CRTs light very differently, explaining the difference. I ran my old CRT at 100 minimum, but any modern LCD is fine at 60.
I do not disagree, hence the qualifier of my statement. But it makes me wonder if I could see things a bit better if I had 75 FPS. Not that it matters since my computer seems to struggle with 45 at the moment.
There may be theoretically infinite frames in real life, but your brain is still just a CPU.
It doesn't process every single frame, because it can't.
You're brain perceives motion in iterations above 15fps, beyond that, things look smoother, then it gets to a certain point and your brain is just saturated by frames.
I'm not really sure what you mean by some of that, but a complicating factor is persistence of vision-the light-sensitive molecules in your eye take some time to physically switch state back and forth. That's why your lightbulb powered by 60Hz AC coming out of your wall looks solid. This is further complicated by the fact that this your eye doesn't have one refresh rate, so an image at 60 fps (or greater even) moving across your field of vision may still look choppy.
Persistence of vision occurs at refresh rates above 15Hz.
Flicker is only noticed when something is out of sync, for what ever reason.
Wiki the strobe effect.
More frames just means smoother animations, but there comes a point to were your brain can't process any more frames. Some quick googling seems to tell me that the limit is 300Hz.
But I can't judge till I see it for myself, because in my experience 60FPS seems to be enough. Otherwise you're just racking up an electricity bill for extra frames you don't really need?
Somehow I don't think that 120hz uses significantly more electricity than 60. The backlight in the monitor is what uses most of the power, not the refreshing of the panel.
Passing the ~100mhz 100fps limit fools your eyes and brain sufficiently. IPSs had a natural refresh rate disadvantage which no-one's seen a need to correct. So you have to choose over smoother frame rate to help you handle rapid turns and moving targets, and being able to see enemies in dark windows.
Getting 120FPS is going to take some doing, though. You probably want even more as you're going to need VSync on to not ruin the whole smooth-as-meat-space effect.
I'm happy with my $60 Dell 1080 TFT and 40FPS in BF3.
Random though: Get a 120hz monitor, run Quake 2 for fullest experience.
That BenQ I linked isn't an IPS, but claims to solve the dark window problem by lighting up dark areas with some sort of post-processing in the monitor. Sounds fishy.
That would be dynamic range compression. If you need an IPS for print work or your own preferences you could go one of each, though you get into difference size problems.
So why do my eyes see the 'herk and jerk' effect when I watch TV on an LCD but never on a plasma? It doesn't matter what the refresh rate is though smaller screens do help.
I can't even watch movies on a large (32"+) LCD without seeing artifacting and screen tearing as well as stuttering. Friends in the room have no problem.
Somehow I don't think that 120hz uses significantly more electricity than 60. The backlight in the monitor is what uses most of the power, not the refreshing of the panel.
By more electricity I meant, you'll obviously be working your cpu and gpu alot harder, even if they are built to handle that level of performance.
So the more work your PC is doing the more electricity it is using.
Or the other way round, the more processing power you require, the more electricity you'll be using.
Unless your PC components are optimized for a set power rating, like a console might be.
The amount of power a beast of a computer uses is only comparable to two fifteen minute showers, at most, daily.
If you're looking to save power, there are other places you could start.
@Steve: Plasma and CRT both work via very short discharges and rely on your eye to make the image look like it's constant, LCDs set a pixel to a given colour then have to come along and set it to a different one at the next refresh.
While each individual component seems crazy overpriced, the entire package seems quite reasonable. If you think about what else you can buy for $1600, it's really not a bad way to spend your money if you've already got hard drives, monitors, mouse, keyboard, speakers, etc. It's half the price of a Canon EOS 5D MkIII digital SLR camera.
How is 8G of RAM enough? And trust me, that 180G SSD is sad. I have a 256G SSD and it is almost full. All I have on it is Windows itself and the programs I use most often. Most Steam games, other apps, and all data are on a magnetic drive, NAS, or the other SSD. You will have to be very selective in what you choose to put on there.
I have 3TB of magnetic space. I can bump up to 16G of ram though, it's fairly cheap. For magnetic, is 7200 RPM the goto these days, or should I bump up the speed. Currently, I'm having issues with really long load times and textures while playing games which is an issue.
In that it will easily play any game there is. And it's stupid easy to buy another set and drop it in down the line. I agree with the SSD though, personally I'm still rocking spinning disks for that reason. 1TB with 64MB of cache. Sure the loading times are not stellar, but that only affects how long it takes BF3 to load up the map. I'm fine in the game.
Smallish SSD for Windows Bigger SSD for the games you're actually playing regularly Spinning disks for everything else that needs to be local NAS for all media and backups
My SSD only has the primary big games, (Counter-Strike and NS2), Creative Cloud apps I actually use (Lightroom, Photoshop, Premiere), Windows itself, and small apps I use a lot like PuTTY. Every other game is magnetic. Every data is on magnetic. If I work on a big file I might temporarily put it on the spare SSD as scratch space. My NAS is about half full.
Comments
Usually that's just a case of pressing the auto button on the monitor to fix.
Flicker is only noticed when something is out of sync, for what ever reason.
Wiki the strobe effect.
More frames just means smoother animations, but there comes a point to were your brain can't process any more frames. Some quick googling seems to tell me that the limit is 300Hz.
But I can't judge till I see it for myself, because in my experience 60FPS seems to be enough. Otherwise you're just racking up an electricity bill for extra frames you don't really need?
Getting 120FPS is going to take some doing, though.
You probably want even more as you're going to need VSync on to not ruin the whole smooth-as-meat-space effect.
I'm happy with my $60 Dell 1080 TFT and 40FPS in BF3.
Random though: Get a 120hz monitor, run Quake 2 for fullest experience.
If you need an IPS for print work or your own preferences you could go one of each, though you get into difference size problems.
I can't even watch movies on a large (32"+) LCD without seeing artifacting and screen tearing as well as stuttering. Friends in the room have no problem.
So the more work your PC is doing the more electricity it is using.
Or the other way round, the more processing power you require, the more electricity you'll be using.
Unless your PC components are optimized for a set power rating, like a console might be.
If you're looking to save power, there are other places you could start.
@Steve: Plasma and CRT both work via very short discharges and rely on your eye to make the image look like it's constant, LCDs set a pixel to a given colour then have to come along and set it to a different one at the next refresh.
The only problem is that everything is so new, no real reviews on Newegg.
http://www.intelgamingpromo.com/intel13b/summer13/promo
They automatically stick this in your cart.
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16800995163
http://secure.newegg.com/WishList/PublicWishDetail.aspx?WishListNumber=30719508
Smallish SSD for Windows
Bigger SSD for the games you're actually playing regularly
Spinning disks for everything else that needs to be local
NAS for all media and backups