120hz is smoother, better and there's no going back. It won't make you aim better but should make aiming feel nicer.

It made me aim better.

I'd say the same but I don't think it's right to say that will always be the case. And getting better equipment isn't probably the right way to go on about improving your accuracy, unless your old equipment is actually limiting you.

Yea, you are right.
Regardless, I am more than sure that people with a 120Hz display have quite a big advantage over those running 60Hz. Playing with 120Hz is much more fun too, probably because of what you described; it just feels nicer.

I concur.

i have had a samsung syncmaster crt, loved it, died.

i don´t know how a halfway decent 60hz or 120 hz lcd/led feel though. only have this crappy office tft

i dont suppose you have ever tried GOOGLE.COM before

either get a 120hz or dont moan u cant hit shite ;D

i hit shite..even with this monitor, which is more than 10 old office tft i guess. my aiming is fine. and you are right..i have never used google.

go holland

since evil used a 60 hz

no:
http://i.imgur.com/Wi5BGyu.jpg
http://i.imgur.com/S4mLoQT.jpg

afaik he started with LCD 60hz then moved to CRT. There were not enought CRT monitors for all players.
Some players prefer to play at 60hz LCD. But 90% of high skilled players use 120hz LCD or 100-160hz CRT.

edit: before buy check for newer models. for example new model benq xl2411t is much cheaper than older models like xl2420t or xl2410t. Only 240 euro in moscow :P

I'd definitely agree with you peckB - the xl2411t is perfect. You don't need the other gimmicky stuff or the counter-strike player endorsements on the more expensive model. I watched CS once, the guy was staring at a doorway and didn't move. You don't need a good monitor for that!

If money is a concern to you then you should get an old CRT instead. I'm sure you can get one for peanuts in some flea market or something. Even if you're unlucky and the one you get can't go above 60 hz, you'll still win in input lag and it can make a pretty significant difference. The only downsides are the weight, the space taken and the heat.

really..playing on a 60hz CRT?

can´t be serious

Why exactly would a 60hz LCD be better?
(also, in case that's what you meant, I'm not playing on a 60hz CRT)

60hz CRT? do we have 1990?

60hz LCD is not the same as CRT 60hz.

if you want to argue about this..i´m sure somebody else will do it for me.

Are you trolling or simply unable to understand English? I'm baffled.

60hz CRT hurt your eyes. everyone knows this.

i played with a 120hz CRT from samsung for the past 6 years or more. it broke a couple of weeks ago.

everyone knows this.

Not me. But thanks for the information. I'm gonna tell my past self to avoid the 60 hz CRT I've used for years without noticing such an effect. Heck, it's still beside me as I type this even though I rarely use it.

Well at least you explained why you think 60 hz LCD are superior to 60 hz CRT and it makes sense if you have this problem Thanks.

thank you for keeping cool and not getting mad and defensive.

go canada

http://boallen.com/fps-compare.html

this would be much better with 120 and 240 fps.

less than 1% have monitor that can hold 240hz.
better imagine that 30fps is 60hz and 60fps is 120hz.

Speaking temporally I think as long as you learn/train on 100hz your muscle memory will be proper in addition if you're use to the sudden change of a lower hz you should be fine for the most part by faking it with your mind. Technically the game is still crisp, smooth and responsive you just you don't see it :( Overall straight tracking and rocket accuracy shouldn't be affected, your just missing out on peek reaction shots and maybe that last omph required in close fights(but I have a CRT and I still lack this omph :D, so visuals isn't the whole equation).

From my experience low response is quite disjointing and annoying buts it's mainly a mindfuck more than anything else making you doubt your skill and dipping your confidence. If you're anywhere decent most of the aiming/movement part should be 2nd nature. And at least its not the games fault, shitty unresponsive games are the worst. Regardless I fucking hate low response rate and refuse to play on it when it comes to certain games :)

complete bullshit post. on the bright side, you found a creative way to end up on my ignore list.

cool

It's a post indeed -- It's not gospel or a researched article its just subjective thoughts at a given time, my opinion could change tomorrow who knows. Not trying to troll but if it is complete bullshit I would appreciate you tearing me a new one (be it the ideas or grammar), opposed to such a meager post :D

No joke I like constructive criticism on specific posts and ideas in particular.

