What a garbage post. People like you infuriate me.
It's fine to have an opinion and feel strongly it, but it's another thing altogether to evangelize, throwing factual accuracy out the window in the process.
I can actually speak from experience having owned both a 27" Samsung 120Hz and a beautiful Korean 27" S-IPS screen.
Sure, me too.
the number of modern games that consistently run at over 120FPS is small, unless you are prepared to overclock your CPU, spend on high-end GPUs and also compromise on visual settings.
What? This is REALLY disingenuous. You don't have to get "over 120fps", you have to get "over 60fps" before it makes a difference. I was pulling >60FPS in Blacklight: Retribution, TERA Online, Crysis 2, and more, at max visual settings, with a pair of GTX460s, one of which was a gift and the other I paid less than $100 for.
Worse than that, the vertical viewing angle of any 120Hz gaming screen I've encountered has been horrible, and I went to see several before picking the one I thought was best (least bad?) Any game that is dark and moody will be horrific, inverting gamma at the top of the screen whilst washing out at the bottom.
I don't have these problems, but then, I bothered to calibrate my VG248QE. Maybe you didn't calibrate your monitor? Obviously if you leave the brightness and contrast turned way up, it's going to look awful. What you lose -- as a single user sitting in front of the device -- with a properly configured TN panel is nothing but contrast.
2560x1440 without viewing angle problems or washed-out colour is just so much nicer than 1080p for EVERYTHING with the sole exception of very fast-paced games.
1440p @ 27" is only 108 DPI. 1080p @ 21" is 105 DPI. The colors are better, for sure, but the resolution isn't relevant.
Even many FPS games don't really benefit from 120FPS because they're too slow and the FOV is too low.
I disagree. I find that any game with motion benefits, because the motion is smoother.
I think I enjoyed driving games like Dirt3 and a friend's login of Project CARS the most, but it's not as if they're horrible at 60fps either.
So you say. I find Shift 2 almost unplayable at 60hz after playing with 120hz LightBoost.
Now, you still need a powerful GPU because 60Hz at 1440p is almost as demanding on the GPU as 120Hz at 1080p but the CPU is only processing half as much information so you can get by with a lesser chip or lower clocks.
What? LOL! This is totally wrong. It depends on the game of course, but for the overwhelming majority of games, the simulation is still running at the same speed, so the CPU demands are the same the same scene. What a ridiculous statement.
For movies, photo work, general internet browsing, RTS games, dark or shadow-rich games, games with busy UI's, games with rich colours, games that include motion-blur, and even games that are quite fast-paced, an 8-bit IPS screen is preferable to anything TN, no matter how many Hz it runs at.
That's a nice opinion you have there. I -- and others -- disagree. My girlfriend has a YAMAKASI CATLEAP, and while it does look very nice, I sure wouldn't want to game on it. It blurs noticeably compared to my VG248QE at 120hz, and the difference between her CATLEAP and my VG248QE when the latter is in LightBoost mode is so stark even my girlfriend's MOTHER can see it. "The colors are richer over here, but -- gosh, wow, look how smooth that is! That's eerie!" she said.
Do what I did - buy one of each; After realising that the 120Hz screen wasn't ever getting used, I eBayed it and now have a pair of 1440p IPS screens. If you want a game that really highlights the enormity of what you are missing on a 120Hz TN panel, run Diablo 3.
People like you who feel so strongly about 8-bit panels must have more cones than people like me. Yeah, the CATLEAP looks great; I'd never argue it doesn't, and if you're not sensitive to blurring, then I'm sure it's fine. My girlfriend plays Rusty Hearts just fine on hers, and I'm sure I could get used to it; the rich and bright colors of that game look fantastic.
They also look good on my VG248QE. Muted, for sure; there's less contrast, as I said, but they still look good, rich and vibrant thanks to the insane backlight on the VG248QE. I'm sure your 120hz TN did look washed-out, grainy, and awful at the default settings.I like IPS displays.
I have two of them hooked up to my PC all the time, and I enjoy their good qualities, but saying that TN monitors look so much worse in comparison as to be unusuable is just crap. It's all subjective, of course, but when people like you go around making posts like this, it really grinds my gears, because plenty of folks using slow IPS displays could really benefit from a high-quality 120/144Hz monitor; they're sacrificing display responsiveness and image fluidity for image quality and color depth that they probably don't even appreciate. Until you get into the >$400 monitors with nice S-IPS panels, the only real benefits of IPS over TN are the better viewing angles, and for a single user, that just doesn't matter that much -- especially if you have your displays on an adjustable mount, like a wall-mount.