Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Can I only get 60 FPS on a 60 hz screen?

Tags:
  • Monitors
  • FPS
  • Graphics
Last response: in Graphics & Displays
Share
June 13, 2013 11:58:27 AM

I might think on upgrading if so.

Thanks =)

More about : fps screen

a b C Monitor
June 13, 2013 12:00:03 PM

Yes.

But 60 FPS is good.

Get a 120Hz monitor if you'd like more.
m
0
l
June 13, 2013 12:01:26 PM

I don't see how I can get 120 on my current screen then (sometimes even more) in some games.

Thanks for your answer =)
m
0
l
Related resources
June 13, 2013 12:02:54 PM

ESKlassen said:
I don't see how I can get 120 on my current screen then (sometimes even more) in some games.

Thanks for your answer =)


Short answer: The GPU renders the frame, then throws it away :-)
m
0
l
June 13, 2013 12:08:40 PM

The game can generate more which will make input slightly more responsive, but visually you're stuck at 60.
m
0
l
a b C Monitor
June 13, 2013 12:09:09 PM

Because they are sent to the monitor, but it cant accept them because it is only refreshing 60 times a second.
m
0
l
June 13, 2013 12:10:03 PM

You'll also get tearing by going above the refresh rate.
m
0
l
a b C Monitor
June 13, 2013 12:10:04 PM

No, if you turn off VSync, then your FPS can exceed 60. If you use Triple Buffering, that will allow FPS over 60 with VSync turned On.

The question is whether you can "see" more than 60 FPS in a 60 Hz monitor. The answer is that your 60 Hz monitor cannot draw more than 60 frames per second. However, there still may more responsiveness in the feel of the controls with FPS exceeding 60 on a 60 Hz monitor. Your eyes do not see in FPS, so that is not an issue, it's more the 'feel' of the controls that counts. For most people, 60 FPS is smooth and responsive.

More on the subject:
http://www.tweakguides.com/Graphics_5.html
m
0
l
a b C Monitor
June 13, 2013 12:10:19 PM

I agree with cookyBiscuit.
m
0
l
a b C Monitor
June 13, 2013 12:13:46 PM

rex4235 said:
You'll also get tearing by going above the refresh rate.


This is where a 120Hz monitor comes in handy. You don't need v-sync to get a good gaming experience on a 120Hz+ monitor. As a result, you don't get the corresponding input lag that comes along with v-sync.

Also, tearing with frames beyond the 120Hz mark are really hard to perceive. It's an all around smoother gaming experience with a 120Hz+ monitor.
m
0
l
June 13, 2013 12:35:43 PM

17seconds said:
No, if you turn off VSync, then your FPS can exceed 60. If you use Triple Buffering, that will allow FPS over 60 with VSync turned On.


This is incorrect information.
m
0
l
June 13, 2013 12:37:57 PM

ubercake said:
rex4235 said:
You'll also get tearing by going above the refresh rate.


This is where a 120Hz monitor comes in handy. You don't need v-sync to get a good gaming experience on a 120Hz+ monitor. As a result, you don't get the corresponding input lag that comes along with v-sync.

Also, tearing with frames beyond the 120Hz mark are really hard to perceive. It's an all around smoother gaming experience with a 120Hz+ monitor.


This is incorrect. I get tearing at above or below 60fps when Vsync is not on.
m
0
l
a b C Monitor
June 13, 2013 12:44:29 PM

Darkman69 said:
ubercake said:
rex4235 said:
You'll also get tearing by going above the refresh rate.


This is where a 120Hz monitor comes in handy. You don't need v-sync to get a good gaming experience on a 120Hz+ monitor. As a result, you don't get the corresponding input lag that comes along with v-sync.

Also, tearing with frames beyond the 120Hz mark are really hard to perceive. It's an all around smoother gaming experience with a 120Hz+ monitor.


This is incorrect. I get tearing at above or below 60fps when Vsync is not on.

With a 120Hz monitor?

It won't be free of it, but it will be drastically reduced. Try setting your resolution to 60Hz to see the difference.
m
0
l
June 13, 2013 12:45:25 PM

Why would anybody want more than 60fps? You can't see it so who cares?
m
0
l
a b C Monitor
June 13, 2013 12:47:42 PM

Darkman69 said:
ubercake said:
rex4235 said:
You'll also get tearing by going above the refresh rate.


This is where a 120Hz monitor comes in handy. You don't need v-sync to get a good gaming experience on a 120Hz+ monitor. As a result, you don't get the corresponding input lag that comes along with v-sync.

