IPS or 120Hz?

C

CeZemal

Weaksauce
Joined
Jan 19, 2011
Messages
92
So it seems a lot of manufacturers are switching over to IPS panels, since they're like, awesome and what not. But any thread I see on here about 120Hz monitors claim them to be the best thing in the entire world. Not in so many words but you get what I'm saying.

Anyway, for wanting an eyefinity setup, purchasing within the next month or so, looking at 23-24" monitors, and for mainly gaming, should I go with IPS, 120Hz, or just go for fast plane Jane tried and true TNs?
 
What is your budget?

What is more important to you, Image Quality or Fast Response?

Are you looking for 3D?



These are all questions we shouldn't have to ask, but are required to answer you fully.
 
yeah, we need to know what your primary usage scenario for it is, importance of certain features (3D?) to you, and maybe useage enviroment.
 
if you play alot of 3d gaming, it's 120hz no contest. I have both an ips ( Dell 2005fpw) and a 120hz (Acer GD235hz).
 
AW2310 blows, get the U2311h... 120hz isn't that smooth. You still get tearing on the farcry 2 stress test when the camera pans over the rooftop with vsync on. The same can't be said for ips.. "colors aren't that much better, you still get shitty colors - well no, you don't. pictures quality is better all the time.)

The debate over whether 120hz is really that much better for "gaming" is kind of moot. If you're the kind of person who'd actually see the increased refresh rate, you're also the kind of person who can compensate for input lag subconsciously. You do this every time you play an fps... You move your mouse the exact fraction of a mm you need, in a split of a second, and fire away at your opponents head. You don't wait for the sight to line up with the target, you know it's already there. It's reflex.

(AW2310 owner here)
 
It's always a good idea to reduce the lag in the interface chain of the user's inputs. But yeah, you can compensate for input lag, just as you can compensate for network lag and the likes. Doesn't mean you should forget about it.


Anyway if you're mostly gaming the picture quality doesn't matter that much so TN 120hz is definitely the way to go. However if you want to do some photoshop or care about picture quality for example when watching blu rays then IPS is a better idea. Really, the improved colours and uniformity don't make Crysis look that much better than on a TN panel (speaking of the decent TN panels of course), it's only in HD films and pictures that there truly is a stunning difference.
 
kalston said:
It's always a good idea to reduce the lag in the interface chain of the user's inputs. But yeah, you can compensate for input lag, just as you can compensate for network lag and the likes. Doesn't mean you should forget about it.
Click to expand...
Fair enough. But how many of us buy Bigfoot network NIC killers? (wow, never wrote that before... sound's really weird to write that.. doesn't even sound real pc component bigfoot..killers..)
 
Whoisthisreally said:
Since when is 'gaming' restricted to online shooters?
Click to expand...

I didn't say that. But you'll agree that games look nothing like photographs or blu rays, right? With the TN panels I had I could spot the dithering easily in films and pictures but very rarely in games. And I never noticed the lack of uniformity in games either, while it was very noticeable with everything else.
Speaking of all kinds of games here, may it be RTS/RPG or FPS etc.

The smoothness of 120hz is amazing, plus you don't really need v-sync anymore most of the time and tearing should rarely if ever be an issue.

(Note that I don't even have a 120hz TN at home myself and use an IPS even for "serious" gaming)

I just know that most people don't notice the issues of TN panels.
 
kalston said:
But you'll agree that games look nothing like photographs or blu rays, right?
Click to expand...

I can think of a few popular titles that clearly demand high image performance. The Stalker series is one that really benefits from an accurate, stable image, particularly in the resolution of dark scenes, which between storms and night-time is most of the game. ArmA series again, as well as Mass Effect, Oblivion caverns (not that the game is worth playing) and The Witcher. In general many modern games scale suitably with monitor performance.

I'm going to recommend monitors with above average image/cost performance. Responsiveness is easy to obtain. IQ is expensive and technically difficult.
 
xDezor said:
Fair enough. But how many of us buy Bigfoot network NIC killers? (wow, never wrote that before... sound's really weird to write that.. doesn't even sound real pc component bigfoot..killers..)
Click to expand...

I'd rather get a good Intel NIC, the kind used by corporations in mission critical servers, than a silly "Killer" turd.

:D That's my only beef with "Bigfoot NIC" stuff.
 
Well personally, I need an eyefinity setup for mostly gaming and general every day use. I'd like to keep the setup under a grand, preferably in the 800-850 price range. I don't plan on using 3D as I think it's simply a gimmick that'll phase itself out over time (kinda like physx).

The main purpose of the post was to strike up a discussion as to which is overall more worth the price. Most people here would recommend IPS hands down, but I've read some rather compelling posts about the validity of 120Hz and how it's far and beyond anything IPS can offer. Just curious to see what people think is all.
 
I had a 120hz monitor and later returned it. Really couldn't notice much of a difference. With vsync off I still got tearing, and it's honestly not worth it. For $60 less than one 23" 3d monitor I bought three 21.5" monitors and the difference is much better.

But if I was in your position, I would get IPS instead of 120hz. With eyefinity it's going to be hard to reach 120 frames per second anyway.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top