Alienware AW2310 - 120hz feedback

[Sylvanas]

So I just received and setup my new Alienware AW2310 23.6" (1920x1080) monitor this weekend (link). Initial impressions are very good. Build quality is top notch and assembly was very easy, the stand looks very elegant and allows ample room and tilt adjustments. The Menu buttons are touch sensitive and rather discrete. Of course, the best thing about this monitor is the refresh rate. Immediately as I switched from 60hz to 120hz I could notice the difference on the desktop just moving the cursor, noticeably smoother and the 'feel' is very snappy. The cable 'cover' is a bit clunky to fit so I didn't bother.

Games of course are the best example of this, Firing up Mass Effect 2 and just running around there is a also a noticeable fluidity in motion compared to 60hz- this is not placebo affect it really is quite a night and day difference. This is especially true when there is lots of particles on screen and specular effects. Ghosting is a non issue. I'm no LCD connoisseur (far from it) but overall impressions are very positive.

I am aware it is a TN and I am aware that some people will be turned off by that fact. I do no Photoshoping, video editing or graphical work all I will do with this monitor is browsing and gaming. 3D is an option in future but I won't be trying that just yet.

There are some presets which I am still playing with and I have not yet tampered too much with the settings in the Nvidia control panel or the Menu on the monitor itself. The 'Standard' preset seems a bit too bright but that's easily fixed. I'll post an update once the initial excitement has settled but let there be no doubt 120hz is indeed very noticeable and much appreciated- can't see myself going back to 60hz.

 

[postmortemIA]

so is your video card still putting signal at 60Hz?

 

[Sylvanas]

so is your video card still putting signal at 60Hz?

Not sure what you mean by that. All the current 120hz LCD's are a 'true' 120hz refresh rate there is no image interpolation.

 

[Borealis7]

i agree, i will not buy a new LCD monitor unless its 120Hz. 1920x1200 would be nice as well since i already have 1200 vertical pixels albeit in a 4:3 configuration.

 

[MJinZ]

For $500 I think 23" is too small.

 

[postmortemIA]

i agree, i will not buy a new LCD monitor unless its 120Hz. 1920x1200 would be nice as well since i already have 1200 vertical pixels albeit in a 4:3 configuration.

1920x1200 is 16:10.

I on other hand, will never buy LCD that does 120Hz cuz no video card run 1920x1200 today's games at 120fps.

Still OP hasn't answered: what is in his display settings, is video card still driving output at 60Hz?

 

[Zap]

All the current 120hz LCD's are a 'true' 120hz refresh rate there is no image interpolation.

Buyer beware, however. Many HDTVs that advertise 120Hz (or 240Hz or whatever) cannot actually take that as an input from a computer.

 

[Sylvanas]

1920x1200 is 16:10.

I on other hand, will never buy LCD that does 120Hz cuz no video card run 1920x1200 today's games at 120fps.

Still OP hasn't answered: what is in his display settings, is video card still driving output at 60Hz?

You do not need to run a game at 120fps to notice the difference of a 120hz refresh rate. Refresh rate and frames per second are entirely different things. You'll have to clarify what you mean by 'driving output' above I said there is no image interpolation unlike most HDTV's that use a 'Sub field drive' to insert addional frames in between a standard 60hz refresh rate.

 

[Ben90]

Welcome to the 100hz+ club, its very hard to turn back if you can see the difference. I'm actually surprised no IPS elitest has come in to derail this thread already. To preemptively keep them out: Yes we know IPS has better color accuracy while TN's suck at that. We don't care, just like you don't care that our monitors can output 120hz+, so please don't come in here saying TNs suck, its a waste of bandwidth.

I'm curious as to what you mean by:

You do not need to run a game at 120fps to notice the difference of a 120hz refresh rate. Refresh rate and frames per second are entirely different things.

On a CRT this statement would hold truth, but for a LCD the two terms are basically interchangeable. The only difference I can see is 120hz has to use an overdrive technology while 60hz can get by with standard response times. Most likely your monitor overdrives for 60hz too so that difference is null.

@postmortemia
Yes, as long as you make sure you set the refresh rate. It's clear from the OP's description that the monitor/videocard are outputting a true 120hz.

 

[ViRGE]

Welcome to the 100hz+ club, its very hard to turn back if you can see the difference. I'm actually surprised no IPS elitest has come in to derail this thread already. To preemptively keep them out: Yes we know IPS has better color accuracy while TN's suck at that. We don't care, just like you don't care that our monitors can output 120hz+, so please don't come in here saying TNs suck, its a waste of bandwidth.

TN's suck!

