27" Monitor for Gaming

[FearoftheNight]

hi OP i'm using a planar 2710mw i'd recommend it. newegg and dell have it on special quite frequently for $250 shipped. its 27in 1080p

 

[blackened23]

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.

No, its not wrong.

You would know this how? You obviously haven't used a 120hz monitor and you keep babbling that you can't perceive a difference between 60 and 120hz. There is an EXTREMELY noticeable difference to anyone that has used one. Its like the difference between a hard capped 30 fps vs 60 fps. If you turn vsync on in Dead Space it will cap the game at 30 fps, and there's a huge difference going to 60 fps. Now going from 60hz to 120hz is the same "wow" feeling, the difference is unreal.

Also, there is no tearing with vsync off on the acer 27" 120hz monitor. Using this monitor:

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...82E16824009300

I don't know if you're just lying , or if you used one of the "fake" 120hz screens by LG -- maybe in the extremely unlikely event that you're telling the truth you probably used one of the fake 120hz monitors, the LG trumotion screens advertise 120hz but are actually 60hz screens interpolated. Regardless, there is NO TEARING and there is a big difference between 60 vs 120hz. I was a doubter at first, but after using it not anymore.

 

[JAG87]

No, its not wrong.

You would know this how? You obviously haven't used a 120hz monitor and you keep babbling that you can't perceive a difference between 60 and 120hz. There is an EXTREMELY noticeable difference to anyone that has used one. Its like the difference between a hard capped 30 fps vs 60 fps. If you turn vsync on in Dead Space it will cap the game at 30 fps, and there's a huge difference going to 60 fps. Now going from 60hz to 120hz is the same "wow" feeling, the difference is unreal.

Also, there is no tearing with vsync off on the acer 27" 120hz monitor. Using this monitor:

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...82E16824009300

I don't know if you're just lying , or if you used one of the "fake" 120hz screens by LG -- maybe in the extremely unlikely event that you're telling the truth you probably used one of the fake 120hz monitors, the LG trumotion screens advertise 120hz but are actually 60hz screens interpolated. Regardless, there is NO TEARING and there is a big difference between 60 vs 120hz. I was a doubter at first, but after using it not anymore.

I wonder if you've read anything I posted at all.

Try Dead Space hard capped at 30 fps on a 60Hz and a 120Hz monitor side by side and tell me if you can see a difference. 2:2 cadence vs a 4:4 cadence, both displaying a new frame exactly 33.3 ms apart. Since you seem to know about "fake 120Hz" and interpolation, I don't know why this is so difficult for you to understand.

My argument is that if you're getting a 120Hz monitor to play FPS games, you better make sure you can actually produce >60 fps at 1080p to reap the benefits. Most people can't in newer games unless they turn down settings, and on top of that there is very little benefit if you play games mostly with a controller instead of a mouse, so the whole "better for gaming" argument is too generic, it depends what genre of games and what you're input device is.

And there definitely is tearing at 120Hz or 1000 or 10000Hz. Whether it's noticeable to you is a different story, but anytime frames are not synched to refresh calls there will ALWAYS be tearing. The fact that you think otherwise shows how little you know. The sentence in the AT review is ambiguous, I'm fairly sure the reviewer meant to say that we're not stuck at 60 fps, but we can finally drive up to 120 fps without having to turn off vsync and deal with tearing. It doesn't say that you can drive games up to 120 fps with no tearing with vsync off, so it's not incorrect but it can be misinterpreted.

 

[lavaheadache]

JAG87,

I really feel like you are arguing just to argue. Fact of the matter is 120hz monitors provide a much smoother experience a vast majority of the time. Every review states this as does every owner of one. Count me in as an owner. I have one and it blos me away everytime I switch back and forth from my U3011 to my VG236H. Some times I like playing on the IPS big screen then other times I switch back to the "tiny" monitor. Every time I switch back I can't believe the difference. Even just scrolling down the text of these forums is pleasing to the eyes.

One of these days I imagine you will own a 120hz monitor and realize how foolish of an argument you are having right now.

quoting you "And there definitely is tearing at 120Hz or 1000 or 10000Hz. Whether it's noticeable to you is a different story, but anytime frames are not synched to refresh calls there will ALWAYS be tearing"

This statement is idiotic at best. If one doesn't notice tearing, then it is percieved as non existant.

The earth is spinning right? Can you feel it? Nope, so the perception is that you are in fact not spinning. That doesn't mean that you aren't.

I'm not gonna say that there isn't tearing on my monitor because my intelect says there is, however, my eys tell me that what I'm seeing is very niiiiiice.

 

[lavaheadache]

Also JAG,

your argument about not being able to drive 120 fps in newer games is a moot point aswell.

