27' 2560x1440 or 23' 120hz Monitor

[Luxer]

I've been wanting to get a new monitor to replace my 23' 60hz and I can't decide whether to go for a bigger resolution on a 27' or one of the new 120hz monitors.

120 hz would be great for the FPS games I play, especially the new Counter-Strike game that's coming

On the other hand I'd really like 2560x1440 for games like Skyrim, Dota 2, and others.

Bah I can't decide.


Moved from PC Gaming

Anandtech Moderator
KeithTalent

 

[imaheadcase]

You won't notice a difference in a 60 or 120 in games at all. So many people I know bought into the 120hz phase and not a single one was awed by it, feels the same to them.

They only buying choice you have to choose from is size you want to play now. If you got a powerful video card just get the best monitor you can afford.

 

[marino.DV]

yeah i agree, i mean your eye isn't capable to see the difference....
maybe on a long run you will feel more relaxed but i do really mean on the long run here

 

[Luxer]

Well you're both wrong. You can tell the difference easily, especially in twitch-fps games. Its much much smoother.

Here's a pic, left side is 120 hz and right is 60 hz

 

[apoppin]

i got to agree with the 120Hz LCD, if you play fast-twitch shooters.

And why stick with a 23" 120Hz LCD?

i am getting this 27-incher tomorrow for evaluation

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...82E16824236206

It is the next gen of 3D LCDs; brighter and faster response

 

[Luxer]

It is noticeable on other kinds of games as well, just not as dramatically as fps games. As for 27' 1080p, it just depends on how close to the screen you are. 23' 1080 has a sharper image because it's not being stretched to 27', which is why I would rather get 2560x1440.

Unfortunately, 2560x1440 with 120 hz doesn't yet exist as it would require a massive amount of bandwith. You'd definitely need two high-end video cards.

 

[novasatori]

Well you're both wrong. You can tell the difference easily, especially in twitch-fps games. Its much much smoother.

Here's a pic, left side is 120 hz and right is 60 hz

and if you take a 1/60th exposure both will look almost identical
that pic mostly demonstrates effects of camera exposure

 

[gorcorps]

I dunno... I bought a 120hz monitor for 3d and I can't tell a difference in 2d. Wish I would have bought a nicer monitor in 60hz instead.

 

[Childs]

I have both (Dell U2711 and LG W2363D). The problem with the higher resolution is when you run games maxed out, its obviously more taxing on your system. At first I did notice a difference using the 120Hz monitor, but not any more. I can only use one monitor at a time because of the size of my desk, but I haven't used the U2711 since I bought the 120hz.

 

[apoppin]

and if you take a 1/60th exposure both will look almost identical
that pic mostly demonstrates effects of camera exposure

The image confirms what we see

i am going to use a high speed digi-cam (240fps) in an attempt to show the difference when i get my 27" 120Hz display (tomorrow) in a future evaluation. The above pic is with a high speed cam that Nvidia captured; however, it is more worst case/best case.

The difference is clear and no one with a 60Hz LCD can imagine it - until they see it for themseves.
:whiste:

I dunno... I bought a 120hz monitor for 3d and I can't tell a difference in 2d.

What games do you play and at what fps? Which display? Some of the early ones did not have such a great response time.

 

[novasatori]

The image confirms what we see

i am going to use a high speed digi-cam (240fps) in an attempt to show the difference when i get my 27" 120Hz display (tomorrow) in a future evaluation. The above pic is with a high speed cam that Nvidia captured; however, it is more worst case/best case.

The difference is clear and no one with a 60Hz LCD can imagine it - until they see it for themseves.
:whiste:

What games do you play and at what fps? Which display? Some of the early ones did not have such a great response time.

that pic is really as useless as the other

I am not saying a 120hz lcd is not better, but pictures are useless to compare without all the information, shutter speed, monitor specs, etc to know exactly what is being shown
ex. that left pic could have happened because vsync was disabled and it has a terrible response time

 

[apoppin]

The left pic was obviously with vsync disabled. That is the point - the image tears without vsync and with it enabled, you cap the framerate. The 60Hz image is also less clear.

i will be doing a proper evaluation of 120Hz vs 60Hz displays. All the proper specs will be noted in the review.

My standard is my 30" HP LP 3065 2560x1600. And i have 5 x 1080p displays to compare - 3 of them are ASUS 23" 120Hz; the other two are 60Hz. And i should have the new 120Hz 1080p 27" ASUS display tomorrow.

However, from what i have experienced, for fast-paced shooters, a 120Hz display is a real plus and it is clearer. For other games, i prefer to play in 3D or use my 30" 2560x1600 LCD.

 

[lavaheadache]

this seems to be coming up a lot lately.

