Are you using 120hz or 3D?

[Childs]

Yes.

16:9 needs to die.

and yes i would run 1920x1200 on a 24 over whatever 16:9 on a 27 because i would never buy a 27, at that price point id go right for a 30 running 16:10

lol, well whatever! I know the futility of arguing with old time ATers.

 

[Nintendesert]

I love my 120hz monitor. I could never go back to 60hz. It's just such a huge difference.

 

[A5]

I just can't justify $350 for a 23" TN panel monitor, no matter how nice 120Hz is. It's too bad that there isn't more competition in this space.

 

[apoppin]

lol, well whatever! I know the futility of arguing with old time ATers.

They just gave up their failing CRTs ... i'd hate to be the one to inform them that 16:10 is going to die next
:whiste:

 

[Phynaz]

They just gave up their failing CRTs ... i'd hate to be the one to inform them that 16:10 is going to die next
:whiste:

Oh, I'm quite aware of the race to the bottom.

 

[Kudro]

What kind of frame rates are you getting with Metro 2033, and how low do you have the quality settings?

I play it on DX11 High (very high is a no-go). I haven't FRAPSed it so I don't know the framerate, but it's running considerably faster than when I played it on DX10 High on my Radeon 5850.

 

[SMOGZINN]

They just gave up their failing CRTs ... i'd hate to be the one to inform them that 16:10 is going to die next
:whiste:

While in general I agree that standardizing aspect ratios is a good idea, and 16:10 seems the clear winner because it allows us to standardize with HDTVs all in one fell swoop, the downside is that it seems that it is getting harder and harder to find any monitor that is not 1080p. I’m afraid that with the standardization to 16:9 we are also getting standardization to 1080p as a maximum resolution. And that is not a good thing.

 

[Anubis]

They just gave up their failing CRTs ... i'd hate to be the one to inform them that 16:10 is going to die next
:whiste:

as Phynaz said it is truly a race to the bottom, ive had LCDs for 6 or so years now so i didnt just give up a CRT and my FW900s were in perfect working order when i sold them. and to this date there is no LCD that looks as good as they did at anything close to the price i paid for them. LCDs take up less space, which is close to their only advantage

its the same with TVs, yea LCDs and plasmas take up less space but a CRT RPTV is still the absolute king of PQ. i honestly would have bought a 70 in pio CRT RPTV off AVS a few months ago if the dude selling it wasent 2000 miles away

 

[AyashiKaibutsu]

as Phynaz said it is truly a race to the bottom, ive had LCDs for 6 or so years now so i didnt just give up a CRT and my FW900s were in perfect working order when i sold them. and to this date there is no LCD that looks as good as they did at anything close to the price i paid for them. LCDs take up less space, which is close to their only advantage

its the same with TVs, yea LCDs and plasmas take up less space but a CRT RPTV is still the absolute king of PQ. i honestly would have bought a 70 in pio CRT RPTV off AVS a few months ago if the dude selling it wasent 2000 miles away

Yea CRTs were great, but it only took a year of living on the 4th story of a dorm with no elevator to change my mind about my 50 pound CRT : p

 

[Iron Wolf]

I'll switch when they make a high quality 120 Hz IPS panel.

 

[rstrohkirch]

Personally, I had no problem with the decrease in IQ in exchange for 120hz since I play a lot of online fps/rts.

 

[Lumathix]

I think I'm going to skip this generation and wait for the 240hz or 4D monitors.

LMAO

 

[TakeNoPrisoners]

OT but really there isn't a reason to cut off the pixels on a perfectly good 16:10 monitor and make it 16:9. That isn't progress.

 

[Zenoth]

Nope, still on a CRT monitor (flat screen) from around 2005 (LG F900B). I'm planning to buy the BenQ 120hz LCD this year however (along with a new GPU).

 

[bentheman939]

Man, you guys are total monitor snobs. I have a 50" Panasonic plasma G20 series wall mounted above my desk, and it kicks the living **** out of any CRT I've ever used. The 16:9 provides plenty of space for paper writing and research and its sexy as hell. CRTs can RIP.

 

[KaOTiK]

Yup, love 120hz and my nvidia 3D vision. Both are great and I am very happy with the purchases.

 

[Raduque]

NO.

 

[Aikouka]

and yes i would run 1920x1200 on a 24 over whatever 16:9 on a 27 because i would never buy a 27, at that price point id go right for a 30 running 16:10

The 30" monitors that I see are around $1000 or more. Most 27s are $500 at most unless you count the overpriced ones like I'm using right now (~$800 each). If I had a chance to go back and get different displays, I would sacrifice 16:10. These Dell monitors are awful.

 

[Terzo]

My issue is not with 16:9 itself, but rather that the industry has gone and decided to make it the standard. If someone else wants to buy 16:9 that's fine, just give me the option of buying 16:10. If I wanted 16:9 I would go buy a telly. 16:9 may be the future but they'll have to drag me into it kicking and screaming.

120 Hz sounds great (3d less so) but the benefits aren't worth the price. TF2 is the only fps game I play, and not that often. 60 Hz is sufficient for me.

