Monitors make me sad... Gaming on 120hz or IPS panel?

InternationalHat said:
The benefit of CRTs for gaming is a detriment for static content viewing. Productivity work on a CRT even at 85hz sucks. They're blurry, inconsistent, flickery, and bulky. They're cute for nostalgia and some gamers, but that's it. They're probably the worst type of non-projected display to have in rooms with a lot of natural light. They'll be all gone in a few years anyway. No one's going to go back to making CRTs, replacement parts are hard to come by, and the electronics in them are already starting to fail.

Scanning backlights would not resolve the refresh lag with LCDs AFAIK. LCDs work by physically flipping little "windows". The blur you see is from the delay in that process as I understand it.
Click to expand...

Bulky is irrelevant is this discussion. I understand the desire being surrounded by beautiful things but we are talking between the bezel here. CRT owns all categories except convergence and even then some high end AGs could be as good bu then you got a faint line so I'll give LCDs one victory between the bezel.

They are gone because good one were expensive. Like $800-$3000 when you can find $89 shell shocker LCDs which is way more more attractive to consumer combined with superior exterior features like low power light and slim. Superior IPS almost disappeared too until they figured how to lower price with e-ips. People are cheap.

I will be surprised if OLED makes it also based on pricing I see unless they can lower it significantly and it's superior to LCD too.
 
Last edited:
jkalman said:
It was at 120Hz.

There is some kind of lag going on. It is quite noticeable.

Also, the color differences are astonishing on the ZR30W, not to mention the resolution difference... Personally, I may have spent $25 on the shipping, but I don't think I'm going to keep the Asus monitor even for 3D, the pixels are too noticeable where I would keep it on my desk.

I wish the Asus were as easy to pack back into the box as the Samsungs were....
Click to expand...

Try turning off vsync maybe. That tech is a lag and stutter introducer from video card.
 
I've owned it all...

Your best option for a modern monitor is to buy the biggest hi res IPS panel you can afford. Fro 700$ you can buy the new HP 27" ips monitor. If you wanna bump it up some I think the zr30w is the best monitor on the market for gaming. No scaler and no osd make it the fastest response and refresh available in a quality ips panel. I use it for games like bf3 and don't notice any difference in lag next to my fw-900 crt monitor. If you want to save some money, the LG ips at best buy for around 300$ is a good price for an LED 24" gaming ips. It's not a accurate as other panels but it's bright as sin and has good blacks too.
 
Any one them is a hard move off WGMX2. That monitor was fast and still is fastest IPS ever made and still offered all the benefits of H-IPS and a crystal clear glossy screen for super high contrast. I wish U luck. I took the 24" wuxi for size but it's not really a better experience IMO and ppl say it's a good monitor.
 
ZoNe said:
Try turning off vsync maybe. That tech is a lag and stutter introducer from video card.
Click to expand...

IIRC vsync is off by default with CCC. I will make sure it is off though in the next iteration.
 
I figured out what the problem was.

I basically can't run the ZR30W and the Asus at the same time. Whichever one is running as the main desktop lags the other monitor out for some reason. I do see a difference when moving a window around on the desktop when the Asus is being used as the main monitor in the setup. In the below link the face on the YouTube video doesn't blur as much when moving them at the same speed. I don't notice as much of a difference in Skyrim, though it is a little more solid feeling I think, but that could be because AMD drivers aren't so great for that game.

All things considered, I wouldn't trade the extended resolution of the ZR30W for the Asus. Likewise, the colors are so washed out looking on the Asus even after trying out recommended calibrations online that it is awful to look at pictures on it, let alone video games. Skyrim in particular looked terrible on it because of how terrible the colors look (oversaturated to hell...).

I would definitely buy a 120Hz monitor if there is ever one with the quality picture of the HP ZR30W. The experience was enough to make me decide not to run an eyefinity setup for now until I can get decent 120Hz all around. I would guess it can't be too far down the road from now, so I think the extra $2k is wasted if 2560x1600 at 120Hz is right around the corner.
 
What video card do you have? Curious about this problem.
 
