or something on tellies.

Dublin_Gunner

pacquiao wrote: »

I have cs on 100fps with 70hz and i do notice some tearing im going to change that. It does make sense what you're saying. Would interlaced or progressive have any impact on the games? I read about how they interlace blank images every second frame or something on tellies.

Always progressive. Interlaced is 'faking' it, as only every second line is drawn per frame, giving the perception of a certain resolution is being displayed.

All games are designed for progressive scan output, so playing games on an interlaced screen can look a little funny at times - especially at higher frame rates.

pacquiao

I see. Would all our computer monitors be progressive? And is progressive and interlaced a mode that can be changed like when you choose 1080i or 1080p?

Dublin_Gunner

pacquiao wrote: »

I see. Would all our computer monitors be progressive? And is progressive and interlaced a mode that can be changed like when you choose 1080i or 1080p?

Always choose 'p' - especially these days when displaying digital content on digital screens.

A quick google throws this
http://www.axis.com/products/video/camera/progressive_scan.htm

If you want to read a little more in depth than my attempt at simplifying something that isn't very simple!

pacquiao

Dublin_Gunner wrote: »

Always choose 'p' - especially these days when displaying digital content on digital screens.

A quick google throws this
http://www.axis.com/products/video/camera/progressive_scan.htm

If you want to read a little more in depth than my attempt at simplifying something that isn't very simple!

It is a very complicated subject. I'm glad you seen the thread and were able to answer my questions. Thanks for that.
Atleast now i know that 5ms is probably going to be fine and the 2ms is overkill.

ShadowHearth

pacquiao wrote: »

It is a very complicated subject. I'm glad you seen the thread and were able to answer my questions. Thanks for that.
Atleast now i know that 5ms is probably going to be fine and the 2ms is overkill.

when it comes to monitors there are soooo many grey areas! manufacturers are being very slimy with specs and what actually important specs.

armitage_skanks

Most super-low response times are achieved with overdrive and this can cause it's own issues. I had to turn it off on mine because it bothered me but most people I showed it to had no idea what I was talking about.

pacquiao

They are snakes allright.

Genghiz Cohen

*Turns brightness up full
ZOMG LOOK AT HOW BRIGHT THE WHITES ARE!!!
*Turns brightness down
ZOMGWTFBBQ LOOK AT THOSE BLACKS!!!!!!

Magill

Don't want to make a new thread so i'll ask here. Looking to buy a second monitor (Will be my main monitor for gaming, at least on shooters).

Anyone got any suggestions on which one's are good value for money, i don't have a huge amount to spend.

ShadowHearth

Magill wrote: »

Don't want to make a new thread so i'll ask here. Looking to buy a second monitor (Will be my main monitor for gaming, at least on shooters).

Anyone got any suggestions on which one's are good value for money, i don't have a huge amount to spend.

you are welcome to join the party, so far i am being fed this!

http://www.komplett.ie/Komplett/product/monitors/80003372/dell_24_u2412m_led_8ms_dp_vga_dvi/details.aspx


unfortunately i am little by little being taken over by it

TheAmateur

Figured this might be relevant. In my quest to buy a 120Hz monitor for under €200, I ended up buying this: Hanns G HS 233. Cost me €202.42 overall including shipping etc. Had to pay by bank transfer. It's due to arrive on Tuesday. I have absolutely no experience of the monitor or even the brand, and I could find very little info on it, except for a few reviews which seemed positive. I'll keep you guys posted on how it goes, although I won't be able to test it properly until I finish exams in mid-May.
Anyways, here's a list of 120Hz monitors which got posted around about a year ago (so there have been a few new ones since):

Acer GD245HQ 1920x1080
Acer GD235HZ 1920x1080
Acer GN245HQ 1920x1080
Acer HN274H 1920x1080
Alienware™ OptX™ AW2310 120Hz 1920x1080
ASUS VG236H 120 Hz 1920x1080
BenQ XL2410T 1920x1080
BenQ XL2420T 1920x1080
Hannstar HS233 1920x1080
I-O Data LCD-3D231XBR 1920x1080
Lenovo L2363dwA 1920x1080
LG W2363D 120 Hz 1920x1080
LG W2363DB 120 Hz 1920x1080
NEC F23W2A 1920x1080
Planar SA2311W 1920x1080
Samsung® SyncMaster 2233RZ 120 Hz 1680x1050
ViewSonic® FuHzion™ VX2265wm 120 Hz 1680x1050
ViewSonic FuHzion VX2268wm 120 Hz LCD display 1680x1050

A few of these, such as the LG W2363D or the BenQ XL2420T, seem to come highly regarded by gamers. My advice is keep an eye out for 2nd-hand ones for sale, as some of these are stupidly expensive new.