I don't see any difference what-so-ever when i change refresh rate on my monitor. Is there som way I can make my picture "better"? Is higher, better? DO LCD displays have "refresh rate"?
Printable View
I don't see any difference what-so-ever when i change refresh rate on my monitor. Is there som way I can make my picture "better"? Is higher, better? DO LCD displays have "refresh rate"?
Yes, LCDs do have a refresh rate (although some sources say that they don't). The way it measured is vertical and horizontal megahertz. The vertical refresh rate is measured in Hz (as is the horizontal). Hertz is a wavelength, not a bandwidth (although in many situations, they are the same).
Increasing your refresh rate can reduce strain on your eyes.
Hertz is one way of saying 'x times a second'. So, 60 Hertz is kind of a way of saying 60 times a second.
I would advice first checking your video card and monitor manuals.
So vertical 60 Hz mean the screen is refreshed (or re-drawn) 60 times a second in all the vertical rows.
(kinda drunk so me not explain good....)
WTF????Quote:
Hertz is a wavelength, not a bandwidth
You have contadicted yourself..
Hertz is a unit of frequency.. bandwidth of a rf or audio signal is measured in Hertz
With a Monitor or television.. the refresh reate is the number of time the image on the screen is refreshed persecond (hence the dmorgans correct statement)
refreshrate is the number of time the image is redisplayed on the screen
framerate while it is almost the same thing it is the number of time the images changes persecond.
The human eye is able to tolerate very low frame rates down to some 7 to 10 frames persecond. The eye/brain will at low framerates notice the flicker (flashing/strobing effect) but still percieve the motion in any displayed animation.
The higher the frame rate the less perceptiable the flicker is to the brain..
Basicly your frame rate can not exceed your refresh rate, it is best if refresh is higher than framerate for television, standared tv this was.. framerate = 30hz, and field or refresh rate=60hz... the larger displays and HD sets run refresh rates of 120hz (I think..in OZ it is 25/50 and 25/100Hz) ... you will note here that the refreshrate normally is a full multple of the frame rate.
SO.. for smooth display of motion images.. the higher framrate is best
for low flicker from even a static image.. the higher the refresh rate the better
Oh.. just realisd.. why refresh?
In a crt.. the image is formed by a beam of electrons (per colour) scanning across the screen from left to right and top to bottom during the right to left transitions the beam is blanked as also during the bottom to top.. by the time the beam returns to its starting point the image at the top has faded (phospher does have a latency some are higher than others) so the image is ready to be redrawn..
With LCD's The image needs to be blanked between frames so that the fresh image (any changes from the previous) can be displayed without artifacts.. (LCD ghosts) I will admitt that i have run a stroboscopic test on some LCDs with a static image and did not notice a interferance pattern.. but ost I have seen will ..so yes they do have a refresh rate..
With LCD's the latency was a stumpling block with gamers for a considerable time..
OK here is my £0.02:
As already stated, the refresh rate determines how frequently/quickly the screen is "redrawn". Now, from a layman's viewpoint, that will determine how likely you are to notice this process, which you would probably describe as "flicker"
58/60Hz is about what you see in "safe mode" it does flicker rather ;)
Once you get to 72Hz, you see a real improvement...............at 75Hz things are good.............beyond that you will not see much difference unless we have very big screens/fast graphics? Undies~ can explain this.
I am not sure what I can run this kit at, but I can tell you that between 75 and 90Hz, my eyesight is not good enough to detect a difference................I believe that is your experience, and the question?
My view is to run it at the lowest "optimal experience"
Now, and a bit off topic, you can find that the refresh rate alters the image size and may remove or provoke screen distortions.........please think about that when problem solving ;)
I personally use 72~85, but I don't play any of these mega games.
:)
http://www.tweakguides.com/ATICAT_5.html
Its a tweak guide for ATI Catalyst drivers, but gives a proper definition of refresh rate for a monitor. Basically faster is better, both in quality and in terms of easier on the eyes :) Really, once you get above 60Hz you probably won't notice a difference, though I will add that for many FPS style games, a low refresh rate can CAP your Frames Per Second (FPS) since the Refresh Rate directly correlates to how fast/many times the screen will get redrawn per second....which can make a big difference in how fluid running through a virtual world feels, and hence your ability to react to it.
