preferred refresh rate for gaming?

shuki · Mar 24, 2003, 03:10 PM

just to match monitor size poll, wondered what refresh rate you all prefer/use?

NaumoJR · Mar 24, 2003, 03:59 PM

I use 85Hz on pretty much everything. My monitor supports 85Hz at 1280x1024, so I'm set.

DriveEuro · Mar 24, 2003, 04:18 PM

I only say 85hz cuz that's the mightest my monitor goes at 1024x768

dipstick · Mar 24, 2003, 07:38 PM

I prefer 85Hz, but my monitor will only do 75Hz

~~shai~~ · Mar 24, 2003, 07:45 PM

85 is the max the eye can notice if im correct

Matth · Mar 24, 2003, 08:47 PM

75 - no higher

It's "flicker free" and any more just wastes video card memory bandwidth.

Another reason, actually - although the card/monitor I had previously supported 85Hz, it was noticably "soft" compared to 75 - suggesting the frequency response was not quite up to it, even though it could scan those rates.

Now I have an LCD - so I can drop the rate even lower if I choose - and with a rather lightweight video card, the memory bandwidth saved goes directly to performance!

~~shai~~ · Mar 24, 2003, 08:49 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Matth
just wastes video card memory bandwidth

not realy it sets the v sync as well

~~craig588~~ · Mar 24, 2003, 11:33 PM

I think it uses an extra 400 bytes or so of ram, so its not a noticable hit.

Vampyromaniac · Mar 25, 2003, 01:18 AM

120Hz is what I have at 1280 res

I dunno what Matth is talking about

BWX · Mar 25, 2003, 02:04 AM

I use 85hz at 1024x768- That is because that is as fast as my monitor will go- If my monitor would do 110+ at 1600x1200, I would run that-

BWX · Mar 25, 2003, 02:05 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Vampyromaniac
............................................I dunno what Matth is talking about

I don't either.

Vampyromaniac · Mar 25, 2003, 02:15 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by BWX232
I use 85hz at 1024x768- That is because that is as fast as my monitor will go- If my monitor would do 110+ at 1600x1200, I would run that-

Yes, I use the "Optimal" setting in the control panel, and it gives 120

~~craig588~~ · Mar 25, 2003, 02:21 AM

Mabey he has one of my cirrus logic video cards.

Dom · Mar 25, 2003, 06:13 AM

85Hz and above is the best for gaming IMO. My monitors max is 100Hz, so that's what I use.

The_Neon_Cowboy · Mar 25, 2003, 07:00 AM

85 hz faster than that is a waste

Vampyromaniac · Mar 25, 2003, 08:39 AM

waste of what, exactly?

Matth · Mar 25, 2003, 01:04 PM

The higher the refresh rate, the more times the video ram must be read to display the screen.

On good cards, this tends not to be an issue, but on any with a crippled memory bandwidth already, it can make a significant difference - especially if the resolution and bit depth are also approaching maximum.

It's also a more significant issue, if you are using system memory for graphics.

More scan rate = less frame rate (in 3DMark etc.) - test it!
It may also be a "not quite cheating" way to boost your scores - especially if you force the rate down to 87i
(YUCK!)

toddsmack2k · Mar 25, 2003, 02:26 PM

I run at 85Hz as it the highest my monitor will go. Looks great too

Vampyromaniac · Mar 25, 2003, 09:16 PM

I don't think so.

Isn't sending the image to the monitor an operation completely outside of the graphics-rendering system?
I think the operation goes like: the RAMDAC is what sends the image to the monitor, and it gets the images from the frame-buffer, which is separate from the vid card's RAM pool.

I'll try to test 3dmark when I have time . . . .

ztride · Mar 25, 2003, 09:24 PM

I used 113Hz at 960x720...

dipstick · Mar 25, 2003, 10:10 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Vampyromaniac
I don't think so.

Isn't sending the image to the monitor an operation completely outside of the graphics-rendering system?
I think the operation goes like: the RAMDAC is what sends the image to the monitor, and it gets the images from the frame-buffer, which is separate from the vid card's RAM pool.

I'll try to test 3dmark when I have time . . . .

