120Hz or 2560 x 1440

From the pixels, bits, and shaders to the graphic cards that power them. Discuss the latest from AMD and NVIDIA here.

Moderators: morphine, SecretSquirrel

120Hz or 2560 x 1440

Postposted on Sat Aug 31, 2013 4:40 pm

Hi all, my main game is World of Warcraft and was curious which would be of more benefit to me, for me I do prefer screen real estate but at the same time I also would prefer as little input lag as possible.

As you can see I am confused as to which I would prefer more, any help would be greatly appreciated.

This is the video card I have atm.

http://www.canadacomputers.com/product_info.php?cPath=43_1200_557_559&item_id=052076
credible
Gerbil Team Leader
 
Posts: 212
Joined: Fri Oct 07, 2011 7:47 pm

Re: 120Hz or 2560 x 1440

Postposted on Sat Aug 31, 2013 5:44 pm

As a Korean 1440p monitor user who plays CS:GO as my staple fps I can tell you input lag is not noticeable on these monitors, mostly due to the lack of interpolation chips for scaling.I also run a 7950 which is very similar in performance to your 660Ti, and most games dont run much higher than 60fps at that reolution anyway but I still much prefer the higher res. Also take into consideration just how much higher quality the colour reproduction and viewing angle is in the IPS panels of 1440p monitors, having gone from a 'fast' TN monitor to Hi-res IPS, I definitely recommend the higher resolution and better panel quality of 2560x1440 over a 120hz monitor.
piecerad
Gerbil
 
Posts: 33
Joined: Sat Feb 18, 2012 3:19 pm

Re: 120Hz or 2560 x 1440

Postposted on Sat Aug 31, 2013 6:18 pm

I quit WoW in Jan. 2012, but prior to that I was a hardcore raider for 7 years. I was my guild's primary Warlock and also specialty Warrior Tank. Here are some of my guild's accomplishments:
Code: Select all
Our WoW Achievements:

• TBC: Pre 3.0 - Everything up to and including Mu’ru. Kil’Jaeden Post 3.0
• Heroic: Glory of the Raider and Immortal - Pre 3.1
• Heroic: Glory of the Ulduar Raider - US 76th
• Heroic: Iron Council - World 7th, US 3rd
• Heroic: Observed (Algalon) - US 56th
• Heroic: He Feeds on Your Tears (Algalon, No Deaths) - World 12th, U.S. 6th
• Heroic: Alone in the Darkness (Zero Keeper Yogg-Saron) - US 48th
• Heroic: A Tribute to Insanity - US 55th
• Heroic: A Tribute to Immortality (ToGC 25, No Deaths, Achieved Twice)
• 10 Man Heroic Lich King - US 12th
• 25 Man Heroic Lich King - US 26th
• 25 Man Heroic Halion - US 17th
• Attained #1 US ICC HM 25 Time Attack during 3.3.3
• Guild Grand Marshals Achievement Season 9.
• RBG Season 9 - 25US, 3rd on Rampage
• All of our Rank 1 Gladiators.

Final Tier 25 Man Rankings:

• Tier 13 - Ceased 25Man raiding at 5/8 64 US.
• Tier 12 - 69 US
• Tier 11 - 48 US (39th to finish 13/13H)
• Tier 10 - 26 US
• Tier 09 - 38 US
• Tier 08 - 51 US
• Tier 07 - 120 US
• Tier SP - 500-600 US


Based on my WoW experience, I would say that the type of monitor you use should depend on what type of player you are.

Some players use a lot of realtime data readout mods and can make legitimate performance improvements if given more pixel real estate. A larger screen without extra pixels just wont do for that type of player. The font text cant get any smaller without distortion. The goal isn't to acquire more mod windows covering the viewing area, but rather to open up the viewing area so the player can respond to a wider range of visual cues. Hardcore raiders with output maximizing or resource managing related tasks tend to be this type of player. Of course expect your framerate performance to drop by approximately 45% which switching from a 1920x1080 to a 2560x1440.

Some players are more reactive to the 3d visual effects. These players can make more use out of smoother motion and reduction in ghosting on faster refresh monitors. Tanks, casual raiders, and competitive PvPers tend to be this type of player, although it is debatable how much the first two would gain from a faster refresh monitor. They will have to deal with more noticeable screen tearing with v-sync off. If you play WoW with v-sync on, this entire post will be a waste of time.

