Any chance for 120hz monitors with low native resolution?

[Xenphor]

I feel like I'm in a very small minority here but I would like a 120hz monitor with a low native resolution (lower than 1080p). Even better would be a non-widescreen monitor for compatibility with older games.

I have a hard enough time achieving 60fps (Metro 2033 Maxed, Crysis 2 Maxed, etc.) locked at 1280x1024 on my crappy 17in Viewsonic with a gtx 670 so I shudder to think what would happen at 1080p. I would probably never even approach 120fps unless I only played older UE3 games so that would defeat the whole purpose of getting a 120hz monitor. Is it just because the technology is new that there are so few options out there?

 

[Ben90]

In addition have you considered either lowering your video options or having black bars around your image?

 

[lehtv]

What's your CPU? Your GTX 670 should have no trouble at all playing games at constant 60fps at 1280x1024. If you're heavily CPU bottlenecked, you might be able to play 1920x1080 at nearly the same framerate as at 1280x1024.

Is it just because the technology is new that there are so few options out there?

No, it's because 1080p is the standard. When it wasn't, we had 1680x1050 120hz monitors like Samsung 2233rz and Viewsonic 2636wm or somesuch. You won't see 120hz monitors released at a lower resolution anymore and that's a good thing

 

[Smoblikat]

I feel like I'm in a very small minority here but I would like a 120hz monitor with a low native resolution (lower than 1080p). Even better would be a non-widescreen monitor for compatibility with older games.

I have a hard enough time achieving 60fps (Metro 2033 Maxed, Crysis 2 Maxed, etc.) locked at 1280x1024 on my crappy 17in Viewsonic with a gtx 670 so I shudder to think what would happen at 1080p. I would probably never even approach 120fps unless I only played older UE3 games so that would defeat the whole purpose of getting a 120hz monitor. Is it just because the technology is new that there are so few options out there?

My setup:
1280x1024 - Metro 2033 = 20fps
My setup:
1920x1080 - Metro 2033 = 60fps

You sir are 100% CPU limited as I was. I hope you dont think that noone is able to play those games. You have the second best GFX card in existence (single GPU)

 

[Anarchist420]

What's your CPU? Your GTX 670 should have no trouble at all playing games at constant 60fps at 1280x1024. If you're heavily CPU bottlenecked, you might be able to play 1920x1080 at nearly the same framerate as at 1280x1024.



No, it's because 1080p is the standard. When it wasn't, we had 1680x1050 120hz monitors like Samsung 2233rz and Viewsonic 2636wm or somesuch. You won't see 120hz monitors released at a lower resolution anymore and that's a good thing

Some games it won't have a constant speed of 60 fps on at 1280x1024.

I am not sure why the op seems to think that widescreen monitors are not compatible with resolutions like 1280x1024.

I do however, agree with him that less input lag is more important than resolutions that are too high. Not only that, an insane amount of processing power would be needed. 3840x2400 eats up 4x the fill rate that 1920x1200 does. Then, add 4x msaa with half speed blending and that will bring any gpu to its knees.

Not to mention how much graphics memory would be wasted on 4x an already high resolution. 1920x1200 on a 20 in screen is plenty of dots per inch. We need displays with higher color gamut (72% NTSC is nowhere near enough) and less input lag before we start worrying about goingover2560x1600 IMO.

 

[lehtv]

Some games it won't have a constant speed of 60 fps on at 1280x1024.

Really? In Metro2033, one of the most GPU demanding games ever, it gets an average of 54.5fps at 1920x1200 and very high settings: http://images.anandtech.com/graphs/graph5818/46416.png

I have a very hard time believing that a 670 couldn't run any game at constant 60 fps at 1280x1024 given no CPU bottlenecking. The framerate in Metro would be on average 54.5 * 1.75 = 95.

 

[Remobz]

I wish we knew what cpu he has.

 

[piasabird]

Might find something in dell in the business precision monitors. I would like something like that for scanning. I have a dell 18.5 widescreen. I thought it would be hard to use, but I find text easier to read on a screen that size.

Maybe this will work?? 19" Business Monitor.

http://accessories.us.dell.com/sna/...noteSearch&baynote_bnrank=13&baynote_irrank=0

 

[lehtv]

^ That's a 60hz monitor.