If you are getting stuttering on video playback in a multi monitor setup with different refresh rate monitors when you move your mouse to a different monitor.. try enabling gpu scaling on one of the non-gaming monitors in ccc (catalyst control center). It works.
 
Thanks for all the awesome responses people, its been great to hear opinions and such. Especially from those coming from the 20WMGX2..

Honestly I'd LOVE to get one of those korean panels but I'm kinda scared to take a chance on something that could arrive in ANY condition.. unless I'm wrong there. I'll have to read up on it a bit more :)

rudy said:
Your problem is that you do not want to compromise but the fact is in the LCD era, you have NO choice. There is no one LCD tech that delivers it all like CRTs did. You always loose something, and somethings you can just never have. I have found for myself the only possible solution is to always run at least 2 monitors with different properties. I think your best option is the option of buying a 120hz TN LCD and then running the NEC along side it for browsing. It is also really nice while gaming to have that second monitor sitting there with the time, mumble server, cpu usage and temps and anything elese you may want to see.
Click to expand...

And you're right on with your comments, and honestly, I will probably end up just getting a 120hz and browsing on the WMGX2. Unless I do get convinced to try one of the korean models :)

I definitely have more thoughts but it's damn late .. Thanks a ton for all the really great opinions :)
 
ZoNe said:
Any one them is a hard move off WGMX2. That monitor was fast and still is fastest IPS ever made and still offered all the benefits of H-IPS and a crystal clear glossy screen for super high contrast. I wish U luck. I took the 24" wuxi for size but it's not really a better experience IMO and ppl say it's a good monitor.
Click to expand...

SEE! That's my problem exactly. I expected, 6 years down the road, to have a CLEAR winner in all categories compared to my 20WMGX2. But that simply isn't the case, at least, it's not as clear as I figured it would be :)
 
yeah, and the best monitor ever made is still the fw-900 that came out over a decade ago.
 
reaper12 said:
Well, what kind of gamer are you? Do you play first person shooters? Like counterstrike for example? If you turn on vsync do you notice any input lag? Are you a tactical player or do you rely on reflexs and quick reactions to get you kills?

And for the record I don't agree with anything Sycraft says about input lag and gamer's needs. He says he is fine playing on an IPS monitor and gets kills but you might be a much better gamer and might not be happy with that at all. I do agree with one thing he said though, pick the monitor you like and take other people's opinions with a pinch of salt, even mine.

And here is something to consider as well, the NEC 20WMGX2 that you have is a pretty amazing monitor and I don't think there is any IPS out at the moment that would be as good for gaming. Yes it's a 60hz IPS, but, and this is fact, it has nearly no input lag and is extremely responsive which means no ghosting. I don't think any of the 23/24 inch monitors out now can compete with it.

I have been looking for the a 23/24 inch monitor for ages, and I am not picky about the picture quality at all but can't find any thing, even any of the 120hz monitors to make me switch from my CRT. I just want a gaming monitor. I tried a friends dell u2412 and it was ok, but no way would I be happy gaming on it. I haven't tried the new benq XL2420T yet, it's supposed to be very good, but I would have to buy it to check it and I am not sure do I want to spend that much.

Sycraft is wrong about one thing, you do notice input lag, oh wait sorry, if you have pretty quick reaction times you will notice input lag. If you don't you won't and as another poster says just buy the monitor with the best picture quality because your eyes are shot anyway!! ;)

There is a pretty simple test too, just go to any of the websites that test reaction times, you know ones that you have to click the mouse button when the sign turns from red to green. I am 39, but still have pretty good reactions, on a CRT I normally get around the 150ms mark, but when I had the dell u2412 I was getting around the 200ms mark. Which shows the input lag, you don't need fancy recording equipment. In a blind test you might not 'feel' the difference but if you try the reaction tests or play games your score will go down.

Here is a reaction test site
http://www.humanbenchmark.com/tests/reactiontime/index.php

Anyway these are all my opinions, if you want the best of both worlds then consider going back to a CRT if you can find one, something like the Sony FW900. I am in the exact same boat except I can't find any monitor as good as my CRT but I really would love to get a 24 inch LCD and am so close to saying to hell with it and buying the BenQ.

