TR Forums

I just bought an LG LED-LCD HDTV 32LE5300 see it her on the egg http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.a ... -_-Product for $800 but I snagged an open box for $459.


Over HDMI it runs at 120hz but when using the pc connection (DSUB) it drops the refresh rate down to 60hz.

I confess, I don't think my GTX460 with core 2 @ 3ghz 4 gigs ram system will push any of todays games over 60fps at 1080P so is this a non event?

Also, has anyone compared the visual gaming experience of an LED vs LCD (I've popped for the extra money for the deeper blacks more vivid colors and the Thinner case.)

I reserved an LG 42" LCD 1080P LCD and I'm debating eBaying the LED model (I may make a few bux since I bought it so cheap) and going for the larger screen for better Netflix Movie and HDTV watching etc. ( But PC Gaming is still the primary concern).

THOUGHTS?

Games currently playing:
Metro 2033
Mafia II
Just Cause 2
A V P
Battlefield 2 Bad Company
Crysis
Crysis Warhead

Video over analog (the VGA connector) is going to probably yield lower refresh rates. High refresh rates over an analog connection were historically difficult and expensive to attain on standard CRT hardware. When LCDs came along, they could only do 60 Hz refresh. Given that CRTs are pretty much out of the equation and LCDs are still mostly stuck at 60 Hz, I would assume most DACs nowadays are tuned accordingly; even if it's easier to output higher analog refresh rates these days, there probably aren't enough people using analog to make it a worthwhile market target. By contrast, HDMI is newer, popular, and can feed a lot more data a lot faster, so it can achieve a much higher frequency refresh rate. That's why you have a lower refresh rate over VGA (analog) than HDMI (digital).

Color quality on displays, especially when they share tech with TV displays, is best handled by other gerbils more knowledgeable than I on that matter.

FireGryphon, what in the world are you talking about exactly? VGA can do 1080p @ 120 Hz with a giggle on any half-modern videocard. It's only up to the monitor whether it can work so fast using the input (and CRT monitors generally have trouble doing or exceeding 120 Hz at 1080p, save for the largest CRTs).

True though that it's not any kind of priority with LCDs today, no arguments there. I think it's a pity though, if someone buys a 120 Hz display, they should be able to use it via VGA too for all the cash they've spent. It could actually make more sense to some twitch gamers who hate CRTs - considering VGA actually has higher potential bandwidth than DVI, for example - and is usually bundled in many cases anyway.

I'm kind of confused as well- I'm actually doubting that the TV does 120Hz over HDMI. Unless the TV has 3D capability, the answer is actually no- what it is doing, however, is taking the 24-60Hz input signal from whatever over HDMI and up-sampling it to 120Hz output. This is good for movies, and very bad for games, and slightly annoying for desktop computing- which would make sense for them not to do the up-sampling thing over VGA, as it will only add input lag without increasing quality. You're not going to be plugging a DVD/Bluray player in over VGA.

Short version: if your TV is not 3D, it does not accept higher than a 60Hz input- it reaches '120Hz' by up-sampling <=60Hz sources, and shouldn't do this on any PC related input.

Also, I'm sure you're aware that LED's in LCD displays are just a replacement for the fluorescent tubes. Whether they are better or worse, or noticeably so, is a matter of quality between the two sets in question. When LED back-lit sets hit the market, they had better colors and contrast, but were inferior in the viewing angle department, though this has probably changed.

Last, when it comes to TVs and PC games, any sort of processing is your enemy. TVs like to do tons of processing for shows and movies, which is great and really enhances the experience, but it also adds a delay between the input of the signal and its output to the screen. This means that your effective minimum reaction times are higher, and you are slower- very bad for PC FPSs that rely on the user to twitch and shoot with a mouse to survive, as opposed to consoles that assume you're using a slow and inaccurate controller. With any TV, definitely dig into its 'game' mode, and if it doesn't have one, consider it unfit.

matdem1 wrote:

Over HDMI it runs at 120hz but when using the pc connection (DSUB) it drops the refresh rate down to 60hz.

Can you show me the screenshot of the display adapter's setting showing it's running at 120Hz when connected to HDMI?
I'm curious to see this. I have LG 120Hz LCD 42inch connected to PC with Intel H55 integrated over HDMI and it runs at 60Hz (according to PC).