Keep in mind that 20fps will only give your eyes fresh(only fresh if v-sync is off) information every 50ms on average. This number isn't too problematic for most WoW players. At that framerate, you still react to movement instead of individual frames, so the 50ms isn't fully added to your reaction time. If you go below 20fps, then you start having response time issues due to non-fluid motion. The lower the framerate, the more jarring the screen tearing is. When I played, I would make graphics adjustments if my fps would drop below 60 at all. I also kept a framerate cap at 125fps. I use a TN type monitor at 1920x1200x60hz. There are many graphical options that usually directly improve playing performance. One example is how shadows help the player determine a 3d position of an object in relation to the ground. My point being that while you can turn down graphics to improve framerate, there is a threshold where this adjustment becomes counter-productive to WoW player performance.

When considering how to improve input lag in WoW, there are a few things that should be a given. The monitor needs to be TN or a type with similarly low latency. V-Sync needs to be off. Mouse cursor movement cant be processed ('smoothing'). The mouse (and keyboard) hardware itself needs to be low response time. Your network options need to be configured for low latency. Once all these local latency factors are set right and added to the much more massive internet latency, differences in your monitor refresh rate or gpu framerate (if not critically low fps) will only be a very very small factor in total reaction time to server events. How refresh or frame rates will help however, is through eye fatigue and better motion tracking. You can make better reactions for longer.

If you run mod heavy and use cpu gobbling graphical options, having 4 overclocked hyperthreaded cpu cores with process affinities set might be more important that getting a 120hz monitor and might be a necessity before getting a 2560x1440 monitor. WoW runs extremely cpu heavy in a raiding environment.
rookiebeotch
Gerbil
 
Posts: 16
Joined: Fri Jan 28, 2011 5:39 pm

Re: 120Hz or 2560 x 1440

Postposted on Sat Aug 31, 2013 6:29 pm

Your video card can handle games like WoW at 1440p 60Hz or 1080p at 120Hz without trouble.

I am biased towards the Lightboost-enabled monitors that allow CRT quality motion thanks to BlurBusters, however motion blur can makes things look more movie-like and have more eye candy appeal, so it's up to you.

I play StarCraft 2, but it is a huge difference in StarCraft 2 to not have motion blur because it allows you to see everything on the screen at a glance. I've never played WoW, but from what I hear 1440p is better for RPG's.
Star Brood
Gerbil First Class
Silver subscriber
 
 
Posts: 182
Joined: Wed Mar 21, 2012 4:57 am

Re: 120Hz or 2560 x 1440

Postposted on Sat Aug 31, 2013 11:29 pm

My personal opinion is that you won't notice the difference between 60Hz and 120Hz so I'd go with the better resolution.
NovusBogus
Gerbil Elite
 
Posts: 550
Joined: Sun Jan 06, 2013 12:37 am

Re: 120Hz or 2560 x 1440

Postposted on Sun Sep 01, 2013 11:36 am

I was messing around with my monitor this morning and I accidentally dropped it down to 60Hz, but without immediately realizing that the frame rate dropped. As soon as I started doing things on the computer, I noticed there was a big problem with motion, even with simple things like moving the mouse cursor around. When I found the culprit, it didn't surprise me.
Star Brood
Gerbil First Class
Silver subscriber
 
 
Posts: 182
Joined: Wed Mar 21, 2012 4:57 am

Re: 120Hz or 2560 x 1440

Postposted on Sun Sep 01, 2013 1:18 pm

Star Brood wrote:I was messing around with my monitor this morning and I accidentally dropped it down to 60Hz, but without immediately realizing that the frame rate dropped. As soon as I started doing things on the computer, I noticed there was a big problem with motion, even with simple things like moving the mouse cursor around. When I found the culprit, it didn't surprise me.

Are you suggesting that this problem occurs on 60Hz displays?
i7-3770K@4.7 | H100 | P8Z77-V PREMIUM | 16GB | 2 GTX 770 4GB SLI | M500 960GB | EVO 840 250GB | AX850 | Obsidian 550D | R.A.T. 9 | U2713H | U2711
End User
Gerbil Elite
Gold subscriber
 
 
Posts: 976
Joined: Fri Apr 16, 2004 6:47 pm
Location: Toronto, Canada

Re: 120Hz or 2560 x 1440

Postposted on Sun Sep 01, 2013 1:40 pm

Both. Get the models that have oc after the 27 in their model name. Those can be overclocked past 60hz. Also read this.
Deadsalt
Gerbil In Training
 
Posts: 5
Joined: Tue Jul 20, 2010 2:24 pm
Location: I'm on a boat!

