PDA

View Full Version : Performance vs Quality debate


cvearl
11-18-02, 05:43 PM
Sure we are all getting excited about our games breaking the 100 fps average and getting faster by the month. But one thing no one ever talks about anymore is vSync. I want a monitor that can do 120Hz at 1024x768!!!!! I am sick and tired of tearing in all of my games. Ya I can enable Vsync but then the whole game slows down. In case you don't know, 85Hz is the current 1024x768 standard. When vSync is enabled, that translates into 42.5 fps. Due to the lack of true motion blurring used in film and on TV, a computer requires at least 60fps to trick the eye into seeing true speed blurr. Now I know many of you are saying "but 25fps is all you need for that" when in fact 25fps is film and that is based on entirely different technology so it is all thats needed. In fast action games on a CRT, 60fps is the sweet spot but monitors can only properly sync with 42.5fps. This is why with Vsync disabled you get object tearing. This is not as noticable in games where you typically are moving forward like in racing or flight sims. However in First Person Shooters or Adventure games where you look left and right alot, you see it alot. This is because there is so much more to change from frame to frame in the latter example. Most of us don't enjoy games unless fps is at 60 or higher during those heated fast action moments but then you have to live with the tearing. The answer is better CRT's. Will they ever come? I truely believe that 120Hz refresh would minimize the tearing with fast video cards when vsync is off.

Anyone here agree?

Now if there are already monitors that can do 100 and 120 at 1024, please post me a link. I want one!!!!

Charles.

Bigus Dickus
11-18-02, 06:16 PM
Iiyama.

Stavros
11-18-02, 06:19 PM
Anything with a 22" Mitsubishi Dimondtron tube
mmmmmmmmm Dimondtron

Harnagel
11-18-02, 06:30 PM
Why does 85hz = 42.5 fps? I have only heard this reasoning for TVs becasue they're interlaced, but monitors are not interlaced.

BTW, my monitor does 100hz at 10x7 just fine, it's a NEC Multisync fe950+, and it's 2 years old. All of the newer high end Sony, NEC and Mitsubishi monitors(I am sure many other brands as well) can easily do this.

cvearl
11-18-02, 06:43 PM
Originally posted by Harnagel
Why does 85hz = 42.5 fps? I have only heard this reasoning for TVs becasue they're interlaced, but monitors are not interlaced.

BTW, my monitor does 100hz at 10x7 just fine, it's a NEC Multisync fe950+, and it's 2 years old. All of the newer high end Sony, NEC and Mitsubishi monitors(I am sure many other brands as well) can easily do this.

#1. I base the 85Hz = 42.5 statement on articles at Toms and Anandtechs years ago when 3DFX was still around and based on my own tests that I ran on oldergames (incomming and halflife are the only two I remember) that had timedemos where you could enable and disable vSync and compare the on and off results. I guess I should really try again with UT2003 benchmark if I can find the vsync entry in the ini that the benchmark utilizes.

#2. My monitor is 3 years old and at 1024 I cant get passed 85Hz without the screen going nuts. Websites don't really say. Even at NEC's, thier web site specs for each model state 1024x768@85Hz recommended. I guess I took that as maximum. So If I go out now and buy a middle of the road NEC, LG, Samsung or Viewsonic monitor today, chances are that it can safely go to 100 or beyond at 1024??? Geeze if I had known that I would have switched monitors sooner. Why won't the manufacturers state these higher settings in the specs???

Charles.

Harnagel
11-18-02, 06:57 PM
#1) I really don't think that's accurate. When I have vsync turned on my frame rate maxes out at 85fps which is the refresh rate for my monitor at 12x10.

#2)Here's a good place to start, I personaly like NEC/Mitsubishi monitors.

http://www.necmitsubishi.com/products/index.cfm

This is the current version of what I have, est. price = $260.

http://www.necmitsubishi.com/products/home/DetailedSpecs.cfm?product_id=211&division=NEC

Notice refresh rates @ 10x7 are 50-116.

Just go to manufacturers' web sites and find the detailed specs for their products, don't try and get them from the box or reseller.

cvearl
11-18-02, 07:09 PM
19" is just too big for my desk. However I just saw the specs for the FE791FB. 1024x768@ up to 116Hz.

As for the 85Hz=42.5 debate, I'll do some testing with newer games if I get time later and post my results...

P.S. Star Trek Elite Force (based on the quake 3 engine) still gets tearing with or without vSync enabled in the game ini file so I'll have to try UT2003 Benchmark and anyhting else I can find. Hey, is there a way to enable Direct 3D vSync for the nVidia 30.82 drivers? What tweak proggy is the best at it???? That way I can just use 3DMARK2001SE. It should be accurate.

Charles.

CWB
11-18-02, 07:35 PM
My 21" Trinitron does: 120 Hz at 800x600 & 1024x768; 100 Hz at 1152x864 & 1280x960; and 85 Hz at 1280x1024 & 1600x1200.

Smokey
11-18-02, 08:30 PM
Originally posted by Bigus Dickus
Iiyama.


Hit the nail on the head ;)

My 19" Iiyama Vision Master Pro is what 3-4 years old.

1600*1200 @85Hz
1280*1024 @100Hz
1024*768 @120Hz

This monitor isnt much bigger than a 17"

71skylark
11-18-02, 10:00 PM
My sony G420 (19" Flat CRT) does 100hz at 1280x1024 just great. Thats my normal desktop setting. This thing does 100hz at 1600x1200 too. I love mine and recommend it.

StealthHawk
11-18-02, 10:28 PM
Originally posted by Harnagel
Why does 85hz = 42.5 fps? I have only heard this reasoning for TVs becasue they're interlaced, but monitors are not interlaced.

BTW, my monitor does 100hz at 10x7 just fine, it's a NEC Multisync fe950+, and it's 2 years old. All of the newer high end Sony, NEC and Mitsubishi monitors(I am sure many other brands as well) can easily do this.

85Hz != 42.5fps

you only drop frames when vsync is on if the framerate does not match a certain ratio.

it's simple to verify that your framerate can reach the refresh rate. simply play a game and turn on a framerate counter with vsync enabled. you will see the framerate magically dive(usually to half) because the framerate drops below the refresh rate and all the "extra" frames are dropped to sync with the monitor.

in other words, its your systems fault that you're seeing this behavior, not the monitor.

Chalnoth
11-18-02, 11:38 PM
Of course, with triple buffering, that effect goes away almost completely, meaning that your max framerate is just capped at the refresh rate of the monitor, not further limited due to waiting around for the next vsync.

cvearl
11-19-02, 12:03 AM
Thanks everyone for your input. Seems that the old Vsync driver issues were resolved years ago while I was asleep in my cave. That would explain why it is no longer a topic of discussion on the popular hardware sites.

I tested 3DMARK2001SE with vSync on with Rivatune and all of my framerates for each test were either 85 or lower depending on the test with 85Hz setting. So it stands to reason that as cards have gotten faster, it's up to the rest of us to afford monitors that can reach 120Hz in 1024x768 in an effort to reduce the tearing. With my Ti4200 on an 85Hz monitor I get some tearing. It's not unbearable by any means but it will only get worse when I pick up my 9700PRO and the frame rates climb even higher. For me, (tearing aside) super smooth comes at about 80fps. Thanks all again!

Charles.