NVIDIA Control Panel -> Change resolution -> Custom... - decrease resolution and increase refresh rate. Bypasses EDID so what you get out of it that way are hardcoded limits.

I was thinking about this too, but i would not want to sacrifice resolution for refresh rate. I realy like 1080p, thing is if we can override EDID or edit it we could possibly already run the BenQ XL2411T at maybe someting like 170Hz at native resolution (1920x1080).

I have seen today another 2560x1440 panel that is supposed to be IPS !! Friends told me it will be available soon in the market, i have to visit him at factory to see one of thoose.

LOL, trust me, you don't want to be playing around with your EDID...

ahah noted!

I have read quite an amount of ridiculous statements over the internet about 144Hz LCD. Some people were pretending that 144Hz at 1080p was the absolut max a DVI-D could handle. Some even explaining that the cable would melt.

I still don't know is there a limit for the refresh rate on DVI-D? What about other ports?

What limits the refresh rate on LCD? I belive it must be some microship or something?

What is the refresh rate limiting factor on LCD monitors beside a cheap microship maybe? liquid cristals have a hard time the higher goes the refresh rate or something?

Yes, essentially the liquid crystal's response time to applied current should be the limiting factor. Commonly given as response times. A panel rated with 2ms response for example should be able to display a new frame every 2ms, i. e. 500Hz.
There are multiple problems though, ranging from other hardware limitations to the fact that those response times are grey-to-grey and don't cover the whole color spectrum.
Could today's panels refresh at higher rates than they are coded to? Probably, but there are problems that come with that and so manufacturers understandably go the safe route of confirming to established standard, i. e. 60-80Hz.

You can however get a few cycles more out of most screens, even at native resolutions to respond to your other reply. Just use the NCP and inch your way to the maximum "allowed" internally by the monitor in 1Hz increments. I have an old BenQ GL2240 and it goes to 67Hz at 1920x1080p. One might argue 7Hz is not much, but being able to use 65+Hz can be useful if you want triple-buffered VSync, limit framerate below refresh rate for less VSync lag and still be above tickrate in CS:GO (64fps). At non-native resolutions I can push it to 85Hz, which is significant all by itself.
The same probably applies to 120/144Hz panels - people should test just how far they can push them at different resultions. I would be interested in that.

the lcd's response time doesn't limit how many hz you can throw at it. just means that beyond a certain point additional hz doesn't help much

for lcd screens the max rate is limited by software (in the panel's controller)

If the pixels cannot physically change fast enough how is that not a limit on refresh?

well, technically it is not a limit, as the panel will not break :)

That's a weird definition for "limit".

Weird!!!!

Well, the refresh rate will still increase (and your framerate if you use vsync) but obviously the pixels are going to start blending with each other as they can't keep up so the perceived smoothness and responsiveness won't be getting much better.

Some guy on blurbusters forums got a laptop panel running at 240hz without skipping frames for example. A bit pointless but fun and promising nonetheless (assuming they manage to reduce the pixel response time on LCDs a bit more in the future, 200-240hz might actually become a thing)

edit : maybe it wasn't 240hz actually but anyway : http://forums.blurbusters.com/viewtopic.php?f=8&t=188

edit 2 : read this from blurbusters chief himself :

"GtG (pixel transitions) doesn't define refresh rate.
There are GtG longer than refreshes (e.g. old 60Hz monitors with 33ms response)
There are GtG shorter than refreshes (e.g. newer 120Hz monitors with 1ms response)

The side effect of GtG longer than refreshes is overlapped refreshes (streaking).
See high speed videos of LCD refreshing in action to understand how LCD refreshes. These are simply high speed videos of http://www.testufo.com/flicker.

You can't refresh all pixels simultaneously, you have to refresh pixels one at a time. The faster/briefer you try to refresh pixels (to finish the whole screen at higher Hz), the colors degrade. That's why colors are worse at 144Hz than at 60Hz. Also, display cables have a bandwidth limitation. And display driving electronics have performance limits, too. So you've got to balance those compromises too. That said, I believe the technology is about to arrive to put true-240Hz monitors on our desks, and Blur Busters would welcome them!"

