Confused about Vsync on LCD Monitors

[digitalforce]

To make a long story short, I have a new Acer 1916w 19" 4ms Widescreen LCD monitor hooked up DVI and a 1900XT video card.

Some games, look awesome and run smooth with no tearing such as Half Life 2, Tomb Raider Legend and Oblivion.

Other games tear like crazy such as Titan Quest and PREY. I enabled Vsync on these games and the frame rate is horrible. So... do I have to pick between tearing and incosistent FPS or am I missing something?

 

[Slava]

V-sync limits your FPS to 60. You cannot have more than 60 FPS with V-sync enabled but it can be lower than that. If you consider this frame rate to be too low then you are one spoiled gamer

Anyhow, V-sync or not - it is very likely that your FPS would drop below 60 in the same games, depending of graphics/action intensity in a given area. It is unlikely that enabling V-sync would cause a significant drop (or erratic fluctuations) in your minimum FPS.

 

[Calapuso]

Simple answer is yes you have to pick. Enabling vsync will cap you maximum frame rate to the refresh rate of your monitor which in the case of an LCD is probably 60Hz or 60 fps as each picture drawn is synchrnoized to the display frame. However do you really need more than 60fps? I always run games with vsync on cause it looks so much nicer and most games will drop below 60fps anyway.

LCDs do not really have a vertical refresh rate as such but the graphics needs some way of synchrnoising with the screen. I dont believe LCD have a vertical refresh rate at all but if the LCD reported nothing then graphics card would simple think the monitor was not present. Most LCDs at maximum rez report a vertical refresh rate of 60hz however i know my LCD reporst 75hz at lower resolutions which doesnt make sense to me at all cause the screen is not be driven any harder at high resolutions like a CRT, its just the same pixels.

 

[digitalforce]

Hmmm.. strange thing about all this is, no, I don't need more than 60 FPS but why would same games tear and others not?

I mean, I can run Half Life 2 deathmatch at blazing speeds with vsync off and there is no tearing. Yet I go into PREY and get great frame rates but tons of tearing.

Either way is painful. When I turn Vsync on, the frame rate is horribly inconsistent.

 

[Slava]

Because all games are coded differently and graphics horsepower requirements differ. Google Image Tearing and V-Sync and read up on why this happens.

EDIT: Also read THIS. It specifically addresses image tearing in Prey.

 

[Calapuso]

Does the minimum frame rate get worse or stay teh same with vsync on?

 

[Slava]

V-sync should not influence minimum frame rates, but your average frame rates will dorp significantly because your maximum FPS will never exceed 60 FPS.

 

[digitalforce]

Very interesting on the tweak guide. What a pain though to have some games work perfectly and others a total mess.

I totally cranked up all my graphics setting to the max though

EDIT: Is Refresh Force worthless on LCDs?

 

[Slava]

EDIT: Is Refresh Force worthless on LCDs?

If you mean Refresh Rate.... LCD technology is completely different from CRT. While for CRTs refresh rate is very important, for LCDs it is pretty meaningless.

 

[digitalforce]

Ok, I just read and remembered about Refresh Force from my CRT days.

Man, I wonder if it would be better to go to a blasted CRT monitor where I have some more control of tearing.

VSYNC on any game I enable it in just makes it totally unbearable to play. Tearing can be the same way..

Oh well, the only thing left to try is the Triple Buffering in the video driver.

 

[Slava]

Man, I wonder if it would be better to go to a blasted CRT monitor where I have some more control of tearing.

LCDs just suck for gaming. Even the most expensive ones are not as good as moderately priced CRTs.

 

[mitch074]

I don't agree with you on the matter of LCDs and CRTs for gaming: I went from a IIyama 17" (A702HT) to a Viewsonic 17" - now agreed, there are many LCD screens that are just junk - but I'm hooked on the Viewsonic: no ghosting, blacks are quite deep and the sharpness rivals that of my good ol' CRT.

I'm using a DVI connector, and it's the ultimate thing in regard to image stability and fidelity.

Now, about tearing on an LCD: if it happens to you, then:
- the game does NOT actually implement V-sync,
- you're using a VGA cable with a badly synchronized LCD
I'd say it's the former, so you could try forcing V-sync on at the driver's level. If it's the latter, see if you can't use a DVI cable instead.

 

[digitalforce]

Yeah, overall, I LOVE the monitor for gaming. It's been fantastic for Oblivion, Tomb Raider Legend and All Source engine games. It's just a few games giving me fits.