 

[BladeVenom]

I'm still waiting for a Smell-O-Vision monitor.

 

[wuliheron]

I'm waiting for the prices and technology to improve a bit more. Stereoscopic 3D is particularly good for racing and flying games and size makes a huge difference in immersion for 3D effects. There are a few 120hz 27" monitors available now, but the technology is still new and expensive. As much as I'd like to play fps in 2D at 120hz I'm willing to wait a little longer before upgrading. If you want a cheap 120hz IPS or super high resolution you'll be waiting for quite awhile.

 

[kamikazekyle]

I picked up an Asus 120Hz a few months ago. 120Hz on the desktop was orgasmic nuts. Once I got into games, I almost never noticed it, even in games that hit 120FPS+. I never played with vsync on at any time during my gaming history, so I've pretty much become visually immune to screen tearing and I've never noticed ghosting on anything but *old* LCDs. The drop in image quality from an IPS to a TN panel -- combined with some not-so-great backlight bleed -- led me to pawn off the monitor to my girlfriend as I went back to an IPS.

I'm actually thinking of going from my 24" HP IPS back to some older 20" NEC IPS monitors I have. I have yet to see anything but some select CRTs (and a few plasmas) match the image quality of those oldies. Plus I have three, so I could Eyefinity them or something.

 

[WMD]

I picked up an Asus 120Hz a few months ago. 120Hz on the desktop was orgasmic nuts. Once I got into games, I almost never noticed it, even in games that hit 120FPS+. I never played with vsync on at any time during my gaming history, so I've pretty much become visually immune to screen tearing and I've never noticed ghosting on anything but *old* LCDs. The drop in image quality from an IPS to a TN panel -- combined with some not-so-great backlight bleed -- led me to pawn off the monitor to my girlfriend as I went back to an IPS.
I'm actually thinking of going from my 24" HP IPS back to some older 20" NEC IPS monitors I have. I have yet to see anything but some select CRTs (and a few plasmas) match the image quality of those oldies. Plus I have three, so I could Eyefinity them or something.

If you can notice it on the desktop, you will notice it more in game. What I suspect is the game you play was not really running in 120Hz when you tested. I noticed this alot when I made the switch to windows 7 and some games refused to run in 120Hz mode until I apply refresh lock in ATI tray tool. Luckily for me I know how 120Hz feels when running on XP and knew straight away when it is on 60Hz.

I have compared IPS and TN side by side and would take TN 120Hz over IPS 60Hz anyday. The loss in IQ is not that great since you view straight on most of the time anyways.

 

[Ichigo]

because its infinity superior for everything and i use my computer for a lot more then gaming

more space = better

Well, wouldn't more "resolution" be infinitely superior by that logic, regardless of aspect ratio (within reason)?

Why don't you buy a 1920x1440 (4:3) monitor?

 

[kamikazekyle]

If you can notice it on the desktop, you will notice it more in game. What I suspect is the game you play was not really running in 120Hz when you tested. I noticed this alot when I made the switch to windows 7 and some games refused to run in 120Hz mode until I apply refresh lock in ATI tray tool. Luckily for me I know how 120Hz feels when running on XP and knew straight away when it is on 60Hz.

I have compared IPS and TN side by side and would take TN 120Hz over IPS 60Hz anyday. The loss in IQ is not that great since you view straight on most of the time anyways.

I used 120Hz LCDs on the desktop here and there since they were first released retail while SysAdmin'ing at my last job. Always did love it for desktop work, but could never try a game or 3D app with one.

When I was gaming, I made sure the games were running at 120Hz by confirming the signal out, forcing the framerate in RadeonPro, and/or testing out Vsync enabled which then locked at 120FPS. Games which I enabled vsync never dipped below the refresh rate. Then, of course, there were games that had no hope of hitting 120FPS unless I started reducing things. In cases like that, there was no visible difference even when scrutinizing.

I guess you could say I did "notice" it, but it's effect was so miniscule that unless I specifically looking for it I wouldn't see the effects. For example, dragging windows around in a game, or in cursor movement. Panning around the camera at various speeds, general gameplay, etc, I just never really noticed a difference. All in all, subjectively speaking to my personal experience, a 120Hz monitor for 2D gaming wasn't worth it for me.

Now in the whole TN/IPS thing: I stick by what I said for my subjective use. There are certainly good TN panels out there -- the one in my MacBook, for example, is pretty damn good for a laptop TN. But every desktop TN I've come across is fair at best, with the several 120Hz models I've used being some of the worst in IQ and backlight bleed. While I don't seem to notice any real benefit to 120Hz in gaming, I always notice the dithering, loss of colors, and color shifting (even while sitting dead-on; horizontal is fine but vertical is exhibits shift). I can kinda get used to a TN if it's my only monitor (like here at work), but putting it beside a quality IPS I just can't take the difference.

Anywho. For me, unless I was doing 3D, a quality 60Hz IPS panel trumps a 120Hz TN anyday for my daily home/home office use. But that's just me. Oodles of people love the 120Hz monitors, but it just isn't my thing