That's what I think too. It does eat up RAMDAC bandwidth though, but with todays 350/400 MHz ramdac's, I don't think it's an issue at all-even at super high resolutions above 1600.

Asmoday · Mar 25, 2003, 10:17 PM

I'm currently at 121hz in 1280x1024.......but before i forced my self to get used to it, i found it a bit 'blurry' in windows,but now i like it.and in games it looks great IMO...

Zardon · Mar 25, 2003, 10:39 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by toddsmack2k
I run at 85Hz as it the highest my monitor will go. Looks great too

try powerstrip you can probably force another 5hz out of it..... believe it or not. just experiment (carefully) with custom resolutions.........

Zardon · Mar 25, 2003, 10:40 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by shai
85 is the max the eye can notice if im correct

everyones eyes are different, so, no you arent. Most people I know can quite easily tell the difference between 85hz and 100hz.

-={420}=- · Mar 26, 2003, 12:42 AM

Yep 85Hz here. My packard bell 2024s can only go up to 85Hz at 1024x768.

DriveEuro · Mar 26, 2003, 01:25 AM

Packard bell? HAHAHHAHA man, that thing has to be aged.

shuki · Mar 26, 2003, 09:02 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by DriveEuro
Packard bell? HAHAHHAHA man, that thing has to be aged.

and the point of that is...??

BWX · Mar 26, 2003, 09:03 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by shuki
and the point of that is...??

Drive is a rich kid who like to make fun of people's old harware! LoL

Matth · Mar 26, 2003, 01:31 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Vampyromaniac
I don't think so.

Isn't sending the image to the monitor an operation completely outside of the graphics-rendering system?
I think the operation goes like: the RAMDAC is what sends the image to the monitor, and it gets the images from the frame-buffer, which is separate from the vid card's RAM pool.

I'll try to test 3dmark when I have time . . . .

As far as I know, the frame buffer IS part of the video card's RAM pool

At 1024x768x32 bit (eg 3Dmark 2001), ONE frame buffer is 3 Megabytes - since it will be double bufferring, that means that two lots of 3Mb are used.
That 3Mb is pulled from the card's video RAM (and since dual ported ram basically gave way to conventional SDRAM or DDR, over tha same memory bus that is used for processing on the card) and sent at the refreash rate.

So at a low 60Hz, it's using 180Mb/s to keep the display going
At 85 Hz, it rises to 255Mb/s
and if you use 1280x1024 at 85Hz, it's 425Mb/s

Sure, it won't bother the more top-flight cards much, but you'd sure as hell notice it on a weakling like A Geforce 2MX200. If the difference between the highest allowable, and the lowest usable refresh rate is an appreciable proportion of the card's memory bandwith, you should find a difference comparable to the same degree of memory overclocking.

Arikel · Mar 26, 2003, 02:54 PM

I don't think I can safely go above 70hz at 1280x1024 resolution with my monitor, so that's what I usually use. If I run 1024x768 I run it at 85hz.

Mar 24, 2003, 03:10 PM	#1
shuki DriverHeaven Senior Member Join Date: May 2002 Location: in the hidden place Posts: 1,975 Rep Power: 0	preferred refresh rate for gaming? just to match monitor size poll, wondered what refresh rate you all prefer/use?

Mar 24, 2003, 04:18 PM	#3
DriveEuro HardwareHeaven Extreme Member Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: Gurnee Illinois Posts: 4,677 Rep Power: 0	I only say 85hz cuz that's the mightest my monitor goes at 1024x768 __________________ [color=orange]ASUS P4P800 Deluxe [color=black]-[/color] 2.4C --> 3300mhz [color=black]-[/color] Mushkin PC3200 at 220 5-2-2-2 (cpu limited) [color=black]-[/color] BBAti 9800Pro at 430/375 [/color] [color=black]3[/color][color=gray]D[/color]M[color=black]a[/color][color=gray]r[/color]k[color=yellow]01[/color] [color=black]3[/color][color=gray]D[/color]M[color=black]a[/color][color=gray]r[/color]k[color=yellow]03[/color] 16001200 12801024

