Why don't display manufacturer made 75hz - 90hz in place 60hz monitor?

[e22big]

Just kind of curious, many (if not most) 60hz monitor can run 75hz and up anyway, why don't people like LG or Samsung simply test their 60hz product and give the 75hz - 90hz lable on their better sample and sold them at higher price? Seem like a nobrainer for me.

[pythonmegapixel]

One reason for a lot of these nonsensical limitations is often PR. If it becomes widely known that product X is the same as product Y but with a different label on it and some firmware limitations, but one is more expensive, then people will just start buying the cheaper one and overclocking it. This would defeat the object while also making the company look scummy.

 

That said, some manufacturers do sell monitors with different refresh rates in suspiciously similar casings, so whether this is in fact what they are doing (with chips I think this process is commonly called binning, I don't know if it's the same for display panels) or whether they are actually making different panels for each model, I have no idea.

[Stahlmann]

Often it's simpy because they can't guarantee that every model of said 60Hz monitor can handle 75Hz. For example with my LG 27GN950 it is marketed as "160Hz (Overclocking)" while it's native refresh rate is 144Hz. This is because they can guarantee that every one of the 27GN950 monitors can run at 144Hz without any issues, but it's not guaranteed that it will also run at 160Hz without problems.

 

My monitor is actually one of the few that have problems at 160Hz. In my case it's sometimes giving a black screen for 1 or 2 seconds when starting or closing a game, so nothing bad. But when overclocked, the "integer" scaling options in my GPU drivers doesn't work. For these reasons i decided to just run my monitor at 144Hz, as the jump to 160Hz is not noticeable.

 

23 minutes ago, pythonmegapixel said:

That said, some manufacturers do sell monitors with different refresh rates in suspiciously similar casings, so whether this is in fact what they are doing (with chips I think this process is commonly called binning, I don't know if it's the same for display panels) or whether they are actually making different panels for each model, I have no idea.

Most of the time they actually use different panels in very similar looking monitors.

 

Artificially locking down good panels to low-spec monitors is not a thing in the monitor industry afaik. If a panel can handle 75Hz comfortably, it's likely sold in a 75Hz monitor because they can make more money with more expensive monitors.

[porina]

41 minutes ago, e22big said:

Just kind of curious, many (if not most) 60hz monitor can run 75hz and up anyway, why don't people like LG or Samsung simply test their 60hz product and give the 75hz - 90hz lable on their better sample and sold them at higher price? Seem like a nobrainer for me.

I can think of two contributing reasons:

1, 60 Hz is a common TV standard in many parts of the world, so in the wider world of display devices, it provides a good baseline.

2, 60 Hz is good enough for many uses. Why do they want to pay more for higher refresh they don't need?

[e22big]

4 hours ago, Stahlmann said:

Often it's simpy because they can't guarantee that every model of said 60Hz monitor can handle 75Hz. For example with my LG 27GN950 it is marketed as "160Hz (Overclocking)" while it's native refresh rate is 144Hz. This is because they can guarantee that every one of the 27GN950 monitors can run at 144Hz without any issues, but it's not guaranteed that it will also run at 160Hz without problems.

 

My monitor is actually one of the few that have problems at 160Hz. In my case it's sometimes giving a black screen for 1 or 2 seconds when starting or closing a game, so nothing bad. But when overclocked, the "integer" scaling options in my GPU drivers doesn't work. For these reasons i decided to just run my monitor at 144Hz, as the jump to 160Hz is not noticeable.

 

Most of the time they actually use different panels in very similar looking monitors.

 

Artificially locking down good panels to low-spec monitors is not a thing in the monitor industry afaik. If a panel can handle 75Hz comfortably, it's likely sold in a 75Hz monitor because they can make more money with more expensive monitors.

but some can which is why I wonder why they don't just label as such while testing their product, they will have to test it anyway if the display can hadle 60hz with no issue or not, just like processor binding like the guy above said

[Stahlmann]

1 minute ago, e22big said:

but some can which is why I wonder why they don't just label as such while testing their product, they will have to test it anyway if the display can hadle 60hz with no issue or not, just like processor binding like the guy above said

I guess it's because they're talking to a different market. Any non-gamer pretty much doesn't care if their monitor is 60 or 75Hz. Theoretically there is nothing stopping them from doing it like with my monitor. For example selling it as a "60Hz (75Hz overclockable)" monitor.

[Stahlmann]

4 hours ago, porina said:

1, 60 Hz is a common TV standard in many parts of the world, so in the wider world of display devices, it provides a good baseline.

Funny how most TV's run at 60Hz while 99% of their content is either 24 fps (movies, series) or 50 fps (broadcast) when not looking at gaming.

[e22big]

16 minutes ago, Stahlmann said:

I guess it's because they're talking to a different market. Any non-gamer pretty much doesn't care if their monitor is 60 or 75Hz. Theoretically there is nothing stopping them from doing it like with my monitor. For example selling it as a "60Hz (75Hz overclockable)" monitor.

perhaps but other than gaming, fps do affect the responsiveness of your UI and program animation as well, Windows actually feel far more snappier when you run it on a high refresh rate monitor, far more so than any high end CPU can

 

I guess people just don't care too much about it outside of PC gaming community but still, at resolution like 4k where high refresh rate panel simply aren't widely available, panel binding could give you an edge (especially when there are very different point of differentiation between 4k monitor, TV has their HDR but PC HDR is at most, not suck too badly)

[Stahlmann]

1 minute ago, e22big said:

perhaps but other than gaming, fps do affect the responsiveness of your UI and program animation as well, Windows actually feel far more snappier when you run it on a high refresh rate monitor, far more so than any high end CPU can

I know, after using high refresh rates for the last few years i don't want to use 60Hz anymore. Even for office-type work i'd much rather have a 144Hz screen.