Re: 120Hz or 2560 x 1440

Postposted on Sun Sep 01, 2013 2:28 pm

credible wrote: I do prefer screen real estate but at the same time I also would prefer as little input lag as possible.

I've been gaming on flat panel displays since I purchased my 2405FPW back in 2005. Lag has never been a problem for me. More recently I've gone through 2407>U2711>U2713H - none of these are flagged as gaming displays yet I am perfectly happy playing Crysis 3, TF2, Battlefield 3, Dishonoured, etc @ 2560x1440.

I don't spend all my time in game. 2560x1440 on the desktop is amazing. 1080p on the desktop would kill me.

The big question is will your GPU will run your games @ 2560x1440. Hardocp benches GPUs at very high resolutions. I went with dual 4GB GTX 770 in SLI to drive my U2713H. I've seen memory usage go as high as 3.3GB per card (Crysis 3) but I'm guessing that WoW will be well below 2GB @ 2560x1440.

Those 27" Tempest displays are not too bad for the price. Reading up on them it seems that it may take awhile to get one as the process to ship them in from China is not particularly fast. I'm not a fan of their warranty - only one year on a Grade A display with up to 3 bright / 3 coloured (stuck)/ 3 dead pixels within the warranty period. Just one bright/stuck/dead pixel would kill me. I've never seen a bright/stuck/dead pixel on any of my Dell displays (my 8 year old 2405FPWs are still going strong).
Last edited by End User on Sun Sep 01, 2013 2:48 pm, edited 1 time in total.
i7-3770K@4.7 | H100 | P8Z77-V PREMIUM | 16GB | 2 GTX 770 4GB SLI | M500 960GB | EVO 840 250GB | AX850 | Obsidian 550D | R.A.T. 9 | U2713H | U2711
End User
Gerbil Elite
Gold subscriber
 
 
Posts: 976
Joined: Fri Apr 16, 2004 6:47 pm
Location: Toronto, Canada

Re: 120Hz or 2560 x 1440

Postposted on Sun Sep 01, 2013 2:30 pm

End User wrote:
Star Brood wrote:I was messing around with my monitor this morning and I accidentally dropped it down to 60Hz, but without immediately realizing that the frame rate dropped. As soon as I started doing things on the computer, I noticed there was a big problem with motion, even with simple things like moving the mouse cursor around. When I found the culprit, it didn't surprise me.

Are you suggesting that this problem occurs on 60Hz displays?

The PROBLEM was that it was 60Hz like every other monitor, I am not suggesting anything, I am stating that 60Hz monitors are the problem themselves. What point are you trying to prove here?
Star Brood
Gerbil First Class
Silver subscriber
 
 
Posts: 182
Joined: Wed Mar 21, 2012 4:57 am

Re: 120Hz or 2560 x 1440

Postposted on Sun Sep 01, 2013 2:49 pm

Star Brood wrote:I noticed there was a big problem with motion, even with simple things like moving the mouse cursor around.

Can you describe this in more detail?
i7-3770K@4.7 | H100 | P8Z77-V PREMIUM | 16GB | 2 GTX 770 4GB SLI | M500 960GB | EVO 840 250GB | AX850 | Obsidian 550D | R.A.T. 9 | U2713H | U2711
End User
Gerbil Elite
Gold subscriber
 
 
Posts: 976
Joined: Fri Apr 16, 2004 6:47 pm
Location: Toronto, Canada

Re: 120Hz or 2560 x 1440

Postposted on Sun Sep 01, 2013 2:55 pm

LCD pixel failures can be:
Stuck dark: red, green, blue or some combination of the three or stuck bright: red, green, blue or some combination of the three.
Of these failures, the stuck bright pixels are the most annoying.

