it's not a question of needing 120hz is it? it's a question of hz not really mattering on TFT due to how the tech works?

guess someone can clear it up

While flicker isn't an issue with LCDs a high refresh rate is important to create smooth motion. Contrary to what a lot of people think 60Hz is not even close to being smooth.

A study by Sony published in the Journal of the Society for Information Display showed that 240Hz is the perception limit for the degradation of motion image quality for the human eye. Similar studies have reached the same conclusion.

Try it for your self; set a CRT to 120Hz and play on that and then play on an LCD and you'll be amazed by how choppy the motion on the LCD is. The difference is incredible, which is why I'd never use an LCD for gaming.

You get used to it, and it's not a problem.

true

crt's look like shit now and are oh so big!

You could also get used to eating shit. The question is, why would you want to?

cause he already bought a huge amount of shits

and payed many $$$ for it.

so why not recycle the shit by selling it and upgrade? Easy solution.

so you'd sell your new shit to get old crap? :)

No thanks I don't like British food.

Yeah, why would you want to use a screen that possibly much bigger (yet thinner), cheap, and weights a fraction of the old one, and one that is probably a lot sharper as well, and with higher resolution.

cheap
probably a lot sharper as well
higher resolution

no
no
no

CRT with 1920x1200? Or higher. And thinner? Yes!

If properly made today? sure!

My BenQ G2400W work great I think, very cheap, holds together very well so far, and I suspect for a long time to come :) Though I Might get a 30" in a while.

hf playing quake on your 30".

Work well on the 24, but the 30 isn't for gaming, more work and probably movies :P

max res on my 19" crt is 2048x1536.

Which refresh rate do you get with that resolution?

60hz

Not so useful then.

I don't have to do this often, so you'll have to excuse me. But you're a noob.

60hz on crt > 60hz on lcd. Once input delay and response time are factored in, it's still superior to have that CRT for performance instead of the LCD. Besides that, while playing competitive games 800x600 is the best. And at that resolution I get 160hz.

60Hz on CRT is annoying due to flickering, 60Hz on LCD however is perfect for most uses since it doesn't flicker at all.

I would of course like more for gaming, but i'm used to it, it didn't take too long to get used to it when I switched from CRT where I gamed with 120Hz. Also LCD is sharper than most CRTs if you use it in the correct resolution.

I'd never use an LCD outside of native resolution. It looks horrible, and also has a big negative impact on response time. So, there's no perk, besides it claiming that it's giving you all that garbage a little bit faster than 60hz.
I play all games at 1680x1080. Often with my favorite games this means that I'm having to create Autoexec.cfg 's since most games didn't support 16:10 back in the day.

With "not so useful then" I of course ment at that resolution. Not that it's not useful at other resolutions.

well, easiest true comparison would be standard LCD res of 1280x1054 (5:4). This is the most common resolution of non-widescreen 19" LCDisplays. 60hz vs the 120hz at the same resolution on CRT simply is a world of difference. Kidding about the noob thing btw, but c'mon :P

Also, a lot of people are comparing these to old CRTs. I'm comparing it to the NEC Multisync FE992. It's flat screened, high refresh across the board (until resolution on 19" rivals the 30"+) and low dot pitch generally mean a superior display.
I use the Samsung because I LAN frequently. I took both to Quakecon, as my gf was using the other one, and I again hated the CRT carrying. it's like 60lbs or so.

:P I get why you want CRT, I want it too for games that go fast :) But normal use at 60Hz is just annoying, so that's why I said it's not useful.

I don't game much anymore, so it's not a big priority. My next monitor might be a 30" from Samsung which is very good for colors, which is good again for photography =) But that is some time in the future.

My thing is, even though I primarily use LCD, and have one of the nicest LCD's you can currently even get, I still see the superiority in a competitive scenario (such as ESWC) using CRTs.

Sony G520p and it's variants can do 75hz at that. and 100 at 1600x1200! :D :D Suck that LCD lovers.

so im not alone. good.

Doesn't CPMA allow a 166 frame cap specifically for LCD wonkiness? I remember fox asking for an increase on the promode forums a few months ago.

Is 85hz really that bad on an LCD? I've only played @ 60hz years ago for a few minutes and it was awful.

When talking about freqency it's important to be clear on whether you're talking about the signal freqency for the freqency the panel is driven at. While Many LCDs accept a 72Hz input signal the display is only driven at 60Hz. This is the case for all LCDs and when given a 72Hz signal they simply ignore every fifth frame.

Doesn't CPMA allow a 166 frame cap specifically for LCD wonkiness?

A 166 frame cap would be of no benefit to an LCD monitor as the monitor can only display 60 frames per second. Frame rates above 60fps just leads to frames being rendered that aren't displayed so are of no benefit.

Is 85hz really that bad on an LCD?

