Do you overclock your monitor?

[Slickthellama]

I do, i run my 21'' CRT @ 1920X1440 @ 75hz

that's right.

[Slickthellama]

btw here's the pic of it, i got it for 75$ from my uncle. Hes a good guy!

[STEvil]

19" G94 @ 1280x1024 85hz

Can do 1600x1200 85hz if I use powerstrip, but then all the rest of my refresh rates get messed up for some reason... so I just leave it at the first setting.

Changing it to 1600x1200 and 75/80/85hz through monitor settings normally instead of through powerstrip makes it all go blue for some reason... 8-(

[Soulburner]

How do you do it?

I was under the impression that if I tried to run 85Hz at 1600x1200 (my RTCW res) I would get a nice black screen...

I run 100Hz on the desktop though but thats only 1024x768.

[Peen]

I run 1600x1200 @ 120-140hz just fine on this IBM P202 21 inch monitor. Its old. I run 1024x768 @120hz 24/7

[Fever]

You do know that's guarateed to kill it though, right? The higher you run your refresh rate at, the shorter your screen will live, even if it's within specs. IE: A monitor that is rated to run 16x12 @ 85hz will last longer if it's run at 75hz.

[STEvil]

darn you peen.

Soulburner - Use powerstrip.

[GTA]

1600x1200 @ 120Hz right here.

Sun is your DADDY!

[Peen]

Ive been running it at 120 for 3 years! ive had it at 140 for awhile just for fun, but that was outa spec. It goes to 200hz Max. Never tried it though, never even seen if the monitor posts at 200hz!!!!

[Slickthellama]

Originally posted by GTA
1600x1200 @ 120Hz right here.

Sun is your DADDY!

sun is indeed my daddy, :(

[IvanAndreevich]

Very very dangerous.

[saaya]

1280x1024 19" noname 100Hz
1600x1200 works with 100hz as well but i get weird magentical lines after some days so i dropped the rate to 85Hz and added a silent 120mm fan (mounted it from inside under the plastic case of my monitor) runs fine for almost a year now.

i used to work in a call center for the german telekom (like at&t) and they had 19" monitors that did 200Hz :slobber:
the onboard intel graphics of the machines wouldnt run over 120Hz though, but some of the machines had ati graphics wich did support higher Hz and the monitor was running just fine at 200Hz. dont remmeber the manufacturer, but back then i checked the hp of the manufacturer and the monitor were extremely expensive... :\

i didnt see a diference above 100Hz anyways so im happy with mine :)

[Slickthellama]

anything over 90hz will just degrade your picture tho. And your eye cant tell after 90hz. So why would you do that? :shrug:

[saaya]

actually i could notice a diference between 100 and 120Hz after working there for some months... i dont care what scientist say about it, ive seen it myself and some people claim they can even see the diference between 200Hz and 180Hz...

and whether the picture degrades or not depends on the monitor and the dacs of your videocard!

[Slickthellama]

nope, it depends on the bandwidth of the vga cable.

[saaya]

? you sure? well the quality didnt get any worse above 120Hz... it was exactly the same at 120Hz and 200Hz... maybe the card doesnt produce more than 120Hz and the monitor and just produces clone frames?

[isp]

Originally posted by Slickthellama
anything over 90hz will just degrade your picture tho. And your eye cant tell after 90hz. So why would you do that? :shrug:

When playing games, I can tell if it's anything less than 100hz because the game will look like it's tearing on the screen.

[saaya]

i think the cable cant send more than 120 FPS to the monitor, wich makes sence as i dont see a diference above 120fps, but the monitor can def run at more than 120Hz without degrading the quality.

[Soulburner]

I can tell a definete difference between 85Hz and 100Hz.

But this doesn't work, if I try to force the screen to run at 85Hz in 1600x1200 I get a nice "Out of Scan Range" message on a black screen.

Its a Sony 19" CRT FD Trinitron Multiscan

I have to play RTCW at 60Hz, that's the max refresh at that resolution...

[Slickthellama]

Originally posted by saaya
i think the cable cant send more than 120 FPS to the monitor, wich makes sence as i dont see a diference above 120fps, but the monitor can def run at more than 120Hz without degrading the quality.

it is more dependant on the refresh rate/resolution combo. IE, VGA may be able to do 200hz @ 640X480. But try that at 1280X1024 and the bandwidth will dry up fast and you will get a degraded picture.

[IvanAndreevich]

Soulburner
Play @ 1024x768@120Hz + 6xAA / 16xAF. It's better then 1600x1200 @ 60Hz.

[Soulburner]

Originally posted by IvanAndreevich
Soulburner
Play @ 1024x768@120Hz + 6xAA / 16xAF. It's better then 1600x1200 @ 60Hz.
Not on this 5900.

I never use AA. High res always looks better than low res with AA.

[saaya]

again, i didnt note any degradation in picture quality up to 200Hz at 1024x768 with the systems in the call center i worked...

[st0nedpenguin]

I think it has more to do with you and your eyesight more than anything else, a friend of mine runs his monitor at 60Hz all the time with no problems, I ran mine at 60Hz for an hour the other day and had a splitting headache and painful eyes for the rest of the night, it depends on the monitor itself too.

[Soulburner]

Originally posted by st0nedpenguin
I think it has more to do with you and your eyesight more than anything else, a friend of mine runs his monitor at 60Hz all the time with no problems, I ran mine at 60Hz for an hour the other day and had a splitting headache and painful eyes for the rest of the night, it depends on the monitor itself too.
I used 60Hz for years with no problems at all.

I hated higher refresh, it was annoying to my eyes and made the screen look "blurry".

