Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Looking for an LCD capable of 85Hz vertical refresh rate

Last response: in Graphics & Displays
Share
Anonymous
a b U Graphics card
September 18, 2005 10:13:57 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.video (More info?)

Hi,

First of all, apologies if this has been discussed here before. I
searched past threads for this topic and couldn't find anything
relevant.

I'm looking for an LCD monitor that is capable of an 85Hz vertical
refresh rate. Let me explain:

I fully realize that for normal day to day use refresh rates aren't as
important when using LCD's as opposed to CRT's. I realize that most
people are concerned with refresh rates simply because they want to
avoid flicker, and that LCD technology is flicker-free even at 60Hz.
It seems to me because of this it's difficult to even get refresh rate
specs on LCD's...most websites and online stores simply don't give you
that information.

I'm concerned about the refresh rate for a reason that is not related
to flickering...namely for gaming performance. I'm very picky about
frame rates, and I've grown accustomed to playing FPS's at 85fps (I
still mainly play older FPS games online, like Unreal Tournament 99).
In addition to this, I *always* play with V-Sync enabled; I just
cannot tolerate the tearing effect you sometimes get with V-Sync
disabled. So, this explains my need for an 85Hz LCD...if I want to
get 85fps with V-Sync ON then I have to have an LCD that is capable of
this refresh rate.

I've actually found about 3-4 different LCD's that are capable of
85Hz, according to specs I've seen on various websites. I was hoping
that someone here actually owned one of these LCD's and could confirm
that they do indeed support 85Hz. I had a Hyundai L90D+ that could do
75Hz, but it wasn't the "native" refresh rate, so when I switched to
it, it made everything look like garbage...very blurry. That
particular LCD was only usable at 60Hz, which disappointed me enough
that I had to return it. I'm afraid some of the LCD's that I found
capable of 85Hz might behave similarly. So I'm hoping that someone
here can verify that at least one of these LCD's are both capable of
85Hz *and* don't lose display quality at that refresh rate.

The models I found are:
ViewSonic VA902B 19"
ViewSonic VA912B 19"
ViewSonic VX910 19"
ViewSonic VP191B 19"
Samsung SyncMaster 193P 19"

Alternatively, if anyone knows of an LCD that matches my requirements
that I haven't listed, I'd love to hear about it. Also, if you
currently own or know of an LCD that is capable of 75Hz without loss
of quality, please let me know that as well...if I have to I can put
up with 75fps, but 60fps is below my tolerance.

Thanks in advance for any advice/help...
Anonymous
a b U Graphics card
September 18, 2005 10:13:58 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.video (More info?)

Michael Sims wrote:

> I've actually found about 3-4 different LCD's that are
> capable of 85Hz ...

Make sure that any purported 85Hz monitor:
a. has a credible pel response time of 12mS or faster, and
b. actually couples the screen rate to the signal rate

Many LCD panels are still 16mS (60Hz) or slower, but
accept higher signal rates. For example, a 20mS (50Hz)
display needs to accept 60Hz video, even though it can't
update the screen that fast.

--
Regards, Bob Niland mailto:name@ispname.tld
http://www.access-one.com/rjn email4rjn AT yahoo DOT com
NOT speaking for any employer, client or Internet Service Provider.
Anonymous
a b U Graphics card
September 19, 2005 2:08:28 AM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.video (More info?)

"Michael Sims" <mhsims@midsouth.rr.com> wrote in message
news:16bri1h5v4k8smiclu5os9c8sai9t08lvi@4ax.com...

> I'm looking for an LCD monitor that is capable of an 85Hz vertical
> refresh rate. Let me explain:
>
> I fully realize that for normal day to day use refresh rates aren't as
> important when using LCD's as opposed to CRT's. I realize that most
> people are concerned with refresh rates simply because they want to
> avoid flicker, and that LCD technology is flicker-free even at 60Hz.
> It seems to me because of this it's difficult to even get refresh rate
> specs on LCD's...most websites and online stores simply don't give you
> that information.

