Thats about what dual-link DVI (and HDMI) can handle. If you want more you have to go through the displayport.
OK, so if you are only using a single link DVI you are going to run into issues with the DVI bandwidth as well, though I doubt monitors that support higher refresh rates are designed to be run off of single link DVI.
1920x1200 @ 60 Hz is the limit for a single-link. To do 120 Hz you have to go down a lot in resolution (about 1 Mpix) .
Kei Kei, do you notice a difference with your new monitor, are you any faster with it? When I started using fullscreen mode rather than windowed it seemed to be an improvement. I think I would further benefit from a proper monitor rather than TV. But I'm curious, with the money you spent you would almost be able to buy a triple screen setup, why did you choose otherwise?
I don't believe I could go any faster with this new monitor. I'm using adaptive sync now so the total input lag is pretty much the same as it was before with 60 Hz monitor at 178 FPS. With higher input lag one can be fast too but it's harder. I mean you can learn to be faster by trial and error (and by faster I mean the fastest single lap). It's more the increased confidence and consistency you get with lower lag so you'll be faster as a whole. However you'll find your limits sooner with lower lag because there's less trial and error. I believe with 144 Hz I'm able to drive little bit more consistent because "playback" is so smooth and "clear". It looks more realistic with 144 Hz than 60 Hz so probably won't cause so much strain to your eyes either. I'm not interested in triple screen system as I currently don't have proper rig and also because it would need very beefy hardware so I could get 178 FPS with 60 Hz monitors. Also believe head mounted displays with head tracking (like forthcoming Oculus Rift) are going to replace traditional monitors in gaming within few years but we'll see. Third reason was that I wanted to see with my own eyes how smooth the 144 Hz would look and also because wanted to test whether vsync is going to be usable at high refresh rates or not. I was suspecting it would be usable on high refresh rates and now I know it indeed is. I'm also going to need two monitors in the near future and Oculus probably isn't going to be consumer ready until a year so felt 27" 144 Hz Asus was right choice at the time being. Also I now know that if 60 Hz fails to be "a killer" with head mounted displays (might need vsync which causes too much lag @ 60 Hz) then however HMD with low lag 120 Hz display (or at least 144 Hz) with vsync is going to be a great success. How much total input lag you're getting with your current system? I've noticed that something like 10...15 ms decrease in lag can be clearly felt.
Total input lag measured with PSEye is ~75ms. That is vsync off and 80 - 100+ fps, I know I can gain a few ms but I shelled out for a gtx670 so I could have everything set on highest. I definitely noticed a difference going from windowed mode. I am thinking seriously about a new monitor after seeing how much lag I have, I know I will need 120hz+ and 27". Now its just to bring myself to spend all that money.
That is way too much IMHO! I'm about to make some tests at 120 Hz too with adaptive sync to see what the lag is. I believe 120 Hz would be very good too and also have low lag with adaptive sync. But it's equally important that the monitor input lag (signal processing latency and pixel response time) is low too. So be sure it's also a low lag monitor and not just 120 Hz.
Thanks a lot again Keikei! Very interesting! Does your new monitor have an option to operate at 60Hz? Would be nice to know what happens then... in the same monitor but having different refresh rates... Good to know that you can run with adaptive sync and low lag at the same time!!! Congratulations on your purchase, enjoy it!!!
Thanks, I'm indeed enjoying it but starting the get accustomed to it. Oh well that's human nature - we're always wanting more and more. What was incredible yesterday is plain usual today. But no going back to 60 Hz for sure. Very good idea about testing 60 Hz too but unfortunately this monitor seems to use overdrive technology at lower refresh rates. From PRAD's test: Hmm, maybe I'll do one 60 Hz test too just for curiosity.
So I tested the 144 Hz monitor at different refresh rates. Third results/conclusions added to the first posting of this thread. I'm ready to eat my words. Driving at 60 Hz after a week with 144 Hz was horrible experience. Maybe I'm not faster at single lap with 144 Hz but on longer races difference should be obvious. I'm sorry but that's how I truly feel and have no interest of boasting about it. Just saying out loud my humble opinions.
Wow KeiKei!!! That was exhaustive man!!! Thanks a lot for doing all that tests! So, 120Hz monitors are useful if choosing the right ones, so it seems that they are money well spent then! This thread should be in some blog or something, it should get more attention! YOU ROCK! Have a great day&night!
Hopefully articles like this will emphasize the role of the monitor. It sure did for me. There is clearly a point where the monitor turns more important than the GPU. Interesting. Fantastic work KeiKei!
It's all about "light boost" aka CRT like strobing . 120hz from 60 hz gives you a 50% improvement in motion clarity, but a 120hz monitor with "lightboost" gives about a 90% improvement (100% being perfect CRT levels). I believe it also has a drastic positive effect on input lag as well. If you're going to spend the money on a 120hz monitor, might as well go all the way with one that has the ability to strobe like a CRT (lightboost). After experiencing this first hand last night, the experience was UNBELIEVABLE, finally I had CRT levels of motion clarity, finally I was back to CRT levels of overall performance If you are some hardcore gamer, fps, simmer whatever, that couldn't leave your trusty old CRT (nothing comes close to a CRT for visual image clarity, especially during movement, and for input lag), then trust me, a lightboost enabled 120hz (or more) monitor, is something finally up to your expectations/demands of a monitor. I hope, and am sure pantera knows about this, he's a hardcore CRT guy (like many).
Yup, sounds gimmicky, but far from it. Based on some sort of strobing technology like crts. Thousands of positive threads on it all over the web. AMAZING.
I don't know how LightBoost technology works and does it have impact without using 3D. Anyhow this new 144 Hz monitor of mine supports LightBoost and first thing I had to do was to lower brightness because it was way too bright with default settings! I don't have reference to CRT monitor but compared to just half year older 60 Hz LCD technology from same manufacturer the difference is huge! The old monitor had also 2 ms GTG like this new one but tracing was much much higher. I feel the motion clarity is extremely good with this new monitor. Actually I don't see any tracing when racing normally. It's sure little blurry when doing donuts but that's of course extreme. What was that monitor you tested? EDIT: OK now I understand. Found good website: http://www.techngaming.com/home/gui...blur-while-gaming-with-nvidia-lightboost-r485 Unfortunately it seems nVidia doesn't support LightBoost when 2D and 144 Hz.
Keikei, even for example, a 144Hz monitor with a rated 1 ms pixel response time will still have a decent amount of motion blur. Only a properly strobing/flickering monitor can reduce it to nothing/super duper close to nothing, and "LightBoost", like crts, will do just that Lots of amazing stuff about 2d lightboost gaming, even from hardcore crt guys where even regular 120hz lcds werent good enough for them. If you have an nvidia card and a lightboost ready monitor, it's pretty much the holy grail for gaming monitor setups right now. My friend's was a 23 or 24 inch BenQ, I'll get the model from him tomorrow.
