tonyftw
[H]ard|Gawd
- Joined
- Mar 21, 2013
- Messages
- 1,817
Your opinion, good sir. Complains about fanboys, yet your posts were very fanboy-ish. Hilarious.
![[H]ard|Forum](/styles/hardforum/xenforo/logo_dark.png){kind=logo}
The Best GAMING Monitor at this moment
- Thread starter Gunmetalsolid2
- Start date
Your opinion, good sir. Complains about fanboys, yet your posts were very fanboy-ish. Hilarious.
kraken0698
[H]ard|Gawd
- Joined
- Jan 16, 2003
- Messages
- 1,031
I actually returned my 34UM95 due to input lag and am currently enjoying the hell out of my FG2421.
I guess I'm just another "120Hz fanboy".
LMAO ..... love some of these posts.
I love my DELL Ultrasharp 2713 and my QNIX Evo II . However I did Overclock the QNIX to 120Hz and I am sorry Ultranifty but I CAN tell a difference and prefer the QNIX.
Ultranifty please read this article, I think it proves that YOU are the BIASED one. +it was a blind test .... so fanboy that. 84% of the tested said they preferred playing on 120Hz vs 60Hz. This article must be either fictitious or just a complete lie.....
http://techreport.com/news/25051/bl...ers-overwhelmingly-prefer-120hz-refresh-rates
I love my DELL Ultrasharp 2713 and my QNIX Evo II . However I did Overclock the QNIX to 120Hz and I am sorry Ultranifty but I CAN tell a difference and prefer the QNIX.
Ultranifty please read this article, I think it proves that YOU are the BIASED one. +it was a blind test .... so fanboy that. 84% of the tested said they preferred playing on 120Hz vs 60Hz. This article must be either fictitious or just a complete lie.....
http://techreport.com/news/25051/bl...ers-overwhelmingly-prefer-120hz-refresh-rates
Last edited:
You won the panel lottery? My hat is off to you.
That monitor is still on my short list despite the roulette problem.
kraken0698
[H]ard|Gawd
- Joined
- Jan 16, 2003
- Messages
- 1,031
Yeah, after reading the entire fg2421 I was worried when I bought it but took the chance and am very glad I did.
NukeDukem
2[H]4U
- Joined
- Feb 15, 2011
- Messages
- 2,609
LOL, thanks for the laugh you complete fanboi. Have fun with your $1200 blurfest 60Hz monitor. Those of us who actually know what we are talking about will continue to enjoy our true GAMING monitors, after all this was the thread topic. Aspect ratio takes a back seat to motion clarity and resolution when it comes to the gaming experience. 60Hz screens for gaming are a joke... I ditched my $1k HP ZR30w 30" 1600p IPS at 16:10 because 60Hz is such a joke. NO matter how pretty the picture or wide the aspect ratio, once you move the image turns to a BLURRY mess. Talk about immersion-breaking. LOL. But keep defending your poor choice all you want, it only cements the fact you are a fanboy in the eyes of experienced forum members (unlike yourself) who know WTF they are talking about!
Last edited:
Derkspector
Limp Gawd
- Joined
- Jan 17, 2011
- Messages
- 186
The LG 34UM95-P when it as a good panel is a thing perfection and is in a class of it's own.
I was going to pick up a SWIFT to go with my LG, but this monitor is just so damn good and has a great lack of input lag.
While I'm sure it's a good monitor, it is in no way "in a class of it's own" in a discussion regarding gaming monitors.
*some of the slowest pixel response of any modern IPS = high blur
*no strobing
*no gsync/freesync
*low refreshrate
It is more of a great picture/video/productivity monitor, that can be gamed on IF you don't want any of the latest gaming features, and you can stand low refresh/low contrast. Individual choice.
I'm a big fan of the aspect ratio, and it does have low input lag for a 60hz IPS.
Howard Stern
Weaksauce
- Joined
- Jun 13, 2009
- Messages
- 99
I have the Samsung S27A950, 27 @120hz and just upgraded to the Benq XL2702Z @144hz.
I am in a room that needed a matte finish but to my surprise this new BenQ has awesome colors much better than the Samsung and is lighting fast with almost zero input lag.
It is a pretty big step up from the aging Samsung which really surprised me.