First of all, you need to realize that even on an LCD monitor which
is specified to accept video inputs at 85 Hz rates, the panel itself
may not be running at that rate. This has nothing to do with the panel
response time specs - panels with response times apparently fast
enough to accept such rates may still not actually be refreshed that
quickly. The panel electronics (timing controller, drivers, etc.) very
commonly operate only over a relatively small range of timings, and
if the monitor accept a wider range of input rates, it simply means that
the "front end" electronics (the scaler/controller IC, basically) is
performing a frame-rate conversion (which will involve the occasional
duplication or dropping of an input frame). You are FAR better off,
from a motion-rendition perspective, having the panel running at 60 Hz
and being fed 60 Hz video - with no such conversion being performed
- than you are feeding the monitor 85 Hz video and having it converted
to 60 Hz to feed the panel.


> I'm concerned about the refresh rate for a reason that is not related
> to flickering...namely for gaming performance. I'm very picky about
> frame rates, and I've grown accustomed to playing FPS's at 85fps (I
> still mainly play older FPS games online, like Unreal Tournament 99).
> In addition to this, I *always* play with V-Sync enabled; I just
> cannot tolerate the tearing effect you sometimes get with V-Sync
> disabled. So, this explains my need for an 85Hz LCD...if I want to
> get 85fps with V-Sync ON then I have to have an LCD that is capable of
> this refresh rate.

First - and please don't take this as a slight, because it isn't at all
intended as one - you are very likley mistaken in thinking that you actually
NEED 85 FPS for gaming. The concern here is accurate, realistic
motion, with no artifacts - and that last part means that there are other
concerns than pure frame rate which will ultimately determine the
acceptability of the experience. Are you happy with the motion you
see on standard television? If you were playing a game in which you
were controlling real objects - whatever they might be - but you were
observing the action through a closed-circuit TV system, would you
be satisfied with the results? Probably - that's exactly what most
"teleoperated" systems do. And yet, standard TV is just about 60 Hz,
in terms of its motion rendition. Why is it so much better than most
PC games at "60 FPS"? Because in the case of television, the displayed
image is always exactly, precisely in lock-step with the frames coming
out of the camera - there are never any dropped, duplicated, or
"torn" frames, and so the motion is always as smooth as it's going to
get. This is compelling evidence that, as long as we're already in the
50-60 FPS range, the important thing is not so much going to faster
rates, but rather to make sure that we are rendering the motion
smoothly, and never skipping or duplicating frames.


> I've actually found about 3-4 different LCD's that are capable of
> 85Hz, according to specs I've seen on various websites. I was hoping
> that someone here actually owned one of these LCD's and could confirm
> that they do indeed support 85Hz. I had a Hyundai L90D+ that could do
> 75Hz, but it wasn't the "native" refresh rate, so when I switched to
> it, it made everything look like garbage...very blurry. That
> particular LCD was only usable at 60Hz, which disappointed me enough
> that I had to return it. I'm afraid some of the LCD's that I found
> capable of 85Hz might behave similarly.

Very likely; the problem you're describing came from frame-rate
conversion in the 75 Hz-to-60 Hz case, and you'd have been far
better off simply running the thing at the native rate. The problem is
that quite often, computer-generated imagery is NOT guaranteed to
run at an absolutely constant, guaranteed-not-to-waver 60 FPS,
even if the hardware can demonstrate peak frame rates well in
excess of this. Why did the 60 Hz disappoint you?

> Alternatively, if anyone knows of an LCD that matches my requirements
> that I haven't listed, I'd love to hear about it. Also, if you
> currently own or know of an LCD that is capable of 75Hz without loss
> of quality, please let me know that as well...if I have to I can put
> up with 75fps, but 60fps is below my tolerance.

How do you know that for sure?

Bob M.
Related resources
Anonymous
a b U Graphics card
September 19, 2005 9:31:46 AM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.video (More info?)

Hi,

Thanks for taking the time to respond. Comments below...

On Sun, 18 Sep 2005 22:08:28 GMT, "Bob Myers"
<nospamplease@address.invalid> wrote:

>"Michael Sims" <mhsims@midsouth.rr.com> wrote in message
>news:16bri1h5v4k8smiclu5os9c8sai9t08lvi@4ax.com...
>
>> I'm looking for an LCD monitor that is capable of an 85Hz vertical
>> refresh rate. Let me explain:
>
>First of all, you need to realize that even on an LCD monitor which
>is specified to accept video inputs at 85 Hz rates, the panel itself
>may not be running at that rate.
[snip]

Thanks for explaining that; I was unaware...

