What is the point to 120Hz in 2D mode?
I’ve been searching the Internet for advice on my next PC/console monitor purchase and came across a good deal on the LG D2342P-PN. It’s an LED monitor with all three connectors I want, and even 3D mode at 120Hz—which I didn’t want but why not have?
Then, I read some reviews of it and the biggest simple complaint I read was that this monitor does not support 120Hz in 2D mode. Huh? Who needs 2D mode at 120Hz? The last time I checked, 60fps was the speed everyone wanted their games to run in, which is the same as the refresh speed of most monitors, but now we’re aiming for, presumably, 120fps? Or, is it 60fps in 120Hz, that we want? (Even then, why?)
What are the advantages of running a monitor in 120Hz in 2D mode (for general use, films and games)?
I understand why 120fps in 3D is good (single eye flickering, or whatever it’s called, which in effect produces 60fps across both eyes), but why in 2D mode?
Solution 1:
There are two main benefits of using a 3D display in 2D:
- It is possible, if your GPU is capable, to run games at up to 120 FPS for improved smoothness. A 60Hz display would either be capped at 60 FPS (with vsync on), or would result in "tearing" (with vsync off). So a 120Hz display lets you make use of any extra frames (above 60 FPS) that can be rendered by the GPU.
- To improve the smoothness of general computer use:
The [3D display] was my first exposure to 120Hz refresh displays that aren’t CRTs, and the difference is about as subtle as a dump truck driving through your living room. I spent the first half hour seriously just dragging windows back and forth across the desktop - from a 120Hz display to a 60Hz, stunned at how smooth and different 120Hz was. Yeah, it’s that different.
Solution 2:
It always depends upon the software and features, but one potential difference is when vertical sync (vsync) is enabled. This is often enabled to eliminate the possibility of partially rendered frames from showing up on the screen. If it is enabled, the software must wait for the blank state/vsync/magic between displayed frames on the monitor to make the swap. This means that if software can only render 58 fps (60hz monitor), then it misses a sync and must wait for the next one. In practice, this effectively reduces your fps to half the Hz so your effective fps is 30 instead of 58 on a 60hz monitor. 120 hz refresh would reduce the time needed to wait. You still wind up with fractional reduction in fps, but it would be different. In addition, there is input lag inherent in vsync, and I have seen it stated that 120hz vsync has less than 60hz.
Note that most people, including myself, disable vsync when possible anyhow, and many games are locked to a "60fps/tics/magic" physics simulation etc..
All of this is going to be minor, so listen to your wallet.
Solution 3:
The frames per second of the game is different to the refresh rate of the monitor.
Higher refresh rates on the monitor give you a more stable picture - regardless of whether that picture is being changed by the computer at 60 frames per second or 1. When monitors were cathode ray tubes it was definitely the case that you could see flickering at 60Hz or even higher refresh rates so a 120Hz monitor would effectively be "flicker free". With LCD and LED displays this is less of an issue, but going to 120Hz could be beneficial, but it's unlikely.
However, it's more likely that it's because the monitor is operating in 120Hz anyway regardless of the 2D/3D mode.
Solution 4:
Hz and Fps are totally different things
Hz is hardware refresh rate of the monitor. So it means in every hertz, every liquid crystals are refreshed on display.
Fps (frame per second) means graphics cards image output speed.
On complicated image produce, count of fps will drops according to your graphic cards power. But display devices displays images in constant hz