IPS overated?

[monitorrat]

Out of curiosity: have you compared both side by side? Name models please?

I'll more later but PA241,Samsung 244t,Dell 2405, samsung 5271, samsung 55c650.
In particular the blacks of the 5271 and especially 55c650 just utterly annihilate those of the PA241 (or any other IPS I have ever seen, even if not side by side). The 244T and 2405 had somewhat weak blacks but pop up a black screen, or a dark scene in a movie, or a dark photo and they look better than IPS screens for sure, no question and put a top S-PVA and it's beyond night and day difference (granted the c650 has poor uniformity and weak viewing angles, but the blacks are insanely deeper looking). And certainly aside from blacks looking worse/worse contast ratio tghe IPS screens I saw had much better driving electronics and far, far better in all other ways than the 244T and 2405, but not for blacks.

 

[monitorrat]

It is kind of ridiculous to call IPS shifty, when that is the main flaw of VA screens. My first screen was VA and couldn't stand the shiftiness. Eventually I ended with IPS as it has the most stable image this side of a CRT.

Yes VA has the highest contrast ratio, but in most cases we are talking about 800-1000 for IPS vs 1200-1500 for VA. In a well lit room there is virtually no difference.

I have a IPS monitor and VA TV in my living room. My TV has double the measured (by me) contrast, yet I am much more disappointed in the blacks on my TV than on my monitor. Because it depends on usage. I use my monitor with the lights on and my blacks look black. I like to watch movies with the lights and my TVs blacks (despite be numerically better) look worse. My TV is also incredibly shifty, moving outside the sweet spot causes color washout.

IPS remains my favorite LCD technology, but that doesn't meant it is free of issues. All LCDs have issues. My number one issue with IPS is only LG seems to build IPS monitor panels and their QA seems to be very poor.

Try comparing it to a top, at least half-way recent, S-PVA HDTV. I guarantee you the black levels will utterly destroy those on your IPS monitor, I'm talking like maybe 4-6x better and it is ridiculously easy to notice the difference. And put a pure black screen and not a single thing about it will not way better. Put up photos or movies where black and dark are related to small bits of the image but make up large or huge contiguous chunks and the difference will be very clear.

And put an IPS wide gamut in srgb mode and you may have like maybe 520:1 CR vs. 3500:1 for a top sRGB HDTV.

Not that I am bashing IPS as my own monitor went from PVA to IPS. But the blacks are the one thing that does let down a bit when spoiled by so much top end HDTV viewing.

 

[ar09]

e-ips gets you 75% there, when h-ips gets you the remaining 25%.

 

[Snowdog]

The 244T and 2405 had somewhat weak blacks but pop up a black screen, or a dark scene in a movie, or a dark photo and they look better than IPS screens for sure, no question

Highly questionable. I had a Dell 2405 (for about 2 weeks) It had terrible blacks because the backlight didn't go very low. A pure black screen would light up room.

Try comparing it to a top, at least half-way recent, S-PVA.

And try comparing monitors to monitors. No one seems to be putting the TV tech into monitors.

If you really want consistent dark blacks on a top TV, go plasma.

 

[NCX]

Try comparing it to a top, at least half-way recent, S-PVA HDTV. I guarantee you the black levels will utterly destroy those on your IPS monitor, I'm talking like maybe 4-6x better and it is ridiculously easy to notice the difference. And put a pure black screen and not a single thing about it will not way better. Put up photos or movies where black and dark are related to small bits of the image but make up large or huge contiguous chunks and the difference will be very clear.

And put an IPS wide gamut in srgb mode and you may have like maybe 520:1 CR vs. 3500:1 for a top sRGB HDTV.

Not that I am bashing IPS as my own monitor went from PVA to IPS. But the blacks are the one thing that does let down a bit when spoiled by so much top end HDTV viewing.

Most TV's don't come any were near 3500:1. It is stupid to compare a maybe 500$ monitor aimed at color pros to a 1200$+ TV.

