27" Monitor for Gaming

[Judgement]

I have no interest in a 3D monitor, and I'm not willing to pay for an IPS panel (not that they're best suited for gaming anyway).

My last 3 monitors have been Samsung, and while I wouldn't call myself a fanboy I certainly lean towards them for any product I use that has a screen (phones/tv/monitors). I am currently using a Samsung 226BW which is about least 3 years old if I had to guess.

I was going to to just bump the size from current 22" to 24", but now I have my eyes set on 27". I know 1080P is not the best resolution for this size, but the monitors with higher res are out of my price range.

I was looking at the P2270FH http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...&SID=u00000687

But Now I think I may be favoring the S27A550H -- http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...82E16824001476

I know LED isn't great for gaming, but 2ms sounds like it should be fine? Looking for some other input and/or options. I was really only hoping to spend $300 but if it's worth it I'll get the LED.

 

[WMD]

I have no interest in a 3D monitor, and I'm not willing to pay for an IPS panel (not that they're best suited for gaming anyway).

My last 3 monitors have been Samsung, and while I wouldn't call myself a fanboy I certainly lean towards them for any product I use that has a screen (phones/tv/monitors). I am currently using a Samsung 226BW which is about least 3 years old if I had to guess.

I was going to to just bump the size from current 22" to 24", but now I have my eyes set on 27". I know 1080P is not the best resolution for this size, but the monitors with higher res are out of my price range.

I was looking at the P2270FH http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...&SID=u00000687

But Now I think I may be favoring the S27A550H -- http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...82E16824001476

I know LED isn't great for gaming, but 2ms sounds like it should be fine? Looking for some other input and/or options. I was really only hoping to spend $300 but if it's worth it I'll get the LED.

Get the S27A950. It's picture quality is awesome and it supports 120Hz refresh.

 

[FalconHorse]

If money is any concern, you could go with this one for only $200 after MIR.

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...7&AID=10440897

 

[Judgement]

I've poked around a little bit and it looks like the Asus VE278Q http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...82E16824236103 -- might be a better option. I was originally turned off by the built in speakers, but the S27A550H looks to have poor reviews around the net.

Also considering the HP 2711x http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...82E16824176195 -- but I am a little afraid of its response time since it will be used for gaming

Anyone own/used any of these? Comments/suggestions/alternatives? Looking to purchase within the next few days.

 

[Shmee]

honestly, if you are used to the 1680x1050, I would recommend a good 1200p monitor at least for an upgrade, or save for a good IPS. Some of them are actually quite good for gaming, like the dell U3011 and the one I have.

 

[Judgement]

honestly, if you are used to the 1680x1050, I would recommend a good 1200p monitor at least for an upgrade, or save for a good IPS. Some of them are actually quite good for gaming, like the dell U3011 and the one I have.

Unfortunately I don't have $1k+ to spend on a monitor, and I think I'd rather spend $300 or so every few years than drop $1k and pray the current technology will feel adequate as new technologies are released and prices drop.

Currently favoring the ASUS VE278Q... although from what I've read the VE276Q might be a better value as being LED doesn't seem to improve the display enough to justify a $30 price difference.

 

[blackened23]

honestly, if you are used to the 1680x1050, I would recommend a good 1200p monitor at least for an upgrade, or save for a good IPS. Some of them are actually quite good for gaming, like the dell U3011 and the one I have.

IPS? For gaming? What, no. I'm of the camp that regular TN's and IPS's aren't bad for gaming, but a 120hz will certainly blow it out of the water if you're concerned with that primarily.

 

[Vdubchaos]

OP, Costco has that Samsung model for $260 I believe (maybe $270)

 

[JAG87]

IPS? For gaming? What, no. I'm of the camp that regular TN's and IPS's aren't bad for gaming, but a 120hz will certainly blow it out of the water if you're concerned with that primarily.

This 120Hz for gaming argument is completely blown out of proportion.

