What frequency do you run your monitor at? Freesync, FS Pro or G-SYNC? - Monitors

I finally took the plunge and picked up a ViewSonic G-SYNC 144 Hz (165 Hz when overdriven) QHD 2K AHVA monitor last March. Aside from one worrying moment where the screen wouldn't display anything over DisplayPort, after some tasteful swear words it came back and has been working since. I do tend to use it at max 144 Hz, often less (120 Hz or 100 Hz if game streaming, as G-SYNC causes a few issues with OBS). A friend bought the Samsung Odyssey G9 DQHD which runs at 240 Hz, which is insane.
I have a 60 Hz monitor next to the 144 Hz one and frankly using anything less than 100 Hz disgusts me now.
Do you have a particular refresh rate you prefer, and is a faster refresh or higher quality panel your main priority? Variable Refresh Rate is great, but what is the most prevalent out there? Interested to know what monitors you are using and whether you consider them bad, good or average for the price.

christopherwoods said:
I finally took the plunge and picked up a ViewSonic G-SYNC 144 Hz (165 Hz when overdriven) QHD 2K AHVA monitor last March. Aside from one worrying moment where the screen wouldn't display anything over DisplayPort, after some tasteful swear words it came back and has been working since. I do tend to use it at max 144 Hz, often less (120 Hz or 100 Hz if game streaming, as G-SYNC causes a few issues with OBS). A friend bought the Samsung Odyssey G9 DQHD which runs at 240 Hz, which is insane.
I have a 60 Hz monitor next to the 144 Hz one and frankly using anything less than 100 Hz disgusts me now.
Do you have a particular refresh rate you prefer, and is a faster refresh or higher quality panel your main priority? Variable Refresh Rate is great, but what is the most prevalent out there? Interested to know what monitors you are using and whether you consider them bad, good or average for the price.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Mainly I'm using two Monitors:
Lenovo P44w-10 with H/K USB-C Speaker and LG 24GM79G-B
Both are capable of 144Hz which is a big difference when you play FPS shooters and don't want any motion blur(like me).
The Lenovo is really expensive, but theres no alternative when it comes to the multiple connections the monitor can serve to you and the picture quality is really good though it has not a high vertical resolution(only 1200).

strongst said:
Mainly I'm using two Monitors:
Lenovo P44w-10 with H/K USB-C Speaker and LG 24GM79G-B
Both are capable of 144Hz which is a big difference when you play FPS shooters and don't want any motion blur(like me).
The Lenovo is really expensive, but theres no alternative when it comes to the multiple connections the monitor can serve to you and the picture quality is really good though it has not a high vertical resolution(only 1200).
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
How do you find things like panel uniformity and backlight bleed?

christopherwoods said:
How do you find things like panel uniformity and backlight bleed?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
The Lenovo panel is well made(also the overall quality) and I can't see excessive bleeding in dark situations.

Have an Acer Predator z35, 144 at stock and overclocks to 200Hz, g-sync compatible, have an Nvidia card, but game at 144.
It's kind of the sweet spot.

Related

[Q] Is the Captivate FPS locked?

On Quadrant it sticks at 61 fps and jumps back down and on Quake 3 it will hit 63fps and then jitter between 54 to 56fps like its trying to go higher. So, is the Captivate FPS locked? As I know we have a more powerful GPU then the iPhone 4 and Droid X.
I'm pretty sure it isn't, just most things are designed nowadays to be run at about 60 FPS. TV is shot at 24 FPS and when shows are shot at 60 FPS, many people comment it looks fake (even though it's closer to how things look in real life, we're just conditioned to 24 FPS).
There's a whole debate/discussion in the HDTV world about refresh rates versus FPS and how each thing affects the other and yada yada. I don't truly follow or understand it because I don't notice much of a different.
I wouldn't be surprised if they capped it at 60 FPS, but you honestly couldn't NOTICE anything beyond that. 60 FPS would be the "target" for most of these benchmarks because that gives it the truest motion for the baseline render. So it may not be the Captivate's hardware that's locked, but the software it's running.
Does the game have vsync options? If the display is running at around 60fps then its possible the game or OS is designed to run max at the same to prevent graphical tearing.
Yes, it's locked at 56FPS. Limitation of the S-AMOLED refresh rate. It could probably go higher if it were LCD, but then it wouldn't look so nice.
56FPS is a lot, especially on a 4" screen.
Android or target UI is 60 fps stated by Google for all UI elements and scrolling etc. So I don't think Samsung is limiting fps, its just the OS doing its thing.

