Need the BEST 23”-27” monitor for gaming – is IPS good enough?

[snuuggles]

two 560's would be enough yes, I can't stand 720p for desktop use, gaming however it isn't AS bad.

I use a 32" 720p TV as a monitor. I sit about 4' away, so the pixel size is not an issue, but it's very difficult to use for work (coding) because of the limited desktop area visible.

Games are fine, all modern games are programmed with 1360x768 in mind, so UI etc are completely fine. One advantage is frame rates are great!

I plan on upgrading to a 1080p 120hz display as soon as the 27" versions show up. But I know I'll need to buy and maintain a higher-cost GPU, as I'm doubling the pixel count.

I really like the idea of a 2560x1440 display that I could use for my desktop, and then pixel double and get the good frame-rates in games. But I want 120hz more... Wish I could have both!

 

[Nvidiaguy07]

I think i may try out the u2711, but im thinking about it now, am i going to need to order a new DVI cable?

Im currently using this: http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...82E16812270188
and I have another that i ordered from mono price, not sure what kind though.

I remember when I bought it it didnt matter if it was single or dual link because i was at 1080. Im pretty sure the cable is dual link, which should be good enough for this res right? (2560x1440)

 

[n7]

Nvidiaguy...from what I have been told, a GTX570 is not even enough to play at 2560x1440...

*cough* really now? *cough*

 

[mnewsham]

*cough* really now? *cough*

at full settings with 50-60fps is i think was what was meant not that it cant be played at all.

 

[Nvidiaguy07]

at full settings with 50-60fps is i think was what was meant not that it cant be played at all.

Are there benchmarks anywhere for cards at this res? And would u even need aa at that res?

 

[mnewsham]

Are there benchmarks anywhere for cards at this res? And would u even need aa at that res?

http://www.anandtech.com/bench/Product/311?vs=312


The GTX 470 is about the same as your 560ti so that is a good comparison.

 

[n7]

Are there benchmarks anywhere for cards at this res? And would u even need aa at that res?

Look @ the 2560x1600 benches AT does in all the higher end GPU reviews?

It's definitely true that for some newer games (& obviously Crysis), you can't be maxing out everything @ 2560x1600/1440.
But for most games, you can be close enough to be quite happy.

If you MUST have gobs of AA @ maximum settings, no, you can't do that well with a single GPU on all games.

 

[mnewsham]

Look @ the 2560x1600 benches AT does in all the higher end GPU reviews?

It's definitely true that for some newer games (& obviously Crysis), you can't be maxing out everything @ 2560x1600/1440.
But for most games, you can be close enough to be quite happy.

If you MUST have gobs of AA @ maximum settings, no, you can't do that well with a single GPU on all games.

If buying a setup now for games a year or 2 down the line (at this level probably 18 months between upgrades) then you should expect the level of graphics to increase, if current games cant be pushed at max settings and AA at 60fps i would only expect it to get worse as time goes by.

 

[Dkcode]

I have been using a Samsung 30T+ 30" monitor for over 2 years and it really is the Rolls Royce of screens in terms of viewing space and image quality but going from the 23" 120Hz TN back to the 30" 60Hz VA is like going from 60FPS to 30FPS. Going back to RO on the Sammy was painful - sure it looked better in terms of picture quality but everything was a blurry mess and I even noticed some input lag that never bothered me before trying the 120Hz screen.

I wall mounted the 30" Sammy and use it for everything else other than gaming.

 

[Anomaly1964]

at full settings with 50-60fps is i think was what was meant not that it cant be played at all.

Right, but who doesn't wanna play at full settings? :hmm:

 

[llamasass]

I have been using a Samsung 30T+ 30" monitor for over 2 years and it really is the Rolls Royce of screens in terms of viewing space and image quality but going from the 23" 120Hz TN back to the 30" 60Hz VA is like going from 60FPS to 30FPS. Going back to RO on the Sammy was painful - sure it looked better in terms of picture quality but everything was a blurry mess and I even noticed some input lag that never bothered me before trying the 120Hz screen.

I wall mounted the 30" Sammy and use it for everything else other than gaming.

I ended up getting the U2711 for 800, so well see how it works out, but after hearing this post, im wondering if id be better off with this:
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...82E16824009222

its cheaper and ive heard good things about it. I may just order it and then return the one i end up not liking.

Does my fps have to be over 120 to take advantage of a 120hz monitor? I dont really upgrade all that often, and dont want a monitor that would require me to.