Also, tearing with frames beyond the 120Hz mark are really hard to perceive. It's an all around smoother gaming experience with a 120Hz+ monitor.


This is incorrect. I get tearing at above or below 60fps when Vsync is not on.


Maybe it's not tearing when you're below 60fps? Are you using AMD cards? Another possibility is when your framerate is low enough it can't deliver a frame to your monitor when it should in order to provide a smooth video experience. This is called stuttering.
m
0
l
a c 135 C Monitor
June 13, 2013 12:49:45 PM

Some of what matto17sec said is correct, though the vsync part was not. I'll try to explain.

Your video card renders frames independently from the monitor if v-sync is off. It can generating as many as it wants. However, the monitors only updates at its refresh rate, which is usually 60hz. However, if your video card is generating 120FPS, you will notice a difference from 60 FPS.

What happens is you get partial images displayed to the monitor. As the monitor updates the image, if the frame buffer changes midway through the update, the part of the update which hasn't been completed, will be completed with the new frame. This causes tearing, but it also improve responsiveness, because you do see a new update from an action you just did. This update, may only be on part of the screen, but it is noticeable. The bad part is you get what looks like lines through the screen, where the older image and newer images change.

With vsync on, the video card cannot write to the frame buffer until the monitor is done updating its image, preventing partial images from appearing. Without triple buffering, this causes the GPU to stop doing anything until that time. With triple buffering, it'll wait with one buffer, but start making a new frame with another, but it still will not generating more frames than your monitor can display.
m
0
l
a b C Monitor
June 13, 2013 12:49:52 PM

ram1009 said:
Why would anybody want more than 60fps? You can't see it so who cares?


You can see it. Why do you think newer TV sets offer 120Hz or 240Hz sports modes (post-processed in the case of a television though) to smooth out the high-motion video?
m
0
l
June 13, 2013 12:59:08 PM

ubercake said:
ram1009 said:
Why would anybody want more than 60fps? You can't see it so who cares?


You can see it. Why do you think newer TV sets offer 120Hz or 240Hz sports modes (post-processed in the case of a television though) to smooth out the high-motion video?


Movies and TV programs only put out what 24 to 30fpps max. Also I do believe that TVs so not even support true 120Hz and I believe it is some sketchy interlaced marketing crap and not true 120fps.
m
0
l
a c 135 C Monitor
June 13, 2013 1:05:25 PM

You have to have a 120hz monitor to know. Those with 120hz monitors do notice a difference. Though the difference is less noticeable if watching a movie, and more about how much more responsive gaming is. When moving your mouse, things feel much smoother.

One other thing that plays a part in the 120hz experience is motion blur. It takes these lightboost monitors to truly experience all that 120hz has to offer.

Example of 120hz with and without lightboost with 2ms response times:
http://www.blurbusters.com/zero-motion-blur/lightboost/


(these are actual high speed pictures)
m
0
l
a b C Monitor
June 13, 2013 1:06:13 PM

Darkman69 said:
ubercake said:
ram1009 said:
Why would anybody want more than 60fps? You can't see it so who cares?


You can see it. Why do you think newer TV sets offer 120Hz or 240Hz sports modes (post-processed in the case of a television though) to smooth out the high-motion video?


Movies and TV programs only put out what 24 to 30fpps max. Also I do believe that TVs so not even support true 120Hz and I believe it is some sketchy interlaced marketing crap and not true 120fps.

Yea they take the 24FPS movie and create fake frames to make it 120FPS, which is why it looks crap.

Games however run at 120FPS just fine.
m
0
l
June 13, 2013 1:08:10 PM

cookybiscuit said:
Darkman69 said:
ubercake said:
ram1009 said:
Why would anybody want more than 60fps? You can't see it so who cares?


You can see it. Why do you think newer TV sets offer 120Hz or 240Hz sports modes (post-processed in the case of a television though) to smooth out the high-motion video?


Movies and TV programs only put out what 24 to 30fpps max. Also I do believe that TVs so not even support true 120Hz and I believe it is some sketchy interlaced marketing crap and not true 120fps.

Yea they take the 24FPS movie and create fake frames to make it 120FPS, which is why it looks crap.

Games however run at 120FPS just fine.


