LCD Refresh Rate?

[strangestranger]

do you get 1080P over cable. one of the reason i do not like HD right now is because it is all low res 720P stuff or interlaced 1080i.

also, do you really need all that res :lol: you do realise once you get a monitor like that you won't be able to go back right. i know that is how it was with me. i have to use a terrible and i mean terrible(you can create circles with just the ghosting on them) 15" LCD's at work and it is torture.

 

[klawrence0]

no 1080p broadcasts anywhere as far as I know, yet anyway. It does look more and more like I should just not even order cable this year or buy a large display.

as far as the 2500x1600 -- it is quite a bit more than my current 1280x960 but I am a bit of a gamer, and I do expect to have a video card eventually that can handle some nice framerates. Right now it's the 7800gtx, which is pretty good, though no HDMI. Upgrading will mean probably a new machine completely. I will probably use my current one for audio production since the audio hardware maker (Aardvark) is out of business, so no Vista support...

for me, it really is sort of a bad year to want to go all out with the home entertainment! And you know I bet after 1080p there will just be another standard necessitating yet another display.

 

[strangestranger]

hmm, best put off buying a big monitor until you upgrade you gfx card unless you use old games. in newish games with full details even my x1900 struggled at times and that is at 19 x 12 so that is why i got another i corssfire.

tbh, there is no rush is there. i mean, waiting until all this HDCP and vista nonsense has settled down and new gfx cards are out would be better.

there is just so much confusion around especially if you want to make a media pc that can do home and pc entertainment. for once i recommend waiting for developments as for the last few years nothgin big has really happened in the pc world but now with vista, a new direct x APi and digital TV beginning to show its true promise, it may indeed be better to watch and wait.

 

[cheetsy]

Just bought a pair of Viewsonic VX2245wm's and I am horrified to see that they only do 60hz at max res 1600/1050. My VX924 would happily do 72/75 at max res of 1280/1024.

You can totally notice a difference between 60 and 72, I'm a little peed off about these monitors, but ill have to get used to it. Was happy to see my 8800GTX running oblivion at up to 60fps outside at max res and full graphics settings with AA at 2x tho!

cheetsy

 

[Track]

how about those nvidia 88xx cards with the HDMI ?

No, of course not. Thats crazy.

Its like making applications that only work on dual-core CPUs - will never happen.. or at least not for a very long time.

anyway, the original topic is really about semantics. Refresh rate can mean one of two things to a person -- how quickly the image is updated (moot in the case of LCD's, hence no flicker) or data framerate.

Ok, there are still some things i dont get here..

A CRT does have a refresh rate because it refereshes the whole screen at once - turns off every pixel and turns it back on with whatever value or color it may have. The CRT refreshes the screen 60 times per second, so its called 60hz (vertical refresh rate)

An LCD does not have a refresh raite because it refreshes each pixel independently and assings it one color or no color (black). Each pixel can change it's color as fast as the response time, so that is why it is the only thing that matters.

But then, why is refreshing a single pixel (wich is a function of response time) different to refreshing the entire screen of pixels (wich isn't)?

And why dosen't the LCD have a refresh rate? Is it because u cant call it that due to the fact that the whole screen isn't refreshed, but only a single pixel at a time?

Wichever it is, the only difference i see when in 60hz mode in comparison to 75hz, is mouse lag - the mouse being noticably smoother at 75hz on both CRTs and LCDs alike.

 

[Track]

Thank You, that was very interesting.

So ur saying that LCD infact DO have a refresh rate, but dont have a flicker because the LCD is always lit unlike the CRT.

So then why cant LCDs do more than 60hz at resolutions above 1280x1024?

It cant be because of the response time, since there are monitors that have 2ms response times, and mine has 8ms wich is more than enough 75, or even 85hz..

Oh and, what is the response time for CRTs, and why is it higher?

 

[Track]

bump

 

[Track]

So then why cant LCDs do more than 60hz at resolutions above 1280x1024?

It cant be because of the response time, since there are monitors that have 2ms response times, and mine has 8ms wich is more than enough 75, or even 85hz..