[quote="Airmantharp"] This is good for movies

On my Samsung 46" LCD I have to shut the 120Hz off when playing Blu Rays on my PS3. The 120Hz introduces artifacts as the PS3 plays the movies @ 24FPS. I first noticed this while watching The Dark Knight. In one of the opening scenes they zoom into an office building. The windows of this building provide a checkerboard pattern which gets distorted, shut of the 120Hz and it looks fine. Not an issue watching the same movie thru the cable box as I believe that uses 30FPS or 60FPS which can be up-converted to 120Hz.

dpmeersman wrote:

30FPS or 60FPS which can be up-converted to 120Hz

So can 24 fps, maths genius, because it fits five whole times into 120. Imagine the things engineers come up with.

dpmeersman wrote:

On my Samsung 46" LCD I have to shut the 120Hz off when playing Blu Rays on my PS3. The 120Hz introduces artifacts as the PS3 plays the movies @ 24FPS. I first noticed this while watching The Dark Knight. In one of the opening scenes they zoom into an office building. The windows of this building provide a checkerboard pattern which gets distorted, shut of the 120Hz and it looks fine. Not an issue watching the same movie thru the cable box as I believe that uses 30FPS or 60FPS which can be up-converted to 120Hz.

Dude, your TVs broke, RMA. My buddies' 120Hz 46" Samsung LCD is incredible with Blurays from PS3 (or his samsung sound system); no artifacting involved.

And lol@Meadows. Some people.

No it's not broken. PS3 Blu Ray playback on my Samsung 46" look drop dead gorgeous without the 120Hz. Using the 120Hz on some scenes does introduce artifacting. The are times that I forget I have it enabled and watch whole Blu Rays and have no issues. Any time I'm watching something that appears a little funky I just pause it, shut of the 120Hz go back and it looks fantastic. It is a minor problem totally repeatable when I want to show someone what the issue appears like and they always agree, it looks fanfreakingtastic without it. So I normally don't run the 120Hz unless I'm watching a sporting event over cable.

dpmeersman wrote:

No it's not broken. PS3 Blu Ray playback on my Samsung 46" look drop dead gorgeous without the 120Hz. Using the 120Hz on some scenes does introduce artifacting. The are times that I forget I have it enabled and watch whole Blu Rays and have no issues. Any time I'm watching something that appears a little funky I just pause it, shut of the 120Hz go back and it looks fantastic. It is a minor problem totally repeatable when I want to show someone what the issue appears like and they always agree, it looks fanfreakingtastic without it. So I normally don't run the 120Hz unless I'm watching a sporting event over cable.

I was being a little dramatic above, but in any case, it shouldn't be doing that. My buddy leaves the 120Hz option on under its lowest setting for everything (no twitch gaming), and none of us have seen what you're talking about. His TV is also the first one to come out with the 120Hz option, though, and maybe Samsung lowered the quality of the processor to cut costs for your set.

Airmantharp wrote:

Also, I'm sure you're aware that LED's in LCD displays are just a replacement for the fluorescent tubes. Whether they are better or worse, or noticeably so, is a matter of quality between the two sets in question. When LED back-lit sets hit the market, they had better colors and contrast, but were inferior in the viewing angle department, though this has probably changed.

The first LED back-lit TVs on the market were high end models with local dimming. The current cheap ones that have big "LED TV it is so different from LCD go buy!" signs are mostly edge-lit, which can be uneven just like their CCFL counterpart. LED with local dimming models are still priced through the roof unfortunately.

Flying Fox wrote:

Airmantharp wrote:

Also, I'm sure you're aware that LED's in LCD displays are just a replacement for the fluorescent tubes. Whether they are better or worse, or noticeably so, is a matter of quality between the two sets in question. When LED back-lit sets hit the market, they had better colors and contrast, but were inferior in the viewing angle department, though this has probably changed.

The first LED back-lit TVs on the market were high end models with local dimming. The current cheap ones that have big "LED TV it is so different from LCD go buy!" signs are mostly edge-lit, which can be uneven just like their CCFL counterpart. LED with local dimming models are still priced through the roof unfortunately.

Above like $1500 the LEDs all seem to be local dimming. 55" LG from Best Buy is like $1700 and really neat! Dunno about the cheaper stuff but I think that's a decent price for that size screen.