90 vs 60 and Resolution

I am using 60Hz refresh rate as well as FHD+
I do not watch high resolution movies on my phone (I prefer an 80" TV for that) but I have tried running the phone at 90HZ and QHD+ and I just do not see, or feel any difference! My scrolling through apps, and pictures, and web pages move just as fast on 60Hz as they do on 90Hz. The screen resolution also does not appear to change at all between FHD and QHD. Don't get me wrong, my phone is on 10 and running like a champ! I do not know if my battery would run out sooner on the higher rates but I just think that this thing is so fast as it is with all the top line hardware that running it at the higher rates would just use more battery with very limited, to no real benefit.
Am I the only one who feels this way?
As someone who uses a 144Hz gaming display and 90Hz OP7Pro daily 60Hz is painfully choppy...
jaseman said:
I am using 60Hz refresh rate as well as FHD+
I do not watch high resolution movies on my phone (I prefer an 80" TV for that) but I have tried running the phone at 90HZ and QHD+ and I just do not see, or feel any difference! My scrolling through apps, and pictures, and web pages move just as fast on 60Hz as they do on 90Hz. The screen resolution also does not appear to change at all between FHD and QHD. Don't get me wrong, my phone is on 10 and running like a champ! I do not know if my battery would run out sooner on the higher rates but I just think that this thing is so fast as it is with all the top line hardware that running it at the higher rates would just use more battery with very limited, to no real benefit.
Am I the only one who feels this way?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I would like to know why you bought a 1440p 90hz panel if you wish to use 1080p 60? 1440p is obviously more sharper and cleaner image and higher refreshrate = smoother experience I hate to see these comments "I don't see the difference" I always feel like the user is blind to me the difference is so obvious. But as the comment bellow I also game on a 144hz panel so anything less is choppy to me too. So I guess if you never used a high refresh panel it might be not noticeable to you.
liam_davenport said:
I would like to know why you bought a 1440p 90hz panel if you wish to use 1080p 60? 1440p is obviously more sharper and cleaner image and higher refreshrate = smoother experience I hate to see these comments "I don't see the difference" I always feel like the user is blind to me the difference is so obvious. But as the comment bellow I also game on a 144hz panel so anything less is choppy to me too. So I guess if you never used a high refresh panel it might be not noticeable to you.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I do not play games on a phone. I have more important things to do with a $700.00 tool. I see just fine. I do not buy a phone based on screen refresh rate or resolution. 1080p on a 6 inch screen is better than many 55 inch TV's. I buy my phones based on price, battery size, and a few other features. So my perception is not wrong. I have tried multiple combinations of the various settings and there is LITTLE to NO appreciable difference! Maybe it makes a difference for games, but come on, games? Oh well, to each his own!
Liam definitely has a point. Although I never use 1080 I can understand how 1440 might not be a big enough difference that the extra battery is worth it. However the 90hz is much smoother during everyday use than 60hz. I use forced 90 and it hurts scrolling in any other phone. Don't know how much it affects games
jaseman said:
I do not play games on a phone. I have more important things to do with a $700.00 tool. I see just fine. I do not buy a phone based on screen refresh rate or resolution. 1080p on a 6 inch screen is better than many 55 inch TV's. I buy my phones based on price, battery size, and a few other features. So my perception is not wrong. I have tried multiple combinations of the various settings and there is LITTLE to NO appreciable difference! Maybe it makes a difference for games, but come on, games? Oh well, to each his own!
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I'm pretty sure he was talking about gaming on a 144hz monitor, not on his phone.
So theoretically going from 144hz to 60hz would be a HUGE difference and would definitely be noticeable.
jaseman said:
I do not play games on a phone. I have more important things to do with a $700.00 tool. I see just fine. I do not buy a phone based on screen refresh rate or resolution. 1080p on a 6 inch screen is better than many 55 inch TV's. I buy my phones based on price, battery size, and a few other features. So my perception is not wrong. I have tried multiple combinations of the various settings and there is LITTLE to NO appreciable difference! Maybe it makes a difference for games, but come on, games? Oh well, to each his own!
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
90Hz is not only good for gaming. There's was a time when Google Chrome stopped supporting 90Hz (I think it was a month ago). At the very first second I was using Chrome with 60Hz without knowing I just thought "wtf why is it so laggy". So yeah, the difference between 60Hz and 90Hz is very big. Glad chrome supports 90Hz again.
90Hz ftw!
I guess it all boils down to not only "what" you do on your phone, but also "how" you choose to do it...as in which app(s) you choose to get things done. I keep changing settings and even rebooting between changes just to make sure they really take. And I do not see any appreciable difference! Not trying to make trouble, not disparaging this phone at all because I am enjoying it very much! But for me, the way I use it, and the apps that are important to me..the faster refresh rate as well as the higher resolution are anecdotal at best. The whole purpose of this thread for me was to make sure that my phone was truly working properly when using the higher settings. Evidently it is??? YMMV
This is an age-old battle and it's pointless as this is very subjective and changes over time.
Understand that it is normal for a person not to percieve huge difference between 60 and 90Hz if you are used to 60 and going to 90 short term. Your brain needs time to adjust and "speed up" your perception and it takes weeks or months. After that period of getting used to the fluidity of higher refresh display, going back to 60 should seem like a slideshow. Someone used to 60Hz will not see a huge difference, someone coming from 144Hz will immediatelly feel the screen lag at 60. Another thing is dark mode, dark mode indirectly raises your pixel response times, making movement more blurry and the 90Hz less prominent.
As for resolution on this phone, you can clearly see the small text in browsers is more blurry and causes more eye fatigue.
At the end of the day if you value the battery more than screen clarity, it's better to keep both low before you spoil yourself and there's no going back
we all know that on Android 9, not all the apps runs at 90Hz inclued Chrome, the reason is the battery consumption of course
idk if this still true on Android 10, but Chrome is runing at 90Hz on Android 10
so i guess, 1+ unlock the 90Hz to more apps, still mix it with the 60Hz to optimize the battery, so that is why we kind of dont see any differences
the only method to compare is download the Auto90 app from appstore, force the phone to runs at 90Hz all the time then you'll see there is differences or not
I dont mind about resolution since FHD+ is more than Reasonable with color tuning , but the frame rate is one of the main pros of one plus new line up .
So i force all them 90hz on all apps . Leaving iphone users insecurely baffled
I'm usually on a 240hz monitor. The 90hz screen is very nice feeling and whenever I look at my 6t I want to throw up.
^^LOL, good one's

