120 Hz monitors

[vib]

1) I don't know whether to purchase the LG W2363D, the BenQ XL2410T or perhaps even the not yet released ViewSonic V3D241wm.
The ViewSonic V3D241wm won't probably be in stores at the time of my purchase, so I'm focusing on the LG and BenQ mostly.
I never actually thought about the ASUS VG236HE - what do you think about it?

The BenQ is - at the moment - the only monitor with LED backlight, right? Another in line will be the new ViewSonic.
Is the LED backlight a huge benefit? Can one explain the benefits of it. Does the ASUS Have LED backlight?

Does any of you have some decent reviews of those monitors? Also need information regarding input lag!
Personal opinions of those who know their stuff are also welcome.

2) Has any 1920x1020 120 Hz monitor already been announced? I would prefer going for 16:10 instead of 16:9.

3) Will a 720p video look better on a 1680x1050 screen or on a 1920x1080 screen? (aspect ratio is irrelevant)
Theoretically, it should look better on the screen which resolution comes nearer the videos resolution, right?

PS. I'm buying a 120 Hz screen for 2D, not 3D

 

[Vdubchaos]

I believe 120hz hype only applies to TVs.

I've said this # of times already.

I've been using 60hz monitors and tvs for gaming purposes for YEARS and have never had an issue.

 

[Dribble]

I believe 120hz hype only applies to TVs.

I've said this # of times already.

I've been using 60hz monitors and tvs for gaming purposes for YEARS and have never had an issue.

I have a 120hz monitor (the LG) and what you said is obviously completely wrong. They make a huge difference for fast paced gaming. If you can't notice the difference between a laggy 60hz tv/monitor and a lag free 120hz monitor then either you don't play fast paced fps or tbh you just can't be very good. The difference is massive in a game like ut2004.

In answer to vib. The sort of cheap LED backlight used in these monitors doesn't mean much other then reduced power usage. The LED is still edge lit just the same as if it had a lamp so what you see won't change much.

There are no 16:10 120hz displays and I'd be very surprised if we ever see them, equally all the displays are TN, haven't heard of any IPS displays coming.

I don't suppose 720p will look that different on 1680 to what it looks on a 1920. Obviously 1920p will look better on a 1920 screen.

The LG is very good for gaming - no input lag, very responsive, matte screen so no reflections, colours and so on good enough but it's far from perfect.
-the stand is cheap and non-adjustable.
-the buttons are impossible to see.
-it's not particularly good for reading text or looking at photo's on.
-being TN if you aren't looking straight on to it then colours will be effected.
-don't suppose it'll be the greatest screen to watch a movie on.

That said I've been happy with mine but it's really a gaming monitor only, don't have high hopes if you want to use it for anything else.

 

[TonyB]

I purchased the LG W2363D couple weeks ago. I think it's the best 120hz monitor out there but it does have some shortcomings.

1. overdrive is always on and cannot be turned off, this causes all the text to look very sharp. took some time to get used to.

2. stand that comes with the monitor sucks balls, wobbly as fuck. Base can be removed but the neck cannot be removed without tearing the monitor apart. I tried to open the monitor up to remove the neck but started getting chicken shit halfway through. Bought a $200 ergotron free standing VESA Mount to replace said shit mount.

coming from a CRT I would say that this monitor exceeded my expectations.

 

[Vdubchaos]

I have a 120hz monitor (the LG) and what you said is obviously completely wrong. They make a huge difference for fast paced gaming. If you can't notice the difference between a laggy 60hz tv/monitor and a lag free 120hz monitor then either you don't play fast paced fps or tbh you just can't be very good. The difference is massive in a game like ut2004.

In answer to vib. The sort of cheap LED backlight used in these monitors doesn't mean much other then reduced power usage. The LED is still edge lit just the same as if it had a lamp so what you see won't change much.

There are no 16:10 120hz displays and I'd be very surprised if we ever see them, equally all the displays are TN, haven't heard of any IPS displays coming.

I don't suppose 720p will look that different on 1680 to what it looks on a 1920. Obviously 1920p will look better on a 1920 screen.