Yeah, I meant "essentially" as in, Hz beyond that doesn't matter. Hz as in refresh rate is a foreign concept to LCD in general, isn't it? It's just that the GPU still communicates that way and so the monitors need to confirm with that standard. Same for the top-to-bottom draw. In the future there should be matrix scans where the panel can directly trigger pixels throughout the matrix instead of going line for line - that way there should be better response/cycles possible as well. Of course that requires the GPU communication to change as well, only sending information about which pixel changed compared to the last swapped frame. Would also reduce bandwidth.

Naturally the limit is coded, but ultimately it's hardware that determines which limit the manufacturer decides to set.

There's also the issue with the cable. I believe 1920x1080 at 144 Hz is the max that can be handled from DVI-I.

DisplayPort should be able to do better, but it seems like only the latest 1.3 standard can conceive of doing 240 Hz at 1920. I feel like there will be some other thing to jump in and prevent this though. Feels like the industry does whatever it can to keep refresh rates low.

the letter after the dash in dvi is to tell you whether the cable supports analog, digital, or both. dual link dvi, which is what you're thinking of, doesn't have anything to do with that. dual link dvi can do much more than 144 hz at 1080p. it's already been shown that a single dl-dvi cable is enough for up to ~130 Hz at 1440p, which is around a 530 MHz pixel clock with manual timings. that's about the same as 220 Hz at 1080p. dvi is not a limiting factor.

Thing is DVI is not just a cable it's also a microship to process the signal. Present on the graphic cards or the IGP. Cable in practice doesn't matter at all, it's just archaic copper, nothing high tech.

What is the official standard spec for dvi-d? and what is it's max with 100% signal quality?

I think you nailed it, we need DP 1.3 for higher refresh.

Why? Nothing wrong with playing around with the EDID if you know what you're doing. I've been overriding EDIDs for years to get the best out of the dreadful 60hz LCDs.

Never tried to overclock 120/144hz LCDs though, but I know some people got like +5-10hz out of those too. Heck, some people have removed the pixel clock limit of dual DVI (340 mhz) in order to get 1440p@120hz on the cheap Korean IPS panels and it does actually work.

can it be done on a 144hz lcd though? I mean, has anyone got, say, 180hz running a 144hz Asus, etc, at a lower resolution?

look directly below your post.

well that is a custom pcb, i just mean via edid and resolution editing (software).

Not that I'm aware of, I just know of people getting 125-130hz out of 120hz panels.

Not going to try that on my Swift though sorry, the customer feedback on it makes me really afraid of breaking it :p Plus Asus already calls it "overclocked".

https://youtube.com/watch?v=PP1DEC9N6qY

oh shit, i forgot about that. thanks for reminding me.

Because of the picture hold nature of LCD's, it can't benefit from ridiculous refresh rates as much as a CRT. The Blurring and shadows/artifacts is a side effect of how our eye works. So IMO backlight pulsing is in theory still the way to go for faster crisper image.

I'm interested in the Eizo Foris FG2421 as it advertises 240 hz backlight pulsing (native 120 hz refresh). Anyone has used it in gaming?

If the pixel transitions are fast enough, LCDs can benefit from high refresh rates as much as CRTs tbh, it's just different: rather than flicker less, they blur less.

As for the FG2421 240hz mode, it's just a different way of calling the old lightboost hack/ULMB mode really, it tries to simulate CRT behaviour (the flickering) and reduces the sample&hold blur (greatly).

The Eizo is a VA panel and some pixel transitions are a bit slow (IIRC the black to white transition is really slow or maybe it was another but I just remember it doesn't have very consistent pixel transition times) but they applied a lot of overdrive so overall it looks pretty nice and sharp in motion. But the input lag is around 10-15ms though, too high for serious online gaming in my opinion.
Pretty severe panel lottery on this model as well due to non existent quality control :/

Tthe obvious benefit is reduced output latency, at least that's likely what people here are going for.