Airmantharp wrote:

dpmeersman wrote:

No it's not broken. PS3 Blu Ray playback on my Samsung 46" look drop dead gorgeous without the 120Hz. Using the 120Hz on some scenes does introduce artifacting. The are times that I forget I have it enabled and watch whole Blu Rays and have no issues. Any time I'm watching something that appears a little funky I just pause it, shut of the 120Hz go back and it looks fantastic. It is a minor problem totally repeatable when I want to show someone what the issue appears like and they always agree, it looks fanfreakingtastic without it. So I normally don't run the 120Hz unless I'm watching a sporting event over cable.

I was being a little dramatic above, but in any case, it shouldn't be doing that. My buddy leaves the 120Hz option on under its lowest setting for everything (no twitch gaming), and none of us have seen what you're talking about. His TV is also the first one to come out with the 120Hz option, though, and maybe Samsung lowered the quality of the processor to cut costs for your set.

Don't you have to enable 24p output explicitly via the PS3? So maybe that will improve quality so it does a 5:5:5 pulldown instead of whatever the PS3 has to do to process the 24fps source and upconvert (I know this is technically the wrong term but you get the gist) it to 30fps and then send to the TV which pops it up to 60fps or 120fps or whatever.

I have a PS3 but I don't have it here at work and that was one of the things I set once and promptly forgot about.

Scrotos wrote:

Flying Fox wrote:

Airmantharp wrote:

Also, I'm sure you're aware that LED's in LCD displays are just a replacement for the fluorescent tubes. Whether they are better or worse, or noticeably so, is a matter of quality between the two sets in question. When LED back-lit sets hit the market, they had better colors and contrast, but were inferior in the viewing angle department, though this has probably changed.

The first LED back-lit TVs on the market were high end models with local dimming. The current cheap ones that have big "LED TV it is so different from LCD go buy!" signs are mostly edge-lit, which can be uneven just like their CCFL counterpart. LED with local dimming models are still priced through the roof unfortunately.

Above like $1500 the LEDs all seem to be local dimming. 55" LG from Best Buy is like $1700 and really neat! Dunno about the cheaper stuff but I think that's a decent price for that size screen.

That's the thing, at that range you are probably better off getting a G25 Panasonic plasma, assuming your environment can be dark enough to use a plasma.

Flying Fox wrote:

Scrotos wrote:

Flying Fox wrote:

The first LED back-lit TVs on the market were high end models with local dimming. The current cheap ones that have big "LED TV it is so different from LCD go buy!" signs are mostly edge-lit, which can be uneven just like their CCFL counterpart. LED with local dimming models are still priced through the roof unfortunately.

Above like $1500 the LEDs all seem to be local dimming. 55" LG from Best Buy is like $1700 and really neat! Dunno about the cheaper stuff but I think that's a decent price for that size screen.

That's the thing, at that range you are probably better off getting a G25 Panasonic plasma, assuming your environment can be dark enough to use a plasma.

Yes. Plasma technology is primo for anything with a low DPI, such as a large 1080P screen; someone had to remind us

To be honest, I'm not sure that refresh rate is all that important on anything that's not a CRT (as long as it's fast enough to display the action). The primary reason low refresh rates look bad on a CRT is that the phosphor "holds" the image for a fraction of a second while the screen is refreshed. Slower phosphors have less flicker, but more ghosting. Faster phosphors have more flicker and require a faster refresh, but don't ghost much. Most decent computer CRT monitors have faster phosphors these days, so if you use a slow refresh, you get flicker.

Other technologies like LCD and LED just display the image they're given, changing it whenever it's refreshed. But I'm pretty sure there is no fade, so no flicker. I'm not sure on plasma, though.

My point being that you don't need a fast refresh to prevent flicker from a fast decay phosphor, because you don't have a raster scan onto a phosphor when using LCD, LED, or plasma. So if the refresh rate is fast enough to see all the action, then something faster really isn't going to add much value.

Note that this is just me theorizing -- I am not an expert on these technologies. But it certainly explains why most LCD panels are fixed at 60Hz -- they simply don't need anything more.

