>>906250
>official ratings
the official rating are exaggerated, they're almost always multiple ms lower than the results testers post
careful, pcmonitors guy doesn't know what he's talking about (the only English sites I've come across that seem to be not full of shit are Display Corner and TFT Central). I'll quote some of his misconceptions from [https://pcmonitors.info/articles/factors-affecting-pc-monitor-responsiveness/]:
>[With 120Hz] The monitor also responds twice as frequently to user input updates
No, LCD (ignoring display input lag) and CRT both in fact respond immediately regardless of refresh rate, because (ignoring VBI), it's always updating part of the screen. At 120FPS on 60Hz (ignoring vsync phase) each half of the screen has between 1-8ms of lag.
>https://pcmonitors.info/wp-content/uploads/2013/11/Sampling-comparison.png
No, the "dark phase" (which is completely irrelevant) is the VBI which is only ~1ms out of 16.67 at most. This is actually a big difference.
No, LCDs do not instantly display the frame and do nothing for 15ms, they do the exact same thing as CRT (ignoring added lag values here and there) but pixels stay the same until the beam comes by and updates them.
After rereading this article I'm not sure if he actually thinks stuff works this way or is trying to simplify it, but it's hugely misleading.
>Frames are being held for a much shorter duration and your eyes are being fed a greater number of distinct frames -- as a result, your eye movements are reduced.
>your eye movements are reduced.
That's also not how it works oy vey.
>Scanning or strobe backlights are those that pulse ‘on’ and ‘off’ in much the same way as a CRT,
Scanning would be like a CRT (no LCDs do this), strobing is not, since CRTs do not strobe since they scan out the image slowly over the period of 16.66ms-VBI.
>There are drawbacks to enabling LightBoost. Whilst the fluidity benefits are great if you’re running at a frame rate matching the refresh rate, there is rapid degradation in smoothness as the frame rate dips even slightly below this. In particular stuttering becomes much more pronounced as it isn’t masked by motion blur.
Yeah but now you can actually see more stuff than blobs moving around your screen in an FPS because there's no motion blur. Except this is still slightly wrong, because when a frame is shown twice that can lead to reintroducing smearing or similar bad effects.
Also, PixPerAnn pictures aren't super meaningful aside from proving that pixel response time is less than 1 full frame (if they were 1 frame or longer you'd see two ghosts instead of just one). also camera shutter speed probably comes into play
But yes, as I said, response times to seem pretty low these days, but that still doesn't help much because of "sample-and-hold".
>The only solution to this problem will be with a transition to OLED (or basically anything other than LCD), clearing the way not only to 120Hz displays that actually work, but to displays that approach the 1kHz barrier.
Do you know about strobe reduction black lights? They solve the problem as well. In order to do them properly the backlight should always be off except for a small period of time during the vertical blanking interval (right before displaying the next frame). They can introduce some input delay but at a high enough framerate that shouldn't be an issue. I'd assume this acceptable framerate with motion blur reduction is far less than 1kHz.
>Isn't the correct approach exactly the opposite, capping 1-3 FPS lower than display framerate to substitute for v-sync without lag, in games that can't use 0-flip queue triple-buffering?
I'm not sure what you're saying. Capping the framerate without vsync will always introduce tearing. Capping below the refresh rate means some parts of the screen will show the same frame twice.
>0-flip queue triple-buffering
Are you talking about using the Direct3D with the prerender queue set to 0, or are you talking about OpenGL tripper buffering? The former sounds like lag and/or tearing. The latter has issues with stutter and requires massive refresh rates to reduce your input latency.
>The primary advantage of 120Hz, regardless of blur, lag, ghosting, or stutter, is that your eye gets twice as much data from the game every second.
Yes, assuming that actually makes a perceptable difference. As I said it would reduce "sample-and-hold" smear by half which is a huge effect, but I'm not sure whether there's other big benefits. I've never tried 120Hz yet aside from the CRT days but I didn't pay much attention. At the very least very fast motion would be less likeky to be ruined by only beeing able to see an object for one frame as it crosses the screen.