Even games like metro 2033 where just about any rig has a hard time of producing 60 fps @ 1080p maxed out on average, there are plenty of times where you are way above that. At these times it is astonishing when the game instant feels liquid smooth only to look at the frames counter to see why. It almost serves as my burning desire for the next gen cards to come out so I can have that eye candy more often.

enough of my bable, I'm no videophile but even my paltry general consumer eyes appreciate the extra hz especially when my hardware gets to make good use of it.

 

[JAG87]

JAG87,

I really feel like you are arguing just to argue. Fact of the matter is 120hz monitors provide a much smoother experience a vast majority of the time. Every review states this as does every owner of one. Count me in as an owner. I have one and it blos me away everytime I switch back and forth from my U3011 to my VG236H. Some times I like playing on the IPS big screen then other times I switch back to the "tiny" monitor. Every time I switch back I can't believe the difference. Even just scrolling down the text of these forums is pleasing to the eyes.

One of these days I imagine you will own a 120hz monitor and realize how foolish of an argument you are having right now.

I'm not arguing against that.

I definitely will own one once there is an IPS or other technology that is equivalent or better for colour accuracy, and I know that my desktop usage experience will be improved. But I also know that I'll need appropriate performance in the newest titles to draw any benefit from the display over a 60Hz one.

quoting you "And there definitely is tearing at 120Hz or 1000 or 10000Hz. Whether it's noticeable to you is a different story, but anytime frames are not synched to refresh calls there will ALWAYS be tearing"

This statement is idiotic at best. If one doesn't notice tearing, then it is percieved as non existant.

The earth is spinning right? Can you feel it? Nope, so the perception is that you are in fact not spinning. That doesn't mean that you aren't.

I'm not gonna say that there isn't tearing on my monitor because my intelect says there is, however, my eys tell me that what I'm seeing is very niiiiiice.

It's not idiotic at all.

There could be a big difference between what you notice and what I notice and what the OP notices. A tiny tear near the very bottom of the screen might be invisible to you, but might drive other people nuts. Giving someone purchasing advise on a 120Hz monitor claiming that it doesn't tear without vsync is a pure lie, that's all.

Also JAG,

your argument about not being able to drive 120 fps in newer games is a moot point aswell.

Even games like metro 2033 where just about any rig has a hard time of producing 60 fps @ 1080p maxed out on average, there are plenty of times where you are way above that. At these times it is astonishing when the game instant feels liquid smooth only to look at the frames counter to see why. It almost serves as my burning desire for the next gen cards to come out so I can have that eye candy more often.

enough of my bable, I'm no videophile but even my paltry general consumer eyes appreciate the extra hz especially when my hardware gets to make good use of it.

I'm not sure what you mean by this, but if you are referring to minimum and maximum fps, I'm always talking about the average.

Enjoying that "liquid smooth" feeling while looking at the ground or sky in a game doesn't really justify sacrificing colour for a 120Hz TN panel.

 

[lavaheadache]

You don't have to have 120 fps to notice the difference. Just higher than 60. Somewhere around 90 fps is about where it starts to be negligable for me and my eyes. You may be different but I guarantee that the difference is not subtle in any way. Not all the current 120 hz TN panels are horrible with viewing angles and color reproduction. My Asus vg236h is quite nice, just not as nice as the u3011 that comes factory color calibrated that sits right next to it.

 

[Destiny]

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.

uuuh... NO! Some times they stutter sometimes they don't on other monitors...ALOT has to do with they type of 60Hz monitor and if it automatically adds the extra frames to smooth it out... in some cheap monitors it stutters because the chipset in the monitor is not or cannot smooth it out by adding extra frames, but I've seen some 60Hz monitors play 23.976 fps movies silky smooth without vsync turned on...

 

[lavaheadache]

uuuh... NO! Some times they stutter sometimes they don't on other monitors...ALOT has to do with they type of 60Hz monitor and if it automatically adds the extra frames to smooth it out... in some cheap monitors it stutters because the chipset in the monitor is not or cannot smooth it out by adding extra frames, but I've seen some 60Hz monitors play 23.976 fps movies silky smooth without vsync turned on...

I had a 26 inch panny lcd that stuttered on opening scene of I am Legend, it was the way overhead view of the Mustang ripping through the city. I recently watched it again and my current tv didn't exihibit the same behavior.

 

[Judgement]

Thanks for all the input guys. I really don't feel the need to spend the extra money on a 120hz monitor - especially since FPS aren't the primary type of game I play.

Definitely was favoring the ASUS VE278Q -- but saw on Newegg the VE258Q is on sale for $200. Now I am thinking there were a few people who thought 27" was too large for this resolution to begin with and it would be hard to justify $100-$130 extra for 2" of screen space. At the same time, I'm sure I would enjoy the larger screen and will have it for several years. So tough to choose....

 

[looper]

Wow, head spinning and eyes glazed with conflicting data/opinions...

I have an IPS Dell 24" U2410, and my son and I are 'FPS' gamers. Wondering if that 27" 120hz Samsung with super-fast refresh would be better for the gaming than what we have...