>> disabled. So, this explains my need for an 85Hz LCD...if I want to
>> get 85fps with V-Sync ON then I have to have an LCD that is capable of
>> this refresh rate.
>
>First - and please don't take this as a slight, because it isn't at all
>intended as one - you are very likley mistaken in thinking that you actually
>NEED 85 FPS for gaming.

No offense taken... and perhaps I shouldn't have said "need"...that's
a bit of a strong word. :)  "Prefer" is more accurate...

>The concern here is accurate, realistic
>motion, with no artifacts - and that last part means that there are other
>concerns than pure frame rate which will ultimately determine the
>acceptability of the experience. Are you happy with the motion you
>see on standard television?

Well, sure, but I don't think you can directly compare those
situations. As I'm sure you're aware, both television and film
contain motion blur which helps to create the perception of smooth
motion, and first person shooters do not have this. Secondly, I don't
play first person shooters on my TV, so I don't really have the same
demand for fluid motion. There's nothing I watch on my television
where the precise position of quickly moving objects is so important
to me that I'm watching them that closely...I'm not as "into" the
display as I get while playing UT, etc.

> Because in the case of television, the displayed
>image is always exactly, precisely in lock-step with the frames coming
>out of the camera - there are never any dropped, duplicated, or
>"torn" frames, and so the motion is always as smooth as it's going to
>get.

Well, there are duplicated frames (since the video is 30 fps and is
being displayed at 60 Hz), but I do get your point about consistent
and uniform framerates...

>This is compelling evidence that, as long as we're already in the
>50-60 FPS range, the important thing is not so much going to faster
>rates, but rather to make sure that we are rendering the motion
>smoothly, and never skipping or duplicating frames.

So you are a supporter of the "human eye can only see 60 fps" theory?
Because that contradicts my own experience, as well as things that
I've read and other people that I've talked to. I've seen references
to a supposed Air Force study that indicated the human eye can
perceive an image that is displayed for only 1/200th of a second
(sorry, don't have a link, it's been a while since I've seen this and
I don't recall where).

I remember when I first started playing Quake 2, several years back.
With one of my older systems (a few upgrades ago), I only got enough
frames per second to play the game at around 60 fps. I was happy with
it at the time. But then a few months later I got a much needed
upgrade, and was then able to play the game at around 85 fps. Same
video card, but better processor and more ram. There was a definite
difference in the perceived fluidity of motion. Was this my
imagination? I don't think so.

I know several people as well as myself who can spot the difference
between a monitor refreshing at 75 Hz and one refreshing at 85 Hz with
very little effort. I realize that the reason is flicker, and LCD's
don't have flicker because of the constant backlighting and all that,
but still, if an image that is being redrawn 85 times a second looks
less flickery than one being redrawn 75 times a second doesn't it
stand to reason that one could perceive a difference in the rate of
change between those two numbers, even if flicker were removed (as it
is with an LCD)?

Did you ever run a system with Windows 95? I remember that by default
Windows 95 didn't sample the mouse input any higher than 60 ticks per
second. I recall seeing systems running Windows NT 4 (or Macs) and
marveling at how smoothly the mouse pointer moved and reacted to mouse
movements. I remember finding a program (can't recall the name) that
would let you alter the mouse sampling rate and push it as high as 200
ticks per second. After installing this program the difference was
immediately noticeable. With this program installed I could even tell
the difference between 100 ticks per second and 200, although it
wasn't great. 100 was much better than the default of 60, but 200 was
even better than that. Why would this be the case if I couldn't
perceive anything past 60 Hz?

I see where you're coming from (and I've seen many many people argue
the same thing in the past) but I have I to believe my own senses and
my own experiences, as well as the experiences of others that I've
spoken with over the years that I've been gaming. If you can accept
the fact that people can perceive the difference in fluidity between
30 fps and 60 fps (which I think most people do), why is it unheard of
that someone could perceive the difference between 60 fps and 75 fps,
or even 85 fps? What makes 60 the magic cutoff number, and who is to
say that some people's perception is not more sensitive than others?