There is a software app to control the screen colors now which made it very easy to set it up and create profiles. I was waiting for the Asus ROG but decided not to wait any longer as this monitor fits my needs.
The reviews I have read and agree with now is this monitor is most likely the best 27 inch gaming monitor out there right now.
I am in a room that needed a matte finish but to my surprise this new BenQ has awesome colors much better than the Samsung and is lighting fast with almost zero input lag.
It is a pretty big step up from the aging Samsung which really surprised me.
There is a software app to control the screen colors now which made it very easy to set it up and create profiles. I was waiting for the Asus ROG but decided not to wait any longer as this monitor fits my needs.
The reviews I have read and agree with now is this monitor is most likely the best 27 inch gaming monitor out there right now.
I get no blur and my 950d is super smooth for me. no noticeable input lag either.
never considered the benq an upgrade but glad you're happy
i would like more pixel density, this thread is having me considered the motv m2700led instead of the lg 34um95p
MacLeod
[H]F Junkie
- Joined
- Jul 28, 2009
- Messages
- 8,247
That BenQ is the screen I'm most likely to buy. It gets great reviews everywhere it seems and isn't $800 like the Swift. I too would love to have pristine image quality and I resisted the 120 Hz craze for as long as I could and as much as I hate to admit it, I can see a difference and now my beloved 60 Hz HP with its great picture quality isn't cutting it anymore. I want to be blur free!
So I'd say that until the Swift is released, the BenQ XL2720Z is the best gaming monitor out right now as far as I can tell based on reviews.
Although I also agree that 120Hz > IPS or Aspect Ratio, it's kind of short sighted (due to gaming?
) to state a preference as a fact.lol
It was an easy match, you probably suck like you used to, if you play more.
Why did you take the time to post this comment?
By the way you are wrong. I switched between monitors and joined the same games with the same players. I did this a number of times just to confirm it.
And every time you switched you got into an easy match with the tn. ha! just kidding
Do you have any actual helpful advice or are you just trolling?Maybe I just want a >120hz monitor and making it all up. It would be nice if you answered my original question.
By the way it was the same round. It wasn't the next map. Maybe I just play better on the lower resolution. <shrug>
tonyftw
[H]ard|Gawd
- Joined
- Mar 21, 2013
- Messages
- 1,817
Yeah haha. My bf4 scores are exactly the same with the qx2710, fg2421 or my old vg248qe.
Try giving benq a try.
Thanks. It could be I'm just getting older and I probably see better with the lower resolution and higher hz.
Last edited:
Id say it IS IMPOSSIBLE to beat the value. Not a damn thing comes close to Overclocking to 120hz witha PLS screen that good. Its untouchable on price. If a dead pixel or two doesnt bother you (doesnt bother me) you can get one for $279.99 - that is unimaginable in value.
tonyftw
[H]ard|Gawd
- Joined
- Mar 21, 2013
- Messages
- 1,817
Could be that. I have friends that only play fps games at low resolutions, since they feel that gives them the edge.
120+hz is ideal for fps games, but not something that can single handily improve your scores like that.
Probably choice depends a lot from what/where one gets most of enjoyment. They get it from better competitiveness above others, me - from good gameplay/immersion and eyecandy, mostly at single player games at that. So to me high res/big display size/good colors from wide viewangles are way more important then less lag and slightly better online scores. Even if both me and those multiplayers are choosing "for games".
Its possible it cold be a combination of both resolution and response time.
I've always been very susceptible to motion blur/ghosting. I easily notice it with my overclocked qnix in FPS. I was able to put my little red aiming dot on my opponents much quicker with the Samsung. I struggle more with the Qnix.
Anyway I did find this article which suggested the best monitor for gaming. It includes the Qnix and it suggests a Benq over the Qnix.
http://bestgamingmonitorden.com/best-27-gaming-monitors-the-top-picks-in-2014/
http://bestgamingmonitorden.com/
Now I just need to decide if I want a 24" or 27" and whether I should wait for GSYNC versions even though I have an AMD card. I'm looking for the best of the TN panel for gaming.
Alot of people are drooling over the ROG SWIFT PG278Q but I cannot decide if the cost is worth it.
