To protect eye health,how can a monitor’s refresh rate be overclocked?Can it cause the system crash or anything?
my opinion is to not try and make your hardware do something its not designed to do.
Suspect
Well you can always put it higher, mine is on 85 Hertz and honestly I don’t have much eye problems with it at all. And about the anti-overclocking. What if the hardware can perfectly well do more than the manufacturers want it to do, why not increase the performance if it is just plain possible?
If you feel comfortable over clocking your monitors refresh, then please do so.
I agree that manufactors often add a safty margin when setting max performance settings.
Many users have been overclocking cpu chips for a long time, and sure you can make your computer run faster, but it will also provide more heat, shorter componant life span.
If you feel that alittle speed or better performance is more important then running a stable computer with a long service life, then that is your opinion. I was just expressing mine.
Sincerely,
Suspect
Well you can always put it higher, mine is on 85 Hertz and honestly I don’t have much eye problems with it at all. And about the anti-overclocking. What if the hardware can perfectly well do more than the manufacturers want it to do, why not increase the performance if it is just plain possible?
In fact I can use my monitor 640480 and 100Hz but the screen area is too small so I changed it to 800600 and the possible maximum refresh rate to 85Hz.But I can say that my eyes were much comfortable on 100Hz so I wanted that refresh rate on 800*600 too.I was talking about eye comfort as eye health in fact.
Assuming you’re using XP on a reasonably modern system, go ahead and try it. Modern monitors will simply complain if the refresh rate is too high for them. (As opposed to simply burning out, as in the bad old days.) Windows now defaults to the lowest supported rate, so there’s typically room to manuver. It used to default to the highest rate under Win98.