Are you using 120hz or 3D?

[Pia]

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

Real men hold out for displays with Lovecraftian, non-Euclidean geometry which can display cosmic horrors in their full glory. None of this '4D' low-tech crap that isn't even powerful enough to turn anyone insane.

 

[wuliheron]

Real men hold out for displays with Lovecraftian, non-Euclidean geometry which can display cosmic horrors in their full glory. None of this '4D' low-tech crap that isn't even powerful enough to turn anyone insane.

Real men accept nothing less then direct hard wiring of their brains.

 

[apoppin]

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.

i wonder if you can see this image from my as yet unpublished article. Nvidia did this side-by-side comparison with Mirror's Edge

If not, i'll find another way to show it

 

[Munky]

i wonder if you can see this image from my as yet unpublished article. Nvidia did this side-by-side comparison with Mirror's Edge

If not, i'll find another way to show it

Obvious marketing gimmick. A frame is a frame, regardless if it appears at 60Hz or 1000Hz. The only reason one side would have blurring is if it was artificially added, either in the game to smooth out motion, or by Nvidia's not-so-clever marketing artists. In the first case, that's not a bad thing, since the same technique is used to make 24p motion pictures appear smooth. In the second case, I'm not amused.

 

[BladeVenom]

Obvious marketing gimmick.

Agreed. That photo looks like complete BS.

 

[Red Storm]

Agreed. That photo looks like complete BS.

Yeah, anytime Nvidia or AMD release any comparison shots themselves it should always be taken with a load of salt. We have neutral 3rd party reviewers for this stuff.

 

[abaez]

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.

lol, I bet you can hold your thumb up and cover one pixel.

I don't have 120 or 3d. I would maybe get 120, 3d has absolutely no appeal to me at all.

I think I'll be happy with my u3011 Dell 30" 16:10 monitor for a good long while.

 

[aigomorla]

i was on 3d... but let me tell you something...

First off... the glasses...
I dont wear glasses, but if u assume the average gaming session is roughly 2-4 hours... and you having to wear active shutter glasses for that time... your going to get eye strain.

Also on a hot day, the last thing i want is glasses over my face.

I think I'll be happy with my u3011 Dell 30" 16:10 monitor for a good long while.

Bastard!

That is one beautiful monitor... i would love a 27inch even...


Im on 2x24's S-PVA's as sides and 1 x 27 TN LED i use as center.

Obvious marketing gimmick. A frame is a frame, regardless if it appears at 60Hz or 1000Hz. The only reason one side would have blurring is if it was artificially added, either in the game to smooth out motion, or by Nvidia's not-so-clever marketing artists. In the first case, that's not a bad thing, since the same technique is used to make 24p motion pictures appear smooth. In the second case, I'm not amused.

+1 a frame is a frame..
the HZ represents how many frames are shown in a period of time.

A picture can only post 1 frame, so obviously the first section was blurred.


The only point in a 3d monitor is if you want to play in 3d.
And that REQUIRES ACTIVE SHUTTER GLASSES.
Which kills 3d, because it does strain your eyes after a long gaming session.

I saw a few 3d monitors @ CES last year which didnt require active shutter glasses... but i dont think they are ready for the general consumer yet.

If not, i'll find another way to show it

Clarity and depth is mainly determined on what the panel is made by.
OR can someone correct me?

And till now there is NO S-PVA, or S-IPS "3d monitor".
And everyone knows u cant get better color reproduction then those 2 until we see OLED.

So tell me how a 3d monitor is suposed to have better and clearer picture on a TN against a S-PVA or S-IPS panel.

"They range from budget TN panels to expensive, professional quality S-IPS and S-PVA panels."
http://www.pchardwarehelp.com/guides/lcd-panel-types.php

That proof is so obviously a marketing BULLSHIT or its compared to a even crappier TN non 3d Panel.

Which is why i say i would LOVE that 30inch Dell or the 27inch Dell even.... :O

 

[apoppin]

i am going to quote you from another thread in video

AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHHHAHAHAHHAHAHAH :thumbsup:

ignorance is bliss...