I've been gaming on a 2560x1600 UltraSharp 3007WFP since 2006. I recommend that you do not waste your money on a nasty TN LCD panel.
i7-4770K, H70, Gryphon Z87, 16 GiB, R9-290, SSD, 2 HD, Blu-ray, SB ZX, TJ08-E, SS-660XP², 3007WFP+2001FP, RK-9000BR, MX518
JustAnEngineer
Gerbil God
Gold subscriber
 
 
Posts: 15589
Joined: Sat Jan 26, 2002 7:00 pm
Location: The Heart of Dixie

Re: 120Hz or 2560 x 1440

Postposted on Sun Sep 01, 2013 3:21 pm

Thanx for the responses, you all have helped me to decide on the higher resolution monitor.

Seems more logical considering the extra screen real estate will allow me to have all that I need in front of me, yet still have copious amounts of free space to view the actual game and not my addon crap:)
credible
Gerbil Team Leader
 
Posts: 212
Joined: Fri Oct 07, 2011 7:47 pm

Re: 120Hz or 2560 x 1440

Postposted on Sun Sep 01, 2013 5:36 pm

End User wrote:
Star Brood wrote:I noticed there was a big problem with motion, even with simple things like moving the mouse cursor around.

Can you describe this in more detail?


That's like describing the difference between 120Hz and 60Hz all over again. I can't tell you how many debates there are on this, you either see it or you don't, or you either care about it or you don't.
Star Brood
Gerbil First Class
Silver subscriber
 
 
Posts: 182
Joined: Wed Mar 21, 2012 4:57 am

Re: 120Hz or 2560 x 1440

Postposted on Sun Sep 01, 2013 5:59 pm

Star Brood wrote:
End User wrote:
Star Brood wrote:I noticed there was a big problem with motion, even with simple things like moving the mouse cursor around.

Can you describe this in more detail?


That's like describing the difference between 120Hz and 60Hz all over again. I can't tell you how many debates there are on this, you either see it or you don't, or you either care about it or you don't.

Er, no. It should be easily seen when pointed out. Please describe it in detail or else I'll have to drag my ass over to a store, pick one up and do a review on my next post.
i7-3770K@4.7 | H100 | P8Z77-V PREMIUM | 16GB | 2 GTX 770 4GB SLI | M500 960GB | EVO 840 250GB | AX850 | Obsidian 550D | R.A.T. 9 | U2713H | U2711
End User
Gerbil Elite
Gold subscriber
 
 
Posts: 976
Joined: Fri Apr 16, 2004 6:47 pm
Location: Toronto, Canada

Re: 120Hz or 2560 x 1440

Postposted on Sun Sep 01, 2013 7:22 pm

End User wrote:Er, no. It should be easily seen when pointed out. Please describe it in detail or else I'll have to drag my ass over to a store, pick one up and do a review on my next post.


I see this in 3 basic area:

- Mouse movement. I have a Razer DeathAdder set to maximum speed. With 120Hz and lightboost strobing enabled, I can track the exact position of the mouse no matter where it is on the screen nor how quickly it's moving. With 60Hz, all I could see was a blur unless I moved the mouse slowly or held it still.

- Page scrolling. This one is relative to how quickly you scroll the page, but it is blurry scrolling at 60Hz, crystal clear with 2D lightboost enabled at 120Hz. No blur.

- Windows 8 start screen. When I use my mouse wheel to scroll back and forth on the start screen, the transition is blurry. Again, with the 2D lightboost enabled and 120Hz, it's perfectly fluid motion.

Of course I have a monitor that supports 2D Lightboost thanks to the ToastyX strobelight, so the difference is night and day. With plain 120Hz, the difference is less pronounced, but still a big difference. If you visit http://www.testufo.com/#test=framerates and set the UFO pixel speed to the approximate pixel width of your display, try to track the topmost UFO and you will see a huge blur. Try it with a lightboost-enabled monitor like mine and install the ToastyX profile, and you will literally see a solid image moving across the screen that you can easily identify to the exact detail and track with your eyes (see this page for reference on what your eyes would see: http://www.blurbusters.com/faq/60vs120vslb/)
Star Brood
Gerbil First Class
Silver subscriber
 
 
Posts: 182
Joined: Wed Mar 21, 2012 4:57 am

Re: 120Hz or 2560 x 1440

Postposted on Sun Sep 01, 2013 8:28 pm

I'm testing your examples on the following:

U2711
U2713U
Thunderbolt Display

Star Brood wrote:- Mouse movement. I have a Razer DeathAdder set to maximum speed. With 120Hz and lightboost strobing enabled, I can track the exact position of the mouse no matter where it is on the screen nor how quickly it's moving. With 60Hz, all I could see was a blur unless I moved the mouse slowly or held it still.

