Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question
Closed

Left 4 dead fps limit command

Last response: in Video Games
Share
April 19, 2009 11:11:58 AM

I try “max_fps nuber” in the “set launch options” and didn’t work :pfff:  Also left 4 dead do not have console.
April 19, 2009 12:26:59 PM

I try fps_max to the console but didn’t work :cry: 
Related resources
April 19, 2009 2:04:55 PM

Because in online games you have to be competitive, so 60fps(v-sync) is not very good. I like to have 90fps constant.
April 19, 2009 4:31:19 PM

Yes you are right the human eye can see only 60fps, but from 60fps to 90fps you can feel the difference in online gaming. For example in cod 91fps constant is so much better than 60fps(v-sync), the difference is so big that in 60fps(v-sync) barely i can play(I mean I cannot be competitive, the game still look very very smooth) and when I play with 91fps constant is just perfect(I mean I can kill everyone and get top score).
April 19, 2009 4:48:18 PM

And how you can explain that with 91fps constant I am a very good player and with 60fps I am a bad player?
April 19, 2009 5:29:56 PM

confidence boost?

*shrug*
April 19, 2009 6:05:07 PM

Fraps or i can see if i have 91 i can see screen tearing if i have 60fps(v-sync) i cannot see screen tearing. both 91fsp and 60fps are very smooth but when I have 91fps I am much better player.
April 20, 2009 12:28:29 PM

An LCD screen can only display up to its current refresh rate. Every time the screen refreshes, a new image (or the current one) is drawn to the screen. In short, for most LCD's, any number over 60 is irrelevent.
April 20, 2009 3:42:28 PM

Quote:
Screen does not refresh, no image is drawn.
:non: 

Quote:
Refresh rate: The number of times per second in which the monitor draws the data it is being given. Since activated LCD pixels do not flash on/off between frames, LCD monitors exhibit no refresh-induced flicker, no matter how low the refresh rate


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lcd_display

As I said before, most LCD moniters can not refresh more than 60 times per second, so any higher FPS goes to waste, as even though the GPU is capable of producing 91 FPS, the moniter can not DISPLAY all of those frames.
April 20, 2009 9:02:06 PM

Quote:
Read my post above your and all the others i have posted in, i know fine well how an lcd works.

There is no refresh rate as far as the image is concerned. That quote you provided is complete and utter bollocks.


*sigh*, I just got done with a debate just like this over at guru3d. The refresh rate for an LCD refers to how many times per second a pixel can switch colors. As such, the most you can effectivly re-draw a screen for most LCD moniters is 60 times per second.
April 21, 2009 12:32:12 PM

Quote:
No, that is the response time ffs. The screen is not redrawn.

The refresh rate, if you are going to use the term in regards LCD's, as i pointed out in my above post is how many signals or refreshes the monitor's electronics can handle.

The actual LCD's have no such refrsh rate. They have a response time, the time it takes to change state but that is not constant nor limited to 60mhz. Absolutely no connection whatsoever.

Seriously, go do some reading and get back to me when you have been educated. I have had these discussions far too many times and yet still people like you andf the OP cannot get their head around the change in tech.


Incorrect. A LCD's refresh rate is how many times per second a signal can be sent to tell a pixel (or multiple pixles) to change color. And as you mentioned above, that more of an electronic limit more than anything.

Quote:
Refresh rate: The number of times per second in which the monitor draws the data it is being given. Since activated LCD pixels do not flash on/off between frames, LCD monitors exhibit no refresh-induced flicker, no matter how low the refresh rate. [4] Many high-end LCD televisions now have a 120 Hz (current and former NTSC countries) or 200 Hz (PAL/SECAM countries) refresh rate. The rate of 120 was chosen as the least common multiple of 24 frame/s (cinema) and 30 frame/s (NTSC TV), and allows for less distortion when movies are viewed due to the elimination of telecine (3:2 pulldown). For PAL/SECAM at 25 frame/s, 200 Hz is used as a compromise of one-third the least common multiple of 600 (24 x 25). This is most effective from a 24p-source video output (available on Blu-ray DVD).


