Refresh rate, higher = slower?

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

I was wondering what the general consensus is on this. I have my resolution
set to 1152x864 (32 bit color) and have my RR set to 75hz (max). I've tried
lowering it, but don't notice any difference. Is there a big difference
between settings? Say between 75 and 70? Thanks.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

On Thu, 19 Aug 2004 22:42:21 GMT Its all about soul.No soul,no life
and then "So It's Come To This?" <slirm@home.com> wrote :

>I was wondering what the general consensus is on this. I have my resolution
>set to 1152x864 (32 bit color) and have my RR set to 75hz (max). I've tried
>lowering it, but don't notice any difference. Is there a big difference
>between settings? Say between 75 and 70? Thanks.

How do you mean,"Slower"?



--
Free Windows/PC help,
http://www.geocities.com/sheppola/trouble.html
remove obvious to reply
email shep@obviouspartyheld.de
Free songs to download and,"BURN" :O)
http://www.soundclick.com/bands/8/nomessiahsmusic.htm

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

"Shep©" <nospam@nospam.net> wrote in message
news:1fbai0p6hl16pbd1aqh2sgufjfamtajjjk@4ax.com...
> On Thu, 19 Aug 2004 22:42:21 GMT Its all about soul.No soul,no life
> and then "So It's Come To This?" <slirm@home.com> wrote :
>
>>I was wondering what the general consensus is on this. I have my
>>resolution
>>set to 1152x864 (32 bit color) and have my RR set to 75hz (max). I've
>>tried
>>lowering it, but don't notice any difference. Is there a big difference
>>between settings? Say between 75 and 70? Thanks.
>
> How do you mean,"Slower"?
>

I mean more stress on the video card, resulting in slower performance in
games, streaming videos, etc.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

On Thu, 19 Aug 2004 22:50:42 GMT Its all about soul.No soul,no life
and then "So It's Come To This?" <slirm@home.com> wrote :

>
>"Shep©" <nospam@nospam.net> wrote in message
>news:1fbai0p6hl16pbd1aqh2sgufjfamtajjjk@4ax.com...
>> On Thu, 19 Aug 2004 22:42:21 GMT Its all about soul.No soul,no life
>> and then "So It's Come To This?" <slirm@home.com> wrote :
>>
>>>I was wondering what the general consensus is on this. I have my
>>>resolution
>>>set to 1152x864 (32 bit color) and have my RR set to 75hz (max). I've
>>>tried
>>>lowering it, but don't notice any difference. Is there a big difference
>>>between settings? Say between 75 and 70? Thanks.
>>
>> How do you mean,"Slower"?
>>
>
>I mean more stress on the video card, resulting in slower performance in
>games, streaming videos, etc.
>

Yes it will as the card has to render more at those resolutions.Do you
really gain anything at those Resolutions though in the game/s?
It's not the refresh rate either,it's the resolution /colour
depth/game code and type of game.Try some of the games at a lower res
and colour depth?
Also,depending on the game,some of the effects you may be able to
live without as they don't always enhance the game play and these slow
the game down usually.





--
Free Windows/PC help,
http://www.geocities.com/sheppola/trouble.html
remove obvious to reply
email shep@obviouspartyheld.de
Free songs to download and,"BURN" :O)
http://www.soundclick.com/bands/8/nomessiahsmusic.htm

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

In news:alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt, "So It's Come To This?"
<slirm@home.com> posted on Thu, 19 Aug 2004 22:42:21 GMT:

> I was wondering what the general consensus is on this. I have my resolution
> set to 1152x864 (32 bit color) and have my RR set to 75hz (max). I've tried
> lowering it, but don't notice any difference. Is there a big difference
> between settings? Say between 75 and 70? Thanks.

If you set your refresh rate to 60Hz, that means the monitor is updated
sixty times per second. Some people claim that human eyes can't perceive
more than sixty frames of animation per second, or 60Hz refresh on a
monitor, but some of us actually can. I have to set my monitor to 75Hz to
get rid of that annoying flicker.

