120hz monitor?

[stewood]

Will a 120hz monitor hurt gaming performance?
I found a really good deal on this monitor
http://www.tigerdirect.com/applications/searchtools/item-details.asp?EdpNo=5661028&SRCCODE=SHOPPINGDF&cm_mmc_o=2mHCjCmtB55bETCjCVqHCjCdwwp&cpncode=18-92520685-2
should i get this or is there a better 300$ 120hz monitor?

 

[palladin9479]

For some of us, there is another factor that comes into play with FPS and input lag. Simulator sickness. While it's hard to see a difference between 40 fps and 75 fps, there is a big difference on how my stomach handles it. At 40 fps, I get motion sickness within 30 mins or less. At 75 fps, I don't get motion sickness, at 30 fps, I get motion sickness in about 5-10 mins. It seems to be a scale on how fast I get motion sickness from games, going to about 75 to 90 FPS removes motion sickness from games. That's not a placebo.

Motion sickness is an understandable situation. While your brain isn't consciously registering the shifting frames, the underlying low level functions (balance / direction / instincts) could be getting screwed with.

I'm willing to bet that you can't do 3D gaming without getting sick in a few minutes.

 

[bystander]

Motion sickness is an understandable situation. While your brain isn't consciously registering the shifting frames, the underlying low level functions (balance / direction / instincts) could be getting screwed with.

I'm willing to bet that you can't do 3D gaming without getting sick in a few minutes.

As long as I make sure I have 50+ FPS in 3D, I'm ok. Not as good as 75 fps normally, but not bad.

 

[bystander]

I also might note that I didn't notice a huge difference going to 75+ FPS in terms of smoothness, but dropping down to sub 60 FPS often feels choppy now that I'm used to 75+ FPS.

 

[jjb8675309]

but with 3d ive heard its largely a crap gimmick still? At least for gaming anyways....

I mean short of going out and buying a high end sony bravia... what is your exp with 3d bystander?

 

[bystander]

but with 3d ive heard its largely a crap gimmick still? At least for gaming anyways....

I mean short of going out and buying a high end sony bravia... what is your exp with 3d bystander?

If a game works well with it, I won't play it any other way. Unfortunately many games don't work well with it. Crysis 2 works perfectly, Witcher 2 as well. I wouldn't play either any other way. I play Skyrim with it, although it's not as perfect due to the water not being handled well. I'd say about 1/3 of my games look good with it and would not play without it on those games.

 

[jjb8675309]

interesting so when its good, its great, in fact much better then playing it in 2d your saying

 

[bystander]

interesting so when its good, its great, in fact much better then playing it in 2d your saying

In my opinion, yes. The problem is that a lot of games have different issues. The most common problem is with lighting and shadows. So often the lighting or shadows are only correct in one eye or done in 2D. I wish dev's would make sure their special effects were done in 3D as well.

 

[palladin9479]

interesting so when its good, its great, in fact much better then playing it in 2d your saying

Yes it's amazing, when it works. Game developers tend to use short cuts when designing the UI or special effects. They design them as an overlay and figure on a flat 2D surface you'd never notice the difference, but with 3D gaming you notice it immediately.

 

[user_account_]

Paladin V-sync does cause input lag try it out

 

[palladin9479]

Paladin V-sync does cause input lag try it out

I have .. it doesn't, at least not on anything I play. Which makes me think your playing on console ports.

 

[bystander]

V-sync will add latency, but it's very small, and even smaller on a 120hz monitor. At least with newer games and with OpenGL, you have to enable triple buffering and it becomes small again. Very small.

 

[SlyNine]

Its actually 60 frames a second the human eye can perceive not 30.

palladin9479

Already been disproved.

"60hz" is one frame per 0.0166~ seconds, "120hz" is one frame per 0.00833~ seconds. Your human brain doesn't see things in frames, it analyzes light patterns and does object recognition. Your not a cyborg, your brain simply isn't capable of doing that faster then 20 to 30 times per second. Thus any still light patterns faster then 20~ish times per second is perceived as motion. At 50 times per second your at fluid motion, anything faster won't change anything. Thus 50/60/120/1000/10,000 images per second is perceived the same by the human brain. Not only that, but your human reaction time is such that it takes you much longer then 0.0166 seconds to do object recognition to even know what your looking at.

The whole "100hz for gamers!!!010101" is just a myth that started getting spread around the internet. People noticed their new shiny 120hz monitors looked cleaner and better then their old dirty 60hz monitors. The fact that 120hz screens are usually better quality then 60hz ones (other then professional displays) never crossed their minds. I could take two acer 120hz screens and put them in front of you, one at 60hz and one at 120hz, both running the same game / demo / video and you would be unable to tell them apart.

You need to stop jumping to conclusions, I went from an S-IPS monitor with very little input latency to this 120hz TN monitor and there is a HUGE difference, and yes the IPS looked alittle better overall. More importantly 120hz is EASILY noticed. Proved by others in blind tests.

I took the gopro hero2, shot videos at 120 and converted to 30/48/60/FPS. With out labeling them and had people rate them on a scale of 1-4, EVERYONE rated them dead on. This is no placebo effect, this is science. 5 Different people too.

