If I were to upgrade my monitor/display. Recommendations please!

[d3fu5i0n]

Currently I've got an LG Flatron W2261VP. [Written as 22" but realistically a 21.5" display]

It's pretty decent, but I want something bigger.
~Gaming and Movies are what'd be used mostly on it, but even though I'm not a graphical designer, I still love to get rich colours.~
My knowledge isn't amazing in displays, and I'm not sure as to whether 2ms response time matters (as my current display has the same response time) [of course the whole "2ms - less blur" scheme is marketing talk, that's usually down to the refresh rate].

I perhaps could delve for a 120hz monitor. The BenQ 24" model [LED] or the LG 24" model [LCD].

Realistically, I'd want an LED screen, and preferably something of a size such as 26" or 27".

I was looking at the Fujitsu SL27T-1. It's an LED display, with a high contrast ratio, it's large at 27" and has HDMI connectivity for the small use of my PS3 (of course I'm a PC gamer though )
Although it seems to lack DVI, which I'm a little annoyed about.

For all I know, a 24" might suit me quite well, so the 24" BenQ 120Hz monitor might be a good choice, although it's not that visually attractive from my point of view.
I love my aesthetics, and something of the standard of my current monitor (physical aesthetics) or better would be great.

Anyhow, what would you recommend?

Thanks!

P.S. Like my current 'P' (from W2261VP) display, I'd want something non-glossy/anti-glare.
Also, are the 120Hz LG and BenQ monitors 'proper' 120Hz, or do they add in frames and just take the 60Hz from the graphics card? I've heard that e-IPS monitors more-or-less make "fakery" 120Hz monitors obsolete.

 

[mlrabbitt]

The 2ms response time being advertised is likely the gray to gray latency which is mostly irrelevant in my opinion. You will see very little ghosting (where you can see multiple frames at one time) on a modern display. 120hz is irrelevant unless you want to do 3D gaming.

Another thing to consider is that going with a higher screen size isn't always a good thing. The 1080p display you'll get on a 27" lcd is the same resolution you'll get on some 20" lcds and when you're close up to the monitor, you can start to see the individual pixels.

Depending on your budget, I would check out some IPS panels. They offer superior colors and better viewing angles than the TN panels you listed. Almost all 24" IPS panels have a 1920x1200 resolution as well which gives you more vertical real estate. Most of these displays are between 300-600 USD. I recommend the HP ZR24w. You can pick one up at macmall now for around $368 I think.

Here's a site that has very good display reviews:

http://www.tftcentral.co.uk/

 

[d3fu5i0n]

The 2ms response time being advertised is likely the gray to gray latency which is mostly irrelevant in my opinion. You will see very little ghosting (where you can see multiple frames at one time) on a modern display. 120hz is irrelevant unless you want to do 3D gaming.

Another thing to consider is that going with a higher screen size isn't always a good thing. The 1080p display you'll get on a 27" lcd is the same resolution you'll get on some 20" lcds and when you're close up to the monitor, you can start to see the individual pixels.

Depending on your budget, I would check out some IPS panels. They offer superior colors and better viewing angles than the TN panels you listed. Almost all 24" IPS panels have a 1920x1200 resolution as well which gives you more vertical real estate. Most of these displays are between 300-600 USD. I recommend the HP ZR24w. You can pick one up at macmall now for around $368 I think.

Here's a site that has very good display reviews:

http://www.tftcentral.co.uk/

1) 120Hz I thought would've helped with the ghosting of pixels, as CRTs don't have this issue due to the ray tubes themselves [can't remember the full info.] and would've put it closer to CRT pixel performance (if you understand what I mean by that). [Yes, I wasn't planning on going 3D].

2) I do understand that, although forgot about that point.

3) The reason I wanted 1920x1080 is because I can not only use my PS3 (when I do, although as I've said, I'm a PC gamer), but I also prefer the 16:9 aspect ratio.
Yes, of course, IPS panels are better, but they're expensive, budget does play a large role here, although I'd rather hear the optimal choice before thinking about the budget on a large scale [some of the time, it's good to remember that it's important].
Also, by going to 1920x1080 to 1920x1200, although a small loss, I would lose performance. In highly-resourceful games that require all the processing power from my whole system, such as the original Crysis games, Witcher 2, and the upcoming BF3 (most probably), I more-or-less need every frame I can get [but that doesn't mean I want to go lower than 1920x1080... no].