Oh, sorry one more monitor I was looking at and it seems to be sort of like the NEC, in that it has very little lag and ghosting is the Iiyama E2473HDS. Seems to have a pretty decent picture as well.
Click to expand...

Thanks for the post man. I'm actually a gamer of all types, but I -do- play a lot of FPS. That's why the speed is really important to me. That's why I don't want a downgrade from my 20WMGX2.

I'd love an FW900 but it just isn't practical with my setup.

I'm really leaning towards a 120hz for gaming, and just doing all my browsing on the 20wmgx2. I'm going to have to go somewhere that will let me return my 120hz if I don't feel it's worth it!
 
Baconstrip said:
Thanks for the post man. I'm actually a gamer of all types, but I -do- play a lot of FPS. That's why the speed is really important to me. That's why I don't want a downgrade from my 20WMGX2.

I'd love an FW900 but it just isn't practical with my setup.

I'm really leaning towards a 120hz for gaming, and just doing all my browsing on the 20wmgx2. I'm going to have to go somewhere that will let me return my 120hz if I don't feel it's worth it!
Click to expand...

Your welcome and believe me I understand where you are coming from. I am so afraid to buy a new monitor in case it sucks bad!!

The NEC you have was a bit of a freak of a monitor. I mean it got everything right, great picture, no input lag and no ghosting. Personally I think it's the most CRT like LCD monitor ever to come out.

Getting a 120hz monitor for gaming and using the NEC for other stuff is probably the best way to go for now, but it's a pain to have to do that too.

What graphics card do you have in your system? If you have an AMD card get the Samsung S23A750D, if you have a Nvidia card then get the BenQ XL2420T.

And please post your thoughts when you do purchase. It mgiht help me make a choice then :D
 
Actually, I am not going the 120hz route, after looking around a lot, I am seriously considering getting the Iiyama E2437HDS-B1. Now I am on a budget so that's a big factor in deciding what I buy. But it seems to have a very good picture and very little input lag or ghosting. Here are two reviews

http://www.digitalversus.com/lcd-monitor/iiyama-prolite-e2473hds-p10816/test.html

http://www.overclock3d.net/reviews/gpu_displays/iiyama_prolite_e2473hds_review/1

Both reviews rate it pretty highly. Might be worth your while checking it out as well :)
 
reaper12 said:
Actually, I am not going the 120hz route, after looking around a lot, I am seriously considering getting the Iiyama E2437HDS-B1. Now I am on a budget so that's a big factor in deciding what I buy. But it seems to have a very good picture and very little input lag or ghosting. Here are two reviews

http://www.digitalversus.com/lcd-monitor/iiyama-prolite-e2473hds-p10816/test.html

http://www.overclock3d.net/reviews/gpu_displays/iiyama_prolite_e2473hds_review/1

Both reviews rate it pretty highly. Might be worth your while checking it out as well :)
Click to expand...

You did mention being on a budget, but the Benq 120hz is pretty much better than that monitor in every way possible. Granted it's 2x the price, but if your going TN panel anyway, as a gamer, you should def be going 120hz IMO. It's one thing to give up 120hz for IPS.

Of course if budget doesn't allow, then it doesn't, and that is fine too :D
 
I had 1080p 75Hz TN 2ms monitor before my current 1080p 75Hz IPS 5ms monitor and while that TN is obviously faster, I enjoy gaming much more with my IPS now because the picture quality difference is much larger than the speed difference.
 
Tup3x said:
I had 1080p 75Hz TN 2ms monitor before my current 1080p 75Hz IPS 5ms monitor and while that TN is obviously faster, I enjoy gaming much more with my IPS now because the picture quality difference is much larger than the speed difference.
Click to expand...

Which monitor is that? (that does 1080p @ 75hz)

I'm thinking about going that route just to avoid trying to keep 120fps.
 
Well, if you have enough money you can always buy both technologies. IPS for when you need to do serious work or watching movies and 120 Hz TN panels for gaming.