Last edited:
tonyftw
[H]ard|Gawd
- Joined
- Mar 21, 2013
- Messages
- 1,817
I would suggest maybe waiting till the holidays, to see if any other manufacturers release something that compete with or exceed the rog swift. Hoping for eizo to release a va variant.
I have an ASUS VG23QE and using Toasty's LB tool. I don't know if it's that because I have a gaming monitor, which led to me gaming more and probably led to me being better at first person shooters, especially the realistic ones. But I'm definitely getting WAY higher kill death ratio than before when I was using a 60Hz IPS monitor/TV with possibly a really bad input lag. Let's say before I'll be lucky to get a 0.7 ratio, now I'll be unlucky to get something under 2. I do best in well-lit large maps where I could snipe folks off from a long distance.
I was playing America's Army PG? for the first time the other day, and my ratio was 37. Hacking accusations started flying. I honestly felt bad about beating all the kids and folks in the armed forces. I do feel too old for this sometimes.
My point is that if you feel awful getting pwned by children, something with high Hz and low input lag may give you an advantage over parents who don't know any better and don't care about how good their children might be at fictional killing... but do you seriously need something at $800-1000?
I was playing America's Army PG? for the first time the other day, and my ratio was 37. Hacking accusations started flying. I honestly felt bad about beating all the kids and folks in the armed forces. I do feel too old for this sometimes.
My point is that if you feel awful getting pwned by children, something with high Hz and low input lag may give you an advantage over parents who don't know any better and don't care about how good their children might be at fictional killing... but do you seriously need something at $800-1000?
Last edited:
Bluesun311
2[H]4U
- Joined
- Sep 21, 2013
- Messages
- 2,523
120hz "fanboizzzzz" are into motion blur reduction. They don't care much about input lag unless it's more than 1 frame. The problem with using a 21:9 monitor for gaming from my perspective has to do with motion blur. It's not a competitive advantage to have less motion blur it's just that 60hz motion blur is awful compared to 120hz.
NukeDukem
2[H]4U
- Joined
- Feb 15, 2011
- Messages
- 2,609
This guy "Ultranifty" would probably change his tune if he actually gamed on a monitor that did not turn into a blurry mess during movement of any kind. I thought my ultra expensive, ultra high resolution 30" HP ZR30w was the bee's knees too, until I saw for myself how much better a high Hz monitor actually was for gaming.
"Immersion, fun factor, high rez, low dot pitch, billion colors"....none of that MATTERS when the picture is severely BLURRED OUT when panning. That's what gaming is all about, motion. Yes resolution matters too, which is why people in the know keep recommending the QNIX. It and the IPS Koreans that overclock are so highly recommended because they are high rez AND high Hz.
Not knocking people for liking an ultrawide monitor for gaming, but suggesting it is the best current GAMING monitor and then calling everyone else a "120Hz fanboy" is ridiculous.
"Immersion, fun factor, high rez, low dot pitch, billion colors"....none of that MATTERS when the picture is severely BLURRED OUT when panning. That's what gaming is all about, motion. Yes resolution matters too, which is why people in the know keep recommending the QNIX. It and the IPS Koreans that overclock are so highly recommended because they are high rez AND high Hz.
Not knocking people for liking an ultrawide monitor for gaming, but suggesting it is the best current GAMING monitor and then calling everyone else a "120Hz fanboy" is ridiculous.
Last edited:
NukeDukem
2[H]4U
- Joined
- Feb 15, 2011
- Messages
- 2,609
Also, it should be emphasized that this thread didn't ask for what is "plenty fast" or "good enough". It asked for "THE BEST CURRENT GAMING MONITOR". That should automatically exclude ANY screen limited to displaying a paltry 60 frames per second.
NukeDukem
2[H]4U
- Joined
- Feb 15, 2011
- Messages
- 2,609
Alright I'm done. Sorry for feeding into it.
Well it is a great deal in the US but in most UE countries you have to add 23%VAT and 14% duty. Plus all the hassle with the warranty.. and shipment of the monitor to Korea would cost me at least 30$ afair. Also I can deduct the tax on electronics bought in my country.