 

[snuuggles]

I have been using a Samsung 30T+ 30" monitor for over 2 years and it really is the Rolls Royce of screens in terms of viewing space and image quality but going from the 23" 120Hz TN back to the 30" 60Hz VA is like going from 60FPS to 30FPS. Going back to RO on the Sammy was painful - sure it looked better in terms of picture quality but everything was a blurry mess and I even noticed some input lag that never bothered me before trying the 120Hz screen.

I wall mounted the 30" Sammy and use it for everything else other than gaming.

Yeah, *this* is why I finally made the call to skip the dell 27/30 inchers and wait for the new 120hz panels. I'm really, really hoping it's awesome!

 

[mnewsham]

I ended up getting the U2711 for 800, so well see how it works out, but after hearing this post, im wondering if id be better off with this:
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...82E16824009222

its cheaper and ive heard good things about it. I may just order it and then return the one i end up not liking.

Does my fps have to be over 120 to take advantage of a 120hz monitor? I dont really upgrade all that often, and dont want a monitor that would require me to.

For it to effect gameplay you will need to get higher then 60FPS but for regular desktop it will look better too.

 

[llamasass]

For it to effect gameplay you will need to get higher then 60FPS but for regular desktop it will look better too.

but will it be a barely noticeable difference if im at 70fps vs if i was at 100 or 120fps?


I'm going back and forth between the 2711 and the 23.6" 3d acer i linked before.

--------------Acer GD235HZbid-------Dell u2711
price-------------$350-----------------$800
res------------1920x1080-----------2560x1440
size--------------23.6"------------------27"
pixel pitch-------.2715-----------------.2333
refresh----------120hz-----------------60hz
3D--------------yes (not for 360)---------no
tech---------------TN -------------------IPS
gaming res (PC)--1920x1080--------1280x720 (unless I SLI)
360 res----------1920x1080--------1280x720
build quality-----decent-------------awesome
input lag---------great-----------------good
response---------2ms-------------------6ms
viewing angles--crappy----------------awesome

I think im just gonna order and play around with both.... is there anything im missing in this comparison?

 

[Dkcode]

I heard the Acer was fraught with problems. Do a bit of research before you pull the trigger.

I tried the BenQ XL2410T but hated the picture quality.

I settled on the ASUS VG236HE which is much better - its glossy but that does not bother me.

The Dell will be a real sweet monitor though - shame you can't buy both.

As for having 120FPS - you don't need that but there is a difference (to me anyway) over 60 FPS. Although 70 - 90 FPS is noticeable.

 

[Nvidiaguy07]

ended up ordering both the 2410($425+tax) and 2711($800+tax), and im going to send back the one i dont want.

I thought for sure once I tried the 2711 id want that, but I think im going to keep the 2410.

The reasons being:
*2560x1440 pc gaming is going to require me to get another video card, and then spend even more money to be able to play games in the future.

*I thought 720p gaming on the PC and 360 would look ok, but it looked terrible. I tried choosing 1080p and then stretching, but like i anticipated, it also looked bad.

*I think the color also looked a little better on the 2410 to me. They definitely looked different, im just not sure which is closer to how it should be. Here an example of the whites, I have the 2711 on the left and 2410 on the right: (I cropped out the bezels)

*Playing PC games on the 2410 looked just as good as 2711 @2560x1440. It did look a little better, but not a huge difference.

*I used the 1:1 setting for playing 360 on the 2410, and having a small band on the top and bottom isn't a big deal. Games look great, and I haven't noticed any lag.

So I'm going to stick with the 2410 until better 3d options come out. 2560x1440 is awesome, but for gaming the res is just too high.

I like having a dual monitor setup, but wouldnt want a 1080p and 1920x1200 screen, because they wouldnt line up right.

I'll give 3d a shot once these options are out:
-1920x1200res
-fully 3D capable (TV, PC, PS3, and 360)
-IPS 3d? maybe just wishful thinking, but maybe a year or two from now theyll have it.

 

[smoka]

I'm currently using an HP ZR24W ($250AR). I love the monitor so much that I'm thinking of getting 2 more for Eyfinity. Lots of praise here for the Dell U2410 series, but is it that much better. Cheapest I've seen the Dell is $400 ($150 more). Is there a significant difference when it comes to gaming?

I currently have an i7-2600k, 16GB DDR3, and a GTX460 1GB. Going to an AMD 6950 for Eyefinity or getting a 2nd GTX460 for SLI and Nvidia Surround.