I do have it hooked up DVI but I will try the vertical sync on the driver level.

I am using the Chuck patch drivers for Oblivion.. anyway to update those without losing the AA functionality?

 

[biohazard420420]

Ok I know this is kind of of topic but here it goes. I can't go into how good LCD's are for gaming as I don't own one and the ones I do use are not for gaming. But from most of the stuff I have read you are stuck with one resolution the native LCD resolution. Tthe most popular one I have seen mentioned is 1600x1200, it could be that the games you are running you arent running at this res and from some of the stuff I have read that can be a problem weather that problem is tearing I don't know but worth checking. That reason is my main prefrence for CRT monitors, yes they are bulky and hot but you have so much more freedom in settings with them over LCD's. You can run any game and pretty much any res your monitor will support with no problems at all. And if you get a mid to mid-high range CRT 19'' of 20'' in size it will blow away any LCD as far as picture quaility. IMO the colors are richer, the graphics are sharper (at least on mine I have a low dot pitch screen) and the blacks are actually black. For all the obivious draw backs there are with CRT's I just can't belive so many people are moving to LCD's instead with the obvious benefits that you get with a CRT that frankly most any LCD just can't match.

 

[maury73]

If you mean Refresh Rate.... LCD technology is completely different from CRT. While for CRTs refresh rate is very important, for LCDs it is pretty meaningless

False.
Sure the technologies are very different, but frames are always sent to the monitor with a serial connection, exactly like a CRT one.
The difference is that LCD have rows and columns drivers that can display one row at a time instead of only a single pixel, because an entire row is first loaded in a shift register and then latched in the column drivers array as a whole.
But you still have a VSynch: there is always a blanking time of 3-7 rows (depending on the particular panel) that the internal logic uses for synchronization purposes.
Of course if you don't synch the image with VSynch you'll notice much less flicker than a CRT monitor, but you still can see it.

 

[Slava]

Alright. LCDs and CRTs, both, have their advantages and disadvantages. However, IMO CRTs are better for gaming. To summarize some of the points mentioned above, here's why I beileve that CRTs are better in general:

1. Flexible resolutions. All else equal you get better image fidelity at higher resolutions. Personally, I play all games I own (except Oblivion) at 1600x1200. Not even sure if you *can* buy an LCD that supports this (or comparably high) resolution, but if you can, I am sure it costs three+ times more than a very good 21" CRT;

2. Decent size high quality LCDs with minimal ghosting are not the rule but rather exceptions to the rule. They are also rather expensive. Personally, I find any gaming monitor smaller than 19" inadequate. And for the price of a top-quality 21" LCD I can have a top qulality 21" CRT + $$ left over for, say another Gig of RAM or something else. And still, with a 21" LCD I will not get to play anything at 1600x1200'

3. EDIT: Oh, just remembered: If you try to change the native resolution on an LCD your image quality will go down the pipes and you'll get all that shimmering and stuff. Say your LCD native resolution is 1280x1024 but your GPU does not have enough juice to play a game smoothly at that resolution. Now, try to set it to 1024x768 and see what happens.

4. Viewing angles. Granted, I have not personally dealt with very many top quality LCDs. However, every LCD I've seen has this problem: If I play a game and my girlfriend wants to sit next to me and watch, and say she is sitting not directly behind me but to my side viewing the screen at some 45 degree angle, she cannot see a damn thing.

There was something else but I forgot and have no time to try to recall it now. If it comes back to me I will post an EDIT here.

So, unless someone can convincingly dispel the above I have to reiterate: Compared to CRTs, LCDs suck for gaming.

 

[digitalforce]

SLAVA,

I don't disagree with you at all on these points. For example, I can play all my games comfortably at the native resolution of 1440x900 but when I Crysis comes out, I am sure I won't get over 800x600 ;-)

The big things for me right now is:

* Desk space
* Widescreen
* Price

I had a 19" CRT monitor for years.. so going back to that really would be hard after the beauty of 19" Widescreen LCD via DVI.

The only place to even get a good "big" CRT monitor is ebay now. Newegg hardly even has any CRT monitors listed.

