120Hz Monitor + Crossfire 7970 = !!!!

[MrK6]

I would counter by saying there's no point in running 120FPS if you're staring at TN panel, IMO. Extra FPS is nice and the response/smoothness is noticeable, it's just not a big priority, especially compared to the image quality lost from not using a quality IPS panel, or the real estate lost by not using a 30" 2560x1600+. Different strokes for different folks.

 

[OVerLoRDI]

I'm very picky about FPS. I have yet to try a 120hz monitor, but currently the difference between 85hz on my CRT and 60hz on my LCDs is amazing. I can get 100hz out of my CRT at lower resolutions, but the difference isn't pretty negligible. Only times it matters is games like CS:S or UT2004.

On another note, it is sad that monitor tech is so full of compromises.

 

[Fallengod]

I'm very picky about FPS. I have yet to try a 120hz monitor, but currently the difference between 85hz on my CRT and 60hz on my LCDs is amazing. I can get 100hz out of my CRT at lower resolutions, but the difference isn't pretty negligible. Only times it matters is games like CS:S or UT2004.

On another note, it is sad that monitor tech is so full of compromises.

Yup. I just came from a CRT myself. You should get a 120hz, any type of first person games with lots of motion you will regreat playing at 60hz. I dont know how people enjoy those types of games at 60hz. You should definitely try a 120hz monitor sometime.

 

[Don Karnage]

Depends on the person i guess, never noticed a difference in 60 vs 120 myself.

Not playing the right games then. In BF3 its very noticeable.

 

[gramboh]

I'd love 120hz for FPS games like BF3/TF2, but I refuse to use a TN panel, the colours and viewing angles are too annoying... I'm forced to use one on my laptop and work LCD and it's painful.

 

[Meghan54]

So, I'm running an Intel setup....2600K @ 4.8GHz on an Asus Maximus IV Gene-Z, 16GB Corsair 2133, Intel 510 250GB SSD, and either a HIS 7970 or EVGA GTX 680 (the 680 gets here Monday.) The 7970 hits the typical 1125/1575 OC without a sweat, btw.



The current monitor I'm using is an Asus ProArt 24" P-IPS monitor. Love it, its colors, etc.


But the 120Hz monitors intrigue me. I do not relish giving up my 1920 x 1200 format for 120Hz, though, nor giving up an IPS panel.


Question is....would moving to a TN-based 120Hz monitor be worth it? I do game, but I don't play FPS's, more games like Civ V, Starcraft, etc.


Input?

 

[Gloomy]

http://frames-per-second.appspot.com/

 

[Fallengod]

So, I'm running an Intel setup....2600K @ 4.8GHz on an Asus Maximus IV Gene-Z, 16GB Corsair 2133, Intel 510 250GB SSD, and either a HIS 7970 or EVGA GTX 680 (the 680 gets here Monday.) The 7970 hits the typical 1125/1575 OC without a sweat, btw.



The current monitor I'm using is an Asus ProArt 24" P-IPS monitor. Love it, its colors, etc.


But the 120Hz monitors intrigue me. I do not relish giving up my 1920 x 1200 format for 120Hz, though, nor giving up an IPS panel.


Question is....would moving to a TN-based 120Hz monitor be worth it? I do game, but I don't play FPS's, more games like Civ V, Starcraft, etc.


Input?

Well, I will say its less noticeable and perhaps less needed for those types of games, but at the same time I play league of legends and similar strategy games and I definitely enjoy having the added smoothness. You can notice 120hz even on the desktop. I honestly don't understand people's interest in IPS panels. My 22" 120hz TN Panels colors, viewing angle and everything is perfectly acceptable to me. I don't see what people are so critical about, but then again, I also don't use IPS panels. Your decision would just come down to what you give priority to I guess.

 

[Subyman]

I'm wanting a 120Hz monitor now that I have 680. Vsync simply isn't working too well and I still get tearing/stuttering. I think a 120Hz monitor would fix that, as I've heard from countless people. Better start saving...

 

[Subyman]

So, I'm running an Intel setup....2600K @ 4.8GHz on an Asus Maximus IV Gene-Z, 16GB Corsair 2133, Intel 510 250GB SSD, and either a HIS 7970 or EVGA GTX 680 (the 680 gets here Monday.) The 7970 hits the typical 1125/1575 OC without a sweat, btw.



The current monitor I'm using is an Asus ProArt 24" P-IPS monitor. Love it, its colors, etc.