Are there even any TVs that can run true 120Hz ? I don't think so but could be wrong. Also 240Hz is complete marketing bollocks.
m
0
l
a c 135 C Monitor
June 13, 2013 1:12:48 PM

Darkman69 said:
Are there even any TVs that can run true 120Hz ? I don't think so but could be wrong. Also 240Hz is complete marketing bollocks.

While 120hz might not benefit completely from 120hz, the interlaced images can add some fluidity. Those with them notice some difference, but it doesn't take much to make 24hz look smoother.

240hz sounds like far more than needed, though these 600hz plasma's has more to do with light pulsing. I'm not entirely sure what these pulses actually do for you.
m
0
l
June 13, 2013 1:15:33 PM

bystander said:
Darkman69 said:
Are there even any TVs that can run true 120Hz ? I don't think so but could be wrong. Also 240Hz is complete marketing bollocks.

While 120hz might not benefit completely from 120hz, the interlaced images can add some fluidity. Those with them notice some difference, but it doesn't take much to make 24hz look smoother.

You can add frames that do not even exist.
m
0
l
a c 135 C Monitor
June 13, 2013 1:23:18 PM

Darkman69 said:
bystander said:
Darkman69 said:
Are there even any TVs that can run true 120Hz ? I don't think so but could be wrong. Also 240Hz is complete marketing bollocks.

While 120hz might not benefit completely from 120hz, the interlaced images can add some fluidity. Those with them notice some difference, but it doesn't take much to make 24hz look smoother.

You can add frames that do not even exist.


They process the images, and make motion half way between two images given. Just like there are 3D methods that takes a single 2D image, and renders a slightly offset image to make a 3D effect. It is not as accurate as it would be if filmed that way, but they can generate images to add to the effect.
m
0
l
June 13, 2013 1:26:40 PM

bystander said:
Darkman69 said:
bystander said:
Darkman69 said:
Are there even any TVs that can run true 120Hz ? I don't think so but could be wrong. Also 240Hz is complete marketing bollocks.

While 120hz might not benefit completely from 120hz, the interlaced images can add some fluidity. Those with them notice some difference, but it doesn't take much to make 24hz look smoother.

You can add frames that do not even exist.


They process the images, and make motion half way between two images given. Just like there are 3D methods that takes a single 2D image, and renders a slightly offset image to make a 3D effect. It is not as accurate as it would be if filmed that way, but they can generate images to add to the effect.


Once again you absolutely cannot add frames that were never created in the first place. A TV cannot created images it can only display them. I am sorry but blurring images together does not create a higher frame rate. This is pure marketing bull.
m
0
l
a c 135 C Monitor
June 13, 2013 1:32:21 PM

Darkman69 said:
Once again you absolutely cannot add frames that were never created in the first place. A TV cannot created images it can only display them. I am sorry but blurring images together does not create a higher frame rate. This is pure marketing bull.


I don't know if they are lying, but here is an article that explains what is happening (I'd take the word of a professionally written article over someone on a forum site). While there were some that blurred, others that just repeated, there are others with processing power that generates images from existing ones that are inserted into the mix. Of course this won't work on PC's because it creates latency as it takes some time to generate the images: http://reviews.cnet.com/8301-33199_7-57524894-221/what-...

They do this type of thing with virtual 3D as well.
m
0
l
a b C Monitor
June 13, 2013 1:36:55 PM

Darkman69 said:
bystander said:
Darkman69 said:
bystander said:
Darkman69 said:
Are there even any TVs that can run true 120Hz ? I don't think so but could be wrong. Also 240Hz is complete marketing bollocks.

While 120hz might not benefit completely from 120hz, the interlaced images can add some fluidity. Those with them notice some difference, but it doesn't take much to make 24hz look smoother.

You can add frames that do not even exist.


They process the images, and make motion half way between two images given. Just like there are 3D methods that takes a single 2D image, and renders a slightly offset image to make a 3D effect. It is not as accurate as it would be if filmed that way, but they can generate images to add to the effect.


Once again you absolutely cannot add frames that were never created in the first place. A TV cannot created images it can only display them. I am sorry but blurring images together does not create a higher frame rate. This is pure marketing bull.

Yes it can. The controller in the TV takes the frame its meant to display, and the next frame its meant to display, does its magical measurements, then inserts frames between the 'real' two to make the jump between the real frames less obvious. Its the reason theres huge input lag when using it.
m
0
l
June 13, 2013 1:39:17 PM

cookybiscuit said:
Darkman69 said:
bystander said:
Darkman69 said:
bystander said:
Darkman69 said:
Are there even any TVs that can run true 120Hz ? I don't think so but could be wrong. Also 240Hz is complete marketing bollocks.