The refresh rate of your monitor can vary depending on its quality. My
monitor will refresh at 85Hz at a resolution of 1920 x 1440. Some cheaper
monitors can only refresh at 60Hz at 1024 x 768. Some monitors can only
refresh at 85Hz when at 800 x 600. My monitor refreshes at 160Hz at 800 x
600, but I never run it at that resolution because I hate it and I need a
lot of workspace.

Now, enter frame rate of the game you're playing. For the sake of making a
point, suppose your monitor can refresh at 85Hz but your graphics card can
only pump out 75 frames per second. It doesn't hurt to have your monitor
refresh at 85Hz, but you wouldn't want to set your refresh rate to anything
lower than 75Hz because then you'd be shortchanging yourself by missing
frames your graphics card is perfectly capable of delivering to you.

HTH,
Damaeus

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

Damaeus wrote:

> In news:alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt, "So It's Come To This?"
> <slirm@home.com> posted on Thu, 19 Aug 2004 22:42:21 GMT:
>
>
>>I was wondering what the general consensus is on this. I have my resolution
>>set to 1152x864 (32 bit color) and have my RR set to 75hz (max). I've tried
>>lowering it, but don't notice any difference. Is there a big difference
>>between settings? Say between 75 and 70? Thanks.
>
>
> If you set your refresh rate to 60Hz, that means the monitor is updated
> sixty times per second. Some people claim that human eyes can't perceive
> more than sixty frames of animation per second,

That is a myth, probably derived by people hearing about the Television
60Hz field rate who then project it into a perception assumption. I.E.
"well, since a TV works then..." Those with a little bit more knowledge
will make the same kind of claim drawn from the true frame rate of 30 Hz,
and 24 in movies.

Studies show, however, that pilots perceive aircraft flying at relative
speeds that far exceed those slow 'rates'. I.E. you'd never see them at all
on a 60 Hz refresh rate monitor, or at 75 Hz, or at 100Hz, but people *do*
see them in the real world.

> or 60Hz refresh on a
> monitor,

That is taking the TV reason for 60Hz and presuming it applies to monitors.
It doesn't because, for one, the TV 60 Hz refresh rate selection presumed a
particular viewing distance from the screen that does not apply for
monitors, and the presumptions about visual content are different. The fact
of the matter is that the power line frequency had as much to do with it
and is why it's 50Hz in Europe.

> but some of us actually can.

Virtually everyone can when sitting in front of a monitor. If not
consciously then it'll manifest itself as eyestrain.

> I have to set my monitor to 75Hz to
> get rid of that annoying flicker.
>
> The refresh rate of your monitor can vary depending on its quality. My
> monitor will refresh at 85Hz at a resolution of 1920 x 1440. Some cheaper
> monitors can only refresh at 60Hz at 1024 x 768. Some monitors can only
> refresh at 85Hz when at 800 x 600. My monitor refreshes at 160Hz at 800 x
> 600, but I never run it at that resolution because I hate it and I need a
> lot of workspace.
>
> Now, enter frame rate of the game you're playing. For the sake of making a
> point, suppose your monitor can refresh at 85Hz but your graphics card can
> only pump out 75 frames per second. It doesn't hurt to have your monitor
> refresh at 85Hz, but you wouldn't want to set your refresh rate to anything
> lower than 75Hz because then you'd be shortchanging yourself by missing
> frames your graphics card is perfectly capable of delivering to you.
>
> HTH,
> Damaeus

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

> Those with a little bit more knowledge
> will make the same kind of claim drawn from the true frame rate of
30 Hz,
> and 24 in movies.

Except in TV and Movies they use motion blur, so they don't have to
have a better refresh rate in order for you to percieve true motion.


> If you set your refresh rate to 60Hz, that means the monitor is
updated
> sixty times per second. Some people claim that human eyes can't
perceive
> more than sixty frames of animation per second,

obviously they can, otherwise subliminal messages wouldn't work. Your
brain might have trouble processing more then 60fps though (your
subconcious will probably get everything, although you won't
conciously know this)

> Studies show, however, that pilots perceive aircraft flying at
relative
> speeds that far exceed those slow 'rates'. I.E. you'd never see them
at all
> on a 60 Hz refresh rate monitor, or at 75 Hz, or at 100Hz, but
people *do*
> see them in the real world.

i'm not sure what you're trying to say, are you trying to say that
both pilots are going at 1000 mph and they see each other do a barrol
roll? or a person from the ground subconciously saw a plane fly over
them at 1000mph (meaning while they didn't fully realize the plane
was there, but they know they saw something fly)?