Perhaps if a 1920x1200 IPS monitor has HDMI connectivity, it would simply letterbox the PS3's output @ 1920x1080. I don't think I'd mind that if the monitor's bezel is a nice deep black which would merge with the letterboxing (if that were to happen).




P.S. Now that I think about it, I have used a 24" 1920x1200 monitor before, and I did like the 16:10 aspect ratio; as far as I can remember, it works surprisingly well for racing games; (let's you see the environment a bit more). The extra 120 vertical pixels may also help with documents and scrolling through webpages.

 

[Karstein]

120hz is irrelevant unless you want to do 3D gaming.

Incorrect. 120hz also allows you to achieve 120 FPS in games without even touching vsync, making it a fantastic choice for gaming overall.

 

[mlrabbitt]

1) 120Hz I thought would've helped with the ghosting of pixels, as CRTs don't have this issue due to the ray tubes themselves [can't remember the full info.] and would've put it closer to CRT pixel performance (if you understand what I mean by that). [Yes, I wasn't planning on going 3D].

2) I do understand that, although forgot about that point.

3) The reason I wanted 1920x1080 is because I can not only use my PS3 (when I do, although as I've said, I'm a PC gamer), but I also prefer the 16:9 aspect ratio.
Yes, of course, IPS panels are better, but they're expensive, budget does play a large role here, although I'd rather hear the optimal choice before thinking about the budget on a large scale [some of the time, it's good to remember that it's important].
Also, by going to 1920x1080 to 1920x1200, although a small loss, I would lose performance. In highly-resourceful games that require all the processing power from my whole system, such as the original Crysis games, Witcher 2, and the upcoming BF3 (most probably), I more-or-less need every frame I can get [but that doesn't mean I want to go lower than 1920x1080... no].

Perhaps if a 1920x1200 IPS monitor has HDMI connectivity, it would simply letterbox the PS3's output @ 1920x1080. I don't think I'd mind that if the monitor's bezel is a nice deep black which would merge with the letterboxing (if that were to happen).




P.S. Now that I think about it, I have used a 24" 1920x1200 monitor before, and I did like the 16:10 aspect ratio; as far as I can remember, it works surprisingly well for racing games; (let's you see the environment a bit more). The extra 120 vertical pixels may also help with documents and scrolling through webpages.

A lot of 1920x1200 displays have a scaler that can scale down and display 1080p at 16:9, obviously it won't be quite as good as having a native 1080p display though so if that's important to you, you may just want to go with 1080p. I know a lot of people who have purchased the Dell U2311H which is a 1920x1080 IPS display and has a displayport interface which makes them good for eyefinity use.

HDMI input isn't really ideal on a computer monitor because they generally don't have speakers attached to them, and if they do, they're usually poor quality so you would have to deal with splitting HDMI into DVI + whatever audio output you prefer. I don't know much about this because I've never tried it.

 

[mlrabbitt]

Incorrect. 120hz also allows you to achieve 120 FPS in games without even touching vsync, making it a fantastic choice for gaming overall.

Wrong. 120hz is the refresh rate of the display. It has nothing to do with the amount of frames per second which are decided on by the hardware producing the video. Also, 120hz was created to reduce judder, not motion blur.

 

[d3fu5i0n]

A lot of 1920x1200 displays have a scaler that can scale down and display 1080p at 16:9, obviously it won't be quite as good as having a native 1080p display though so if that's important to you, you may just want to go with 1080p. I know a lot of people who have purchased the Dell U2311H which is a 1920x1080 IPS display and has a displayport interface which makes them good for eyefinity use.

HDMI input isn't really ideal on a computer monitor because they generally don't have speakers attached to them, and if they do, they're usually poor quality so you would have to deal with splitting HDMI into DVI + whatever audio output you prefer. I don't know much about this because I've never tried it.

Hmmh, a good point, although most PS3 games run at 1280x720 anyway and are scaled up to 1920x1080 by my monitor [if I let the PS3s software {360 has hardware} scaling put 720 games up to 1080, it'll look terrible], so it's not the end of the world... and anyhow, I'm a PC gamer 99.9% of the time I game, so it's not like I care massive amounts about the PS3 usage.

Hehe I know that, and I never said I'd use my PC with HDMI. I stated in the original post that I'd use DVI. How is DP for quality? I'm not planning on going EyeFinity, no, but still... as a single display?
I'm a "light" audiophile, so I'd never plan on using built-in/integrated monitor speakers. The 2Watt drivers are pitiful, it's nearly as bad as having no audio at all!

