Only 2 24'' 120hz gaming monitors on the market?

[Mek.]

Hello Mark,

I recently purchased a XFX 7970 card and a VG240QE for my new PC. I still haven't put everything together as I'm waiting for some parts to arrive.

I was wondering if there is any hope for me to experience this lightboost goodness? Do I have no option other than exchanging the AMD for a Nvidia card?

 

[Mark Rejhon]

I just bought a new LCD and honestly didn't care to get 120hz. Got an Asus 27" and I'm happy with it. I didn't prefer 120hz on my old CRTs, I usually set them to 75hz. On LCDs, I find their native 60hz to be as pleasant as 75hz was on CRTs.

Actually, 120fps@120Hz on a CRT does not have less motion blur than 75fps@75Hz. That's because the phosphor decay time is unaffected, and thus, the true response time (MPRT measurment standard) is unaffected. There are less stroboscopic effects, and less wagon-wheel effects, the image looks slightly more solid and flicker free, and less input lag. 75fps@75Hz also looks better than 75fps@120Hz on a CRT, if you don't care about input lag. But there's very little to no difference in blur.

With LCD, it's a totally different story. Each refresh on an LCD is statically displayed for the whole refresh. So the true response time (MPRT measurement method) halves everytime you double refresh rate (again, provided the LCD panel native pixel transitions (the response rating LCD makers use) are complete in less than one refresh; otherwise it can create MPRT's that are larger than the length of a sample-and-hold refresh).

So as a result, during fps=Hz motion:

LCD 60fps@60Hz -- baseline
LCD 120fps@120Hz -- 50% less motion blur than LCD 60Hz
LCD 144fps@144Hz -- 60% less motion blur than LCD 60Hz
LightBoost 120fps@120Hz (2.4ms strobes, 100%) -- 85% less motion blur than LCD 60Hz
LightBoost 120fps@120Hz (1.4ms strobes, 10%) -- 92% less motion blur than LCD 60Hz

While for CRT, during fps=Hz motion:

CRT 60Hz -- baseline
CRT 120fps@120Hz -- no difference in motion blur. Just more solid/less flicker

You cannot use your CRT 60Hz-vs-120Hz experience, for comparing LCD 60Hz-vs-120Hz, because of the sample-and-hold effect. Raising Hz on an LCD has a far more dramatic effect than it does on a CRT, because of LCD being hampered by the sample-and-hold effect.

Motion blur is dictated by the length of time a frame is displayed onscreen (including all sample-and-hold effects). Shortening the length of time a frame is displayed, is done by two things: Increased Hz (benefits LCD more), or increasing the black period between refreshes (this is what CRT already does by nature: flicker). Plasma, CRT, LightBoost, black frame insertion, and other methods of adding blackness between refreshes, are methods of reducing motion blur, without needing higher Hz.

 

[Mark Rejhon]

I was wondering if there is any hope for me to experience this lightboost goodness? Do I have no option other than exchanging the AMD for a Nvidia card?

ToastyX recently publicly posted in one of the forums that he'd have an easy LightBoost utility for ATI users later this month, without needing the Geforce hotplug method.

That said, Blur Busters only officially suppots nVidia products for LightBoost.

 

[bunnyfubbles]

But you are the minority is the whole point. Reason why you don't see 120hz monitors being popular. The whole "micro stuttering" or tearing is not experienced by most gamers.

that's completely different, 120Hz vs. 60Hz is a difference where you should probably be considered legally blind if you cannot see and feel the difference (and I have pretty bad eyesight) or Forest Gump level intelligence (ie trying to run a game @ 30fps on a 120Hz monitor and then claiming no difference)

I'd wager a ton of money that the reason people don't adopt 120Hz is largely out of ignorance first and foremost (likely because they don't want to believe it really is that good because of the 2nd point), and 2nd because its cost prohibitive; the average POS LCD a lot of gamers play on is easily $100-150 and going to be a lot more appealing to the unenlightened gamer than a 24" 120Hz monitor which will typically always hover around the $300 range to start, and the better ones are $400+. Then there's the cost of maintaining hardware that can push such high frame rates without having to sacrifice on quality.

That being said, some games can get away with it. Top down RTS/RPG or even Mobo can be OK with 60Hz, but any sort of first or 3rd person view where the camera panning can make it punch-you-in-the-face obvious are games where I cannot stand to play on 60Hz anymore.

 

[tweakboy]

My 70hz 1ms vsyncON pownz a LED 120hz 7ms to 12ms. simple......

 

[parablooper]

My question is, when are the 16:10 monitors going to have 120 Hz? I want to have a 3-monitor setup someday, and I'd really love it to be 5760x1200 or 7680x1600, with full clarity of 120fps.

 

[Sleepingforest]

My question is, when are the 16:10 monitors going to have 120 Hz? I want to have a 3-monitor setup someday, and I'd really love it to be 5760x1200 or 7680x1600, with full clarity of 120fps.

D: How on earth are you going to drive a setup like that for gaming? 4 Titan equivalents? And if it's not for gaming, why would 120Hz matter?

 

[Mark Rejhon]

D: How on earth are you going to drive a setup like that for gaming? 4 Titan equivalents? And if it's not for gaming, why would 120Hz matter?

