Looking for a 120Hz LCD

[thetuna]

I'm finally getting rid of the lcd tv I've been calling a monitor.
I would really like to get a 120Hz monitor and I think I have narrowed it down to these two:
Acer GD235HZ
ASUS VG236HE

These two are $1 different on amazon and both have fairly good reviews.

I was wondering if anyone could push me in either direction, or even recommend something completely different(in the <$400 range).

 

[Griffinhart]

I have the Acer GD235HZ that I got specifically for 3D gaming, though, I really have buyers remorse about it.

IMHO, if you are looking for 3D games you'll be fine with either. The Acer is good for what it is. But, 3D gaming for me has been a very occasional activity. In the year since I got it, I've only used the 3D features a handful of time, and not once in the past few months. So, considering the cost, I have buyers remorse for buying it.

For myself, if I am going to spend $300+ for a <24" LCD display I'd go for an IPS panel.

Something like: http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...82E16824116421

 

[thetuna]

Thanks for the reply.

I actually don't plan on doing any 3D gaming, but I am looking forward to 120Hz 2D gaming.

Have you noticed any improvements in day-to-day usage; such as scrolling, window dragging, etc.?

 

[Griffinhart]

I find the IPS panel better than the 120hz for gaming since my IPS panel doesn't ever ghost, but has much better color and view angles. I have both the Acer, and a 5 year old Dell IPS panel. And for everything else, the IPS panel is just owns the 120hz. I can drag a window from one screen to the other and see a noticable difference it quality in favor of the IPS.

Do yourself a favor. Go to a local store and compare an IPS panel to a 120hz. The fundimental differences are that the 120hz panels are still TN and subject to their weaknesses. If they don't have any IPS panels in display, I believe that Mac monitors are IPS. You'll see what I mean on the difference pretty easily.

Some people claim that 120hz is better for 2D gaming and come up with all sorts of subjective reasons why, but my reality is, I have yet to see any better performance on the 120hz on any games I have played, including FPS. (BF2, BF2:BC2), MMO's, RTS....

The simple truth is, Image Quality in an IPS panel is far superior to any TN panel.

 

[Pia]

I've had a 24" IPS for five years now, never used a TN panel for any length of time.

I don't really need color accuracy, and I'm definitely interested in getting movement and tracking objects on the screen more lifelike. Wish there was a store where I could do a proper comparison of how much 120hz helps with that.

In your shoes I'd seriously consider the middle-of-road options. For instance, the NEC EA231wmi is IPS but is known to run at 83Hz if you do custom settings (details at hardocp). So compared to 120Hz, you only lose 30% of the framerate but you get to keep all the IPS image quality.

 

[Griffinhart]

Let's be clear. 120Hz, does not mean 100&#37; better framerates than a 60hz panel. The refresh rates of an LCD has zero impact on the FPS you get in a game. The only things that affect framerates are your CPU, GPU and what settings you have them on.

Frankly, I think you get closer to "more life like" on an IPS panel, since proper color makes things look more real vs taring and ghosting that I have never experienced on my IPS panel and as I said, there is a noticable difference in image quality and viewing angle in favor of IPS.

That said, if someone were to choose a 120hz panel over an IPS panel, they may be perfectly happy with the choice. Especially if they've never seen a decent IPS panel in action.

Just to satisfy myself, I just loaded up Bad Company 2 and played 2 maps on line. One on the 120Hz running 1920x1080 @ 119hz and one on my Dell 2407 running 1920x1200 @ 59hz. I can't see any performance difference. I'd go as far to say that the 120hz came pretty close, over all, to the quality of the IPS for the game, though at lower resolution. But, I also tend to do every other task on the IPS panel due to the differences. Especially photo editing, Movie watching, and even surfing. There is a shocking difference of how the Acer Panel even displays text in a browser window vs the IPS panel.

