HP ZR30W or Samsung S27A950D for FPS gaming?

X

Xcellere

Limp Gawd
Joined
Dec 10, 2004
Messages
180
I'm starting to build my rig for BF3, and it's time to pick a monitor. I'm having a hard time choosing between the HP ZR30W and the Samsung S27A950D. What would you rather have, 2560x1600/60Hz or 1920x1080/120Hz? I know both are great monitors, but I've never experienced a 120Hz monitor before and would like to know whether it's worth more then the 30" experience. I'll likely never use the 3D feature while gaming, so let's just stick to considering 2D performance.

Either monitor will be powered by CF 6990s, so working either monitor to their fullest potential won't be an issue.
 
I was in Battlefield 3 Alpha and it runs pretty well on my 6950 @ 1080P so you probably won't have trouble running on higher resolution. The game has motion blur so the slower response rate on the IPS panel is probably fine (or turn it off ingame for free motion blur :D ). I heard that BF3 will have native 3D support so you don't have to rely on crappy TriDef driver for 3D.

If I have $1K to burn I would get the ZR30W because of the higher resolution and image quality. I personally think 3D is a gimmick and doesn't work too well with games that doesn't support it natively.
 
Thanks for the response Evil. I should have clarified that the primary reason for buying the 120Hz Samsung is the increased refresh rate, not the 3D feature. I'll probably never put the glasses on.
 
Honestly, have a look at dells monitors, no one competes with their color/clarity.
 
Xcellere said:
Thanks for the response Evil. I should have clarified that the primary reason for buying the 120Hz Samsung is the increased refresh rate, not the 3D feature. I'll probably never put the glasses on.
Click to expand...

Im pretty much in the same boat, set on a 27"+ monitor for gaming, but i cant decide between 120hz and 2560x1***. Been reading about higher resolution monitors, and the ones ive found have some input lag, which for $1000 simply wont do. For $1000 it should be able to read my mind and have negative input time...
 
The zr30 has aggressive ag coating (dirty whites), low contrast and unatural colors due to it being wide gamut. Neither display has any input lag to worry about and obviously the Samsung will have a better response time.

The 950 I tested had pretty much perfect color accuracy out of the box, just as advertised. The only advantage the hp has are the wide viewing angles and the size/res, but that is defeated during dark scenes due to the head on IPS glow.

For gaming stick with the Samsung or wait for the 27" Asus which comes out October
 
Once you have a taste of 120hz there simply is no turning back. Impossible.

For gaming, the super high res will only get you poor framerates. The Samsung will be nowhere near the PQ of the HP for other tasks, but if gaming is #1 on your priority list, a 120Hz is an absolute no-brainer. Trust me.
 
Evi1d33d said:
If I have $1K to burn I would get the ZR30W because of the higher resolution and image quality. I personally think 3D is a gimmick and doesn't work too well with games that doesn't support it natively.
Click to expand...

Yeah, anti-aliasing and anisotropic filtering is a gimmick too.
 
What do you need image quality for? Might as well just run all of the settings as low as they go for the best possible performance like a true "pro-gamer". :p
 
MrGreen72 said:
Once you have a taste of 120hz there simply is no turning back. Impossible.

For gaming, the super high res will only get you poor framerates. The Samsung will be nowhere near the PQ of the HP for other tasks, but if gaming is #1 on your priority list, a 120Hz is an absolute no-brainer. Trust me.
Click to expand...

^^ this

The Samsung S27A950D is amazing for FPS gaming. I won't go back to 60hz.
 
Samsung S27A950D any day of the week!

120 Hz is great!
60 Hz for FPS is a pain!
 
Xcellere said:
I'm starting to build my rig for BF3, and it's time to pick a monitor. I'm having a hard time choosing between the HP ZR30W and the Samsung S27A950D. What would you rather have, 2560x1600/60Hz or 1920x1080/120Hz? I know both are great monitors, but I've never experienced a 120Hz monitor before and would like to know whether it's worth more then the 30" experience. I'll likely never use the 3D feature while gaming, so let's just stick to considering 2D performance.

