Expensive. I'd rather get a 24" monitor and save the rest for a GPU upgradeshlemielo said:possibly like this.
All current 120hz monitors are 1920x1080sxegloxx said:Each brand of 120hz monitor has a Native 120hz resolution. you need to start there.
All current 120hz monitors are 1920x1020
richaron said:I think of it this way: Your box should be able to pump out over 60fps a lot of the time. So a 120Hz monitor will remove one of your bottlenecks...
Later you can upgrade your GPU (& whatevs) if you want 120fps minimum.
The one you just linked is 1920x1080...
I'm curious since I have two 1920x1200 screens right now.
EDIT: I misread your message as 1920x1200. I suppose you meant 1080.
Good point. I didn't really think about it that way.
60hz with vertical sync is far better than a framerate barely over 60 and no vertical sync. You're going to have to reach 100+ fps to get rid of screen tearing so you can't really think of 60hz as a bottleneck until you have hardware that can far surpass the limitation
I was using "you" in the passive sense of "people generally"you're the one who said OP should reach 100+ fps "at slightly lowered settings" in "those" games
[Insightful poster], you're the one who said OP should reach 100+ fps "at slightly lowered settings" in "those" games. A higher Hz monitor will never be worse than the current situation; But it will take advantage of extra fps in current games & provide a nice base for future upgrades.
Oh man, calling out lehtv, this just got interesting. Someone show me how to do the popcorn emoticon...
I'd sell the 6950, they go for about $150-170 on ebay, then spend another $200+ on a GTX 670. It's nearly twice as fast in a lot of games, just as 6950 crossfire is nearly twice as fast, but in the same power envelope as a single 6950 and without the potential driver & crossfire profile issuesshlmemielo said:In case I do need an upgrade, what would you guys suggest? An additional 6950 for Crossfire, or something like a 7970/GTX 670?