yes.

i agree

the difference is negligible ;x

honestly quake live is so slow that it doesn't even matter what monitor you use

diffrence is 120hz < 160 hz on CRT ! game look more solid , even if u have 125 fps

Ok thanks. I heard that because fps is capped at 125fps you wont see a difference except an extra 5hz from the 5fps. I didn't think monitors worked that way.

fake . fail etc.

try 4O fps Q3 with 6O hz and than with 12O hz .

so much fails on this ESR.

This statement is correct.

Try filling a bucket of water to the top. Then pour double the amount of water on it, how much more water does the bucket contain than in the first instance?

wrong thread ?:D

fuck... you're right thought this was the Tony thread.

Should of being more clearer. Is there a difference besides the extra 5fps?

yes, about ~40hz

5fps?

yes, there's still a difference between crt's and tft's.

yes, there's a difference between 120hz and 160hz, namely 40hz ..?

not just that, theres still a clear difference between 120 crt and 120 LCD. :D

didn't i just say that? :/

the main difference is a steady, bigger widescreen picture of an 120Hz (even at highest native res.) LCD vs. 0 input lag, highest refresh rates possible (in low resolutions) CRT.

For your eyes the difference is the LCD picture stays, whereas the CRT picture is constantly redrawn. that doesn't make a huge difference for gaming (as the refresh rate will be at least 120 hz there), but for work and desktop use. 100 hz or above is a MUST with crt, I would recommend at least 120 hz with any application to reduce eye strain.

No, 160HZ is technically a waste. Engine is capped at 125, meaning any extra hz you see are just duplicates. There's only 125 packets sent in a second. It's like in CS, maxpackets is 100 (sometimes 101), meaning running CS at anything higher than 100hz is technically useless. If it looks better for you, sure, but you're gaining very little.

You're more likely to see the new frame sooner with 160 FPS than you are at 120.

u r smart. u understand it . but be prepare cause than will calling u troll :D

Ideally we would have 125hz and 125fps... but that just results in awful tearing OR mouse lag (if you use v-sync).
So using more than 120hz makes perfect sense to me, plus as ix said, it should be actually more responsive (although the difference must be really minuscule).

no, re-read what you just wrote... :p 120hz... 125fps... 160hz... why the two don't go hand in hand without vsync on...

how is vsync relevant?

so lets say you are @ 160hz, what value should u use @ r_displayrefresh?
0, 120 or 160?

If your desktop is in 160hz you can use 0 in game (provided you have the same res) otherwise just use 160.
0 = auto detect I think, usually works fine for me.

It won't take 160. Have to use 150..

160 is not a factor of.. something or other. Always check your monitor hz value after changing r_displayrefresh, if you give it a value it doesn't like it sometimes just sets it to 60 hz (even though the value will still read whatever you put in).

use 140, good compromise

200hz is the way to go

over 9000 hz is better

125hz looks better... dont understand this shit about 125hz looking choppy... I have the least tearing at 125hz, 120hz or anything else is just choppier.

i have 62 hz and 5ms input..and?

actualy lag in real is 10 times bigger so 5 ms 50 ms lag and

2 ms 20 ms lag :> so what :S

everything more than 2ms graytogray sux :X :S :O

and 62 hz must totaly sux .its extra diffrence beetween 62 and 75 hz

i hit 30+ lg always.. hmm..maybe placebo matters alot. i never think about this stuff. So i use 5 ms at 62 hz and if i add 50 ping what do i get?:S

What are you even trying to say?

The more the refresh rate is high the less your eyes will see tearing, also speed at which images moves will makes it more or less visible.

Also unfortunatly there is no Sync btw frames calculated by GPU, frame randered by the monitor and polling rate of the mouse.

You probably weren't using 125 Hz (unless you created it in the registry or with something like Powerstrip yourself), your computer will have had a 120 Hz mode available which it would have used if you set r_displayrefresh 125. 125 Hz display does tear oddly with 125 fps gameplay.

I believe that's because the values are not 100% accurate and the slight variations make the tearing happen.

On a lot of monitors when you select a refresh rate and then use some accurate tool like powerstrip or reclock/madvr you can see that the refresh rate is actually 124.992 or something like that.

My old monitor did 59.976 instead of 60 and my new one does 59.994, for example.

Also, we don't know how (un-)accurate the in-game FPS cap is either.

#33 : I just see more tearing at 160hz than 125. 125hz is the frequency that gives me THE LEAST TEARING among many others like 100, 120, 140, 160. And this makes perfectly sense to me as I cant see how desynchronized buffers could avoid tearing better. Please give me a relevant explanation of this.

#34 : My monitor's hud tells me that it's really 125 Hz. No mistake. It's a custom resolution made with nivida drivers after forcing the monitor via ReForce.

no, that does not make sense. forcing 125hz with a 125fps game should give you nasty tearing, heck there should be a huge line literally "refreshing" your picture...

Yeah, it's actually constant tearing instead of the small, random tearing you get with, say, 75hz and 125fps.

In fact, I have only a line that goes from the top or the bottom randomly but it never reaches the center of my screen. Maybe the fact that my fps are constant in any situation helps. I've got a Trinitron, it might help too. However, I know that using a higher frequency might reduce input lag by refreshing sooner, but i really doubt that will make any improvements.

your fps or your triniton do not help (weirdly enough, stable fps are half the reason this happens), a higher frequency does not result in lower _input_ lag afaik.

i have no idea how you could end up liking hz = fps :) but whatever floats your boat...

when i have time i'll give u a trick to check tearing, atm i'm gonna go eating :p

I play on 160hz and I can tell the difference :) For me 160 seems more smoother even tho fps are capped on 125.

You're not going to want to hear this, but an *85 hz* CRT is better than a 120hz LCD. Yes, running games at 85 hz/85 FPS (I still do that , depending on if the game can't handle 100+FPS) is still smoother than 120hz/120 FPS on a 2233rz.

And you want to compare a 120hz LCD with 160hz CRT? I mean that's not even close to the same ball park....

Doing a snap 180deg turn on a 160hz CRT makes the 120hz LCD look like it was made with lego blocks if you did that there...seriously...no contest...

i played with a crt on 100hz/100something fps for over a year and it sucked compared to 125fps/120hz on a tft.

yes, crts are still superior but it's not as drastic a difference as it used to be tbh.

i play with a 200hz 22" CRT r_mode 9

:PPP