 

[piasabird]

I dont think 120hz is worth much video is like 30 frames a second. If this is really what you are thinking then maybe ask some other place like the Audio Video Science Forum

http://www.avsforum.com/

Some of the people here know a lot about TV Projector and Home Theater Technology.

One of the problems with going this fast is that for normal video you have to fill in the frames in between on the fly and the faster video can get choppy. However for game paly it might be possible to actually go faster.

 

[lakedude]

Hard to say with the limited info available but it seems like this is one of those mismatched systems.

GTX 670, excellent one of the best.
"crappy 17in Viewsonic", um crappy?
CPU??

I don't know why anyone would want a low res 120Hz monitor.

Fix what ever is giving you the low frame rate (CPU?), and get a nice 27 inch high res monitor.

 

[Ben90]

One of the problems with going this fast is that for normal video you have to fill in the frames in between on the fly and the faster video can get choppy. However for game paly it might be possible to actually go faster.

Interestingly enough, video playback is another benefit 120Hz has over 60Hz. Pretty much all common source material is divisible evenly.

120Hz / 60 = 2
120Hz / 30 = 4
120HZ / 24 = 5

On the other hand, there are a few annoyances with a higher refresh rate. The major one being that a lot of things are designed around 60Hz. Most of the menu animations in CS:GO are displayed at 60FPS, and and a few games such as Rage and Fallout are internally capped to 60FPS. Aero will drop into a state after a few minutes where a lot of actions and animations won't go above 60FPS until a major animation resets it. Not exactly sure if it is intentional, or a bug. In any case switching to classic, or shaking a window around resets it for a while.

 

[rickon66]

I still find it hard to believe that 60 refreshes per second would seem choppy to anyone.

 

[Goride]

I think 120hz helps with tearing, doesn't it?

 

[Paul98]

I still find it hard to believe that 60 refreshes per second would seem choppy to anyone.

It is quite obvious in fast paced first person shooters, even raising 60 to 80 or 85 is obvious.

 

[Throckmorton]

There is a simple solution to this... pixel doubling. iPads do it, iPhones do it, etc. But nVidia refuses to include the feature in the drivers. Imagine if you could run a 2560x1440 monitor at 1280x720...

But if you want to upscale, you must interpolate, and you must endure a blurry image, because nVidia can't assign a programmer for 1 hour to add the feature to its drivers.

 

[Remobz]

It is quite obvious in fast paced first person shooters, even raising 60 to 80 or 85 is obvious.

I have a question for anyone reading.

I have this monitor......LG L227WTG-PF Black 22" 2ms Widescreen

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...82E16824005109


Maximum resolution is 1680 x 1060 @ 60hz


So no matter how fancy a computer graphics card or cpu chip or ram I will always be stuck at 60fps or a little over? Bottleneck being the monitor?


I would be forced to buy a higher resolution monitor and one that can do 120hz?

 

[I4AT]

I agree, I currently use an LG 19le5300 with a 1366x768 native res. I believe it's an IPS panel, but definitely not TN. Matte screen too, which I personally like better than glossy.

Unfortunately it's been discontinued, I was lucky to get mine used on Ebay a while back for about $110 I think. It has 2 HDMI inputs so I can have my PS3 and my PC connected at the same time and just switch inputs without having to swap cables. It also has VGA, composite, and component inputs, as well as a headphone jack so I can easily plug in headphones at night without having to reach behind the tower.

It was also supposed to have 24p support with a 2:2 pulldown according to some of the specs I've seen listed on websites, but I wasn't able to find any such settings in the OSD, so I think that may have been a listing error. Unless it somehow auto-detects 24p input sources.

It's almost the perfect monitor for me with the multitude of inputs, the high quality panel, and the low native res which keeps me from having to upgrade my GPU constantly, and also looks much better with current gen consoles than 1080p+ or 16:10 monitors.

Couple of the negatives are backlight bleed, oversized bezel since it's technically a TV, lack of tilt/swivel adjustment, very slow response from touch-sensitive buttons instead of physical buttons (but it does come with a remote which kind of offsets that issue), and I haven't had a chance to test it for display lag so I'm not sure how it fares in that regard. LG claims an unrealistically low 2.4ms response time, I'm not overly sensitive to ghosting/blur anyways, doesn't bother me as much as input delay.