Apart from that, with the current technology you have to make compromises to push the refresh capabilities of LCD panels and so I'd argue 120Hz+ monitors are not what you want to look at if you are not interested in time sensitive gaming.
Image/color quality degrades and for general video there are other ways to get sufficiently smooth motion with LCD.

"Image/color quality degrades" source? i don't think that's true.

Isn't that common knowledge? Monitors known for their image quality are not any of the high refreshing models.
Like I said, it's an inherent problem because colors blend into each oher more as you trigger the pixels more frequently. Reducing the overall color accuracy and spectrum helps achieving higher refresh rates because there's less complexity to both the signal processing and the pixel switch.

no, it isn't, because two of the most accurate and vivid tn panels are 120 hz, vg236 and samsung's 700/750/950d models.

http://wecravegamestoo.com/forums/monitor-rev...eview.html
http://wecravegamestoo.com/forums/monitor-rev...eview.html
http://wecravegamestoo.com/forums/monitor-rev...eview.html

the pg278q would be in line with these monitors as well if not for the horrid matte coating. furthermore, one of the korean overclocking panels doesn't suffer from the gamma gradient that the qnix does when at 120 hz and has identical colors in both 60 and 120 hz modes (i can't remember which), and the new acer 144 hz ips panel has the color performance it was expected to.

I will say I haven't really ventured out into the specifics of modern display technology, but when I did read up on it seemed natural that higher refresh rates would have to impact image and color quality negatively.
For perspective, how do those panels compare to professional IPS monitors (NEC, EIZO, etc.)?

But the argument can be spun the other way around too, when the picture is in motion the faster the panel (pixel transitions & refresh rate, both matter on a LCD) the better it looks. The Asus Rog Swift, despite its TN panel, shits on absolutely all other LCDs out there for picture quality when things are in motion (except those new IPS panels it would appear) because it has the lowest pixel response times ever on a LCD (combined with true 8 bit & 144hz). It also looks great with static pictures for that matter but it obviously loses to a high end IPS panel there.

You can have a LCD with excellent static picture quality (even vs a CRT, besides the grey blacks), but on those the picture looks absolutely horrible as soon as things start moving, even just a little.

The Asus Rog Swift and the new 144hz IPS panels are very much blurring the line between the two types of displays that we had until now. There's only one review out there, so it's too early to tell, but so far it looks like those 144hz IPS panels are going to be the kings of all LCDs.

I've heard talks about using high refresh rate IPS on smartphones too (OLED has its share of issues and is expensive for now, sadly), refresh rate and pixel response time aren't only important to gamers. It's also important to have clean readable text when scrolling on a smartphone for example :)

Motion clarity is of course a factor, but I was referring more to the static realm of design and photography, i. e. "raw" color and image performance.
Isn't blurring or at least strobing perferable to get better motion rather than upping the cycles? As in, they don't inherently come with the potential of reduced color accuracy or gamut.

I'm not sure what you're getting at now, blur is the opposite of clarity (so not exactly desirable when talking about picture quality I'd say, it's only a cheap remedy) and strobing inherently requires a high refresh rate and fast pixel transitions in order to work properly.

Fast response times sure, but high refresh rates? Well, I guess there's flicker at strobed 60Hz but from CRT we know that ~80Hz is the threshold for that.

Blurring to get visually smooth rather than choppy motion as low refresh rates would dictate, not clarity, sorry for the confusion. Or using interpolated transition frames for that matter.

I'm wondering if there aren't ways to get sufficient motion quality that don't come with as severe (from what I understand) compromises for image quality?

i think that the only reason image quality degrades is that the monitor's internal lut is calibrated for the 60hz mode. when you increase the refresh rate, well each pixel is cycled more quickly which changes the final luminance vs. pixel value curve (e.g gamma) of the display.

A good amount of interresting answers. I was essenstialy trying to fullfil my curiosity as to if our 1920x1080 monitors can already run higher.

I saw some TV advertising 500+Hz wtf?

I would like to buy some 27+ inch monitors but all the low input lag/high refresh rate monitors have horrible max view angle. Having my monitor at more or less 40cm from me for better immersion.