EDIT: BTW I think flashsouls post is the best, I'm just talking.

If money is a concern to you then you should get an old CRT instead. I'm sure you can get one for peanuts in some flea market or something. Even if you're unlucky and the one you get can't go above 60 hz, you'll still win in input lag and it can make a pretty significant difference. The only downsides are the weight, the space taken and the heat.

smoke some mary jane and calm down

Hey man didn't i played with you some FFA lately? :D

yeah, remember first contact - u made me rage a lil bit - months ago

hehe yeah, i play on 60Hz LCD crap since a few weeks now. But that's realy funy because there was thoose guys last time we played, basicaly calling me names every seconds because i was supposedly cheating while sucking hard. That was nice and i liked it x)

fuck zealot, he doesn´t get you. i actually prefer a little lag..weird, huh.

weird... and stupid.

Yeah it is weird actually, if you had the option I would go with no lag(CRT/120hz). I was just saying it shouldn't be that bad given the game is still responsive and you're aware of the effects of the lag.

sure? i prefer mouse smooth if its done right, and it's not the same as lag.

let me put it this way. i sometimes like the feel of m_filter 1 and some anti aliasing (more lag) lately i did not though.

120hz feels like silk

60hz is masturbation
75hz is a blowjob
120hz is sex

160hz is orgy ?

looking at her straight in the eyes, completely satisfied with only that.

#niceguysofokc

that's fucking cute m8

Got my XL2420T from Amazon for 300 €

My LG aim got better instantly about 5-6%

Just my own experience. My advise: go for it if you can spend that money, you won't regret it.

EDIT: Also, I bought the LCD after trying the 120 Hz "feeling" in a 4€ CRT bought in Cash Converters (second hand retailer). You might try that first.

what was your previous screen? (just curious)

The CRT? Sorry, I can't even remember the brand, I had it just for some days :/

I will let you know if it comes back to mind

To the original poster, I can confirm with trolles that BenQ 120 hz screens have nothing to do in the 500 € price range. If you see such prices, find an other retailer.

I got 120 Hz 2 weeks ago and still miss every rail. There's this period of getting used to another delay I guess. Also trying to play with 16:9 atm, weird stuff!

But it is so much smoother, I would not go back to 75 ;)

same for me, when i played with a 60hz monitor i dont hit anything..my aim was so bad.now i have a syncmaster with 120hz i hitten more and its ok :) love it never go back to a 60hz monitor!

60hz is like having dry sex while 120hz is the real thing.

its not only about Hz but about input lag due to monitor. With a 200Hz CRT i LG 40-50+ easily, with a crap 30ms lag 60hz LCD i LG barrely 30-35 max.

^ word

i didn't even know 200Hz CRT exist D:
What model is it ?

Iiyama Vision Master Pro 512, also had a Iiyama Vision Master Pro 514 lately that died within 2 months and could go to 255Hz but QL somehow limited me to 200Hz.

Basicaly even with a CRT the higher the Hertz frequency is the lower the input lag is, and the difference between 200Hz and 255Hz is realy big. When people talks about frames per seconds beeing lower than Hertz frequency they missthink the whole thing. There is a big difference playing a 60 FPS game on 60Hz and playing a 60 FPS game on a 200Hz horse for exemple.

I also made a special test to measure the exact effects of higher refresh rates. (The best part isn't the input lag aspect but about frame tearing and smoothness because the frame gets drawn realy faster, i could explain later with the test explaination).

I made another test as a calibrating and counter test. This interresting test consist of caping a monitor at 60Hz and then try a game engine with 30fps 60fps 120fps 200fs 300fps and 600fps.

The first test is realy significant as the reasult is crystal clear with naked eyes. If interrested i can give you the test instructions.

-B4ZE

would making a video be useful? like shooting the screen playing q3 (not ql, q3) using 60hz 30fps, 60hz 60fps, 120hz 125fps, 240hz 250fps.

Another question where do you find such a old monitor ?
Tried googling shops and even ebay didn't have it ;d

i play with a laptop, so i assume that my refresh rate is 60 hz.
i was told to play with 125 fps anyway because the more the better, but i don't know exactly why.
Ins experiences better smoothness with 60 fps (on 60 hz)----->http://www.esreality.com/post/2379212/re-quak...pid2378573

so could you explain what's better? :)

also i need to know

1. do you need to adjust your sens/accel when changing from 60 hz to 120 and the other way around.

