|
[an error occurred while processing this directive]
|
|
"Optimal" Refresh Rate Updated Posted June 4, 2002 EDT 11:56PM by Agitator!!
Back in May of 2000, I wrote an article called What does "Optimal" Refresh Rate really mean? that described the "Optimal" Refresh Rate setting in Windows 9X/ME. However, when Windows 2000 came out, Microsoft decided to remove that setting. Unfortunately, this has continued with Windows XP. Many users are stuck in eye-straining 60Hz hell. A recent email I received asking about the article made me decide it was time it needed updating. It now includes Windows 2000/XP fixes for those having problems with Refresh Rates being stuck at 60Hz. You can go directly to the Windows 2000/XP page here.
| Name: Mike |
| E-mail: mike416@sympatico.ca |
| Date: August 25, 2003 EDT 1:49PM |
|
|
| Comment: Hi, I have a problem. My monitor is not a big name brand monitor such as viewsonic or nec, therefore I do not and cannot find the drivers for it so I must resort to using the plug and play drivers. I dont know exactly what the problem is, in the past I have been able to play games and exceed 100+ fps but now when i play quake 3 in xp i cannot get past 85 fps. When i turn vsync off, it freezes constantly on me. When i lock my fps at 85 it doesnt freeze as often, but sometimes they do occur. I tried the refresh rate fixes, but they only allow me to set my refresh rate at a max of 85 hz. Is this because my monitor sucks or is it the plug and play drivers fault? |
| Name: Manfred |
| E-mail: Neelix@gmx.com |
| Date: June 1, 2003 EDT 9:04AM |
|
|
| Comment: Wirklich, a wunderbore gschicht! |
| Name: Yohai |
| E-mail: Yohaim@hotmail.com |
| Date: April 16, 2003 EDT 10:24AM |
|
|
Comment: Hello there!
My question is:In Windows 98se what is preferable-choosing the highset refresh rate availible(85-120) or choosing "optimal"?
Because "optimal" gives you only 75hz but stabalises that frequency in games.
On the other hand you get a high refresh rate(85-120) on your desktop and low refresh rates in games.
So what's better?!
Thnaks in advance,
Yohai.
Answers can be e-mailed to me with the subject:"Optimal refresh rate" |
| Name: Brian |
| E-mail: postmaster@brideonline.dk |
| Date: November 27, 2002 EST 3:13AM |
|
|
Comment: Well, the only program I know that is actually working is NVRefreshTool.
It just alters the reg-database, and don't need to be run in the background.
Although it dont work as good with nvidia 40.72 like it did in the old ones ... |
| Name: Chrispy |
| E-mail: Chrispy_@Hotmail.com |
| Date: October 17, 2002 EDT 11:41AM |
|
|
Comment: Update:
No I am not ever, ever, ever going to buy a TFT panel if that is what this conspiracy is about. They are for office monkeys at the moment, and until the technology improves, I will abstain violently :( |
| Name: Chrispy |
| E-mail: Chrispy_@Hotmail.com |
| Date: October 17, 2002 EDT 11:32AM |
|
|
Comment: Well I've been hacking my own registry for years now, ever since I could no longer use Diamond's InControl Tool under win3.11. I am pissed off with the obvious conspiracy going on between MS and Video manufacturers. Each driver release seems to unnecessarily change the structure of the registry, and for some reason, all the public forums I try have been removed by *someone* I was just starting to believe I was getting somewhere when a page was snaffed from under Google's nose during it's chaching run....
What are they trying to acheive with these promises. A fix in SP1 was pormised. But no, It seems the M$ are attempting to induce mass headaces and eyestrain. Something tells me M$ is entering the Paracetamol and Contact-lense industries :P
|
| Name: Yosep |
| E-mail: jeje@hotmail.com |
| Date: October 4, 2002 EDT 12:08PM |
|
|
| Comment: well, i have an aTlhonXP2000+ Gf2mx400 and running WinXP SP1 ,, the problem is that, when i use an aplicattion that isn't of Micro$oft,,the refresh rate goes to 60 Hz,,In Windows desktop refresh rate works correctly. |
| Name: . |
| E-mail: . |
| Date: August 23, 2002 EDT 7:13AM |
|
|
Comment: Hi! This problem is persistent. However I came across something that is even stranger. I have Geforce2Ti and Compaq P1220(DiamondTronNF 22" Tube). the problem is that in Windows 98 I can push refresh rate in 1280x1024 up to 120Hz, 1600x1200 to 100Hz with no problem, while in Windows XP I can only get 1280x1024&100Hz and 1600x1200&85Hz. This is very strange to me... Is this a bug in Nvidias drivers or something to do with the monitor?
If anyone could test this issue and report back here it would be nice.
Best regards,
S. |
| Name: Mike |
| E-mail: mikec@nvrt.net |
| Date: June 21, 2002 EDT 3:07PM |
|
|
Comment: The varying problems involved with these other programs is that it requires you to leave the program running in the background while you work. Thus taking up valuable resources(even if only 5-6MB of ram) to fix a simple problem.
There are benefits to all, personally I like powerstrip and the one I helped co-create, NVRefreshTool.