In contrast, the response time is the time it takes for a given pixel to actually change its color once it receives the signal.

Quote:
Response time: The minimum time necessary to change a pixel's color or brightness. Response time is also divided into rise and fall time. For LCD Monitors, this is measured in btb (black to black) or gtg (gray to gray). These different types of measurements make comparison difficult. A response time of <16ms is sufficient for video-gaming[1], and the difference between response times once they're below 10ms begin becoming imperceptible due to limitations of the human eye [2] [3]


The mistake you are making, is you are not distinguishing between a signal telling a pixel to change color (Refresh rate), and the time it takes for that change to occur (Response time).

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lcd
April 21, 2009 4:54:03 PM

Quote:

I have already said that the 60hz refers to how many signals the monitor can accept which is correct


Good so far

Quote:
I have already said that how much fps you can have is determined moreso by the response times than how many signals the monitor can process.


Incorrect. The response time for most moniters is miniscule compared to the refresh rate (even if the screen doesnt 'refresh', thats still the term used to describe an image being displayed x times per second), especially the commonly used 60Hz.

The Response Time of a moniter simply states how qucikly pixels change color (a high response time means that there will be display lag between when the frame is sent to the moniter and when it actually gets drawn; a 10ms Response Time means that on average, the image displayed on the screen will be 10ms behind when the image was sent to the moniter for the first time). This not not affect in any way how many times per second a moniter can accept/draw an incomming image, just how long it takes that image to show up on the screen after it is received.


Quote:
Does it matter?

Not really, but I can't stand incorrect facts. You should see me in more political forums...


Back to the OP, 91FPS on a LCD moniter that (I'm assuming) has a 60Hz refresh rate simply means that while the GPU can render enough data to draw 91 images per second, your screen can only physically display 60. Those extra 31 FPS are simply wasted GPU cycles. Hence why I always force Vsync on, as for each time the moniter is ready to accept an image, one image is generated and sent to the screen. (If an image is not ready, keep the current one displayed). Less work for the GPU, and it helps lower temps a bit.
April 21, 2009 7:04:39 PM

Lads . . . stop bickering! :kaola: 

We all got our own exact ideas on whats right and whats not right.
April 21, 2009 8:27:19 PM

Quote:
Response time, is the time taken for a liquid crystal to change state


Good so far...

Quote:

This number is not constant. Now if it take an LC 10ms to change state then the maximum amount of times per second it can do that will be 100fps(1000 / 10)

However, the amount taken varies on what the state transition is so you may go as high as 20ms which will only allow 50fps.


Wrong again. You want links, here you go:

http://knol.google.com/k/joshua-buss/refresh-rate-frame...

Quote:
Refresh Rate: The rate at which your video card is sending complete screens from its frame buffer memory to your monitor, and the corresponding rate at which the monitor refreshes the whole image. 60hz = 60 complete refreshes per second.
FPS: Frames Per Second, the rate at which your video card is drawing frames to its frame buffer. If the FPS is higher than than the refresh rate, then the extra frames are lost and tearing could occur.
Tearing: A screen artifact characterized by the display updating the screen to a portion of a new frame and a portion of an old frame instead of the entire new frame. The result can be best identified by jagged horizontal bands during scenes of constant diagonal motion.
Vertical Sync: The act of synchronizing the FPS rate to a multiple of the refresh rate. For instance, if the video card can output 79 FPS but the refresh rate is 60hz, the video card will time the drawing of its completed frames to the frame buffer to exactly 60 times a second. If the video card is only capable of outputting 50 FPS and the refresh rate is 60hz, the video card will either stagger the output to span multiple monitor refresh cycles or it will reduce the frame rate to 30fps, so that each frame is sent to the monitor twice. Note that the refresh rate stays 60hz in this scenario, but the viewer will only see 30 unique frames every second.
Response Time: The amount of time it takes a pixel to change from one specific color to another color in an LCD display. Typically the figures are worst for certain colors, but if the refresh rate of the LCD monitor is greater than the response time of its pixels' crystals, blurring / ghosting will occur.
Blurring / Ghosting: Screen artifacts characterized by colors lingering longer than they should. Instead of a crisp transition to the new color, the new target color is only partially achieved by the time the new frame is expected to be on the screen. The result is a trailing, 'ghost' image or general blurriness around moving patterns where colors have changed across a line.


http://easyhdtv.blogspot.com/2007/02/refresh-rate-respo...

