Heavily considering a 120hz display over 1440/1600

B

BurntToast

2[H]4U
Joined
Jun 14, 2003
Messages
3,677
I want the best of both worlds, but as I can tell there are no signs of it happening any time soon. So I have decided to consider a 120hz display after using one. It was night and day difference from a 60hz monitor.

Does anyone foresee any downsides to picking up a 120hz monitor now? Even the current crop of IPS monitors that can be hacked to 100hz still don't feel the same as a true 120hz TN panel at 100hz. OLED might be what I want, but I doubt that they will be in our price range for the next several years.

If anyone knows something that I don't, then please let me know. If not I think I'll jump on an overpriced 120hz ASUS panel this week :/

Two 1440 IPS displays from Korea or a single 1080 120hz display from ASUS.
 
If all you're concerned with is gaming (which you most obviously are), then by all means get the 120hz.

No such thing as overpriced, just whether or not it's over your price. Apparently that is not the case, so have fun.
 
Everything is just insanely smooth, it's beautiful. There really is no other way to describe it unless you've used one.
 
Or unless you've ever used a high definition CRT, but then again that's infinite times better.
 
sirsad said:
Might want to read this first.
Click to expand...
Yeah I have read that. From people who own an ASUS VG278h and one of these Korean ebay 1440 displays, they say even at the same hz the ASUS VG278h feels noticeably smoother.

I will be using my tax refund as an excuse to purchase this monitor. I wish the price was lower but I have a feeling that if I don't act fast that all inventory of this display will be gone as there is now a move to passive 3D vs. Active.

AFAIK the latest batch of monitors from ASUS don't exhibit the same backlight bleeding issues as the first few batches. But I'm not going to be naive and expect no bleeding.
 
I'm on the fence for a 120Hz too. When the price is right I'll most probably go for the BenQ XL2420T
 
I too was looking at that display, but not willing to go down to 24". I originally heard a lot of good come from that display pre-released, once released most of the feedback from that display seemed to be horrid.
 
Personal taste -- for me the pixel pitch of a 27" @ 1080p is unsatisfactory while 24" is a sweet spot but to each their own as they say.

Concerning feedback in regards to the BenQ, on a another (foreign) forum, in the dedicated thread to the monitor, there has been a lot of people purchasing the XL2420T coming back with very positive experiences with the exception of one person. From my readings, many people seem to consider the BenQ as the best 120Hz available at the moment. I usually would not go for BenQ and a brand, but considering the praise I've been seeing I've been convinced this model is the best choice. But again, this is just me :)
 
Last edited:
FM_Fixxxer said:
Everything is just insanely smooth, it's beautiful. There really is no other way to describe it unless you've used one.
Click to expand...

I see. But, reading these boards, I get the impression that in order to keep things insanely smooth @ 120hz, you also need insanely expensive hardware. Some say that gaming with framerates lower than 120 fps (matching the monitor refresh rate) feels sluggish and you need to keep up the pace, which could be problematic with next gen games.
 
My CRT is dying so i visited a big shop and looked at some S-IPS panels and some TN panels (60hz and 120hz) and there is no way i will buy a TN panel this 120hz hype is exaggerated this people should not compare an old ghosting TN vs a new 120hz TN panel.
This 120hz topic reminds me of the CS 1.5 players that turned down the graphics settings to have instead of 30 frames, 40 frames and then think they would aim better. :D
 
Last edited:
Goodcoin said:
I see. But, reading these boards, I get the impression that in order to keep things insanely smooth @ 120hz, you also need insanely expensive hardware. Some say that gaming with framerates lower than 120 fps (matching the monitor refresh rate) feels sluggish and you need to keep up the pace, which could be problematic with next gen games.
Click to expand...
That was the impression that I got at first. Now I'm under the impression that anything lower than 120 still feels better than 60hz. That is after lurking on nearly every thread and board, as well as contesting several people via pm.

Whoisthisreally said:
Severe black crush in Metro 2033 and any other game with dark passages, such as skyrim dungeons.
Click to expand...
I read that after properly calibrating the monitor that this issue isn't as severe? Worst case scenario, when I play dark single player games, I'll just jack up the gamma a little. I played BF3 with the ASUS display and it looked fine.

Outbreaker said:
My CRT is dying so i visited a big shop and looked at some S-IPS panels and some TN panels (60hz and 120hz) and there is no way i will buy a TN panel this 120hz hype is exaggerated this people should not compare an old ghosting TN vs a new 120hz TN panel.
Click to expand...
No f***** idea what direction your mind is going. I tried to add punctuation to that sentence. Still no f***** idea.
 