Actually, you can't really think of it the way I described. Sorry about that. 60Hz means it would change every 16.6 milliseconds, right? But, if the monitor takes 16 milliseconds to change the pixel to the right color, then by the time it has reached the right color, it has to change again.... So for 16 milliseconds you see the pixel go through a gradual transition from the color it was to the new color, and by the time it gets where it's supposed to be it is almost time to start the process of changing to another color again! So, you hardly get to see the right color, just a big blurr. What does this mean? I suspect it means that the response time needs to be much lower than what is needed to match the refresh rate - at least in order for you to see the right color long enough. However, this is only a theory. I do not understand the details enough myself to say for sure.

But the pixel has 60 times to refresh per second, even at 16.6ms.
There is no way that a pixel would need to refresh more than 60 times per second, so i dont get what u mean when u say that it has to be less than 16.6ms for 60hz because the pixel is constantly changing.



And also, why is it that LCD can only do 60hz at a resolution of 1600x1200 or above?

 

[eric54]

Thank You, that was very interesting.


Oh and, what is the response time for CRTs, and why is it higher?

The response time for CRT's (cathode ray tube) is higher because the of the way it works. An electron gun shoots, you guessed it, electrons at phosphors inbedded into "pixels", these are the polygons you see when you look closely at a crt, there are red blue and green phosphors in each polygon. When the electron or cathode ray gun hits the phosphors with electrons they glow different colors depending on what the signal tells the ray gun to produce. Once the beam has hit the phospors they almost immediately stop glowing. Therefore the response time of a CRT is basically instantaneous. It takes at least less than 1/1000th (est) of a second for the phosophor to stop glowing (moniters at resolutions of 1280x1024 edit:can have up to 120hz refresh rates, therefore the response time is greater than 120hz). This is good because the ray gun refreshes the screen at >60hz, so if the phosphors did not stop glowing nearly instantly than the CRT would be unable to reach higher refresh rates because you would have to add the time it takes for the phosphor to lose its charge or stop glowing. That is why CRT's have a faster response time than LCD's, because phosphors glow when hit with electrons and stop glowing when they are not hit by electrons, LCD's require the crystals to rotate to refract the color of light it needs to produce at any given moment. Even the fastest LCD's will likley not match the response time of CRT's simple because of the mechanical limitations of LCD's. A 2ms rated LCD only seems to not produce ghosting because its pixels can move a faster rate than our eye's can detect, for most its 60hz, for me its about 85hz. That leave LCD's to produce ms rates less than 1ms so that ghosting is percieved to be equal to CRT's.


So thats why CRT's have a faster response time and no ghosting.

 

[picture_perfect]

So then why cant LCDs do more than 60hz at resolutions above 1280x1024?

there are two main reasons:

1. Connection Limitations: A single DVI digital connection has limited bandwidth... not enough to allow higher than 60Hz refresh rate at full 24bpp Color Depth for all resolutions, so typically all resolutions on LCD monitors using DVI are capped at 60Hz. If you use a VGA analog connector instead, you can often select a refresh rate higher than 60Hz on an LCD, though again nowhere near the theoretical refresh rate limit based on your response time, partly because of the reason below...

2. Monitor Limitations: LCD manufacturers want to ensure that their monitors function satisfactorily in all situations, particularly since they often overstate response times. So typically they set the maximum supported refresh rates on their monitors such that they are relatively conservative and can meet the challenge of refreshing the entire screen as often as required in any situation without any ghosting. Furthermore, setting too high a refresh rate on an LCD, even if it's available, can actually result in problems in certain games and applications due to timing issues. So for reliability and compatibility purposes, LCD refresh rates are not as high as they could theoretically be.

TweakGuides.com

Oh and, what is the response time for CRTs, and why is it higher?

toms hardware measured 860 microseconds = .86ms (thats for all shades?)

i notice a HUGE difference beetween 60hz and 75hz in my LCD monitor (connected by a VGA cable), so whats up?

just a guess: overdrive errors are reduced at 75hz - at a cost:

So running at 75Hz causes the RTC [overdrive] control to function incorrectly, reducing responsiveness, but having the positive effect that RTC errors / overshoot are reduced. Benoit Dupont over at Tom's Hardware also noticed that the artefacts and overshoot on some RTC enabled monitors was reduced by moving away from the 60Hz recommended refresh rate:



Quote:

On displays with which the overdrive is poorly controlled, some people can see visual artefacts in FPS games during lateral movements. A halo of colour appears temporarily around the moving object. This phenomenon is due to the overdrive technology used on this type of monitor. In the worst cases, the colour displayed is not the right one for 3 whole frames, which can be visible in the form of unwanted colours. (If you have this problem, one trick that works fairly well is to increase your display's refresh rate to 70 Hz instead of 60 Hz.)