Quote:
Refresh Rate: The refresh rate is the number of times a display's image is repainted or refreshed per second. The refresh rate is expressed in "Hertz." A refresh rate of 75 means the image is refreshed or "redrawn" 75 times in a second. Acceptable refresh rates for the human eye is anything over 70hz. Refresh rates pertain mostly to Plasma and CRT Tube tv's. Low refresh rates result in on-screen flicker, which can make the eye tired as the screen isn't refreshing fast enough for the human eye.


Response Time: While a CRT Tube "repaints" the picture on the entire screen, LCD's work differently. Unlike a tube, LCD's are digital in nature and pixel based. The "response time" pertains to the time it takes for an LCD to make a pixel go from active (black) to inactive (white) and back to active (black) again. It is measured in milliseconds (ms). The faster the response time, the better. Failure to do this efficiently can cause smearing or ghosting where the image of a previously displayed screen image is still on the screen after a new image is displayed. LCD's are getting progressively better at this, while 8-12ms is more common, response times have gotten as fast as 6ms with some of Sharps, Aquos line of LCD's.


http://tv.about.com/od/glossary/g/responsetime.htm

http://hometheater.about.com/od/televisionbasics/qt/fra...

Quote:
What makes things confusing is the concept of how many separate and discreet frames are displayed every second, verses how many times the frame is repeated every 1/24th, 1/25, or 1/30th of a second to match the refresh rate of the Television display.

TVs have their own screen refresh capabilities. A television's screen refresh rate is usually listed in the user manual or on the manufaturer's product web page.

The most common refresh rate for today's Televisions are 60hz for NTSC-based systems and 50hz for PAL-based systems. However, with the introduction of some Blu-ray Disc and HD-DVD players that can actually output a 24 frame per second video signal, instead of the traditional 30 frame per second video signal, new refresh rates are being implemented by some television display makers to accommodate these signals in the correct mathematical ratio.

If you have a TV with a 120hz refresh rate that is 1080p/24 compatible (1920 pixels across the screen vs 1080 pixels down the screen, with a 24 frame per second rate). The TV ends up displaying 24 separate frames every second, but repeats each frame according to the refresh rate of the TV. In the case of 120hz each frame would be displayed 5 times within each 24th of a second.

In other words, even with higher refresh rates, there are still only 24 separate frames displayed every second, but they may need to be displayed multiple times, depending on the refresh rate.



Summary: Response time, as I've been saying, is the time it takes for a pixel to change color. While this does effect blurriness, it has NO effect on framerate.

Now, either provide some links to your point of view, or just drop it.
April 22, 2009 10:06:01 AM

lol this has been funny reading, as far as most people know or care about they just work, maybe its witchcraft!! I would suggest a period of relaxation perusing lemonparty ;) 
April 22, 2009 12:36:30 PM

Quote:
Quote:
The pixel response time is often confused with the LCD input lag which adds another form of latency to pictures displayed by LCD screens.


Got that from wikipedia myself which is what you are confusing it with. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lcd_Response_Time

I do not need a link for this as it does not require one, it just requires you to think.

If the liquid crystals take a certain, variable amount of time to change state then that means there is a limit to how often they can do so per second, so since each time they change state allows you to know that the image is changing, you can only see as much images per second as they can display, i.e Frames Per Second.

Ghosting is caused by the fact that the LCD can not update it's image fast enough causing blending as it changes states.

Seriously, i am not wrong here, i and alot of other will say the same thing, you have read the information but just not understood it.


The problem with your theory, as I've already stated, is that the 10ms response time most LCD's have will never, ever, approach the screen refresh rate.