I'm colorblinded so for me is really retarded to buy laggier screens when today's TN screens are far better than my 6 year old Philips 200WS8 TN panel and have colors very similar to the IPS of the same price range once calibrated: http://www.overclock.net/t/1222585/...23a750d-1080p-in-dual-monitors-setup-pictures

So if I had to make the choice I would buy an IPS for serious work, well calibrated, and one 120 Hz TN panel for smooth gaming. And I know that I would notice the difference on the 120 Hz because I noticed the change from the previous CRT screen I had running at 85 Hz to my present 60 Hz panel. Not just on the blurriness, but also on the stuttering while moving the mouse.

As for viewing angles, I think it's not that bad. I'm writing this post from a laptop with a Full HD panel bought recently, and laptop TN panels are generally worse than desktop panels (so compared to these 120 Hz the difference would probably be bigger). As long as you don't use portrait mode (too much height for me), it's good.

My 2 cents.
 
Are there any new models coming out in 2012 that look promising?

I currently have a relatively old Dell 24" 1920x1200 VA panel that has done well for itself, but it has a pretty bad blob of image retention right in the top center (unusual for an LCD, I know). I've been wanting to replace it forever, but like the OP, the current LCD market is pretty pathetic.

* I've been leaning towards IPS, but we have several of the higher end Dell and HP IPS panels here at work, and the AG coating is absolutely awful, which rules them out as an option.
* Samsung's new PLS technology looked promising, so I was looking forward to the S27A850D, but the BLB issues on those scared me away.
* Samsung then apparently came out with the S27A850T, which doesn't have BLB issues (rumored), but I can't find any in North America.
* Apple's ACD is out of the question. I don't want 100% glossy. Too bright in my house.
* I have yet to see a TN panel that I liked, 120 Hz or not. However, I do agree that 120 Hz makes a big difference. I just care about PQ more than anything.

What's up with this situation? I have money in hand. I'm ready to spend $800+ (or twice that on two monitors) and these manufacturers can't seem to get their shit together.
 
Filiprino said:
As for viewing angles, I think it's not that bad. I'm writing this post from a laptop with a Full HD panel bought recently, and laptop TN panels are generally worse than desktop panels (so compared to these 120 Hz the difference would probably be bigger). As long as you don't use portrait mode (too much height for me), it's good.

My 2 cents.
Click to expand...

I can't imagine NOT running in portrait mode, but I game on the same Monitor I work on. Its a joy to code on a 1600x2560 screen, and its more than worth it to skip the color shifting problems running a TN in portrait.
 
crawlgsx said:
Which monitor is that? (that does 1080p @ 75hz)

I'm thinking about going that route just to avoid trying to keep 120fps.
Click to expand...
Acer H223HQEbmid is the TN and Fujitsu P23T-6P IPS is the IPS display.
 
Endgame said:
I can't imagine NOT running in portrait mode, but I game on the same Monitor I work on. Its a joy to code on a 1600x2560 screen, and its more than worth it to skip the color shifting problems running a TN in portrait.
Click to expand...
Oh yes, having 2560 vertical pixels is good for large chunks of code. And 1600 horizontal pixels approaches the 1680 pixels of a lot of widescreen panels. But then if you have a pair of 2560x1600 then you can get some more amplitude too, as vertical tool panels are always useful.
 
Tempest261 said:
Are there any new models coming out in 2012 that look promising?
Click to expand...

Personally I'm waiting for someone to make a monitor with the 24" CCFL AMVA 120Hz panel from AUO (they make panels with light AG as far as I know). Not sure if the input lag will be low enough for FPS gamers, but I'm more of a casual gamer and it seems to be the most promising as a whole.

I just hate the new e-IPS LED monitors in terms of black levels, flicker, colors... Maybe LG will fix those problems once the new panels come out in Autumn, but I think I'm going to go with 120Hz AMVA for the contrast and lower chance of BLB.
 
crawlgsx said:
Interesting, that Fujitsu looks nice going to have to find more info.
Click to expand...

It is really nice display, 8-bit panel too. I do not know how easy it is to use the correct custom timing to get it run at 75Hz with AMD cards. However, I am interested to see what this can do through DP port. I hopefully get my GTX 680 next week. Overdrive is a bit funny in this one. It is enabled in video mode only but works in default mode too once you press eco mode on and then off (which makes the monitor to go in the office mode where you can change what ever you want) when in video mode. It works differently than in P24W-6 where it is enabled in every mode (both are as fast when overdrive is enabled). Probably small bug in firmware. In every P23T-6 review the overdrive has not been enabled so that is something to keep in mind. Also, sadly Fujitsu displays are not available in US.
 