TFT Central


so you'll get no more than 60hz on an LCD (and usually much less because of something called LCD image delay...a whole nother topic you can read here)

 

[picture_perfect]

I suspect that the response time needs to be much lower than what is needed to match the refresh rate - at least in order for you to see the right color long enough. However, this is only a theory.

In LCDs, each pixel emits light of set intensity for a full period of 20 ms (in this example), plus the time it takes for it to switch to the next state, typically 12 to 25 ms.

so to get 60hz on the LCD they tested you need a response time around minus 3.4 ms (16.6 - 20 = - 3.4 ms), which is of course impossible. link

 

[Track]

Alright, but its still somewhat confusing..

You say that it takes 16ms for the whole screen to turn from black to white, but what abt each individual pixel? I thought that LCDs refresh each individual pixel at a time, unlike CRTs. I was thinking of "response time" to have to do with LCDs and single pixels, while "refresh rate" to do with CRTs and the entire screen.

And you say that it takes 16ms for that pixel to turn from black to white, but i did not realize that it has to turn into dark gray, then light gray, etc. I thought it was just black - white.
That is not what happens with CRTs, right? They can get from black to white in 1ms or so.

And then ur saying that since it takes so long to get from black to white, and that it has to go through shades of gray, that u see blurring because of this? So a CRT that has a response time of 0.86ms would be changing to white so quickly, that there would be much less shades of gray, and that would somehow reduce blurring? And if so, then how?


I dont know abt the 75hz being being smoother because of overdrive error reduction.. i cannot see a difference beetween my CRT and my LCD at both 60hz and 75hz.. not to mention 85hz in wich i can see no difference.


And lastly, if an LCD had a refresh rate of 30hz or less, would it hurt my eyes or would it not because it has no flicker?

 

[Track]

Alright, but its still somewhat confusing..

You say that it takes 16ms for the whole screen to turn from black to white, but what abt each individual pixel? I thought that LCDs refresh each individual pixel at a time, unlike CRTs. I was thinking of "response time" to have to do with LCDs and single pixels, while "refresh rate" to do with CRTs and the entire screen.

Just simplifying it. Technically, it is subpixels that are changing (the red, green, or blue subpixel). If the entire screen is black and is changing to white, that means every single sub-pixel on the screen is changing from darkest to brightest.

So is it one pixel per time, or the whole screen, on LCDs?

How can red, blue and green subpixels make a white pixel? u need more than 3 colors, or they would need to be the 3 main colors, where yellow would be instead of green.

And you saying that it takes 16ms for that pixel to turn from black to white, but i did not realize that it has to turn into dark gray, then light gray, etc. I thought it was just black - white.
That is not what happens with CRTs, right? They can get from black to white in 1ms or so.

The electron gun sends the right color imediately.... There is no transition period. It is the right color right away. However, afterwards, there is a fade off time, but it is very fast.

Alright, but on LCDs, how come it changes from black to grey and only then to white? Why cant it change from black to white without turning into shades?
Is it because the pixels do not turn off, and need to change in order to become something different, other than a CRT where they are turned off and then on in lightning speed?

I dont know abt the 75hz being being smoother because of overdrive error reduction.. i cannot see a difference beetween my CRT and my LCD at both 60hz and 75hz.. not to mention 85hz in wich i can see no difference.

Not all monitors have overdrive; and for those that do, not all of them have overdrive errors that are very noticeable. So, this statement cannot apply to all monitors.

So why DOES it feel smoother?

I went back to my CRT and noticed that it was actually a lot smoother than the LCD.. Would the LCD feel as smooth with a lower response time?

 

[Hose]

no 1080p broadcasts anywhere as far as I know, yet anyway. It does look more and more like I should just not even order cable this year or buy a large display.

And you know I bet after 1080p there will just be another standard necessitating yet another display.

There won't be 1080p broadcast any time soon... the bandwidth requirement is simply too great. HD @ 720p is still terrific.

 

[msknight]

Track,

Can I ask for more information on how you feel, please? At the start, you say it makes a "HUGE" difference, but later on your reporting of the impact seems, in your writing, to be not as drastic.

I ask, as I have an issue at work with someone who is reporting trouble viewing a Dell LCD at 60Hz, but not 75 ... the result is that it has started me on a mini-crusade. Although I have five different "manufacturers" of screen, it doesn't help that I would have to take them apart to find out the true manufacturers.