The LG is very good for gaming - no input lag, very responsive, matte screen so no reflections, colours and so on good enough but it's far from perfect.
-the stand is cheap and non-adjustable.
-the buttons are impossible to see.
-it's not particularly good for reading text or looking at photo's on.
-being TN if you aren't looking straight on to it then colours will be effected.
-don't suppose it'll be the greatest screen to watch a movie on.

That said I've been happy with mine but it's really a gaming monitor only, don't have high hopes if you want to use it for anything else.

I only play FPS so yea, it's fast pace gaming. Never experienced "LAG" from my monitor.

Also keep in mind that everyone notices lag from monitor differently as we all have different eyes.

Again, it has NEVER been an issue with 60hz on my end. If it aint broken, don't fix it.

 

[toyota]

I only play FPS so yea, it's fast pace gaming. Never experienced "LAG" from my monitor.

Also keep in mind that everyone notices lag from monitor differently as we all have different eyes.

Again, it has NEVER been an issue with 60hz on my end. If it aint broken, don't fix it.

it sounds like you don't know a single thing about 120Hz monitors.

 

[Vdubchaos]

it sounds like you don't know a single thing about 120Hz monitors.

I seen one in action and even my friend (owner) doesn't see a difference.

Personally I didn't see any difference and we had 2 monitors side by side playing the same game. We switched few times as well just to experience it.

Just not buying it

 

[MoMeanMugs]

First you say everyone's eyes are different, then go on to state that 120 Hz doesn't matter. Guess what applies to you applies to everyone.

 

[Petey!]

I only play FPS so yea, it's fast pace gaming. Never experienced "LAG" from my monitor.

Also keep in mind that everyone notices lag from monitor differently as we all have different eyes.

Again, it has NEVER been an issue with 60hz on my end. If it aint broken, don't fix it.

You've clearly never used a 120hz monitor, and possibly don't have a computer that spits out more then 60 fps, or you're blind/have very poor eyesight.

In regards to the original post, the Asus, LG and BenQ all seem to be the best 120hz monitors out right now. I don't think LED lighting makes a big difference really, but uses less power. There's at least 1 "review" on the BenQ, and AT did a review on the Asus. Not sure on the LG though. I don't think there's been a review from a proper monitor review sight yet though, but I could be wrong, I don't remember seeing anyone post something from the likes of prad.

I know the BenQ is a bit more expensive, but it's stand does all sorts of things, and I know it was made with FPS gaming in mind.

 

[vib]

I believe 120hz hype only applies to TVs.

I've said this # of times already.

I've been using 60hz monitors and tvs for gaming purposes for YEARS and have never had an issue.

I must ask you to not share your opinion with us anymore. The LCD is meant to be a replacement for my 120 Hz CRT, I dislike 60 Hz very much, be it on a CRT or LCD.

By writing that you do not see a difference, you look like a complete fool - someone who doesn't have a clue..

 

[Seero]

I seen one in action and even my friend (owner) doesn't see a difference.

Personally I didn't see any difference and we had 2 monitors side by side playing the same game. We switched few times as well just to experience it.

Just not buying it

If you can't see it, than don't buy it. I got the samsung one almost at its release and won't go back to 60hz. However, because the monitor is now capable got more powerful, I realizes the laggyness between games that that used to be the same.

Back to OP, I am not aware of any monitor that is > 23" and more than 1080p.

 

[Vdubchaos]

You've clearly never used a 120hz monitor, and possibly don't have a computer that spits out more then 60 fps, or you're blind/have very poor eyesight.

You are clearly not reading my posts.

I guess both my friend and I are blind.

We have only been playing FPS games for over 10 years+......

PS. I actually do have 120hz TV at my house as well and tried my PC on it # of times. Don't see a difference either.

 

[Worthington]

I just picked up the Asus 120hz late last week. Coming from my Nec 20WMGX2 the viewing angles are atrocious (damn you TN panels).. but damn do games look so much better. Well, I don't know if "look" is exactly the right term, but they certainly feel better. Much more fluid.

There is a review of the Asus panel here on AT.

 

[vib]

You are clearly not reading my posts.