120Hz would only help you in FPS games, but FPS games are just a fraction of all games out there, there are MMOs, RPGs, parkour games, sport sims, racing games, and so on, most of which are played with a keyboard/controller primarily, not a mouse, and thus see little to no benefit from a 120Hz monitor.

Personally I'd rather have a consistent image quality improvement in all games with an IPS panel, than just in a fraction of them.

And last but not least, you need to have GPUs can actually pump out 120 fps at 1920x1080 with cranked settings before you see any improvement from a 120Hz monitor. Getting a 120Hz monitor with a single GPU that can only put out 60 fps in BF3 for example will do absolutely nothing.

So OP, before taking all this bogus advice consider your options. A 60Hz IPS panel is almost always your best option.

 

[toyota]

JAG87, why dont you do a little more research before talking nonsense? 120Hz monitors are better at ANY framerate. they help smooth out the image even just when panning around.

 

[Subyman]

Having used a TN 27" panel, I would advise against it. They are so large that you can not look at it without having issues with viewing angle. This is not an issue with smaller screens up to 24", but with 27" you will notice the color changing toward the edges due to the poor viewing angle of TN.

I've used TN and IPS extensively and am a firm believer in going with a quality IPS. Not only are the colors much deeper and the gamut wider (the 27" panel looks washed out compared to the IPS), but the overall experience is much better as well. If you are going TN, stay at 24" or below.

 

[JAG87]

JAG87, why dont you do a little more research before talking nonsense? 120Hz monitors are better at ANY framerate. they help smooth out the image even just when panning around.

Absolutely false.

Pulldown doesn't make anything look smoother. It's just a method of interpolating existing information to fit different frame rates into a fixed refresh rate. It doesn't magically generate more information that your eye can perceive. And with vsync off you don't even get this, you just get nice ugly tears.

That's why 23.976 fps movies still stutter on pans @ 60Hz. Same idea.

 

[toyota]

Absolutely false.

Pulldown doesn't make anything look smoother. It's just a method of interpolating existing information to fit different frame rates into a fixed refresh rate. It doesn't magically generate more information that your eye can perceive. And with vsync off you don't even get this, you just get nice ugly tears.

That's why 23.976 fps movies still stutter on pans @ 60Hz. Same idea.

you have no clue what you are talking about. I do not have the links anymore but there have been reviews showing that 120Hz is much smoother and has very little blurring compared to 60Hz lcds.

 

[lavaheadache]

you have no clue what you are talking about. I do not have the links anymore but there have been reviews showing that 120Hz is much smoother and has very little blurring compared to 60Hz lcds.

This man speaks the truth. You have to see it to believe it. I could not endorse any monitor this day in ae if it's not 120hz. end of story

 

[Jaskalas]

My HP 2709m has been great at 1920x1080. I don't think I'll ever change the size or resolution in future purchases.

It has problems with glare and darker colors though. Viewing angle could be a problem if you cared about that sort of thing, but all three are a statement about the panel. I'll always recommend the size and resolution.

 

[JAG87]

you have no clue what you are talking about. I do not have the links anymore but there have been reviews showing that 120Hz is much smoother and has very little blurring compared to 60Hz lcds.

You're the one who has no clue. Your argument is about as valid as claiming that 96K up-sampled audio sounds better than the original 44.1K because it has more samples, or that 1080p up-scaled video looks better than the original 480p because it has more pixels.

Sure, 120Hz TN panels have a quicker pixel response time but do not in any way increase the perceived fluidity of a game running at i.e. 30 fps vs a 60Hz TN panel. Of course IPS will have greater pixel response time, but as long as response time is below the frame rate, i.e. 30 fps = 33.3 ms, perceived fluidity will be identical.

This is mathematics sir, not placebo.

This man speaks the truth. You have to see it to believe it. I could not endorse any monitor this day in ae if it's not 120hz. end of story

I would too if I could have an IPS panel. But a monitor's greatest strength is still colour, not speed in my books. When we can have both, backed up by enough GPU power, you won't hear me say anything against 120Hz.

