Question about vsync , tearing and crossfire

[SummerDays]

Yes, you're right. I do apologise for that.

I knew before the 60 Hz clock cycle was just that, which is why we're waiting for 120 Hz monitors. (120 Hz specified in the owners manual at a particular resolution)

What I was unsure of was whether the pixels were allowed to change themselves asynchronously or not.

So basically what you're doing when you turn Vsynch off is instead of waiting and taking a one snap shop every 1/60th of a second, you're allowing the information to update itself as long as its within that 1/60th of a second clock cycle, then the information gets sent out as a group which means that some pixels will be out of place resulting in tearing.

Having said that, response time is still important because if the response time were greater than the actually vertical frequency refresh rate, you'd get lower fps for sure.

In a game, it's very noticeable the difference between having Vsynch on and off. The screen appears to change much faster with Vsynch off, although you do get tearing.

 

[phanbuey]

Yes, you're right. I do apologise for that.

I knew before the 60 Hz clock cycle was just that, which is why we're waiting for 120 Hz monitors. (120 Hz specified in the owners manual at a particular resolution)

What I was unsure of was whether the pixels were allowed to change themselves asynchronously or not.

So basically what you're doing when you turn Vsynch off is instead of waiting and taking a one snap shop every 1/60th of a second, you're allowing the information to update itself as long as its within that 1/60th of a second clock cycle, then the information gets sent out as a group which means that some pixels will be out of place resulting in tearing.

Having said that, response time is still important because if the response time were greater than the actually vertical frequency refresh rate, you'd get lower fps for sure.

In a game, it's very noticeable the difference between having Vsynch on and off. The screen appears to change much faster with Vsynch off, although you do get tearing.

Why would you apologize? I thought the discussion was rather good.

 

[SummerDays]

>> Why would you apologize? I thought the discussion was rather good.

Because I've been thinking the same thing for quite a while now.

We're getting sold expensive graphics cards that are faster than our monitors can display. (hence tripple buffering etc)

As long as our graphics cards are able to output the same fps as our monitors frequency at whatever resolution / image quality then that's all we really need.

Here's a Samsung monitor that is approx. 120 Hz. (it actually lists less in the specs)

http://www.samsung.com/ca/consumer/...ors&subtype=lcd&model_cd=LS22CMFKFV/ZA&mode=C

I should also note that people have bought this monitor have been complaining that ATI doesn't support higher refresh rates in the new drivers, while Nvidia does apparently.

 

[SetsunaFZero]

Here's a Samsung monitor that is approx. 120 Hz. (it actually lists less in the specs)

http://www.samsung.com/ca/consumer/...ors&subtype=lcd&model_cd=LS22CMFKFV/ZA&mode=C

I should also note that people have bought this monitor have been complaining that ATI doesn't support higher refresh rates in the new drivers, while Nvidia does apparently.

The samsung 2233RZ monitor was the first Nvidia 3D vision ready lcd monitor. Stores are offering this monitor + the 3d vision stuff in a set.

>> ATI doesn't support higher refresh rates in the new drivers, while Nvidia does apparently
I guess the green devil and samsung worked together, thats why Nvidia supported this from the start. Its just a guess, i guess