There is simply no comparison comparing 120hz and 60hz lcd monitors.

The difference is staggering.

I have both a 23" 120hz asus and a U3011 on my desk for multi monitor. Both monitors have pluses to them but 120hz smoothness is unrivalled.

 

[beginner99]

but for a 120 hz monitor to work don't you actually always need a 120 minimum fps? Meaning you need pretty powerful GPU or lower the settings or else 60 hz will do just fine.

 

[TakeNoPrisoners]

I would go for the 27" just because of the extra resolution and size.

60hz is good enough for any game, 120hz just adds a little bit more smoothness.

 

[tweakboy]

I've been wanting to get a new monitor to replace my 23' 60hz and I can't decide whether to go for a bigger resolution on a 27' or one of the new 120hz monitors.

120 hz would be great for the FPS games I play, especially the new Counter-Strike game that's coming

On the other hand I'd really like 2560x1440 for games like Skyrim, Dota 2, and others.

Bah I can't decide.


Your going to get 5ms to 8ms on the LED LCD. If vsync is on, which is should be, then your going to get input lag, mouse will be laggy, motion blur and ghosting.

If you get the 2560res even worse.. Probably 8ms or more,,, input lag,,,,

I am @ 1ms , 0 input lag as you can see in my rig sig. vsync on 60 fps capped.

 

[iCyborg]

but for a 120 hz monitor to work don't you actually always need a 120 minimum fps? Meaning you need pretty powerful GPU or lower the settings or else 60 hz will do just fine.

No, you don't. Just like you don't need min 60fps for standard LCDs. GPU can send stuff at 120Hz, but it might not be able to generate the stuff at that rate, so it will send the previous frame. So 70 or 80 fps will look smoother on 120Hz than 60Hz. And even lower than 60fps will see some benefit, like 120Hz TVs that are a bit better than 60Hz even though most video content is 24fps due to the 3:2 pulldown issue.

 

[beginner99]

No, you don't. Just like you don't need min 60fps for standard LCDs. GPU can send stuff at 120Hz, but it might not be able to generate the stuff at that rate, so it will send the previous frame. So 70 or 80 fps will look smoother on 120Hz than 60Hz. And even lower than 60fps will see some benefit, like 120Hz TVs that are a bit better than 60Hz even though most video content is 24fps due to the 3:2 pulldown issue.

personally all this "digital fluff" in certain flat screen tv's makes the picture looks horrible and unnatural. turning it off instantly improves this.

 

[xylem]

I vividly recall the "human eye can't see the difference" claim in the days of high-refresh-rate CRT monitors.. pretty funny. 1600x1200 @ 60 Hz vs. 100 Hz was a huge difference, and 100 Hz brought a great deal of visual comfort during long Counterstrike gaming sessions (much less eyestrain, or whatever type of strain is incurred by jerky perceived motion).. I found it to be competetively advantageous, too. In all, the extra expense of a high-end CRT was well worth it. And yes, plenty of people with a 60 Hz LCD can imagine it, as it is fundamentally the same as the difference in CRT days. I am very much looking forward to 120 Hz becoming the standard for LCD computer monitors.

More specifically on topic: 120 Hz will probably be easier on your eyes and give you an advantage in the new CS game if your video card is capable of rendering frames quickly enough to take advantage of the high refresh rate of the monitor.. Likewise it should make for a more pleasing and comfortable experience for other things that involve reasonably fast perceived motion, if your video card is up to the rendering task.

 

[iCyborg]

personally all this "digital fluff" in certain flat screen tv's makes the picture looks horrible and unnatural. turning it off instantly improves this.

What "digital fluff" are you talking about?

 

[iCyborg]

I vividly recall the "human eye can't see the difference" claim in the days of high-refresh-rate CRT monitors.. pretty funny. 1600x1200 @ 60 Hz vs. 100 Hz was a huge difference, and 100 Hz brought a great deal of visual comfort during long Counterstrike gaming sessions (much less eyestrain, or whatever type of strain is incurred by jerky perceived motion).. I found it to be competetively advantageous, too. In all, the extra expense of a high-end CRT was well worth it. And yes, plenty of people with a 60 Hz LCD can imagine it, as it is fundamentally the same as the difference in CRT days. I am very much looking forward to 120 Hz becoming the standard for LCD computer monitors.

With CRTs the problem was the flicker since CRT needs to redraw the image X time per second even if it's static. It's a fundamentally different thing compared to LCD.

 

[blackened23]

You won't notice a difference in a 60 or 120 in games at all. So many people I know bought into the 120hz phase and not a single one was awed by it, feels the same to them.