Using a R.A.T. 9 I can track the cursor without an issue. Perhaps the "problem" is more pronounced on your display at 60Hz.

Star Brood wrote:- Page scrolling. This one is relative to how quickly you scroll the page, but it is blurry scrolling at 60Hz, crystal clear with 2D lightboost enabled at 120Hz. No blur.

Text is clear when I scroll on a long web page. Perhaps the "problem" is more pronounced on your display at 60Hz.

Star Brood wrote:- Windows 8 start screen. When I use my mouse wheel to scroll back and forth on the start screen, the transition is blurry. Again, with the 2D lightboost enabled and 120Hz, it's perfectly fluid motion.

I won't say blurry but it is not buttery smooth. This is not an issue for me. Definitely not a "problem".

I had a chuckle as I really had to extend my app icons over to the right as I've never had to scroll the Windows 8 Start screen on any of my 2560x1440 displays. :)

Star Brood wrote:Of course I have a monitor that supports 2D Lightboost thanks to the ToastyX strobelight, so the difference is night and day. With plain 120Hz, the difference is less pronounced, but still a big difference. If you visit http://www.testufo.com/#test=framerates and set the UFO pixel speed to the approximate pixel width of your display, try to track the topmost UFO and you will see a huge blur. Try it with a lightboost-enabled monitor like mine and install the ToastyX profile, and you will literally see a solid image moving across the screen that you can easily identify to the exact detail and track with your eyes (see this page for reference on what your eyes would see: http://www.blurbusters.com/faq/60vs120vslb/)

Ja ja, I'm familiar with it. I just don't see it as a "problem" in real world usage for me. It's definitely not worth me dumbing down to a 1080p display (the horror). If this were a "problem" I'd just go out and buy a 120Hz display.
i7-3770K@4.7 | H100 | P8Z77-V PREMIUM | 16GB | 2 GTX 770 4GB SLI | M500 960GB | EVO 840 250GB | AX850 | Obsidian 550D | R.A.T. 9 | U2713H | U2711
End User
Gerbil Elite
Gold subscriber
 
 
Posts: 976
Joined: Fri Apr 16, 2004 6:47 pm
Location: Toronto, Canada

Re: 120Hz or 2560 x 1440

Postposted on Sun Sep 01, 2013 8:38 pm

End User wrote:Using a R.A.T. 9 I can track the cursor without an issue. Perhaps the "problem" is more pronounced on your display at 60Hz.


And on my previous 60Hz monitors and on my 21.5" iMac at work. Your eyes may be accustomed to following the blur, or you have better hand/eye coordination than I do. All I can see is a blur, and my accuracy is significantly worse on a 60Hz monitor.

End User wrote:Text is clear when I scroll on a long web page. Perhaps the "problem" is more pronounced on your display at 60Hz.


You may have some kind of smooth-scrolling enabled on your browser, or again you're probably just accustomed to it.

End User wrote:I won't say blurry but it is not buttery smooth. This is not an issue for me. Definitely not a "problem".


Yeah, "problem" may have been an exaggeration, but when you're used to CRT-quality motion, anything else is a problem ;)


End User wrote:It's definitely not worth me dumbing down to a 1080p display (the horror).


And hence the seemingly-endless debate between 60Hz 1440p and 120Hz 1080p continues. If you noticed my posts before I bought my monitor, I was having a big struggle deciding between the two myself. I have some regrets, but I would have had regrets going with a 1440p monitor as well. If you read my first post, you'll notice that I recommended a 1440p monitor to the OP.
Star Brood
Gerbil First Class
Silver subscriber
 
 
Posts: 182
Joined: Wed Mar 21, 2012 4:57 am

Re: 120Hz or 2560 x 1440

Postposted on Sun Sep 01, 2013 10:21 pm

Star Brood wrote:And hence the seemingly-endless debate between 60Hz 1440p and 120Hz 1080p continues.

Debate? You were flat out attacking 60Hz displays in an unwarranted fashion.

Star Brood wrote:Yeah, "problem" may have been an exaggeration

Yes.