You don't wear sunglasses? You are going to get eyestrain anyway
:whiste:

Unless you have gamed on a 120Hz LCD .. it's all BLAH BLAH BLAH
- i have a 30" HP 3065 2560x1600 and i wouldn't trade it ... however, we are now talking about GAMING .. not accurate reproduction of colors for Photoshop .... and for *gaming* the advantages of a 120Hz LCD for FAST PACED SHOOTERS where your FPS is over 60, is undeniable
:thumbsup:

i was on 3d... but let me tell you something...

First off... the glasses...
I dont wear glasses, but if u assume the average gaming session is roughly 2-4 hours... and you having to wear active shutter glasses for that time... your going to get eye strain.

Also on a hot day, the last thing i want is glasses over my face.



Bastard!

That is one beautiful monitor... i would love a 27inch even...


Im on 2x24's S-PVA's as sides and 1 x 27 TN LED i use as center.



+1 a frame is a frame..
the HZ represents how many frames are shown in a period of time.

A picture can only post 1 frame, so obviously the first section was blurred.


The only point in a 3d monitor is if you want to play in 3d.
And that REQUIRES ACTIVE SHUTTER GLASSES.
Which kills 3d, because it does strain your eyes after a long gaming session.

I saw a few 3d monitors @ CES last year which didnt require active shutter glasses... but i dont think they are ready for the general consumer yet.



Clarity and depth is mainly determined on what the panel is made by.
OR can someone correct me?

And till now there is NO S-PVA, or S-IPS "3d monitor".
And everyone knows u cant get better color reproduction then those 2 until we see OLED.

So tell me how a 3d monitor is suposed to have better and clearer picture on a TN against a S-PVA or S-IPS panel.

"They range from budget TN panels to expensive, professional quality S-IPS and S-PVA panels."
http://www.pchardwarehelp.com/guides/lcd-panel-types.php

That proof is so obviously a marketing BULLSHIT or its compared to a even crappier TN non 3d Panel.

Which is why i say i would LOVE that 30inch Dell or the 27inch Dell even.... :O

 

[kamikazekyle]

i wonder if you can see this image from my as yet unpublished article. Nvidia did this side-by-side comparison with Mirror's Edge

If not, i'll find another way to show it

The best I can figure is that I've never played with vsync on unless I was testing something. As I did this since the 3DFx days for every game I played, I suppose I just got used to screen tearing, ghosting, blurring, and whatever other artifacts that seem to manifest. I was also used to dragging out a video card well beyond its years yet not wanting to turn down eye candy, so I got used to 20-30FPS as a target framerate with dips down to 10FPS acceptable.

So when I was gaming on a 120Hz monitor, during times where it should excel (rapid camera turning, etc), my mind didn't really notice any significant difference. Sure, everything was a lot smoother if I compared it to my olden days of 20-30FPS, but it seems that I just mentally glazed over anything during gaming where a 120Hz monitor would show benefit over a 60Hz display. Plus, I don't really play much in the way of FPS games beyond more singleplayer experiences (or Section 8 sometimes with bots).

Now, I've also been using quality CRTs, high end plasmas, and high quality IPS LCDs for most of my viewing life (TV, general computer use, and videogames). So, I tend to notice things like reduction in color, image quality, viewing angles, or backlight bleed moreso than others.

All said and done, I've kinda conditioned myself to be more sensitive to variances in TN/IPS image quality than motion performance in 60Hz/120hz comparisons.

 

[apoppin]

i never used to play with vsync on before i got a 120Hz display; i preferred the tearing to the framerate cap and triple buffering never worked properly for me.

Now if the framerates are high, vsync is always on and triple buffering too. 120Hz is no compromise for shooters (except for using a TN panel which has a much faster response anyway).

In a fast paced shooter i would much rather have less motion blur and worse IQ. In a RPG where i have time to admire the scenery, i will take the improved IQ if possible.

The best I can figure is that I've never played with vsync on unless I was testing something. As I did this since the 3DFx days for every game I played, I suppose I just got used to screen tearing, ghosting, blurring, and whatever other artifacts that seem to manifest. I was also used to dragging out a video card well beyond its years yet not wanting to turn down eye candy, so I got used to 20-30FPS as a target framerate with dips down to 10FPS acceptable.

