What is the refresh rate (Hz) of your TV you play your Xbox on? I wanted to get a 32" LG but its only 50Hz?

Question

Is that like appaling i saw on some other answer that TV's now support 600Hz so basically 50Hz would be way too slow for an Xbox Elite to opperate properly. And not fuzz or act funny i want clear movement and a crisp image is 50Hz to low for this? If you can could all you Xbox 360 owners check the model of you TV and check the refresh rate (Hz) how is your TV with your refresh rate is it bad is it good?

Should i really get i really want it its 32LG2000 i was all set on getting and now ive seen this refresh rate i dont want to get it if it will be slow and give me a poor gaming quality with my Xbox. So is 50Hz good to run the Xbox? And whats your Hz and how is the Xbox on your TV?

Answer 1

Hz rating is a rating that is also dependent on electricity systems. As most games for xbox are developed in the US or Japan and they use NTSC video format, their games are usually 60HZ. Games that are mainly PAL format tend to be 50HZ. But you need a 60Hz tv for the xbox. The picture will be a bit funny on a TV that isn't.



If it's a HDTV then Hz Rating doesn't really matter as your using a different technology than CRT anyway - and your picture is in a different format to PAL or NTSC.



Get an LCD HD TV - the picture is great.

Answer 2

I think you must have picked that up wrong. 50 to 60 Hz is the frequency of the power in your house and maybe it meant like this tv works off a 230 Volt 50 Hz power supply.



Cause a 50 Hz refresh rate for a tv is even worth talking about, its so crap

Answer 3

I would recommend a tv with 120hz refresh rate for gaming, but one with 60hz will work just fine. I have a sharp aquas in my room that is 60hz and all my games look fine games like nba 2k9 have the most blurr do to the fast paced action, but they look much better on my sony bravia with 120hz. TVs with more than 120hz refresh rate are a waste for gaming tvs as most of the time only 120hz or 60 hz is supported. But I would also recommend a tv that supports 1080p and has a lower response time than 6ms, that tv is going to have alot of motion blurr.

Answer 4

"PC beats both of them " Not really. And yes, I use all 3 (4, if you count the Wii) for gaming. All of them have their strengths and weaknesses. As for Xbox 360 vs. PS3, it's largely a matter of preference. I prefer the 360's controller to the PS3's. The 360's controller's triggers work better than the slippery shoulder buttons of the PS3's controller. I like how I can simply slap in a pair of rechargeable AA batteries and keep playing, as opposed to the PS3's sealed design that demands I find a USB cable to charge it. As for Live vs. PSN, again, I prefer Live. Yes, it costs $35-60/year (depending on if you find a sale) but even now, Live has more active users than PSN and more games on the 360 have online play as compared to those on the PS3. My personal experience shows Live is faster and more robust than PSN as well. Oh and let's not forget Sony's unforgivable lack of network security which allowed someone to gain unauthorized access to PSN's servers, resulting in Sony shutting everything down completely for nearly 2 months. So if you're serious about online play, you really want to spend the extra money for a Live subscription. If you prefer the exclusives on the PS3, that's fine but calling your opposition "morons" just invalidates any real argument you have. In fact, it makes you sound like one the "12 year old kids who don't know jack-***" Early on in their life cycles, the 360 - not the PS3 - had all the exclusive titles. Early adopters bought the 360 because it was cheaper, had more games, and they had more DLC. Sony meanwhile spent the first 2 years of the PS3's life selling it as a blu-ray player that also played video games. This attitude cost them a lot of developers and franchises that were previously synonymous with the Playstation brand. Meanwhile Sony continued to stumble over and over again, never really seeming to get the PS3 off the ground. It's only been within the past few years that things have really turned turned around. And while the PS3 has done a great job catching up that's all it's done - caught up. It hasn't surpassed the 360 and now with both consoles' time coming to an end, it never will. The next generation should be really interesting. Sony has clearly learned from its mistakes with the PS3 and is serious about repairing relations with developers for the PS4. However, as the budget for developing top name games begins to approach that of blockbuster movies, publishers are going to be less and less willing to intentionally limit their potential sales by only releasing for one platform or the other. This means that number of exclusive titles on each console will be much smaller this time around, making each release much more important to the overall success - or failure - for the whole brand. It also means that the consoles' non-game features will become deciding factors for which one the consumers will buy. Will consumers go with the PS4 and its obsession with social gaming, or the Xbox 1 and its desire to replace your blu-ray player and cable box?

Answer 5

Hey hey, dont feel too bad....my tv can support up to 60hz only! lol..and most of the games iv played only need up 60hz...like Gears of War! nah dude get another tv...something with higher than 60hz...or 60hz... of course anything higher can be expensive

Answer 6

http://www.xbox360forum.com/forum/digital-home/73843-hdtv-refresh-rate-affect-xbox.html

Answer 7

my sharp aquos has 120Hz