120Hz Monitor LIST -- Includes LightBoost, G-SYNC, Overclockable, etc.

[hans030390]

Just wanted to chime in and give a big thanks to Mark for all of his information and help! I'm really loving 2D Lightboost on my VG248QE.

omeds, I had to use a custom ICC profile for the VG248QE when using Lightboost. There are a couple good ones floating around online (easy to find if you search). That made a huge difference for me, even though the colors still aren't fantastic. I've also heard reports that the latest Nvidia drivers make IQ worse on the VG248QE (with Lightboost on, that is).

Mark, have you ever heard of or seen a monitor that looks better after a few minutes of use? I swear that my VG248QE starts to have better IQ after its been on for a bit (mostly better contrast ratio).

 

[ZGR]

As someone who is waiting for 120hz 1600P IPS monitors to come around, would LightBoost be discernible if a game is running sub-60FPS? I notice I like to turn on the Eye Candy and play at ~35+ FPS on most games.

 

[Black Octagon]

^No, AFAIK you need to be ideally running your game at framerates that are more or less consistently equal to the monitor's refresh rate. I.e., on a 120Hz LB monitor, you want to be running a consistent 120fps

 

[Mark Rejhon]

As someone who is waiting for 120hz 1600P IPS monitors to come around, would LightBoost be discernible if a game is running sub-60FPS? I notice I like to turn on the Eye Candy and play at ~35+ FPS on most games.

The tradeoff varies on what you like. Some people get Titan's and 780's series so they can have have cake (Eye Candy) and eat it too (LightBoost).

Running LightBoost at 60fps@120Hz is much like running at 30fps@60Hz on a CRT -- or 60fps@120Hz on a 120Hz CRT -- you get the double image effect where during motion, the edges are doubled-up. The motion is still clearer than LCD but some people prefer motion blur over the double-edge effect. Everything looks silky smooth at 60fps@60Hz CRT or 120fps@120Hz LightBoost. Once you see 120fps@120Hz, you might find you prefer perfect motion clarity so you can get the blur-free eye candy during fast motion, and not mind lowering detail levels because the eye candy is motion-blurred anyway during fast pans/strafes/turns. Depends on your gaming style and what you prefer. LightBoost can have as much as 92% less motion blur than a 60Hz display (good LightBoost test is the Moving Photo Test running in Chrome browser).

BTW there is a the new "Test UFO" motion test -- at www.testufo.com -- which allows you to see 30fps vs 60fps vs 120fps. (Use Chrome on a 120Hz monitor -- or pre-Beta FireFox 24+ -- the only two web-browsers supporting 120fps).

 

[Trevelyan]

I am building a new gaming computer and really want to jump on the 120hz bandwagon... I play on LCD's currently and don't really have any issue with ghosting, mainly just input lag...

What would the best monitor and video card combo be if I have a $650 budget for both?

 

[Mark Rejhon]

I am building a new gaming computer and really want to jump on the 120hz bandwagon... I play on LCD's currently and don't really have any issue with ghosting, mainly just input lag...

What would the best monitor and video card combo be if I have a $650 budget for both?

ASUS VG248QE - on sale at $248
GeForce 770 - about 400

There you go! Enough GPU power to push 120Hz in many games, especially if slightly overclocked. Top games will require FXAA and minor detail changes like one notch down in two categories, but many should hit triple digit framerates easily that way at pretty high detail, such as Bioshock Infinite, Borderlands 2, etc.

And go SLI later, as games start to demand more.

 

[taq8ojh]

General question:
To each his own, but do people really play games on monitors with TN panels, just because 120Hz? I mean... I don't have the best eyes around, but TN is shite. The colours are so wrong it makes me want to cry a river.

 

[Black Octagon]

Yes they do. And your statement about TN panels, while largely true, is still very much a generalisation

 

[taq8ojh]

Well, yes. Technology limitation is technology limitation. Just like you cannot squeeze 0-100km/h at 5 seconds out of economy-class car, TN panel simply won't produce even half-decent colours And the viewing angles are pretty horrible too.

I am not telling anyone what to get/do, but I am genuinely surprised anyone would be willing to play games on such stuff. Sure it's gameplay which is number one, but it's just as equally about graphics (it's not 1995 anymore).

 

[Mark Rejhon]

General question:
To each his own, but do people really play games on monitors with TN panels, just because 120Hz? I mean... I don't have the best eyes around, but TN is shite. The colours are so wrong it makes me want to cry a river.

