Originally Posted by De-Zant;12946500
Yeah. It is.
But lets make it clear. Some people see the difference between 60hz and 120hz, some don't. Mainly dependent on the games you play if your eyesight is good.
I can easily see the difference in TF2, COD4, CSS, Quake 3 & live, and such. I cannot detect it in games like oblivion or dirt 2, although I can't even get 120FPS in either of those.
Should be worth noting that I have 20/12. Recently went to check my eyesight and there it was. 20/12.
Precicely my point. It has to do with the way the software driver interacts with the monitor in question.
The human eye is technically an analog device, although the information it processes is a digital signal.
Aliasing effects from 120Hz will, of course, be able to be viewed by a lower sample-rate detector. If the architecture of the game is clever enough, you could probably code it to make the game look more smooth.
My point isn't that you don't think one is better than the other. It's the nature of how data sampling functions. And you may be a gamer, but I have two degrees in engineering. Trust me, I have more experience.
The 120Hz refresh was pushed strongly for its ability to do "3D". My opinion is a 120Hz refresh for a normally-sampled game is a bit overkill, but well worth the buy if the price gouge isn't too extortionary.
Sorry if I offended anyone.
Edit:Good SourceEdited by Aeschylus - 3/31/11 at 9:57am