A fair comparison would be the Dell U2410 Vs the Ezio EV233 (600:1 vs 2500:1) or HP LP2275W vs the Fujitsu P22W5 Eco Ips (870:1 Vs 1200:1) as they are similarily priced when comparing IPS vs XX panels

 

[albovin]

I'll more later but PA241,Samsung 244t,Dell 2405, samsung 5271, samsung 55c650.
In particular the blacks of the 5271 and especially 55c650 just utterly annihilate those of the PA241 (or any other IPS I have ever seen, even if not side by side). The 244T and 2405 had somewhat weak blacks but pop up a black screen, or a dark scene in a movie, or a dark photo and they look better than IPS screens for sure, no question and put a top S-PVA and it's beyond night and day difference (granted the c650 has poor uniformity and weak viewing angles, but the blacks are insanely deeper looking). And certainly aside from blacks looking worse/worse contast ratio tghe IPS screens I saw had much better driving electronics and far, far better in all other ways than the 244T and 2405, but not for blacks.

So I've got it right: you've never seen them side by side.
And you've never seen what you are talking about.

 

[RadXge]

I own two Dell 2007FP, one is IPS and the other one is PVA.
Both monitors were calibrated using a high end colorimeter with Calman.
After calibration, the IPS panel shows slightly better color accuracy, gray scale and gamma curve. However, the PVA contrast ratio is a little bit better as well as the uniformity.

In all honesty, my eyes are unable to see a noticeable difference between the two monitors.
Please note that quality varies by unit and my sample is too small to be credible.

Nevertheless, I find TN panels to be inferior to PVA and IPS counterparts.

 

[albovin]

Best IPS monitors that I am aware of max out in 700:1 with good black depth of 0.15 (NEC EA231WMi for example). Buuuut quite a lot of IPS monitors coming out lately are around 600......
...Read the reviews with measurements of IPS monitor that have come after LP2475w

Dell u2410 770:1 prad.de
Nec PA241w 920:1 flatpanelshd.com
Dell u2311 896:1 flatpanelshd.com
dell u2711 978:1 flatpanelshd.com

Not sure about ZR24w. Even if yes, how many quite a lot is this?

Highest CR measured on an IPS monitor so far is ~1020:1, lowest black ~0.05 cd/m2 (HP 2480zx prad.de, ToastyX)

800-1000? That would be awesome contrast ratio and on the limits of what human eye can pretty much detect

"the limits of what human eye can pretty much detect" - this phrase says to me that you can understand things. Why on earth are you posting that BS in this BS thread then?

 

[albovin]

monitorrat
MaZa
Never post and let grow BS theads like this where noobs play with useless, often false numbers of CR on a topic that had been chewed 1000 times.
BS usually attract more BS. Just pass by. Otherwise it will grow into BS abscess - what already happend to this thread.
Best wishes.

 

[monitorrat]

Highly questionable. I had a Dell 2405 (for about 2 weeks) It had terrible blacks because the backlight didn't go very low. A pure black screen would light up room.

yeah the 2405 didn't have great blacks but they were still better than many IPS

 

[monitorrat]

So I've got it right: you've never seen them side by side.
And you've never seen what you are talking about.

No, I have seen a Samsung 244T side by side with a Dell 2405

and a samsung s44T side by side with a NEC PA241 side by side with a samsung 55C650

and i have seen a samsung 5271 side by side with a samsung 55c650

and i have seen a dell 2405 side by side with some old apple and ips

etc.

and the 2405 and 244t don't even have great blacks at all

 

[albovin]

No, I have seen a Samsung 244T side by side with a Dell 2405

and a samsung s44T side by side with a NEC PA241 side by side with a samsung 55C650

and i have seen a samsung 5271 side by side with a samsung 55c650

and i have seen a dell 2405 side by side with some old apple and ips

etc.

and the 2405 and 244t don't even have great blacks at all

Sorry, not accepted.
2405 and 244t are old garbage.
TVs - different story. Never mix up monitors with TVs.
Best wishes.

 

[Kulith]

I recently bought the HP LP3065 and combine it with 1 2007FP dell panels on each side because I got inspired after browsing in the "Show your desktop" thread. And basically just see what this S-IPS panels is all about and experience it with myself. But today though I just realized that I have been looking through an IPS panel all 6 years. (IBM ThinkVision L180P) here at work.

I also have the HP W2408H hooked up to my Hackintosh and I really think this TN panel is a lot vibrant and pleasing to the eyes than my calibrated S-IPS panels.. Or maybe my eyes is broken.

almost the same thing happened to me. I was bought into the whole IPS's are awesome mindset before I ever owned one. I then bought a zr24w and had no end of problems with it, so I returned it. Then I realized at work that I'd been using a 2005fpw at work for 6 months.