 

[SlyNine]

The largest source of input lag would be the Human.

I'm assuming the definition your using is the delay from when you make a movement to when it's displayed on screen? Which becomes a factor of input drivers (keyboard / mouse) only. The only way your game is going to have any noticeable delay is if it's delaying processing till after current frame is rendered.

When people talk FPS they really should be using time notations, 60fps sounds small when compared to 120 until you look at the time denominations. 0.016 vs 0.0083 seconds. Inserting a 1 frame delay doesn't add anything perceptible to humans. Also render times are not static. It's really becoming a case of placebo effect.

LOL its not a placebo, and its not really as much about reaction time as it is about determining object trajectories and orientation. Exactly why mother nature gave us the ability to see as well as we do in the first place.

However. I'd like to note that any time you add lag to anything (mouse, monitor, display) you are adding that on top of the human lag. Its not a function of the greatest common denominator. Its the sum of all together.

 

[palladin9479]

LOL its not a placebo, and its not really as much about reaction time as it is about determining object trajectories and orientation. Exactly why mother nature gave us the ability to see as well as we do in the first place.

However. I'd like to note that any time you add lag to anything (mouse, monitor, display) you are adding that on top of the human lag. Its not a function of the greatest common denominator. Its the sum of all together.

You can say this once your become a cyborg.

1/120 = 0.00833s
1/60 = 0.0166s

Congrats you are now claiming to have reflex's faster then the most well trained military or martial artist in the world.

 

[Delengowski]

Perception of input lag, image tearing, refresh rates, etc. really depends on the person, some notice it more than others. I've played competitive FPS's for many years so for me the input lag is extremely noticeable, but for some others it may not be felt at all.

Sounds to me as more of an execuse to use when you do bad, I used to go a LAN center and this one dude would always ******* bitch and complain when he did bad "oh this mouse his skippy" make the owner change the mouse or he would say other *** like that, blaming it all on the hardware, when he was just destroying with it not even with an hour ago. Placebo effects and ego are an amazing things

 

[gmcizzle]

Sounds to me as more of an execuse to use when you do bad, I used to go a LAN center and this one dude would always ******* bitch and complain when he did bad "oh this mouse his skippy" make the owner change the mouse or he would say other *** like that, blaming it all on the hardware, when he was just destroying with it not even with an hour ago. Placebo effects and ego are an amazing things

Umm I'm not being egotistical at all lol, and there are probably a lot of people that are more perceptive to input lag than me. It's just a conclusion I have come to after reading topics about this subject and forum posts such as all these, and from my own experience.

 

[Delengowski]

I don't understand how any can dispute the facts that Palladin are putting out, just look at the math

an .00833 difference, stop lying to yourself

 

[bystander]

I don't understand how any can dispute the facts that Palladin are putting out, just look at the math

an .00833 difference, stop lying to yourself

You'd be amazed at what the mind perceives. That's not likely going to be the difference between being successful or not in a game, but at least for me, going from 60 FPS and hz to 90 FPS and 120hz takes me from having mild motion sickness to having none. That is real. I also notice when the FPS changes after getting used to high FPS and hz, having a drop below 60 is quite apparent.

The brain is amazing. Did you know that people completely blind due to damaged visual cortex can still see emotional expressions on your face? There is a part of the brain, separate from the visual cortex, that recognizes facial expressions. Our brain is advanced. There are all sorts of crazy things going on we aren't fully aware of.

 

[palladin9479]

You'd be amazed at what the mind perceives. That's not likely going to be the difference between being successful or not in a game, but at least for me, going from 60 FPS and hz to 90 FPS and 120hz takes me from having mild motion sickness to having none. That is real. I also notice when the FPS changes after getting used to high FPS and hz, having a drop below 60 is quite apparent.

The brain is amazing. Did you know that people completely blind due to damaged visual cortex can still see emotional expressions on your face? There is a part of the brain, separate from the visual cortex, that recognizes facial expressions. Our brain is advanced. There are all sorts of crazy things going on we aren't fully aware of.

The medical situation with motion sickness / synchronized light flickering (household lights operate at 60hz) is a separate issue entirely. We're not talking gaming performance, fluidity or reaction times, we're talking light patterns in your brain and the interference from external light sources.

People keep thinking your brain sees in FPS, it doesn't, its not digital. It's a constant signal from the receptors inside your eye more akin to analogue. The brain only see's "differences" in light patterns, basically when something changes. Take a pure white screen at 60fps and another at 120fps, in both case's your bring is only processing 1fps if that (it never changes). So the actual patterns themselves become more important, and what's been studied and demonstrated is that anything past 20~25 is perceived as fluid motion, and after 50~60 information starts to get lost. Anyone claiming to "notice" an improved fluidity at 100+ is either lying or under placebo effect. You've entered into the realm of cyborgs and superhuman eyesight.

Or to put it a bit better, movie theaters is ~24fps, not 30 60 100 or 120. If your superman and notice the difference between the 110th frame and the 111th frame then theater movies have to be like watching kindergarten stick figure animation.