BurntToast said:
I read that after properly calibrating the monitor that this issue isn't as severe? Worst case scenario, when I play dark single player games, I'll just jack up the gamma a little. I played BF3 with the ASUS display and it looked fine.
Click to expand...

It is viewing angle related, so the top half will be crushed and the bottom will have a low gamma value.
 
Goodcoin said:
I see. But, reading these boards, I get the impression that in order to keep things insanely smooth @ 120hz, you also need insanely expensive hardware. Some say that gaming with framerates lower than 120 fps (matching the monitor refresh rate) feels sluggish and you need to keep up the pace, which could be problematic with next gen games.
Click to expand...

Well they won't be sluggish, at least no more than normal, they just won't get any real benefit (this is all talking with vsync off).

So suppose your GPU can render your game at 45-65 fps at the settings you use. For that, a 120Hz monitor has no advantage really. Yes technically you'll be getting a few more frames displayed when it peaks up in the 65 fps range but realistically it'll be the same as a 60Hz monitor.

However take another game that can run at 90-115 fps. There you are going to see more fluidity, due to the higher fps. It is a non-trivial amount more frames being rendered, you'll be able to notice it.

So yes, to get full benefit out of it you either need to turn down the detail, or get more hardware. If your games are running below 60fps normally then getting a monitor that supports more doesn't help. You can test this pretty easy though, just get a utility that shows FPS, and then run your games in non-vsync mode. See what kind of framerate you are getting. Play with the settings, see what settings are are ok with and what you get at those settings. That'll give you an idea of it a faster monitor is something you'll be able to make use of or not.

That's part of the reason personally I have little interest. I'd say at least half of the games I play struggle to run much faster than 60fps with things turned up how I like. A 120Hz monitor would gain me nothing. I'd get one if I could have the same image quality as an IPS display, but since I can't not so worth it to me.

Also how noticeable it'll be will somewhat be related to how much motion there is in the game, and if the game does things like motion blur. If the game does well with blur, you'll notice the additional smoothness less. It won't be for naught, but it won't be as noticeable.

What we can notice really depends on a lot of factors. I've fooled around with it in video quite a bit for fun. I use cameras that shoot 1080p60, 60 full progressive frames per second. The main reason is you can output an interlaced and a progressive video signal to different media with no quality loss in either but it also lets you get smoother video if you stay all on a computer. Some things look pretty amazing at 60fps, much smoother motion. Other things, you really can't tell much. It is kinda mid-speed motion. Then you see much more fluid motion. Low motion things are hard to notice, it is a bit smoother, but you have to look. Really high motion stuff, also doesn't matter, everything just blurs together so it isn't such a big deal.
 
Sycraft said:
So suppose your GPU can render your game at 45-65 fps at the settings you use. For that, a 120Hz monitor has no advantage really.
Click to expand...

Understand that in 120 Hz displays the refresh interval is halved, which alone increases responsiveness.
 
BurntToast said:
I read that after properly calibrating the monitor that this issue isn't as severe? Worst case scenario, when I play dark single player games, I'll just jack up the gamma a little. I played BF3 with the ASUS display and it looked fine.
Click to expand...

Doesn't really help. So calibration for games only applies to the basic settings (brightness, contrast, colour) in the display itself. The lookup tables get overwritten by the game. I thery I think there are apps to try and override that, I've never tried (since my display has internal lookup tables that the games can't mess with). Also the problem with TN panels is one of contrast ratio off axis. Remember that you are not looking directly at your whole display, most of it is at an angle to you.

Basically the top and bottom of your image will look different (there's not a hard break or anything, it'll just gradually change as it goes). How much so depends on the particular display you buy, the angle you sit at in relation to your screen, and so on. I had trouble with that at work. They got me a normal TN panel to do video editing with and I had to keep shifting around in my seat to see how things looked. Something would look too dark, I'd move, it would look fine.

Calibration can help, as can making the display brighter than you normally would, but ultimately there will be some black crush to deal with as compared to an IPS panel.
 
I have the Benq XL2420T and Yamakasi Catleap IPS. I am torn between which monitor to game on, so it seems one day I play on one, then the other. Yes I love the 120hz and smoothness but I really like the extra screen width and colors from the Catleap. Guess at least I have the option to choose.... but if I was at square one and had to pick one, I would go for the width and colors now.
 
p33k said:
I have the Benq XL2420T and Yamakasi Catleap IPS. I am torn between which monitor to game on, so it seems one day I play on one, then the other. Yes I love the 120hz and smoothness but I really like the extra screen width and colors from the Catleap. Guess at least I have the option to choose.... but if I was at square one and had to pick one, I would go for the width and colors now.
Click to expand...

What if you didn't like big monitors/high res?

