What can 5Hz extra bring as image improvement? I can only see shorter lifetime of the CRT
If framerate in games bothers you, then turn off "vsync" in both OpenGL and DX, so u're not limited to 85fps when the monitor runs at 85Hz.

That will damage the monitor doing that
 
There is a reason why its only rated at 85, so if you push it further your just gonna hurt it

It's not like overclocking your processor, where you can make things run faster by taking them out of spec. When you try to feed the monitor the video signals too fast (i.e., use too high of a refresh rate), then the monitor will be unable to synchronize the incoming signal to the screen. Older monitors would show a bunch of garnage on the screen when this happens, but most newer monitors I've seen will just revert to sleep mode if it receives a signal it can't handle.
 
Besides, the only way you could see an improvement by increasing the refresh rate is if you were able to notice the flickering at the old frequency. In this respect, 75Hz is perfect for most people, and you would have to be superhuman to see a problem with 85Hz...

Im no superman but i can tell the difference up to 100hz.

Look, I JUST want to know if changing up the frequency can damage the monitor early.
Thank you!

[size:24]YES

1) Unless you have found some way to physically modify your monitor you CANNOT run it out of spec. Like it was said in an above post, if you even TRY to run it at a hertz above its upper limit then the monitor will basically "shut down". If it is an older monitor then it will probobly not shut down, instead it will more likely just display some gobley-gook on the screen. There will be no damage done in either circumstance.
 
2) Powerstrip cannot run your monitor above specs. If it says it is then it is LYING. Also : See point 1.

Increasing the refresh rate from 85hz to 90hz really isn´t noticable, but going from 85hz to 100hz or beyond surely is!
 

Quote:It's not like overclocking your processor, where you can make things run faster by taking them out of spec.
Overclocking a CPU makes it run faster, but also reduces its lifetime.

Quote:
Overclocking a CPU makes it run faster, but also reduces its lifetime.

is this true? how long can alive a normal cpu (without overclock)

Theoretically, under normal conditions, longer than you.

Quote:
Theoretically, under normal conditions, longer than you.

LoL
And why to care about overclockeds CPU time life?

Overclocking can seriously reduce the life span of components from dozens of years to only a few, or possibly even less than a year - It all depends on how far beyond spec you wish to push your component.
 
A few years back it was more feasible to overclock than to buy new coponents, but today it just more safe (And in some cases more cost effective) just to upgrade, however.

Elliot Walls, tell that to my 5 year old overclocked laptop. it'll smack you in the face
Got it from 150 to 166mmx.

Like I said, it depends on far you push it beyond it's factory spec. An extra 16 mhz is almost a laughable overclock if you ask me, however.

I've been OCing since the 486/33 and the bottom line is that if you want to OC an electronic device with top notch componentry then you can safely reach a 10 percent increase without any normal problems.If you were to run a Sony piece of equipment as opposed to a noname piece the quality of each componant is directly proportional to the price of the unit you payed for. In simple terms the larger companys run the R and D projects and install resisters and such to tolerate the voltage peaks and drops and then spec their products higher to accomadate customer satisfaction over longer periaods of time. The copy cats of the industry take the spec of the high end manufactures and reduce resister and such specs to the bare minimum and in turn lower the meen time life of the componant and can sell it for much less. The bottom line is that if you have a high end piece of equipment you stand a better chance of OC than if you have a lower end componant. ( if you have ever studied electronics there are always a +- 5-10% tolerace on each pice of componant and the total of the guts is limited to the weakest componant.) There is always a lower life expectance when going over tested specs.
 
Sorry if that was a little too long winded.
 
L8tr
 
illusionist

Well, if you plan to upgrade every three years or so the go ahead, overclock. But if you want your system to work as long as possible, then don´t overclock. It´s that simple. I too have a Celeron 300A running at 450 MHZ. I bought it as soon as those Celerons were available (late ´98 I guess). It´s still working like a charm, but I expect it to malfunction any day now.
 
Besides, the limited overclockability of todays components (CPUs, graphics processors) isn´t worth the trouble IMHO. For descent overclocking you´d need a P4 2,4GHZ, a Peltier and a good water cooling system. Well, if you can afford all of this and got the time to implement it, then you really can upgrade every year as well without going through the hassle of overclocking if you always want to be up to date.
 
If you don´t want to use water cooling and have to use air coolers then don´t overclock. The speed increase is only noticed in synthetic benchmarks like Mad Onion´s and stuff like that where you can read numbers, but not in real gaming.

Ahhhh, when are you guys going to learn. Overclocking can not create something that is not there. some limitations has been ut on HW for a reason, to protect it.
I have seen melted MOBO's Graphic Cards. Result of the weakest component failing is not always it stopping to work. They do cause fires etc you know.
 
BTW ANY and ALL benchmarks are sythetic. If you really want to compare stuff, get your assembler book out and write it yourself even 2+2 will do. number of cycles is your benchmark. But since each CPU has a different design then comparison is irrelevant since you can not compare apple with a water melon.
 
Last thing on OC, the moment you go above the spec, you start to create errors on each process, Microprocessors or Digital electronic is unreliable on its own anyway, it does not need your messing about. This is what the ECC is there for, but above spec you start to create more errors cause you are losing process synch (actually ALU, BUS, L1, L2 cache structures are the cause.) so your CPU spends more time correcting those errors etc.
And even if it was true that OC can increase the performance how much do you think it will be?
Let me give you a clue. Difference between a P4 1.8 512KB and P4 2.4 512KB is less then %3... (also 2.4 is just a normal P4 same as the 1.8 they came out of the same line the silicon structure and clock connected to taht is the only difference.)