60fps cap for 2.0?

[ispano]

you are wrong, there are several monitors which have real 120hz.. such a list includes the one OP is talking about (benq xl2420t). I also have 2 monitores that have real 120hz, samsung 2233rz and LG 2363d.

Real 120hz is not the same as true motion or any other technology that they use on LCD/LED TVs. In fact, these tecnologies suck to play any game, because they generate fake frames that will lead to ghosts, trailing and other stuff.. its just a bad technology to play games.

Real 120hz on the other hand is the most beautiful thing they ever invented, first time i laid eyes on it i just couldnt let it go. Most games i rather play on 22' 1680x1050 than on a 27' 2560x1440.

Any real fps gamer has a 120hz monitor.

This is correct here. 120Hz from a TV and a PC Monitor are two completely different things.

[indira]

This is correct here. 120Hz from a TV and a PC Monitor are two completely different things.

Hertz is Hertz unless your re-writing the book on frequency's

Originally Posted by Firon
It's was uncapped at one point and it was messing ppl pc's up so they took it out. I don't really see the need for anything over 60 you can't tell anyway, the human eye can't keep up.
This is a common misconception.

already been proven unless your special to the world.

[monterrey4ever]

Hertz is Hertz unless your re-writing the book on frequency's

He's talking about the marketing on TVs labeled as 120/240 Hz (fake) VS real high end 120Hz Monitors...
I have a 120Hz CRT Monitor and I can clearly see the difference with my 60Hz LCD . . .

[Drazzan]

The whole "Eye can't see more than X frames" is complete rubbish. The eye's sight is not measured in frames. You can clearly test this yourself by using a test which plays two graphics. The adjustable sliders can be increased to upward of 120fps, while keeping the other on 60fps. The difference between the two is clearly obvious.

Sadly I can't remember the website which had this test.

[Emulord]

60 FPS are quite enough for me, for instance one can frag in optimal conditions in BF3 with such a frame rate, even if above clearly is fairly better. As regards FFXIV, I don't feel the need of smooth gameplay, but when you hit the maximum refresh rate, nearly everywhere apart from the cities, you truly feel the difference btw a 60FPS-Coerthas and a 40FPS-crowded Ul'Dah.

Still, for the moment, I don't really need a higher cap - my 670 wouldn't handle it anyway -, just a decent optimization so as to be allowed to play without those significant frame rate drops.

[ispano]

He's talking about the marketing on TVs labeled as 120/240 Hz (fake) VS real high end 120Hz Monitors...
I have a 120Hz CRT Monitor and I can clearly see the difference with my 60Hz LCD . . .

Correct, both can DISPLAY 120Hz. However TVs only accept 60Hz input, where the monitors can accept 120Hz input. The TVs just create fake frames.

[Antipika]

The whole "Eye can't see more than X frames" is complete rubbish. The eye's sight is not measured in frames. You can clearly test this yourself by using a test which plays two graphics. The adjustable sliders can be increased to upward of 120fps, while keeping the other on 60fps. The difference between the two is clearly obvious.

Sadly I can't remember the website which had this test.

QTF. I knew from start some people would come with the usual "but the eye can't see over 30 fps" argument.

If one is unable to notice the difference between 30 and 60 fps, one should go see his doctor.

[Mirage]

120hz monitors still only use 60 fps and higher hz monitors/tvs, its special tech inside that adds frames to make it appear smoother.
kinda like my samsung 240hz tv theres a mode called automotion plus. thats how you can watch a 1080p movie in 240hz even though its 24fps

just use v-sync with tripple buffering then the game will run smooth

if the game actually ran at 120 FPS or higher you would need a PC that much stronger. its the little tricks the monitors can do that appear a higher framerate.

You're right about TVs that run at more than 60hz, but wrong when it comes to PC monitors that run at more than 60 fps. 120hz PC monitors are actually capable of displaying every single of the 120 frames per second your PC is outputting. Assuming it is actually outputting 120fps, which plenty of PCs are capable of doing in a lot of games, including FF14.