Assuiming a 10ms Response Time and 60Hz:

10ms = .001 seconds for pixel to change state
1Hz / 60 = .016 seconds per screen refresh

As you can see, the Response Time is 16x faster then the refresh rate, so the Response Time has no effect on how often a screen can be drawn (using above example, there should be minimal distoration from Response Time up to (60 * 16 = 960 / 2 = 480) FPS** . Granted, given a low Refresh Rate and a high Response Time, you could THEORETICALLY have a situation where the pixels can not change state quickly enough to generate the image being sent to the moniter (IE: Latency more than the time to recieve signal), but even when response times were higher there was never a situation where this occured.

You are taking a term, and completely confusing it with something else to "prove" that you are correct.

Refresh Rate = screen draw rate per second; Response Time = latency. And given how low that latency is, you will never encounter a situation where Respone Time will affect FPS.

I am NOT talking about Input Lag, which is another topic entirely.

Quote:
Causes of input lag
While the pixel response time of the display is usually listed in the monitor's specifications, no manufacturers advertise the input lag of their displays, likely because the trend has been to increase input lag as manufacturers find more ways to process input at the display level before it is shown. Possible culprits are the processing overhead of HDCP, DRM, and also DSP techniques employed to reduce the effects of ghosting - and the cause may vary depending on the model of display. Investigations have been performed by several technology related websites; some of which are listed at the bottom of this article.

LCD and plasma displays, unlike CRTs, have a native resolution. That is, they have a fixed grid of pixels on the screen that show the image sharpest when running at the native resolution (so nothing has to be scaled full-size which blurs the image). One common source of input lag that is separate from others is the introduction of latency due to internal scaling for non-native resolutions.[citation needed] As an example, a display that has a native resolution of 1600x1200 being provided a signal of 640x480 must scale width and height by 2.5x in order to display the image provided by the computer on the native pixels. In order to do this, advanced signal processing is required, which can be a source of introduced latency. Anecdotally, input lag is significantly less when displays operate in native resolutions for a given LCD screen. External devices have also been shown to reduce overall latency by providing faster image-space resizing algorithms than those present in the LCD screen.


Quote:
Input lag versus response time
LCD screens with a high response time value often do not give satisfactory experience when viewing fast moving images (They often leave streaks or blur; called Ghosting). But an LCD screen with high response time AND significant input lag is unsuitable for playing fast paced computer games or performing fast high accuracy operations on the screen (e.g. CAD design) due to the mouse cursor lagging behind. Manufacturers only state the response time of their displays and do not inform customers of the input lag value.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Input_lag

As you can see, Response Time and Input Lag are two seperate topics entirely. Now your're just confusing yourself.


*Too be fully correct, FPS is moniter independent; we're talking about those images being drawn to the screen, not actual FPS.

**I use the divide by half because the Response Time is an average value, so I'm assuing a 50% margin of error as a worst case.
April 22, 2009 12:40:36 PM

The thing, is, in certain games, 60FPS gives you a screen distortion when turning really quickly. When walking in one direction, 60FPS is indistinguishable from 120 but turning is where it gets messy. This is what people are talking about when they feel the difference between 60FPS and anything higher.

Having the extra FPS count isnt a waste when you factor in FPS dips. It is a buffer value, not a waste IMO.

You do a turn in under a second so you never quite know the exact FPS drop during that turn. IMO, it isn't the FPS that make you a worse player, it is the time it takes to focus your eyes on a target after swinging around really quickly and getting that slight distortion in your screen.

If you turn down your settings you probably won't get this distortion because your GPU will be able to keep up with a quick turn. Motion blur is such a wonderful thing. It makes games like Crysis very playable at 40FPS.
April 22, 2009 1:16:25 PM

You have already talked about this in other threads, michael. It may make you feel better to see 90fps on the display counter, but its no use. Unless you get a 120Hz monitor.

You know what he says in CoD4? - You can try pulling if it makes you feel better :D 
April 22, 2009 5:31:08 PM

SpinachEater said:
The thing, is, in certain games, 60FPS gives you a screen distortion when turning really quickly. When walking in one direction, 60FPS is indistinguishable from 120 but turning is where it gets messy. This is what people are talking about when they feel the difference between 60FPS and anything higher.