I ended up deciding against a 120hz. Decided to pick up one of the korean IPS's. I think I'll be happy.. in reading the threads regarding the monitors, I saw more than a few 20wmgx2 users whom were happy with their new korean monitor :)
 
reaper12 said:
Oh you might keep an eye on the Achieva Shimian thread. See here

http://hardforum.com/showthread.php?t=1675393

They are talking about trying to get a 100hz 24/27 inch IPS monitor made in Korea, with no scalers or anything so input lag should be a non issue. Of course this might all be too good to be true and might never happen!!
Click to expand...


Well things have changed in the last few days and now it is going to happen. :)
 
What keeps me from thinking much about a 120 Hz monitor is, I'm just not going to spend the cash for the video card I would need to consistently get 120+ frames/sec in games I typically play (Skyrim, GTA IV, etc.). So why would I need the higher refresh rate? Am I missing something?

My current main display is a CRT that I run at 1600x1200 at 70 or 75 Hz (some games don't support certain modes). To me, 60 Hz on a CRT is almost physically painful, and looks like flickery garbage.

LCD's don't look flickery to me, despite having "only" a 60 Hz refresh rate.

I don't quite understand what is meant by "refresh rate" with respect to an LCD. It seems like slightly misapplied terminology, since LCDs do not "paint" the screen with electron guns like a CRT. And an LCD operating at 60 Hz does not, to me, look anything like a CRT operating at 60 Hz.
 
i can definately tell a difference between 60Hz vs 120Hz... however, that doesnt bother me as much as the color shift on a TN panel
 
Objekt said:
LCD's don't look flickery to me, despite having "only" a 60 Hz refresh rate.

I don't quite understand what is meant by "refresh rate" with respect to an LCD. It seems like slightly misapplied terminology, since LCDs do not "paint" the screen with electron guns like a CRT. And an LCD operating at 60 Hz does not, to me, look anything like a CRT operating at 60 Hz.
Click to expand...

An LCD at 60Hz is showing a new image 60 times per second, while 120Hz is showing a new image 120 times per second. Neither of them will flicker, but the 120Hz is going to look smoother.
 
85 and especially 96 - 100hz on a graphics professional fw900 crt doesn't flicker, and doesn't blur.

An lcd doesn't show a new different dynamic image every 60 or 120 in reality because the pixels can't transition that fast. Instead it smears between the two frames until the image sent is more static again.
.
120hz low response time lcd's still blur, but appreciably less than a 60hz.. and especially vs a 10ms+ response time ips which smears badly on FoV movement.
.
You will still get benefit from a low response time 120hz at lower fps, it will just repeat the same frame more than once. That will still look smoother. 60fps on 120hz ~> same frame every 2hz of screen updates more or less... 40fps ~> same frame every 3hz. Of course it looks better and is more recent action data per fraction of a second (hz = cycles per second) if you maintain 120fps+. The 120hz tn's also incorporate a high/very high overdrive setting/tech which makes scenes snap back to solid(during a smeared FoV arc) faster ~ a lot sooner in my experience.
.
The hz isn't the whole picture. A 100hz korean 2560x1440 ips will likely smear badly because the response time is too slow and they probably lack the overdrive tech as well. You can send as many screen updates per second (hz) you want but if your pixels can't change that fast its just going to smear on FoV movement regardless. lcd pixels are a "watery", smeary mess on motion.
.
The ways I've seen people "workaround" , "attempt to ignore" , or pretend to be oblivious to it are flick-FoV movement from A-to-B in an attempt to "blink" past the FoV arc motion that smears every time, otherwise they just try to ignore and not pay attention during the FoV movement, trying not to register vision during it at all... or you let your locked on eye focus strain at the textures and texture-depth via bump mapping that smear out during each FoV movement, since your eyes always try to focus away blur (I know mine do). Its most annoying on the highest detail extreme textured games.
.
If you've seen any of vega's tests of skyrim spinning on an fw900 with even 120hz TN lcd's on the sides, you would see the zero blur of the professional crt and the smear/blur of the lcds. I still think 120hz TN are a very welcome and appreciable reduction in smearing and are the only ones I would game on outside of the fw900 personally. FW900 professionally calibrated A+ condition is like $1000 though , not even with a clear shipping policy or heavy shipping price included.. a refurb is around $350 shipped but you roll the dice on those (I got lucky).

