Gaming monitor debate

[donwschultz]

First, let me preface by saying I am a FPS gamer, but a casual one in nature. I do not play games competitively. I own a high-end PC, as follows:

Core i7-4790K
MSI Gaming Z97M mATX mobo
16 GB DDR3-2133
ASUS Strix NVidia GeForce GTX 970
Sound Blaster Z
SanDisk Extreme Pro 480GB SSD as OS/application
SanDisk Extreme II 480GB SSD as storage/gaming files
Windows 8.1 Update 1

Currently, I own a Dell Ultra Sharp U2312 IPS display and have been quite spoiled by it. However, it does ghost some and I am looking to match my video card with a more "gaming" oriented monitor.

Having looked around at various monitor reviews, I narrowed my choices to two TN panel gaming displays:

AOC G2460PG G-Sync 144Hz monitor with DP only
BenQ XL2430T 144Hz monitor with DVI and DP (HDMI and VGA as well..)

Now, according to Tom's Hardware, the AOC is a good gaming monitor and of course has G-Sync. That said, the better picture quality goes to the BenQ. This assumes both have been calibrated correctly, of course. In fact, the BenQ has been described as the equivalent of IPS in regards to color accuracy and contrast but just not in viewing angles. I understand the viewing angle limitation of a TN panel...I have been building PCs for 22 years.

My internal debate is whether to get the AOC with G-Sync and sacrifice some color and contrast for a totally seamless gaming experience, or go with the BenQ and find a way to deal with micro stutter and tearing. I am aware of Adaptive V Sync and have used it in my current setup but do not know much about Adaptive (half refresh) V Sync whatever that is....

I benched my current system with Unigine Heaven and Valley and both are coming up at around:

30 FPS min
58 FPS avg
112 FPS max

This is with the ULTRA preset, 8xAA and Tesselation set to moderate in Heaven. The same settings are used in Valley, but Tesselation is not a option to choose. The resolution is 1080p in both cases, and this is the resolution I game at. I intend to play older FPS titles like the Crysis franchise and the newer Far Cry, for example. Maybe even some Serious Sam BFE.

It seems clear to me that a monitor capable of 144Hz would not even be fully utilized on my system. I have no intention of doing SLI.

Which direction would you go? When indicating which direction you would head in, especially if it is the BenQ, how would you set it up to get the best gaming experience from it knowing I won't likely hit 144 Hz as I intend to turn all of the eye candy up and it does not support G-Sync (ie, how would you get around the micro stutter or screen tearing)?

You have probably all been asked these questions before, and perhaps I am overthinking this. However, I am about to drop $400 to $500 and this does merit some question asking and research.

Thanks in advance.

Oh, PS...it has been a while since I have sat in front of a TN panel. Just how much post IPS shock/letdown am I going to experience?

 

[Pandamonia]

I think TN is crap.

Personally im waiting for the 4k G Sync monitor from Asus IPS display

Pair that up with a 990 GTX GPU ill finally have space for a proper sound card.

 

[donwschultz]

I think TN is crap.

Personally im waiting for the 4k G Sync monitor from Asus IPS display

Pair that up with a 990 GTX GPU ill finally have space for a proper sound card.

Well, other than viewing angles the folks at Tom's think the BenQ is every bit the equal of an IPS display. However, I tend to agree with the generalization that TN is crap! That is why I have IPS now.

BUT, as you know IPS just does not cut it for absolute input lag and response time.

Unless you know of a IPS monitor that gets these down to reasonable levels, that is. Of course I would be dealing with any associated tearing or micro-stutter and said panel is probably going to be 60 Hz.

Thanks.

 

[Despoiler]

Eizo Foris FG2421 is your answer. You don't need G-Sync/F-Sync for 1080p gaming when you have a good rig. You can't run strobing in those modes. You have to pick your poison right now. Tearing, which is going to minimal to non-existent with your rig @ 1080p or persistence. Persistence is what you want to remove ahead of anything else if you are an FPS gamer.

 

[kasakka]

I think TN is crap.

The latest 8-bit TN panels are very good. Their only flaw right now is pretty much vertical viewing angles. I moved from a professional IPS display to an ASUS ROG Swift and have been very happy with its image quality.

I'd also say G-Sync and ULMB are worth their price, though at the moment it might be best to wait for the adaptive sync displays to hit the market as that will hopefully drive down the prices of the G-Sync stuff as well.

The way I use my monitor is that for fast paced games (mostly FPS games that run at 60+ fps on GTX 970 SLI) I use ULMB and for everything else G-Sync.