The reason I'm arguing against it now is because most people considering 120Hz are doing it for the wrong reasons, namely the idea that they will witness increased fluidity when in truth it is only perceivable through mouse inputted games backed up by a complementary frame rate, at the cost of colour accuracy.

 

[Obsoleet]

I prefer 120hz or IPS due to the fact that I'm color deficient (color blind in popular nomenclature). Since some colors are already dull to me, I can tell 0 to no difference between IPS and TN. I'll take the 2ms response time of the TN panels and 120hz anyday.

Although, I do prefer plasma over LCD, because I do believe skintones and other features on a plasma almost look 3D and pop off the screen, they look so realistic compared to what even a top end LCD can produce.

 

[blackened23]

Absolutely false.

Pulldown doesn't make anything look smoother. It's just a method of interpolating existing information to fit different frame rates into a fixed refresh rate. It doesn't magically generate more information that your eye can perceive. And with vsync off you don't even get this, you just get nice ugly tears.

That's why 23.976 fps movies still stutter on pans @ 60Hz. Same idea.

I'm of the camp that believes that you're clueless. Have you actually used a 120hz monitor? The difference is pretty big. Trust me, I thought 60hz TN's were fine in the past as i've gamed on them a bunch. But there is a huge discernable difference when turning vsync off and playing at 120hz on a 120hz display.....there's obviously also no tearing on 120hz displays with vsync off - which shows you haven't used one -- that only happens on 60hz panels.

You're arguing in favor of IPS when its a known fact that IPS has inherently worse response times than TN. So why would you argue in favor of an IPS for gaming? Doesn't make sense.,.....especially when you haven't used 120hz.

 

[SlowSpyder]

honestly, if you are used to the 1680x1050, I would recommend a good 1200p monitor at least for an upgrade, or save for a good IPS. Some of them are actually quite good for gaming, like the dell U3011 and the one I have.

I went from a 19" 1440x900 monitor to a 1680x1050 22" monitor and finally to my current 27" 1920x1200 monitor. I'm sad to see 16:10 going away for the most part. I would certainly second the above recommendation, I really like this resolution for gaming and general use.

 

[tweakboy]

I have no interest in a 3D monitor, and I'm not willing to pay for an IPS panel (not that they're best suited for gaming anyway).

My last 3 monitors have been Samsung, and while I wouldn't call myself a fanboy I certainly lean towards them for any product I use that has a screen (phones/tv/monitors). I am currently using a Samsung 226BW which is about least 3 years old if I had to guess.

I was going to to just bump the size from current 22" to 24", but now I have my eyes set on 27". I know 1080P is not the best resolution for this size, but the monitors with higher res are out of my price range.

I was looking at the P2270FH http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...&SID=u00000687

But Now I think I may be favoring the S27A550H -- http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...82E16824001476

I know LED isn't great for gaming, but 2ms sounds like it should be fine? Looking for some other input and/or options. I was really only hoping to spend $300 but if it's worth it I'll get the LED.

LED LCD is 5ms or 8ms and above. I shocked there is a 2ms . Anyhow once you enable vsync you want the mouse cursor to be like a CRT. You wont get that with your LED, it will have motion delay, not as fluid. My cousin has a LG 2ms and the mouse is wiggley jiggley , laggy input. Its not instant. However me with my rig it feels exactly like a CRT which I used for 11 years @ 2304x1440@80hz Actually it feels better,, its stuck on 60fps and 0 input lag ......Alto its 120hz that is a gimmick, this monitor will be your bottleneck.....gl D:

 

[toyota]

LED LCD is 5ms or 8ms and above. I shocked there is a 2ms . Anyhow once you enable vsync you want the mouse cursor to be like a CRT. You wont get that with your LED, it will have motion delay, not as fluid. My cousin has a LG 2ms and the mouse is wiggley jiggley , laggy input. Its not instant. However me with my rig it feels exactly like a CRT which I used for 11 years @ 2304x1440@80hz Actually it feels better,, its stuck on 60fps and 0 input lag ......Alto its 120hz that is a gimmick, this monitor will be your bottleneck.....gl D:

yet another post from you that needs to be ignored.