Either monitor will be powered by CF 6990s, so working either monitor to their fullest potential won't be an issue.
Click to expand...

After I heard HP is about to quit the PC business and try to focus on software; I decided to order the HP ZR30W. I have played with some TN panels, and my god I can't stand that "washed out" color look. I just can't go back after I have experienced an IPS panel.

Now about the 120Hz monitor. I have talked to a few people who have a 120Hz monitor (Not the S27A950D), and they say games are really smooth and they have a CRT feel to them. If you don't care about the minor differences between the IPS and TN panels and are 100% focused on gaming. I would get the S27A950D.

Also, the people I have send PMs on the widescreen gaming forums have told me, "2560x1600 is an amazing gaming experience! You won't regret it". You have the videocards to handle it. I just hope they're right when I do get the monitor this week.
 
IMO resolution trumps all other considerations by a huge margin. Again IMO, 1920x1080 on a 27" screen is a terrible resolution, 120Hz or not.

All these AG coating/input lag/IPS glow blah blah blah whine whine whine are MINOR details and should only factor after you take care of the MAJOR choice of 1920x1080@120Hz vs 2560x1600@60Hz.
 
Chris F said:
IMO resolution trumps all other considerations by a huge margin. Again IMO, 1920x1080 on a 27" screen is a terrible resolution, 120Hz or not.

All these AG coating/input lag/IPS glow blah blah blah whine whine whine are MINOR details and should only factor after you take care of the MAJOR choice of 1920x1080@120Hz vs 2560x1600@60Hz.
Click to expand...

How much experience do you have with a 27" 1080p, 120Hz or not? ;)

1080p on 27" is perfectly fine for gaming, and that's coming from a 24" 1200p. For other tasks, it's not optimal I'll give you that, but the op mentioned BF3 as his priority.

2560x1600 or 1440 would be much better but there are no video cards that can drive the latest games at high settings at that res with an acceptable framerate. As far as I'm concerned anyway.

And 120Hz at a resolution higher than 1080p ain't happening anytime soon.

No matter what your preferences are the perfect monitor doesn't exist yet, so you have to pick your compromise.
 
Grab a cheap Samsung 2233rz on fleaBay for testing. Once you've decided for or against 120hz, sell it on with minimal loss.
 
sadbuttrue said:
Grab a cheap Samsung 2233rz on fleaBay for testing. Once you've decided for or against 120hz, sell it on with minimal loss.
Click to expand...

A first gen 120hz display isn't very representative of the ones on the market now. Although I have to admit that I would have a hard time paying close to what a 27" Dell costs for a 1080p display. Yeah the 120hz display is a little smoother but the image quality on a higher resolution IPS display is clearly going to be much better. I guess that it all depends on what type of games that you play.

I still think that a major advantage of a 120hz display is 3d vision.
 
BababooeyHTJ said:
A first gen 120hz display isn't very representative of the ones on the market now. Although I have to admit that I would have a hard time paying close to what a 27" Dell costs for a 1080p display. Yeah the 120hz display is a little smoother but the image quality on a higher resolution IPS display is clearly going to be much better. I guess that it all depends on what type of games that you play.

I still think that a major advantage of a 120hz display is 3d vision.
Click to expand...

A little smoother? :eek:

I know we all have different priorities but I'm not sure you have much experience gaming@120Hz to downplay it like that. And I couldn't possibly care less about 3D. It's not only much smoother, it also allows you to get rid of screen tearing without the input lag of v-sync. As long as you keep your framerate <= 120fps, that is.
 
MrGreen72 said:
A little smoother? :eek:

I know we all have different priorities but I'm not sure you have much experience gaming@120Hz to downplay it like that. And I couldn't possibly care less about 3D. It's not only much smoother, it also allows you to get rid of screen tearing without the input lag of v-sync. As long as you keep your framerate <= 120fps, that is.
Click to expand...