2. if yes, why? Oo (technically)

If by "from 60 hz to 120" you are only talking about the display refresh rate then there will be no difference sensitivity-wise.

If you are talking about the framerate generated by the game, regardless of the refresh rate of the display device, then :

1. Set your sensitivity to a low value without accel.
2. Set com_maxfps to 25.
3. Do a *fast* 360 and measure the length you had to go with your mouse.
4. Set com_maxfps to 125.
5. Do a *fast* 360 and measure the length you had to go with your mouse.

Compare the values obtained in 3 and 5.

If they are similar, then the fps has little influence on the relation between the cross-hair movement and the mouse movement which means no sensitivity adjustment should be needed.

If they are not, then I can't tell you why exactly.

*NOTE : Not fast enough to trigger a mouse sensor issue.
**NOTE : Make sure your mouse has no built-in acceleration.

I have tried this in QuakeWorld before, the mouse got all laggy and unresponsive on low framerate cap.

bump
anyone willing to explain or link to some reliable sources?

my rail definitely improved noticeably switching to a 120hz crt from a 60hz lcd. Honestly, it's much, much better in every aspect.

Once you had black, you can never go back...

If you haven't tried 120hz, you can't imagine what it feels like, it like telling somebody who never had an orgasm what it is.

dude...why is everybody acting like i don´t know 120 hz? i had a 19'' 120hz CRT for the past 6 years or so...IT BROKE.

k...will look for a 120 hz 23'' now. (period)

I think 120hz display is like Vinyl for audio freaks. "ITS SO MUCH BETTER" although vinyl doesn't give any difference to the sound except static, while 120hz clearly does.

it's more like headphone and speakers amps/dacs

yeye whatever

it's even more like preamp DACs :)

yeye waterv

soundfreaks

it's electronics :) any chances for you to google "DAC"?

To be fair, vinyl is an analogue medium. And with a decent setup, like analogue signal path and amplification, you can actually get better results compared to modern digital solutions. But I won't start an argument about this :)

I would beg to differ since it's analog and you won't ever have perfect transmission of the signal due to disturbance, and at the same time, digital audio processing perfected, some argue that all problem related to sound is solved.

I won't argue, because a) I cannot hear a difference tbh and b) what you said is true. People just tend to forget, that you do lose information with every A/D process. It's inevitable imo. So you either go the digital way and try to minimize the loss for every A/D conversion or try to minimize analogue signal disturbance.

Like I said, me, and probably 80% of world population, won't hear a difference anyway. But to get back on-topic: I think either side has valid points to consider. Thats why the comparison to 120hz is a bit weak. 60hz players have no valid points. :) But you said that already, so I get my Capt. Obvious cape and vanish. hf!

2late xD. Argument started

Ask Neil Young if it doesn't make a difference.
If I understand this correctly music format for standard cd's do not contain all sound info while vinyl does.

To make matters worse most music today is produced with mp3 players in mind & crap sound quality as a result. A good example is the album Californication by Red Hot Chili Peppers which just __sounds__ godawfully bad. Google "loudness war".

They made a blind test, Moscow opera violonist should tell differencce of two tracks, one Mp3 of a stratovarius and one of a vinyl of the same recording. He guessed that mp3 was the real one...

Impossibru!

Also: this is not just some subjective shit people make up. It's the difference on how these things are made. Science basically.

Granted, studies have shown that a large portion of youth today suffer from hearing loss. (Not deaf, hearing loss.)

music format for standard cd's do not contain all sound info while vinyl does

nope

if you compare high-end digital/analog solutions (same price) and check SNR figures, digital is smaller and/or has a higher SNR.

quite offtopic, anyway.

Maybe if the vinyl is made of diamond. Vinyls get scratched and lose data. CDs will also get scratched and lose data, BUT computer hardware and software are able to restore missing or wrong data. At some point, the CD will have more data than the vinyl.

vinyl no difference? deaf?
go play with your ipod!

i have 2 technics sl-1210(although im having a dj needle), it's not more vivid or whatever people say, it's nice with static and all but....

lol featured profile today in ql :)

Are we friends now?

