30" 1440p 120 hz. when?

[KashunatoR]

I currently game on a samsung s27a950d @ 120 hz. But it is still too small for simracing purposes. I need something bigger but I don't want to give up on 120 hz.
I'd like to know if such monitor is at least planned. It may use display port if dvi-d doesn't provide enough bandwidth.
I think the 30" would be the sweet spot for me. It would of course need higher than 1080p resolution.
If it were nvidia 3d ready, that would be great as I plan to upgrade to gtx 780 next.
Any news about such thing or I am just daydreaming?

 

[kevinsbane]

I currently game on a samsung s27a950d @ 120 hz. But it is still too small for simracing purposes. I need something bigger but I don't want to give up on 120 hz.
I'd like to know if such monitor is at least planned. It may use display port if dvi-d doesn't provide enough bandwidth.
I think the 30" would be the sweet spot for me. It would of course need higher than 1080p resolution.
If it were nvidia 3d ready, that would be great as I plan to upgrade to gtx 780 next.
Any news about such thing or I am just daydreaming?

If you're referring to a 30" 2560x1600...

Probably never.

The only thing on the horizon/(sorta) available are the overclockable ones from Overlord Computers/Catleap "2B" board.

 

[KashunatoR]

27" is too small. I need 30". The resolution might be 2560x1440. I'm not a colour enthusiast so a TN panel would also be ok. What's important is the low input lag and 120hz smoothness.

 

[kevinsbane]

27" is too small. I need 30". The resolution might be 2560x1440. I'm not a colour enthusiast so a TN panel would also be ok. What's important is the low input lag and 120hz smoothness.

*shrug* Ok. Good luck. A 30" monitor with true 120hz refresh @ 1440p/1600p resolution will not exist in the next five years... if ever.

 

[CEpeep]

Nah, stick with 27" at 120Hz or move to 30" and 60Hz. Also, AFAIK no one makes 2560x1440 panels at 30". 30" panels are 2560x1600 and 27" panels are 2560x1440.

 

[KashunatoR]

Nah, stick with 27" at 120Hz or move to 30" and 60Hz. Also, AFAIK no one makes 2560x1440 panels at 30". 30" panels are 2560x1600 and 27" panels are 2560x1440.

what would be the best 30" for gaming?

 

[1000]

Dude what you have now is already the best gaming LCD. Nothing new on the horizon... I'm waiting too (I have the Samsung 950D).

1000

 

[Eureka!]

120hz 1440p is going to be a ways. I believe the problem now is that the technology (display port) can't handle the bandwidth required for those ratings. You're stuck with 1600/440p 60hz or 120hz 1080p.

 

[SuperSubZero]

what would be the best 30" for gaming?

Depending on the type of gaming you do, you may get *more* benefit from a 27", or rather from 16:9. Many games, particularly FPS games, are now being set up for 16:9 native, and if you're on 16:10 they will chop off the sides, decreasing field of view.

I compared a 27" 2560x1440 with a 30" 2560x1600, and I ended up sticking with the 27" for this reason. On a gaming rig anyway. For a productivity machine I would stick with the 30" personally.

 

[Sn0_Man]

120hz 1440p is going to be a ways. I believe the problem now is that the technology (display port) can't handle the bandwidth required for those ratings. You're stuck with 1600/440p 60hz or 120hz 1080p.

Wrong. It is easy on DisplayPort but LG won't certify the panels for 120Hz and there isn't enough demand for Dell/HP etc to try and get it working.

Hell, I run my 27" 1440p screen @ 120Hz (have to overclock), and I'm using Dual-Link DVI so the bandwidth is definitely there on displayport.

 

[MasonD]

Hell, I run my 27" 1440p screen @ 120Hz (have to overclock), and I'm using Dual-Link DVI so the bandwidth is definitely there on displayport.

How do you OC displays (and would my Dell 30" benefit or just break)?

 

[elvn]

If you've kept up with the display section of this forum, there are a number of "overclockable" korean 27" 2560x1440 ips monitors that can hit 120hz and a little higher even. Just check the threads. In my opinion, as quoted below, there is no reason to push for 30" on a gaming display. 120hz is important to gaming mainly.

There have been several threads on the topic of this thread btw... including this one:
Why aren't there any 30" monitors with true 120hz?

*please excuse my web-cyb.org link in the quotes being down. I'm in the process of switching web servers. Should be up later.

This is why 120hz TN's have appreciable FoV blur reduction:

http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/monitors/display/samsung-sm2233rz_10.html#sect0

Thats comparing a 2ms TN with aggressive Response Time Compensation and RTC error reduction at 120hz vs itself at 60hz. A 10ms+ response time ips will smear "outside of the lines" badly no matter how many screen updates you send it per second mainly because its response time is much too high, and it also lacks the aggressive RTC. 120hz 2ms + aggr RTC TN's still blur though, just appreciably less.. more within the object masks so to speak in my experience. 1080p and TN color is adequate for gaming considering the blur reduction as a tradeoff in my opinion. Desktop/apps/still imagery is another matter.
.
I prefer the 108.8ppi on my 27" ips for desktop stuff. Regarding 30" 2560x panels, they can give a false impression of the actual resolution differences vs size. A 30" panel's pixels are much larger. A 27" 2560x1440 panel sized up to 30" 2560x1600 sized ppi would be 29.19" diagonal. A 30" 2560x1600 panel sized down to 27" 2560x1440 sized ppi would be 27.75" diagonal.

while the 30" has +80px top and +80 px bottom vs the 27" -- the 30" does not have any more pixels across the width than the 27" , its pixels are just that much larger.
....The 80px top and bottom size 'gap' would be much smaller size-wise at the same pixel sizes --> .75 inches top and .75 inches bottom (3/4inch top and bottom) 1.49" total to be exact if both were 108.8ppi.
...Another way to look at it on more equal terms is that if you moved the 30" panel back enough until its width (and ppi) looked equal to the 27" to your viewing perspective, there would be .75" peeking out top and bottom (about the diamter of a dime coin) in relation to the 27" screen, 80px tall each.

.
Games use HOR+ which means they use virtual lenses. As with a real lens and in virtual cinematography, you will always see more of a scene in 16:9 than its 16:10 "pair" since its looking through a wider lens. That means, imo, that you would be better off running games in 16:9 mode even on a 16:10 monitor.
http://www.web-cyb.org/images/lcds/eyefinity_config-aspects-visualized_sm.jpg
.
Regarding FW900 Professional CRT and 120hz TN compared. CRT is the only display that is readable on fast movement (including texture detail). All LCDs blur.
http://hardforum.com/showpost.php?p=1038910970&postcount=31
.
.
All monitor types have tradeoffs and are thus better suited to different tasks. Imo you are better off using more than one monitor type at your desk, with one dedicated to gaming. I've been doing it for many years with a fw900 alongside a lcd, and now a 2560x1440 10ms ips alongside a 1080p 2ms + aggressive RTC TN (still have a fw900 on the side though until it dies).