Presently all IPS monitors goes into a massive motion blur mess. Try this motion test pattern on your computer monitor, in the Chrome web browser, even on the world's best IPS monitor:
TestUFO: Moving Photo @ 1440 pixels/sec (Test this web animation in Chrome, supports 120Hz VSYNC)
All IPS monitors (Even 120Hz overclocks) will go into a motion blur mess with this type of fast-panning motion (fast strafing, fast turns) while LightBoost 120Hz displays will stay as clear as a CRT. When you view that above link in Chrome browser on a CRT or LightBoost, the fast motion is as perfectly sharp as stationary.

60 Hz Refresh rate:


120 Hz Refresh rate:
... 50% less motion blur than 60Hz

120 Hz LightBoost:
... About ~90% less motion blur than 60Hz

No monitor, except CRT's and LightBoost (LB=10%), can view TestUFO: Moving Photo @ 1440 pixels/sec with zero motion blur. Fast pans as perfectly sharp as stationary images. Good during FPS gaming where you got lots of fast strafing motion, fast panning motions, fast turning motions, etc.

Here are testimonials:

Original Post by "Torr Samaho" from Geforce Forums
in case someone is wondering what's so great about using lightboost without glasses: i can confirm you get practically blur-free motion on your LCD.. the difference was so obvious to me that i stared surprised at my screen when i used lightboost for the first time.

people have different sensitivities to motion blur. i'm one of those who get a kind of motion sickness or nausea from seeing a continously blurred image.

to make it clear: no one can consciously see millisecond differences. what you do see however is their effect on the image: a screen with 1 ms response time blurs significantly less than a screen with 10 ms response time. this is visible in mark's captions of objects moving on-screen.

i'm not gaming competitively, i just want to see sharp motion, as blur detracts from the gaming experience.

i have tried plain 120 hz screens before. they were clearly better than the blurry mess that 60 hz screens are (at least when you play fast shooters with a high sens, like i do) but they still only delayed that motion sickness. lightboost has finally eliminated it. for gaming it's the biggest improvement in LCD technology yet.

mark's articles convinced me. i bought an nvidia card and a lightboost monitor only for this purpose (even downgrading static image quality, as i had a WQHD IPS monitor)

Original Post by "Skyviper" from HardForum
So I finally got the VG248QE hooked up last night and was able to play around with it for a couple hours. The other monitor that I have is a HP ZR30W which is a 30" 2560x1600 IPS monitor so I will be comparing the VG248QE to that a lot in this review.

Right off the bat, I noticed the color quality seems to be a lot worse than the ZR30W. Everything looks to be washed out, dull and not to mention the monitor suffers from poor viewing angles. On the ZR30W, there is next to no color shifting when I move my head around unlike the VG248QE, but that's a common problem with all TN monitors. I tried calibrating the monitor a little bit using some of the values posted online, but it still doesn't compare to the HP.

Moving on, the first thing I tried was 144 Hz gaming. I loaded up Borderlands 2 just to see how it is and I can definitely say it felt smoother. There is no screen tearing at all on the ASUS, unlike how it is on the HP if i don't turn on Vsync. Although the game felt smoother at 144 Hz and there was less blurring, I found that having to play on a lower res (1920x1080 vs 2560x1600) and poorer color reproduction made the overall gaming experience WORSE. Granted this isn't a competitive, online FPS game so I might have benefited more from having a faster refresh rate, but I would have probably stuck with playing this game on the 30" IPS monitor rather than a 24" TN.

At this point I felt like I may have wasted $300 bucks on a monitor that is full of compromises. The next thing I tried of course was using the Lightboost hack. This was the main reason why I bought the monitor in the first place since there are plenty of other 120 Hz monitors that I could have gotten that I'm sure had better color reproduction.

So I downloaded the hacked INF file and followed Mark's instructions. After turning on Lightboost, I noticed the monitor became a little bit brighter so I loaded up PixPerAn just to verify everything is working. The first thing I noticed was that I can actually read "I need more socks" at full speed! This was cool since I've never been able to read it going so fast before on any LCD monitor.

I then proceeded to load up Borderlands 2 again not having much expectations. The first thing that happened was I noticed the FPS drop down to around 1-2 fps, but then I remembered to hold down "Ctrl-T" for a few seconds to turn off the 3D effect which fixed the FPS problem. So I loaded up a game and the first thing that came to my mind was...

SWEET MOTHER OF GOD!

Am I seeing this correctly? The last time I gamed on a CRT monitor was back in 2006 before I got my first LCD and this ASUS monitor is EXACTLY like how I remembered gaming on a CRT monitor. I was absolutely shocked and amazed at how clear everything was when moving around. After seeing Lightboost in action, I would have gladly paid twice the amount for something that can reproduce the feeling I got when playing on a CRT. Now I really can't see myself going back to my 30" 2560x1600 IPS monitor when gaming. Everything looks so much clearer on the ASUS with Lightboost turned on.