27" is too big for me, and 1440p is too small for me. 23/24" is about as big as I want on my desk, and as big as I want to "look around".

Would you give up 120hz for the colors alone?
 
My advice is to list the last five games you've played. If that list is full of online shooters then go ahead and find a 120 Hz TN. The five games I've last completed were:


  1. Deus Ex Human Revolution
  2. Fallout: New Vegas
  3. Vampire the Masquerade: Bloodlines
  4. F.E.A.R
  5. Metro 2033
All of these strongly benefit from a display with high image quality. Well, NV may be ugly but it does have dark passages. So these games definitely benefit from a monitor like a 2209WA and for the most part look especially good on my EV2333W. The EV23 is a notorious smearer, but you haven't played F.E.A.R or Metro properly until you've done it with a display that has a genuinely good black level.
 
crawlgsx said:
What if you didn't like big monitors/high res?

27" is too big for me, and 1440p is too small for me. 23/24" is about as big as I want on my desk, and as big as I want to "look around".

Would you give up 120hz for the colors alone?
Click to expand...

I probably would because I play a mix of games. If I only played online shooters then I would go 120hz.
 
p33k said:
I have the Benq XL2420T and Yamakasi Catleap IPS. I am torn between which monitor to game on, so it seems one day I play on one, then the other. Yes I love the 120hz and smoothness but I really like the extra screen width and colors from the Catleap. Guess at least I have the option to choose.... but if I was at square one and had to pick one, I would go for the width and colors now.
Click to expand...
Yeah, 2 Catleaps or one 27" ASUS for the price :/

I mainly do online FPS. Most are fairly bright so I don't think I would really notice the darkness issue that much at all. Since I'm always looking around, I really believe that the smoother motion would better benefit me. I'm just not ready to upgrade my GPU as fast as it requires. But I just might do that anyways. I think I'll actually wait for a sale on the ASUS as the price is horrendous for what it is. I really wish there was an option to buy the monitor without the transmitter and glasses, saving the customer at least 200 bones.

crawlgsx said:
What if you didn't like big monitors/high res?

27" is too big for me, and 1440p is too small for me. 23/24" is about as big as I want on my desk, and as big as I want to "look around".

Would you give up 120hz for the colors alone?
Click to expand...
1440p too small? Are you talking about the DPI getting so high that it's hard to make out things on the screen?

As far as 27" being too big. I don't know one person who has upgraded the size of their monitor and has not enjoyed it. I too thought that a 27" display would make me turn my head in order to view both ends of the screen. That is not the case.
 
BurntToast said:
1440p too small? Are you talking about the DPI getting so high that it's hard to make out things on the screen?

As far as 27" being too big. I don't know one person who has upgraded the size of their monitor and has not enjoyed it. I too thought that a 27" display would make me turn my head in order to view both ends of the screen. That is not the case.
Click to expand...

yes I am. I have had nothing but remorse since I went to 27" (over a year ago). I know it is just my personal preference but I do not enjoy the size of the 27". I feel like it is too big and that I am sitting too close. The viewing (surface area) is also not ideal (personally) for FPS. There is much more to look at, and while I certainly don't have to turn my head to look it over, it is much more area to cover and requires looking around a lot more. I've wished I had stuck with my 23" but I haven't been able to make my mind up on which 23/24 to replace it with :).

As far as 1440p, yes, that is exactly what I mean. I don't like high resolutions because everything is TINY. I find using windows alone (or OSX) Aggravating at 2560, and even more so in games (although gorgeous).

My home 27" is only 1080p, so I find the resolution size perfect for me, but the screen size is still too much for me. At work I have a 27" iMac and a 27" LG LED because the surface area is much more useful but at times I still feel overbear-ed by the size and find myself having to try to push my chair further away (with my keyboard at the bitter edge of the desk wishing I had more room to move). I keep both 27" @ 1080p now, I couldn't take the eye strain and small size of 1440p.

I know I am far from the vast majority here, but figured since you asked I would state my personal reasons.
 
Ave to thee.

Crawlgsx, I am very much agreed with thy perceptions about 27" size and 1440p, as No mainstream opinions are correct, methinks.

Until I haven't seen such a monster (u2711) in gaming action (Oblivion) and in normal Windows / browsing tasks, I was dreaming of these monitor parameters heavily (PPI).
But enlightened and disappointed feel myself now.