Yes, that's right, i said I liked powerstrip. Why? It gives extreme precision control over a monitor's refresh rate, it's very, very nice if you know what you're doing. But personally, for the masses, I helped create a program that is a one-time deal for everybody(very similar to the original refresh rate fix, whom has commended myself and my friend for the job that we have done with it). |
| Name: Matt |
| E-mail: audiracer88@hotmail.com |
| Date: June 15, 2002 EDT 4:59AM |
|
|
| Comment: I dont get it? I have an auto refresh monitor (21inch Hitachi) and its very obvious when I launch an opengl game. It drops from 100hz (desktop) to 60hz (game). I have brand new Nvidea drivers as well as my exact monitor drivers installed. Ive installed Refresh Lock. I selected 1024x768 at 32bpp, and manually put it to 100 instead of 120. What I want to know is ive tried this and other progs for this problem, and my monitor still syncs back to 60hz when I launch my game???? Ive selected refresh override, run at startup, and update default windows mode when this prog starts. Someone who know what they are talking about plz help me! Thank you! |
| Name: Agi |
| E-mail: news@d-silence.com |
| Date: June 11, 2002 EDT 10:45PM |
|
|
Comment: I just saw this on 3D GPU...
"With regards to the title of this post, this whole mess *is *NOT* a bug*. It's a "feature", courtesy of Microsoft. Starting with Win2k/XP M$ decided to handle refresh rate assignment for all resolutions differently than they did for Windows 98/95. Please don't ask me why as I go into screaming fits trying to figure this one out.
Now for the good news...are you sitting down? This is going to be FIXED in Win2k Service Pack 3 and WinXP Service Pack 1!"
Take it for what it's worth. It certainly would nice to see it finally addressed by Microsoft. |
| Name: Agi |
| E-mail: news@d-silence.com |
| Date: June 7, 2002 EDT 8:40AM |
|
|
Comment: GL, you make some good points. Let me try to address them
1. Image quality can be related to the quality of the RAMDAC. If you try to run at higher resolutions, you put more strain on the RAMDAC. If your videocard uses a poor quality RAMDAC, then at higher resolutions things will begin to get fuzzy. Matrox is known for the quality of their RAMDAC's. That's why many graphics designers who ran at high resolutions used to chose Matrox cards. There have been discussions over the years about the quality of the RAMDAC's used on NVIDIA cards. Many users complained of the "fuzzies" at higher resolutions.
As for 60Hz, there has been too much medical and scientific research to support it to call it a "hypochondriac" term. However, some people are more sensitive to it than others. Where I work, I would say at least half of the 120 people could not tell if their monitor was running at 60Hz - they just aren't sensitive to it and it doesn't bother them. On the otherhand, there are people (myself included) who get headaches if I look at a monitor running at 60Hz for too long. I can also game much longer at higher refresh rates.
2. I was going to address this issue in the original article, but eventually decided not to. I read so much conflicting information that I couldn't figure out what is correct. Even trusted sources disagreed on this isue. Since I wanted to stick to the facts, I decided to pass on this one. |
| Name: God Luminescent |
| E-mail: cymeria@angelfire.com |
| Date: June 7, 2002 EDT 2:11AM |
|
|
Comment: This is an informative article, but the author fails to consider a few key points.
1) There is a trade-off, in all monitor/video card combinations, between refresh rate and image quality. I don't know if it's different from computer to computer. But if I try to put my excellent quality Hitachi CM772, driven by my NVidia GF4 Ti4600, all the way up at 1600x1200 @85Hz, I get fuzzy pixels and muted colors. I know this monitor is capable of vivid images and pristine focus, because I use it at least 10 hours a day at that resolution, 60Hz. I have never experienced eyestrain from operating in this mode. I used to use an old Hyundai that operated at 1024 x 768 @ 43 Hz, interlaced, with only minor discomfort.
Personally, I don't understand why people think viewing a computer monitor at 60Hz will cause them any more eyestrain than viewing a television at the same. "Eyestrain" is a hypochondriac term... get a better monitor. Or, perhaps you should consider -lowering- your refresh rate to resolve the blurriness you otherwise experience at ridiculous resolutions.
2) In this article and the VSync one, in your discussion of an "optimal" refresh rate, you make no mention of the fact that when viewing video information at a given framerate, such as a DVD movie at 24fps, it is beneficial to have a refresh rate at an integral multiple of that framerate. 72Hz is the refresh you want for movies; no more, no less. Otherwise you're inevitably dropping frames. If you've got a video input from your Xbox, let's say, at 60fps, why have your monitor display it at anything but 60 or 120Hz? These other "optimal" rates are just nonsense.
-C |
| Name: scarecrow |
| E-mail: scarecrow420@optusnet.com.au |
| Date: June 6, 2002 EDT 8:34PM |
|
|
| Comment: Chris, the problem occurs in OpenGL games... it doesnt matter what your windows refresh rate is set to because when you run an openGL applicaation it sets it back to 60Hz. Direct3D does the same thing but sets it to 75Hz |
| Name: Chris |
| E-mail: N/A |
| Date: June 5, 2002 EDT 4:14PM |
|
|
| Comment: Uh... I don't understand what the problem with refresh rates is... under Win2K, you open your display properties, hit "advanced", go to the "monitor" tab, and set the refresh to whatever you want. I am using "default monitor" type and it shows rates from 60 to 120 Hz. Where's the problem? |
| Name: Agi |
| E-mail: news@d-silence.com |
| Date: June 5, 2002 EDT 12:00PM |
|
|
Comment: Hi Chris,
I included MultiRes in the article. I tried it, but prefered RefreshLock. I gave multiple options so people could find the best solution for their particular situation. As Anon indicated, MultiRes didn't work in all games for him. |
| Name: Anon |
| E-mail: anon@anon.com |
| Date: June 5, 2002 EDT 11:08AM |
|
|
| Comment: It does not work perfectly, it has many display problems with many games. |
| Name: Chris Townsend |
| E-mail: tsi@snet.net |
| Date: June 5, 2002 EDT 11:01AM |
|
|
| Comment: Powerstrip may be overkill but Entech also has multires just for refresh rates. Its small, its free, it works perfectly. |
|
|