I don't know what I'm gonna do when it dies, there's definitely a shortage of high quality low resolution monitors out there. We need more 1280x720 and 1366x768 monitors with IPS panels or 120hz. HP and LG make 1600x900 IPS panels, I don't know of any good, in production 12x7 or 13x7 monitors though. We're a small market.

 

[Throckmorton]

No no, we don't need 1280x720 monitors. All we need is 2560x1440 ones and the ability to pixel double

 

[I4AT]

If I wanted pixels that large I'd buy a 26-32" 720p TV. Why would I buy a $600+ monitor to do what something less than half its cost could do equally as well while being sharper at my intended resolution?

How would a few more low resolution options affect your ability to buy a higher resolution monitor?

It works on ipads and iphones because the screens are 3.5" and 10" in size so doubling still retains a useable PPI. It wouldn't have the same effect on a 27" office monitor, and only Apple can buy in the tens of millions quantity level to make it cost effective.

 

[LeftSide]

For those of you who think that more than 60fps/hz is just a waste, have you ever tried it? I play COD Black OPS on the PC. I can definitely tell the difference between 45fps and 60fps. I had an older video card, and was only getting 45fps on some maps. My k/d ratio would fall on those maps. My friend bought one of those Korean monitors that can do 85hz, his game play has gotten better, and I can definitely tell the game is smoother and more responsive.
Maybe some people eyes/brain are more sensitive than others, but > 60hz definitely gives a competitive advantage.
Oh, and you talked about tv having 30hz, cameras add this natural thing called motion blur. That is why it looks so smooth. Without it, the tv show would look incredibly choppy. Some games like Crysis can add motion blur, that is why the game looks smoother on lower frame rates.

 

[Childs]

If you want a monitor like this you'll need to get a used or refurb one. The first 120Hz monitors were mostly under 1080p, like 1680x1050. I just did a quick search, and you dont see too many used ones floating around. Kind of a curiosity...either they didnt sell or people arent giving them up. Either way, it looks like it might be cheaper to upgrade CPU and maybe motherboard, as the prices start at $250 for used/refurb.

 

[Throckmorton]

If I wanted pixels that large I'd buy a 26-32" 720p TV. Why would I buy a $600+ monitor to do what something less than half its cost could do equally as well while being sharper at my intended resolution?

How would a few more low resolution options affect your ability to buy a higher resolution monitor?

It works on ipads and iphones because the screens are 3.5" and 10" in size so doubling still retains a useable PPI. It wouldn't have the same effect on a 27" office monitor, and only Apple can buy in the tens of millions quantity level to make it cost effective.

But a 27" 2560x1440 Catleap screen is only $350 on eBay. A low res one isn't going to be much cheaper. And you benefit from the high res for things other than gaming like reading websites.

 

[Xenphor]

sorry to resurrect this thread, I honestly didn't think I would get that many replies. I have a 3570k CPU. As for Metro 2033, there were definitely many spots that could not run at 60fps, and that was during actual gameplay. Many of the spots had some sort of additional lighting effects I noticed, such as the opening of the doors at the hospital in the beginning, and then even the firing range when you first get your weapons. I actually got rid of my gtx 670 and got a 680 (msi) instead, although that was mostly because I realized my 670 (evga) had the crappy reference cooler that got hot and so the card downclocked. I have noticed an improvement in metro 2033 with the 680, but the benchmark still destroys it easily. And keep in mind, this is all at 1280x1024.

One of the reasons I wanted a resolution such as that was to scale older games that aren't widescreen. Ideally, I would like a 4:3 monitor around 1280x960 or the next resolution after that. Then I could play older games as well as newer games without nasty interpolation. Unfortunately, for some reason I don't understand, all non-widescreen LCDs are 5:4 which makes absolutely no sense. The only other option would be to get a lower resolution widescreen monitor that could scale the image by itself at the pixel level so there is no interpolation. Although with that I'm afraid that additional input lag would be added.

 

[bunnyfubbles]

CRT would be your best bet

otherwise I only know of 1680x1050 as the lowest LCD @ 120Hz