If you do any kind of gaming, you should definitely get this monitor. For everything else however, an IPS monitor would probably be better.

Thankfully I am lucky enough to have both

Original Post by Dr1pperUK on Geforce Forums
“Please look at my bf3stats history graph of kdr page:



“I would like to bring your attention to the sudden increase in my average (i.e. running) KDR that started towards the end of february, the exact time i bought a ASUS 2ms 120hz monitor with light boost (upgraded from a Hannspree 5.5ms 60hz monitor). Please ignore the wild peaks and troughs at the beginning of this graph, this was a period of first learning to play that game well and then the updates that came along to stop the weapons having as much power and accuracy (making it tougher to kill as many people in a single clip hence i died more). After the first 9 months of game updates the game finally smoothened out with fairly consistent weapons handling and predictability once again. This is represented by the consistently stable kdr throughout the long middle period of the graph.”

Original Post by immetjes on overclockers.co.uk Forum
“I’m using the XL2411T with lightboost since 21-Dec-2012. You can see on the picture below how my stats improved; don’t be fooled by how little it seems as these are average stats and with the history going back a year stats change slowly. 19-Dec-2012 is using the old set-up (GTX260 SLI and normal LCD). After that it is the XL2411T driven by one GTX670 OC and then since 12-Jan-2013 GTX670 OC in SLI.”



“I also tried the 144Hz/120Hz without lightboost but I like the 120Hz with lightboost better. In game I can tell straight away if lightboost is off or on because of the blur.”

Original Post by Moderator 'lowfat' from HardwareCanucks Forums
I’m a definite convert now. Downgrading in resolution [from 1440p] hasn’t been a problem. In areas where I can maintain 120Hz, Lightboost makes a huge difference. It truly is like gaming on a CRT again. I really can’t wait till we start seeing IPS panels that take advantage of frame matched backlight strobing.

Original Post by l88tbastard on HardForum
“Im running one of those Asus 24″ glossy screens that vega sells combined with a titan gtx and itis amazing. After dialing in the colors I like it better than my sony fw900 and my catleap 2b! [IPS 120Hz Overclock] This is exactly what i have been waiting years for!”

So for my fellow IPS users who enjoy good color quality but terrible motion blur -- you're losing 90% of your monitor's resolution during fast motion like this test pattern: TestUFO: Moving Photo @ 1440 pixels/sec (view in Chrome browser, the only release browser supporting framerate=Hz at all refresh rates). This is equivalent to fast horizontal pans/strafes/turns in fast FPS gaming. Viewing that link on LightBoost or CRT, it is silky smooth while simultaneously also crystal sharp. If you're an ultrafast gamer that always have their screen in motion (Team Fortress 2, Quake Live, Counterstrike, Battlefield 3 helicoptor, etc) all that pretty colors all blurs together on IPS LCD's at the moment. That doesn't happen on CRT or LightBoost. Perhaps you may not care, but others of us want fast motion that is as perfectly clear as stationary (CRT effect).

If you use Visual Studio, Eclipse, PhotoShop, Microsoft Word, then IPS is definitely better. But one size does not fit all, and IPS monitors are very motion-blurry for people who hate motion blur -- and prefer fast motion that looks as crystal sharp as stationary images (LCD that has sharper motion than plasma, LCD that has sharper motion than Sony FW900 and other medium-persistence phosphor CRT's), when enabling LightBoost.

While LightBoost massively improving motion resolution by a whopping factor of 12x over a standard 60Hz monitor, not everyone likes LightBoost since it sometimes degrades already-poor TN color quality on certain monitors (ASUS VG248QE degrades more in color quality than the ASUS VG278H does, for example. The LightBoost FAQ provides calibration help too). One understands the allure of getting better than an order-of-magnitude elimination of motion blur, to the point where ultrafast pans are as crystal sharp as stationary images -- the CRT motion clarity effect.

And yes, we need LightBoost / strobe backlights to finally arrive on IPS displays.

 

[taq8ojh]

Not saying there isn't a difference. But I never had a problem with gaming on any LCD I owned. Of course, I always bought quality over price, and currently having fairly expensive HP LP2475w must have something to do with doing just fine.

Anyway... I don't see any blur, or simply nothing that would disturb my gaming, everything is perfectly smooth. I play BF3 which does have tons of fast movement, and still there's nothing wrong.

Maybe in few years I will get to find one such monitor with parameters you're discussing here, and I will be all WTF!!!, but until then, I am sticking with almost perfect colours

 

[Mark Rejhon]

Yes, OLED displays, preferably with optional pulse-driven modes, might fit that bill.

