| Hello and Welcome to Tech Support Team! Before you can start posting and answering questions, you'll have to register. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free! Feel free to browse through existing questions by choosing the forum you want to visit below. | |
|
 | 
16th December 2008, 05:24 PM
|  | TST Master | | Join Date: Dec 2007, 2,107 posts. Location: England Reputation:  | | | A weird one
I just changed my monitor refresh rate from 75mhz to 200mhz. I get a better picture but also get something else i wasn't expecting, my mouse is also more sensitive?!?!
This isn't a bad thing but was completely unexpected. Has anyone else had this happen before?
__________________ "If at first you do not succeed, sit down, have a coffee, have a smoke, and think for a bit. If that still doesn't work, post it on TST". |
16th December 2008, 05:40 PM
|  | TST Oracle | | Join Date: Dec 2007, 8,001 posts. Location: Market Haemorrhoids, Middle England Reputation: | | |
That is a huge jump - I hope you did that in stages as a rate set too high can damage the monitor.
As for the mouse - I suppose if you think about it, it might be a by-product.
I would still check that your monitor can support that refresh rate setting if I were you! ♠
__________________ Confuse and Prosper. |
16th December 2008, 05:46 PM
|  | Super Moderator | | Join Date: Oct 2007, 2,181 posts. Reputation: | | |
Wow, that definitely is a huge jump. Always go up in stages, say by 5 or 10. Try lowering it to about 80 and then keep going up in increments of 5.
|
16th December 2008, 05:51 PM
|  | Community Moderator | | Join Date: Oct 2007, 1,028 posts. Location: Stoke-on-Trent, England Reputation: | | |
Yeah the mouse will seem more sensitive because Windows will be running at a visible 200FPS with 200Hz as opposed to the slower 75FPS with 75Hz refresh rate.
I recommend no higher than 85Hz for best visibility, usability and to prevent monitor damage.
__________________
"People always fear change. People feared electricity when it was invented, didn't they? People feared coal, they feared gas-powered engines... There will always be ignorance, and ignorance leads to fear. But with time, people will come to accept their silicon masters" - Bill Gates
|
16th December 2008, 06:17 PM
| | TST Master | | Join Date: Dec 2007, 2,107 posts. Location: England Reputation: | | |
I have a CRT rather than a flatpanel monitor. I also have the correct driver for the monitor.
__________________ "If at first you do not succeed, sit down, have a coffee, have a smoke, and think for a bit. If that still doesn't work, post it on TST". |
16th December 2008, 06:22 PM
| | Community Moderator | | Join Date: Oct 2007, 1,028 posts. Location: Stoke-on-Trent, England Reputation: | | |
Yeah, I'd recommend no more than 85Hz for a CRT. 90Hz maximum. Permanently running the monitor at 200Hz is probably not within the manufacturers specifications and will more-than-likely damage the monitor eventually.
__________________
"People always fear change. People feared electricity when it was invented, didn't they? People feared coal, they feared gas-powered engines... There will always be ignorance, and ignorance leads to fear. But with time, people will come to accept their silicon masters" - Bill Gates
|
16th December 2008, 09:32 PM
|  | Community Moderator | | Join Date: Dec 2007, 4,345 posts. Location: Oxford, UK Reputation: | |
I used to run my monitor at 75Hz and it took me eyes a while to get used to it, so I changed it back to 60. It seemed darker after I changed it back 
__________________
Numberwang!
A little air on the earth.
|
17th December 2008, 06:50 AM
|  | TST Master | | Join Date: Dec 2007, 3,366 posts. Reputation: | |
Wow Rik, 200mhz is an awful lot.
Are you sure your monitor supports such a refresh rate? I have my doubts.
In a CRT, the scan rate is controlled by the vertical blanking signal generated by the video controller, ordering the monitor to position the beam at the upper left corner of the raster, ready to paint another frame. It is limited by the monitor's maximum horizontal scan rate and the resolution, since higher resolution means more scan lines. Quote: |
The refresh rate can be calculated from the horizontal scan rate by dividing by the number of horizontal lines multiplied by 1.05 (since about 5% of the time it takes to scan the screen is spent moving the electron beam back to the top). For instance, a monitor with a horizontal scanning frequency of 96 kHz at a resolution of 1280 × 1024 results in a refresh rate of 96,000 / (1024 × 1.05) ≈ 89 Hz (rounded down).
| |
17th December 2008, 11:12 AM
| | TST Master | | Join Date: Dec 2007, 2,107 posts. Location: England Reputation: | | |
I have lowered it to 85mhz, at 75mhz it was a little on the flickery side for my liking.
__________________ "If at first you do not succeed, sit down, have a coffee, have a smoke, and think for a bit. If that still doesn't work, post it on TST". |
17th December 2008, 11:58 AM
| | TST Enthusiast | | Join Date: Jul 2008, 279 posts. Reputation: | |
On the dialog window where you change the Refresh rate place a tick in the box next to ' hide modes that your monitor cannot display'  |
17th December 2008, 12:44 PM
| | TST Master | | Join Date: Dec 2007, 2,107 posts. Location: England Reputation: | |
I just checked that Klunk and the tick was already there.  So that must mean, by deduction, that my monitor supports 200mhz?!?! Does that mean it should be safe to run it at that?
__________________ "If at first you do not succeed, sit down, have a coffee, have a smoke, and think for a bit. If that still doesn't work, post it on TST". |
17th December 2008, 01:15 PM
| | TST Master | | Join Date: Dec 2007, 3,366 posts. Reputation: | |
I wouldn't rely too much on what Windows tells you. Much better to contact your monitor manufacturer and ask them mate.
However, 85mhz sounds much more realistic than 200mhz.
Last edited by Howard; 17th December 2008 at 05:40 PM.
|
17th December 2008, 01:40 PM
| | TST Enthusiast | | Join Date: Jul 2008, 279 posts. Reputation: | | |
The label on your monitor should give you the supported operating ranges for the monitor; resolutions, refresh rates, etc
85HZ is the highest refresh rate for most standard CRTs
|
17th December 2008, 01:48 PM
| | TST Master | | Join Date: Dec 2007, 2,107 posts. Location: England Reputation: | | |
I will stick with 85 for now then. It seems odd tho, I had some minor trouble getting the resolution I wanted so I got the proper driver for it from Dell. I will check the label on the back when I get a chance, it's a bit awkward at the mo as it's up against the wall (almost, small gap left for convection cooling) and in a corner so I can't even turn it around all that easily.
__________________ "If at first you do not succeed, sit down, have a coffee, have a smoke, and think for a bit. If that still doesn't work, post it on TST". | |  Only registered members can participate in forum threads. You must register or log in to contribute.
All times are GMT. The time now is 07:07 AM.
|
|
|
Submit Your Article 
Forum Rules 
FAQ 
About Us 
Main Menu
Contact Us