All in all, I bought VG278HE for 2/3 of the korean monitor price (I had a really good deal)
Bluesun311
2[H]4U
- Joined
- Sep 21, 2013
- Messages
- 2,523
Right now... if I didn't have one already I would be taking GreenSum up on that $315 Catleap 2B OC if you are in any of the countries it is being offered for. I'm not posting a hot deal for that c**t because I paid 600$ for mine just before she faceplanted the price to 440. But that's a hot fucking deal. ASUS faked her out too. I'm strongly considering buying another one. Mine has a stuck white pixel at the lower middle edge and the standard AH-IPS slightly darker stripe at the bottom of the screen but I would seriously impregnate the thing if I could.
It's not as responsive as a TN obviously, but I've tried all of the gaming monitors, had lightboost running fantastic on my 2x780s, I have an FG2421 in the other room, and the best thing out there right now--besides the Swift if twitch gaming is your thing--is the Catleap/Overlord 120Hz. They are just so much brighter with colors and if anyone tells you the matte Qnix is brighter than the glossy Catleap, they're smoking some good stuff.If it's not actual 120Hz... like 115 I think that's a big minus, it will force you down to 90 in a game like Tomb Raider that has FMVs that will tear without multiples of 30fps.
The Overlords definitely do not all make it to 120Hz. I have read through a lot of old posts about the 2B OC because the design is older even than the Qnix I think. They don't die very often, they typically hit 120Hz+ and they come with a good cable (there was a period where the PCBs were 135+Hz but those are all gone and it's good because they were using PWM dimming, which the newer ones do not). This is why GreenSumbi*tch wanted 650$ for a year and a half or so, not only because she had a monopoly on them, but also because they really are better (on avg).
Also NCX discovered the MOTV display, which is apparently an exact copy panel/electronics of the Catleap. I would recommend it based on his advice.
I can also highly recommend the matte Qnix. Even at 96Hz this is a fantastic budget *serious* gaming monitor. You're still getting less than 1 frame of total input lag and the response time is still about 10ms. They are definitely blurrier than a 120Hz tn, but they destroy a 60Hz TN in all kinds of ways including some slight blur reduction. Also destroy a 60Hz IPS since most IPS suffer from terrible IPS glow, and the Qnix in particular generally exhibits extremely low levels of glow for an IPS variant (S-PLS)
There are 120Hz Qnix/Xstars out there and I've tested one that was glossy even and it was not a proper replacement for my Catleap. It was like a distant copy. Same speed! Possibly even glossier coating. Much dimmer and somewhat unevenly lit at that RR. In my experience, the higher you go with the Qnix the darker they get, this is somewhat true with the Catleap as well but not to the same degree.
You can expect the Overlord to act pretty much exactly like the Catleap. I've read some accounts of audible coil whine coming from the Overlord electronics when at 120Hz. That kinda turned me off on them because the Catleap on my table is dead silent.
One thing about the overclocking monitors: They are not for casual enthusiasts. They require a great deal of input and study to use correctly. I like a product that comes with a puzzle, personally. But if you just want 120Hz out of the box and it works without any problems I'd get the Swift for 1440p, the Benq XL2720Z for 1080p 27" or the Eizo FG2421 for 1080p 24".
It's not as responsive as a TN obviously, but I've tried all of the gaming monitors, had lightboost running fantastic on my 2x780s, I have an FG2421 in the other room, and the best thing out there right now--besides the Swift if twitch gaming is your thing--is the Catleap/Overlord 120Hz. They are just so much brighter with colors and if anyone tells you the matte Qnix is brighter than the glossy Catleap, they're smoking some good stuff.If it's not actual 120Hz... like 115 I think that's a big minus, it will force you down to 90 in a game like Tomb Raider that has FMVs that will tear without multiples of 30fps.
The Overlords definitely do not all make it to 120Hz. I have read through a lot of old posts about the 2B OC because the design is older even than the Qnix I think. They don't die very often, they typically hit 120Hz+ and they come with a good cable (there was a period where the PCBs were 135+Hz but those are all gone and it's good because they were using PWM dimming, which the newer ones do not). This is why GreenSumbi*tch wanted 650$ for a year and a half or so, not only because she had a monopoly on them, but also because they really are better (on avg).
Also NCX discovered the MOTV display, which is apparently an exact copy panel/electronics of the Catleap. I would recommend it based on his advice.