As mentioned above, even if you have an LCD that supports a signal frequency above 60Hz the panel is only driven at 60Hz and all additional frames are ignored.

This might be 'fake' 120hz, e.g. it might just show every input it gets twice so the input might be 60hz and then the panel just doubles it up to 120hz which wouldnt really give a benefit from a gamer pov.

that's nice and all..

CONSIDERING ITS ON SHITTY MONITORS

Someone who's there go look at the damn thing and tell us! :P

a 120 Hz TFT would be great, hopefully it realy works

Someone I know at Nvision said the 120hz LCD's on display were smooth as silk. It is unclear if it is "faking" 120hz, but if it looks and feels like 120hz, what's wrong with that?

the price, I guess

if this is the real deal i will buy straight away. but i read that it still has 3 ms delay gray to gray?

A 3ms response time wouldn't be a problem since that would allow it to respond to as many as 333 frames per second. That's assuming it's true though since manufacturers typically quote the best possible response time and the actual response time can be much slower in some situations. However, it only has to maintain an 8.3ms response to display 120fps.

Of course this monitor could still be useless if it suffers from input latency. So far Iiyama are the only manufacturer I know of to make an LCD without input latency and with many the input latency is as much as 60ms. Hopefully this move will force other manufacturers to produce a 120Hz LCD monitor and one of them might be good for gaming. The black level, colour gamut, contrast, viewing angle, uniformity of colours across the screen etc will all be crap as is standard for LCDs but at least it would be usable for games.

It sucks that the display is pretty much the only technology to have not advanced. It's gone backwards.

When I browse forums people get different recommendations for their needs. Which fucking sucks.

S-IPS for graphic, photography, shit response times and input lag, very expensive.
PVA - Good viewing angles for movies, video etc
VA - only decent for gaming, tends to have poor viewing angle, crap for anything else.

CRT - Does it all, except it tends to weigh in at 30kg.

I still use a 21" CRT for quake

The 120hz can go fsck itself if it doesn't correct the input lag first.
Iiyama might get it right, but I haven't actually used any yet. Best LCD I've used is the Samsung 226bw. Still a far cry from my NEC Multisync fe992.

im using the 226bw and after 2 weeks you get used to it.
its aweful in the beginning tho.
but now i'd say i can play just like on a crt

I've owned the 226bw for a good while now, and it's what I use on my main rig. But it's not uncommon for me to want to break out the CRT (which i use on my 2ndary rig) if I'm playing some CPM, QW or Warsow.
But yeah, like i said, it's the nicest as far as LCD's go.

http://exg-clan.com/newforum/viewtopic.php?t=7658

That's my overall gaming setup in it's current state.

nice tool!

ive got 1 but its too small :(

yeah, your gf was just telling me that. XD

ye she will screw anything!

shes a tool aswell...

i have a geforce fx 5600 ultra

but i also have 2 cpus, tho one is in my notebook

There are different versions of 226BW, the original one is one of the best 22" LCD monitors you can get, the later panels range from ok to bad.

I have an S panel. It's the best of the 226bw's.

That's the only good 226BW, but in return it is afaik very good for an LCD. Too bad they started importing the cheaper non samsung produced A and C panels to europe. No way of knowing which panel you get until you got your monitor.

Yes, as LCD's go, this one is very good. I use it as the display for my primary computer.

hopefully it will have 0 input lag as well...

120hz doesn't mean you're going to get CRT Quality.

Sure, it will do 120hz, but at what sacrifice?

Sorry, but having an LCD @ 120HZ and 5ms response time doesn't help out situation. LCD blur still happens, and will until technology advanced.

I've tried 5ms, 2ms GTG and BTB, and what do I get? Blur, blur, blur.

There is NO LCD right now that isn't shit. They're all shit. CRT's will still be superior to LCD's for a few more years.

Plus, there's input delay, so a nice 20ms of input delay would happen.

Listen, 120HZ on a CRT HELPS the monitor. 120HZ on an LCD does NOT help it. LCD's are still blur fests, and nothing more.

For casual gaming, yes, get an LCD. You'll never notice the difference when playing WoW, leveling up your shitty rogue.

Show me an LCD that does 120hz, 0ms response time, 0ms input delay, no blur. Show me that, and maybe then I'll get an LCD.

I completely agree. LCD will always be terrible for competitve gaming.

But if everyone is on the same monitors at the tournaments i really dont see a problem.

I made the move to lcd monitor years ago with a hyundai with 16ms response time, never really noticed a big problem motion wise after a few days and although i am not out there winning big tournaments i would still consider myself a very good player.

Now i am on a 24" MVA panel LCD with 6ms response and again its fine. Long time since i had to look at a big monstrosity of a crt monitor but if everyone makes the move like i believe fox has a while back? Then there is no reason for lcd monitors at events to screw people up. Take a little getting used to but then it still plays smooth to the eye and people will play just as good.