Sure, the ips looks better when you are viewing it from the floor, but frankly, anybody who says the difference is night and day is a moron.

 

[monitorrat]

Dell u2410 770:1 prad.de
Nec PA241w 920:1 flatpanelshd.com
Dell u2311 896:1 flatpanelshd.com
dell u2711 978:1 flatpanelshd.com

Not sure about ZR24w. Even if yes, how many quite a lot is this?

Highest CR measured on an IPS monitor so far is ~1020:1, lowest black ~0.05 cd/m2 (HP 2480zx prad.de, ToastyX)




"the limits of what human eye can pretty much detect" - this phrase says to me that you can understand things. Why on earth are you posting that BS in this BS thread then?

"In any one view, the eye eye can see over a 10,000 range in contrast detection, but it depends on the scene brightness, with the range decreasing with lower contrast targets. The eye is a contrast detector, not an absolute detector like the sensor in a digital camera, thus the distinction. (See Figure 2.6 in Clark, 1990; Blackwell, 1946, and references therein). The range of the human eye is greater than any film or consumer digital camera."

http://www.clarkvision.com/imagedetail/eye-resolution.html

-------------

i think some of those numbers are pre-calibration

in fact look at the review you posted:

"
The black levels on the IPS panels are still one of the main disadvantages of the IPS panel technology and the VA panels have a lot deeper black level. The Eizo EV2333WH was measured to 0,04 cd/m2 for example.
"

and

" Out-of-Box After calibration
Black level 0,25 cd/m2 0,13 cd/m2
Brightness 230 cd/m2 84 cd/m2
Contrast ratio 920:1 646:1
"

and for movies in sRGB mode it is lower still more like 560:1
compared to a 244T at 870:1 in sRGB mode

granted 85cd/m^2 is a bit low and many monitors, including that one give up a bit of contrast ratio when set that low.

--------------

perhaps the mini sub-pixels of state of the art s-pva used in hdtv's can't be fit into such small pixels as computer monitors have?? perhaps the active vs. active surface area doesn't scale past a certain point??

-----------------------------------
anyway i don't mean to bash those IPS, I do own one myself hah and as I said I did dump off a PVA for it on top of that It has amazing electronics and even after extreme calibration still shows 0-255 gradients without even a trace of banding, has superbly programmed gamma curves, etc.

I just wouldn't say they present the very best blacks (maybe some specialized HP IPS-pro but how many screen use that, what today?) and the white glow on a black screen does show more on them on PVA (again none have polarizers anymore).

 

[monitorrat]

Sorry, not accepted.
2405 and 244t are old garbage.
TVs - different story. Never mix up monitors with TVs.
Best wishes.

the point was that those old garbage monitors can actually pull off a bit better contrast AFTER calibration than some new IPS (to be fair the gamma ramps on the better IPS are so perfectly set when in calibrated mode perhaps if the 244t/2405 were that exactingly prepared the outcome would no longer be better, but even so, old garbage PVA matching new IPS)

but again I am not calling IPS monitors trash, I have a fairly fancy one now and it does a lot of things very well, a beautiful monitor

EDIT:
also the IPS had compensation turned on which robs some contrast and they were also sRGB gamma while the PVA were gamma 2.22, so the movie viewing comparisons may have been a bit biased against the IPS and for some reason the IPS seem to look better with different settings than the PVA, in general, for movies. So I may have overstated things a bit, that said the best PVA (and certainly S-PVA, although only fair to compare in large sizes) still have better blacks and contrast.
I will do an exactingly matched comparison later.

 

[NCX]

Dell u2410 770:1 prad.de
Nec PA241w 920:1 flatpanelshd.com
Dell u2311 896:1 flatpanelshd.com
dell u2711 978:1 flatpanelshd.com

Not sure about ZR24w. Even if yes, how many quite a lot is this?

Highest CR measured on an IPS monitor so far is ~1020:1, lowest black ~0.05 cd/m2 (HP 2480zx prad.de, ToastyX)




"the limits of what human eye can pretty much detect" - this phrase says to me that you can understand things. Why on earth are you posting that BS in this BS thread then?

those aren't Calibrated settings, which the contrast is nearly halfed on some of those moitors, and you clearly cherry picked the highest contrast between TFT/Prad/DV/Flat Panels instead of averaging them, thus making most of your post worthless.