And true, humans have a history of not noticing things until they're trained to notice it (e.g. being used to HDD and upgrading to SSD -- then you go WTF, why didn't I do it sooner). Some of us see the motion blur immediately -- that's why some former CRT users switching to 120Hz monitors, sometimes become dissapointed in the LCD not having motion clarity as good as CRT.

An interesting note is that motion smoothness is necessarily not the same thing as motion blur. They often go hand-in-hand, but they can diverge.
-- You can have smooth motion that's motion-blurred (e.g. 60fps@60Hz on LCD)
-- You can have stuttery motion that is less motion blurred (e.g. 40fps@60Hz on CRT).
-- LightBoost at framerate=Hz (e.g. 120fps@120Hz) are simultaneously smooth and blur-free, like a CRT at framerate=Hz.

 

[Shamrock]

Thanks for this info Mark! I have the EXACT sensitivity you posted from Torr Samaho, I get nausea and blurred vision, even headaches if I play a fast game (I.E. Battlefield 3). After about 45-60 minutes I have to stop.

Looks like I'll be getting a Lightboost monitor for Christmas.

 

[Mark Rejhon]

HOWTO: Visually see a 1ms difference in motion blur on a 120Hz LightBoost display

It is actually easier than expected to see a 1ms difference in pixel response speed, when it comes to strobe backlights. It's roughly the difference between a medium-persistence CRT and longer-persistence CRT. What you need is perfectly smooth stutter-free VSYNC ON motion, on a strobe-backlight display, in order to see 1ms differences. Here are instructions:

If you already own a 120Hz LightBoost monitor, you can already demo the 1ms difference by doing this:

1. Install ToastyX Strobelight, the lightboost utility, if you haven't yet.
In Strobelight Setup, add multiple refresh rates (120Hz strobed and either 121Hz/144Hz)

2. Now you can turn ON/OFF LightBoost via keyboard: Ctrl+Alt+Minus and Ctrl+Alt+Plus

3. Load TestUFO: Moving Photo (1440 pixels/sec) in Google Chrome browser
(or new Opera 15+, or FireFox 24+ pre-beta, you need a web browser supporting 120fps VSYNC)

4. Turn ON/OFF LightBoost while viewing this moving photo.
You will see a dramatic difference. Far less motion blur when using LightBoost. You're comparing 8.3ms sample-and-hold versus 2.4ms strobe-driven

5. Keep LightBoost ON while viewing the moving photo. Now switch between LightBoost=10% (1.4ms strobes) and LightBoost=100% (2.4ms strobes) by pressing Control+Alt+1 (10%) and Control+Alt+0 (100%). You will observe less motion blur in the windows on the buildings in the moving photo, especially in the windows in the 'castle' at the top of the photo.
With this, your human eyes are comparing 2.4ms strobe-driven versus 1.4ms strobe-driven. You are actually visually seeing the 1ms difference. 1440 pixels per second divided by 1000 (1ms) equals 1.4 pixels worth of motion blur; which is noticeable during these fast pans.

TFTCentral used an oscilloscope to measure strobe lengths of LightBoost=10% and LightBoost=100%, in their Motion Blur Reduction Backlights (Including LightBoost) article, which are consistent with the 1.4ms versus 2.4ms measurements. This suggests this is not the final frontier; monitor manufacturers, working with strobe backlights, should aim for ability to adjust strobe lengths all the way down to 1ms or 0.5ms for even clearer fast pans. (with a brighter backlight, and wider brightness range adjustment).

 

[24601]

HOWTO: Visually see a 1ms difference in motion blur on a 120Hz LightBoost display

It is actually easier than expected to see a 1ms difference in pixel response speed, when it comes to strobe backlights. It's roughly the difference between a medium-persistence CRT and longer-persistence CRT. What you need is perfectly smooth stutter-free VSYNC ON motion, on a strobe-backlight display, in order to see 1ms differences. Here are instructions:

If you already own a 120Hz LightBoost monitor, you can already demo the 1ms difference by doing this:

1. Install ToastyX Strobelight, the lightboost utility, if you haven't yet.
In Strobelight Setup, add multiple refresh rates (120Hz strobed and either 121Hz/144Hz)

2. Now you can turn ON/OFF LightBoost via keyboard: Ctrl+Alt+Minus and Ctrl+Alt+Plus

3. Load TestUFO: Moving Photo (1440 pixels/sec) in Google Chrome browser
(or new Opera 15+, or FireFox 24+ pre-beta, you need a web browser supporting 120fps VSYNC)