 

[bystander]

Ya, I realize that we don't see in FPS.

I was responding to Delengowski.

I don't understand how any can dispute the facts that Palladin are putting out, just look at the math

an .00833 difference, stop lying to yourself

It's not about math.

 

[SlyNine]

You can say this once your become a cyborg.

1/120 = 0.00833s
1/60 = 0.0166s

Congrats you are now claiming to have reflex's faster then the most well trained military or martial artist in the world.

How is this claiming "you are now claiming to have reflex's faster then the most well trained military or martial artist in the world." Sorry but that is an invalid inference. In fact your arguments go from nothing but straw man fallacies to invalid inference and above all you're huge use of curricular logic and emotional appeals.

Love your circular logic, you're right because you say you're right. But what have you really proven? What citations have you shown? You're simply appealing to emotion by implying that the brain isn't capable of something, without any proof or reason other then citing numbers and trying to make them sound smaller then they are. A second is longer then you're giving it credit for and you are vastly underestimating the most powerful computer on the planet, the human mind. There is nothing the medically says you are unable to perceive less then 500fps for certain colors.

You are just using logical fallacies without trying to prove anything. I on the other hand have done BLIND tests, and until you have, you don't know wtf you're talking about.

How about providing something OTHER than YOUR preconceived misconceptions.

 

[Delengowski]

The fact that you cannot even understand that Palladin is talking about less than a second is pretty ******* hilarious, there is a 833 thousandths of a second difference between the 120 hz and 60 hz or 1.66 milli seconds vs .833 milli seconds, now do you know how many milliseconds there are in a second? 1000, Palladin in right in calling your a cyborg to be able to see the difference in that.

 

[SlyNine]

The fact that you cannot even understand that Palladin is talking about less than a second is pretty ******* hilarious, there is a 833 thousandths of a second difference between the 120 hz and 60 hz or 1.66 milli seconds vs .833 milli seconds, now do you know how many milliseconds there are in a second? 1000, Palladin in right in calling your a cyborg to be able to see the difference in that.

Your arguments amount to this kind of logic . The human cannot possibly see light. That would require seeing wavelengths between 380 nanometers to 740 nanometers. That's impossible because its a really small number. Seriously that's all your argument amounts to. But for those of us humans who can see, we know that our eyes can do such a thing.

Now hear me out. Using real numbers from sites like humanbenchmark and medical sites we can break down how long it takes for each part of the human function and try to isolate just how long it's taking the brain to discern an image. I think we can agree that if the brain can make a action in 1 second. It's probably able to process visual stimuli (in ms) at a much higher rate. For *EXAMPLE* if it can take 2 images and combine them in 1 second plus dictate a proper action for them it probably could see the difference between images being displayed at 1/2 a second and 1/4 a second. (by being able to properly see the whole picture it probably understands what some of the elements are) Kinda like if I know how a car works I know what a muffler is.

120ms total reaction time according to human benchmark
40ms (eye to brain)
20ms (brain to hand)
16ms (monitor)
10ms very conservative ( mouse browser processing)
=less than 36ms internal brain processing including choice of action.

Now here are the numbers, the lower end of human reaction time is around 120ms on humanbenchmark (before we get to statistical inconsistencies). I'm choosing the lower end because we want to isolate what the human brain might capable of since it's still such a mystery, and I'm just trying to show its plausible. So lets break down each segment of the 120ms to isolate the brain (get rid of all the extra latency that has nothing to do with the brain). 40ms is for the signal traveling to the back of the brain. Nerve impulses travel from .89 meters per second to 119m/s (the signal to your muscles) . That means it takes 20ms for the signal to travel to your muscles. With just those 2 things ( signal from eye to brain/ brain to muscle) That's 60ms just for sensory input/output. Now the monitor at 60hz takes 16ms and the mouse, browser, and computer processing takes some time, since I don't have a good number lets say 10ms. So we have eliminated 82 ms from 120ms. That leaves just 36ms for brain processing.

Ok so 36ms, higher than 8 right. But the key isn't being lower than 8. Just that ms to the brain is relatively long intervals. Since we have no idea how the brain works internally there is no way to break it down beyond that, however I'd say that if the brain can take an image, communicate that to other parts of the brain and make a decision. It's def not out of the questions that the brain can tell the difference between 8ms and 16ms. So how you can sit here and try to say other wise is beyond me, especially without providing a good argument, other than your own circular logic.

So if the brain can make a decision in 36ms, how long did it really spend processing an image? Probably not 16ms. It certainly seems plausible to me that the brain can see the difference between image intervals of 8ms and 16ms. As far as making use of them. Like I said, it helps track objects and creates less strain on the brain (person experience).

The fact that the brain can make a smooth image out of 24-60fps is simply a feet of the mind. not because the number of ms between frames is so low.

Now lets see you 2 come up with an argument that doesn't amount to, But its a really small number.

 

[SlyNine]

Deleted by poster.

 

[Delengowski]

oh it seems my decimal place counting skills suck, oh well touché, GG, I'm an ass....







at least I admit my mistakes huh(not saying you don't)