>> that they do indeed support 85Hz. I had a Hyundai L90D+ that could do
>> 75Hz, but it wasn't the "native" refresh rate, so when I switched to
>> it, it made everything look like garbage...very blurry. That
>> particular LCD was only usable at 60Hz, which disappointed me enough
>> that I had to return it. I'm afraid some of the LCD's that I found
>> capable of 85Hz might behave similarly.
>
>Very likely; the problem you're describing came from frame-rate
>conversion in the 75 Hz-to-60 Hz case, and you'd have been far
>better off simply running the thing at the native rate.

That's probably correct...and makes sense. The display was accepting
the 75 Hz my video card was feeding it, then dropping the extra
frames, which would definitely make it look choppy and inconsistent.
In contrast, I got a chance to play around with a 17" Gateway LCD and
Circuit City the other day...it was refreshing at 60 Hz, but I was
able to switch it to 75Hz, and the display did not lose any quality,
so that display most likely was actually capable of redrawing the
screen 75 times per second. Unfortunately it had other problems that
made it less than ideal. But at least I know that there are some
LCD's out there than can at least handle 75 Hz and look good doing it.

> Why did the 60 Hz disappoint you?
>
[snip]
>> of quality, please let me know that as well...if I have to I can put
>> up with 75fps, but 60fps is below my tolerance.
>
>How do you know that for sure?

Playing UT on my CRT at 85 Hz feels very fluid. Motion seems natural,
and I can't perceive any choppiness at all normally. Playing at 60 Hz
on the LCD wasn't the same. The motion was relatively smooth, and for
most people would probably be perfectly acceptable. But I could
perceive choppiness. It was at the edge of my perception, but it was
there, and enough to bug me. For normal desktop use the thing was
great, but for games the 60Hz just didn't cut it.

Thanks again for your help...
Anonymous
a b U Graphics card
September 19, 2005 9:34:56 AM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.video (More info?)

On 18 Sep 2005 12:01:12 -0700, "rjn" <email4rjn@yahoo.com> wrote:

>Make sure that any purported 85Hz monitor:
>a. has a credible pel response time of 12mS or faster, and
>b. actually couples the screen rate to the signal rate
>
>Many LCD panels are still 16mS (60Hz) or slower, but
>accept higher signal rates. For example, a 20mS (50Hz)
>display needs to accept 60Hz video, even though it can't
>update the screen that fast.

Thanks for the advice. Verifying (a) shouldn't be a problem, but
verifying (b) might be tricky. As I stated before, it's hard
sometimes to get ANY refresh rate specs on monitors when using online
stores...most stores don't have that information. I doubt that I'll
be able to find any source that tells me for sure whether an LCD
couples the screen rate to signal rate, unless I'm able to find
someone who actually owns the thing and can test it for sure and tell
me. Hence the reason I posted my original question.

Thanks again, I'll be sure to check the response times...
Anonymous
a b U Graphics card
September 19, 2005 4:12:09 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.video (More info?)

"Michael Sims" <mhsims@midsouth.rr.com> wrote in message
news:ruesi1d9re9f3eu4jphuk8fff5ptm9dgua@4ax.com...
....
>
> I remember when I first started playing Quake 2, several years back.
> With one of my older systems (a few upgrades ago), I only got enough
> frames per second to play the game at around 60 fps. I was happy with
> it at the time. But then a few months later I got a much needed
> upgrade, and was then able to play the game at around 85 fps. Same
> video card, but better processor and more ram. There was a definite
> difference in the perceived fluidity of motion. Was this my
> imagination? I don't think so.
....

I doubt that it was your imagination as well. However, I don't think it was
the "85 fps" that made the difference. It all comes down to what "60 fps"
means. Usually "60 fps" means *typically* 60 fps or better. That does
not mean that the *mimimum* will occasionally, or often, be below 60 fps.

I suspect what you noticed when you upgraded from a "60 fps" system
to an "85 fps" system, was the fact that your *mimimum* frame rate
during the game fell noticably below 60 fps far less often. My suspicion
is that if you started playing on a system that always delivered exactly
60 fps, you would never go back to you "85 fsp" system. }:)  Of course,
a system that delivered a minimum of 60fps, and often faster, would be
great as well.

So, before worrying about getting a display that runs above 60 fps,
worry about getting your minimum frame rate up to 60 fps.