I am waiting for some 300+Hz monitors to be released i dont understand what are they waiting for... someone make a thread "NEW GAMING MONITOR DEVELOPEMENT".

the korean single input 27" monitors have effectively zero input lag and are ips based meaning good viewing angles, but they're blurry due to slow pixels and have backlight bleed and poor black depth. they're a nice, cheap stopgap while we wait for oled. the new ips 27" 144 hz 1440p monitors coming out will suffer from the same issues most likely and also be 2-3 times as expensive as the korean monitors. right now i think the original samsung 120 hz monitors are probably the best, all things considered. best colors of any tn panels ever made which is further highlighted by the absence of any terrible matte coating, were among the first to support strobing for significantly less motion blur, and you can find them for cheap. only real downsides to them are that the 27" models are only 1080p and they're hard to find nowadays. i own a qx2710 that does 120 hz, and personally, i find that gaming on my 23" vg236 is much more enjoyable solely because of how blurry the qx2710 is. i wish i had an s27a950d.

edit: seems like i was wrong, thankfully. the new xb270hu seems like the best all around monitor available and doesn't suffer from motion blur despite the use of an ips panel. still has poor black depth, however, and is very expensive. i bet the people who bought swifts are kicking themselves right about now. eizo needs to make a 1440p 27" version of the fg2421. va is better than ips in almost all scenarios imo. not sure what the deal is with the industry's fixation on ips.

Same for me, i have a Benq XL2411T i will keep it for now.

I found the specs of Displqy Port v1.3 : http://www.vesa.org/faqs/

DisplayPort 1.3 systems will support 5K displays (5120 x 2880) at 60Hz refresh, and for 4K displays will enable deeper color and higher refresh rates.

Which to my knowledge means 1920x1080 can go up to arpoximatly 400Hz with DP 1.3 port.

Because VA has very slow pixel response times (far slower than either TN or IPS) and horizontal gamma shift as well as some black crush. The only way they got the response times so low on the Eizo is by pushing the overdrive really far, to the point of adding 10-15ms of input lag. And even after that some pixel transitions remain extremely slow and noticeable.

eh, va is overall on par with ips response times but you are right about some transitions being very slow. horizontal gamma shift varies from panel to panel, and in the fg2421's case it's obviously a nonissue as it's a monitor, you're going to be viewing it head on. black crush is a problem, but again, it's not that big of a deal. the massive contrast ratio and extremely low black point va provides heavily outweighs it (the only real con a perfect fg2421 has) for films and games. if you've ever looked at game screenshot threads you'd quickly realize most people use improper gamma settings which leads to black crush, so if it were that noticeable of a problem, i don't think you'd see so many people who willingly experience it. they didn't push the overdrive 'really far' on the fg2421, it's just normal overdrive, and the input lag is on par with other monitors using similar motion blur reduction techniques. the fg2421 does have some pretty fucking bad quality control, though.

Well then you could say the gamma shift is a non issue on a TN panel but that's not true either, it's still visible when viewed head on. Just like the IPS glow for that matter (although there IS a cure for that, it's just extremely rare in consumer monitors these days).

You just asked why the fixation on IPS, I simply pointed out that VA is not better, it has different flaws but flaws nonetheless. Maybe you feel those flaws are less annoying than IPS flaws but that's just your opinion and not everyone will agree. However it is a fact that IPS can provide the most stable picture quality with the best uniformity and viewing angles. IPS might be cheaper to make as well I don't know, there's a lot more cheap IPS panels than cheap VA panels for sure.

And no, the Eizo has quite a bit more input lag than other PC monitors with blur reduction, especially compared to the recent TN/IPS ones. Plus it still has about 10ms with the function turned off, that's quite a lot in my book.

I'll have a chat with a friend's friend who is engeneer and worked for some time with AUO. This week end will be interresting.

i am looking for a 24" IPS paneled 120hz with low input lag and repsonse time, any suggestions?

It would be used for graphic design and gaming.

tftcentral has its review up for the acer 144hz "IPS" (AHVA) monitor
http://www.tftcentral.co.uk/reviews/acer_xb270hu.htm