I guess both my friend and I are blind.

We have only been playing FPS games for over 10 years+......

PS. I actually do have 120hz TV at my house as well and tried my PC on it # of times. Don't see a difference either.

Well you know, I'm playing a particular game similar to Quake and the already mentioned Unreal Tournament at competitive level. When I started playing it three years ago, I was - after already two-three months - significantly better than many of the players that were playing it for 4 years already. And that said, it was my first shooter, I was a RTS player before : )

What do I want to say by that? It doesn't matter how long you have been playing a particular game, you can still be no more than a noob in it.

I doubt you are a good player if you can't tell the most obvious difference between 60 Hz and 120 Hz. Try playing Quake with com_maxfps 60 and r_displayrefresh 60, I wish you fun.

 

[Seero]

Well you know, I'm playing a particular game similar to Quake and the already mentioned Unreal Tournament at competitive level. When I started playing it three years ago, I was - after already two-three months - significantly better than many of the players that were playing it for 4 years already. And that said, it was my first shooter, I was a RTS player before : )

What do I want to say by that? It doesn't matter how long you have been playing a particular game, you can still be no more than a noob in it.

I doubt you are a good player if you can't tell the most obvious difference between 60 Hz and 120 Hz. Try playing Quake with com_maxfps 60 and r_displayrefresh 60, I wish you fun.

Rather or not you can see the difference depends on rather the rest of the PC is capable of deliver it.

 

[vib]

Dribble,

First of all thanks for you reply, though unfortunately I must disagree with some of your points.

There are no 16:10 120hz displays and I'd be very surprised if we ever see them, equally all the displays are TN, haven't heard of any IPS displays coming.

There are 16:10 120 Hz screens available, they are the first monitors that had 120 Hz (Samsung 2233RZ, ViewSonic VX2268WM) and have a resolution of 1680x1050.

I don't suppose 720p will look that different on 1680 to what it looks on a 1920. Obviously 1920p will look better on a 1920 screen.

Of course you meant 1080p, but besides that, I want a more detailed answer than simple guessing. 720p videos look bad on my full HD screen, so I suppose they will look (much) better on a 1680x1050 screen. In theory they should.

The LG is very good for gaming - no input lag, very responsive, matte screen so no reflections, colours and so on good enough but it's far from perfect.
-the stand is cheap and non-adjustable.
-the buttons are impossible to see.
-it's not particularly good for reading text or looking at photo's on.
-being TN if you aren't looking straight on to it then colours will be effected.
-don't suppose it'll be the greatest screen to watch a movie on.

Thanks for that, I was not aware of the problem with reading texts on it.

Also perhaps I should mention for the interested, that my dad has a 1680x1050 IPS Dell screen, which he will give me, so that I will use it together with the full HD 120 Hz gaming (but not only! movies have to look good on it) monitor I will purchase. I'm just curious if the smaller sized videos (<1680x1050) will look better on it than on the full HD screen.

 

[Petey!]

You are clearly not reading my posts.

I guess both my friend and I are blind.

We have only been playing FPS games for over 10 years+......

PS. I actually do have 120hz TV at my house as well and tried my PC on it # of times. Don't see a difference either.

Are you trolling or just plain ignorant?

A 120hz TV is NOT the same as a 120hz Monitor.

 

[Vdubchaos]

Well you know, I'm playing a particular game similar to Quake and the already mentioned Unreal Tournament at competitive level. When I started playing it three years ago, I was - after already two-three months - significantly better than many of the players that were playing it for 4 years already. And that said, it was my first shooter, I was a RTS player before : )

What do I want to say by that? It doesn't matter how long you have been playing a particular game, you can still be no more than a noob in it.

I doubt you are a good player if you can't tell the most obvious difference between 60 Hz and 120 Hz. Try playing Quake with com_maxfps 60 and r_displayrefresh 60, I wish you fun.

Skill level is irrelevant to this thread. If calling me a noob at FPS is your idea of winning an argument....I will leave it at that.

Rather or not you can see the difference depends on rather the rest of the PC is capable of deliver it.