There are other games than multiplayer first person shooters. I've owned a 120hz display for long enough now and its nice. I even just set it to 60hz and played a little Quake. Yeah, the difference is noticeable but noticeable enough to spend $700 on a 27" 1080p monitor? I don't think so.
 
BababooeyHTJ said:
There are other games than multiplayer first person shooters.
Click to expand...
Sure, but look at the thread's title. ;)

BababooeyHTJ said:
I've owned a 120hz display for long enough now and its nice. I even just set it to 60hz and played a little Quake. Yeah, the difference is noticeable but noticeable enough to spend $700 on a 27" 1080p monitor? I don't think so.
Click to expand...
Well I do. :) Besides, it's not like $700 will get you a 27" IPS either right?

The problem is the selection of 120Hz monitors is really limited. For a good one, you pretty much go from 23" to 27"...
 
BababooeyHTJ said:
There are other games than multiplayer first person shooters. I've owned a 120hz display for long enough now and its nice. I even just set it to 60hz and played a little Quake. Yeah, the difference is noticeable but noticeable enough to spend $700 on a 27" 1080p monitor? I don't think so.
Click to expand...

Its not only the difference you see. Its the difference you feel. With 120hz theres less thought involved in predicting lead times and the curvature of your aiming. I found it like having less latency between my hands and my eyes, it was just easier to play. Sounds like voodoo, and it felt kinda like it too... it was just wierd. Scoreboard reflected it as well.

And is image quality worth the latency and worse gameplay?

As you constantly get killed before you turn a corner because your screen is still refreshing, you can at least be happy knowing your death looks prettier to you than the other guy going in for the teabag with the 120hz TN panel right?
 
There is some confusion here.

The HP is a WIDE GAMUT IPS with low contrast, meaning that blacks will be greyish and all the colors will look totoally unnatural and overs saturated. On top of this it uses aggressive AG coating which makes whites and light colors look dirty. Dark scenes will show IPS glow in the corners on top of backlight bleed (if it has any). The only advantage it has are its wide viewing angles and size. A wide gamut compatible colorimeter is required get decent image quality out of the HP

Mean while the Samsung will display clear and natural colors due to its good default color accuracy and ultra clear panel while also being much more responsive.
 
MrGreen72 said:
Sure, but look at the thread's title. ;)

Well I do. :) Besides, it's not like $700 will get you a 27" IPS either right?
.
Click to expand...
You could get a u2711 (dell 27" 2560x1440 ) for $750 at a few different time I think. I wasn't interested in them due to the AG coating and the fact that they use a scaler (~> input lag) but I'm pretty sure I heard that price a few times. My 27" ACD was considerably more but I went with that since it has no scaler and is glossy (my room+desk/lighting design and orientation allows for glossy no problem and it looks incredibly lush and clear). Just saying there is an option for a 27" 2560x1440 ips for less with the u2711 new, or other used/refurb 2560x ips screens.
..
MrGreen72 said:
A little smoother? :eek:

I know we all have different priorities but I'm not sure you have much experience gaming@120Hz to downplay it like that. And I couldn't possibly care less about 3D. It's not only much smoother, it also allows you to get rid of screen tearing without the input lag of v-sync. As long as you keep your framerate <= 120fps, that is.
Click to expand...