I am noticing the effect (on some of the monitors) of the smoother mouse, but larger operations like scrolling text or dragging windows seem the same to me in either rate. Also, a variety of other people I know who have various eye conditions and whos lives were made a misery by CRT's, are totally fine with the LCD's.

So ... Track ... as someone who is sensitive to this refresh rate on LCD's, may I ask you how deeply you are affected?

All the feedback from Dell, the HSE and others, say that this is the first time they have heard of discomfort caused by LCD's and although Dell have given me a statement to the effect that there is no difference, I have asked them to go back to the designers who built the things.

However, from what other, obviously educated, people have said here, this is starting to look like being a situation which is individual to the true manufacturer of the monitor and possibly the control mechanisms employed (I used to repair laptops very often and saw some differences in control circuitry, I also spent some time in Sony and Telewest, quizzing the senior engineers; although it would take a component level technician to be able to explain the mechanisms.) Slight hint ... never touch the voltage inverter 🙂

 

[d0000h]

Lots of text here and I think I read everything.

My question: If a LCD has a maximum refresh fate of 60MHz at a particular resolution, and if you are getting a frame rate from your FPS of say 75FPS, really you are only seeing 60FPS?

Is VSYNC used to help situations where the FPS > Refresh rate?

-Deuce-

 

[stabbs]

Okay, I want everyone to understand how an LCD really works. I haven't read everyone's comments, but I did see that there were some comments that talked about how it worked, but not in great detail.

To start off, refresh rate does not apply to LCDs. I know this has been stated already, but it doesn't. It doesn't apply at all. LCDs work completely different in all ways than CRTs do. CRTs (Cathode ray tubes) scan the screen with a ray that causes the phosphors to glow (definition of phosphors from www.mtw.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/weddell/guide/gloss1.html: Chemicals which glow when struck by a beam of electrons.) So the ray (beam of electrons) scans across the screen, from the top to the bottom, and from left to right, causing each pixel to light up, and it continues to do this over and over so that you see a constant picture.

Now an LCD works like this. There is actually an electrode grid that powers electricity (a very minimal amount of electricity) to each pixel on the screen. However, power is only sent to a specific pixel if you want the pixel to be black, or dimmer. With no power sent to it, you will see light. Now this makes no sense unless you understand how an LCD works.

How an LCD works
First of all, LCD stands for Liquid Crystal Display. Each Liquid crystal either allows light to pass through it or it doesn't. It's not "On or off" it's more like open or closed. But it's not even that (but that's where things get more complicated and if you want a full understanding, then go to this site http://www.howstuffworks.com/lcd.htm).

Second, LCDs have two light bulbs, or light tubes, on the sides of the screen. In the small area on the sides of your screen, these two light tubes are placed, and they supply light to the back of the LCD panel. From there, they reflect outward to you. However, they only do this if the Liquid crystal is "open" (it's actually twisted, but you'll have to read the site that I showed above to understand that, so we'll just say open or closed to make it simple) Now, if you want to make a pixel black, you apply electricity to it, and it closes (or untwists) the liquid crystal (or pixel).

Third, since each pixel is independently controlled by the electrode grid, they aren't "refreshed." This is where "response time" comes in. Response time isn't quite related to "refresh rate." Many people think that, but what it really is is how fast the monitor can register the movement of something on the screen, and actually tell those pixels to change to reflect the movement. So, if you move your mouse, it tells the pixels to change to show your mouse movement. If you have a slow response time, then the mouse will act as if it is lagging behind. (definition of response time from www.acuityresearch.com/Resources/glossary.shtml: The delay between the time of a change in the target position and the time the sensor's output changes.) The lower the response time, the faster the monitor outputs the movement of something on your screen.

Conclusion
So, in summary, refresh rate doesn't have anything to do with LCDs because they are always either allowing the light to pass, or not. It would be like looking at a florescent light bulb and saying that it is refreshing. It's just sending out light all the time, not refreshing. And your lcd monitor isn't sending pulses to the pixels telling them to close, then open, then close, then open. So you will never see "flickering" on an LCD. (And I do understand flickering. To me it looks more like "glaring" though. 60hz on a CRT is very noticeable to me. I can even somewhat tell the difference between 75hz and 85hz.)

Any questions? Please ask and I will answer them.

