I think a quicker ms response time @ tft/lcd is the same advantage as having a high Hz @ crt monitor. Higher Hz/quicker response time for less "crappy" frames.
btw since I noticed huge fps drops (125 to 85) I set my Hz to 75 and use 76 fps. It actually feels the same as having high fps/Hz, only not in bio where I have to set 125 fps in order to get on a box (jump lower with low fps there :<)
ill buy a new pc with new monitor i need a tft cuz my table is to small for the big crt.
Imo the hz is imprtant and i am wondering cuz i heard tft monitors arent able to get more than 75 hz in regular?
TFT cant go higher then 75 hz , but its got a other method to display it then CRT , or something so it feels different, atleast that is what I understand. if you going to buy one get a tft with 5ms or lower 2ms would be the best
currently i am using a laptop....i set 160 hz in windows and it works? no black screen or etc also in et when i toggle console down and scroll up after execing cfg it show 160 hz? strange
even with the feeling, there is definetly a big different btw 75 or 160 hz. Soooo smooth
PVA (or MVA), TN and S-IPS are the types of the display panel installed in the monitor. PVA/MVA panels are afaik the best for gaming. A TN screen with 2 ms reaction time is still much worse than a MVA with 8 ms. A good and quite cheap monitor with MVA panel is e.g. Benq FP93GP, if you decide to get it I am pretty sure you won't be disappointed.
Furthermore, reaction times of a screen stated by the producent often apply only to g2g (gray-to-gray) transitions. Color-to-color reaction times for TN panels often differ significantly, for MVAs the differences aren't that noticeable.
I'm not an expert on this, but I think it's not that big of an issue for gaming these days, since modern TFTs are fast enough anyway. All I notice is a liitle bit of blurring, when I scroll a webpage with black writing on white background really fast.
Note though, that the values they give for reaction times are not measured by a standardized test, i.e. 8ms from one manufacturer don't have to be comparable with 8ms from another manufacturer.
And again, what I wrote is just based on stuff I've read some time ago, no idea if it still applies.
0=desktop default (what you setted it to in windows/nvidia/ati w/e
sync with fps
r_displayrefresh 75 -> 76 fps
r_displayrefresh 85 -> 86 ps
r_displayrefresh 100 -> 100 fps
r_displayrefresh 120 -> 125 fps
smooths out, less jitter ingame.
*edit* only with crt. With tft it doesnt matter what fps you set to get a smooth play, your screen ms delay does and a steady fps ofc..
Couldnt get what u mean TsK :DD
btw since I noticed huge fps drops (125 to 85) I set my Hz to 75 and use 76 fps. It actually feels the same as having high fps/Hz, only not in bio where I have to set 125 fps in order to get on a box (jump lower with low fps there :<)
i have 8ms, and sometimes you notice it while trying to take someone down 1v1.
5ms is enough i think though.
Imo the hz is imprtant and i am wondering cuz i heard tft monitors arent able to get more than 75 hz in regular?
even with the feeling, there is definetly a big different btw 75 or 160 hz. Soooo smooth
There must be a different way of tft monitors to make is smoother.....anyway ill buy a 2ms tft. but ty for info
Furthermore, reaction times of a screen stated by the producent often apply only to g2g (gray-to-gray) transitions. Color-to-color reaction times for TN panels often differ significantly, for MVAs the differences aren't that noticeable.
i played reflex for hours so i am the pro xD!
Note though, that the values they give for reaction times are not measured by a standardized test, i.e. 8ms from one manufacturer don't have to be comparable with 8ms from another manufacturer.
And again, what I wrote is just based on stuff I've read some time ago, no idea if it still applies.