Modified AMD/ATI driver to allow higher refresh rates!!! WOW

People say the smoothness and fluidity of a 120hz monitor has to be experienced to be believed.

People say once you try one youll never want to game on a 60hz monitor again.

Peaple say they miss how their old CRT monitors could be set at 75, 90, 100, 120 hz or even possibly more, rather than being stuck on 60hz like the majority of us who have 60hz monitors.



WELL...

CHECK THIS OUT.

I read the entire thread, you dont even need a dual link dvi cable (which dont cost much anyways), some people were getting 100, 110 even 120 hz with single link DVI cables, although its easier to reach 120 hz with a dual link.

Regardless, anything over 60hz is better than nothing, even 75hz feels better than 60hz, let alone 90 or 100hz.


ATI USERS, CHECK THIS OUT!!!

http://184.95.40.46/showthread.php?270-Modified-AMD-ATI-driver-to-allow-higher-refresh-rates

 

I would have thought how everyone longs for an expensive 120hz monitor that this thread would have been pretty active, guess not lol.

 

Lol.. changed from a CRT to LCD early this year because the monitor died on me.. Always ran it on 75hz because 60 would flicker.. I thought it would be me but I know I'm not crazy I couldn't imagine 60hz was the standard while it bothered me running at 60. Well, kinda used to it now and don't experience flickering anyway (could be because the CRT at 60 wasn't good or something)..

But yea, I believe instantly that 100hz or 120hz is amazing..

 

The problem with trying to run at 120Hz is that most standard LCD monitors don't support that sort of refresh rate. If you force a refresh rate that is above what the monitor supports you may end up damaging your monitor. If on the other hand you have a 120Hz monitor, then by all means run it at the higher refresh rates.

The reason that 60Hz flickers for some is because of the cycle of electricity coming into your house for a lot of people. There are a lot of places that electricity cycles at 60Hz and with fluorescent lights it makes the flicker more noticeable. European countries have a 50Hz cycle for their electricity so a 60Hz refresh on the monitor would limit the flicker.

 

A CRT monitor at 60 Hz will flicker in just about anyone's eyes (always ran mine at 100 Hz), especially when viewed close up or out of the corner of your eye. This is due to the fact that a CRT monitors isn't constantly lit, only when something is drawn on it. The image refresh and lighting are tied together. An LCD monitor at 60 Hz doesn't work quite like that. The image is refreshed at 60 Hz, but you've got a separate backlight, whether it be done by means of CCFL or LED or something like that, which doesn't flicker like a CRT monitor running at 60 Hz.

Essentially, between two images CRT goes to black (not exactly because it goes line by line, not picture by picture, but that's the gist of it), while LCD just goes from one image to another, not blacking out in between. That's the main cause.

Incidentally, if an LCD monitor has a bad backlight (I've seen pretty horrible ones), like a fluorescent light running with low frequency alternating current, a low grade or a slightly damaged one, it would flicker no matter what the refresh rate of the monitor is, because it's the backlight itself that's flickering.

 

Yeah you can't compare CRT to LCD refresh rates. 60Hz on CRT would make my eyes bleeding and go insane in few minutes (although I knew 1 or 2 guys who ran it like that..!). On LCD I could work even at 50Hz if I had to.

The fact that CRTs can run usually higher frequencies is both their advantage and disadvantage though. The higher resolution, the lower frequency they could run at so in full hd they are pretty much useless as they will likely only offer 60Hz then. You could have 120 or even 180Hz.. at something like 800x600. Unless you had some really pro CRT worth 1000s dollars.

But let's talk about actually using those 120Hz. The obvious problem is going to be hardware requirements. 120fps will need really powerful pc in rf2.

 

You bring up a very good point about the fps osella. I am now wondering how high of a fps can the human eye appreciate or recognize.
I have a 120HZ BenQ (in front of a high end Intel system that is 8 months old) and it is sweet on the older Sims, especially going high speeds next to dotted lines or cones. BUT, I'm only getting around 100fps, so now I wonder if it would be better if I did a little overclocking to get to 120fps+ while maintaining all settings at the highest setting.

One thing great about the new monitors vs CRT is almost zero radiation is emitted from the lcd's.

 

First off, I would like to point out that CRT monitor's didn't "turn off" areas that were not being changed. The explanation of the flicker above is not correct. The reason that most people see flicker on lower refresh rates on CRT's is because they have their CRT set to near the same cycle as the electricity that is being run in their house. This causes their lights to flicker slightly, though due to brightness you don't notice that. In return, the lights flickering will give you a strobe effect on the monitor if they cycles are the same or nearly the same. This is where the flicker comes in. If your household current cycled at 120Hz, then a 120Hz monitor would flicker.