==============
Posted through www.HowToFixComputers.com/bb - free access to hardware troubleshooting newsgroups.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

particle-man321 wrote:

>>Those with a little bit more knowledge
>>will make the same kind of claim drawn from the true frame rate of
>
> 30 Hz,
>
>>and 24 in movies.
>
>
> Except in TV and Movies they use motion blur, so they don't have to
> have a better refresh rate in order for you to percieve true motion.

Well, it's not that they 'use' it; it's a natural consequence of how the
image is acquired. But, yes, that aids in the sensation of smooth motion.
However, that it's 'enough' to give 'a' perception does not mean it's perfect.

One example is the myth that, during the Gulf War, the Patriot missiles
exploded 'behind', or 'past', the target because everyone SAW them do so on
TV. The problem is the extremely high closing velocity and conventional TV
frame rates. It simply didn't capture the intercept event and the two
objects had moved a significant amount by the next frame. So while it
'appears' as smooth motion there is a lot of missing information that one
would easily perceive in real life.

>>If you set your refresh rate to 60Hz, that means the monitor is
>
> updated
>
>>sixty times per second. Some people claim that human eyes can't
>
> perceive
>
>>more than sixty frames of animation per second,
>
>
> obviously they can, otherwise subliminal messages wouldn't work.

Actually, subliminal messages don't work.

> Your
> brain might have trouble processing more then 60fps though (your
> subconcious will probably get everything, although you won't
> conciously know this)
>

Even the subconscious is part of the 'brain' ya know

>>Studies show, however, that pilots perceive aircraft flying at
>
> relative
>
>>speeds that far exceed those slow 'rates'. I.E. you'd never see them
>
> at all
>
>>on a 60 Hz refresh rate monitor, or at 75 Hz, or at 100Hz, but
>
> people *do*
>
>>see them in the real world.
>
>
> i'm not sure what you're trying to say, are you trying to say that
> both pilots are going at 1000 mph and they see each other do a barrol
> roll? or a person from the ground subconciously saw a plane fly over
> them at 1000mph (meaning while they didn't fully realize the plane
> was there, but they know they saw something fly)?

consciously

>
> ==============
> Posted through www.HowToFixComputers.com/bb - free access to hardware troubleshooting newsgroups.

 

[peter]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

In article <69aVc.445$Ot3.83@twister.nyc.rr.com>, slirm@home.com says...
>
> "Shep©" <nospam@nospam.net> wrote in message
> news:1fbai0p6hl16pbd1aqh2sgufjfamtajjjk@4ax.com...
> > On Thu, 19 Aug 2004 22:42:21 GMT Its all about soul.No soul,no life
> > and then "So It's Come To This?" <slirm@home.com> wrote :
> >
> >>I was wondering what the general consensus is on this. I have my
> >>resolution
> >>set to 1152x864 (32 bit color) and have my RR set to 75hz (max). I've
> >>tried
> >>lowering it, but don't notice any difference. Is there a big difference
> >>between settings? Say between 75 and 70? Thanks.
> >
> > How do you mean,"Slower"?
> >
>
> I mean more stress on the video card, resulting in slower performance in
> games, streaming videos, etc.
>
>
>
Well, I guess that depends upon the game, but for the 3D variety, they
set their own refresh rate based upon the screen res., number of
colours, etc. Most of these games will have some kind of auto
configuration utility anyway, which will decide on the optimum settings
for each particular game. It is not determined by the settings in the
display control panel, unless you have vsync turned on. Then the games
will try to synchronise with the most consistent refresh rate of the
monitor, which more often than not, actually results in slowing things
down.

--
Pete Ives
Remove ALL_STRESS before sending me an email