BUT....I forced myself to get used to 100Hz on the desktop. Now, whenever I see my screen at 60Hz, I can actually see it "pulsing" with light since its not being refreshed as fast as my eyes are used to seeing (kind of how video cameras pick up on it).

I'll never use anything under 85Hz again. It sucks.

So, I run 1280x960 85Hz for gaming and 1024x768 100Hz on the desktop now. Those are the highest refreshes it will display at that given resolution.

[st0nedpenguin]

Yeah, the pulsing is kinda like what I get, it looks like the screen is unstable and twitchy.

I run at 1600x1200@75Hz, this 21" is a bit old, but jump to 85Hz for any lower resolutions, does me just fine.

Also, I find that at lower resolutions 60Hz is alot more manageable, as the resolution goes up, so does the twitching.

[Soulburner]

That's probably why I can't run high refresh at high res. I have a 19" and you guys are running 21" I think.

[isp]

All monitors have different refresh rates, depends on the tube I think. Trinitron and Diamondtron are great tubes IIRC.

[Slickthellama]

Originally posted by saaya
again, i didnt note any degradation in picture quality up to 200Hz at 1024x768 with the systems in the call center i worked...

They might use dual vga or dvi inputs.

[st0nedpenguin]

Just in case anyone feels generous... (http://www.sonystyle.com/is-bin/INTERSHOP.enfinity/eCS/Store/en/-/USD/SY_DisplayProductInformation-Start;sid=qSB9cNeU4xB9ZZet9Dt3e5iE4rpLHM7crME=?Cat egoryName=cpu_Displays_FlatPanelLCDs_20%22&ProductSKU=SDMP232W%2fB&Dept=cpu)

http://www.sonystyle.com/intershoproot/eCS/Store/en/imagesProducts/250x250/P232WFRONT.jpg
:eek:

[STEvil]

Originally posted by Slickthellama
nope, it depends on the bandwidth of the vga cable.

:stick:

I'm no genius, but even I know the "bandwidth" and picture quality are based on the RAMDAC and filters next to the VGA/DVI out on the video card itself (ala GeForce 1/2/3/4 image quality fix). :rolleyes:

That said, "frames per second" and "refresh rate" are constant (given that they are a measurement) whereas our eyes and brain percieve in real time, and do not sample like a tv or monitor.

Here is a very good read that has actually been linked to on this forum at least once before... and I suggest anyone who thinks 30fps or 60hz is plenty should read.

http://amo.net/NT/02-21-01FPS.html

:toast:

[Peen]

Heres my lil thoughts on this. On Xabre 200 and Radeon 9800 Pro...

Radeon 9800 Pro @ 60hz 1024x768 = headache
75hz = Better but still not enuf
100 = Probly good enuf
120 = I can see a difference between 100-120 and monitor picture looks very crisp
200hz = Dunno looks the same


Xabre 200 @ 60hz = Looks like §§§§
75hz = better
100-120 = at this refresh rate, its
TERRIBLE. the letter in windows have HUGE shadows and its just plain UGLY
200hz = Really, dont even wanna know

Basically reason i said this is because videocard DOES make a difference in different refresh rates picture quality and different refresh rates :)

[Slickthellama]

Originally posted by STEvil
:stick:

I'm no genius, but even I know the "bandwidth" and picture quality are based on the RAMDAC and filters next to the VGA/DVI out on the video card itself (ala GeForce 1/2/3/4 image quality fix). :rolleyes:
:toast:

Then why do some monitors require dual VGA inputs or dual DVI outputs? The RAMDAC must support this, so why cant they just use one VGA cable then? If there is no bandwidth limits what is the purpose?

EDIT, I do however agree that 30fps and 60hz are certainly not enough, personally I prefer 120fps and 90hz :)

[STEvil]

maybe because a single 350mhz ramdac at 200hz could suck vs. dual 350mhz ramdac's at 200hz?

Also, i've been too assumptuous as usual and completely forgot to mention monitor cable quality... kind of like the old medusa/pass-through cable issues with Voodoo 1/2's.

[Slickthellama]

so basically you are saying that if you get a high quality cable that the bandwidth is unlimited? Damn, we should use these for everything! Trust me, you get to a point where the RAMDAC can be great but if you need to move a lot of video signal you need more than one cable.


http://www.beststuff.com/article.php3?story_id=6199
This monitor needs two VGA inputs... HMM.. now why would that be?



BTW, I totally agree that cable quality matters. I am sure it makes a difference. But I just need to establish that the best VGA cable in the world still has limits.

[STEvil]

maybe because a single 350mhz ramdac at 200hz could suck vs. dual 350mhz ramdac's at 200hz?

Also, i've been too assumptuous as usual and completely forgot to mention monitor cable quality... kind of like the old medusa/pass-through cable issues with Voodoo 1/2's.

If you read it as a whole you will notice that it implies using more than one cable can benifit over a single high quality cable.. let alone using two high quality cables.

If you wish to debate quality vs. quantity then there is no issue as quality does not take space, whereas quantity does. That said, you will notice I never once said or implied dual vga/dvi in/out's are useless or bad, only that your RAMDACs and the filter capacitors next to the vga/dvi ins/outs will determine the final image quality long before a monitor cable does (unless the monitor cable happens to be of extremely low build quality or damaged).

[MentholMoose]

Originally posted by Slickthellama
http://www.beststuff.com/article.php3?story_id=6199
This monitor needs two VGA inputs... HMM.. now why would that be? It has multiple inputs so more than one PC can be connected to it. The multiple inputs are not meant to improve PQ from a single PC.

[Iridium192_217]

nah

[ricjax99]

Mine does 2048 x 1536 @80 Hz so theres no need ;)

1280 x 1024 / 1600 x 1200 @100Hz is fine imo ;)

Iiyama HM903DT A :D