Eizo gaming monitor survey

Despoiler

Golden Member
Nov 10, 2007
1,967
772
136
Why would you want G-Sync on say the FORGIS FG2421? The biggest problem with G-Sync is you can't have dynamic refresh and strobe backlight working at the same time. The main selling point of the FG2421 is the Turbo mode.
 

Gryz

Golden Member
Aug 28, 2010
1,551
204
106
We understand that G-Sync is not compatible with anti-motion-blur techniques. Because today's strobe-lights flash at a fixed frequency.

But it would be nice to have both feautures in one monitor. And be able to toggle between them. The player then has the choice to enable one of the two, depending on which game he is playing. If he's playing a new game, which is very demanding on the videocard, and would not get over 60 fps, then he can opt to use G-Sync. He will have low framerates and motion blur. But at least his game will be smooth. If he's playing an older game (or a game where he sets the gfx settings to low), he can enable anti-motion-blur.

It would be best of both worlds.

For me the problem with the EIZO24 is that it is 24 inch. I got too accustomed to 27" now. I don't want to go to a smaller screen. If EIZO would make a 27" monitor with Turbo240, I would probably buy it. Even when it's over 500 euros.
 

Despoiler

Golden Member
Nov 10, 2007
1,967
772
136
We understand that G-Sync is not compatible with anti-motion-blur techniques. Because today's strobe-lights flash at a fixed frequency.

But it would be nice to have both feautures in one monitor. And be able to toggle between them. The player then has the choice to enable one of the two, depending on which game he is playing. If he's playing a new game, which is very demanding on the videocard, and would not get over 60 fps, then he can opt to use G-Sync. He will have low framerates and motion blur. But at least his game will be smooth. If he's playing an older game (or a game where he sets the gfx settings to low), he can enable anti-motion-blur.

It would be best of both worlds.

For me the problem with the EIZO24 is that it is 24 inch. I got too accustomed to 27" now. I don't want to go to a smaller screen. If EIZO would make a 27" monitor with Turbo240, I would probably buy it. Even when it's over 500 euros.

I don't think there is a use case for a gamer that has $550 dollars for an Eizo + $200 for G-Sync, but doesn't have the money for a rig that can sustain at least 60fps.
 

blackened23

Diamond Member
Jul 26, 2011
8,548
2
0
This is quite surprising, because Eizo was completely focused on the prosumer and professional markets in the past. Not that i'm complaining or anything.

That said, Europe would probably benefit from this more than the states, Eizo screens are extremely difficult to find here. And those you could find where expensive due to importing costs and all that sort of thing. At least they were in years past, not sure if that changed recently.
 

Gryz

Golden Member
Aug 28, 2010
1,551
204
106
a rig that can sustain at least 60fps.
That depends on the game.
And you don't need 60 fps for optimal anti-blur, you need 120 fps (or at least 100 fps if you can strobe at 100 Hz).

There will always be games that will not run at 120 fps with ultra graphics settings. Even at 1920x1080.

I don't mind spending 500+ euro on a good monitor. Especially if that monitor will last me 5-8 years. But I will not buy 2x 500+ euro videocards in CF/SLI. And I will certainly not replace them every year.
 

bystander36

Diamond Member
Apr 1, 2013
5,154
132
106
People act as if 60 FPS is the holy grail of FPS. G-sync is great for all FPS between 30 and ~140. 60 FPS doesn't take away the desire for G-sync.
 

Tristor

Senior member
Jul 25, 2007
314
0
71
Awesome, I submitted my thoughts. Personally, G-Sync is cool but not a priority for me. My main requirements when I'm looking at a monitor are 1. color quality (especially blacks, so local dimming is important for LED backlit monitors) 2. PPI (preferably highest resolution possible in <=24", so 4K in 23.8" such as the UP2414Q is nice) 3. Minimal input lag 4. Refresh rate (minimum 60Hz, preferably higher).

Currently from what's available on the market my next monitor is probably going to be a UP2414Q, but I'm waiting to see what else hits the streets. I'd much rather shell out a little more dosh for an Ezio vs a Dell though, because I've been extremely impressed with the professional displays Eizo makes and I think a solid gaming monitor from them would be better than anything I could buy from anyone else most likely.

As far as cost considerations go, I consider a monitor to be one of the most important parts of my overall system. I will happily shell out $1k+ for a quality monitor and if needed build a system around driving it capably. At the end of the day, computers are just input/output devices. So input peripherals and output peripherals are the most important parts of the system.
 
Last edited:

Gloomy

Golden Member
Oct 12, 2010
1,469
21
81
Well, I don't know about spending 1k for a monitor. But for me, I want to game on a 27" monitor.

And if it's not IPS or similar, then it's unbearable for me. On big monitors, the TN-ness of TN panels is exacerbated to such an extent I can't even surf the internet without it becoming an issue.

I'm not a fan of spending money. But the first company to deliver a high resolution, high refresh rate, 27" or bigger, wide viewing angle display will probably earn themselves a purchase from me. If it's like two thousand dollars... well, it'll hurt. But I'll pony up. :|

I've been toying with the idea of replacing the internals on my monitor with some that can overclock the panel. I'll probably go with this.
 

Hauk

Platinum Member
Nov 22, 2001
2,806
0
0
People act as if 60 FPS is the holy grail of FPS. G-sync is great for all FPS between 30 and ~140. 60 FPS doesn't take away the desire for G-sync.

It kinda always has been, with many hit titles driving one to achive it, hell I've always been happy w/vsync
 

bystander36

Diamond Member
Apr 1, 2013
5,154
132
106
It kinda always has been, with many hit titles driving one to achive it, hell I've always been happy w/vsync
I personally find 80 FPS to be the point I no longer desire higher FPS.

However, there are problems with a constant 80 FPS with V-sync related to latency and DirectX, that G-sync does not have.