Refresh problem finally SOLVED!!!!!!

Collapse
X
 
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts
  • Pace
    Super MURCer
    • Feb 2000
    • 3414

    #16
    200Hz refresh ain't needed. Step up for a slap.
    Meet Jasmine.
    flickr.com/photos/pace3000

    Comment

    • cairnz
      mini MURCer
      • Nov 2002
      • 18

      #17
      Ha! If it can run it, why shouldnt i ?

      Comment

      • Wombat
        Super MURCer
        • Aug 2000
        • 9498

        #18
        That's easy: you're beating the crap out of your tube. Generally, 100Hz and up accelerate the wear and tear on your monitor. If you can use 85Hz do it. 100Hz will wear it out much faster, and above and beyond that you might as well pour iron filings into the monitor too, because doing it "because you can" makes about the same amount of sense.
        Gigabyte P35-DS3L with a Q6600, 2GB Kingston HyperX (after *3* bad pairs of Crucial Ballistix 1066), Galaxy 8800GT 512MB, SB X-Fi, some drives, and a Dell 2005fpw. Running WinXP.

        Comment

        • cairnz
          mini MURCer
          • Nov 2002
          • 18

          #19
          mmmm iron filings..

          Umm well, i do have a high rate of 'monitor throughput' in my setups over the years.. perhaps this is one of the reasons.. but i cant say that i've.-.. or, to say it better, i wouldnt even know how to notice such a tear, not that i'm a 200Hz addict or anything.. but, 100hz looks smoother when playing than 60Hz ..

          Comment

          • Wombat
            Super MURCer
            • Aug 2000
            • 9498

            #20
            Oh yeah, definitely better than 60Hz. I can visibly see 60Hz, and need 75Hz or I get a headache, and 85Hz to stop eye fatigue. Still, try 85Hz.
            Gigabyte P35-DS3L with a Q6600, 2GB Kingston HyperX (after *3* bad pairs of Crucial Ballistix 1066), Galaxy 8800GT 512MB, SB X-Fi, some drives, and a Dell 2005fpw. Running WinXP.

            Comment

            Working...