..120hz should feel smoother but unless you are pushing 120fps+ you must be seeing the same frame twice (through two 1hz screen updates) at 60fps, and some combination of duplicate frames at other fps less than 120. The 120hz screen updates every 8.3ms.. 60fps would only have to change the pixels every 16.6ms ("frame doubling" the same frame shown 8.3ms*2).. where 120fps+ (maintained) would be showing a new frame of more current action every 8.3ms. Repeated frames at lower fps should "feel smoother" but isn't showing new action data in many of those frames so it just feels a little smoother without actually adding newer/more current action in that scenario. Also, from the threads I've read, the consensus from owners is that 120hz panel's only reduce blur "about half as much" , and on certain types of blur. There will always additionally be retinal retention blur due to non-instant backlight strobing on lcd tech. By comparison, a crt at 120hz would show clear, crisp frames of new action every 1hz out of 120hz when 120fps+ is maintained. I also have questions regarding whether the blurring is reduced more at 60fps or less (pixels changing every 16.6ms), and at other fps under 120 - vs blurring when maintaining 120fps+ (pixels changing with new action/enviroment data every 8.3ms), considering what the real response times might be of the panels outside of the grey2grey quotes.
..
MrGreen72 said:
2560x1600 or 1440 would be much better but there are no video cards that can drive the latest games at high settings at that res with an acceptable framerate. As far as I'm concerned anyway.
Click to expand...
http://www.anandtech.com/show/4239/nvidias-geforce-gtx-590-duking-it-out-for-the-single-card-king/5
"Kicking things off as always is Crysis: Warhead, still one of the toughest games in our benchmark suite. Even three years since the release of the original Crysis, &#8220;but can it run Crysis?&#8221; is still an important question, and for three years the answer was &#8220;no.&#8221; Dual-GPU halo cards can now play it at Enthusiast settings at high resolutions"
crysis_2560x.png

.
badco2_2560x.png

.
.
..I think 120hz sounds like a subtle improvement. Unless 120fps+ is maintained -most likely taking a big graphics eye-candy settings hit on the most current games even with a good gpu - you may be getting more of a feel with a frame-doubling effect than seeing much faster action for greater/quicker accuracy and reaction to fast events in the game. The slight blur reduction might help your aim slightly overall though, even on "outdated" frames of action (outdated -> 1/2 as much blur targeting minus the loss of movement of the environment, fov and targets to where they would be at the 120fps+/next 8.3ms of action level you are missing at less than 120fps+).
...
...Considering the fact that they still blur, are 1080p TN at high price(27"), that you need to maintain 120fps+ to get the most out of 120hz (in my opinion) which requires a serious graphics eye candy hit for most high end games(let alone if you want eyefinity/surround gaming) , the current response times and backlights.. I have serious doubts that it would be worth it for me. Like one poster in another thread said..
sethk said:
. If you play a game running at 120hz on a 120hz monitor for a few minutes and then go back to a game running at 60hz on a 60hz monitor, it hits you like a ton of bricks. 5 minutes later, however, you will have fully adjusted back, and you will probably be fine with the 60hz again. Is the 120hz better? Yes. Can you be happy with 60hz? Absolutely.
Click to expand...

(Similarly I adjust fine after a few mintues when I go from my fw900 24" widescreen crt to a LCD). "Better"~ feel of action by comparison to 60hz.. on a low quality, "low" rez/ppi, expensive 27" TN that still blurs however. -- So I don't think I would even bother unless the prices came down considerably and I was certain I could maintain 120fps+ without dropping the graphics quality considerably, even with a beefy gpu. I may still grab one just for testing around xmas/tax return time from BB since with the silver RZ they gave me I'd have 28 days to return it, but I'm in no rush after doing the research and after using a gorgeous ips panel for several months now.
 
Last edited:
thesecond said:
Its not only the difference you see. Its the difference you feel. With 120hz theres less thought involved in predicting lead times and the curvature of your aiming. I found it like having less latency between my hands and my eyes, it was just easier to play. Sounds like voodoo, and it felt kinda like it too... it was just wierd. Scoreboard reflected it as well.

And is image quality worth the latency and worse gameplay?

As you constantly get killed before you turn a corner because your screen is still refreshing, you can at least be happy knowing your death looks prettier to you than the other guy going in for the teabag with the 120hz TN panel right?
Click to expand...

Your average 60hz display has less input lag than most 120hz displays from what I hear. There is a difference between response time and refresh rate.

MrGreen72 said:
Well I do. :) Besides, it's not like $700 will get you a 27" IPS either right?
Click to expand...

The 27" Dell 2560x1440 goes on sale for around $700 quite regularly.
 