On a CRT or LightBoost, I can read text while scrolling (e.g. with Chromium Smooth Scroller Extension). Most LCD's have too much motion blur for me to be able to read text while I scroll or drag windows, but LightBoost monitors eliminate enough motion blur -- text remains perfectly sharp.

Things like window dragging also become silky smooth, and things like panning images is really noticeably more fluid. And if you use a video interpolation app or plugin (60fps->120fps), you can get the motionflow-like soap opera effect for video playback if you like that sort of thing. (Though this is not my type of thing)

 

[Mark Rejhon]

My question is, when are the 16:10 monitors going to have 120 Hz? I want to have a 3-monitor setup someday, and I'd really love it to be 5760x1200 or 7680x1600, with full clarity of 120fps.

Try the Viewpixx Scientific Research LCD monitor:

Viewpixx Scientific Research Display
- 120 Hz refresh rate
- 12-bit RGB intensity
- 1920 x 1200 display resolution
- 22 inch display size
- Full RGB backlight; >100% NTSC
- Scanning backlight (1ms response time)

Viewpixx PDF datasheet
It's supposed to be a CRT replacement in scientific applications.
Alas, this monitor costs a pretty penny: Thousands of dollars...

 

[parablooper]

Try the Viewpixx Scientific Research LCD monitor:

Viewpixx Scientific Research Display
- 120 Hz refresh rate
- 12-bit RGB intensity
- 1920 x 1200 display resolution
- 22 inch display size
- Full RGB backlight; >100% NTSC
- Scanning backlight (1ms response time)

Viewpixx PDF datasheet
It's supposed to be a CRT replacement in scientific applications.
Alas, this monitor costs a pretty penny: Thousands of dollars...

Not bad. Too bad the really thick bezels would make it unoptimal for eyefinity.

 

[sxr7171]

Do not forget that LightBoost strobe backlights (CRT clarity motion on LCD) changes the whole ballgame completely.

60 Hz LCD

120 Hz LCD : 50% less motion blur

120 Hz LightBoost : ~90% less motion blur

(From PHOTOS: 60Hz vs 120Hz vs LightBoost)

For more information
-- see the coverage by ASUS/NewEgg/TFTcentral/ArsTechnica
-- see the LightBoost HOWTO (if you already have supported 120Hz monitor)
-- see the LightBoost FAQ (e.g. how does it work, etc).

All they are doing is syncing the backlight to screen refreshes. And yes it should solve the problem. It makes me upset that LCD screens were not designed like this from the beginning.

 

[aigomorla]

Not bad. Too bad the really thick bezels would make it unoptimal for eyefinity.

how many years now have we begged vendors for thin bezels?

how many years now have vendors kept spitting in our faces and saying no while showing them off at CES?

Its like how many licks to the center of a tootsie roll pop...

The vendors only know!

 

[bystander36]

how many years now have we begged vendors for thin bezels?

how many years now have vendors kept spitting in our faces and saying no while showing them off at CES?

Its like how many licks to the center of a tootsie roll pop...

The vendors only know!

It is not like this monitor was ever intended for gaming. It's a professional product, but it would be nice if more companies did try to fill this niche.

That particular monitor is particularly puzzling for eyefinity, as with all the resolution and refresh rate, it would be extraordinarily tough to take advantage of.

 

[Black Octagon]

Try the Viewpixx Scientific Research LCD monitor:

Viewpixx Scientific Research Display
- 120 Hz refresh rate
- 12-bit RGB intensity
- 1920 x 1200 display resolution
- 22 inch display size

Well look at that! Any idea what panel that monitor has, Mark?

 

[Mark Rejhon]

Well look at that! Any idea what panel that monitor has, Mark?

I'm not certain, but I would bet they used something better than TN.

Scanning backlights are easier to add to IPS displays than strobe backlights (for reasons, see Scanning Backlight FAQ which Blur Busters also hosts), so it's entirely possible.

 

[thujone]

this is the general monitor conundrum i've been in for the past year or so. right now using a 1920x1200 24" acer i've had for years and years and years... it's not the greatest monitor but 16:10 makes so much more sense to me than 16:9.


so now... do i either: "upgrade" to a 24" 120hz monitor, give up on 16:10 and get a 1440p monitor, or wait for the 1600p monitors to get cheaper?


pretty much every time i've thought about this, the only conclusion i come to is: "meh... might as well wait"

 

[Eureka]

this is the general monitor conundrum i've been in for the past year or so. right now using a 1920x1200 24" acer i've had for years and years and years... it's not the greatest monitor but 16:10 makes so much more sense to me than 16:9.


so now... do i either: "upgrade" to a 24" 120hz monitor, give up on 16:10 and get a 1440p monitor, or wait for the 1600p monitors to get cheaper?


pretty much every time i've thought about this, the only conclusion i come to is: "meh... might as well wait"

The question is, what do you enjoy doing?

I had the same question for myself. Turns out, I still play a lot of fast paced games, and the 120 Hz became an obvious choice once I realized it was the bottleneck in my gameplay. I switched to a 120Hz monitor, eye strain has gone down, my K has risen a bit and I haven't had motion-related headaches since then. Then again, I had a particularly blurry S-PVA monitor.