Maybe not on dogshit dell monitors that have rediculous input lag, but most lcd would be more than adequate.

Hanging onto CRT and trying to get crt at all the big tournaments is just backwards and counter productive.

Move on and give lcd a chance, within a week the only difference you will notice is that you have more space on your desk and a monitor that you arent ashamed to show your friends.

"But if everyone is on the same monitors at the tournaments i really dont see a problem."

I hate that reasoning. If football matches had to be played on gravel instead of grass it would be the same for everyone but it'd still be shit.

0ms won't happen mate. ever.
1ms on the other hand :)

Yeah, and it would be labelled 1ms by the manufacturer, when in reality it averages 20ms but SOMETIMES drops to 1ms.

;)

"0ms won't happen mate. ever."

Sure it will, it'll just be a while before we get to see it. We're already well below 0ms on CRT's, so I imagine eventually someone will figure out how to do that without a ray gun.

well below 0ms on CRTs

So the image shows up before the video card rasterizes it?
I think you meant <<<1ms
as the delays in CRT technology are probably more likely in the nano second range.

Yeah, actually that [i]is[/] what I meant. That it's in the nano-second range.

:P

this one was at nvision; i tried it, it good and better then any other lcd, but not 120hz CRT

Samsung has already come out with 120hz lcd tvs. Not really sure what makes this new.

afaik the existing 120/100 hz displays calculate an additional image to insert it between to "real" images. The source is still 60 Hz.
I hope there will be a display that accepts and displays a real 120 Hz input signal.

Yesterday:
2 x Samsung 120hz

http://www.engadget.com/2008/08/29/samsung-ki...ommentform

Very unlikely these monitors suggesting 120hz is true though. We'll have to wait and see.

I also agree its very unlikely, though manufacturers would love to lead you to believe differently, just to put money in their pocket. LCD's are inherently flawed by nature in regards to realtime results. They switch all pixels at once and it does it by outputting from a buffer. All just lines of voltage. it's not really 'pixels' either. it's a bunch of potentials being connected with this crystal matrix. Just like a proper oscilliscope, due to its realtime nature, will probably always be analogue. Until I see exactly what Gillz wants, I'll stick with my electron gun as well, thank you.

You should try saying something sensible if you are going to type 101 words. Whole post is pure horseshit.

i've heard about it too. there was demo of it on g4tv (i think it was lcd tv version tho). they used transformers movie to contrast the smoothness of the transformations, and there was a noticeable difference being that it was very crisp on the 120hz screen, which is actually much thinner than any other lcd at that quality.

the thing about new shit like this is that it comes out being mad expensive and all the lcds that are currently good will become cheap but lame next to the new stuff.

same as all technology :(
it's an expensive hobby to have, but then again most are.

120HZ Televisions are pretty useless, even for gamers.

TV is 30fps, consoles are 60fps.

Having a 120HZ monitor makes sense, since games can run at 120fps, but having that in a TV really doesn't 'help' it.

l2interp

this thread reminds me of the KillerNIC(tm)

sad to see only a few people know that these 120hz screens can still only use 60hz input, so it is artificial and that processing will only add to the inputlag (which only gamers suffer from)

its the battle of image quality between brands and the problem of selling tech with specs that keep brands from improving this. They rather give up responsiveness for a little more postprocessing to improve some contrastlevel or color

and the sad thing is, people buy it

http://www.engadget.com/2008/12/29/lg-display...hz-lcd-tv/

at least they are moving in the right direction whether it's fake or not

Its all good, great against motion blur and all.... till you want to game and response on input becomes important

All these techniques are based on processing before it actually hits the screen, and thus making the delay. Unless they can make this work really really fast, its not in the right direction (for us) at all. I think new display technologies will hit us sooner than that.

Ok I purchased a superior EIZO F57 17# CRT which allows me to play a familiar resolution of 1024 x 768 @ 118 Hz *_* Does this tiny difference of 120/125 Hz matter? Otherwise should I cap my fps @ 118?

Try it, I know my CRT is at 119hz, there's a tiny bit of tearing, nothing huge, still beats an LCD =)

http://www.digitalversus.com/article-358-4495-36.html

The 2233rz is the first 120 Hz LCD on the market. A real 120 Hz, not interpolated. If the graphics card can handle it, it will display 120 images per second in games, with at the same time, what is basically zero image ghosting – responsiveness just isn’t an issue – and improved fluidity.

hmmmm :)

tbh, I'm sold.

The 120 Hz mean that it has half the ghosting of the fastest LCD that we’ve previously tested. Impressive!
The second plus point in terms of gameplay is the display delay remains under one frame; a delight for gamers.