I'd again recommend a 120hz 1080p TN for gaming (or a refurb fw900 crt if you can manage it) , and one of those korean 2560x1440 ips alongside it for desktop real-esate, apps, high ppi and gorgeous imagery. If you had to choose one or the other and game regularly I would go with the 120hz tn --- though the korean 108.8ppi ips deal is hot and might not be around forever, so might be worth suffering the smear on games and wait until the 120hz tn's come down in price/have a sale and you have recovered from the $400 korean ips purchase. ;)
 
crawlgsx said:
You did mention being on a budget, but the Benq 120hz is pretty much better than that monitor in every way possible. Granted it's 2x the price, but if your going TN panel anyway, as a gamer, you should def be going 120hz IMO. It's one thing to give up 120hz for IPS.

Of course if budget doesn't allow, then it doesn't, and that is fine too :D
Click to expand...

Yeah, I seriously considered the benQ, I mean I thought about it a lot and nearly said to hell with it and bought it anyway. It's 120hz and seems ideal for gaming on. The problem is the budget, and not just for the monitor itself, but for the 3D vision kit that I would purchase afterwards as well. And you know I would :p At least with buying a 60hz monitor the temptation to buy the 3D kit just to try it out is gone.

And that's why I am posting, just to let you know that I went for the Iiyama E2473HDS. And I am not sure the BenQ will be better in every way than it. I read a lot of reviews from Denmark, France, Germany and the UK and it's rated very highly. The picture quality is supposed to be spot on. And with nearly no input lag and really quick response times, I think it will do ok. Well I hope so anyway.

And it's only half the price of the BenQ. I will post my impressions of the E2473HDS when I get it next week sometime. I will be comparing it to my trusty Samsung CRT for response time and my pioneer 9G kuro for picture quality :) Talk about unfair comparisons!! :D
 
OP, you're in the same situation I was in a couple of months ago. I had 2x20WMGX2s and wanted to upgrade my primary to a larger monitor. After a lot of research I decided to try out a 120Hz TN panel. I ended up buying a ASUS VG236H.

The increased refresh rate made an immediate, noticeable difference when I was playing BF3. At the time I was using a GTX 570, and I recently upgraded to a 680. With settings on high I easily push 70 - 80+ FPS, and often much more on the enclosed maps. For me, the increased responsiveness makes a huge difference.

All that said, I am still SUPER unhappy with the desktop/web browsing performance of the ASUS. By default the monitor is way too bright and the contrast/gamma is completely messed up. The only way I could get it to look decent was to set it to sRGB, which locks out brightness and other controls. Out of frustration I even bought a Spyder3 Pro to calibrate the monitor. The Spyder3 was able to help out quite a bit, but something is still off with either the contrast or gamma. There is a huge amount of black crush and even "white crush". Calibrated or no, I can't distinguish half of the shapes on black level or white saturation tests on lagom:
http://www.lagom.nl/lcd-test/black.php
http://www.lagom.nl/lcd-test/white.php

It's frustrated me so much that I am considering contact ASUS to get a replacement monitor. Right now I do most of my browsing on one of my NECs, and use the ASUS for gaming, but that is not an optimal solution.

So, in summary - 120Hz monitors are freaking sweet, but it's hard to give up the color accuracy of the 20WMGX2. Most reviews of the ASUS monitor I have say that it has very good color accuracy for a TN panel, so maybe I just got a dud.
 
I just got an alienware aw2310 120hz monitor.

Before I get laughed at for overpaying for this, it was on sale from Dell for $369... roughly the same as an ASUS or ACER 120hz monitor with a far greater warranty.