So when I was gaming on a 120Hz monitor, during times where it should excel (rapid camera turning, etc), my mind didn't really notice any significant difference. Sure, everything was a lot smoother if I compared it to my olden days of 20-30FPS, but it seems that I just mentally glazed over anything during gaming where a 120Hz monitor would show benefit over a 60Hz display. Plus, I don't really play much in the way of FPS games beyond more singleplayer experiences (or Section 8 sometimes with bots).

Now, I've also been using quality CRTs, high end plasmas, and high quality IPS LCDs for most of my viewing life (TV, general computer use, and videogames). So, I tend to notice things like reduction in color, image quality, viewing angles, or backlight bleed moreso than others.

All said and done, I've kinda conditioned myself to be more sensitive to variances in TN/IPS image quality than motion performance in 60Hz/120hz comparisons.

 

[kamikazekyle]

i never used to play with vsync on before i got a 120Hz display; i preferred the tearing to the framerate cap and triple buffering never worked properly for me.

Now if the framerates are high, vsync is always on and triple buffering too. 120Hz is no compromise for shooters (except for using a TN panel which has a much faster response anyway).

In a fast paced shooter i would much rather have less motion blur and worse IQ. In a RPG where i have time to admire the scenery, i will take the improved IQ if possible.

Makes sense. Seeing as how I don't really play many fast paced FPSes anymore, I might not have given the 120Hz it's full run. Actually, I hadn't played an FPS in a very long time before I dabbled a bit in Bulletstorm, but in that game most action takes place pretty close up with oversized characters and the AI doesn't exactly do any evasion like a player would.

If I decide not to go with this Eyefinity setup, I might toss in the 120Hz monitor again and give it a go. I've got the horsepower to push it seeing as how I don't own a game that drops below 60FPS anymore, and I purchased a few FPSes or faster-paced action games over the past months that I haven't played much of yet.

I tried the 120Hz monitor for about 2-3 months or so, but I dunno if I really played much in the way of fast-paced games during that time. I was really into Rift during that phase, but that game could never hit 120FPS despite my setup due to issues with AMD cards at the time. Other games I tried like Mass Effect certainly blew the 120FPS vsync barrier, but perhaps that wasn't fast-paced enough to notice.

 

[apoppin]

Makes sense. Seeing as how I don't really play many fast paced FPSes anymore, I might not have given the 120Hz it's full run. Actually, I hadn't played an FPS in a very long time before I dabbled a bit in Bulletstorm, but in that game most action takes place pretty close up with oversized characters and the AI doesn't exactly do any evasion like a player would.

If I decide not to go with this Eyefinity setup, I might toss in the 120Hz monitor again and give it a go. I've got the horsepower to push it seeing as how I don't own a game that drops below 60FPS anymore, and I purchased a few FPSes or faster-paced action games over the past months that I haven't played much of yet.

I tried the 120Hz monitor for about 2-3 months or so, but I dunno if I really played much in the way of fast-paced games during that time. I was really into Rift during that phase, but that game could never hit 120FPS despite my setup due to issues with AMD cards at the time. Other games I tried like Mass Effect certainly blew the 120FPS vsync barrier, but perhaps that wasn't fast-paced enough to notice.

i am not so sure that i see it as an "or" situation. What about both? And from my research, it really depends on *which* 120Hz display that you choose. Some have faster response than others and thus more crosstalk/ghosting.

Eyefinity/Surround is really cool. You *can* use your 120Hz LCD as the center screen unless it has color issues with the flanking displays. However, not that many games work over 5760x1080 so that you will use it 100% of the time - and for some games (Bulletstorm) - playing in Eyefinity is a bit confusing. So the fast paced shooters can be played on one screen (without blur).

To test a fast pace shooter, run a game like Left4Dead or TF2. A game that your PC can run at well over 60fps as a minimum. The see the difference. Since my 3D Evaluation is done, i will be visiting 120Hz vs. 60Hz displays with my own digi-cam for further reviews. It can do 60 1080p fields per second or 240fps at a lower resolution.