While 120hz might not benefit completely from 120hz, the interlaced images can add some fluidity. Those with them notice some difference, but it doesn't take much to make 24hz look smoother.

You can add frames that do not even exist.


They process the images, and make motion half way between two images given. Just like there are 3D methods that takes a single 2D image, and renders a slightly offset image to make a 3D effect. It is not as accurate as it would be if filmed that way, but they can generate images to add to the effect.


Once again you absolutely cannot add frames that were never created in the first place. A TV cannot created images it can only display them. I am sorry but blurring images together does not create a higher frame rate. This is pure marketing bull.

Yes it can. The controller in the TV takes the frame its meant to display, and the next frame its meant to display, does its magical measurements, then inserts frames between the 'real' two to make the jump between the real frames less obvious. Its the reason theres huge input lag when using it.

It's not magic lOL. The camera that shot the movie or TV show did not capture the images at anything above 30fps. The TV cannot make new frames like a camera LOL.

m
0
l
a b C Monitor
June 13, 2013 1:41:02 PM

Alright it cant then, all the TV companies are just getting away with false advertising.
m
0
l
a c 135 C Monitor
June 13, 2013 1:41:32 PM

Darkman69 said:
It's not magic lOL. The camera that shot the movie or TV show did not capture the images at anything above 30fps. The TV cannot make new frames like a camera LOL.

http://reviews.cnet.com/8301-33199_7-57524894-221/what-...

Please read. With technology improving the way it has, almost everything has a computer in them now, including HDTV's. They can and do create frames.
m
0
l
June 13, 2013 1:45:27 PM

bystander said:
Darkman69 said:
It's not magic lOL. The camera that shot the movie or TV show did not capture the images at anything above 30fps. The TV cannot make new frames like a camera LOL.

http://reviews.cnet.com/8301-33199_7-57524894-221/what-...

Please read. With technology improving the way it has, almost everything has a computer in them now, including HDTV's. They can and do create frames.

It's does not have a camera so it cannot create new frames. Don't let the marketing BS fool you.
m
0
l
a c 135 C Monitor
June 13, 2013 2:19:00 PM

Darkman69 said:
It's does not have a camera so it cannot create new frames. Don't let the marketing BS fool you.


My PC doesn't have a camera either, yet it can generate frames. If the frames I see in games are marketing BS, I'm cool with it.
m
0
l
June 13, 2013 2:31:08 PM

Awesome replys, thanks =)

I also have a 55 inch LED TV @240hz, will there be much of a difference when playing a game between the two? (The other one is a 60hz monitor (23 inch if it matters).
m
0
l
June 13, 2013 2:42:35 PM

cookybiscuit said:
Alright it cant then, all the TV companies are just getting away with false advertising.


Would that actually surprise you?
m
0
l
a c 135 C Monitor
June 13, 2013 2:42:37 PM

ESKlassen said:
Awesome replys, thanks =)

I also have a 55 inch LED TV @240hz, will there be much of a difference when playing a game between the two? (The other one is a 60hz monitor (23 inch if it matters).


Unfortunately, HDTV's don't accept more than 60hz of input, and the process of creating frames between existing frames causes lots of input latency, and often not even allowed to be used in PC mode. You'll be operating at 60hz with that TV.
m
0
l
June 13, 2013 2:43:19 PM

ESKlassen said:
Awesome replys, thanks =)

I also have a 55 inch LED TV @240hz, will there be much of a difference when playing a game between the two? (The other one is a 60hz monitor (23 inch if it matters).


Why don't you tell us?
m
0
l
June 13, 2013 2:44:21 PM

IMHO, it's just a giant pissing contest.
m
0
l
a c 135 C Monitor
June 13, 2013 2:44:29 PM

ram1009 said:
cookybiscuit said:
Alright it cant then, all the TV companies are just getting away with false advertising.


Would that actually surprise you?


Blatant false advertising, where they describe a process and it doesn't do what they describe would land them with huge fines and force them to change. How well a process works is another thing all together. They can fudge the truth on subjective things, but not on what happens.
m
0
l
June 13, 2013 2:48:38 PM

bystander said:
Darkman69 said:
It's does not have a camera so it cannot create new frames. Don't let the marketing BS fool you.


My PC doesn't have a camera either, yet it can generate frames. If the frames I see in games are marketing BS, I'm cool with it.