 

3 minutes ago, e22big said:

I guess people just don't care too much about it outside of PC gaming community but still, at resolution like 4k where high refresh rate panel simply aren't widely available, panel binding could give you an edge (especially when there are very different point of differentiation between 4k monitor, TV has their HDR but PC HDR is at most, not suck too badly)

4K 120Hz panels are widely available for TVs, 4K 144Hz panels are widely available for monitors. I mean there are multiple manufacturers for panels and the monitors themself. Yes, they're still quite expensive, but they're widely available.

[e22big]

1 minute ago, Stahlmann said:

I know, after using high refresh rates for the last few years i don't want to use 60Hz anymore. Even for office-type work i'd much rather have a 144Hz screen.

 

4K 120Hz panels are widely available for TVs, 4K 144Hz panels are widely available for monitors. I mean there are multiple manufacturers for panels and the monitors themself. Yes, they're still quite expensive, but they're widely available.

no they aren't, nothing short of top of the top of the line of monitor offer 4k 144hz (and they are out of stock every where even before this hardware supply crisis started), TV net you more option but there still aren't a lot compared to 1440p and 1080p panel

 

all the while there tons of 60hz 4k with very similar performance across many brands with no real differentiation point - would be great if they can at least offer a 90hz panel as a stop gap

[porina]

46 minutes ago, Stahlmann said:

Funny how most TV's run at 60Hz while 99% of their content is either 24 fps (movies, series) or 50 fps (broadcast) when not looking at gaming.

I was thinking 60 Hz for the NTSC regions setting the upper common level. PAL and similar regions at 50Hz are widespread too but presuming they want a standard device usable in multi-region, 60 Hz is the target.

 

22 minutes ago, Stahlmann said:

I know, after using high refresh rates for the last few years i don't want to use 60Hz anymore. Even for office-type work i'd much rather have a 144Hz screen.

At my last job I had to run a 3440x1440 display at 50 Hz because that's all the HDMI version on my work laptop/dock would support. It could go up to 60 Hz with DP.

 

17 minutes ago, e22big said:

TV net you more option but there still aren't a lot compared to 1440p and 1080p panel

Are there even 1440p TVs? Think I've only ever seen 1080p and 4k.

 

17 minutes ago, e22big said:

all the while there tons of 60hz 4k with very similar performance across many brands with no real differentiation point - would be great if they can at least offer a 90hz panel as a stop gap

Until HDMI 2.1 all you could realistically get was 4k60, so offering above that wouldn't have worked in the consumer space. DP probably could have done more but it just isn't used on most consumer goods.

 

Since I got lucky and ordered a 3070 today, I also ordered an ultra HDMI certified cable to make sure it will work at 4k120. My existing cables were bought before that existed and are only certified to 4k60. I might get lucky with the old cable, but does it make sense to penny pinch if I'm going this far?

[Stahlmann]

1 minute ago, porina said:

Since I got lucky and ordered a 3070 today, I also ordered an ultra HDMI certified cable to make sure it will work at 4k120. My existing cables were bought before that existed and are only certified to 4k60. I might get lucky with the old cable, but does it make sense to penny pinch if I'm going this far?

Congrats on the HDMI 2.1 goodness. I can say there is no better way to play singleplayer games than with a 4K 120Hz HDR OLED like i do atm. But i had to search A LOT to find a non-certified cable that worked for me (need 10m).

[e22big]

2 minutes ago, porina said:

I was thinking 60 Hz for the NTSC regions setting the upper common level. PAL and similar regions at 50Hz are widespread too but presuming they want a standard device usable in multi-region, 60 Hz is the target.

 

At my last job I had to run a 3440x1440 display at 50 Hz because that's all the HDMI version on my work laptop/dock would support. It could go up to 60 Hz with DP.

 

Are there even 1440p TVs? Think I've only ever seen 1080p and 4k.

 

Until HDMI 2.1 all you could realistically get was 4k60, so offering above that wouldn't have worked in the consumer space. DP probably could have done more but it just isn't used on most consumer goods.

 

Since I got lucky and ordered a 3070 today, I also ordered an ultra HDMI certified cable to make sure it will work at 4k120. My existing cables were bought before that existed and are only certified to 4k60. I might get lucky with the old cable, but does it make sense to penny pinch if I'm going this far?

definitely go for a better cable - me and my friend got 3080 last year (at MSRP as well, massive luck back then) and he decided to get a new 4k 120hz TV, he decided to cheap out on HDMI 2.1 cable and it simply doesn't work, big flickering issue, you can probably get it replace under warranty but it probably worth it to get a better one just for convenient sake

[porina]

9 minutes ago, e22big said:

definitely go for a better cable - me and my friend got 3080 last year (at MSRP as well, massive luck back then) and he decided to get a new 4k 120hz TV, he decided to cheap out on HDMI 2.1 cable and it simply doesn't work, big flickering issue, you can probably get it replace under warranty but it probably worth it to get a better one just for convenient sake

Been there before. When I first got the 4k TV I couldn't even get reliable 60 Hz out of it. The random cables I had lying around either didn't work or the picture cut out after a time. Got new certified cables, rock solid since. The 3070 is a kind of sidegrade but it does open up beyond 60 Hz for less demanding games.

[TVwazhere]

There are 1080p 75 hz monitors out there, and most 1440p or 1440p wide screen are 100hz

https://pcpartpicker.com/products/monitor/#D=70000,100000&r=384002160,344001440,256001440,256001080,192001200,192001080

 

For TV's though, it's probably just not as high of a demand. (plus a lot of 120+ refresh rates on TV's tend to be simulated, not actual 120hz)