Also I would like to note that I have owned CRT's that were 21" and still had over 120Hz refresh with screen resolutions over 1680 X 1240. The one thing I miss about the old CRT's is their ability to have a lot higher screen resolution than is currently available in LCD screens. Most of the time mine were running at around 2048 X 1650 or something near that, can't remember exact. At my normal resolution I was down to about 75Hz refresh.

As to how high a refresh is required to eliminate any possibility of flicker on LCD's, there are a lot of people out there with different ideas on that subject. A lot depends on if you are looking at still images, movies, HD games etc. Movies are recorded and played back at 25fps. The motion blur pretty much deceives the eye into not noticing any flicker. This is on CRT screens. LCD's there is a possibility that you would see tearing or artifacting at that rate depending on how your software to play movies was designed. For stills and HD content it is estimated that 60 or above is acceptable. For fast paced 3D gaming, some say as high as 200 and they can still see flicker from the games, though I think it might be a limitation of the monitors they use and not that the threshold is that high. In most instances 60fps works just fine.

For those that say they see flicker or what ever at 60fps, I would like to see your system specs as well as your monitor specs.

 

Top post gear jammer. As was Sinelli's first post. Thanks that link was helpful.

 

As a response to the OP btw, read the following quote from the post you linked:

Those that have 60Hz monitors are not going to magically get 120Hz refresh rates as this would either destroy their monitor or just not display at all causing them to see nothing but a black screen.

 

It's not true. CRTs flicker without artificial light present.
I know it because I can see it on 50Hz TV or saw it on very old 75Hz monitors. With 85Hz CRTs this effects was not noticeable on small monitors (let's say 19"). At least for me.

Of course effect you are describing is possible to achieve and it is interference effect when frequency of drawing screen interferes with frequency of artificial light. It may be noticeable when using fluorescent bulbs but for sure not for incandescent bulbs.

 

It's not correct, I admit that I was over simplifying the explanation. But it is more due to the way CRT functions than the strobing effect of interacting with houselights. CRTs only produce light when the electron stream hits the phosphor and makes it glow. The phosphor doesn't glow for too long though, and dims out, even down to full black in some screen between scans. Especially computer monitors that could be used on a wide range of frequencies ranging from 50 Hz to 120 Hz or something like that they'd need to use phosphor with a short afterglow so that the image doesn't blur together at high refresh rates. If you're only intending to use the monitors at 50/60 Hz you can use phosphor with longer afterglow to even out the amount of light between scans. Wiki page for Flicker (screen):

You can also look at a video of a low refresh rate CRT monitor (like a 50 Hz TV for example) to see what really causes the flicker.

Even if you run your monitor at 120 Hz it works just the same way, but because it's so fast you no longer notice the flicker (usually 75 Hz is sufficient for most). And the reason why LCDs don't usually exhibit true flicker is indeed because the shutters only change when they need to, and the backlights are usually running at very high frequencies. Wiki page on Flicker (screen):

And on the subject of what FPS human eyes can see or appreciate, it depends, on many things, and I suggest you go and read http://www.100fps.com/how_many_frames_can_humans_see.htm. Here are some of the main points: If you use a lot of motion blur like on most Hollywood movies the human eye can percieve even 18 fps as fluid. On the other hand if you have a totally sharp image that has no motion blur, you'll need more for fluidity. It also depends on whether you're going from light to dark or dark to light. A 100 Hz monitor will appear flicker free, but in reality it goes black or almost black 100 times per second. On the other hand, if you're in a totally dark room you can see very easily even short light bursts. Airplane pilots have been tested like that and they could identify a plane shown to the for only 1/220th of a second, meaning a single frame amidst darkness at a rate of 220 fps. You could most likely notice to at least somewhere in the range of 300 fps, if not identify, when going from dark to light. There are also many other complications when talking about what FPS the human eyes can see, and it depends on the person too. There is no single right answer.

 

Yes I have read that quote, to Gearjammer, read the following quote from the OP

1. I cleary stated that I read the enitre 5 page thread
2. Did I or anyone else in that entire thread say you HAVE to choose 120hz? No!
3. Many people in that thread (and many other forums) are using 115hz, 110hz 105hz, 95hz, 80hz etc etc very succeafully and for a while with no damage/degredation of their monitors, despite you saying it does only 1 of 2 things, destroys your monitor or displays a blank screen, as if you know every single persons exeprience out there, and what every single monitor model can handle.

4. How could you have the conceitedness to say noone can get 120hz and that it would either destroy your monitor or not display anything, when I just sent you a 5 page thread with many peoples successes. I just sent you a link with tons of peoples success stories. Did you even read it? I guess they are all lying, their monitors are either destroyed or just displaying a black picture. Every single person in that thread and every other thread I have read on the subject is lying, thay all have destroyed monitors or blank screens. They are all lying, and you are right. Wow you are so arrogant.