I can also highly recommend the matte Qnix. Even at 96Hz this is a fantastic budget *serious* gaming monitor. You're still getting less than 1 frame of total input lag and the response time is still about 10ms. They are definitely blurrier than a 120Hz tn, but they destroy a 60Hz TN in all kinds of ways including some slight blur reduction. Also destroy a 60Hz IPS since most IPS suffer from terrible IPS glow, and the Qnix in particular generally exhibits extremely low levels of glow for an IPS variant (S-PLS)
There are 120Hz Qnix/Xstars out there and I've tested one that was glossy even and it was not a proper replacement for my Catleap. It was like a distant copy. Same speed! Possibly even glossier coating. Much dimmer and somewhat unevenly lit at that RR. In my experience, the higher you go with the Qnix the darker they get, this is somewhat true with the Catleap as well but not to the same degree.
You can expect the Overlord to act pretty much exactly like the Catleap. I've read some accounts of audible coil whine coming from the Overlord electronics when at 120Hz. That kinda turned me off on them because the Catleap on my table is dead silent.
One thing about the overclocking monitors: They are not for casual enthusiasts. They require a great deal of input and study to use correctly. I like a product that comes with a puzzle, personally. But if you just want 120Hz out of the box and it works without any problems I'd get the Swift for 1440p, the Benq XL2720Z for 1080p 27" or the Eizo FG2421 for 1080p 24".
Last edited:
Ultranifty
Limp Gawd
- Joined
- Aug 3, 2012
- Messages
- 167
"Best monitor" can't be answered. It's impossible to answer because there's only one correct answer, and only you can answer it
It's like, "what is the best music", or "best car". Very subjective and you'll always get mixed answers.
We all have our own biases, all of us. We prefer certain cars, certain TV shows, "Best" is always a different answer. Same with monitors. Best to me is the LG 34UM94/95. Other people's Best is anything 144hz.
I'll break down the Pros/Cons of each monitor world and only you can answer this for yourself.
--------------------------------------------
Triple Screen
---Pros---
* Maximum awe inspiring immersion in games
* Maximum productivity / multitasking room
* Best for MMO's, RPG's, strategy games, and shooters (cept shooters will have some fisheye effect)
---Cons---
* Not supported or usable with all games, but still a lot of games work. Sometimes you have to mess with .ini files to get this to work triple screen. WSGF.org helps
* 5760 x 1080 rez (5960x1080 after bezel correction) isn't the easiest rez to push. Expensive vidcard requirements and this is ongoing. As more games come out with better textures, shadows, polygon count etc. this 5960x1080 rez continues to require even more vidpower. Can get expensive
* Depending on how much you spent on vid section, triple screen can force you to run games at lower settings
* Going triple screen tends to mean you're stuck at low rez (1920 x 1080) and with monitors that are .31 dot pitch. This is noticable if you're coming from high rez .25 or .23 screen.
* 60hz (this isn't slow or choppy with vsync on, however it obviously isn't as smooth as 120hz
Summary: Triple screen has it's drawbacks and hefty requirements, but damn is that immersion addictive and game changing. -- People that have gone triple screen swear by it and can't go back --
--------------------------------------------
144hz
---Pros---
* For shooters really. 144hz is far far less noticable in other type games other than shooters.
* Can drag icons around on your desktop in super smooth fashion. This will occupy and please you for hours.
* POTENTIAL to have more smoothness "if" you have the vidsection to push near 144fps at whatever rez you're at. This is counter-intuitive to Gsync however, as Gsync's greatest strength is when you go lower than 60hz.
* You'll see more frames on screen, ie. you'll miss less information than a 60hz screen
* Less input lag although input lag even on good IPS screens is easily livable and not noticable. Input lag under 25ms is what you want. Someone telling you that they can't live with anything over 10ms is just overconditioned to 144hz and overexaggerating. I have a PB278Q which has 28ms input lag, and it's just fine. I notice no lag and the gaming is great.
---Cons---
* TN panels, so you have washed out colors compared to IPS
* Off angle viewing is even worse on the washing out of colors. Similar to listening to stereo music and not sitting directly in the middle. Bigger the TN panel, the worse your off angle viewing gets.