Having the extra FPS count isnt a waste when you factor in FPS dips. It is a buffer value, not a waste IMO.

You do a turn in under a second so you never quite know the exact FPS drop during that turn. IMO, it isn't the FPS that make you a worse player, it is the time it takes to focus your eyes on a target after swinging around really quickly and getting that slight distortion in your screen.

If you turn down your settings you probably won't get this distortion because your GPU will be able to keep up with a quick turn. Motion blur is such a wonderful thing. It makes games like Crysis very playable at 40FPS.


You hit a valid point with the buffers; that does affect things somewhat when FPS dips (as you have a frame ready to go, which helps if FPS starts to dip). And the distortion you speak of is more of an issue with not using Vsync, but I refuse to start another "Vsync and Input Lag" thread, so I'll just stop there.
April 22, 2009 5:32:29 PM

Quote:
1000 / 10 =?

1000 / 20 =?

1000 / 30 =?


I don't even know what those numbers are. Whats 10? 10Mhz refresh rate? 10ms response time? And I have no clue where 1000 is comming from...
April 22, 2009 7:36:29 PM

I hate vsync. More times than not, I get a slight mouse lag (looking left to right for example). It does smooth the performance but the lag annoys the jollys out of me. FC2 does it to me when I have vsync on.

The more FPS the bigger your epeen is right? I don't game with anything less than 200 :ouch: 
April 23, 2009 3:02:36 PM

Quote:
10ms = 0.01 not 0.001.

If the liquid crystals, take 10ms to change state and you are using 1000 divisions to make up a second then in a second the Liquid crystals can only change state 100 times, meaning a max of 100fps.

Now apply that to my other sums and figure out just how wrong you are. This is quite fun now, now that i realise just how wrong you are.


..I hate math, still, you did prove my point while correcting me:

As you just stated, assuming a 10ms moniter, the most the pixels themselves can change state is 100 times. However, this is still higher then the screen refresh rate, which for (almost) all LCD moniters is 60. As 60 < 100, the refresh rate is the limiting factor, not the response time.

I already stated that if the response time were lower then the refresh rate then you would have a scenereo where the pixels couldn't change quickly enough to keep up with the frames being sent to the moniter. And as you so kindly showed, at least using a LCD with 10ms Response time and 60Mhz refresh rate, that does not happen.

Now, if you had a LCD running at 120Hz with a 10ms response time, then even though the screen would refresh 120 times, the pixels themselves could only could only change 100; in that case, you would have Response Time limiting displayed FPS. Of course, you will also find that most LCD moniters that support such high refresh rates typically have <10ms Response Times.

For example, a 120Hz moniter will typically have a 6ms or lower response time, meaning that the pixels can change states routhly 166 times per second, far more then the maximum 120 times the screen can be told to re-draw. Hence, Refresh Rate, and not Response Time, is the limiting factor.

16ms = 62.5 (more then the 60Hz the moniter can accept, although due to variance, there will be some blurriness using a moniter at 60Hz with a 16ms response time). Even at the lowest possible end of LCD moniters that are still sold, the Response Time is still (slightly) greater then the refresh rate (hence, the figure why 16ms is the minimum for gaming).


In short: While in theory Response Time can limit how many FPS is displayed, in reality, Refresh Rate is the limiting factor in all but a miniscule fraction of LCD moniters.
April 23, 2009 5:07:11 PM

Hence why I used AVERAGE whenever I could. And if you can't understand something as simple as Refresh Rate, then its clear there is no hope for you.

As I said from the start:
Refresh Rate: The amount of times a screen is re-drawn per second (60Hz for most LCD's)
Response Time: Latency (average) for a pixel to change state

And as I said in my previous post, due the fact that the Refresh Rate will always be lower then the Response Time, that means the Refresh Rate is the limiting factor.

For the last time:
REFRESH RATE:
Refresh = to change or update
Rate = change within a specific amount of time


Heres some reading for you:
http://forums.techpowerup.com/showthread.php?p=1319030 (This exact topic)

I'll post a few quotes from that posting:

Quote:
Response time is a big factor AFAIK. The 6ms they might list is good for a referesh rate of 160hz (1000/6), but in reality the specs are "grey to grey". What is the real-world equivalent of the refresh rate? I suspect 60hz does even a 4ms monitor justice, but I'm just guessing.

