• Some users have recently had their accounts hijacked. It seems that the now defunct EVGA forums might have compromised your password there and seems many are using the same PW here. We would suggest you UPDATE YOUR PASSWORD and TURN ON 2FA for your account here to further secure it. None of the compromised accounts had 2FA turned on.
    Once you have enabled 2FA, your account will be updated soon to show a badge, letting other members know that you use 2FA to protect your account. This should be beneficial for everyone that uses FSFT.

Monitor for bf3, going big

H

hello im sean

n00b
Joined
Jun 27, 2010
Messages
14
hi hard forum! long time lurker here, first post. I've been doing a lot of research on displays lately getting ready for BF3. I think i've narrowed it down to the dell 3007wfp-hc, ACD 27" or 30", HP zr30w, or the hazro hz27wc.

Few things about me, im not a fan of anti-glare coats, but if the screen is nice enough i can deal. Also im not sure what would be better for BF3, 1440p or 1600p? i know its comparing 16:9 and 16:10 but for gaming which would you pick and why? also if i can get ccfl i think i'd like it more than led unless somebody can talk me out of that reasoning

The hz27wc has an attractive price and gloss screen but seem hard to get and have qc probems.

The hp zr30w seems very nice but it apparently has contrast issues and does not calibrate well for gaming

The ACD 27" seems nice and it is glossy, but it apple for one.. and its kind of pricey for a 27"

Is the ACD 30" good for gaming? low input lag? and i cant tell but does it have an anti glare coat?

The 3007wfp-hc can be had inexpensively refurbished and it really is an attractive offer, two problems. Will they still be around for BF3's release most likely? and i hear the anti glar coatin on the dells especiall is rather terrible.

Thanks so much for any input at all!
 
If you're buying a game exclusively for an FPS, the only thing you should consider is a 120hz monitor.

There are a few 27" 120hz, they mostly suck or are too expensive.
 
I second the 120 Hz comment. I just got one and I can't go back (I primarily play bad company 2). Granted, if you graphics card isn't going to push over 60 frames, then it won't be worth it.
 
Yes but nukedukem have you ever played a 120hz monitor to compare too? I am grateful for your input though!
 
hello im sean said:
Yes but nukedukem have you ever played a 120hz monitor to compare too? I am grateful for your input though!
Click to expand...

A good friend of mine has the Asus VG236H, a 23" TN panel that does 120hz, and I have seen it in action several times. Motion is improved over 60hz, no doubt. Honestly though, I wasn't impressed all that much, if I was a pro Quake 3 player perhaps it would be worth it... but the colors are dull, the viewing angles are bad, the screen is tiny, and it's at 16:9 1080p resolution which I won't go back to after gaming at 2560x1600.

Thing is, I value picture quality, colors and pixel density more than having a higher refresh rate. I have enough GPU power to be able to play any game at a constant 60fps and it's perfectly fine by me. I play FPS, RPG, and RTS games. Would I like to game at 120Hz? Yeah. I just love having a huge vibrant screen with 4 million pixels I can park a foot from my face much more and I won't sacrifice that experience to game at 120Hz.

In the end, it comes down to personal preference. There isn't right or wrong, only what YOU like.
 
I have the Samsung S27A950D and I don't feel like I'm sacrificing anything.

It's 27", 120Hz and the colors are far, far from dull. Especially with dynamic contrast turned on for gaming. It's something else.

I also have a Dell 2407 PVA, and a HP LP2475 IPS at work. Both 24" 1920x1200. I'm a developer and for work there is no doubt that these two work better, but for gaming the Samsung is head and shoulders above those.

Like they say, your mileage may vary but for me after playing on a 120Hz there is absolutely no turning back. Obviously, it's a lot smoother but another huge benefit is that since your framerate will rarely, if ever, go above 120, you're free of the hellish screen tearing without having to turn on v-sync and suffer from input lag.

No doubt that 2560x1600 is nice too, but personally I prefer being able to play the latest games at high settings with a framerate >= 60fps.
 
people who never seen a IPS panel will not know the difference. so going from an older TN panel to a new one they are going to think the colors have improved and that its a great monitor. Those who have never seen 120hz in action same thing. you can get used to any monitor just give it a few days.

What i want to do is get a 27"2560x1440 and a 27" 120hz as a secondary monitor. FPS gaming for one, and everything else on the other, plus it would be a dual monitor setup.
 
Sotorious said:
people who never seen a IPS panel will not know the difference. so going from an older TN panel to a new one they are going to think the colors have improved and that its a great monitor. Those who have never seen 120hz in action same thing. you can get used to any monitor just give it a few days.

What i want to do is get a 27"2560x1440 and a 27" 120hz as a secondary monitor. FPS gaming for one, and everything else on the other, plus it would be a dual monitor setup.
Click to expand...
Best of both worlds!

Like I said, I have a HP IPS panel at work, and well, also an iPad at home. While I won't argue that it has advantages over TN panels, I think a lot of people blow these advantages way, way out of proportion. But then again, you could probably say that about me and 120Hz :D
 
How is ghosting and input lag on the new Samsung sa950? I'd probably get the 23 inch version but I'm still curious to see how the perform for gaming being an ips at 120hz
 
hello im sean said:
How is ghosting and input lag on the new Samsung sa950? I'd probably get the 23 inch version but I'm still curious to see how the perform for gaming being an ips at 120hz
Click to expand...

It's a TN. There are no 120Hz IPS.

Input lag and ghosting is for all intent and purposes, non-existent.
 
I would also recommend 120Hz, I have only 1 atm, but I can tell you that its smoother than a 60Hz. I would recommend the alienware 120hz if u can dish out the cash.
 
I have a IPS 26" planar and have never noticed lag, ghosting, or tearing. I am a hardcore player of BC2 (formerly BF2 and MOH and COD-MW).
I love color and a quality image. I have been looking at the ACD 27" as my next move. the problem is the stupid display port. I have to wait until the Nvidia 600 series (which may have one). Or may have to look into a 590, but its not worth the money this late in the game. I dont want to spend 200 dollars on a decent DVI to DP converter either.

To me pixel density and image quality are the most important features. If i would have ever owned a panel that produced lag, maybe i would think differently. I have never witnessed lag on my 12ms H-IPS panel i have now.
I have not experienced 120hz, so maybe there is something i am missing. But i love my monitor. I just want to kick up the resolution one notch for BF3!
 
Curious why do you recommend the alienware over the others? It looks sick and the price doesn't bother me.
 
Read the Flat Panels and Digital Versus reviews, there is nothing wrong with the Alienware, however the Planar and new Acer GN235HZ are better and typically cheaper, no reason to pay the Alienware premium.
 
I am on the same boat as you brother. ive had 16:10 for a long time i may want to go 16:9 with 250x1440, not only is it a little less stress on the gfx it ppi is smaller, and mostly everything supports it with out black bars. Also it will be more room compacted for my desk.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top