However I do agree that comparing monitors with TV's is stupid (except the C-PVA panels) and that old monitors suck. Hopefully whomever everyone is arguing with understands this by now.

 

[kllrnohj]

Sure, the ips looks better when you are viewing it from the floor, but frankly, anybody who says the difference is night and day is a moron.

Or you just can't see the difference. It wouldn't be surprising if you had partial color blindness of some sort. IPS for me was a *huge* difference, mainly because of the viewing angles. I don't sit straight all the time, I lean back, and to the side, and shift around in my chair a lot. Not only that, but I used to run dual and now run triple monitors.

 

[pedsaktix]

almost the same thing happened to me. I was bought into the whole IPS's are awesome mindset before I ever owned one. I then bought a zr24w and had no end of problems with it, so I returned it. Then I realized at work that I'd been using a 2005fpw at work for 6 months.

Sure, the ips looks better when you are viewing it from the floor, but frankly, anybody who says the difference is night and day is a moron.

That's a little harsh.. there's actually a scientific formula for what a really good color reproduction is and some really high end monitors can get close. I just think we both just are not bless with super human eye sight.

Or you just can't see the difference. It wouldn't be surprising if you had partial color blindness of some sort. IPS for me was a *huge* difference, mainly because of the viewing angles. I don't sit straight all the time, I lean back, and to the side, and shift around in my chair a lot. Not only that, but I used to run dual and now run triple monitors.

If you can justify the cost and actually have a valid reason and gain to get such technology then money well spent.

 

[Snowdog]

Sure, the ips looks better when you are viewing it from the floor, but frankly, anybody who says the difference is night and day is a moron.

The "from the floor" remark implies you are talking about TN screens as a point of comparison. Here is a picture of my TN screen, shot from straight on (not the floor). This is typical of all TN screens. That background is not a gradient it should be one solid tone. Those two Techforum logos on the right are (should be) identical.

I won't be as unkind to suggest that anyone who can't see this difference is a moron (as you suggest for those who do), some people just get used to whatever they were using and are not very sensitive to some issues. In fact this didn't bother that much (less than VA screens) unless I was editing or comparing images and screen location would swamp subtle changes, then it was nearly unusable.

 

[Walker]

That pic just about sums it up why I can't stand TNs. Even if they were to make a true 8bit TN with perfect color reproduction, it would still look bad due to the extremely poor vertical viewing angles. There is no angle from which a TN looks even close to uniform.

 

[pedsaktix]

That pic just about sums it up why I can't stand TNs. Even if they were to make a true 8bit TN with perfect color reproduction, it would still look bad due to the extremely poor vertical viewing angles. There is no angle from which a TN looks even close to uniform.

I wish I have your eye sight.. so I can enjoy my investment even more so..

 

[Walker]

I wish I have your eye sight.. so I can enjoy my investment even more so..

Seriously, you need to be blind as a bat not to see the effect of the viewing angles on a TN

 

[Whoisthisreally]

Modern TN panels have always scored within the same contrast range as modern IPS. In terms of contrast I have never seen any measurement which differentiated a TN panel from an IPS or contrariwise.

TN is an old world technology which offers no advantage over IPS apart from power consumption. In order to make TN viable for formats bigger than 20 inches, makers had to employ compensation films to improve its viewing characteristics.

Bear in mind we are now comparing a U2311H with an X233H, not an LP2475W with a V2400W as in 2008.

 

[Elledan]

I'm not sure about IPS being overrated, but when I was looking recently at replacing my CRTs with professional IPS displays, I ended up being sorely disappointed by what was available. In terms of contrast, latency and response time as well as other factors my old, semi-professional CRTs have got high-end IPS displays firmly beat. Even worse is that at 26" these high-end displays have the same vertical resolution (1200) as my current displays, which would be the primary reason for me to get larger screens. I need my screen real-estate for CAD, 3DS and Photoshop, darnit

I will admit to IPS being the least terrible choice when it comes to LCDs, though. TN is an absolute joke as the colourshift is nothing less than dramatic, *VA has issues with colourshift and blacks, IPS has decent colours and okay blacks, just sluggish response time plus ghosting.

 

[Whoisthisreally]

IPS has decent colours...