ANYWAYS, to all other people still interested, after reading that enitre thread (and many others) it seems most people can get close to 120 hz (110 to 115ish) on a single link dvi cable and most can easily get 120hz + on a dual link dvi cable.

Now will it ruin your monitor? Will it degrade over time? Thats different depending on your exact monitor model of course. I have read many forums on the subject, you see the few negative experiences here and there, just like with anything, but for the most part people dont seem to be having problems.

Also, remember, you dont have to try to squeeze every last hz out of your monitor, I mean even 105hz is way better than 60, even 90 is, heck even 70 is. Almost everyone seems to be running 95 to 115ish on a single link and 120+ on a dual link dvi cable, and most dont seem to be having issues (from many other forums ive read aswell). Like I said though, if you are worried but would still like to try it then maybe shoot for something low, remember even 90, 80 or even 70 hz is better and smoother than 60 .

 

its like Overclocking for your Monitor!

 

I stand behind what Gearjammer says about flicker. Back in the day it was a problem with having a CRT cycle at the same rate as a nearby florescent light source. So in the states 60hz would flicker and in EU it would flicker at 50hz. Changing the refresh to anything but 60hz (in US) would fix the flicker. Even running a lower refresh (going way back in time) would solve the flicker. LCDs don't flicker at 60hz because they totally different in the way they display.

What I want to know is why the hell there aren't more 120hz LCD options. They are way overpriced right now too. My guess is this is because they are marketed more for 3D then higher refresh rates. Most people don't care what their refresh is. Most people will swear until they are blue in the face that their GPU can run 200+ FPS and that it looks oh so great. Little do they know they are only seeing 60fps. Hahaha. If more people had a clue they there may be more demand and the prices would drop.

 

For those that actually follow technical information, here is a quote about modern LCD displays:

Based on how LCD TFT screens operate, I question whether anyone of those people are actually getting what they say they are to the monitor itself. How are they testing this? Are they depending on the modified CCC to tell them that is the refresh rate they are getting or do they have test equipment capable of telling them what they are receiving?

Because LCD screens can keep the LCD's on all the time, the response time is actually what changes how fast the picture will change, not the refresh rate. The lower the response time, and we are talking about going from black to white to black again for a measure of response time, the faster your monitor can draw a new picture.

And to Spinelli, I am not arrogant, I read and learn and I have experience working on CRT's in the past, though you might not want to believe it as anyone can say these things even if they aren't true. Talk to circuit designers to find out what the DVI port is capable of, or at least read the DVI specifications.

From the DVI specifications:

This is where people might be getting that they are getting faster refresh rates as they may be talking about MHz when the monitor refresh is listed at Hz. As you can see, HDTV resolutions run at a typical 139MHz across a 60Hz LCD monitor.

Also, if you have read that entire thread, you should have noticed that they are saying that they can achieve this on the graphics card, but there is nothing that is saying that it makes it through the DVI connection to the monitor. Again I would have to see test results with proper test equipment to see that the signal is actually running at those refresh rates at the monitor end.

Simply put, you would have to modify not only the display driver, but also your monitor in order to see anything above the 75Hz range at the monitor without the monitor signal going out of range. The fact that those people are not getting an out of range message suggests that the DVI is doing it's job and filtering the signal back to 60Hz or 75Hz.

 

Eh, every old CRT monitor and television I've seen at 60 Hz or lower has flickered (the closer you look the clearer it is), no matter if you have incandescent lights, fluorescent lights, darkness or even just sunlight. The strobing effect might make it worse, but the flicker isn't caused by it. If both your houselights and monitor are flashing/flickering at the same rate, it might well look even worse than either of them separately.

And the reason there aren't more 120 Hz options is simple: They're much more expensive to make and 80-90% of the consumers wouldn't notice the difference or wouldn't be prepared to pay the extra dough for it.

 

true.

 

Do you know why 120Hz are much more expensive to make jubuttib? Isn't it just because of lower demand which in turn cases prices not to fall..? I believe you, just curious about the reason

 

Well it's twice the work (almost) for any image processing chips (there are always some in every LCD monitor), not to mention that you have to build an LCD matrix that can handle double the refresh rate of most monitors. Most likely it's just a result from the fact that almost every component needs to be better to make sure it works like it should all the time.

EDIT: Part of the pricing problem is indeed lack of interest and the fact that new things always are sold at a premium. Some day 120 Hz or even higher will be standard. And yeah, they're great for 3D gaming that doesn't use passive tech, because you can get essentially 60 Hz instead of 30 Hz for each eye.