4. Turn ON/OFF LightBoost while viewing this moving photo.
You will see a dramatic difference. Far less motion blur when using LightBoost. You're comparing 8.3ms sample-and-hold versus 2.4ms strobe-driven

5. Keep LightBoost ON while viewing the moving photo. Now switch between LightBoost=10% (1.4ms strobes) and LightBoost=100% (2.4ms strobes) by pressing Control+Alt+1 (10%) and Control+Alt+0 (100%). You will observe less motion blur in the windows on the buildings in the moving photo, especially in the windows in the 'castle' at the top of the photo.
With this, your human eyes are comparing 2.4ms strobe-driven versus 1.4ms strobe-driven. You are actually visually seeing the 1ms difference. 1440 pixels per second divided by 1000 (1ms) equals 1.4 pixels worth of motion blur; which is noticeable during these fast pans.

TFTCentral used an oscilloscope to measure strobe lengths of LightBoost=10% and LightBoost=100%, in their Motion Blur Reduction Backlights (Including LightBoost) article, which are consistent with the 1.4ms versus 2.4ms measurements. This suggests this is not the final frontier; monitor manufacturers, working with strobe backlights, should aim for ability to adjust strobe lengths all the way down to 1ms or 0.5ms for even clearer fast pans. (with a brighter backlight, and wider brightness range adjustment).

(1 second) / 120 = 8.33333333 milliseconds

Assuming 300 nits (a mundane amount) of light intensity was used for a non-lightboost display.

To equal that 300 nits, you would need

8.33333333 ms / 2.4 ms = 3.47222222083 times more intense light to be shown during through the lightboost intervals.

That's
3.47222222083 * 300 nits = 1041.66666625 nits actual light intensity effecting the retina.

With 8.33333333 ms / 1.4 ms = 5.95238095 times more intense light to be shown through the lightboost intervals

That's
5.95238095 * 300 nits = 1785.714285 nits actual light intensity effecting the retina.

With 0.5 ms lightboost, you would have
8.33333333 / 0.5 = 16.66666666 times more intense light to be shown through the lightboost intervals.

16.66666666 * 300 nits = 4999.999998 nits actual light intensity effecting the retina.

I'm no expert about the human eyes, but I think 5000 nits seems like pretty high energy bombardment of the retina, about half the intensity of a clear sky at noon.

Even if it doesn't do damage to the retina, it would definitely give you pain quickly.

http://retina.anatomy.upenn.edu/~rob/lance/units_photometric.html

 

[Mark Rejhon]

Communism, LightBoost isn't for people who hated CRT's.

Do you realize that CRT phosphors shine that brightly? (it overexposes the high speed camera)
CRT phosphors shine MANY times brighter than 300cd/m2, for a brief momment.. Often, CRT's do well over 5,000cd/m2 for very bright phosphors -- for a very brief moment -- and yet most eyes do not complain beyond about ~85Hz (person dependent). Your argument has little weight against former CRT users who's looking to recreate the CRT experience in an LCD monitor. Beyond your flicker sensitivity point, what matters is average brightness, not the peak flicker brightness.

Also:
-- Strobe backlights can easily be enabled/disabled
-- Strobe length can be adjusted.
-- Strobe brightness can be adjusted.

There is no argument against completely disallowing strobe backlights in a monitor -- the main issue is if you were sensitive to 120Hz CRT flicker, you won't like LightBoost. Scientific studies says that beyond a certain flicker Hz (e.g. 20,000 Hz), it's the average output that matters. The flickers are too brief to heat up / over-excite / burn sensors (biological eye or electronic CCD). Mind you -- some people are sensitive to 120Hz or even 360Hz PWM -- but again, strobes can be disabled.

When flicker sensitivity is not an issue (at the chosen strobe frequency used), it's the _average_ light that matters, rather than the peak light -- known as Talbot-Plateau's Law, when the flicker is sufficiently short enough that the brightness of the individual flickers has no time to overexcite/burn photoreceptors. Like quickly touching a hot stove pan for one microsecond -- instead of holding onto a hot pan for even 0.5 second, etc. That won't burn you; no time for perceptible heat transfer to occur -- an ultrabrief touch can feel less warm than continuously touching a merely warm pan.