..It should feel a little smoother, no argument on the feeling part. ..
..
.. As far as the "gaming advantage" goes .... in order to have that 8.3ms per 1hz / 120hz newer-action-displayed advantage vs the 16.6ms 1hz / 60hz users in gaming - that advantage margin actually considerably less being still offset by screen blurring from the previous panel/pixel updates due to response times and backlight strobe image retention (and any input lag especially if you have a scaler=one whole 16ms or 2*8.3ms frame at least, not to mention your actual internet connection to server latency differences between you and your opponents!) - you have to maintain 120fps+ vs the 120hz of screen refreshes. So no only are you losing the better looking higher resolution (both in-game and its overall usefulness) and the greatly better looking ips screen quality/colors, but you may also have to turn down your graphics eye candy in game in order to maintain 120fps+ throughout on the higher end games, at a high cost out of pocket for the monitor too (27").
..
.. Maybe if you did some kind of blind musical chairs test through a viewport so you couldn't tell which monitor was which.. with all other hardware being the same, on different days, with no network latency.. and maybe even against bots so skill level would remain more constant on opponents.. between a crt, a high end 60hz ips, and the best 120hz TN lcd you could find... you could measure to see if there is - or isn't - a real kill/death advantage between them reaction wise in a game across testing many different players.
..
 
Last edited:
elvn said:
theories
Click to expand...

That's all fine and dandy Elvn, except that I have the material to experience all of this for myself right here buddy and I know what I see. First of all, yes my dual 6870s can push most games above 60fps at 1080p and not only do I get smoother camera movement, I'm free of god damn screen tearing. Without v-sync and its input lag.

You could get a u2711 (dell 27" 2560x1440 ) for $750 at a few different time I think.
Click to expand...

The 27" Dell 2560x1440 goes on sale for around $700 quite regularly.
Click to expand...

It's still $999 up here in Canada. Besides, I have never seen it but the reviews don't sell it to me as a gaming monitor at all.

TFTCentral said:
Mediocre input lag and lack of 'through mode
Click to expand...

http://www.tftcentral.co.uk/reviews/dell_u2711.htm#conclusion
 
your experience is highly subjective though. Just the several factors I listed show the "turn around a doorway" advantage is likely non-existent in overall real-world scoring due to so many variables and the actual ms advantage being almost nothing if its even anything (at 120fps+ maintained if at all too). Maybe for you personally the buttery feeling might make you aim better whether placebo effect or not, that doesn't mean the subltely smoother feeling of 120hz gives you an advantage over a skilled player who uses 60hz.
 
elvn said:
your experience is highly subjective though. Just the several factors I listed show the "turn around a doorway" advantage is likely non-existent in overall real-world scoring due to so many variables and the actual ms advantage being almost nothing if its even anything (at 120fps+ maintained if at all too). Maybe for you personally the buttery feeling might make you aim better whether placebo effect or not, that doesn't mean the subltely smoother feeling of 120hz gives you an advantage over a skilled player who uses 60hz.
Click to expand...

Make sure you're barking up the right tree. I didn't bring up the "gaming advantage" factor. I'm merely talking about a smoother and more enjoyable experience. I couldn't care less about highly competitive gaming.

And my experience with 120hz might be subjective Elvn, but as far as I know, yours is non existent. ;)

Let's just agree to disagree okay?
 
Give me a break people. It's BF3 not Unreal Tournament where the action is much faster. You're fine with the 60Hz monitors nowadays. If you are a serious gamer and are sensitive to this kind of lagging than go with the 120Hz or else it doesn't make a difference.
 
Hi guys,

I have three Dell u2711's, driven by 3xGTX580's. I play BFBC2 regularly online, and like to do well. The Dell's are OK, but I have decided to sell them to move to 120hz panels (three of the Samsung s27950's).