They only buying choice you have to choose from is size you want to play now. If you got a powerful video card just get the best monitor you can afford.

You are crazy . There is a HUGE difference.

If you're basing your opinion on LG true motion TV screens, don't bother because they're actually 60hz interpolated. Trust me, true 120hz monitors are unbelievable and the difference is EXTREMELY noticeable, even in 2d windows. I was shocked when I saw a true 120mz monitor for the first time, I was a doubter at first.

 

[bunnyfubbles]

Tons of misinformation and ignorance going on in this thread.

Long story short, 120Hz does make a difference for 2D

this seems to be coming up a lot lately.

There is simply no comparison comparing 120hz and 60hz lcd monitors.

The difference is staggering.

I have both a 23" 120hz asus and a U3011 on my desk for multi monitor. Both monitors have pluses to them but 120hz smoothness is unrivalled.

I have a similar setup, but with a BenQ XL2410T and a Dell U2711

I got the U2711 for work first and play second, but ever since going to 120Hz I never game on my U2711 anymore, even for my games that have an artificial frame rate cap @ 60fps. Its not just superior motion clarity, its also night and day superior when it comes to input response time.

Granted, I'm probably a 99th percentile gamer, so just like with CPU/GPU bottle-neck balancing, that could be used to describe the analogous human/human-interface-device balancing. If you're not an exceptionally skilled gamer, you probably won't benefit from the difference, although I guarantee the vast majority would be able to successfully identify a 120Hz game in motion vs. a 60Hz in a "pepsi challenge"

Some problems with 120Hz:

1. it arguably requires a higher end rig than driving a 2560@60Hz monitor to push frames high enough to enjoy the refresh rate advantage to its fullest. Granted, the savings from going with a 23-24" 120Hz monitor instead of a 2560 27-30" monitor could easily be put into the hardware necessary to properly drive it.

2. 120Hz is also a more foreign concept in regards to software support, some games will simply try to force a 60Hz refresh rate with no alternative refresh rate options at all, or don't have an official setting for up to 120Hz , requiring setting up a driver profile to override it. For instance, Dead Island, for whatever reason, only goes up to 100Hz, but a quick edit in my nVidia control panel driver profile (there's an option to force use of the monitor's highest refresh rate) which successfully overrode it and the game will run 1920x1080@120Hz as verified by my monitor (although even at 100Hz its clearly superior to 60Hz)

 

[lavaheadache]

Tons of misinformation and ignorance going on in this thread.

Long story short, 120Hz does make a difference for 2D



I have a similar setup, but with a BenQ XL2410T and a Dell U2711

I got the U2711 for work first and play second, but ever since going to 120Hz I never game on my U2711 anymore, even for my games that have an artificial frame rate cap @ 60fps. Its not just superior motion clarity, its also night and day superior when it comes to input response time.

Granted, I'm probably a 99th percentile gamer, so just like with CPU/GPU bottle-neck balancing, that could be used to describe the analogous human/human-interface-device balancing. If you're not an exceptionally skilled gamer, you probably won't benefit from the difference, although I guarantee the vast majority would be able to successfully identify a 120Hz game in motion vs. a 60Hz in a "pepsi challenge"

Some problems with 120Hz:

1. it arguably requires a higher end rig than driving a 2560@60Hz monitor to push frames high enough to enjoy the refresh rate advantage to its fullest. Granted, the savings from going with a 23-24" 120Hz monitor instead of a 2560 27-30" monitor could easily be put into the hardware necessary to properly drive it.

2. 120Hz is also a more foreign concept in regards to software support, some games will simply try to force a 60Hz refresh rate with no alternative refresh rate options at all, or don't have an official setting for up to 120Hz , requiring setting up a driver profile to override it. For instance, Dead Island, for whatever reason, only goes up to 100Hz, but a quick edit in my nVidia control panel driver profile (there's an option to force use of the monitor's highest refresh rate) which successfully overrode it and the game will run 1920x1080@120Hz as verified by my monitor (although even at 100Hz its clearly superior to 60Hz)

120hz makes a huge difference in 2d. Scrolling text is b-e-a-u-tiful. Let the haters be haters. Just remember who they were for when they get a 120hz monitor and change thier stories.

Also, I find the same too that I use the smaller 120hz panel just because it is so smooth and almost find the blur too distrating on the 60hz panel.

 

[WMD]

Firstly without a doubt the higher resolution of the 27" will be much more superior for desktop work. Gaming wise the disadvantage of the 120hz monitor is you need to render well over 60fps to benefit from the better smoothness. The higher resolution 27" will be generally better for gaming where you spent most of the time looking at a static scenery. However if the game has crappy textures and jaggy geometry models it won't look much better even if you have a 20megapixel screen.