Anyhow, back to the point... I've been looking at some IPS monitors, but most seem to be standard LCDs, with only the highly expensive ones being LED-LCD based. Even the standard ones including the HP model you suggested are incredibly expensive. It's not as cheap as it should be here in the UK compared to the US Amazon link you gave me. I think that was something around $370 or $380 and on the UK Amazon site [other places are cheaper; although not by much] it was £340... I think...

Can you try and find me a 'real-life' image, side-by-side comparing a 16:9 21.5" monitor (usually marketed as 22" such as mine) and a 24" 16:10 please. It'd be a great help for me to compare the space that I have to put the display.

 

[mlrabbitt]

Hmmh, a good point, although most PS3 games run at 1280x720 anyway and are scaled up to 1920x1080 by my monitor [if I let the PS3s software {360 has hardware} scaling put 720 games up to 1080, it'll look terrible], so it's not the end of the world... and anyhow, I'm a PC gamer 99.9% of the time I game, so it's not like I care massive amounts about the PS3 usage.

Hehe I know that, and I never said I'd use my PC with HDMI. I stated in the original post that I'd use DVI. How is DP for quality? I'm not planning on going EyeFinity, no, but still... as a single display?
I'm a "light" audiophile, so I'd never plan on using built-in/integrated monitor speakers. The 2Watt drivers are pitiful, it's nearly as bad as having no audio at all!

Anyhow, back to the point... I've been looking at some IPS monitors, but most seem to be standard LCDs, with only the highly expensive ones being LED-LCD based. Even the standard ones including the HP model you suggested are incredibly expensive. It's not as cheap as it should be here in the UK compared to the US Amazon link you gave me. I think that was something around $370 or $380 and on the UK Amazon site [other places are cheaper; although not by much] it was £340... I think...

Can you try and find me a 'real-life' image, side-by-side comparing a 16:9 21.5" monitor (usually marketed as 22" such as mine) and a 24" 16:10 please. It'd be a great help for me to compare the space that I have to put the display.

Displayport doesn't offer anything better in picture quality. It just allows for more bandwidth. Currently, the only reason to use Displayport, at least that I know of, is if you are outputting video from an Apple computer or if you are using an Eyefinity graphics card.

In regards to your question about "standard LCDs", all of the displays mentioned so far are LCDs. LED LCD refers to the backlight technology. Currently, the only LED backlit IPS panels I know of are the Apple 27" display, one of the newer LG Flatron lines, and some Hazro displays. Info pulled from here:

http://www.overclock.net/monitors-displays/835479-rgb-led-backlit-ips-monitors.html

I don't know much about the topic of LED backlit IPS panels but these guys seem to have some insight.^

You're on your own for finding a side by side shot of those two displays. All I can really offer is what the difference between the two display resolutions amounts to:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/44/Vector_Video_Standards5.svg

 

[Emultra]

120hz is a dealmaker feature for gaming, coming from someone who actually uses it. Sure, it's smaller, and the colors aren't quite as good, and the viewing angles and black levels are inferior to IPS. But the 120hz is worth it all. Incomparable speed and smoothness. It's almost like going from software to hardware accelerated rendering, which is a difference that anyone who saw it for the first time in the 90's remembers well.

Don't pay attention to disinformation. If you want to design and watch movies, your requirements may lead you elsewhere but making an informed decision requires actual information.

 

[mlrabbitt]

120hz is a dealmaker feature for gaming, coming from someone who actually uses it. Sure, it's smaller, and the colors aren't quite as good, and the viewing angles and black levels are inferior to IPS. But the 120hz is worth it all. Incomparable speed and smoothness. It's almost like going from software to hardware accelerated rendering, which is a difference that anyone who saw it for the first time in the 90's remembers well.

Don't pay attention to disinformation. If you want to design and watch movies, your requirements may lead you elsewhere but making an informed decision requires actual information.