Total nonsense. LCDs are far more capable than CRT has ever been. Professional LCD monitors have saved us from the savagery of the video card gamma table. Pro monitors can emulate paper types, can adjust their own gamut, can emulate colour blindness, and can regulate their own aging.

 

[monitorrat]

Dell u2410 770:1 prad.de
Nec PA241w 920:1 flatpanelshd.com
Dell u2311 896:1 flatpanelshd.com
dell u2711 978:1 flatpanelshd.com

Not sure about ZR24w. Even if yes, how many quite a lot is this?

Highest CR measured on an IPS monitor so far is ~1020:1, lowest black ~0.05 cd/m2 (HP 2480zx prad.de, ToastyX)




"the limits of what human eye can pretty much detect" - this phrase says to me that you can understand things. Why on earth are you posting that BS in this BS thread then?

For whatever reason I just can't seem to match the NEC PA241W results of flatpanel or prad.de when it comes to depth of black measurements or max CR. I'm like a good 35% off (in the bad direction). Not sure if it is the panel I received or something weird with the probe (it seemed to give results close to test results on other screens though).

 

[another-user]

ips has its drawbacks, ill agree, but its not over rated.

ive never used a TN up until a few months ago when i got a 26" asus. i knew about the color shifting going into this, but i had never experienced it first hand. i figured how bad could it be? 90% of the general population uses them, it cant be that bad. oh how wrong i was....

just reading a forum was pissing me off to no end. on a simple white page, the top 1/4 of the screen was tinted red, middle half was white, and the bottom 1/4 was blue. i tried sitting at every length and angle possible, trying to make the color shift go away. with every single movement, the color shifted.

now, i will say that with gaming, it worked out quite well. colors looked nice, and it performed well.since there isnt a single solid color spanning the entire screen, i didnt really notice the color shifting as badly. i also watched an episode of family guy, at which point i said the hell with this. with all the solid colors in the show, you could see the shifting in everything.

4hrs of use with it and my eyes felt tired and i had a splitting head ache. i boxed it up and went back to my old and worn out dell 2001fp and found it to be infinitely more pleasing.

now im running an HP zr24w. with the exception of the white glow (mitigated by sitting 2 1/2 - 3 feet away) and im quite happy. sure, id like a polarizer so the white glow was gone entirely, but for a 400 dollar monitor that has everything i was looking for, i cant complain.

 

[dr.stevil]

IPS overated?

yes, in many instances it is. It really depends on the application you're using it for though.

If you're doing professional design work where color accuracy is most important (photo editing, the printing industry, advertising, web design, etc), getting a monitor that can display colors accuratly is a top priority. I have a few IPS displays (and an IPS tablet) at home for design work that are invaluble, however I would never consider buying one for a gaming setup due to the technical limitations (mainly the 60hz ceiling).

likewise, I would never buy a TN panel for design work. It's worth it to spend the extra money on a quality display... especially if it's helping you make money

 

[Snowdog]

, however I would never consider buying one for a gaming setup due to the technical limitations (mainly the 60hz ceiling).

There is no 60Hz ceiling. Several IPS displays will easily run full 72-75 Hz without dropped frames and essentially no input lag.

In terms of speed (response time and lag), TN is the fastest, VA is the slowest, and IPS is in the middle, but it is closer to TN than VA.

 

[dr.stevil]

There is no 60Hz ceiling. Several IPS displays will easily run full 72-75 Hz without dropped frames and essentially no input lag.

lol, ok... 75hz (the vast majority are still 59/60hz though)

until an IPS display comes out that will run atleast 120hz with a low response time (and little to no IL), I will stick with TN for gaming

 

[Elledan]

Total nonsense. LCDs are far more capable than CRT has ever been. Professional LCD monitors have saved us from the savagery of the video card gamma table. Pro monitors can emulate paper types, can adjust their own gamut, can emulate colour blindness, and can regulate their own aging.

Notice I wasn't comparing IPS directly to CRTs Colour reproduction is something which can always be improved upon, especially within specific colour spaces. IPS does pretty well in this regard, for me it was mostly the lack of contrast, ghosting (I do video editing as well) and low vertical resolution which put me off from buying a professional IPS LCD or two.

 

[Snowdog]

lol, ok... 75hz (the vast majority are still 59/60hz though)

As are the majority of TN screens.

until an IPS display comes out that will run atleast 120hz with a low response time (and little to no IL), I will stick with TN for gaming

75Hz is fine for all but an extreme minority and an IPS is a better all round screen than TN.