Just my thoughts and experiences,


--
Dan (Woj...) [dmaster](no space)[at](no space)[lucent](no space)[dot](no
space)[com]
===============================
"But you can't jump the track / We're like cars on a cable
And life's like an hourglass glued to the table, / No one can find the rewind
button now
Sing it if you understand...yeah breathe / Just breathe, ohho breathe"
Anonymous
a b U Graphics card
September 19, 2005 10:33:06 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.video (More info?)

"Michael Sims" <mhsims@midsouth.rr.com> wrote in message
news:ruesi1d9re9f3eu4jphuk8fff5ptm9dgua@4ax.com...
> >The concern here is accurate, realistic
> >motion, with no artifacts - and that last part means that there are other
> >concerns than pure frame rate which will ultimately determine the
> >acceptability of the experience. Are you happy with the motion you
> >see on standard television?
>
> Well, sure, but I don't think you can directly compare those
> situations. As I'm sure you're aware, both television and film
> contain motion blur which helps to create the perception of smooth
> motion, and first person shooters do not have this.

Film and film-sourced TV would contain "motion blur,"
yes; camera-sourced video, not necessarily, or at least
not in the same manner. But the point is that motion blur is
NOT the primary reason for the difference in the perception
of smooth motion between TV and computer-generated
graphics, but rather the often-uneven generation of new
frames in the latter.


> > Because in the case of television, the displayed
> >image is always exactly, precisely in lock-step with the frames coming
> >out of the camera - there are never any dropped, duplicated, or
> >"torn" frames, and so the motion is always as smooth as it's going to
> >get.
>
> Well, there are duplicated frames (since the video is 30 fps and is
> being displayed at 60 Hz), but I do get your point about consistent
> and uniform framerates...

TV video is "30 frames per second" in terms of getting
the complete 480+ lines of each frame, yes, but the way video
cameras work, the MOTION really is at an effective 60 FPS.
Film-sourced TV video is another story entirely, as the
"3:2 pulldown" technique used to go from 24 FPS film to
60 Hz TV introduces its own problems.


> So you are a supporter of the "human eye can only see 60 fps" theory?

I'm a supporter of the notion that, at this range of frame rates,
there are more important things to be concerned with (like making
sure you actually GET a smooth, even, constant 60 FPS) than
simply upping the frame rate further. Upping the frame rate beyond
60 will, TO A POINT, be better - but it almost always is NOT the
basic problem in CG video.

> Because that contradicts my own experience, as well as things that
> I've read and other people that I've talked to. I've seen references
> to a supposed Air Force study that indicated the human eye can
> perceive an image that is displayed for only 1/200th of a second
> (sorry, don't have a link, it's been a while since I've seen this and
> I don't recall where).

Sure - but let's also not confuse the eye's ability to PERCEIVE
short-duration events with how smooth motion is perceived and
moving objects are tracked. The two are somewhat related, but by
no means identical.


>
> I remember when I first started playing Quake 2, several years back.
> With one of my older systems (a few upgrades ago), I only got enough
> frames per second to play the game at around 60 fps. I was happy with
> it at the time. But then a few months later I got a much needed
> upgrade, and was then able to play the game at around 85 fps. Same
> video card, but better processor and more ram. There was a definite
> difference in the perceived fluidity of motion. Was this my
> imagination? I don't think so.

You might not think so, but without properly-controlled testing, it's
basically impossible to know for sure. It's also, in situations like this,
almost impossible to know what the root cause of the perceived difference
really is (i.e., IS it simply the higher frame rate, or are you now for some
reason getting a more even, constant frame rate as well?).


> I know several people as well as myself who can spot the difference
> between a monitor refreshing at 75 Hz and one refreshing at 85 Hz with
> very little effort. I realize that the reason is flicker, and LCD's
> don't have flicker because of the constant backlighting and all that,
> but still, if an image that is being redrawn 85 times a second looks
> less flickery than one being redrawn 75 times a second doesn't it
> stand to reason that one could perceive a difference in the rate of
> change between those two numbers, even if flicker were removed (as it
> is with an LCD)?

IF the rate of change is the only variable - it's just very, very difficult
in the average computer-gaming situation to be certain of what variables
you're really changing. You would have to know not only exactly how
the graphics system generates its video, at a very detailed level, but also
what the front-end of the monitor, etc., may be doing to that stream of
frames.