Mar 25, 2003, 01:18 AM	#9
Vampyromaniac confutatis maledictis Join Date: May 2002 Location: somewhere dark Posts: 5,974 Rep Power: 77 System Specs	120Hz is what I have at 1280 res I dunno what Matth is talking about __________________ *Digitalis 3.3* Athlon 64 3000 // ASUS K8V SE Deluxe // 1024MB PC3200 (2-2-2-10 1T) ATI All-In-Wonder 9700 Pro // 20" Dell 2005FPW (DVI) M-Audio Revo 7.1 + Philips Acoustic Edge // Klipsch ProMedia 2.1 320/16 Western Digital WD3200KS + 120/8 Seagate 7200.7 NEC ND-3550A 16x DVD±RW + Lite-On 52x24x CD-RW Antec Sonata case // 480W Antec TruePower personal bests \|\| Aq'3: 46796 \| 3D'01: 20461 \| 3D'03: 6336 \| 3D'05: 2677 \| PC'04: 4605 \| PC'02: 7691,9092,1250

Mar 25, 2003, 02:04 AM	#10
BWX unplugged Join Date: Nov 2002 Location: USNY Posts: 19,669 Rep Power: 110 System Specs	I use 85hz at 1024x768- That is because that is as fast as my monitor will go- If my monitor would do 110+ at 1600x1200, I would run that- __________________

Mar 25, 2003, 07:00 AM	#15
The_Neon_Cowboy HardwareHeaven Extreme Member Join Date: Dec 2002 Location: U.S.A. Posts: 16,009 Rep Power: 92 System Specs	85 hz faster than that is a waste __________________

Mar 24, 2003, 03:59 PM	#2
NaumoJR Paranoid Android Join Date: Jun 2002 Location: Planet Telex Posts: 1,029 Rep Power: 0	I use 85Hz on pretty much everything. My monitor supports 85Hz at 1280x1024, so I'm set.

Mar 24, 2003, 07:38 PM	#4
dipstick HardwareHeaven Extreme Member Join Date: May 2002 Location: USA Posts: 3,609 Rep Power: 71 System Specs	I prefer 85Hz, but my monitor will only do 75Hz

Mar 24, 2003, 07:45 PM	#5
~~shai~~ Banned Join Date: Jul 2002 Posts: 613 Rep Power: 0	85 is the max the eye can notice if im correct

Mar 24, 2003, 08:47 PM	#6
Matth Flash Banner Hater Join Date: Jun 2002 Location: UK Posts: 3,426 Rep Power: 93 System Specs	75 - no higher It's "flicker free" and any more just wastes video card memory bandwidth. Another reason, actually - although the card/monitor I had previously supported 85Hz, it was noticably "soft" compared to 75 - suggesting the frequency response was not quite up to it, even though it could scan those rates. Now I have an LCD - so I can drop the rate even lower if I choose - and with a rather lightweight video card, the memory bandwidth saved goes directly to performance!

Mar 24, 2003, 11:33 PM	#8
~~craig588~~ Banned Join Date: Nov 2002 Location: In clothing Posts: 3,510 Rep Power: 0	I think it uses an extra 400 bytes or so of ram, so its not a noticable hit.

Mar 25, 2003, 02:21 AM	#13
~~craig588~~ Banned Join Date: Nov 2002 Location: In clothing Posts: 3,510 Rep Power: 0	Mabey he has one of my cirrus logic video cards.

Mar 25, 2003, 06:13 AM	#14
Dom DriverHeaven Extreme Member Join Date: Jun 2002 Posts: 12,940 Rep Power: 0	85Hz and above is the best for gaming IMO. My monitors max is 100Hz, so that's what I use.

Mar 25, 2003, 08:39 AM	#16
Vampyromaniac confutatis maledictis Join Date: May 2002 Location: somewhere dark Posts: 5,974 Rep Power: 77 System Specs	waste of what, exactly?