Does your PC play games that are made out of frames created from a Video Camera like TV and movies ? Or does it render computer animated frames ?
m
0
l
a c 135 C Monitor
June 13, 2013 2:50:04 PM

Darkman69 said:
bystander said:
Darkman69 said:
It's does not have a camera so it cannot create new frames. Don't let the marketing BS fool you.


My PC doesn't have a camera either, yet it can generate frames. If the frames I see in games are marketing BS, I'm cool with it.


Does your PC play games that are made out of frames created from a Video Camera like TV and movies ? Or does it render computer animated frames ?


It can do either with the right software.

The thing is, you are asking the wrong question. You are skeptical about the wrong thing. They create frames, that is a fact. You can't argue it, unless you want to be compared to those tin foil hat wearing fools.

What you should be asking is, "how well do those inserted images look?" I bet the quality varies from one system to the next, though I'm sure many use the same processors to get the job done as well.
m
0
l
June 13, 2013 2:52:18 PM

Darkman69 said:
bystander said:
Darkman69 said:
It's does not have a camera so it cannot create new frames. Don't let the marketing BS fool you.


My PC doesn't have a camera either, yet it can generate frames. If the frames I see in games are marketing BS, I'm cool with it.


Does your PC play games that are made out of frames created from a Video Camera like TV and movies ? Or does it render computer animated frames ?


I'm pretty sure it renders animated frames. How would I know if they are not? The game I get 120+ FPS on is MicroVotls by the way.
m
0
l
June 13, 2013 2:58:25 PM

Animated frams is what my Computer uses then. Looked it up.
m
0
l
June 13, 2013 2:59:39 PM

''Long story short, FRAPS isn't measuring FPS on the monitor, its measuring FPS produced by the GPU before certain processing needed to occur before the calculations become images. Your monitor is not going to go over its max rate.

Still, this is a useful tool for letting a gamer know how much more he could afford to raise graphic settings and still keep his FPS at about 60.

PS) I recently replayed the original Doom on my PC, and had over 2,000 FPS according to FRAPs.''

That might be why I get over 60 fps right?
m
0
l
a c 135 C Monitor
June 13, 2013 3:01:45 PM

Since I gave you an answer earlier, which got ignored due to the rants of a delusional poster, I'll answer the question again:

Quote:
Some of what matto17sec said is correct, though the vsync part was not. I'll try to explain.

Your video card renders frames independently from the monitor if v-sync is off. It can generating as many as it wants. However, the monitors only updates at its refresh rate, which is usually 60hz. However, if your video card is generating 120FPS, you will notice a difference from 60 FPS.

What happens is you get partial images displayed to the monitor. As the monitor updates the image, if the frame buffer changes midway through the update, the part of the update which hasn't been completed, will be completed with the new frame. This causes tearing, but it also improve responsiveness, because you do see a new update from an action you just did. This update, may only be on part of the screen, but it is noticeable. The bad part is you get what looks like lines through the screen, where the older image and newer images change.

With vsync on, the video card cannot write to the frame buffer until the monitor is done updating its image, preventing partial images from appearing. Without triple buffering, this causes the GPU to stop doing anything until that time. With triple buffering, it'll wait with one buffer, but start making a new frame with another, but it still will not generating more frames than your monitor can display.
m
0
l
June 13, 2013 3:05:24 PM

bystander said:
Darkman69 said:
bystander said:
Darkman69 said:
It's does not have a camera so it cannot create new frames. Don't let the marketing BS fool you.


My PC doesn't have a camera either, yet it can generate frames. If the frames I see in games are marketing BS, I'm cool with it.


Does your PC play games that are made out of frames created from a Video Camera like TV and movies ? Or does it render computer animated frames ?


It can do either with the right software.

The thing is, you are asking the wrong question. You are skeptical about the wrong thing. They create frames, that is a fact. You can't argue it, unless you want to be compared to those tin foil hat wearing fools.

What you should be asking is, "how well do those inserted images look?" I bet the quality varies from one system to the next, though I'm sure many use the same processors to get the job done as well.


Games and TV/Movies are not the same unless it is a GCI cartoon then it's the same rendering process as a video game. Some quasi form of BS frame rendering like 240hz TV is just marketing hype to get consumers that don't understand about how frame rate works to buy a product. You cannot make frames out of nothing. The source file has to supply the frames to be rendered and a TV cannot create source files on the fly because it has to be created by a video camera or CGI and then saved to a file format that is recognized by the TV. In short to simplify things a TV or monitor is not an image capturing device it can only display images that have already been captured or created.
m
0
l
June 13, 2013 3:08:36 PM

Sorry I didn't see that.