* Have to live with low rez, 1920 x 1080, and sometimes a bad pixel pitch of .31. Asus ROG counters this with 2560 x 1080 and .23mm however trying to drive 2560 x 1080 near 144fps requires an ungodly vidsection to see the smoothness. High rez and 144hz in the same sentence means massive slams on your wallet
* 120-144hz screens tend to pull down a higher price premium as well just for the screen
Summary: 144hz has it's smoothness strength that you will notice in shooters, and to a far lesser degree in other games, but it has a lot of drawbacks as well, namely image quality, higher costs, requiring more vid card muscle. Seems steep price just for more smoothness, however -- People that have gone 144hz swear by it and can't go back --
--------------------------------------------
Single high rez screen
---Pros---
* Good for any time of game
* Good for image quality, photographers, video professionals, and productivity considerations
* Best resolution and pixel pitch there is
* Some screens come with billion color gamut instead of 16.7million (this is noticable if you've seen a ZR30w or 34UM95
* Due to being higher rez, less or a need for anti-aliasing in games, less text blur in games while moving
* Usually 27", 30", or 34" of room to work with
---Cons---
* Tends to run a higher price premium, sorta like 120hz screens
* 4K isn't ready yet
* 60hz (however with vsync on in games, this isn't a big deal and still plenty smooth)
Summary: High rez, low dot pitch will condition you to always need quality and clarity above all. I went from a single 30" 2560 x 1600 .25mm to a 120hz 1920 x 1080 .31 and my god did I notice that resolution drop, not to mention less color clarity. Was smoother in shooters, but my clarity went out the window. It's a lot to give up for 120hz. Soon I'm going 34" 21:9, so best clarity with some of the triple screen immersion. I can live with 60hz (vsync). There's no blur or ghosting. -- People that have gone 21:9 swear by it, and can't go back --
See the theme? -- People find a niche in the monitor world, then they swear up and down about it --
Sometimes you get monitor solutions that cross into 2 of these monitor worlds.....like a crazy friend of mine who does triple screen 120hz monitors. He drives them with triple SLI 780ti's though. That's an expensive arrangement but it is great.
"Best" is in the future, with OLED 21:9 OLED with no backlight or refresh rate limit. Yes please.
It's like, "what is the best music", or "best car". Very subjective and you'll always get mixed answers.
We all have our own biases, all of us. We prefer certain cars, certain TV shows, "Best" is always a different answer. Same with monitors. Best to me is the LG 34UM94/95. Other people's Best is anything 144hz.
I'll break down the Pros/Cons of each monitor world and only you can answer this for yourself.
--------------------------------------------
Triple Screen
---Pros---
* Maximum awe inspiring immersion in games
* Maximum productivity / multitasking room
* Best for MMO's, RPG's, strategy games, and shooters (cept shooters will have some fisheye effect)
---Cons---
* Not supported or usable with all games, but still a lot of games work. Sometimes you have to mess with .ini files to get this to work triple screen. WSGF.org helps
* 5760 x 1080 rez (5960x1080 after bezel correction) isn't the easiest rez to push. Expensive vidcard requirements and this is ongoing. As more games come out with better textures, shadows, polygon count etc. this 5960x1080 rez continues to require even more vidpower. Can get expensive
* Depending on how much you spent on vid section, triple screen can force you to run games at lower settings
* Going triple screen tends to mean you're stuck at low rez (1920 x 1080) and with monitors that are .31 dot pitch. This is noticable if you're coming from high rez .25 or .23 screen.
* 60hz (this isn't slow or choppy with vsync on, however it obviously isn't as smooth as 120hz
Summary: Triple screen has it's drawbacks and hefty requirements, but damn is that immersion addictive and game changing. -- People that have gone triple screen swear by it and can't go back --
--------------------------------------------
144hz
---Pros---
* For shooters really. 144hz is far far less noticable in other type games other than shooters.
* Can drag icons around on your desktop in super smooth fashion. This will occupy and please you for hours.
* POTENTIAL to have more smoothness "if" you have the vidsection to push near 144fps at whatever rez you're at. This is counter-intuitive to Gsync however, as Gsync's greatest strength is when you go lower than 60hz.
* You'll see more frames on screen, ie. you'll miss less information than a 60hz screen
* Less input lag although input lag even on good IPS screens is easily livable and not noticable. Input lag under 25ms is what you want. Someone telling you that they can't live with anything over 10ms is just overconditioned to 144hz and overexaggerating. I have a PB278Q which has 28ms input lag, and it's just fine. I notice no lag and the gaming is great.