Mar 25, 2003, 01:04 PM	#17
Matth Flash Banner Hater Join Date: Jun 2002 Location: UK Posts: 3,426 Rep Power: 93 System Specs	The higher the refresh rate, the more times the video ram must be read to display the screen. On good cards, this tends not to be an issue, but on any with a crippled memory bandwidth already, it can make a significant difference - especially if the resolution and bit depth are also approaching maximum. It's also a more significant issue, if you are using system memory for graphics. More scan rate = less frame rate (in 3DMark etc.) - test it! It may also be a "not quite cheating" way to boost your scores - especially if you force the rate down to 87i (YUCK!)

Mar 25, 2003, 02:26 PM	#18
toddsmack2k It Never..... Join Date: Nov 2002 Location: Kentucky Posts: 3,173 Rep Power: 0	I run at 85Hz as it the highest my monitor will go. Looks great too __________________ [color=blue]*Bleeding From the Inside Pouring Out, The* *DriverHeaven* Spiral, We Shall Never Let Go Of.[/color]

Mar 25, 2003, 09:16 PM	#19
Vampyromaniac confutatis maledictis Join Date: May 2002 Location: somewhere dark Posts: 5,974 Rep Power: 77 System Specs	Matth I don't think so. Isn't sending the image to the monitor an operation completely outside of the graphics-rendering system? I think the operation goes like: the RAMDAC is what sends the image to the monitor, and it gets the images from the frame-buffer, which is separate from the vid card's RAM pool. I'll try to test 3dmark when I have time . . . . __________________ *Digitalis 3.3* Athlon 64 3000 // ASUS K8V SE Deluxe // 1024MB PC3200 (2-2-2-10 1T) ATI All-In-Wonder 9700 Pro // 20" Dell 2005FPW (DVI) M-Audio Revo 7.1 + Philips Acoustic Edge // Klipsch ProMedia 2.1 320/16 Western Digital WD3200KS + 120/8 Seagate 7200.7 NEC ND-3550A 16x DVD±RW + Lite-On 52x24x CD-RW Antec Sonata case // 480W Antec TruePower personal bests \|\| Aq'3: 46796 \| 3D'01: 20461 \| 3D'03: 6336 \| 3D'05: 2677 \| PC'04: 4605 \| PC'02: 7691,9092,1250

Mar 25, 2003, 09:24 PM	#20
ztride DriverHeaven Junior Member Join Date: Jun 2002 Posts: 80 Rep Power: 0	I used 113Hz at 960x720...

Mar 25, 2003, 10:17 PM	#22
Asmoday Demonic Join Date: May 2002 Location: In the cold, dark north... Posts: 5,198 Rep Power: 92 System Specs	I'm currently at 121hz in 1280x1024.......but before i forced my self to get used to it, i found it a bit 'blurry' in windows,but now i like it.and in games it looks great IMO... __________________ How You can help Hardwareheaven by using Digg

Mar 26, 2003, 12:42 AM	#25
-={420}=- DriverHeaven Senior Member Join Date: Sep 2002 Posts: 1,095 Rep Power: 0	Yep 85Hz here. My packard bell 2024s can only go up to 85Hz at 1024x768. __________________ [COLOR=red]My eBay Auctions[/COLOR]

Mar 26, 2003, 01:25 AM	#26
DriveEuro HardwareHeaven Extreme Member Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: Gurnee Illinois Posts: 4,677 Rep Power: 0	Packard bell? HAHAHHAHA man, that thing has to be aged. __________________ [color=orange]ASUS P4P800 Deluxe [color=black]-[/color] 2.4C --> 3300mhz [color=black]-[/color] Mushkin PC3200 at 220 5-2-2-2 (cpu limited) [color=black]-[/color] BBAti 9800Pro at 430/375 [/color] [color=black]3[/color][color=gray]D[/color]M[color=black]a[/color][color=gray]r[/color]k[color=yellow]01[/color] [color=black]3[/color][color=gray]D[/color]M[color=black]a[/color][color=gray]r[/color]k[color=yellow]03[/color] 16001200 12801024

Mar 26, 2003, 02:54 PM	#30
Arikel DriverHeaven Lover Join Date: May 2002 Posts: 225 Rep Power: 0	I don't think I can safely go above 70hz at 1280x1024 resolution with my monitor, so that's what I usually use. If I run 1024x768 I run it at 85hz.