As for gaming? I haven't researched it, so I can't refute this, but I guess it may be possible that the game will only send through the amount of fps as your hz is set on your computer. However, 60fps is tons faster than most people can register anyway (in my opinion, maybe I'm wrong. I haven't done research yet). Movies are only at 30fps.

 

[andrewset]

I'm confused by what I read here. Too many people are contradicting too many things. I have a 24" Acer AL2423W LCD monitor that hurts my eyes. I tried to increase the refresh rate (which I'm learning might mean ziltch), but found it can only be 60 Hz. Should I be looking for a 75-85 Hz LCD monitor to replace my Acer, or will that not mean a thing in aiding my sore eyes?

Because the strange thing is..why do monitor manufacturers even mention the amount of Hz the refresh rate of the LCD monitor is capable of, if it doesn't mean anything? When I e-mailed Acer about my 60 Hz monitor, they said they do have some 75 Hz monitors, if I'd like to look through those. Why would Acer even suggest that, then, if it doesn't mean anything?

Thank you

 

[stabbs]

That's a good question. I'll have to research that. Sounds to me, though, that you may have a cheap monitor. I have seen many LCD monitors, all on 60hz, and none of them flicker or anything. My eyes are very sensitive to CRT 60hz. I can tell the difference easily between 60 and 75hz. So, it may just be that you have a cheap LCD that for some reason flickers. But it would be flickering for a different reason than hz, in my opinion. I'd really like to see your LCD monitor though.

As for Acer suggesting an LCD monitor with higher hz, it may just be a marketing scheme. They may be playing off of people's lack of knowledge of how LCDs work in order to sell higher priced LCDs. Sounds strange to me. Maybe I'll call them up and ask them myself.

I called Acer, this is what they said
So I did call up Acer right after I wrote the above statements. I asked the guy about whether or not they sold monitors with higher refresh rates. He at first said they didn't, but he checked and found out they did, but he didn't understand why it would matter, because he also knew that refresh rate doesn't apply to LCDs (so maybe it was just for the gaming issue - that you can't get a higher fps than your video card sets the refresh rate to).

However, he did say that your monitor may be hurting your eyes because either your resolution isn't set to it's native resolution, or your brightness is too high. If the resolution isn't set right, then it will make your monitor a little blurry, and that could hurt your eyes. Also, a low viewing angle may do it. It may have just come a little blurry because of a manufacturing defect.

These are all just assumptions though, because we don't know what is actually causing your eyes to hurt. Let me know that and maybe I can assist further. Does it look like the monitor is flickering? Does it look a little blurry? What's up?.


Latest I've learned is smoothness
The latest I've learned about lcds and refresh rates is that it is possible that a higher refresh rate could result in smoother motion. This means that when you move your mouse, it may move smoother, or something like that. But, it would not cause your monitor to flicker at a lower refresh rate. As for the smoother motion, I have an LCD that supports up to 75 hz, and I can't tell a difference between them when moving things on my screen. But perhaps I'm not accustomed to it. I don't know.

 

[andrewset]

Wow, thanks for all that help, stabbs! Calling them up and everything

I only notice the flicker when the screen's one flat color, especially the gray color in Photoshop, and it's where there are horizontal lines passing through it. I just checked, and I don't see it right now. The major difference is that I recently made the screen even darker. The Acer monitor is at the minimal brightness, and the graphics card options are at 66% brightness (default 100%), so the screen is quite dark. It's been that low for a few days. Used to be 70%.

That's great if refresh rate doesn't have to do with eye strain and only games, because then it's not an issue to me and I don't have to buy a new monitor and sell this one.

I just got confused by some peoples' statements in this thread, especially MafiaAce, who said:

"You are correct, on there being no such thing as constant latency... Depending on the colors being shifted it always varies. However that does not mean that refresh rate is a useless meaning, or that the refresh rate doesn't matter. In general, the higher the refresh rate, the easier it is on the eyes, and the less image tearing there will be during fast moving images. A higher refresh rate results that all pixels in general will be able to shift faster than at a lower refresh rate. I can most absolutely tell the difference from 60hz and 75hz, it is in no way an effect on the mind or a v-sync problem, in fact 60hz monitors actually strain my eyes relatively quickly. I can actually tell when a monitor is running at 60hz just by using it shortly, because it is obviously bothering my eyes. Furthermore, I also can tell the difference from 75hz and 85hz, though it is not nearly as significant. 85 is slightly smoother, but anything higher than that and it all feels the same. Remember that different people's brains and eyesights work differently, so some people may be more sensitive to a screen's refresh rate than others."