1:2

haha
i want to plus you !

i bought a 60hz almost cried playing quakelive,it felt so laggy and shit i started to punch the cunt it got me that angry, hope this helps :D

the human eye can't process more than 60fps anyways, so 120hz has no benefits.

more than 30*
:)

http://www.100fps.com/how_many_frames_can_humans_see.htm

you're not very bright

could be but you can't read

more than 23.997*
|]

i wonder if you are joking right there or serious...

i just thought that argument was missing in this thread, as you can find it in comparable threads in all other casual computer forums.

But it is no argument. It's the reason why movies work at all, nothing more.

If you present more than 30 frames to the human eye it cannot distinguish between single frames anymore. Stuff starts to get blurry. If you turn 360 degree in real life it doesnt stutter. Unlimited fps basically for perfect blur.
Now if you do 360 degree in one second with a camera, you'll still see a nice blurred move with 30fps. Because the camera records the blur you don't get 30 sharp images.
But in a videogame you do. For a 360 degree turn in one second you ideally get [hz] sharp pictures. And don't you think your brain can produce a more fluid picture if you present 120 sharp images per second to the eye compared to only 30 sharp images per second?

What you said shouldn't even work as an argument in casual forums.

i was basically just trolling.
how often did i have to read that 120hz is not needed...
from people who play their grafic blockbusters at max settings and v-sync enabled on a IPS panel screen.

why do you say IPS panel instead of 60Hz? is there a noticable difference? i'm wondering, because i thought there was no significant difference between TN and IPS when it comes to latency/input lag.

there are threads where people ask which is better 120hz (TN) or (60hz) IPS, since they can't have both. the obvious answer is 120hz for fast FPS or any fast game. but there are tards who offer their opinion and say get the IPS because the colors, viewing angles, and high resolution are gorgeous and they can't tell the difference between 60hz and 120hz.

Where do you get these numbers from? When you watch a 24 fps movie can you distinguish single frames?
According to wikipedia (and it's sources)

The human eye and its brain interface, the human visual system, can process 10 to 12 separate images per second, perceiving them individually,[1] but the threshold of perception is more complex, with different stimuli having different thresholds: the average shortest noticeable dark period, such as the flicker of a cathode ray tube monitor or fluorescent lamp, is 16 milliseconds

16 ms ~ 60 fps

Early silent films had a frame rate from 14 to 24 FPS which was enough for the sense of motion

Still your point about motion blur is valid. I don't know and I don't claim that it's the only reason why higher hz is better.
How about generating motion blur by renderer? I don't know how it's done in modern games but technically it's possible to generate high quality motion blur without any delay.

I got the numbers from the best statistic source available... my ass ;)

Regarding motion blur, I think that's what most modern games do when they cannot achieve high framerates. So it will still look smooth. I like the quake approach more.

Technically motion blur generated from motion vectors has better quality than 120hz one. Ask frag-movie makers. They use at least 300 fps for high quality motion blur.
We don't have 300 hz monitors and artificial motion blur is better anyway so why should game developers choose inferior solution?
Try recording quake sample @ 120 fps. You will see that it's still quite jerky.

According to quote above the best possible solution would be 60fps/60hz and motion blur but as I said - dunno if there aren't other variables making 120hz superior.

Most modern games have so much lag that you can't compare them to quake @ 120hz anyway.

Artificial motion blur is different than what we experience in real life and IMO worse for gaming.Blur is generated for a motion in relation to your in game view and not like in real life to your eyes. Follow any moving object with your eyes and you should see no blur but game will generate it anyway.

It's unsolvable problem unless you have eye controlled input device. Actually you could use current imprecise eye controlled input devices just to get motion vectors and still control the game by mouse.

Artificial motion blur is the same as one coming from high fps/hz. It's just smoother = better.

... if you have the computing power and needed information to create it realtime

Why not? Afaik artificial motion blur in games and rendering software like blender is created using motion vectors attached to each pixel. All you need to do is to read your eyeball's motion vector and add it to already computed pixel motion vectors. You can do this in a more sophisticated way but still it's not much more computing than current motion blur.

Dunno if this would create realistic effect though. This is just an idea.

Unfortunately to achieve realistic MB you will have to add input lag.
Older/simpler renderers that only take current frame's motion verctor create bad effect for rotating objects.
For a good result you need to have motion info from current, past and future frames.