The point I was making...


Granted, as I even said, the Response time is an AVERAGE time it takes for a pixel to change state. Granted, in a 16ms Response Time 60Hz setup (1000/16 ~ 62) there will be significant blurring due to all the pixels not being able to change state fast enough to keep up with the incoming frames (assuming a bell curve, around 33% of all pixels would not update prior to the next frame being sent). Thats probably why most LCD's now have much lower response times of at least 10ms.

Granted, blurring due to latency will always be an issue with LCD technology, for the reasons explained in the Toms reviews and above. But its been largly eliminated due to lower refresh rates, and has no bearing on the actual amount of times the screen re-draws itself per second.

Again:

Refresh Rate: Amount of times signal sent to re-draw screen
Response Time: Latency for change of screen to occur

Refresh Rate < Response Time, so Refresh Rate is the limiting factor.


Now, get some sources of your own or go away. Even I'm getting tired of this...
April 23, 2009 10:45:41 PM

Well, strangerstranger has more overall posts but his motto is ATI forever, which clearly means he is confused as ATI does not exist, therefore gamerk wins on a technical foul.
April 24, 2009 12:29:45 PM

Quote:
Where are you getting this average from, there is no average, the number is practicaly picked form thin air or at the very least cherry picked by the manufacturer.

The screen is not redrawn each time, if the signal does not change neither will the pixel, that would be a latency of 0ms. Yes the monitor can only handle so many signals per second but there is not necessarily a fresh of the image on screen or an update or anything.

It is not an average, you do not get and would you please just admit it.


Yes, I'm aware that on LCD's, if the pixel doesn't change then it isn't refreshed. Its simply easier to say the screen re-drew (as in, the parts of the screen that need to be changed).

And im taking the average Response Time as being the one thats on the box; weather thats true or not is another debate for another thread.

At least you now agreed to the point that the moniter can only handle so many signals per second. Now we're getting somewhere. :bounce: 
April 24, 2009 4:55:32 PM

My points always been that the Refresh Rate is the limiting factor. You've already admitted that there is a limit to how many signals a moniter can take per second (the Refresh Rate), and as that will always be lower then the Response Time of the LCD crystals, I fail to see how your argument that Response Time is the limiting factor can be true.

Find me a moniter where the listed moniter Response Time is lower then the Refresh Rate, then you might get an argument.

And from where I stand, you're the troll; I made my point, then you went out of your way to "correct" me. And I've actually provided some evidence beyond my word on the matter, thank you very much.
April 25, 2009 1:01:17 PM

I'm gonna stand back...
April 25, 2009 4:04:56 PM

So how about that new patch? The lighthouse is a pretty sweet addition....
April 26, 2009 1:04:10 AM

SpinachEater said:
So how about that new patch? The lighthouse is a pretty sweet addition....


Arrgh, I hate how the walls break... plenty of mollies and pipeys tho...

Quote:
Haven't tried that myself yet, can't get into left for dead, the co-op is a gift and a curse for the game.


I suppose, but if you have good friends then its ok.
April 27, 2009 12:51:22 PM

Your review is over 2 years old, and even one of the moniters tested was relativly flat across the entire LCD. Latency was a major issue with LCD's, especially when the response time was only 16ms, only slightly above the refresh rate. But as I've already shown, once you get down to 10ms, the response time issue goes away.

You keep dismissing all my proof, despite the fact I'm the only one which has shown anything of relevence here. I've done the math to show that Response times under 10ms (average) are not going to limit FPS, and then you change your stance to being that because that number is not uniform across the entire display proves your point. The issue is, I can't find any recent reviews of LCD's (from 2008 or later) that actually test the response time across the entire screen, but since you made the argument, the burden of proof now lies on you.

Give me at least 3 benchmarks that measure the Response Time across the entire LCD screen from 2008 or later, and then give me the average and max Response Times. And after this entire argument, I hope they fall under 60, or your argument falls to pieces.