But the 120Hz monitors intrigue me. I do not relish giving up my 1920 x 1200 format for 120Hz, though, nor giving up an IPS panel.


Question is....would moving to a TN-based 120Hz monitor be worth it? I do game, but I don't play FPS's, more games like Civ V, Starcraft, etc.


Input?

Why give it up? Game on the 120hz monitor and use the other as your work/browsing monitor. I've been doing this for a long time. I use a 25" TN for gaming and a dell IPS for photoshop, browsing, etc.

 

[omeds]

120hz or go home.

 

[omeds]

So, I'm running an Intel setup....2600K @ 4.8GHz on an Asus Maximus IV Gene-Z, 16GB Corsair 2133, Intel 510 250GB SSD, and either a HIS 7970 or EVGA GTX 680 (the 680 gets here Monday.) The 7970 hits the typical 1125/1575 OC without a sweat, btw.



The current monitor I'm using is an Asus ProArt 24" P-IPS monitor. Love it, its colors, etc.


But the 120Hz monitors intrigue me. I do not relish giving up my 1920 x 1200 format for 120Hz, though, nor giving up an IPS panel.


Question is....would moving to a TN-based 120Hz monitor be worth it? I do game, but I don't play FPS's, more games like Civ V, Starcraft, etc.


Input?

Not for your gaming no, its a major improvement in FPS games mainly. IQ cannot be matched by any 60hz display. By that I mean IQ in motion, which is 99% of the time in FPS because the whole image moves when you move your mouse. I prefer to play on my 120hz display over my U2711 anyday of the week , despite the res and TN vs IPS.. the difference is a juddery, tearing, blurry, ghosting pos compared to a crystal clear and fluid gaming experience in FPS games.

Capping fps to 125 at either 120hz or 60hz is beneficial for FPS games for a number of reasons btw.

and, it takes more GPU & CPU horsepower to run games at 1080p 120hz/fps than it does 1600p 60hz/fps.

 

[Snowshredder102]

the difference is a juddery, tearing, blurry, ghosting pos compared to a crystal clear and fluid gaming experience in FPS games.

I think you're taking it too far. My gaming experience on my U3011 is quite enjoyable. I'm not seeing anything you're listing here. Maybe I'm just not that hardcore of a gamer to see this, but I think the concept of 120hz is overrated unless you're a serious competitor.

 

[styrafoam]

Having just got a 120hz monitor i think the best way i can relate the difference is thinking back to the first time I cranked up multisampling or fsaa. Its a pretty striking difference in how much more smooth and fluid everything looks and moves.

 

[DominionSeraph]

CRT or go home.

 

[imaheadcase]

Well, you are wrong fallengod. I game all the time, i have a Dell U2410 1900x1200 with SLI 580s. I play games pretty much all the time with movie/tv watching.

Yes i've played on both and did not see a difference between the two. My brother is the same way, he sold his 120hz on ebay because he preferred the 1900x1200 monitor i have as well.

I think you fell into the "its faster it must be better" group of people without actually knowing what you are talking about.

Games look wonderful on this monitor vs the 120hz one i had, colors are just better, its just as smooth with everything on ultra. I found no reason to keep the 120hz. Besides cpu/video card...a SSD drive is a better investment, especially for the price premium 120hz monitors go for you can get a good SSD that will rival performance in games vs a monitor.

 

[DigitalWolf]

Well, you are wrong fallengod. I game all the time, i have a Dell U2410 1900x1200 with SLI 580s. I play games pretty much all the time with movie/tv watching.

Yes i've played on both and did not see a difference between the two. My brother is the same way, he sold his 120hz on ebay because he preferred the 1900x1200 monitor i have as well.

I think you fell into the "its faster it must be better" group of people without actually knowing what you are talking about.

Games look wonderful on this monitor vs the 120hz one i had, colors are just better, its just as smooth with everything on ultra. I found no reason to keep the 120hz. Besides cpu/video card...a SSD drive is a better investment, especially for the price premium 120hz monitors go for you can get a good SSD that will rival performance in games vs a monitor.

I don't see why you think you can tell someone their subjective experience is wong. Its their experience whether you agree with it or not.


You then state your own personal and subjective experience like its a universal fact. I'm not trying to be rude but this is a pet peeve of mine.


I happen to own a Dell U2711 which I bought for my work machine. I also have a Samsung SA23950D which I use on my gaming machine.