Star Brood wrote:CRT-quality motion

You are definitely following the 120Hz fanboy handbook.
i7-3770K@4.7 | H100 | P8Z77-V PREMIUM | 16GB | 2 GTX 770 4GB SLI | M500 960GB | EVO 840 250GB | AX850 | Obsidian 550D | R.A.T. 9 | U2713H | U2711
End User
Gerbil Elite
Gold subscriber
 
 
Posts: 976
Joined: Fri Apr 16, 2004 6:47 pm
Location: Toronto, Canada

Re: 120Hz or 2560 x 1440

Postposted on Sun Sep 01, 2013 11:00 pm

Star Brood wrote:Your video card can handle games like WoW at 1440p 60Hz or 1080p at 120Hz without trouble.

I am biased towards the Lightboost-enabled monitors that allow CRT quality motion thanks to BlurBusters, however motion blur can makes things look more movie-like and have more eye candy appeal, so it's up to you.

I play StarCraft 2, but it is a huge difference in StarCraft 2 to not have motion blur because it allows you to see everything on the screen at a glance. I've never played WoW, but from what I hear 1440p is better for RPG's.


Doesn't sound like attacking to me. I clearly stated my bias in the beginning and gave him a reasonable recommendation. Then it escalated rather quickly.

I am not following a "fanboy handbook". The motion quality is simply superior on LightBoost 2D and the quality is in direct comparison to CRT's. There's nothing fanboyish about it, it's simply fact.
Star Brood
Gerbil First Class
Silver subscriber
 
 
Posts: 182
Joined: Wed Mar 21, 2012 4:57 am

Re: 120Hz or 2560 x 1440

Postposted on Sun Sep 01, 2013 11:41 pm

Star Brood wrote:
Star Brood wrote:Your video card can handle games like WoW at 1440p 60Hz or 1080p at 120Hz without trouble.

I am biased towards the Lightboost-enabled monitors that allow CRT quality motion thanks to BlurBusters, however motion blur can makes things look more movie-like and have more eye candy appeal, so it's up to you.

I play StarCraft 2, but it is a huge difference in StarCraft 2 to not have motion blur because it allows you to see everything on the screen at a glance. I've never played WoW, but from what I hear 1440p is better for RPG's.


Doesn't sound like attacking to me. I clearly stated my bias in the beginning and gave him a reasonable recommendation. Then it escalated rather quickly.

I am not following a "fanboy handbook". The motion quality is simply superior on LightBoost 2D and the quality is in direct comparison to CRT's. There's nothing fanboyish about it, it's simply fact.

lol

If you are going to completely ignoring the "problems" you described in our conversation it would look that way.
i7-3770K@4.7 | H100 | P8Z77-V PREMIUM | 16GB | 2 GTX 770 4GB SLI | M500 960GB | EVO 840 250GB | AX850 | Obsidian 550D | R.A.T. 9 | U2713H | U2711
End User
Gerbil Elite
Gold subscriber
 
 
Posts: 976
Joined: Fri Apr 16, 2004 6:47 pm
Location: Toronto, Canada

Re: 120Hz or 2560 x 1440

Postposted on Sun Sep 01, 2013 11:58 pm

I am not ignoring any problems, and please don't use the lingo "lol" in this context, it is mean and doesn't support your case.

So far I have derived (correct me if I'm wrong): you haven't used a 120Hz monitor for gaming; you won't buy a 120Hz monitor because you prefer the IPS-type displays.

I'll rephrase my argument 'for' and 'against':

For 120Hz displays with 2D lightboost:
Less motion blur
Instant response time
Improving accuracy
Cheaper than 1440p (another deciding factor for me, the Auria monitor didn't look appealing enough at $400 and I won't take a gamble on Ebay).

Against:
Terrible colors.
Terrible viewing angles.
Terrible resolution.

Again, the price was probably what kept my prospects low for 1440p when it came to the decision. So me being a thrifty spender also lends toward my bias towards 120Hz (I had to talk myself out of wanting 1440p).
Star Brood
Gerbil First Class
Silver subscriber
 
 
Posts: 182
Joined: Wed Mar 21, 2012 4:57 am

Re: 120Hz or 2560 x 1440

Postposted on Mon Sep 02, 2013 12:52 am

Star Brood wrote:I am not ignoring any problems,

Is this Candid Camera?

