first of all you are on a public forum, posting nonsense that has the potential to derail this thread, or just confuse people reading it.
Secondly, you never said that 24fps was the reason that gaming over HDMI sux, right. When asked why you think it sux, you simply posted a link from another site that specifically spoke about 24fps not being good enough for gamers.
So further to point two you have:
a) Confused, again, another forum member, because he associates the article you posted in response to his question, as your reason for your prior statement, which you claim it actually isnt - are you following this?
b) totally ommited that the article in question relates to 3D screens.
Seems like you're not really understanding the standards in place for 3D and non-3D screens, resolutions, etc. And thats ok - because this is a murky topic that not many of us understand very well at all.
Whats not really ok, is you using your lack of understanding to mislead and confuse others. Rather just shut up, imo. or send your mates a PM.
From what I understand, the very first HDMI standard was capable of running at 1920x1200 at 60fps at True Color (24 bits). HDMI 1.3 could do 2560x1600 at 60fps at 30-bit color depth. So it becomes clear that playing games over HDMI should not suck, or be the reason for any graphical problems. Currently, you can play games in 3D on a 3D monitor at 1080p and 24fps. This is to say that playing games in 3D at Full-HD, might not be totally awesome. There is no 24fps limitation on playing games normally, like the majority of the world does at this very point in time.
Where did I get this info? From the wiki link you posted, but obviously didnt read entirely. If anyone is able to critically think about and respond to my interpretations of the available information, then that would be welcomed. I also encourage you, Shark, to read a bit more critically before posting waffle.
Sorry to hear about your weird screen issues when using HDMI. They are certainly not normal in my experience.