 

[kamikazekyle]

i am not so sure that i see it as an "or" situation. What about both? And from my research, it really depends on *which* 120Hz display that you choose. Some have faster response than others and thus more crosstalk/ghosting.

Eyefinity/Surround is really cool. You *can* use your 120Hz LCD as the center screen unless it has color issues with the flanking displays. However, not that many games work over 5760x1080 so that you will use it 100% of the time - and for some games (Bulletstorm) - playing in Eyefinity is a bit confusing. So the fast paced shooters can be played on one screen (without blur).

To test a fast pace shooter, run a game like Left4Dead or TF2. A game that your PC can run at well over 60fps as a minimum. The see the difference. Since my 3D Evaluation is done, i will be visiting 120Hz vs. 60Hz displays with my own digi-cam for further reviews. It can do 60 1080p fields per second or 240fps at a lower resolution.

The model I have is the Asus 23"-er. I can't remember the model number off-hand, but I wanna say it was the first one they produced. I read a few different review sites, and settled on that one. Colors weren't horrid or anything, but I could easily tell colors were missing when I sat it next to an IPS. There was also some pretty bad backlight bleed, but I understand that's semi-common for the 120Hz lines at that time.

I doubt I'll combine it with my other monitors for an Eyefinity setup, seeing as how they're 20" top-end IPS displays or a single 24" HP IPS I don't even run those with my current HP since it's a stark difference in not only size but image quality. I do have another 23" glossy TN, but it's at some 16:9 resolution between a Dell U24 and U27. I *loved* the pixel pitch on that thing, but it had pretty horrid vertical viewing angles.

Anyway. I'll probably see if I can reclaim the monitor from my girlfriend's computer for a test, or most likely install L4D or something lightweight on her machine. The Asus is on a desk arm right now, so it's a good 15 minute routine to dismount it, change the brackets, and remount it to the normal stand.

 

[apoppin]

The model I have is the Asus 23"-er. I can't remember the model number off-hand, but I wanna say it was the first one they produced. I read a few different review sites, and settled on that one. Colors weren't horrid or anything, but I could easily tell colors were missing when I sat it next to an IPS. There was also some pretty bad backlight bleed, but I understand that's semi-common for the 120Hz lines at that time.

I doubt I'll combine it with my other monitors for an Eyefinity setup, seeing as how they're 20" top-end IPS displays or a single 24" HP IPS I don't even run those with my current HP since it's a stark difference in not only size but image quality. I do have another 23" glossy TN, but it's at some 16:9 resolution between a Dell U24 and U27. I *loved* the pixel pitch on that thing, but it had pretty horrid vertical viewing angles.

Anyway. I'll probably see if I can reclaim the monitor from my girlfriend's computer for a test, or most likely install L4D or something lightweight on her machine. The Asus is on a desk arm right now, so it's a good 15 minute routine to dismount it, change the brackets, and remount it to the normal stand.

This one? ASUS 236 (23.6", get it?) If so we have the same one and the pic is from my 3D eval.
If you don't mind me quoting myself about the color from the eval:

When you first turn it on, the brightness of the ASUS VG236H is a bit of a shock compared to most LCDs. It is extremely bright out of the box and it is almost unpleasant for 2D work. Also, the color temperature is set too high and the gamma curve is set too low, meaning that the colors tend more towards blue with relatively light shades of grey that should be darker. These are not real issues for playing games with 3D Vision as the games tend to be dark using active shutter glasses although colors are reproduced accurately.
To make adjustments that will make the color temperature more accurate, simply set the color to "warm" and turn the brightness down to the mid-40s. This will work well for all 2D applications.

As long as your GF's PC can run the shooter you pick well over 60fps, it is a fair test. And i used to run mismatched LCD's in Eyefinity just to see if i liked it. i still don't like the bezels but for some games it is really cool. 3D Vision Surround even more so, if you have the right game the a really fast PC.