My system can push decent frames @ 7680x1440 and the image is fine. But, there is input lag - so much so that I have to disable Vsync to get rid of most of it. Therefore, I have screen tearing here and there. My partner games on three Alienware 120hz panels, and there is a significant difference in the feel of BFBC2, so much so that I am downsizing my res from 2560x1440 to 1920x1080.

I'm not a graphic designer, I'm not a video editor. I'm a gamer, and I want every advantage I can get. Also, the other consideration was my systems' ability to push pixels in BF3. I really WANT to run it in surround, the experience is amazing. While I can run BFBC2 @ 7680x1440, I'm not sure I could do that with BF3 and high IQ. I think moving to 5760x1080 will give my system much more ease to run at high settings.

I've been very happy with the IPS 2560x1440 screens, and I will surely miss some of the screen real estate when web browsing etc ... but I want faster response times and higher frame rates for BF3.

To the original poster, I hope my thoughts on the subject have helped you decide. There is no 'wrong' decision, you can game on both types, but just evaluate the pro's and con's and your priorities.

Cheers :)

oh by the way, if you want to see a build log of my Raven, here it is:

http://forums.overclockers.com.au/showthread.php?t=940447
 
The HP ZR30W is a great monitor. Colors are great and the picture looks awesome. You will not be disappointed.
 
torimish said:
But, there is input lag - so much so that I have to disable Vsync to get rid of most of it. Therefore, I have screen tearing here and there.
Click to expand...

Of course, v-sync causes input lag, and screen tearing happens when your card pushes more than what your monitor can take. That's why a 120hz monitor is not just for pr0-g4m3rz.

I've been repeating that the whole thread, a fact that many posters conveniently ignore. ;)

torimish said:
oh by the way, if you want to see a build log of my Raven, here it is:

http://forums.overclockers.com.au/showthread.php?t=940447
Click to expand...

Holy shit! :eek:
 
woah woah woah, so if you have too much fps coming from you video card and only a 60hz monitor it causes image tearing? how does that work.
 
Screen tearing happens when the screen and video card are desynchronized, ie when you go above your screen's refresh rate yes. It's less likely to happen at 120Hz than 60Hz for obvious reasons.

You can fix that by enabling v-sync but it adds input lag. Which is intolerable in a first person game. To me at least. Of course, the input lag of v-sync at 120Hz is going to be half as bad as 60Hz if you ever need to enable it.
 
ZR30w, it's a fantastic monitor and the top 30" for gaming. Most amazingly vibrant colors I've ever seen, unbeatable resolution, low input lag, fast response times... and the AG issue is WAY overblown by some people here. "Dirty whites"? Give me a break.
 
yeah I don't own one but I have just been digging deep researching the 120hz LCDs and absorbing what I can from various threads and web sites. However I do have a fw900 crt so I know what true 60hz, 75hz, 85hz, and 120hz feels like and looks like without the blur-smudging frame transitions on a fps game to one degree or another all LCDs do - so I do have some reference point on what is essentially the "best" form of 120hz gaming available on a widescreen monitor to compare vs 60hz ips lcd. I'm sure 120hz LCDs feel somewhat smoother than 60hz. Just about everyone who writes about them relates that (most reasonably, some a bit zealously, like anything). If there was a 120hz very high rez ips I don't think there would be as much question about whether what some consider a subtle improvement of 120hz smoothness would be worth it or not because it would be just one more bonus on the plus side subtle or not . If response time blurring and backlight strobing->retinal retention blurring were eliminated entirely it would be quite a different story too. Or if the only screens you could get at all were TN 1080p, 120hz would be in my future for certain. None of those "ifs" are the case though so there are many pros and cons, and for me personally the 120hz feeling (and slight reduction of some types of blur) isn't looking like it would be worth the tradeoffs and high cost in a tn.
 
Last edited:
NukeDukem said:
ZR30w, it's a fantastic monitor and the top 30" for gaming. Most amazingly vibrant colors I've ever seen, unbeatable resolution, low input lag, fast response times... and the AG issue is WAY overblown by some people here. "Dirty whites"? Give me a break.
Click to expand...

^^This.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top