There's some confusion here. I doubt that your TV, or any TV for that matter, will actually accept a 120hz input nowdays. The 120hz or 240hz figures that you see on upper end LCD/LED TV's nowadays are what they can potentially upsample their inputs to, not what they can actually accept. I doubt that you will be able to send your TV anything higher than 1080p, no matter what you do, and 1080p is 1920x1080x60. So, your question about needing a video card that can do 120 frames a second is completely moot. You're still limited to 60hz as an input regardless of what your TV can upsample to.

cjcerny wrote:

There's some confusion here. I doubt that your TV, or any TV for that matter, will actually accept a 120hz input nowdays. The 120hz or 240hz figures that you see on upper end LCD/LED TV's nowadays are what they can potentially upsample their inputs to, not what they can actually accept. I doubt that you will be able to send your TV anything higher than 1080p, no matter what you do, and 1080p is 1920x1080x60. So, your question about needing a video card that can do 120 frames a second is completely moot. You're still limited to 60hz as an input regardless of what your TV can upsample to.

I think you're right. Based on what I read, 120Hz LCD TVs run at fixed 120Hz independently from input. Which is why I asked to see screenshot proof that the original poster's PC sending 120Hz over HDMI.
Videos (TV, blu-ray) are 60FPS max anyway so sending 120Hz is waste of bandwidth. I still would like to know if PC can send 120Hz signal to TV if someone can show screenshot since this would be good for games.

Where 120Hz in TV comes in, I think, is "Motion interpolation" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motion_interpolation
which is like inserting a frame image in between to double the frame rate to make use of higher refresh rate. LG calls theirs "Trumotion".
Lots of ppl disable this anyway saying it doesn't look right.

With my LG TVs, using DSUB misaligned the image. Using HDMI overscans and image doesn't fit but I could disable it by putting HDMI to PC mode.
So picture is perfect 1:1 pixel ratio but postprocessing like Trumotion is disabled in PC mode.

To clarify my statement regarding dropping from 120hz to 60hz My TV Menu generated a message/warning that due to the "new" input coming over VGA the refresh rate would be dropped to 60hz. This resulted when I disconnected my HDMI connection and hooked up the VGA input and re-booted my PC.
(I'm paraphrasing).

TVs must accept a 120Hz input for 3D output; even if that gets 'upsampled' or whatever to 240-600Hz later.The same is true for PC monitors that support 3D technology; they accept 120Hz input.

This information shows up as a top search result (June 11th, 2013) in Google USA, when searching for 120Hz from PC to TV. So I'm bumping this still-visited thread to ADD important new information:

There are now many televisions that can accept 120Hz from a computer (in an undocumented way). This is done via ToastyX Custom Resolution Utility, or EVGA PIXEL OC utility, or other utilities -- to force 120Hz from a PC to TV. True native 120Hz, not interpolated 120Hz. Includes confirmations via Refresh Rate Multitool!

True 120Hz from PC to TV --
HDTV Refresh Rate Overclocking HOWTO




Several success reports include:
-- Vizio M420SL and e3d420vx (1080p at 120Hz from PC to TV)
-- Panasonic VT50 plasma (1080p@120Hz)
-- SEIKI 4K HDTV (1080p@120Hz).
-- Etc.

If you're playing 24fps movies at 120hz you're doing it wrong. 99% of the films you watch are 24fps while TV will be split between interlaced (50i, 60i) or 24 fps or 25fps or 30fps. More specifically 29.9 and 23.9 but that's another story. Turn these motion smoothing modes off would be my strong, strong suggestion.

It looks awful, you spent good money on your television with the expectation that films and TV would accurately reflect the vision of its producers.

Sorry to be evangelical but Motion flow/Smoothing on these TVs is an abomination.

Also your tv is an LCD, the backlight is a LED. There is no such thing as an LED TV until you get to absurdly large displays for outdoors or stadiums.

For games ( I haven't looked at the specs of your specific model) I doubt its actually giving you true 120hz but 60hz motion flowed. Very few tvs do true 120hz from a pc.
I'm sorry if this has already been said but there is nothing that makes a bluray look worse than these modes. There was a time when a TV being able to run 24fps content progressively at 24hz was a selling feature, it is still the best way to view most of the films you are likely to watch that aren't 3d. Ignore the marketing crap.

Bar metro 2033 you should be able to run at 60fps with most of the games you've listed if you turn settings down at 1080p on your card. Should still look great. Depending on how close to the TV you sit I'd just stick with the 32 inch model.

Enjoy your new setup.

EDIT*
Sorry should have checked, this is a very old thread.
The dead have risen, move along...