I, personally, will not buy another 120Hz panel. I even intend to eventually replace it with a second IPS panel when I can justify $1400 for this.
http://accessories.us.dell.com/sna/p...ynote_irrank=0

I'd love a 30" display with higher resolution.

 

[Pia]

Let's be clear. 120Hz, does not mean 100% better framerates than a 60hz panel. The refresh rates of an LCD has zero impact on the FPS you get in a game. The only things that affect framerates are your CPU, GPU and what settings you have them on.

o_o

The max framerate arriving at your eyes through a 60Hz display is 60FPS, so as long as you have enough computing horsepower to push 120FPS, 120Hz does indeed mean you experience 100% better framerate.

While you were testing BF:BC2, was your FPS hovering near 120? To assess the real value of the 120Hz screen it should have been.

 

[Griffinhart]

Ok, I get your point, though it's a lot more complex than that when talking LCD's as it doesn't refer to how fast it repaints a full frame, but an individual pixel. A 60hz display doesn't limit your game to 60FPS max. Nor does using a 120hz LCD mean you will get higher framerates. It does mean your LCD may not be fast enough to display every change in that one second time frame.

The difference is, the vast majority of people can't notice any difference at speeds over 60hz. As an example, an incandescent lightbulb is cycling at a rate of 60hz. If your eyes are sensitive enough to sense that in a light bulb, then there is no doubt you'll have a better experience with a 120hz panel. I know in my experience, I see no gameplay difference between 60hz and 120hz. I do, however, see a massive difference in Image Quality, Viewing Angle, and Color on an IPS panel over a TN (120hz or otherwise), and anyone looking at these two monitors side by side can clearly see the differences.

Of course I wasn't getting 120FPS, but according to FRAPS, playing a single player mission averages about 80FPS for me. Yet, I saw no differences in game play, performance, ghosting, taring, etc.

Given I am running an i7 with a 580GTX video board, If I am getting far less than 120FPS for a game that is 17 months old, I seriously doubt anyone with a system of lower specs will get anywhere near 120FPS on anything released in the past couple years, and certainly not anything coming out in the future.

The end result is still the same. I, personally, can't physically see any benefit to running Bad Company 2 on my 120hz over my IPS panel. I'm not talking about what I should be experiencing because of theoretical optimal refresh rates vs FPS, but what I, personally, can observe on my actual hardware. Someone else may experience something else, but I expect that even for the most "eagle eyed" person out there, the difference would be extremely subtle.

Ultimately my point is:
If you're going to spend $300+ on a LCD display and you aren't going to play 3D, you can a 120hz monitor and have a great gaming experience but inferior usage for every other task.

Or:
If you aren't going to use 3D, you can get an IPS panel for the same money, get gaming performance that is no difference for the vast majority of people, and a superior experience for daily desktop use, Movie playback, and any other computer use.

As I said, I will never go back to a TN panel and plan to ditch my Acer 120hz for a second IPS panel as soon as I can afford it. Now, I would LOVE to see a 120hz IPS panel one day, but until that day....

 

[Pia]

I know in my experience, I see no gameplay difference between 60hz and 120hz.
...
Of course I wasn't getting 120FPS, but according to FRAPS, playing a single player mission averages about 80FPS for me.

Which means in the most critical spots, which are the framerate dips, you are at or under 60FPS. With a test like that, the 120Hz screen never had any chance to show an advantage.

For the test to make sense, turn down some settings until you average closer to 120FPS.

If you're going to spend $300+ on a LCD display and you aren't going to play 3D, you can a 120hz monitor and have a great gaming experience but inferior usage for every other task.

The important thing is that you have to have enough power to actually run at a FPS much higher than 60. If you don't, the 120Hz screen is a waste.

 

[ieatdonuts]

120 hz is a must-have for a gamer, regardless of whether you do 3d or not.

I will never go back to 60 hz. Ever.