With that out of the way you're basically correct. 120Hz monitors are a very nice experience and I wish someone would do a nice 16:10 120Hz IPS. But for me between the inaccurate colors and the color shifting (especially the color shifting), I don't know how anyone can stand to use a desktop-sized TN monitor without going mad. Having used both, I wouldn't use a 120Hz LCD for multipurpose use (i.e. everything besides gaming) based off of the Samsung I used.

 

[jackstar7]

1920x1200 would be nice as well since i already have 1200 vertical pixels albeit in a 4:3 configuration.

1920x1200 is 16:10.

He's running 1600x1200 right now. He wants 1920x1200.

 

[thedosbox]

So I just received and setup my new Alienware AW2310 23.6" (1920x1080) monitor this weekend (link).

Is the screen glossy? Or does it have an anti-glare coating? The specs don't indicate this, neither does the tweaktown puff piece.

 

[DPOverLord]

How do you like it? I am getting a new monitor and am debating buying this for $440 or the $300 Haans 28" from Newegg. Is it wortht he extra $140 for less real estate in your opinion?

 

[imported_Goblin]

It is confusing the Hz on monitors. Your game does not have to run at 120 fps to get 120hz benefits. Now if the game is running at 3 fps sure 120hz can't save that. but 40fps and up you will see and feel it.

I'll list a few.

1. No need for Vsync at 120hz. At 60hz you will get image jitter and image tear on both the desktop (moving widows around, mouse pointer) and in games. The image is more stable and fewer artifacts.

2. As long as Vsync is off your games will feel smoother, less mouse lag too. If you like fast games like UT2004, Quake 2,3, CS etc. The 120hz will give you an edge. If you have fast hand eye coordination you will pick up the difference. It will feel like a CRT.

3. 3D - it helps 3D because each each can get 60hz vs 30hz.

4. When you do a fast rotation of the mouse in a 3D game it will be more exact. Its a feel thing.

Even though LCDs don't have flicker like a CRT the refresh still matters. On a still screen reading text a CRT is going to need to be set to 75hz or higher. A easy test on a CRT is to use your peripheral vision to look at it. That area is much more sensitive to flicker and at 60hz most everyone can see it. LCDs don't have this issue as the backlight is constant.

The refresh setting on a LCD does not have anything to do with the backlight. It only has to do with how many frames it can display in 1 second. The human eye will be fooled when watching a movie but its more than just the eye when you are interacting in a game. You can actually feel the input and mouse lag.

That being said there are probably some people that will say "hmm I don't get it I don't see it etc" Those people can get the 60hz LCDs and save some bucks.
But some people do notice this, pro gamers or really any person that likes speed and response.

People that have to force Vsync to stop image tearing also should use triple buffering to reduce frame drops and mouse lag. At 120hz no need for this.

Ahh then there is the monitor response time. of 3ms to higher numbers.

I'm wanting to fool around with my new 120hz Alienware AW2310 (just got it today -419.00 on sale) so I'll let someone else answer that part.

See ya in a few......

You do not need to run a game at 120fps to notice the difference of a 120hz refresh rate. Refresh rate and frames per second are entirely different things. You'll have to clarify what you mean by 'driving output' above I said there is no image interpolation unlike most HDTV's that use a 'Sub field drive' to insert addional frames in between a standard 60hz refresh rate.

 

[RussianSensation]

You do not need to run a game at 120fps to notice the difference of a 120hz refresh rate. Refresh rate and frames per second are entirely different things.

While you don't need 120 fps to enjoy 120Hz refresh rate, I imagine that any game with frames less than or equal to 60 is going to produce identical image quality on a 60Hz or a 120Hz display. Only if the frames per second displayed exceed 60 fps, will the extra refresh rate come into play. In other words, if the game isn't running faster than 60 fps, then you don't need the faster refresh rate.

This review supports this view: http://www.tweaktown.com/reviews/3318/quick_review_alienware_optx_aw2310_23/index.html

"120Hz means that a whole new level of gaming is on offer. The biggest problem is that you're going to need a video card that can handle it. If you're only pulling 60 FPS then the benefits aren't seen. With that said, you would want something like a HD 5870 or GTX 480 to really make excellent use of the model."

 

[BFG10K]

so is your video card still putting signal at 60Hz?

No, it's outputting at 120 Hz.

 

[BFG10K]

While you don't need 120 fps to enjoy 120Hz refresh rate, I imagine that any game with frames less than or equal to 60 is going to produce identical image quality on a 60Hz or a 120Hz display. Only if the frames per second displayed exceed 60 fps, will the extra refresh rate come into play. In other words, if the game isn't running faster than 60 fps, then you don't need the faster refresh rate.

This is absolutely untrue. If you run without vsync then the 120 Hz device will tear less. Tearing can happen whenever a new frame is ready but the start of a refresh cycle is not available. A 120 Hz device is twice as likely to have a refresh cycle available than a 60 Hz device does.