But my monitor's set to the native resolution (the others weren't nearly as crisp), and the brightness is very low (not too low), and I have the monitor set at the lowest level, so my eyes don't have to strain more by looking up instead of down. I also do everything else I've heard, including making sure the contrast is okay, making sure the room lighting is good, avoiding reflections, and even closing my eyes for 5 minutes every hour.

The monitor isn't blurry, though. I just assumed from things I read that the refresh rate matters for LCDs. But I don't view moving images. Rather, I'm basically working in Microsoft Word all day.

 

[stabbs]

Even though you have decided that you don't need to sell that monitor and buy a new one, it doesn't mean that a different brand won't work better for you. Just as a side note, the best LCD monitors I have discovered thus far are made by NEC. There was a model that they had that was completely wonderful. It was the MultiSync 90GX2 (I'm actually using it right now). The place I bought it from only charged around $230 for it. But that place has now stopped selling it, and every else sells it for $330. So I am now testing another one by NEC that is a widescreen. It's specs look even better than the 90GX2. However, it costs around $260 from a specific online retailer that I trust.

Anyway, the 90GX2 makes no type of flickering whatsoever, and it is bright and has a great picture. I just haven't seen one this good yet.

So, I'm not trying to get you to sell what you have and get one, but keep it in mind next time you do go to buy an LCD.

 

[computertech82]

LCD monitors have NO flicker. No matter the refresh rate, there will be no flicker. The Only real factor is response time. Faster the response time, the less likely having blurred or "ghost" images. 8ms and less usually have NO ghosting/blurring. But the rating is off. The 8ms (for example) is black to white, not different colors (which can take much longer....like 25ms-enough for ghosting).
For the refresh rate: While many film projects are made at higher frame rates (most notably television material, often filmed at 30 or 60 FPS), nearly all commercial films are principally recorded at 24fps to save on film stock. Typical 60hz (screen redrawn 60fps) is basically enough for any broadcast. HD, blueray will also use the same 60fps format.

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

 

[twelvenine]

so, what is the refresh rate that you set in windows?

this was taken on my laptop(lcd screen). my desktop has an lcd monitor that can be set up to 75hz at that menu, though.

is that the video card's refresh rate? i wouldn't think so because some of the games i play get up to much higher fps rates at times.

it makes sense to me that vertical/horizontal refresh rate doesn't apply to lcd monitors because the entire screen doesn't have to be redrawn on each cycle and that all of the pixels being updated get changed at the same time, but then what is this refresh rate? and why do half of the lcd monitors being sold on newegg list a vertical and horizontal refresh rate in there specifications section?

 

[erik_tilton]

I have used a 100hz (=100 frames per second) CRT monitor and a 60hz (=60 frames per second) LCD side-by-side, when spinning around and shooting people in Halo I wish my LCD was as good as my CRT. You can line up your shots much easier when more information is displayed to you per second.

Which would you prefer? Frame... frame... frame... (60hz) or frame-frame-frame-frame-frame (100hz)?

I use my 60hz monitor because it is more detailed and easier to maneuver. You trade one thing for another when you switch between LCD and CRT.

I forgot to mention-- when you use DVI cables instead of analog cables, you are always capped at 60hz. Don't ask me why, I think they are trying to regulate things in case television and computer technology become merged in the future. So if you want faster response time, go with an analog cable.

The whole response time thing refers to the speed at which individual liquid crystals change from one position to another to allow light and color to pass through them. My LCD monitor (Viewsonic vx2025wm) has 8 millisecond response time. Response time does not equal refresh rate. Refresh rate is shown in Hz (which means frequency in times per second, 60 hz means 60 times a second is how frequent you will get an image).

 

[jj_mclure]

hey hey stabbs.

been almost 3 years.

what's your knowledge and experience with this refresh issue.

i have an acer 19' lcd and im running native rez 1440x900x75hz

seems better than when i tried 60hz.

what do you think?

im thinking about getting an acer 22' but it's native rez is 1680x1050 and only 60hz. should I do it?

see, my current monitor is able to operate at it's native rez at 75hz. only because it is only 19". i think beyond that manufacteres cant do 75hz at 1680x1050 because of bandwidth limits on dvi