---Cons---
* TN panels, so you have washed out colors compared to IPS
* Off angle viewing is even worse on the washing out of colors. Similar to listening to stereo music and not sitting directly in the middle. Bigger the TN panel, the worse your off angle viewing gets.
* Have to live with low rez, 1920 x 1080, and sometimes a bad pixel pitch of .31. Asus ROG counters this with 2560 x 1080 and .23mm however trying to drive 2560 x 1080 near 144fps requires an ungodly vidsection to see the smoothness. High rez and 144hz in the same sentence means massive slams on your wallet
* 120-144hz screens tend to pull down a higher price premium as well just for the screen
Summary: 144hz has it's smoothness strength that you will notice in shooters, and to a far lesser degree in other games, but it has a lot of drawbacks as well, namely image quality, higher costs, requiring more vid card muscle. Seems steep price just for more smoothness, however -- People that have gone 144hz swear by it and can't go back --
--------------------------------------------
Single high rez screen
---Pros---
* Good for any time of game
* Good for image quality, photographers, video professionals, and productivity considerations
* Best resolution and pixel pitch there is
* Some screens come with billion color gamut instead of 16.7million (this is noticable if you've seen a ZR30w or 34UM95
* Due to being higher rez, less or a need for anti-aliasing in games, less text blur in games while moving
* Usually 27", 30", or 34" of room to work with
---Cons---
* Tends to run a higher price premium, sorta like 120hz screens
* 4K isn't ready yet
* 60hz (however with vsync on in games, this isn't a big deal and still plenty smooth)
Summary: High rez, low dot pitch will condition you to always need quality and clarity above all. I went from a single 30" 2560 x 1600 .25mm to a 120hz 1920 x 1080 .31 and my god did I notice that resolution drop, not to mention less color clarity. Was smoother in shooters, but my clarity went out the window. It's a lot to give up for 120hz. Soon I'm going 34" 21:9, so best clarity with some of the triple screen immersion. I can live with 60hz (vsync). There's no blur or ghosting. -- People that have gone 21:9 swear by it, and can't go back --
See the theme? -- People find a niche in the monitor world, then they swear up and down about it --
Sometimes you get monitor solutions that cross into 2 of these monitor worlds.....like a crazy friend of mine who does triple screen 120hz monitors
. He drives them with triple SLI 780ti's though. That's an expensive arrangement but it is great."Best" is in the future, with OLED
21:9 OLED with no backlight or refresh rate limit. Yes please.
Last edited:
Godmachine
[H]F Junkie
- Joined
- Apr 7, 2003
- Messages
- 10,472
Ultranifty nails it right on the head.
The "best" is a personal choice right now. There are top selections in each category depending on your needs but there is one to rule them all (*cough*).
Find which features you require , personally , then go for it. There are plenty of very solid choices these days (although we should have had better at this point).
The "best" is a personal choice right now. There are top selections in each category depending on your needs but there is one to rule them all (*cough*).
Find which features you require , personally , then go for it. There are plenty of very solid choices these days (although we should have had better at this point).
give it a rest already, christ. half your points are subjective, wrong, ignorant, or all three, not to mention your bias shining through with every single word. no one here is interested in what you have to say, you lost all credibility when you went on your 21:9 tirade.
4K is most definitely ready.
It's not by several accounts. Main being - uber high price (one cannot simply strike out costs of gpu-s to drive it, even if screen itself is from somewhat cheaper ones), bad and/or overpriced offerings on market, absence of big sized ones to strike out DPI/font/UI scaling problems, glitches/bugs/limitations with supported currently available interface types (DP MST with problems on downscaling and screen tearing, HDMI 2.0 not yet supported by any gpu, DP SST supported only by few screens bad by all the other means) - few people that can affort to pay lot usually expect less problematic usage experience for their money. It surely will improve in future, but to claim it's ready now?
I couldn't wait. I had an itch that needed to be scratched.
I grabbed the what appears to have been the last in stock, Benq 2411Z for $225 shipped from tigerdirect. Not a bad price at all IMHO. This will hold me over until the next gen of monitors dust settle and come down to a more affordable price.
The Benq will sit next to my QNIX 96hz Korean and I can pick whichever one I'm in the mood to game on.