2ms against 5ms?

[Webby]

So you are suggesting that a monitor which has a refresh rate of 60Hz can actually display more than 60 images in a second? If this is the case then please explain what the refresh rate refers to as that was how I understood it.

What I meant with the if your not experiencing tearing then don't turn VSync on.

[Agent]

So you are suggesting that a monitor which has a refresh rate of 60Hz can actually display more than 60 images in a second?

It can display a more accurate image of the scene in question, which is slightly different - although what you're saying is not technically wrong in most cases (I actually misread your first post - apologies)
This is so hard to explain - I will do a thread on its own to explain the exact details of this and other FPS stuff soon

[Webby]

That will be most appreciated, would rather be proved wrong on something and know the right answer than stumble blindly on!

[NovaSphere]

It can display a more accurate image of the scene in question, which is slightly different - although what you're saying is not technically wrong in most cases (I actually misread your first post - apologies)
This is so hard to explain - I will do a thread on its own to explain the exact details of this and other FPS stuff soon

Oh please do!

When looking at Video settings in games, I usually wonder what half of them does and what would be better

[xiphrex]

I only just 4 weeks ago upgraded to an LCD from a CRT for the simple reason that no display I had seen up until now has had a decent enough response time. The newest panels with 2ms GTG response times seem to be good.

There is news that next year there will be 120Hz LCD panels which should sort out the tearing problems in fast moving images, so it might be an idea to go a cheap 20" with 5ms or less and then try and upgrade next year or the year after when hopefully there are much better screens available.

As for vsync, I find turning it on causes immediate input lag, to the effect that games become quite unplayable. So what I do is turn it off and limit my fps in the game to a value that is either equal my refresh rate or double it. There is a bit of tearing but it doesnt happen often enough to be annoying.

[moogle]

Indeed
But as its being developed by Canon (and Tosh), we can hopefully be sure that it will be in development a while, but will be a solid product when it hits the market. Canon are one of the very few companies I have faith in.

Yeah, when I was reading it the rumours I heard that it was gonna be out in 2007-2008

The problem with using any sort of buffering (double or triple) is that you risk causing mouse lag. This can be a worse outcome than having to deal with the tearing

Very annoying as the game can't predict where you're going to move the mouse. Games never tell you this and the uninformed gamer will be thinking "Why the hell does my mouse move like jelly!" which is a hassle to fix when you have no idea what's causing it.

[Pob255]

To start off I'd like to appoligise to Mediaboy as I seem to have kicked off this thread hijacking. I didn't mean to

On the hijack

I still have a 21" Samsung next to me here because its far superior to any TFT I've seen to this day. Even these fabled "2ms" ones don't come close to it, which is a real shame.
No idea why you couldn't get over 30fps though, that's not even the 'refresh rate' speed between the monitor and the PC.

That's what I ment by anything below 8ms doesn't really show any major differnce as the numbers are fudged.
It's not just grey to gery and pixel on/off there's also other little tricks manufactors use to both fudge the number and trick the eye, most notably adding flicker to the back light, that's right by adding flicker to a non-flickering screen you can trick the eye and tests into looking like a faster refresh/response time.

One other point to make here is screen size matters, human vision can be broken up into two areas, focual and perifery, this is due to the number of rods vs cones in differnt sections of the eyeball, the focual area of you vision "sees" in far greater detail than the perifery, which is far better at detecting change (ie motion)
The basic upshot of this is that on a larger monitor at the same distance you'll become more "aware" of movement and thus notice the fps differnces more.

The one other factor you must never forget here is the human brain, our brains do a heck of a lot of complex image processing and a heck of a lot of fudging to get the resault of what we "see"
This is the basics of why optical illusions work, our brain doesn't just except what our eye's tell us but edits all the data together, discarding stuff it dosen't like, twisting and even filling in other bits to make a compresable image.

It's actually very fasinateing when you get into it and it all gets very complex.

But now dragging this thread back to the topic at hand.

Mediaboy said

Will I see an actual difference at 1440x900 resolution? Will a HD3650 actually go to a 1440x900 resolution?

I'm looking at any sub £120 monitors (inc P&P) on www.misco.co.uk.
Mostly 19" ones, and the two cheapest montiors there are £85/100 (which seems about right) and the difference is a 5ms/2ms response time.

Given a budget of £120 to spend at misco (who are not the cheapest, not out rageously expensive, but not the cheapest) and an Ati 3650
I think we can safely rule out extream gameing on that price range and graphics card.
So we're looking at budget/casual gameing here, a 3650 on a 19" 1440x800 resolution.
IF we are even talking about gaming, as he made no mention of gaming, which puts talk of super low responce times and super high fps TOTALLY outside of the thread

Now looking at the reviews esp as they compair them to the 8600gt I can fairly safely compair it to my old overclocked 7900gs which I replaced only a couple of months back (mid july to be exact) now at 1280x1024 my 7900gs would happly play fear, pray, doom3, quake4, bf2 on high settings with 2xAA and around 40fps, generally more than enough to be playable.
It ran Bioshock, bf2142, qw:et, cod4 all at high with 2xAA most of the time palyable, but would get slowdown when it got bussy, tweek the settings a bit and they were still palyable. Yes shock horror there are settings below highest and they still look good (granted it gets harder to go back to lower graphic settings once you've played on higher settings for a while, but if you've never been to the dizzing heights then you'll be able to cope with lower settings better)

So I stick with what first said:
For a £120 budget 19" is your target, for both cost and game playable resolution
Stupidly low response time will not really matter as the 3650 card cannot back it up and if not gameing then it becomes even less relevent.
Don't discount the "lesser" brand names, some of them only focus on budget monitors but are actually quite good (both product and company) where as some budget models from larger brand names cost more but are of simular quality. (e.g. I've had to RMA my original Edge10 monitor (a budget brand and monitor) due to a dodgy power button, there responce was fast and a got a new monitor swap out not a repaired unit)

[richieuk]

Or if he has free shipping, the 22" AG Neovo Widescreen LCD is on SCAN today only for £125 delivered (with SCAN2HEXUS) if eligible.

[Pob255]

Ture but I'd not want to try any gameing with a 3650 one the higher resolutions of a 22"

[Koolpc]

How about a 20" TFT. Some reasonably priced ones about.

[Pob255]

20" generally start around £120 for budget D-sub only versions and again they are the same resolution as a 22" so a 3650 will struggle with games at 1680x1050
+Misco not the cheapest

Saying that though Misco have got a viewsonic Optiquest 20" D-sub only for £100
http://www.misco.co.uk/applications/...329135&CatId=0
Would be fine for non-gameing and viewsonic have been good on there onsite swap-out warranties for me so far.