 

[dr.stevil]

As are the majority of TN screens.

true, I will give you that... but not one that I would consider buying

75Hz is fine for all but an extreme minority and an IPS is a better all round screen than TN.

75hz IPS displays (and 60hz for that matter) are perfectly fine. They're really great for some uses, games aren't one of them though. They're not terrible, but there are better options avalible

don't take it personally, just my honest opinion

 

[Dan_D]

People who believe IPS is over rated have probably never spent any time actually using IPS monitors. Once you have, TN and PVA instantly become unacceptable.

 

[Snowdog]

75hz IPS displays (and 60hz for that matter) are perfectly fine. They're really great for some uses, games aren't one of them though. They're not terrible, but there are better options avalible

You have to recognize that your opinion is a fringe one. Most people are perfectly happy gaming on 60Hz displays. Until very recently that was all you could get in LCDs.

Heck many Console games are capped at 30 FPS.

So it may be your "honest opinion" that 120Hz is needed, but I think you are quite wrong.

But hey marketing has to work on someone.

 

[Kulith]

The "from the floor" remark implies you are talking about TN screens as a point of comparison. Here is a picture of my TN screen, shot from straight on (not the floor). This is typical of all TN screens. That background is not a gradient it should be one solid tone. Those two Techforum logos on the right are (should be) identical.

I won't be as unkind to suggest that anyone who can't see this difference is a moron (as you suggest for those who do), some people just get used to whatever they were using and are not very sensitive to some issues. In fact this didn't bother that much (less than VA screens) unless I was editing or comparing images and screen location would swamp subtle changes, then it was nearly unusable.

I didn't say that if you can notice the difference you're a moron, I said if you say the difference is "night and day" you're a moron. I guess that's open to interpretation... I personally just don't notice / aren't bothered by these types of differences between panels. So when people told me that the difference between the zr24w and my TN was "night and day", I was rather disappointed.

 

[pedsaktix]

People who believe IPS is over rated have probably never spent any time actually using IPS monitors. Once you have, TN and PVA instantly become unacceptable.

I believe the technology is getting hyped here in this forum. Below is my current setup.

 

[Snowdog]

I didn't say that if you can notice the difference you're a moron, I said if you say the difference is "night and day" you're a moron.

Well despite you calling me a moron, I would say that the difference is night and day. Heck it is there in that one image where it looks like night at the top and day at the bottom.

It should be one continuous tone.

No need to call people morons because they see this as a big difference. If you don't see it as a big difference fine, why attack people who do?

 

[Snowdog]

I also have the HP W2408H hooked up to my Hackintosh and I really think this TN panel is a lot vibrant and pleasing to the eyes than my calibrated S-IPS panels.. Or maybe my eyes is broken.

Going back to the first post, I really think this is starting a lot of argument about the wrong thing.

Really this seems like a naive complaint having nothing to do with IPS vs TN, but more about glossy screens and (maybe) wide gamut.

There are many wide gamut IPS screens if that turns your crank, though glossy ones are rare (Apple 24" ACD). Personally I prefer realistic colors free of reflections of everything in my room.

You really seem to be mixing up issues completely here. IPS is largely responsible for superior viewing angles. TN is about inferior viewing angles, it does nothing for "vibrancy".

The vibrant thing you are talking about is coming from some combination of glossy screen and maybe wide gamut. Nothing to do with TN vs IPS.

Here is someone peeling off the anti-glare coating off his IPS screen to reveal the glossy panel(click his flicker link for more details):
http://hardforum.com/showpost.php?p=1035794974&postcount=871

 

[dr.stevil]

You have to recognize that your opinion is a fringe one. Most people are perfectly happy gaming on 60Hz displays. Until very recently that was all you could get in LCDs.

Heck many Console games are capped at 30 FPS.

So it may be your "honest opinion" that 120Hz is needed, but I think you are quite wrong.

But hey marketing has to work on someone.

if you're talking about TV's, I agree with you 100%. It's all a gimmick.

I'm talking about PC displays though... there is a pretty significant difference going from a 60hz display to a 120hz . They aren't 'needed', but they do provide a much better experience especially in fast paced/action games (obviously if you have the hardware to actually push 120+ fps)