The all at once-strobe and the sharpness of the LED rise/fall plays a factor, but remarkably, CRT flicker sensitivities seem to correspond mostly well with LightBoost flicker sensitivities, if you read the testimonials. There's a bit of fudge there; LightBoost 120Hz flicker may like CRT 100Hz flicker due to the sudden rise/fall of the flicker, without the phosphor decay. Manufacturers can also add capacitor-decay to the strobes, to help fill out this portion of the gap, too. Also, on the brightest LightBoost monitors that use boost current, with a surge ratio of ~60%, LightBoost 120Hz only uses ~500cd/m2 strobes (resulting in ~150cd/m2 average at LB=100% using 2.4ms-8.3ms ratio of on : off) on a monitor that does 300cd/m2 in non-LightBoost mode. Shortening strobe lengths to 0.5ms would only triple it to 1500cd/m2, which is still dim looking on CRT. Often LightBoost monitors don't go this bright, TFTCentral measured 80cd/m2 averaged-out (see Color & Image Tests section). StrobeMaster on HardForum got twice as much (160cd/m2 averaged-out in LightBoost).

Some people (e.g. Vega and myself) get less eyestrain with LightBoost than without since our eyes are more bothered by motion artifacts / motion blur, as long as the average brightness is good. While some people (CRT sensitive) get more eyestrain with LightBoost. It is very person dependant. For some, the elimination of motion artifacts can outweigh the flicker itself. The LightBoost FAQ already covers both the MORE/the LESS eyestrain angles, acknowledging that it depends on the person.

Again, not an excuse against strobe backlights, which can be turned ON/OFF.
People lived with billions of CRT's for decades. Considering the CRT precedent and Talbot-Plateau's Law. Yes, some people got bothered by CRT's. Also, common sense rules here, don't sit too close, don't use an excessive average brightness, etc.

If you want to continue discussing this science, let's ask our friendly moderator Arizonian to split this topic off to a separate thread -- it's interesting & fun scientific talk -- just the vision science is drifting outside the scope of the "120hz monitors list" topic that this thread; people who just want to research these monitors. Any further replies on this interesting topic of strobe science, it's more practical to cover this in a separate thread.

 

[Callsign_Vega]

Just a small comparison in Lightboost mode between the 24" 144 Hz Asus VG248QE (this one has matte film removed), the new 24" 144 Hz BenQ XL2420TE with zero-PWM and the 27" 120 Hz BenQ XL2720T.

I was interested in doing a little comparison due to the seemingly wide variances in picture quality and ghosting between monitors in Lightboost mode. I've just received three XL2420TE which are new models and I hoped would bring good image quality and low Lightboost ghosting in one package.

Please be advised that pictures and videos usually cannot do justice versus "real world" viewing and comparison of the monitors, so I will be adding commentary to the media. All monitors are set to 120 Hz, 10% Lightboost mode (the fastest) and 50% contrast ratio. I found on all three models if you strayed too far off from 50% contrast, the picture quality suffered too much.

These tests are done with driver 326.19. I also tested a much older driver to see if it helped the 24" monitors picture quality, but it did not.

Firstly, the XL2420TE does in fact use the same exact panel as the BenQ XL2411T and the Asus VG248QE. This is good in the regard of least ghosting, but is also bad in the picture quality department.

All images and video are the XL2720T on the left, the XL2420TE in the center and the VG248QE on the right.




This is a completely dark room and once again I would like to point out a camera will overexpose black levels and back light bleed versus real world viewing. For a point of reference, the Xl2720T in real world viewing has a nice, quite black and very uniform black screen. It is very impressive for it to look that good in Lightboost mode.

The XL2420TE in the center has the worse "blacks" and are actually more of a dark grey than anything. The VG248QE on the right was about 60% the strength of the Xl2420TE, so still quite far from the blacks on the XL2720T. One annoying aspect of the "grey-ness" of the blacks on the 24" models is that it isn't very uniform and for some unusual reason I have yet to discover, only happens in LB mode.

In this video you can see the XL2720T's better blacks and contrast:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eMnZGFTnjbQ


You can also see the same thing in this next video. The XL2720T does a very good job with this black test with deep blacks and proper subtle differences between the darkest blocks. The other two overexposing and showing off their poor contrast with large bright gradients to the black boxes with the XL2420TE once again trailing the pack:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eMnZGFTnjbQ





Surprisingly, whites are quite accurate in this photo. Even more surprising is that the best "whites" come from the Xl2420TE. The other two monitors were a bit "muddier-red" in their whites, but no adjustment's were made in NVIDIA control panel to keep the comparison on an even footing.

Xl2720T showing off it's better contrast in the white test, with blocks 247 through 251 outpacing the other two:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GTY4aY9vuiE





In this picture is the contrast on a white web site. Although the Xl2420T in the center had the best whites, it also had the most "bleached out" contrast and was less pleasing on the eyes to read said web site.


Image quality test:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NMOd_gbRj5c

Rank: #1 XL2720T, #2 de-matted VG248QE, #3 XL2420TE.


Moving on to motion quality and ghosting. All monitors tested at a 1.4ms MPRT as they should. I tried taking "ghosting" video but at 60 FPS, the camera did not capture what I feel is a good enough representation. Although, I did get some fairly good images of particular effects seen.