Otherwise, stop whining and go away.
April 27, 2009 5:05:43 PM

http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/monitors/display/respo...

Quote:
In my earlier articles (first of all in the article called X-bit’s Guide: Contemporary LCD Monitor Parameters and Characteristics , which was wholly concerned with the strong and weak aspects of LCD monitors as well as with the accepted methods of measuring their parameters) I have repeatedly stated that the ISO 13406-2 method to measure the monitor’s response time as the total time necessary to change the state of a pixel from pure black to pure white and back again brings but very little information about the real performance of the monitor and easily misleads the user.

The problem is that the response time value obtained by this method is not the maximum and even not an average, but the minimal speed the monitor can have. In practice, however, the user never deals with a pure white color even when working with black text on white background unless the monitor’s contrast setting is set at the maximum, which would be too bright and uncomfortable for normal work. However, it is only the maximum possible screen brightness that is regarded by the matrix as pure white, so it is going to treat the white background as gray rather than white. Moreover, the user never sees a pure black color in games or movies, either. In other words, we usually either deal with black into light-gray (when working with text, for example) or gray-to-gray transitions and the formally measured response time of the matrix thus has a very small practical value.


From the Summary:

Quote:
TN+Film matrixes that have been formally considered the fastest available, have now become the fastest for real. Their response time on midtones used to be as high as 25-30 milliseconds, but now the RTC mechanism solves this problem completely. For example, the maximum response time of the ViewSonic VX724 and VX924 monitors is only 14 milliseconds, the average response time being even lower (RTC-less matrixes do quite a number of transitions within that 25-30ms range, while the new RTC matrixes do but a few transitions in 14ms or a similar time). The new TN+Film matrixes are obviously faster than the ex-champions in “real” speed, S-IPS ones.


And this was from 2005. As long as the maximum Response Time for most transitions in under 16ms, there is no limitation on a 60hz moniter. Granted, cheap LCD's will likey have a higher MAX Response Time, but even that offset somewhat, due to the fact that shades of simmilar color can afford to have a higher latency (who will notice if part of the sky is a slightly higher shade of blue for 1/65th of a second?). Now, a Red to Blue response time of 18ms would of course be not suitable, but those transitions typically have the highest Reponse Time (for somewhat obvious reasons)
April 29, 2009 2:44:36 AM

Who really cares? I have NEVER seen a computer be bottlenecked in relation to monitor speed, it's usually just resolution. If you're getting too many frames, then turn up the settings. If it's maxed out, then buy Crysis and laugh at how good your system isn't. Or just buy Crysis and then blame your monitors performance for the lag. Whatever floats your boat.

And BTW, please stop quoting wikipedia you understand that the other guy could just go in and re-write the articles your quoting right?
April 29, 2009 11:22:02 AM

^ I agree, unless you are a really keen rich person or do pro gaming, its not going to make that much difference.
April 29, 2009 12:29:05 PM

The argument we were having was essentailly:

Would the Refresh Rate or Reponse Time on a LCD be the limiting factor on how many frames are displayed each second.

My argument:
Refresh Rate = Number of times LCD image drawn per second
Response Time = Latency of individual pixles to change colors
Refresh Rate < Response Time; Refresh Rate is limiting factor

His argument:
Response Time is not uniform, so even if screen can accept 60 frames per second, not all pixles can change state that quickly, leading to fewer then 60 displayed frames

My Rebuttle:
If you really want to get technical, Response Time will vary depending on what color a pixel is changing from/to. Minor color changes can accept a higher latency, simply because they are far less likely to be noticed. As long as the majority of the pixles have the Response Time for the majority of the color spectrum below 16ms, Response Time can not be the limiting factor.
July 10, 2011 8:50:02 AM

Point is that V-sync lags controls due to the nature of the buffering it uses, hence why you don't want to play competitively with V-sync enabled. It is a good option for the game to have an fps limit instead as that does not have the same negative effect. This has nothing to do with the screen framerate itself, of course frames rendered over the refresh rate limit are useless. /endoldthread
July 10, 2011 9:06:57 AM

This topic has been closed by Mousemonkey
!