Star Brood wrote:and please don't use the lingo "lol" in this context, it is mean and doesn't support your case.

It was a direct result of you totally trying to make yourself look good while ignoring your "problems" post. I found that amusing, hence the lol.

Star Brood wrote:So far I have derived (correct me if I'm wrong): you haven't used a 120Hz monitor for gaming;

I was really clear on that.

Star Brood wrote:you won't buy a 120Hz monitor because you prefer the IPS-type displays.

Wrong. Show me a 2560x1440 display with all the features of my U2713H + the benefits of your 120Hz monitor and I will buy it.

Star Brood wrote:I'll rephrase my argument 'for' and 'against':

Now you are making solid points. Blasting 60Hz displays for having "problems" was way overboard and completely unnecessary.


Going back to something your mentioned before:

Star Brood wrote:You may have some kind of smooth-scrolling enabled on your browser

Never head of something like that. I tested scrolling under OS X and Windows 8. I assume scrolling performance is better on your display but I don't see the blurring as you described it.
i7-3770K@4.7 | H100 | P8Z77-V PREMIUM | 16GB | 2 GTX 770 4GB SLI | M500 960GB | EVO 840 250GB | AX850 | Obsidian 550D | R.A.T. 9 | U2713H | U2711
End User
Gerbil Elite
Gold subscriber
 
 
Posts: 976
Joined: Fri Apr 16, 2004 6:47 pm
Location: Toronto, Canada

Re: 120Hz or 2560 x 1440

Postposted on Mon Sep 02, 2013 10:20 am

I'm sorry if I gave the impression that I'm trying to make myself look good. That's not at all how i felt nor how I intended to come across. Yes I presented an exaggerated post in the beginning because the whole buying reason behind this monitor is precisely what was taken away by dropping to 60Hz and to me that was a big problem. To me it's as distasteful as how you'd feel if your monitor resolution dropping to 1080p. I'm sure you'd see that as a glaring problem until fixed as well.

I didn't write that post out of nowhere, I was trying to use that case to respond to the poster above my original complaint that it is definitely a discernable difference. instead of presenting a logical example like I presented to you, I presented a testimony with emotion behind it. Next time I'll stick to logic.

I hope we see eye to eye on this now.
Star Brood
Gerbil First Class
Silver subscriber
 
 
Posts: 182
Joined: Wed Mar 21, 2012 4:57 am

Re: 120Hz or 2560 x 1440

Postposted on Mon Sep 02, 2013 10:34 am

You've both made your points pretty clear by now.

*waves modhammer around* :)
There is a fixed amount of intelligence on the planet, and the population keeps growing :(
morphine
Grand Admiral Gerbil
Silver subscriber
 
 
Posts: 10090
Joined: Fri Dec 27, 2002 8:51 pm
Location: Portugal (that's next to Spain)

Re: 120Hz or 2560 x 1440

Postposted on Mon Sep 02, 2013 11:13 am

Sorry. I've got to reply to this:

Star Brood wrote:Yes I presented an exaggerated post in the beginning



Star Brood wrote:dropping to 60Hz and to me that was a big problem.

And that was on your TN display. A TN display that is optimal @ 120Hz.
i7-3770K@4.7 | H100 | P8Z77-V PREMIUM | 16GB | 2 GTX 770 4GB SLI | M500 960GB | EVO 840 250GB | AX850 | Obsidian 550D | R.A.T. 9 | U2713H | U2711
End User
Gerbil Elite
Gold subscriber
 
 
Posts: 976
Joined: Fri Apr 16, 2004 6:47 pm
Location: Toronto, Canada

Re: 120Hz or 2560 x 1440

Postposted on Mon Sep 02, 2013 11:31 am

2560x1440 is better than 120Hz hands down, unless you're a pro gamer. If you're not a pro gamer, then you have a lot more practicing to do to get the edge in your games before you need to start worrying about the small gains from hardware upgrades. If you don't believe me, try using the lastest gaming peripherals and going up against a pro gamer using crappy hardware. Seriously, if you're just playing for fun and not super competitive, then immersion is where it's at. The extra pixels will also come in handy for real work, assuming you ever do real work on your computer. But hey, this is just my advice. You can do whatever the hell you want. If you've got the money for it, get one of each and run them side by side.
Intel Core i7-875K, Asus P7P55D-E Pro, Win 7 Home Premium
MSI GTX 560 Ti OC, Mushkin 2x2GB DDR3-1333, Corsair TX650
Cooler Master Hyper 212+, Logitech Z-2300, ASUS Xonar DX
Samsung Spinpoint F3 1TB, Dell Ultrasharp U2410, Antec P183
DeadOfKnight
Gerbil Elite
Gold subscriber
 