What are you talking about? Your monitor does not change your fps. If you're getting 10 fps from your video card, making the monitor refresh 12 times for each of those frames is not going to make the game playable. Please go tell your Best Buy co-workers that marketing numbers /= performance. Here is a thread on this topic from avsforum with knowledgeable people if you don't believe me.

http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=917973

 

[Karstein]

You realize they are talking about 120hz TVs, which is a completely different matter, right?

http://forums.anandtech.com/showthread.php?t=2156837
http://www.tomshardware.com/forum/290737-33-120hz-displaying-60hz-refresh-rate

 

[d3fu5i0n]

What are you talking about? Your monitor does not change your fps. If you're getting 10 fps from your video card, making the monitor refresh 12 times for each of those frames is not going to make the game playable. Please go tell your Best Buy co-workers that marketing numbers /= performance. Here is a thread on this topic from avsforum with knowledgeable people if you don't believe me.

http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=917973

Heh, I know how LED backlighting works (Well, normal forum situations are that we all underestimate each others' capabilities and generally mistunderstand what each other means, lol ).

Although I do agree with Emultra on the point of 120Hz being smoother, but yet again, I've also heard that GPUs only 'truly' input at 60Hz and fakery-frames are slipped in-between to make it 120Hz; but I'm not sure on which is really true.

Although, 60Hz does fine for me as a gamer really... I'm not a "competitive" gamer, so I would like my colours to be really good

Viewing angles are of some importance, as I sit on my sofa in my mini-gaming room (yeah, I know, I'm a teen and I get a study/my computer-gaming/movie room. lol), which is quite a distance away from being directly opposite my monitor.

But what is best for colours? IPS LCDs or LED LCDs? (generally, as different contrast ratios and other variables come into play that can make a difference).

Something for films would be good though [I do watch anime as well; surprisingly, colours are important in that ], as well as gaming.

There are lots of things to consider, really...

And, although you reminded me about being able to see the pixels on larger screens, don't forget that: 1) I have to put my face quite close to the screen already to be able to see individual pixels, and 2) I'll be further away when watching films, so a larger display would be better for that.

Thanks yet again for replying.

 

[mlrabbitt]

You realize they are talking about 120hz TVs, which is a completely different matter, right?

http://forums.anandtech.com/showthread.php?t=2156837
http://www.tomshardware.com/forum/290737-33-120hz-displaying-60hz-refresh-rate

How is it a completely different matter? This technology is in both tvs and "monitors". Some people like how 120hz looks, some people don't. I'm just saying it's not going to affect the performance of your games.

 

[d3fu5i0n]

Hmmh, I've been looking at this.

1.5" larger might be quite nice.

http://www.lg.com/uk/it-products/monitors/LG-led-monitor-IPS236V.jsp

It's an LED IPS display. Stunning aesthetics, still 1920x1080 and has HDMI [everything I wanted], a brilliant contrast ratio.
And... it's brilliant for the price (around £166-£167).

Although, is 8ms (GTG) response time an issue for gaming [PC]?

 

[mlrabbitt]

Heh, I know how LED backlighting works (Well, normal forum situations are that we all underestimate each others' capabilities and generally mistunderstand what each other means, lol ).

Although I do agree with Emultra on the point of 120Hz being smoother, but yet again, I've also heard that GPUs only 'truly' input at 60Hz and fakery-frames are slipped in-between to make it 120Hz; but I'm not sure on which is really true.

Although, 60Hz does fine for me as a gamer really... I'm not a "competitive" gamer, so I would like my colours to be really good

Viewing angles are of some importance, as I sit on my sofa in my mini-gaming room (yeah, I know, I'm a teen and I get a study/my computer-gaming/movie room. lol), which is quite a distance away from being directly opposite my monitor.

But what is best for colours? IPS LCDs or LED LCDs? (generally, as different contrast ratios and other variables come into play that can make a difference).

Something for films would be good though [I do watch anime as well; surprisingly, colours are important in that ], as well as gaming.

There are lots of things to consider, really...

And, although you reminded me about being able to see the pixels on larger screens, don't forget that: 1) I have to put my face quite close to the screen already to be able to see individual pixels, and 2) I'll be further away when watching films, so a larger display would be better for that.

Thanks yet again for replying.

You seem to be torn between a good monitor for PC gaming and a good all-purpose tv.

Also, I think you're getting confused with backlight technologies and panel technologies. We're comparing IPS panels to TN panels. IPS panels have better colors and better viewing angles. TN panels are what you find in most monitors and tvs. There's nothing wrong with them, just slightly lower quality, so if screen size is more important to you than picture quality (nothing to be ashamed of), then I would go for that.