 

[Headfoot]

I think TN is crap.

Want a trophy?

Objective, reliable measurements show this is not universally true. Stop spreading this junk. Some TN panels suck at color production and viewing angles. Some are pretty decent. Nearly all TN panels have faster response times, higher refresh rates, lower blur, lower ghosting, lower persistence than IPS.

tl:dr; no.

 

[Pandamonia]

Want a trophy?

Objective, reliable measurements show this is not universally true. Stop spreading this junk. Some TN panels suck at color production and viewing angles. Some are pretty decent. Nearly all TN panels have faster response times, higher refresh rates, lower blur, lower ghosting, lower persistence than IPS.

tl:dr; no.

Ive had both and seen both and dealt with TN for a long time.

Soon as you go 27" the corners start to go dark no matter how good the screen is.

I love IPS and i dont see ghosting and im going 4k and g sync next on IPS

 

[Headfoot]

I'd suggest checking out a 120hz monitor running at 120hz in real life. Even just moving your cursor across the desktop looks way better in a way that's hard to appreciate without actually having seen it

 

[TheSlamma]

Ive had both and seen both and dealt with TN for a long time.

Soon as you go 27" the corners start to go dark no matter how good the screen is.

I love IPS and i dont see ghosting and im going 4k and g sync next on IPS

Accidentally come into a GAMING monitor thread?

How many frames per second do you plan on running and what games are you playing if any.

 

[amenx]

Good TNs nowadays are not the same as TNs of old. Good ones now come in 8-bit, improved viewing angles and of course superior pixel response. TNs got a bad rap due to the mediocre to terrible ones in mass circulation a few years ago. People need to ditch the widespread mantra that all TNs are bad. Technology moves forward and with it come improvements. I have IPS, PLS and a TN panel which - for me - looks just as good as the others, in fact I prefer it in some cases.

 

[TemjinGold]

Out of curiosity, what should one look for as hallmarks of a good TN? I've seen someone mention (or I could've misunderstood) a 10-bit TN as well. I really want to know because I'm pondering a monitor purchase myself (had my eyes on some of those 34" 21:9 curved screens) and had been under the assumption all TNs are crap. If that isn't the case anymore, I would love to educate myself some on the matter and not exclude them without proper consideration.

 

[amenx]

Actually not many are 8 or 10 bit. The Asus ROG Swift (8-bit) and Samsung U28D590D (10-bit) come to mind but no others I'm aware of. Hopefully we see more in near future. I think currently the established IPS and its variants are still the way to go. 34" 21:9 displays are nice but I would need to see one in a store and examine it closely before buying. I hear these may have more light bleed issues than others (due to the wide panel), but could be wrong. But for gaming as a priority, some of the 120/144hz TNs are a viable option. I have a glossy Samsung S27A950D 120hz TN bought 3 years ago and love it. Even though its 6-bit +FRC it looks just as good as my IPS/PLS displays, only thing that bugs me about it is its 1080p.

 

[Murloc]

I'm asking myself these questions as well, maybe one day I'll phone the shop and drive 20 min just to look at screens and move windows around and see what's more important for me.

I'm torn between buying a 1440p 27'' 60Hz IPS or waiting for 120 Hz adaptive sync IPS panels to go mainstream (I'm not willing to spend more than $500 and that's what a 1440p 27'' 60Hz IPS costs now).

 

[Pandamonia]

Accidentally come into a GAMING monitor thread?

How many frames per second do you plan on running and what games are you playing if any.

i have been online gaming for 20 years back since the days of Subspace.

Im planning on running 4K up to 60 FPS with a 990 GTX when it comes out.

Resolution and colour is king for me. Response is not that important when you get to 5ms pixel response. I play FPS and i dont see any downside to IPS. I think the issue are internet warriors who think milliseconds are going to make any difference to their kill death ratio are delusional. My Ping can vary between 22ms and 250ms depending on what the network is doing and where the server is. So a few ms are not going to affect anything. On the flip side though having the colour distorted at the corners and edges of the screen and a crappy viewing angle will negatively affect my enjoyment and negate the huge money i have spent to ramp up my gfx to maximum.

I am really not interested in gaming at 1080p and we wont see 120hz at 4k for a very long time so really high hz gaming is for people playing CSGO and i personally hate that game.

 

[donwschultz]

Eizo Foris FG2421 is your answer. You don't need G-Sync/F-Sync for 1080p gaming when you have a good rig. You can't run strobing in those modes. You have to pick your poison right now. Tearing, which is going to minimal to non-existent with your rig @ 1080p or persistence. Persistence is what you want to remove ahead of anything else if you are an FPS gamer.