>
> Did you ever run a system with Windows 95? I remember that by default
> Windows 95 didn't sample the mouse input any higher than 60 ticks per
> second. I recall seeing systems running Windows NT 4 (or Macs) and
> marveling at how smoothly the mouse pointer moved and reacted to mouse
> movements. I remember finding a program (can't recall the name) that
> would let you alter the mouse sampling rate and push it as high as 200
> ticks per second. After installing this program the difference was
> immediately noticeable. With this program installed I could even tell
> the difference between 100 ticks per second and 200, although it
> wasn't great. 100 was much better than the default of 60, but 200 was
> even better than that. Why would this be the case if I couldn't
> perceive anything past 60 Hz?

Again, it's just not that simple. If the original 60 Hz sampling rate of
the mouse were precisely linked to the display refresh rate - and as I
recall, it was not - it would be a different situation than an
unsynchronized
sampling, again for the reason that some displayed frames would be
getting a "mouse event" while others would not, making for an uneven
perception. Taking the sampling rate above 120 Hz would solve that,
even without display synchronization, as you'd be above the Nyquist
rate for capturing 60 Hz information.

>
> I see where you're coming from (and I've seen many many people argue
> the same thing in the past) but I have I to believe my own senses and
> my own experiences, as well as the experiences of others that I've
> spoken with over the years that I've been gaming.

And I wouldn't want to try to talk you out of your own experiences; my
point is simply that the fundamental reasons for the change in the
experience may not be what you're assuming.


Bob M.
Anonymous
a b U Graphics card
September 19, 2005 10:33:07 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.video (More info?)

The free FRAPS can show you your actual framerate in a directx game.

My screen is at 85 but I've limited Trainz to 30 max in its config so that
when it suddenly drops way below it it won't come down so hard and make such
a lurch.
--
Ed Light

Smiley :-/
MS Smiley :-\

Send spam to the FTC at
spam@uce.gov
Thanks, robots.

Bring the Troops Home:
http://bringthemhomenow.org

Fight Spam:
http://bluesecurity.com
Anonymous
a b U Graphics card
September 20, 2005 5:54:22 AM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.video (More info?)

On Mon, 19 Sep 2005 18:33:06 GMT, "Bob Myers"
<nospamplease@address.invalid> wrote:

> Upping the frame rate beyond
>60 will, TO A POINT, be better - but it almost always is NOT the
>basic problem in CG video.
[snippage]
>And I wouldn't want to try to talk you out of your own experiences; my
>point is simply that the fundamental reasons for the change in the
>experience may not be what you're assuming.

Got it; thanks for having the patience to explain. :)  You may be
right. All I know is that when I had the Hyundai L90D (max 60Hz) this
was my experience (all with the same system/video card/etc.):

CRT @ 85Hz with V-Sync ON: very smooth, consistent, and fluid, no
artifacts

LCD @ 60Hz with V-Sync ON: noticeable choppiness, although consistent
and with no artifacts

LCD @ 60Hz with V-Sync OFF: smooth and fluid, but inconsistent and
with noticeable artifacts (tearing)

If you're right, and it's something other than the frame/refresh rate
that caused these perceptions, I wish I knew for sure what it was, so
I wouldn't have to drop a lot of money on an expensive LCD just to
find out. ;) 
Anonymous
a b U Graphics card
September 20, 2005 5:56:48 AM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.video (More info?)

On Mon, 19 Sep 2005 12:12:09 -0500, "Dan Wojciechowski"
<too.much@spam.com> wrote:

>I suspect what you noticed when you upgraded from a "60 fps" system
>to an "85 fps" system, was the fact that your *mimimum* frame rate
>during the game fell noticably below 60 fps far less often. My suspicion
>is that if you started playing on a system that always delivered exactly
>60 fps, you would never go back to you "85 fsp" system. }:)  Of course,
>a system that delivered a minimum of 60fps, and often faster, would be
>great as well.
>
>So, before worrying about getting a display that runs above 60 fps,
>worry about getting your minimum frame rate up to 60 fps.

Point taken, and as I said to Bob, this may be what was happening.
But see my other post...comparing my CRT @ 85Hz with the Hyundai LCD I
had @ 60Hz (with the exact same system/video card), the CRT was much
better. Perhaps it was something other than the frame/refresh
rate...I just wish I knew what it was. :) 

Thanks...
January 18, 2011 8:48:56 AM

Acer AL1916w 1280x1024@75Hz
!