Ulefone Armor 3W (Info/help)

For anyone interested in getting this phone, beware of an odd design choice. The refresh rate on the device is 56.69 hz, NOT 60. It makes the phone feel a bit sluggish compared to a standard 60 hz display, and this is by design apparently. Has anyone successfuly rooted this phone? If so can the refresh rate be overclocked to 60hz?

Why use WQHD+ Instead of FHFD+ Resolution?

I noticed on my new phone it comes with the resolution defaulted to 2280 x 1080 (FHD+) but it can be set to WQHD+ (3040 x 1440). My understanding is you use a bit less battery when using a lower resolution.
So if I'm not playing games, or watching 4K videos, is there really any reason to use the WQHD+ resolution? When I switch between the two, the fonts, icons, and apps have no noticeable difference in appearance. This is understandable when you consider many of us are watching TV and Movies in 1080P FHD and 4K UHD on a 60+ inch TV from across the room. Packing that same resolution into a 6-6.7" screen, even when viewing close up the PPI is so dense, even the lower 2280 x 1080 resolution looks beautiful with no discernable difference compared to 3040 x 1440. Even if you were to watch a 4K YouTube Video, on that small of a screen, I doubt there's any significant difference to watching it in 1080P. You definitely can see a difference on a 60" TV from 10-feet away.
I would also think in some cases on some phones maybe even gamers WANT to use the lower resolution to get faster frame rates for their games?
So I got to thinking further, is the WQHD+ resolution really in all practicality amounting to more of a marketing benefit to be able to advertise a spec that is equal to or better than competing model phones? Sort of like how for several years we got into the "Megapixel Race" on digital cameras only to come to realize more is not always better (higher megapixels on many cameras just introduced more noise given the same sensor size.)
Maybe the fact the manufacturer (Samsung), ships the phone defaulted to FHD+ instead of WQHD+ sort of answers my question right there?

Question Question for Pixel 7 Pro owners

I like the phone and really want to buy it. However, one thing that keeps me hesitant is PWM on this phone. It’s actually lower than P6 pro had https://9apps.ooo/
I would really appreciate to hear some feedback from those who bought it and use it 5+ hrs SOT daily.
How does the display feels on your eyes in general ? How your eyes feel after reading in complete darkness or candle light for a while ?
lanesmang said:
I like the phone and really want to buy it. However, one thing that keeps me hesitant is PWM on this phone. It’s actually lower than P6 pro had
I would really appreciate to hear some feedback from those who bought it and use it 5+ hrs SOT daily.
How does the display feels on your eyes in general ? How your eyes feel after reading in complete darkness or candle light for a while ?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
First, not sure what PWM is and as for how it affects people's eyes is relative to each person's eyes. Not to mention screen settings are customizable per each person's preferences
By PWM do you mean Pulse Width Modulation ? That should not be a problem on any display as long as you don't have extreme high speed eyes.
Maybe refresh rate but starting with 60 hz it also should be easy on eyes, besides you can use 120 hz which is extremely smooth.
As a "wake up early and play with phone" fella I do not have any problems with flickering light or refresh rate.
I haven't had any issues with this phone but I don't seem to be PWM sensitive anyway.
There is far far more to it than just the PWM frequency! The "common" thought on this is that the LEDs are ON for the ON phase of the PWM cycle, and OFF for the OFF phase, but this isn't actually the case because the circuitry and LED cells have *capacitance*, which basically means that they smooth out the pulses, allowing them to blend together and not actually flicker.
Yes, some really really crappy screens will flicker, but these aren't those. The PWM frequency set will account for the capacitance of the circuits.

Categories

Resources