BTW, I highly recommend the above site, he has, IMHO, always written quality tweak guides for everything from Operating Systems, to Graphics Cards, to specific games (even going so far as to show you the difference in display settings).
Son,
ATI drivers are crap...................It makes me insist that anyone who wants ATI kit has to accept a potential surcharge...............the cards are OK but NOT the firmware/drivers.
I would use GeForce over ATI/Radeon any day.............and I am going back at least 5 years ;)
:)
I am with Nihil here...to many problems with ATI cards and driver\app compatibilityQuote:
I would use GeForce
MLF
is there a reason for what you are saying nihil... i was gonna buy ATI (time for a change)
i know you don't babel
I hope you are not insinuating that I babble..... :eek:Quote:
i know you don't babel
(well...maybe...I have been known too...specially when into the wine.. ;) )
as stated...the drivers are unstable.....and I have had them out right fail and need to be replaced
Also I work with engineers that use 3d rendering, autocad design programs, and other graphic apps etc...ATIs were not listed on the recommended video card list...last hardware upgrade was 2 years ago...so things may have changed recently
From my experience...I do not trust them
MHO as always
MLF
Hey unhappy I hope that I find you well?
Well, it is just sorting problems afterwards...............I have used both ATI and nViDia, but I find the latter more stable.Quote:
is there a reason for what you are saying nihil
If you build something and you have to spend 10 hours fixing it..............you don't get paid for those hours?
;)
"i know you don't babel"
what i ment was that i know that nihil "had some reason" for saying what he said.
by the way...
how is video card "unstable" because of the drivers and how can you spend "10 hours" fixing drivers (software)
byt the way i still have my geforce 256 in my system (w/ blueorb & memory heat sinks) overclocked ... i love that card...
In my experience ATI cards\drivers are unstable they freeze up applications,
and\or cause bsods or hard reboots....memory conflicts...due to the fact that they do not properly release processes\memory\resources when the application is no longer in use
These things do not happen with the nvidia chipsets and drivers.....same hardware\applications...
Trouble shooting these things can take a very long time....when the easiest way is to try a new card...I have tried swappping memory, removing\re-applying os patches..driver versions...driver patches... contacting support...checking the BIOS settings..and even a full OS reinstall.........this all takes alot of time...which I think Nihil is getting at with the 10 hours
I have also seen them just out and out fry.......hardware failure....after extensive use...as in no video on boot...before the OS loads....usually just after the warranty ends..thats when I replace them with the nvidas geoforce
we use 128s and some 256 cards in the engineering machines.......no issues .....and no burn outs ...so farQuote:
byt the way i still have my geforce 256 in my system
...I happen to have a 256 one myself...for testing..of course ;)
Personally...I dont trust ATIs.....or the down time of an engineering machine
MHO...as always
MLF
Morgana~ is quite right, my complaint is about the ATI drivers and their "management" software.
My 10 hours was my first bad experience with ATI a few years ago. I built a gaming box for a kid, and he insisted on this top of the range ATI card. His machine kept producing intermittent faults such as Morgana~ described. I checked and double checked everything, and because the fault was intermittent, this took quite a time, as did testing with spare components and testing the suspect components on other boxes.
The card was the latest, and the drivers were only 4 weeks old! so I didn't think of that..........when I did, I found that there were new ones only 2 weeks old................it worked OK after that :D
This is not just my experience, friends and colleagues have reported exactly the same.
I have not noticed any significant hardware problems with ATI cards in comparison with other brands.
When you act as an OEM or a repairer you have to guarantee your work, so any additional work is at your own expense, and you have to pay for returning failed components. Also, it does not make you look good, even though it is not your fault!
I have worked in engineering CAD support environments such as Morgana~ describes. I would never install or upgrade the software onto kit that was not on the suppliers' approved list. The main reason for that is that if you call them for support the first two questions are "have you got the latest version" and "what hardware are you using"? If you are not up to date and approved, the conversation ends there.
Cheers :)
PS. This machine has a Radeon 7500 with the latest drivers. Every now and then it will change the screen size and/or distort the image. My "work around" is to change the refresh rate from 85 to 75, then change it back...............that fixes it for some reason!