"Lars-Erik Østerud" .@. wrote in message
news:deOMd.1259$Mw3.949@amstwist00...
Iain Dingsdale skrev:

If it looks jerky, there is no way its actually giving a constant 60fps.

Might be the LCD screens poor refresh. Anyway. 60hz on a CRT monitor
is awful because of the flickering from the monitor. And to have a
good picture without image tearing you need VSYNC. So then with a max
of 85hz on my CRT monitor games would lock at 85 or 42.5 FPS, and
since 42.5 is too low I need 85. Not much way round that really :-(

1280x1024, ultra high detail, full AA etc and get 45ish fps. This looks
more
than fluid enough and in a gameplay situation this looks as smooth as the

Yes, I agree, Half-Life 2 look good enough at 42FPS (which I get
sometimes, most times I do get 85 as well). But then I need to disable
AA and some details. So I need a faster card to enable at least 2x AA
and still be able to get 85 FPS - or at least a minimum of 42.5 FPS

Hmm thats a good point - i didnt realise anyone was still using CRTs these
days!
What resolution do you use at 85hz? If its 1280x1024, say, then you'll be
able to drop it to 1024x768 and up the refresh to 100hz possibly...


if it drops to 5 during heavy action then its pointless. Movies are 24fps
and no one complains about them looking jerky!

But movies have "motion blur" so that is not quite comparable

--
Lars-Erik - http://home.chello.no/~larse/ - ICQ 7297605
WinXP, Asus P4PE, 2.53 GHz, Asus V8420 (Ti4200), SB-Live!