 

[illicitsc]

1. Flexible resolutions. All else equal you get better image fidelity at higher resolutions. Personally, I play all games I own (except Oblivion) at 1600x1200. Not even sure if you *can* buy an LCD that supports this (or comparably high) resolution, but if you can, I am sure it costs three+ times more than a very good 21" CRT;

2. Decent size high quality LCDs with minimal ghosting are not the rule but rather exceptions to the rule. They are also rather expensive. Personally, I find any gaming monitor smaller than 19" inadequate. And for the price of a top-quality 21" LCD I can have a top qulality 21" CRT + $$ left over for, say another Gig of RAM or something else. And still, with a 21" LCD I will not get to play anything at 1600x1200'

http://www.canadacomputers.com/index.php?do=ShowProduct&cmd=pd&pid=010586&cid=MT.258
Samsung lcd, 20'' 1600x1200
Dell also had 20 inch lcds that had 1600x1200 but were discontinued.

 

[digitalforce]

Yeah, LCDs have come a VERY long way in the last few years... and I got my 19" widescreen LCD for $189!!

Either way, the I would like the flexibility of the CRT.. just switching resolutions. Oh well...

 

[Slava]

1. Flexible resolutions. All else equal you get better image fidelity at higher resolutions. Personally, I play all games I own (except Oblivion) at 1600x1200. Not even sure if you *can* buy an LCD that supports this (or comparably high) resolution, but if you can, I am sure it costs three+ times more than a very good 21" CRT;

2. Decent size high quality LCDs with minimal ghosting are not the rule but rather exceptions to the rule. They are also rather expensive. Personally, I find any gaming monitor smaller than 19" inadequate. And for the price of a top-quality 21" LCD I can have a top qulality 21" CRT + $$ left over for, say another Gig of RAM or something else. And still, with a 21" LCD I will not get to play anything at 1600x1200'

http://www.canadacomputers.com/index.php?do=ShowProduct&cmd=pd&pid=010586&cid=MT.258
Samsung lcd, 20'' 1600x1200
Dell also had 20 inch lcds that had 1600x1200 but were discontinued.

Thanks. I looked it up. Pretty cool. However, reviews indicate the following:

- average response time;
- subpar screen uniformity (as in various parts of the screen have different levels of brightness and have darker and lighter patches)...
- (in CNET's words) the monitor showed "a nominal amount of ghosting"

It is cool that for some $400 its native resolution is 1600x1200. Yet #3 from my previous post applies.

Also, I watched a video review of this monitor on CNET. Hmmm... the specs indcate that the viewing angle is 160/160. Hmmm ...if they mean degrees then I am puzzled because as that woman who reviewed the monitor in the video turned it left and right and up and down to demonstrate the flexibility of the base I saw the screen become grayed out. So I suppose #4 from my previous post also applies.

 

[digitalforce]

No doubt there are major advantages and disadvantages with LCD vs CRT. It's too bad that widescreen CRTs never really caught on. I am hooked with the widescreen aspect ratio since I have a 57" Widescreen HDTV and a widescreen laptop.

For future proofing, being stuck at 1600x1200 is not cool. Although, I have noticed some LCD monitors do better "scaling" to lower resolutions. I must test my new monitor on those resolutions tonight

 

[DaveUK]

Thats incorrect, V-sync does not cap the framerate at 60fps, it caps the framerate at whatever the prevalent refresh rate is in control panel/graphics driver whatever.

Thus, if you have your refresh rate forced to 75hz, then V-Sync will cap your FPS at 75.

Although 'refresh rate' does not apply to LCD's, it still has importance at driver level. Thus, if your LCD supports a higher refresh rate than 60hz being set in the driver (my VP930B does) then setting this higher alongside V-Sync will result in a higher FPS cap.

V-Sync caps the max FPS at the driver refresh rate, simple as that. There is no hard-coded rule that V-Sync is capped at 60fps.

 

[sirheck]

i agree the best overall picture you can get is crt period.
though i think that plasma and lcd are slowly catching up.
maybee 5 more years. and they will have a better overall
picture than crt.

 

[Slava]

i agree the best overall picture you can get is crt period.
though i think that plasma and lcd are slowly catching up.
maybee 5 more years. and they will have a better overall
picture than crt.

Yeah. I hope my 21" CRT ViewSonic (or is it 22"(?) - I am always confused on this one... gotta look it up) lasts another 3-4 years. Hopefully by then they will have resolved this 'native resolution' thing.

V-Sync caps the max FPS at the driver refresh rate, simple as that. There is no hard-coded rule that V-Sync is capped at 60fps.

Right, right. Thanks for the correction.

 

[mitch074]

I don't have Oblivion, so I can't help you there.