I'm not going to tell you that your subjective experience is "wrong". I will say that mine doesn't exactly mesh up with yours. I think the color reproduction and viewing angles on my Samsung are pretty much amazing.


I found this line the most interesting:


"for the price premium 120hz monitors"


The current price on Newegg for the 8ms version of the U24 is the same as I paid for my Samsung (a bit over 300 dollars). The 6ms version which is all Dell sells directly at the moment is over $500.


I mention that because when you compare two products that are in the same relative price range. I am not sure how you list "price" as a con for only one of them. Tho the current model U24 is more closely priced in the range of 27" 120Hz panels.


I don't have any regrets in having purchased my U2711.. tho the anti glare coating is annoying on white backgrounds. It makes my work easier and has paid for its self many times over.


I don't have any regrets in buying my Samsung either.


I would say they are both great products. Tho I certainly wouldn't tell someone they HAD to have a 120Hz panel either. Well in my case gaming on my Dell U2711 gives me headaches. I have a personal history with migraines.. gaming on my Samsung doesn't give me headaches. Which is also part of why personal experience and needs... very from person to person.

I don't get headaches from working on my dell and the 2560x1440 screen allows me to more easily work with all the various windows I have open.


Having them both = perfection for my computer world. /shrug

 

[themodernlife]

I hear the argument a LOT from people that have a limited budget that 120hz is the greatest thing on the planet for gamers. It's not. It's just an opinion. I started using IPS technology about 5 years ago and I would never choose anything else for an LCD panel. I've used 120hz displays and also gamed out on my 600hz plasma tv.

Ips still has the best image quality, with the least compromise possible. TN panels are just awful, the color shift is atrocious even straight on. The quality of the builds, even lighting is horrendous. 95% of people that try ips tech will stick with it. There is a reason why it costs more, it is premium. If 120hz was so premium it would cost more.

I would never sacrifice my 2560x1600 res on IPS for a lame 120hz. If i want smooth I can just afterburner lock it at 60fps.

Anyone that tells you otherwise is just sharing their opinion, and there is a 95% chance they haven't owned a high quality ips build. Maybe one of the cheapo 300$ panels.

 

[omeds]

I think you're taking it too far. My gaming experience on my U3011 is quite enjoyable. I'm not seeing anything you're listing here. Maybe I'm just not that hardcore of a gamer to see this, but I think the concept of 120hz is overrated unless you're a serious competitor.

Well, I've been using 120hz displays for ~2 years now so have become accustomed to them to the point 60hz looks horrid now, they totally destroy my U2711 for gaming.. although 60hz with vsync is ok for slow RPG's and what not. Yes I played semi-competitively for a number of years. The closest I can compare it to is regular SD TV was fine until you started watching HD all the time, then once you go back you realise how bad SD TV is...

CRT or go home.

Fair call, but 120hz displays are a good compromise, they at least take LCD closer to CRT quality as far as motion, fluidity, tearing & ghosting go, but sure not quite on par yet.

 

[Meghan54]

You see, this is the problem I face. My IPS monitor has great colors, etc. The gaming I do is NOT FPS-type games so I don't know if I'd really get much if any benefit from a 120Hz monitor. Add to that the expense of that type of monitor and you have the dilemma.



But a 120Hz monitor would be the only upgrade I would have left to do to my sytem right now as I do have both a 7970 and GTX680 gpus for it, and an SSD in it. (Don't see much point in upgrading to SB-E personally from my 2600K cpu setup.)


And I get such divergent viewpoints about the benefits or lack thereof of going or not going to a 120Hz monitor, I just get confused.


And it's not nice to confuse an old man like me....makes my head hurt. LOL!

 

[omeds]

If you dont play FPS games, get a nice 60hz IPS display and use vsync imo.

90% of my gaming is online FPS, so 120hz is a clear winner over any 60hz display for me.

 

[Yuriman]

Back around 2006 I moved from a 21" CRT capable of 120hz - though I typically used 85-100 depending on the demands of the game and thus my resolution. Moving to my 60hz BenQ MVA panel I was pleased by the improvement in color, images were much more vibrant than on my aging CRT. I liked how the image wasn't so deep in the monitor and didn't flicker when seen in my peripheral vision. Surprisingly, I was only able to discern the tiniest amount of blurring/ghosting (and it was only there if I really looked for it), and I chalked it up to people blowing it out of proportion.