 
Posts: 636
Joined: Tue May 18, 2010 1:20 pm

Re: 120Hz or 2560 x 1440

Postposted on Mon Sep 02, 2013 3:34 pm

I really don't see the point of 120 hz with a game like WoW. Otoh, I have a 120 hz monitor and once you get used to it, anything less is not good enough. I have a 1680x1050 monitor (one of the first true 120 hz) and I'd like more pixels, but won't do it until I can get a meaningful increase with 120 hz.

The thing about higher refresh rates is that people that can discern a difference are the ones who buy them; those who don't often either don't care or just prioritize pixels over refresh, the same as I prioritize the opposite. There's lots of evidence that refresh rates above 60 hz are preferred and detectable, so if an individual doesn't see the difference it doesn't mean it's not there.
Jason181
Gerbil First Class
Silver subscriber
 
 
Posts: 182
Joined: Thu May 19, 2005 7:23 pm
Location: Oregon

Re: 120Hz or 2560 x 1440

Postposted on Tue Sep 03, 2013 6:18 am

I was running a 27" 1440p IPS alongside a Samsung S27A750D 120Hz screen for a few months.
I was utterly convinced that I couldn't go back to 60Hz screens until the high-dpi IPS panel turned up, and my Samsung was for on eBay shortly after - It looked great in isolation but when I had the two side by side the image quality of low-res 6-bit TN compared to high-res, 8-bit IPS is just a joke.

WoW is not particularly good at maintaining framerates during raids, even on high-end hardware.
It just seems that if you're playing a (relatively) low-FPS, brightly-coloured game with a huge amount of on-screen information, colour accuracy and high resolution are waaaaaaaaaay more important to you than 120Hz.
I hear rig lists are all the rage, and I <3 the rage! Workstation = Black tower thing; HTPC = Shhhh!; Laptop - AMAZING FOLDING PC!
Chrispy_
Minister of Gerbil Affairs
Gold subscriber
 
 
Posts: 2158
Joined: Fri Apr 09, 2004 3:49 pm

Re: 120Hz or 2560 x 1440

Postposted on Tue Sep 03, 2013 1:01 pm

End User wrote:Ja ja, I'm familiar with it. I just don't see it as a "problem" in real world usage for me. It's definitely not worth me dumbing down to a 1080p display (the horror). If this were a "problem" I'd just go out and buy a 120Hz display.


It's not a problem.... until you actually upgrade to 120+hz. Then nothing less will do.

I RMA'd my first 120hz monitor due to some stuck pixels, gaming on my secondary 60hz monitor while I waited for the replacement to arrive felt awful in comparison. Hell, even just moving a cursor around on the Windows desktop or attempting to read text whilst scrolling just wouldn't do. It's not something you know you're missing until you've become used to it.

120hz is the best upgrade I've ever made and I would recommend it (or 144hz) to anybody who would like to have the most fluid gaming experience as possible. It's not the right choice for the IPS colour accuracy junkies, but if you're a serious FPS player, you'll wonder how you ever lived without it.

COD4 promod @ 250fps / 120hz is godly, playing Quake Live @ 120hz is a throwback to the glory of the CRT days. 60hz is like slow motion once you've been to the Light (boost) side.
i7 3820 @ 4.4, Custom Water Loop | ASRock X79 Extreme4 | 8GB G.Skill 1638mhz
GTX 970 @ 1465 | BenQ 24" 120Hz | Samsung 840 250GB | 2x2TB Toshiba | Win 8.1 Pro x64
X-Fi Titanium Fatal1ty Pro | Sennheiser HD555 | Corsair TX850V2 | Fractal Arc Midi R2
Prestige Worldwide
Gerbil Elite
 
Posts: 515
Joined: Mon Nov 09, 2009 10:57 pm

Next

Return to Graphics

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 6 guests