 

[aigomorla]

Unless you have gamed on a 120Hz LCD .. it's all BLAH BLAH BLAH
- i have a 30" HP 3065 2560x1600 and i wouldn't trade it ... however, we are now talking about GAMING .. not accurate reproduction of colors for Photoshop .... and for *gaming* the advantages of a 120Hz LCD for FAST PACED SHOOTERS where your FPS is over 60, is undeniable
:thumbsup:

yes i have... i used to game in 3d.... till i noticed my eyes would turn bloodshot red after a few hours like i was looking though a CRT again.
3D was fun... for a while.... but it gets played out.. and the glasses.... meh.. i hate glasses, even sun glasses.

Now if the framerates are high, vsync is always on and triple buffering too. 120Hz is no compromise for shooters (except for using a TN panel which has a much faster response anyway).

I had the high frame rates.... this is the video config for SLI:

except that ASUS used to be a Acer 120hz....

This one? ASUS 236 (23.6", get it?) If so we have the same one and the pic is from my 3D eval.

LOL i love the ASUS cuz its so BRIGHT... and it rarely runs hot... and draws less then what the sides could dream about drawing power side.

I replaced the 120hz 3d, with a 27inch LED ASUS.
I didnt have the funds for a Dell 27, but as soon as i free up some funds.. im going back to DELL...

I keep kicking myself.. because i should of just gotten the DELL 27, and paid it off later, intead of gotten the asus 27, to hold me off til i had the funds for the DELL.

 

[apoppin]

yes i have... i used to game in 3d.... till i noticed my eyes would turn bloodshot red after a few hours like i was looking though a CRT again.
3D was fun... for a while.... but it gets played out.. and the glasses.... meh.. i hate glasses, even sun glasses.



I had the high frame rates.... this is the video config for SLI:

except that ASUS used to be a Acer 120hz....



LOL i love the ASUS cuz its so BRIGHT... and it rarely runs hot... and draws less then what the sides could dream about drawing power side.
I replaced the 120hz 3d, with a 27inch LED ASUS.
I didnt have the funds for a Dell 27, but as soon as i free up some funds.. im going back to DELL...

I keep kicking myself.. because i should of just gotten the DELL 27, and paid it off later, intead of gotten the asus 27, to hold me off til i had the funds for the DELL.

i didn't compromise neither; i got a HP LP 3065 2560x1600 30" LCD for myself. As well as a 120Hz screen for the shooters and for 3D; and 3x1080p for surround/eyefinity gaming; next up would be a 3x2 Eyefinity setup.

Did you have 3D Vision or use HD3D? And if you used 3D Vision, did you use the hotkeys to adjust convergence and depth? i know without adjusting convergence 3D gets tiring.

i have never had my eyes turn red although i have got tired and headachy from playing with the 3D Vision settings out of the box - without adjusting convergence. i also tend to do marathon sessions of many hours and usually, i switch 3D off for a few minutes every hour or so (if i can't tear myself from the game to give myself a real break).

i wear prescription glasses and prefer them to contacts. So glasses are a non-issue for me. Sunglasses are NP.

 

[aigomorla]

it was 3d vision... with the nvidia active shutter glasses....

and that HP was also on my list!!!!

but i sat in front of 30 inch b4.... i seriously got lost in it... lol...
you know a monitor is big... when it makes your 24 inch 1200p look VERY SMALL!

 

[kamikazekyle]

This one? ASUS 236 (23.6", get it?) If so we have the same one and the pic is from my 3D eval.
If you don't mind me quoting myself about the color from the eval:

As long as your GF's PC can run the shooter you pick well over 60fps, it is a fair test. And i used to run mismatched LCD's in Eyefinity just to see if i liked it. i still don't like the bezels but for some games it is really cool. 3D Vision Surround even more so, if you have the right game the a really fast PC.

Yeppers, that's the one. I did an eyeball color match to my HP IPS, then later stuck a Spyder 2 pro on it. Once cablibrated properly, it's not all that bad and standalone is pretty good, sans the viewing angles. I could still tell it was missing colors, but once I was busy playing a game it went to the back of my mind. The backlight bleed was awful out of the box, but it did decrease over time. It was pretty distracting for things with black around the edges of the screen (non 16:9 movies, games, photos, etc).

I'll probably pop on L4D or HL2 and turn down some details to keep the framerate up. She has my old Q6700 and a GTX 280, which should be able to pump out 120FPS on most source engine games, especially with the frills turned down. I'm off next week, so I should be able to muck around with different monitor configs. Still not sure I'm going to fork over $60 just to try a 3x Eyefinity setup, though I'm pretty tempted.