A year or so later my roommate got a Dell 2408 (PVA) and I was appalled at the horrible ghosting and blurring moving images had. Both of our panels are 60hz and of similar technology, but his screen would have been practically unusable in gaming. While I was very content moving from a 120hz CRT to my MVA, I would not have been pleased at all, and might have returned it, had I bought the Dell PVA.

I haven't seen many of the latest panels but I'm willing to bet it's still a crap-shoot. Not all "60hz 2ms" panels are created equal.

TN panels have improved, but I am still bothered by the lack color and brightness uniformity the larger ones inevitably have because of their limited viewing angles. At this point I wouldn't buy a TN because my MVA has virtually no noticeable ghosting or blurring of high speed images. I might consider a 120hz TN panel if it were a choice between it and the Dell.


As an aside, I'm able to distinguish framerates up to around 70fps, but once I'm in the upper 40's I'm happy. I can happily play a strategy game if it dips into the 30's because there isn't a lot of motion.

 

[pieguy]

I hear the argument a LOT from people that have a limited budget that 120hz is the greatest thing on the planet for gamers. It's not. It's just an opinion. I started using IPS technology about 5 years ago and I would never choose anything else for an LCD panel. I've used 120hz displays and also gamed out on my 600hz plasma tv.

Yeah so, the 600hz thing with plasmas is really just marketing BS, gaming on a "600hz" plasma tv is not the same thing as a true 120hz pc monitor. I don't know if this is what you meant either but since you mentioned the plasma tv, gaming on a 120hz LCD tv is not equivalent to a true 120hz pc monitor either since the tv is only accepts 60hz input. So unless you have gamed on a true 120hz pc monitor that is accepting 120hz input then you haven't actually experienced 120hz. Sorry if that's not what you meant.

 

[omeds]

Back around 2006 I moved from a 21" CRT capable of 120hz - though I typically used 85-100 depending on the demands of the game and thus my resolution. Moving to my 60hz BenQ MVA panel I was pleased by the improvement in color, images were much more vibrant than on my aging CRT. I liked how the image wasn't so deep in the monitor and didn't flicker when seen in my peripheral vision. Surprisingly, I was only able to discern the tiniest amount of blurring/ghosting (and it was only there if I really looked for it), and I chalked it up to people blowing it out of proportion.

A year or so later my roommate got a Dell 2408 (PVA) and I was appalled at the horrible ghosting and blurring moving images had. Both of our panels are 60hz and of similar technology, but his screen would have been practically unusable in gaming. While I was very content moving from a 120hz CRT to my MVA, I would not have been pleased at all, and might have returned it, had I bought the Dell PVA.

I haven't seen many of the latest panels but I'm willing to bet it's still a crap-shoot. Not all "60hz 2ms" panels are created equal.

TN panels have improved, but I am still bothered by the lack color and brightness uniformity the larger ones inevitably have because of their limited viewing angles. At this point I wouldn't buy a TN because my MVA has virtually no noticeable ghosting or blurring of high speed images. I might consider a 120hz TN panel if it were a choice between it and the Dell.


As an aside, I'm able to distinguish framerates up to around 70fps, but once I'm in the upper 40's I'm happy. I can happily play a strategy game if it dips into the 30's because there isn't a lot of motion.

The issue is not just blurring, although its pretty major imo, but also juddering (more apparent on larger 60hz displays) and excessive tearing when not using vsync. As any half decent online gamer knows, vsync is not an option for online play for a number of reasons.
I also have another display with frame interpolation, and can set the left side to 60hz and the right to 120 or 240hz, granted its only 60hz input but the end result is a real 120 or 240fps displayed on screen due to frame interpolation, and in demo mode the difference between the two halves is night and day difference, its beyond a joke infact, in 5 years people will look at 60hz like people look at SD TV compared to HD TV now.

Yeah so, the 600hz thing with plasmas is really just marketing BS, gaming on a "600hz" plasma tv is not the same thing as a true 120hz pc monitor. I don't know if this is what you meant either but since you mentioned the plasma tv, gaming on a 120hz LCD tv is not equivalent to a true 120hz pc monitor either since the tv is only accepts 60hz input. So unless you have gamed on a true 120hz pc monitor that is accepting 120hz input then you haven't actually experienced 120hz. Sorry if that's not what you meant.

You are correct, however I also use a HDTV for gaming (console ports) which has frame interpolation, and it turns 60hz input into 120 or 240fps depending on the setting, and it looks magic, without a single artifact becasue its recieving 60 fps vsync input (opposed to 24fps TV content). But you're right, 600hz subfield motion itself is no different than looking at 60hz.