CityEater wrote:

you spent good money on your television with the expectation that films and TV would accurately reflect the vision of its producers.

Uh, I spent money on my home theater setup on the expectation that it would give me a certain type of entertainment experience in accordance with my tastes.

Since this thread has been necro'd, where can I buy a rocket-powered monitor with a digital-analogue frequency readout?



Also, Google can't covert from Hz to Miles per hour, so can someone please tell me how fast this goes when fully loaded with two 175lb adults?
Thanks.

that'd be warp speed there Scotty...

Funny. Buckle your seat belt, or otherwise it "Hertz" when you crash.
Blame Google for keeping old threads as a top search result for certain search queries.
Even now, this thread is persistently stubbornly staying on the first page of Google, for common search "120hz from PC to TV".

On a more serious note, here are successful reports of true 120Hz from PC to television.
It's no longer impossible anymore.

Successful: Vizio e3d420vx
Resolution: 1920×1080 at 120 Hz
Source: http://120hz.net/showthread.php?852-Managed-to-force-120Hz-on-a-Vizio-e3d420vx

Success: Panasonic VT50 plasma
Resolution: 1920×1080 at 120 Hz
Caveat: More heat output
Source: http://www.avsforum.com/t/1438092/list-of-hdtvs-with-120hz-native-refresh-ability-forcing-1080p-120hz-via-dvi-or-hdmi-from-computer#post_22576928

Confirmed: Seiki 4K HDTV
Resolution: 1920×1080 at 120 Hz
The brand new SEIKI 50″ HDTV with 4K resolution supports 1080p @ 120Hz natively (Multitool confirmed).

deadman5k wrote:

Successful: Vizio M420SL not a 3d TV
Resolution: 1920×1080 at 120 Hz

Using a Asus 3D tv driver I was able to force a 120hz output with windows 7 and my Vizio M420SL system info screen displays 120hz vertical frequency as well as my Catalyst control center. This TV is not a 3D but does have a native LCD refresh rate of 120hz.

Thank you blurbusters for your very helpful information. It took all day to find the right question to ask the great google search engine but when I finally asked “force 120hz pc” I found this page and now I am in 120hz, 42 inch, goodness. Next trick is getting passive 3d working. Thanks again.

sadbuttrue wrote:

Successful: Panasonic 50ST30 plasma
Resolution: 1280×720 @ 120hz.
Source: HardForum post (by sadbuttrue)

The OSD reports 60hz and 3D mode detected. Colours are slightly different but there is no 3D being applied. I have verified that it does show 120 unique frames. So, when you try outputting 120hz to your TV don’t assume the OSD is giving an accurate report. It may say 60hz yet actually be showing 120hz.

maarten12100 wrote:

Successful: Skyworth 39E780U UHD tv (china market model)
Resolution: 1080p @ 140Hz without frame skipping
Source: Overclock.net review by maarten12100

The overclock results:
UHD 3840×2160 was 30Hz max now 38Hz (up to 40Hz by reducing the extra pixels/blanking in the stream but with minor artifacting)
QFHD 2560×1440 was not there now 82Hz
HD 1920×1080 was 60Hz max now 140Hz (I checked with RRMT Refresh Rate Multi Tool and it actually did it without dropping)
QHD 1280×720 was 60Hz max now 254Hz (checked again with RRMT but it was too fast for my eyes then I took pictures and video)
(NOTE: Cost only $600 in China! Not available outside of China yet at this time.)

bobbitybob wrote:

Successful:
- Sony KDL-50R550A 50″
- Sony KDL-60R550A 60″
- Sony KDL-70R550A 70″
Resolution: 1080p @ 120Hz
Source: AVSFORUM post by bobbitybob

“720p@120hz confirmed working. Kinda funny, before on 1080 I didn't notice a difference figuring I'm just getting too old for this stuff, having never used a 120hz monitor before, but I knew instantly with the real 120hz that it's working. What a huge difference in smoothness and reduction in blur. Just nuts. Tested with RRM (Refresh Rate Multitool) as well to verify.”
(NOTE: 720p was good; 1080p was frameskipping, but may be DVI adaptor (limitation). Best to test using direct HDMI-to-HDMI connection from PC-to-TV.)

(Cited from Comments section of HDTV Refresh Rate HOWTO: True 120Hz from PC to TV)