Anyways, I went from a 1200p 23" typical 60hz LCD to this and the difference is amazing. I had nothing special before, and I've never owned an IPS so I can't compare the two. But I CAN compare the 120hz AW to the old 60hz LCD and it's night and day.
 
So do you us vsync with that?

I don't understand how a 120 Hz monitor is going to be better, given that my video card can't put out 120 frames per second. Won't the monitor just be re-drawing the same thing while it waits for the video card to send more frames? I don't see how that gives you a better picture.

I use a CRT for gaming, which I run at 70-75 Hz because 60 Hz on a CRT is almost physically painful to my eyes. So I guess my video card is lagging behind the CRT as well.

I'm more confused about this LCD refresh rate stuff, the more I read.
 
CRT draws very differently. Personally I prefer 85hz, and better yet 96hz - 100hz on a fw900 crt. Due to the way a crt redraws, crt's exhibit no blur/smear on fast motion.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Refresh_rate


In the case of modern, low response time + overdrive 120hz*input* LCD computer monitors - the response time compensation ~ overdrive combined with the screen update rate to the pixels (not the fps) comes into play from what I understand. According to this article, at 8.3ms per screen update (120 screen updates/second ~ 120hz) on high/very high overdrive, the pixels "relax" much faster than at longer screen updates of 60hz at 16.6 ~ 16.7 ms each. These updates are sent regardless of your frame rate, resulting in some duplication at lower frame rates, but the overdrive at 8.3ms per screen update should still reduce the smearing.
.
If this review is correct, it might give some insight. It also has some nice diagrams and further details on the page linked beyond what I pasted below, and on the 60hz testing on the page that comes before it.

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

What about 120Hz then? Subjectively, RTC artifacts disappeared when I changed the refresh rate, but why?

The response time does not change much. The average is 3.3 milliseconds (GtG), which is only 0.1 less than at 60Hz. This difference may be just due to measurement inaccuracies.

The RTC error in percent is somewhat lower: an average of 7.3% and a maximum of 40%. This is better than at 60Hz (9.6% average) but not much different.

The RTC error relaxation time is the answer. The diagram is made to the same scale as for the 60Hz refresh rate so that you could easily see the difference. The average relaxation time was 15.2 milliseconds but now is only 6.6 milliseconds. It means that the RTC errors are not just lower but also vanish from the screen faster!

I want to illustrate this with a series of pictures showing the movement of a black square along a gray background at 60Hz and 120Hz refresh rates. The square is moving from left to right and its movement is captured each 8.3 milliseconds – the picture update period at a refresh rate of 120Hz.
Click to expand...

The gain of nearing 120fps+ average or going higher (to maintain the fps vs scene complexity dips) in reaction based gaming would be that you would be see more "recent" or "current" action every 8.3ms - always providing a new unique frame per screen update of 120hz, as opposed to every 16.6ms. Some games tear worse than others though and some people are proponents of keeping their frame rate below the refresh rate of the monitor in an attempt to avoid tearing.
 
Last edited:
After finding the best settings, PQ on the Benq is really damn good considering how good it's other features are. Bad viewing angles will destroy whites though.
 
Last edited:
Makes sense, I think I understand now. Also makes sense why the only 120 Hz LCDs are TN panels.

But are there any 120 Hz monitors in the 16:10 aspect ratio? I can't find any. That's a problem, so I guess I won't be buying an LCD monitor any time soon. I have no interest in "upgrading" to a shortscreen (16:9) monitor. It's not much of an upgrade, if I'm dropping 120 lines vs. the 1600x1200 I've enjoyed on my CRT.
 
Objekt said:
Makes sense, I think I understand now. Also makes sense why the only 120 Hz LCDs are TN panels.

But are there any 120 Hz monitors in the 16:10 aspect ratio? I can't find any. That's a problem, so I guess I won't be buying an LCD monitor any time soon. I have no interest in "upgrading" to a shortscreen (16:9) monitor. It's not much of an upgrade, if I'm dropping 120 lines vs. the 1600x1200 I've enjoyed on my CRT.
Click to expand...

I think you are going to be very sad then, because the production of 16:10 is only going to continue to go away.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top