 

[RavenSEAL]

24" in the sweet spot IMO. After that, you have to start distancing yourself further away from the monitor.

 

[JAG87]

I'm of the camp that believes that you're clueless. Have you actually used a 120hz monitor? The difference is pretty big. Trust me, I thought 60hz TN's were fine in the past as i've gamed on them a bunch. But there is a huge discernable difference when turning vsync off and playing at 120hz on a 120hz display.....there's obviously also no tearing on 120hz displays with vsync off - which shows you haven't used one -- that only happens on 60hz panels.

You're arguing in favor of IPS when its a known fact that IPS has inherently worse response times than TN. So why would you argue in favor of an IPS for gaming? Doesn't make sense.,.....especially when you haven't used 120hz.

Oh haha... lmao.

Wasting my time.

 

[toyota]

Oh haha... lmao.

Wasting my time.

there will be much less tearing though. and again you are still wrong thinking that 120hz is not a smoother experience in motion.

http://www.anandtech.com/show/3842/asus-vg236h-review-our-first-look-at-120hz
"Though the 120Hz refresh frequency does make games playable in 3D, there’s another important benefit of using a faster refresh rate - everything looks smoother, and you can now drive up to 120 FPS without tearing. The ASUS VG236H was my first exposure to 120Hz refresh displays that aren’t CRTs, and the difference is about as subtle as a dump truck driving through your living room. I spent the first half hour seriously just dragging windows back and forth across the desktop - from a 120Hz display to a 60Hz, stunned at how smooth and different 120Hz was. Yeah, it’s that different."


http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/monitors/display/samsung-sm2233rz_11.html#sect0
Moreover, the 120Hz refresh rate provides substantial benefits of its own. I had not expected a reduction in response time (it is smaller than the refresh rate even at 120Hz) but the considerable reduction of the intensity of RTC artifacts was a nice surprise. This is a rare thing indeed: a 3ms matrix with no RTC artifacts!

Then, the 120Hz refresh rate ensures smoother motion in games and at ordinary work. Perhaps it is not a critical improvement for office applications, yet an advantage anyway, and I guess that gamers will welcome 120Hz monitors warmly.

 

[JAG87]

there will be much less tearing though. and again you are still wrong thinking that 120hz is not a smoother experience in motion.

http://www.anandtech.com/show/3842/asus-vg236h-review-our-first-look-at-120hz
"Though the 120Hz refresh frequency does make games playable in 3D, there’s another important benefit of using a faster refresh rate - everything looks smoother, and you can now drive up to 120 FPS without tearing. The ASUS VG236H was my first exposure to 120Hz refresh displays that aren’t CRTs, and the difference is about as subtle as a dump truck driving through your living room. I spent the first half hour seriously just dragging windows back and forth across the desktop - from a 120Hz display to a 60Hz, stunned at how smooth and different 120Hz was. Yeah, it’s that different."


http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/monitors/display/samsung-sm2233rz_11.html#sect0
Moreover, the 120Hz refresh rate provides substantial benefits of its own. I had not expected a reduction in response time (it is smaller than the refresh rate even at 120Hz) but the considerable reduction of the intensity of RTC artifacts was a nice surprise. This is a rare thing indeed: a 3ms matrix with no RTC artifacts!

Then, the 120Hz refresh rate ensures smoother motion in games and at ordinary work. Perhaps it is not a critical improvement for office applications, yet an advantage anyway, and I guess that gamers will welcome 120Hz monitors warmly.

That bold part is flat out wrong, and the rest of the quotes have nothing to do with how <60 fps feels at 60Hz vs 120Hz or with how non mouse centric games (controlled mostly on keyboard/controller) feel. Obviously, FPS games and windows desktop usage are two big mouse centric examples.

That were the 2 premises of my argument.