He has 4850 and I have 4870 and we were testing it on MW2 and Bad Company 2. We used settings which were playable on both of our rigs.

Also I would like to add 1 more thing.

PRICE

Let's assume 120hz is better than 60hz (which I haven't seen yet but many report that it is).

is it worth double the price of a 60hz monitor?

That's something to really consider. IMO no 1 improvement can be worth twice the price, I'm sorry. In monitor world prices are steep. In TV world it's a 100-200 difference (usually 1/4 price increase or so)

 

[Seero]

Skill level is irrelevant to this thread. If calling me a noob at FPS is your idea of winning an argument....I will leave it at that.



He has 4850 and I have 4870 and we were testing it on MW2 and Bad Company 2. We used settings which were playable on both of our rigs.

I am not challenging you. If you don't see it, that is fine. However, OP stated that he sees the difference, and is requesting information about different 120hz monitors, not rather 120hz monitor delivers differences.

So that you know, I can see laggyness on 120hz display at 120FPS. Note that it doesn't mean the game is producing 1 frame every 1/120 second.

 

[vib]

Rather or not you can see the difference depends on rather the rest of the PC is capable of deliver it.

It's his fault if he can't get stable 125 fps in a very old game, right? I can get 40 fps on my LG Swift with Android 2.1 in Quake so please : D
He talks about fast shooter, and that fps count is pretty much standard in most of them. At least in those based on the Quake 3 engine.

If he is a vivid gamer (10+ years) than theoretically he should have spent much money for a nice gear which delivers stable gaming experience to him...

 

[vib]

Skill level is irrelevant to this thread. If calling me a noob at FPS is your idea of winning an argument....I will leave it at that.



He has 4850 and I have 4870 and we were testing it on MW2 and Bad Company 2. We used settings which were playable on both of our rigs.

Also I would like to add 1 more thing.

PRICE

Let's assume 120hz is better than 60hz (which I haven't seen yet but many report that it is).

is it worth double the price of a 60hz monitor?

That's something to really consider. IMO no 1 improvement can be worth twice the price, I'm sorry. In monitor world prices are steep. In TV world it's a 100-200 difference (usually 1/4 price increase or so)

To answer your question, yes it is worth the money. For me at least and everyone has to decide for himself.

And I don't want to call you a noob, neither did I. I just stated that you must not be very good in those games if you don't see a difference.

If you play with special effects like motion blur than the difference is possibly not as huge as when playing Quake, but rofl, I can't even imagine someone playing with the likes of AA x16 + Vsync + motion blur competitively.

Also you stated that you play with playable settings, well perhaps you should consider playing with the poorest visual setting so that you will get 125 fps... A thing that every competitive player does.

Perhaps I shouldn't have gotten that personal... well guys, please focus on the original questions! Thanks!

 

[Petey!]

vdub is comparing 120hz TVs, which is just a 60hz monitor sticking in extra frames. There's a HUGE difference between that and a 120hz monitor which is actually refreshing at 120hz, not 60hz x2

 

[Vdubchaos]

I simply have 0 desire playing on "competitive" level (even though I've played with some people that do compete and even beat them on # of occasions) or playing ANY games at lowest settings.

But if that's your requirement, you notice the difference and is worth it to YOU, that's really ALL that matters.

vdub is comparing 120hz TVs, which is just a 60hz monitor sticking in extra frames. There's a HUGE difference between that and a 120hz monitor which is actually refreshing at 120hz, not 60hz x2

I just threw that in, friend has a 120hz monitor (I believe it's Acer or Asus, don't remember)

 

[Petey!]

I just threw that in, friend has a 120hz monitor (I believe it's Acer or Asus, don't remember)

If you can't see the difference between a 120hz monitor and a 60hz monitor, then you must have poor vision. On the desktop alone moving anything on the screen, the difference in quite pronounced, let alone gaming.

 

[vib]

If you can't see the difference between a 120hz monitor and a 60hz monitor, then you must have poor vision. On the desktop alone moving anything on the screen, the difference in quite pronounced, let alone gaming.

Easily agree, even if nothing moves (reading a text on some site) it is less tiring to look on a more refreshed screen than a less refreshed one.