 

[apoppin]

it was 3d vision... with the nvidia active shutter glasses....

and that HP was also on my list!!!!

but i sat in front of 30 inch b4.... i seriously got lost in it... lol...
you know a monitor is big... when it makes your 24 inch 1200p look VERY SMALL!

i dunno .. i just sit further back when playing with my 30" screen; closer on my 24". To really get screen real estate, i want to move up to 6 screens - 3x2 Eyefinity .. and i expect AMD to fully support HD3D over 6 screens with HD3D (hopefully ). Never got the red eyes from S3D, however

I'll probably pop on L4D or HL2 and turn down some details to keep the framerate up. She has my old Q6700 and a GTX 280, which should be able to pump out 120FPS on most source engine games, especially with the frills turned down. I'm off next week, so I should be able to muck around with different monitor configs. Still not sure I'm going to fork over $60 just to try a 3x Eyefinity setup, though I'm pretty tempted.

i am curious to see what you think; please let us know. And what will cost you $60?

DisplayPort adapters cost about about $30 each; i have 4 or 5 of them.

 

[kamikazekyle]

i am curious to see what you think; please let us know. And what will cost you $60?

DisplayPort adapters cost about about $30 each; i have 4 or 5 of them.

I need an active display port adapter, correct? Everything I've read on AMD and Eyefinity setups seem to indicate so.

I checked on Monoprice and those run about $69 for an active dual link miniDP->DVI. But, if I can get away with a passive single link (on the 60Hz 20" monitors, that is), I have one of those. That, or I need your source for a $30 active

 

[Karl Agathon]

Very interesting thread. As I'm considering a 120hz monitor purchase. Way more interested in the 120hz screen then the 3D capability, which is why I dont know if the price tag is worth it for me to buy one.

 

[apoppin]

I need an active display port adapter, correct? Everything I've read on AMD and Eyefinity setups seem to indicate so.

I checked on Monoprice and those run about $69 for an active dual link miniDP->DVI. But, if I can get away with a passive single link (on the 60Hz 20" monitors, that is), I have one of those. That, or I need your source for a $30 active

Nope.

i am really lazy and i will just quote my old article:

The adaptors will come in two types; a full-sized DP-to-DVI adaptor and a mini-DP-to-DVI adaptor which are electrically identical. Ours pictured above is by BizLink.
The active single-link adaptor converts a DisplayPort signal to a single-link DVI/HDMI signal and is much less complex and less expensive than a dual-link port adaptor. These active single-link adaptors can also be run on the 3.3v@500mA power supplied with a DisplayPort connection and do not require any secondary power. Best of all, these new adaptors are not plagued by the flickering that was even noticed on some (expensive) dual-link adaptors on the market now. And using an inexpensive passive adaptor was always more miss than hit. What is great about these new adaptors is that they just work – genuine plug and play Eyefinity for $30.

Very interesting thread. As I'm considering a 120hz monitor purchase. Way more interested in the 120hz screen then the 3D capability, which is why I dont know if the price tag is worth it for me to buy one.

You really need to see for yourself in a side-by-side demo - preferably at home. If you buy a 120Hz LCD, make sure the etailer has a good return policy if you are unhappy. The good thing about the glasses is that the price is down to about $80 for the wired version.

For the price of a single (overpriced special edition) PC game, 3D vision Glasses reopened my PC library (about 100 games) to me for the last ten years and i played parts of 80 games over again over 5 months (something i never do).

Of course, i got the glasses and the 3D Vision bundles from Nvidia for evaluation. And they are getting a lot of personal use by me and my friends.

 

[Karl Agathon]

Been eyeing the 120hz Alienware monitor. its a ton of $$$$ though.

 

[apoppin]

Been eyeing the 120hz Alienware monitor. its a ton of $$$$ though.

Hang on a bit. A little birdie tells me that there is going to be some improvements in the Display technology. At the least, the current tech may get cheaper. Or you may want the new tech.

http://3dvision-blog.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=14&t=1643