 

[Griffinhart]

Pia, I just did as you asked. In the end, I had to set quality settings to LOW to maintain an average of 100FPS. I still saw no difference in overall movement or smoothness. And to achieve that framerate, I had to drop Textures, Level of Detail, Shadow Quality to low, turned Anti-Aliasing and Anisotrophic filter to the lowest settings. If I lower the resolution, I could probably get it to average 120FPS, but That ain't going to happen. Running non-native resolutions just looks horrible.

I tried these settings, again, both on the IPS panel at 60hz, and the 120hz panel, and motion appeared identical to me.

So, I gained jaggies, and lost detail to get more FPS that gave no visual improvement to smoothness. I have to give up too much to gain a so called benefit I can't see. Yes, it's subjective, but it's what I see when I play. At least I can say, I am actually doing a comparison.

ieatdonuts, that's your call. you clearly place your priority for a percieved benefit that can't really be demonstrated over general visual quality. More power to you. But, I am also a gamer, and I will never buy another TN panel.

It sounds like the original poster is also expecting improvements day to day usage, and even asked how much better 120hz is for dragging windows and scrolling. The answer to that is, of course, It's not, and for general computer use, an IPS panel is far better.

Now, if he is going from a 60hz TN panel to a 120hz TN panel, He will absolutely have a better experience than his old display, but for the kind of money a 120hz TN panel costs, I still say IPS is the way to go.

Almost universally, those that go IPS say they will never go back.

 

[Caerid]

Quite honestly to see the true benefits of 120hz in a game you really have to be hitting a constant 120fps.

I have both an IPS and 120hz monitor and for the faster paced games I definitely prefer to use the 120hz monitor. Color reproduction obviously isn't as great as the IPS but calibrated right it's not as bad as some people make it out to be. Unless the game you're playing is a dark game in which case I'd use my IPS.

I'd say if you play on a competitive level then I'd go for the 120hz, if you're just mostly a casual gamer then an IPS monitor would benefit you more for everyday use.

120hz is very subjective...some people just don't see/feel it for whatever reason. The only thing I can say is if you ever thought 60hz-85hz on older crt's was headache inducing to you then chances are you'll notice 120hz.

 

[darckhart]

i just want to chime in and say that i have a u2410, but have been itching to try a true 120 hz monitor for gaming especially for vsync high framerates. so, to OP, i've looked at those models too, and also the benq one. please let us know ur experience when u finally decide.

 

[Pia]

120hz is very subjective...some people just don't see/feel it for whatever reason. The only thing I can say is if you ever thought 60hz-85hz on older crt's was headache inducing to you then chances are you'll notice 120hz.

Putting the difference into perspective -

if you make a fast spin (full 180 degrees in half a second) in a first person game, at 60FPS the contents of your screen are moving about 130 pixels every single frame. At 120FPS it's just 65 pixels every frame. That has to be noticeably smoother.

Research tells us people can look at an image of an airplane that is flashed in front of them for a mere 1/220 second, and proceed to identify the model of the plane.

Even the very typical game action of shooting a pistol in average lighting conditions simply cannot be made to look realistic in 60FPS. If you show muzzle flash, at minimum it will be 1/60 seconds long. That's far too much. At 120FPS you could show muzzle flash for 1/120 seconds and that would be better - still possibly too much.

So, full 120Hz isn't enough for realism. It's a big step in the right direction though.

 

[ieatdonuts]

Quite honestly to see the true benefits of 120hz in a game you really have to be hitting a constant 120fps.

Not totally true. You will benefit at any fps - even below 60 - but you see the benefit most when your fps is above 60 and increasingly as your fps reaches 120.

That said, I agree - if you are a hardcore gamer get the 120 hz, if you are a casual then get the IPS. Casuals may not see it because they don't do the quick movements and pinpoint aiming that a hardcore player might do.

Personally I stand by what I said about 120 hz being essential for gaming. Game textures and lighting aren't flawless, so an IPS panel can only make it look so much better before the onus is on the developer to make their game look better.