All motion tests are courtesy of www.testufo.com from Mark, the designer of www.blurbusters.com

Here is the XL2720T under the very demanding "Marquee" test that is very unforgiving for ghosting on all display types:



This is where the Xl2720T starts to run into some issues. It does have a quite pronounced ghost and in real life actually looks a bit worse than this image.

 

[Callsign_Vega]

Both the XL2420TE and the VG248QE are almost perfect in this test:







Here, in the vertical scrolling the XL2720T once again falls behind the other two in these images:






The 24" models coming out crystal clear:

 

[Callsign_Vega]

More ghosting tests in order from monitors left to right using a very high shutter speed:






Next set:






And the last set:






So once again, what we have here is a compromise and what do you prioritize more. The 24" models are clearly the best if ghosting is of a concern to you. The Xl2720T has quite a bit better picture then the 24" models, but you do pay a price with the ghosting. One thing to note with the Xl2420TE is it did have some "scan lines" in the corners, and also produced a strange "ripple effect" during movement that the two other display did not have. This "ripple" is hard to describe, and the only reason I can think that the Xl2420TE has it is because of the new LED's or controller they used in this model. It was quite annoying and another reason to not recommend this model for Lightboost.

As for the XL2420TE, I would not recommend the monitor if you are going to be using Lightboost mode. The Zero-PWM feature does not help here and it's $150 more than the VG248QE. The Xl2420TE did look fine in normal 144 Hz mode and didn't have the huge blacks/contrast issues. It will be up to you if the zero-PWM flicker feature is worth the extra $150 and you want to run normal non-Lightboost 144 Hz.

Personally, I view the jump from 144 Hz non-LB to 120 Hz LB about as big of a jump in motion clarity as going from 60 Hz to 120 Hz non-LB.


One last video of the monitors, this time in Falcon 4 BMS:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kNy6yx3Tec8


How much did the matte-removal on the VG248QE help it out versus the XL2420TE? Since they have the same panel, apparently quite a bit. I did not have a stock VG248QE to test against. Some online like Mark have mentioned that adjusting the contrast to certain values can alleviate some of the ghosting on the Asus VG278HE model that undoubtedly has the same panel as the XL2720T. I did not find this the case with the BenQ. The ghosting was at all contrast levels, and straying too far from the middle mark in either direction negatively affected image quality.

After playing some games on all three monitor's, I have decided that the image quality increase on the BenQ XL2720T was worth the trade-off with the ghosting. This came in no small part to the ghosting only happening on light colored images, and the ghosting was actually sometimes less apparent than the 24" models on dark images. In no small part to the XL2720T being 27", which will allow me to push the 3x portrait setup further back on my desk. This will allow a U2413 IPS panel to swing in front of it an a monitor arm for web surfing as it has zero-PWM, great picture quality and a wonderful "semi-gloss" AR film.

One thing to note is ghosting is actually different across the top to the bottom on the 24" panels. This is a strange phenomenon I found out once I rotated all three monitors to portrait. The XL2720T ghosting stayed the same. Pretty universal across the screen. The center of the 24" models still has zero ghosting, but at the very sides "top and bottom in landscape", ghosting similar to the normal Xl2720T's appeared. Since the ghosting was no longer universally better in portrait mode, that also had me lean towards the better picture quality of the big BenQ.

To recap:

My 3x XL2420TE's are going back. I'd only recommend this monitor if you don't want Lightboost and are sensitive to PWM Flicker.

The Asus VG248QE is still the best value at a current pricing of $250. This is some half the cost of the XL2720T.

I have a Asus VG278HE arriving tomorrow to pit against the XL2720T. The victor will end up as my 3x 120 Hz portrait Lightboost setup replacement. Stay tuned!

 

[Black Octagon]

Thanks Vega, very useful indeed!

Personally, I view the jump from 144 Hz non-LB to 120 Hz LB about as big of a jump in motion clarity as going from 60 Hz to 120 Hz non-LB.

Please don't tell me this, lol

 

[Callsign_Vega]

Well, this will be quick!

Got the Asus VG278HE in to compare against the BenQ XL2720T for the king of Lightboost monitors. I started to take some pictures until I realized the screen differences were so subtle that you couldn't even tell them apart in the photo's.

Pretty much makes sense, since the panels used are identical. Firstly, the contrast reference points for the screens are different. When I first turned on the Asus, it's contrast was set at 50 just like the BenQ. The Asus looked pretty bad and dim-muddy. I then realized both manufacturers just used a different contrast reference. Setting the contrast on the Asus to 84 pretty much matched the contrast setting on the BenQ of 50 to the T. So the BenQ has a wider contrast setting range.