If you're looking for a recommendation, I've only used the HP and Dell IPS panels so I can only personally vouch for those. Any TN panel from a major manufacturer will probably suit you well. Look around though, check out the Anandtech reviews. They're pretty thorough.

 

[Karstein]

How is it a completely different matter? This technology is in both tvs and "monitors". Some people like how 120hz looks, some people don't. I'm just saying it's not going to affect the performance of your games.

Because they work in a completely different way. Read the threads.

Meanwhile, I'm off to play Quake Live at 120 FPS.

 

[d3fu5i0n]

Because they work in a completely different way. Read the threads.

Meanwhile, I'm off to play Quake Live at 120 FPS.

Lol, you two are having quite a bit of a ramble here

Funny joke about Quake though
But the good thing about it is the ability to go over 60FPS without screen-tearing [V-Sync is an annoyance with cursor/mouse-input lag; no one in their right mind (unless casual racing games... usually) would use V-Sync. It has it's uses from time to time, but not really :hmm: )].

 

[akahoovy]

Most LCD TVs that say they offer 120hz refresh rates (or higher) are using filler frames and still are really only taking in a 60hz signal.

Monitors that are usable for 3D movies or games ARE 120hz, whether you use them for 3D or not.

 

[Karstein]

Lol, you two are having quite a bit of a ramble here

Funny joke about Quake though
But the good thing about it is the ability to go over 60FPS without screen-tearing [V-Sync is an annoyance with cursor/mouse-input lag; no one in their right mind (unless casual racing games... usually) would use V-Sync. It has it's uses from time to time, but not really :hmm: )].

Just trust that 120hz monitors are far from 'irrelevant' for non-3D gaming and you won't want to go back once you pick one up. Check some of the other threads on AT about them, or this one on Hardforum:

http://hardforum.com/showthread.php?t=1496801

 

[mlrabbitt]

Because they work in a completely different way. Read the threads.

Meanwhile, I'm off to play Quake Live at 120 FPS.

You're right sorry, I was not familiar with the concept of true 120hz vs frame interpolation. I still don't think it makes enough of a difference to want this feature over a similarly priced IPS panel without it though.

 

[d3fu5i0n]

You're right sorry, I was not familiar with the concept of true 120hz vs frame interpolation. I still don't think it makes enough of a difference to want this feature over a similarly priced IPS panel without it though.

Yep, and that 23" LED IPS monitor seems to have good write-ups.
Funny that it's an LG like my current display.

Here's a good write-up: http://www.pcmonitors.org/reviews/lg-ips236v-review-by-prad-de

 

[Karstein]

You're right sorry, I was not familiar with the concept of true 120hz vs frame interpolation. I still don't think it makes enough of a difference to want this feature over a similarly priced IPS panel without it though.

No worries. And it really depends what you are looking for from your panel. For gamers who are focused on the best responsiveness possible and are ok with sacrificing certain elements of image quality, you can't really beat 120hz.

 

[d3fu5i0n]

Looking into information behind that monitor, I believe it's 5ms and for Grey-to-Grey it's the 8ms. The standard 5ms part wasn't on the LG website.

I think I might go for it!

 

[mlrabbitt]

Looking into information behind that monitor, I believe it's 5ms and for Grey-to-Grey it's the 8ms. The standard 5ms part wasn't on the LG website.

I think I might go for it!

Here's a video of someone comparing that model with an older TN:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yjmCKbhARJg

It appears that this uses the same panel as the Dell I referred to earlier. Seems like a good value but I don't know enough about this display to really comment.

 

[d3fu5i0n]

Here's a video of someone comparing that model with an older TN:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yjmCKbhARJg

It appears that this uses the same panel as the Dell I referred to earlier. Seems like a good value but I don't know enough about this display to really comment.

Uh, I saw that video a while ago [today].
Thanks anyway! I appreciate you going to look.
Hmmh, at least it's overall a 5ms monitor. Will be fine for gaming, and great for films. I only play multiplayer online with particular games [HL2: DM, MW2 and a few others], so the 8ms GTG isn't so bad. But for films/movies, the colours, especially as it's an LED, should be great, with the viewing angles so I can still sit on my sofa and see the screen perfectly!

Think I'll go for it (as long as you feel that it's a good option and that I'm not making a silly purchase).

EDIT: Purchased it anyway, due to the amazing specs for the price, the jump from what display I have now, and overall... the good reviews. Looking forward to it. Thanks to all you guys for help, especially 'mlrabbitt'.