Is this "bad effect" noticeable at 60 fps and reasonable rotational speed? I'm sure you can interpolate well enough using 1 or 2 previous frames and high fps. Or maybe you can compute next frame's motion vectors quickly before actually rendering it and introduce only small delay.

quakers aren't humans

Playing on 60hz feels akin to playing in muddy water, where 120hz is clear.

120hz is like breathing through your mouth.


60hz is like breathing through a straw.

Low $$$: Refurbished 120hz CRT 19"-21"

High $$$: 120hz LCD low input lag like LG w2363d with thru mode enabled

Never: 60hz CRT/LCD

LG W2363D monitors are out of stock. BENQ XL2411T with LightBoost is better than LG W2363D. I had both monitors.

Thats why i used the "like" word. Because not all 120hz LCD/LED monitor has low input lag.

i think what matters more is consitency where a game lags for a few seconds which breaks the emersion

i play with 30+ fps to get consitent performance in games and its noticable but its not critical where i get 5fps

it was acutally fun i play gta4 with 30hz refreshrate on a lcd with vsync on feels unique

i think the golden fps is somewhere around 25-35fps for most major games including call of duty and stuff

also lcd ghosting smooths out most jerkiness of the game so it kinda nullifies the need for high fps if mouse input is independent from fps which quake engine does

which is why quake is almost unplayable at lower fps like 30fps

its seems like player input is tied directly to fps on there

where it takes a snapshot every frame and that creates lag if fps is too low

By the way i wonder when 240Hz will be available, i still didn't found a good explaination about why we need two DVI cable to render more than ##Hz.

The real switch times (different from the mesurement "grey to grey") of pixels are limited with LCD technique unlike CRT or plasma. That's why we probably won't get real refresh rates (not just marketing terms) double of that what's state of the art now.
BUT. Strobing the backlight, called lightboost technology, does actually work in a way that makes an image free of blurring I recently learned.
So the cunning and greedy marketing people call this "10000 Hz" or whatever retarded slogan or wording they can come up with, when in reality it is 120 Hz with a strobed backlight in sync with the picture.

That's the future of gaming LCDs, no higher refresh rate is needed.

Well the fact are that new LCD achieve real 144Hz and 240Hz is to my knowledge easily doable. On a sidenote 1000/240 = 4.16 and it is still higher than pixel reaction time. Dunno if they can combine the backlight strobing methode with 240Hz tho but i would guess yes since the strobing backlight used for the xl2411t is theoricaly able to achieve 400+Hz. The strobing methode as of now only works in 120Hz because it uses an exploit than is supposed to work in 3D mode which means 60Hz for each eyes.

120hz vs 60hz makes bigger difrence in aiming than mouse imo.

is input lag and resolution related in any way?

If you still achieve 125 frames per seconds then the answer is : By a couple hundred of nano seconds yes, which means no :)

okay cool thjanks

... havent read everything, but... is there a 120hz ISP screen out there? ... i think i heard of it, but i forgot the name.

i guess u mean the korean one, you have to import, and then tweak it to get the 120hz. dunno the name tho.

hmm i am not sure, but ... i think you could get in EU aswel.

http://www.overclock.net/products/yamakasi-catleap-2b

kewl man tnx for the heads up! ... i think i am gona wait another half a year untill i buy a 120hz ISP ... cheaper and maybe more products at that time.

... the review is very infavor of the screen. I was a little bit surprised taht the screen doesnt have an OSD, but hey ... I wonder how i would play quake at 27" DAAAAAAAAMN :DD

i've been playing on a samsung syncmaster 226bw for the last few years but I just ordered a benq 2411t. looking forward to it.

About that much.

So, is there a solid review of newer 120hz monitors around / what do u guys recommend?

The BENQ XL2411T seems to be the one to get.

thx

yes, what comrade says

thx

didn't read this whole thread, but you could check out this post because i was able to get an XL2420T for a lot cheaper than the 500 Euro you mentioned.

The post is 11 months old...

better late than never

Why do you care? Am I injuring you in some way by posting here?

Such sensitive

Many hurt feelings

No, I am not disturbed/injured in any way. Just a nice necro. Thank you for sharing your find, it is useful.

:) wish you weren't anonymous so i could feel better about making peace with you!

Think of it this way:

You made peace with the anonymous legions of the world

You are Zen, almost Dalai Lama level