With the Asus at 84 contrast and the BenQ at 50, the motion trailing/ghosting characteristics etc were fairly identical. For overall picture quality, I would ever so slightly give the edge to the BenQ. Both monitors have really impressive blacks in Lightboost mode with little back light bleed and great uniformity, especially compared to all of the 24" Lightboost monitors out there. Really between these two, the only differences are:

1. Contrast reference points, with the BenQ having a much better "center" reference.
2. Both have nice height adjustable/rotatable stands so it's a wash there. I personally like the BenQ design better.
3. On screen controls and buttons. Asus using mechanical buttons and BenQ using touch sensitive. I prefer the Asus mechanical as they always just work.
4. BenQ has a little green LED that shows when Lightboost is working. The Asus does not. Very handy!
5. As I write this, the Asus on Amazon is $381, the BenQ $472. A difference of a not insignificant $91.
6. The BenQ has a Displayport which makes the monitor more flexible which I like (and I wager more expensive). The only 120Hz capable interface the Asus has is Dual Link-DVI which could limit you in configurations and future GPU's.
7. The BenQ has a little base control "gadget", but I don't find it fairly useful now that ToastyX's utility is out in which you can change all Lightboost monitors brightness right from the task-bar. Basically the only control you ever have to touch once you get your LB monitor set up is the power button if you want to turn them on and off and not just power save mode.

Well, there you have it. Vega's top Lightboost monitor as of summer 2013 is the BenQ XL2720T. Now I am off to remove the matte-film and de-bezel three of these bad boys for my new NVIDIA Surround setup.

(PS, if anyone knows a shop that can do custom work with glass/mirror shapes, or knows how to cut glass plate at a 45 degree angle for a bezel-mask project please let me know).

 

[looper]

Well, this is just one of the best threads I've ever enjoyed here at Anand's. Thanks, guys.... (Though some of it falls under the category of you're "Killing me with science", as my Liberal Arts degree eyes glaze over...).

About to upgrade video card from a Sapphire Radeon 5870 to either the nVidia GTX770 or 780. I will also get one of the above monitors you folks are discussing here. I currently have the below listed high-quality IPS panel Dell. I'm trying to decide which one of these monitors to buy....

Fun, fun, fun.... as the wife shakes her head as she walks by while I'm gaming. (I ignore her).

 

[Elfear]

I am building a new gaming computer and really want to jump on the 120hz bandwagon... I play on LCD's currently and don't really have any issue with ghosting, mainly just input lag...

What would the best monitor and video card combo be if I have a $650 budget for both?

Monitor-wise the ASUS VG248QE is your best bet on a budget. For a GPU if you don't mind overclocking (easy to do on today's GPUs), I'd look at a 7950. You'd be out $500 for the pair and get within 10% of the performance of the GTX 770.

This Sapphire has a great cooler and unlocked voltage for $250 AR.

 

[Mark Rejhon]

More ghosting tests in order from monitors left to right using a very high shutter speed

Vega, thanks for torture testing the Test UFO!

Here are the web-based motion test that Vega used in his review:

Marquee ............. www.testufo.com/#test=framerates-marquee
Scrolling Text ...... www.testufo.com/#test=framerates-text
Ghosting ............. www.testufo.com/#test=ghosting
Eiffel Tower ......... www.testufo.com/#test=photo&photo=photo-eiffel.jpg
Chase Test .......... www.testufo.com/#test=chase

Google Chrome browser is preferred as it does 120fps@120Hz, or use a recent VSYNC-supported web browser. Make sure you enable/disable LightBoost during these tests, to see the improvement LightBoost gives. If you have ToastyX Strobelight installed (with multiple refresh rates in strobelight setup), use Ctrl+Alt+Plus and Ctrl-Alt+Minus to turn ON/OFF LightBoost. Even while the web page is running.

 

[Mark Rejhon]

Well, this is just one of the best threads I've ever enjoyed here at Anand's. Thanks, guys....

Thanks for the compliment!

_____________

Optical Illusion Generated by Motion Blur
BTW, here is a new animation to help people better understand sample-and-hold motion blur (eye-tracking-based motion blur -- separate cause of motion blur than pixel transition speed) click this link on any typical LCD screen:

www.testufo.com/#test=eyetracking

This additional type of motion blur even occurs if the pixel transitions are instant (0ms).
This stars optical illusion is created by eye-tracking motion blur on sample-and-hold displays such as LCD and most OLED displays.
This illusion disappears if you stop moving your eyes.
This illusion also disappears if you view this page on CRT or LightBoost, instead of regular LCD.