Edit: That Viewsonic IPS panel appears to be 75 hz. If that's the case then it may make more sense to go IPS because hertz, like most things, suffers from diminishing marginal returns. The first 15 additional hertz from 60 to 75 are most useful, then after that it becomes less and less valuable.

 

[Zargon]

Pia, I just did as you asked. In the end, I had to set quality settings to LOW to maintain an average of 100FPS. I still saw no difference in overall movement or smoothness. And to achieve that framerate, I had to drop Textures, Level of Detail, Shadow Quality to low, turned Anti-Aliasing and Anisotrophic filter to the lowest settings. If I lower the resolution, I could probably get it to average 120FPS, but That ain't going to happen. Running non-native resolutions just looks horrible.

I tried these settings, again, both on the IPS panel at 60hz, and the 120hz panel, and motion appeared identical to me.

So, I gained jaggies, and lost detail to get more FPS that gave no visual improvement to smoothness. I have to give up too much to gain a so called benefit I can't see. Yes, it's subjective, but it's what I see when I play. At least I can say, I am actually doing a comparison.

ieatdonuts, that's your call. you clearly place your priority for a percieved benefit that can't really be demonstrated over general visual quality. More power to you. But, I am also a gamer, and I will never buy another TN panel.

It sounds like the original poster is also expecting improvements day to day usage, and even asked how much better 120hz is for dragging windows and scrolling. The answer to that is, of course, It's not, and for general computer use, an IPS panel is far better.

Now, if he is going from a 60hz TN panel to a 120hz TN panel, He will absolutely have a better experience than his old display, but for the kind of money a 120hz TN panel costs, I still say IPS is the way to go.

Almost universally, those that go IPS say they will never go back.

FWIW, some people look at IPS's and go yeah that looks a little better than my TN, but not worth the price. to each their own

 

[sMiLeYz]

120hz gaming > IPS 60hz gaming all day every day. I have the GD235hz.

I wouldn't recommended it if you don't have a system that can push out more than 60 fps. And I would keep an ips panel around for everyday browsing and such, because a TN is still a TN.

I use my dell ips screen for browsing and general internet usage, the 120hz Acer for gaming. I'm more than satisfied.

 

[thetuna]

I wrote up a nice, long reply last night and it didn't post ;__;
Anyway, thanks for all the input!

I seem to be finding the same problem everywhere I read: some people say the difference in going from 60Hz to 120Hz is as apparent as HDD to SSD, and others say it's just a gimmick.

To Griffinhart: I hope this doesn't come across as insulting, but have you set your display settings to 120Hz?

I think at this point I'm just going to get the Acer, however, if I could I would like to look one.
I'm in Connecticut, USA and there are no Microcenter's or Fry's around for hours; so if anyone knows of a store that would have things like this on display, I would appreciate it.

 

[Throckmorton]

Not totally true. You will benefit at any fps - even below 60 - but you see the benefit most when your fps is above 60 and increasingly as your fps reaches 120.

That said, I agree - if you are a hardcore gamer get the 120 hz, if you are a casual then get the IPS. Casuals may not see it because they don't do the quick movements and pinpoint aiming that a hardcore player might do.

Personally I stand by what I said about 120 hz being essential for gaming. Game textures and lighting aren't flawless, so an IPS panel can only make it look so much better before the onus is on the developer to make their game look better.

Edit: That Viewsonic IPS panel appears to be 75 hz. If that's the case then it may make more sense to go IPS because hertz, like most things, suffers from diminishing marginal returns. The first 15 additional hertz from 60 to 75 are most useful, then after that it becomes less and less valuable.

I thought no LCDs were 75hz and that the setting just existed for compatibility.

 

[ieatdonuts]

My old CCFL Dell 15 or 17" 4:3 monitor has a 75 hz display mode and the monitor's interface seems to indicate it is running at 1280 x 1024 @ 75 hz.

Not sure what is meant by "compatibility"