I have a ViewSonic VX922 19" LCD that supports refresh rates of 60, 70 and 75Hz. The manual says the best settings for this model is 1280x1024 @ 60Hz (this is mentioned several times in the manual), and basically I can't tell the difference between all the refresh rate settings (even in games), although 60Hz seems to produce better colors (this may be BS, I'm colorblind).
I googled a bit and learned about CRTs and phosphor decay and why refresh rates on LCD displays don't matter, I also found a lot of ranting on gaming forums about why higher refresh rates are better and how frame rates and Vsync are affected by refresh rates on LCDs. As I've learned here on HA, I'm not going to blindly trust those gaming forums (they're most probably 13 year-olds with fancy-ass gaming rigs) but I also didn't find any reliable sources on the topic. Have any of you any idea if raising the refresh rate will improve/harm performance?
BTW, i'm using the signed ViewSonic drivers from their site, and an ATI X1600 card, LCD is hooked up via DVI.
EDIT: I can confirm that the refresh rate actually changes and is not capped by checking the display's on-screen menu. I've read that some LCDs are capped and changing settings doesn't matter.
Full Version: LCDs and refresh rates
I would use the manufacturers recommended setting. The important part of an LCD is the pixel response time (the time it takes for the pixel to go from black to white then back to black again.) The refresh rate is important in CRTs because of flickering, which is noticeable by some and gives me headaches.
QUOTE(Wikipedia)
Much of the discussion of refresh rate does not apply to LCD monitors. This is because while a phosphor on a CRT will begin to dim as soon as the electron beam passes it, LCD cells open to pass a continuous stream of light, and do not dim until instructed to produce a darker color. Pertaining to LCDs, see also response time and Input lag.
Thanks for the reply. Seems most non-gaming sites agree that the manufacturer's recommended settings should be used, but I'm still not convinced, why do gamers get so worked up on the subject? some even risking damage to their displays by forcing ~100Hz refresh rates and claiming better results.
Probably because 'high-end gamers' with their 500€ 400W graphics cards reach more than 60 frames per second with some 'I run through dark corridors and shoot at everything'-ego shooter... 
It depends on what you want to do with it.
If you want to play back video, you want to refresh at the video frame rate to avoid a nasty juddering frame-rate conversion. That implies 60Hz in NTSC countries, and 50Hz in PAL countries. Since the PC world is dominated by the USA, 50Hz is rarely available, so you're stuck with 75Hz or (where available) 100Hz in PAL countries. For film content without 3-2 pulldown (or with it removed) 3*24=72Hz is good.
If you want to play games, especially where games are rendered without motion blur, the higher the refresh rate, the better, as long as your PC hardware can support it. Then the limit is the monitor - both in terms of what it can actually accept, and what is discernable given the temporal characteristics of the display itself.
If you do neither of these things, it's not really important, unless you can see a visible difference because of some secondary issue. This normally implies running an LCD at a low rate (e.g. 60Hz) if the connection is analogue because the bandwidth will be lower and hence any analogue issues will be less, and running a CRT at a higher rate (e.g. 75Hz or above) to minimise visible flicker (but with the same caveat about analogue bandwidth, and another about display brightness with some model).
Cheers,
David.
If you want to play back video, you want to refresh at the video frame rate to avoid a nasty juddering frame-rate conversion. That implies 60Hz in NTSC countries, and 50Hz in PAL countries. Since the PC world is dominated by the USA, 50Hz is rarely available, so you're stuck with 75Hz or (where available) 100Hz in PAL countries. For film content without 3-2 pulldown (or with it removed) 3*24=72Hz is good.
If you want to play games, especially where games are rendered without motion blur, the higher the refresh rate, the better, as long as your PC hardware can support it. Then the limit is the monitor - both in terms of what it can actually accept, and what is discernable given the temporal characteristics of the display itself.
If you do neither of these things, it's not really important, unless you can see a visible difference because of some secondary issue. This normally implies running an LCD at a low rate (e.g. 60Hz) if the connection is analogue because the bandwidth will be lower and hence any analogue issues will be less, and running a CRT at a higher rate (e.g. 75Hz or above) to minimise visible flicker (but with the same caveat about analogue bandwidth, and another about display brightness with some model).
Cheers,
David.
Well, I do watch lots of movies and play games often, should I switch between 60Hz for movies and 75Hz for games?
Also it seems the official ViewSonic drivers don't agree with my ATI drivers, if I set the refresh rate at 75Hz and start a full-screen 3D application it will run at 70Hz, and when I reboot it switches to 70Hz too.
Also it seems the official ViewSonic drivers don't agree with my ATI drivers, if I set the refresh rate at 75Hz and start a full-screen 3D application it will run at 70Hz, and when I reboot it switches to 70Hz too.
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.