Thanks a lot guys :-)
m
0
l
a c 135 C Monitor
June 13, 2013 3:09:34 PM

Darkman69 said:
Games and TV/Movies are not the same unless it is a GCI cartoon then it's the same rendering process as a video game. Some quasi form of BS frame rendering like 240hz TV is just marketing hype to get consumers that don't understand about how frame rate works to buy a product. You cannot make frames out of nothing. The source file has to supply the frames to be rendered and a TV cannot create source files on the fly because it has to be created by a video camera or CGI and then saved to a file format that is recognized by the TV. In short to simplify things a TV or monitor is not an image capturing device it can only display images that have already been captured or created.


Why can you not take two images, and create a middle frame from those 2? How is that so far fetched? You can't lie about how your HDTV works and not get in trouble. There are review sites which test these things.

Now, again, how well they do this might be in question. How much value you get from this, could be in question. Them creating a filler frame between two existing frames is very doable with technology today. I question the difference between 240hz versus 120hz as well. At some point the added frames become increasingly less useful. Based on my monitor experience, with a 120hz monitor, I'd guess that point is somewhere between 80 and 120hz.
m
0
l
June 13, 2013 3:21:57 PM

ubercake said:
Darkman69 said:
ubercake said:
rex4235 said:
You'll also get tearing by going above the refresh rate.


This is where a 120Hz monitor comes in handy. You don't need v-sync to get a good gaming experience on a 120Hz+ monitor. As a result, you don't get the corresponding input lag that comes along with v-sync.

Also, tearing with frames beyond the 120Hz mark are really hard to perceive. It's an all around smoother gaming experience with a 120Hz+ monitor.


This is incorrect. I get tearing at above or below 60fps when Vsync is not on.


Maybe it's not tearing when you're below 60fps? Are you using AMD cards? Another possibility is when your framerate is low enough it can't deliver a frame to your monitor when it should in order to provide a smooth video experience. This is called stuttering.


I get tearing below 60fps when Vsync is off or nvidia Adaptive Vsync is on. Same for my AMD cards when Vsync is turned off. This has been how it goes for me since 2006.
m
0
l
June 13, 2013 3:31:44 PM

bystander said:
10965798,0,1334963 said:
Games and TV/Movies are not the same unless it is a GCI cartoon then it's the same rendering process as a video game. Some quasi form of BS frame rendering like 240hz TV is just marketing hype to get consumers that don't understand about how frame rate works to buy a product. You cannot make frames out of nothing. The source file has to supply the frames to be rendered and a TV cannot create source files on the fly because it has to be created by a video camera or CGI and then saved to a file format that is recognized by the TV. In short to simplify things a TV or monitor is not an image capturing device it can only display images that have already been captured or created.
said:


bystander said:
Why can you not take two images, and create a middle frame from those 2? How is that so far fetched? You can't lie about how your HDTV works and not get in trouble.


They can fudge the truth and it's legit. It's also called marketing. Example "our TV offers 120HZ interpolation" so the the unknowing think this has got to be better than the 60Hz even though it looks crappier than 30hz real frames.

bystander said:
Now, again, how well they do this might be in question. How much value you get from this, could be in question. Them creating a filler frame between two existing frames is very doable with technology today. I question the difference between 240hz versus 120hz as well. At some point the added frames become increasingly less useful. Based on my monitor experience, with a 120hz monitor, I'd guess that point is somewhere between 80 and 120hz.

You have a 120Hz "monitor" which is actually truly capable of displaying 120 images or frames per second. A 120Hz TV cannot display 120 frames per second as it is capped as 60Hz. Not to mention that all source files created for TV do not go any higher than NTSC 29.97 frames per second.
m
0
l
June 13, 2013 3:32:56 PM

bystander said:
ram1009 said:
cookybiscuit said:
Alright it cant then, all the TV companies are just getting away with false advertising.


Would that actually surprise you?


Blatant false advertising, where they describe a process and it doesn't do what they describe would land them with huge fines and force them to change. How well a process works is another thing all together. They can fudge the truth on subjective things, but not on what happens.


You sound like the girl in the STATE FARM commercial who says; "Everybody knows you can't put anything on the internet that isn't true."
m
0
l
      • 1 / 2
      • 2
      • Newest
!