Also whether or not you use vsync, there’s less motion blur and RTC artifacting, and even the desktop is smoother. Plus 3:2 pulldown isn’t an issue anymore because 24 FPS perfectly divides into 120 Hz.

 

[kami]

Is anyone aware of any LCD TV's that accept a 120hz input?

 

[brybir]

This is absolutely untrue. If you run without vsync then the 120 Hz device will tear less. Tearing can happen whenever a new frame is ready but the start of a refresh cycle is not available. A 120 Hz device is twice as likely to have a refresh cycle available than a 60 Hz device does.

Also whether or not you use vsync, there’s less motion blur and RTC artifacting, and even the desktop is smoother. Plus 3:2 pulldown isn’t an issue anymore because 24 FPS perfectly divides into 120 Hz.

This is how I always understood it as well. My next monitor will be a 120hz monitor. I love my 23" TN panel, and I dont even know what a few of the complaints are above (what is color shifting for example?)

 

[BFG10K]

and I dont even know what a few of the complaints are above (what is color shifting for example?)

The colors look different (inaccurate) depending on the angle you look at the screen. The easiest way to demonstrate this is to sit on the floor and look up at your display.

 

[Sylvanas]

Sorry for the late response, been a bit busy lately.

Is the screen glossy? Or does it have an anti-glare coating? The specs don't indicate this, neither does the tweaktown puff piece.

Not Glossy, pretty sure it has anti-glare. I have not noticed any glare whatsoever and a quick Google search seems to back this up.

DPOverLord How do you like it? I am getting a new monitor and am debating buying this for $440 or the $300 Haans 28" from Newegg. Is it wortht he extra $140 for less real estate in your opinion?

This is what I was tossing up between when I bought it. I came from a 1920x1200 display and I read many reviews trying to determine if I'd miss the extra vertical real estate. As it turns out I do not and it's not really something you'd 'notice' once its on anyway. As for a 28" 1920 display personally I wouldn't go for it due to the large dot pitch ('bigger' pixels, screen res not quite enough for 28" IMO). A good summary thread can be found here. With the benefits of 120hz I can't see myself buying another 60hz monitor.

Ben90 On a CRT this statement would hold truth, but for a LCD the two terms are basically interchangeable. The only difference I can see is 120hz has to use an overdrive technology while 60hz can get by with standard response times. Most likely your monitor overdrives for 60hz too so that difference is null.

Refresh rate =/ frame rate. The frame rate pertains to the frames rendered by the video card and then sent to the back buffer which are then sent to the screen which incurs a latency and in this case the monitor refreshes itself 120 times a second. If a refresh happens before the frame is displayed we get tearing- this is reduced by a 120hz monitor. The frame rate can fluctuate depending on what the video card is rendering but the refresh rate is a constant.

imported_Goblin I'm wanting to fool around with my new 120hz Alienware AW2310 (just got it today -419.00 on sale) so I'll let someone else answer that part.

Good post, keep us updated on how you enjoy it.

@ Russian, the Tweaktown review is not accurate in that regard. BFG has addressed this pretty well already so I won't dwell on what's already been said. What needs to be emphasised is the lower response times in addition to a higher refresh rate ensure the maximum amount of frames are 'shown' no matter the frame-rate.

It's been a few weeks now and the monitor is still fine, I have not noticed any dead pixels so fingers crossed. I am considering getting a 3D kit just for the hell of it as prices have come down a bit recently. Anand's recent Asus 120hz review gives a good overview of the benefits of this new lot of 1920x1080 120hz monitors.

 

[Kuzi]

Seems like a nice LCD, below is another review of it:

http://www.digitalversus.com/alienware-optx-aw2310-p357_9084_470.html

 

[Karl Agathon]

I am seriously considering buying this. NoOb question, I know one doesnt require 3D glasses to view the 120hz action, but does this require an HDMI connection of DVI? Or does it not matter?

 

[Patrick Wolf]

I am seriously considering buying this. NoOb question, I know one doesnt require 3D glasses to view the 120hz action, but does this require an HDMI connection of DVI? Or does it not matter?

For 120hz; a dual-link DVI cable will do. HDMI connection isn't required.

Be nice if someone made a 60 vs 120hz comparison video to show the difference. I searched for one, found zilch. Unless you need a special camera to see it or something like that. I won't say yay or nay unless I see something or experience it first-hand.

 

[Karl Agathon]

For 120hz; a dual-link DVI cable will do. HDMI connection isn't required.

Be nice if someone made a 60 vs 120hz comparison video to show the difference. I searched for one, found zilch. Unless you need a special camera to see it or something like that. I won't say yay or nay unless I see something or experience it first-hand.

Thanks for replying. Ok, is a dual-link DVI cable just a DVI connector on both sides? Please pardon my ignorance, im still fairly new to the PC gaming world and hardware.