PC gaming monitors typically do not do more signal processing than what's absolutely necessary, because this adds to input lag. Generating additional frames to put in between the actual frames on a 120hz PC monitor would defeat the sole purpose of buying a 120Hz PC monitor in the first place. You wouldn't get a higher framerate, and your input lag would actually increase instead of decrease. Decreased input lag is one of the reasons you'd want 120fps in the first place. No "pro gamer" would ever buy a 120Hz monitor if it cost twice as much and the only difference was adding more input lag rather than decreasing it.

Additionally, 120Hz 3D monitors enable 60 FPS full resolution 3D playback, something that would be impossible if the monitor couldn't actually display every one of the 120 frames the PC (or whatever device you're using) outputted.


Warning: techy tl;dr stuff below this line. You can skip this unless you are really interested.

Things like over 100 Hz on TV are actually beneficial anyway, it's not really "fake" refresh rate. The reason some TVs have for example 300 or 600 Hz is that this refresh rate can perfectly upscale almost any typical framerate without adding any frame jitter to the image.

Example time: 100 Hz TV versus 600Hz TV.
A 100 Hz TV needs to scale a 24FPS bluray movie over 100 display update cycles (this is what Hz basically is), without "motion interpolation" technologies enabled.

If you display each frame for 4 update cycles, we get a total of 96 update cycles in total. This means we're 4 update cycles short of 100 updates per second. Now the TV can do three things: Stop displaying the image for 4 frames, leading to a black screen for 4 millseconds every single second of the video. Let the last of the 24 frames stay on screen for 8 ms instead of the usual 4 (~4.166 really), giving us an extremely jittery image. Or spread the 4 update cycles that you have left over 4 of the 24 frames, making every 6th frame be displayed for 5 ms instead of the usual 4. This leads to every 6th frame being displayed on the screen for 25% longer than the others, giving us a moderate image jitter effect that's mostly noticable when the camera is panning/sweeping across something that's not moving a lot.

Inputting the same 24FPS video to a TV with 600 Hz however, will let the TV display every single frame for *exactly* 25 update cycles. No frame will be displayed longer than the other frame, and we will get 0 jittering. However, it doesn't end there. Not only 24FPS video will be played back perfectly, but also 25 (24 update cycles per frame) FPS, 30 FPS (20), 50 FPS(12) and 60 FPS(10).

A 60Hz TV can only display 30 and 60 FPS material with 0 jitter. For a 100 Hz TV, only 25 and 50 FPS material can be displayed without jitter. 120Hz can perfectly deal with 24, 30 and 60FPS.

Additionally, the higher the refresh rate on a display, the lower is the visual impact of "uneven frames". While 5 cycles per frame instead of 4 is a huge 25% increase in frame time, 51 cycles per frame instead of 50 is just a 2% increase in frame time, and would be extremely hard for humans to notice, at least compared to the 25% increase I mentioned earlier.

Image smoothening technologies come on top of this and further improve smoothness, but they all create a better result if the video has a framerate that the TVs refresh rate is perfectly dividable with.

-edit-
Fixed some typos.

[Galliano]

just use v-sync with tripple buffering then the game will run smooth

This ^^ although you will need to use D3DOverrider to force v-sync, but it makes a huge difference if playing on a 120hz monitor.

[Laraul]

Anyone who chooses a television or monitor because it has a higher refresh rate rather than considering picture quality is probably doing themselves a serious disservice. A monitor's posted refresh rate is like a car's speedometer. The top speed shown has little relevance to actual performance.

For anyone who thinks this refresh rate stuff matters... Please head to your local electronic store. Find the television section. And then try to determine which TVs are running at what refresh rates by looking ONLY AT THE PICTURE on the various big screen televisions on display. They're all right next to each other. So you can do an easy comparison.