1 - Gamewise in native resolution:
The ultra fine 1440p resolution was not so much different from 1080p in the mentioned game, and of course I had to withdraw from the screen to about 1.5m distance, to be able to percieve on-screen-action in its enirety.
My main interest was gaming on 1440p, and anyhow I changed the distance from screen, but couldn't observe difference in sharpness during gameplay compared to 1080p. That was relatively easy to compare, as the shop assistants switched the display output to a native 1080p monitor when were asked for. No difference for me.
(Although, must mention, already not having the "eagle-eye trait", - as have survived almost 40 winters yet, with computing science as a profession and hobby. )

2- Windows, browsing in native res.:
Switching to Windows and browsing of course required me to advance very close to the screen, to perceive 0.23mm pixel pitch sized thingies. One can zoom fonts, and browser windows of course, but this requires more screen space of course, thus losing some from the giant real estate. Even then, this monitor must be very fine for work-related tasks.
If the monitor is scaled to about 1080p, that can help, too.

Conclusion
-Changing viewing distance for different user activities is undiserable for me.
-Also disappointed in 1440p gaming, no sharpness / quality increase to 1080p, IMO.
-Would only use 27", 1440p for work (Office, coding, photo editing, CAD,...)

good-byte!
 
I bought mine for speed in FPS games, i play BF3 at mostly medium / off settings. In fast action games, you're not going to notice the graphics to a certain extent.

I like to have 85+fps for my 120hz and my GTX 470 does reasonably well when heavily OC'd in 32 server games, its only okay at 64 server games. Anything older than BF3 is more than acceptable.
 
I have a Planar SA2311w and its a great display. The colors are very nice, the gamma shift isn't that bad, and the viewing angles don't bother me.

I just picked up a Shimian qh270. I was surprised by how much bigger it actually looks in person. I'm also really liking the higher resolution and larger screen area. In some games it really is amazing. That said the 60hz IPS doesn't feel as fluid in motion which is mostly noticeable in fast paced fps titles. With the higher response time there is a bit of ghosting although nothing too bad. It could just be a side effect of the lower refresh rate for all that I know. I'm not a huge multi-player fps guy but I do enjoy my fps titles so its a trade off.

One other thing that I saw at 1440p was the hit in performance. It was larger than I had expected. In some games quite a bit larger actually. So thats something to keep in mind. If you do own a Nvidia card you also have the option of 3d vision which can be a lot of fun. Although I find myself using it less and less. It is still cool in some games and is a definite plus for the 120hz monitor.

I'm not sure which one that I'm going to stick with at the moment. They both have their pros and cons.
 
I've never been really impressed with the 120hz monitors, especially because they're all TNs.
 
BababooeyHTJ said:
I have a Planar SA2311w and its a great display. The colors are very nice, the gamma shift isn't that bad, and the viewing angles don't bother me.

I just picked up a Shimian qh270. I was surprised by how much bigger it actually looks in person. I'm also really liking the higher resolution and larger screen area. In some games it really is amazing. That said the 60hz IPS doesn't feel as fluid in motion which is mostly noticeable in fast paced fps titles. With the higher response time there is a bit of ghosting although nothing too bad. It could just be a side effect of the lower refresh rate for all that I know. I'm not a huge multi-player fps guy but I do enjoy my fps titles so its a trade off.

One other thing that I saw at 1440p was the hit in performance. It was larger than I had expected. In some games quite a bit larger actually. So thats something to keep in mind. If you do own a Nvidia card you also have the option of 3d vision which can be a lot of fun. Although I find myself using it less and less. It is still cool in some games and is a definite plus for the 120hz monitor.

I'm not sure which one that I'm going to stick with at the moment. They both have their pros and cons.
Click to expand...

I'd probably buy the Planar if it was still sold, unfortunately it looks like Planar isn't going to make monitors anymore.
 
27"+ is too large for 1080p resolution. Go with a 23-24", be able to see everything without it getting pushed into your peripheral vision, have a sharper image, and save some money.
 
crawlgsx said:
I'd probably buy the Planar if it was still sold, unfortunately it looks like Planar isn't going to make monitors anymore.
Click to expand...

Holy shit, when did that happen? I saw that display for around $250 at provantage not even a month ago and was kind of wondering why I couldn't find it on Planar's website. I guess that they were clearing out stock. Its up to $450 everywhere. Its too bad since that Planar SA2311w really is a great display.

Oh and its still one of the best 3d vision displays on the market.

royo said:
I've never been really impressed with the 120hz monitors, especially because they're all TNs.
Click to expand...

I don't get the TN hate. In a 23" display I don't find gamma shift to be an issue. Thats one thing that I worry about with the 27" 120hz displays. Its a monitor, I don't see why viewing angles are an issue. For movies and anything away from the desk I'll use my 42" tv. Color accuracy on my Planar is very good. Out of the box its better than these Korean monitors that require hardware calibration. Response times are great. The image in motion is sharper on my Planar than the qh270. They both have their pros and cons.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top