If this is not BS its time to get over my big ass CRT soon.

too bad i'm not sold. the input lag is still significant
http://www.digitalversus.com/duels.php?ty=6&a...4&ph=1
(click on "delay compared to CRT")

12 ms is quite ok for an lcd, I dont think you'll notice it.

Edit:
also, these input lag test are rather inaccurate, it gives you only a rough estimation - I'd say (based on these numbers) the 226BW and the 2233rz have approximately the same input lag.

20ms max delay.... if you notice the difference between 60hz screen or 120hz screen (~8ms) or 125hz mouse polling or 500hz (6ms) then you certainly will notice that one

well, I tested two lcds for input lag and I can tell you it needs much more then only 10 pictures to have a number that is good enough to write ms behind it.

I didnt really trust these numbers to point out the difference between "2ms vs 12 ms" input lag.
For example, how can they measure an inputlag of 20 ms, when it should go in 8 ms steps (8, 16, 24, ...), since you have 125 fps etc... (for 60 hz lcds: 16, 32, 48 ...)
They dont give details about overdrive settings or resolutions which can have drastic effect on input lag.

Personally, I dont notice any difference between 125 hz vs 500 hz mouse, but you cant compare input lag with the difference between 60 hz vs 120hz. This is rather like 125 fps vs 60 fps (smoothness).

1st of all, I can definitely tell the difference between 125hz and 500hz. It's not placebo, either. I found out that I could tell the difference when I updated to SP3. I was unaware that it changed the USB file, so I was just wondering wtf was wrong with my quake install. Then I was noticing it in all of my Quakes (first noticed in q4, then realized it was the same in q3, 2 and qw).
After some fooling around with my network settings, I realized the problem was the mouse response, went to check mouseratechecker and sure enough, 125hz.
Rolled back out of sp3 back to sp2, reapplied the usbmrs1.1.exe and voila, no trouble since.

Also, the only truly promising LCD I've found on that site is the Iiayama ProLite E2201W. Aside from that one, my Samsung 226bw still appears to hold the crown.

You're right, these results cant be very accurate, but its the best possible.
Still gives a rather good impression though.

Why the results arent in exact steps of the connection, is because the delay is produced inside the LCD monitor (after the connection). Where the CRT shoots every pixel right up the screen, all the images go through several processes inside the LCD monitor. For one image it will need less processingtime than an other, which is why they give a minimum, maximum and average result. Its also due to "unstable" electronic parts.

For more discussion and news about input lag, check this thread:
http://www.esreality.com/?a=post&id=1622535

I will make the step to flatpanel this year, but I'll be waiting for BeHardware/DigitalVersus and Hardware.info for their findings before I take my chances. Now that native 120hz monitors pop up and LED backlit monitors are coming up this quarter(1)(2), it will be interesting

Look at how drastically worse it is than the Samsung 226bw. '

http://www.digitalversus.com/duels.php?ty=6&a...4&ph=1

I'd be better off sticking with my Samsung 226bw. 'Though I still prefer my NEC crt.

see #81

How would you say they have "roughly the same input lag"? It's 4 min, 20 max, 12 average for the 2233rz, vs 0min 8 max, 1.6 average? That's a pretty big difference (on a small scale) in my opinion.

If you could test both monitors without knowing their names, I'm fairly certain that you couldn't tell which one of them has 2 ms average inputlag and which one has 12 ms.

I get what you're saying, but it's awfully subjective. I think I'd tell the difference, 'cause I'm using the faster of the 2, or rather, I own the faster of the 2, but it's still too slow and I'm using my CRT.

Fuck so its again bs. Im sticking with this fucking CRT FOREVER. FFS they are building the LHC, why I dont have flat CRT quality monitors in the year 2009, its just retarded. It pisses me off because of the radiation thing, and how the LCD are less agressive to the eyes in the long run (or thats what has been told since forever). For people who works with computers, I wonder if its healthy to look at a CRT 12 hours a day or the radiation thing is bs.

I have to look at a CRT at my work for hours on end, and the only reason I have a problem with it is because it's at 60HZ.

They've locked them down so you can't change resolution, or refresh rates.

My CRT runs at 85hz when I'm on my desktop, and I have zero problems looking at it for a long amount of time.

People bitch about CRT's because they're looking at 60hz.

I was talking more about the materials used. Radiation shit etc.

Ah okay.

Not sure, never looked into that =)

nerds.

hater

:D

Bleh... i'm as much of a picky, paranoid, gaming nerd as we all are here but i would never trade my samsung 2232bw for any CRT in the world. I've had it for a year now and it just made my computer life so much better :P

It took me like 2 days of getting used to it after playing for a good decade of quake and other FPS on CRT and it's just so much more smooth and relaxing for the eyes. As for my aiming? Could not really see any difference.

Couldn't take the awful gaping, glittering pixel-mesh of LCD:s.
No one probably knows what I'm on about.

Will never own one, not even tv (due to other crap(<-popular:) factors).