Thank you. I will check out this monitor. You indicate that G-Sync will be of no real benefit to me. Would you please expand on that? Also, I assume you mean by persistence=input lag/pixel response time?

 

[cmdrdredd]

Thank you. I will check out this monitor. You indicate that G-Sync will be of no real benefit to me. Would you please expand on that? Also, I assume you mean by persistence=input lag/pixel response time?

I think that g-sync really benefits people most when they are running games below their refresh rate. It eliminates the stuttering that sometimes happens when you drop fps.

 

[donwschultz]

I think that g-sync really benefits people most when they are running games below their refresh rate. It eliminates the stuttering that sometimes happens when you drop fps.

Well, in my case if I pick up a 144Hz display, then I can expect stutter at nearly all times. The benchmarks I ran indicate I will spend a lot of time at 60 to 80 FPS, but the true average is 58 FPS according to the benches. I guess this is where the Adaptive VSync (half-refresh rate) comes in? What exactly is it, and how would it work in comparison to the regular NVidia Adaptive VSync?

 

[bystander36]

I think the issue are internet warriors who think milliseconds are going to make any difference to their kill death ratio are delusional. My Ping can vary between 22ms and 250ms depending on what the network is doing and where the server is. So a few ms are not going to affect anything.

This is where you got it all wrong. While some people may think the few ms is helping them respond to an action, that isn't what it helps. What people who have high refresh rates and FPS know, is that it helps your ability to track targets much easier. Your mouse if far more responsive feeling, and goes where you tell it to much better than at low FPS and refresh rates.

It's about your ability to aim smooth and rapidly, not about pressing fire.

 

[donwschultz]

I am a lone FPS gamer. I do not on-line game. Ping times over a TCP/IP connection are irrelevant to me.

What this comes down to is what monitor is the best match for my GTX 970. I spent some money on it, and to be tied to a 60Hz refresh rate (therefore no more than 60 FPS on the screen) is somewhat objectionable. That is the real issue for me.

 

[donwschultz]

It would seem the dilemma is solved by sacrificing a little on color and contrast and going with G-Sync. That would be the AOC.

The AOC is the least expensive G-Sync 144Hz display available, from what I can determine. BenQ does have a nice version of the above (in the thread) TN monitor with G-Sync as well, but street price for that is $589. That is about $100 over budget for me.

 

[donwschultz]

Unless someone has some other ideas....

I did check into the Eizo...too much money and some QC concerns to boot.

 

[donwschultz]

Out of curiosity, what should one look for as hallmarks of a good TN? I've seen someone mention (or I could've misunderstood) a 10-bit TN as well. I really want to know because I'm pondering a monitor purchase myself (had my eyes on some of those 34" 21:9 curved screens) and had been under the assumption all TNs are crap. If that isn't the case anymore, I would love to educate myself some on the matter and not exclude them without proper consideration.

As with any monitor (TN or IPS or what have you) the hallmarks of a good one are good professional level reviews and user reviews where they are sold which is usually indicative of QC at the manufacturer level.

But, in general, an actual calibrated contrast ratio of 1000:1 or better, low TOTAL input lag, how tight the color tracking is as indicated by the gamma curve, and the amount of the color gamut the display will show you (Adobe or sRGB). Pretty much the same hallmarks that are indicative of a great TN display are applicable to any other display as long as you understand the inherent idiosyncrasies of each type of panel technology. With TN, the inherent issue is viewing angle. With IPS, e-IPS, or AH-IPS, the inherent issue is total input lag and pixel response time (full black to white transition...not grey to grey). These are just some examples.

 

[TemjinGold]

Thanks. Any idea if my current TV (in sig) is TN? I would think it is but I'm not seeing the viewing angle thing (unless I'm looking at that wrong).

 

[therealnickdanger]

If it means anything, I upgraded my finely calibrated FW900 (regarded as the best CRT monitor ever made) to a finely calibrated ASUS VG248QE (144Hz). I went from 1200p@96Hz to 1080p@144Hz and it has been wonderful. The ASUS can't match the Sony for black levels, but not much can.

My only regret is that it is not G-Sync. Get the 144Hz G-Sync display.

 

[donwschultz]

Thanks. Any idea if my current TV (in sig) is TN? I would think it is but I'm not seeing the viewing angle thing (unless I'm looking at that wrong).

I do not know what panels are behind TVs, other than some are LCD (LED backlit or CCFL), plasma, or OLED. As for which one uses TN, if any, I am not even remotely qualified to answer that one. Sorry!