Displays IPS or 120 hz

There are a lot of monitor threads lately



The most common answer: get an IPS screen>anything the OP wants

 

+1 to this and for making me laugh

 

oo dear
wow IPS love in

 

Well I went for the Samsung 750D 27'' 120Hz over the Dell 2410.

I was using a Dell 2407 WFP which I believe is a PVA panel and similar to IPS in respect of clarity ect ( I may be wrong on that)

But I just wanted to add that the new Samsung is actually very good and much better that I was expecting.

I bought it mainly for the 120hz part and was ready to accept a dip on colour and image quality for the extra Hz of the samsung.

The image after a little tweaking is obviously not quite as good but it is damm close and much better than I expected.
Very little back light bleed as well, harldy noticeable

However it is unbelieveably smoother when playing Battlefield Bad Compnay 2 and BF3. I can certianly feel and notice the difference.

I was going to sell the 2407 bit I think I will keep it for browsing ect but for gaming the Samsung is stunning

 

Rather than debating about IPS vs 120 hz, just some bits on info from my side.

1) If you see an LCD TV at 60Hz and 120Hz side by side displaying the same stuff.. 120Hz definitely is MUCH "smoother". Especially on quick moving images like sports which could be carried over to gaming.

2)Even if your graphics card cannot manage 120fps, the screen is still refreshing at 120Hz. If you can manage 80-90 fps in a game, it would definitely be a "smoother" experience compared to a monitor at 60Hz.

Bit late on that..but good choice.

 

The difference between a 120Hz monitor and a 60Hz monitor is tiny; a new frame every 8ms instead of every 16ms.

You're playing with about 60ms of latency online, most likely, plus a normal person takes ~25ms to react to something. Also your keyboard and mouse have latency. It all adds up to mean this: if someone jumps around a corner and blows your head off with a shotgun, it's not because their monitor is 120Hz and yours isn't. It's because they knew you were coming.

If you're looking to spend cash on an in-game advantage, get multiple monitors, so you can see more going on around you. Otherwise, go for the IPS and make your games prettier

EDIT: I see I'm too late. Oh well, if you're happy with it!

 

The difference is though the guy who just shot you with a 120hz monitor is going to see your head explode apart in far sharper textures than you ever will with a 60Hz monitor.

 

Yeah right, woop di do on that extra bit of detail with the 120hz. Imho, I'd much rather have an IPS panel than 120hz TN/PVA panel shyte. Oh wait, I do!

 

An extra bit of detail, you said it matey.

End of the day, theres a fairly complex set of pro's and cons to both technologies, but to claim one superior over the other is a pretty naive to be honest. Largely it will just come to down to circumstance and personal preference.

 

Just stay away from 16:10 and you should be fine!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Field_of_view_in_video_games

 

16:10 is almost always better than 16:9

 

You dont know what you are talking about.

16:9 is basically always better than 16:10.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Field_of_view_in_video_games

 

Yes because an extra 120 vertical pixels is basically always rubbish

 

This graphic is bull ****!

It shows 16:10 as having the same vertical res as 16:9, but just not as wide. This is not true. 16:10 is just as wide, but taller... hence more screen visible.

 

You dont understand!

The pics show Field Of View!

And 16:9 is wider than 16:10. If you claim something else you dont know what you are talking about.


To explain in short.

16:9 is a wider aspect ratio than 16:10
16:10 is a higher aspect ratio than 16:9

However the Field of View isnt higher in 16:10 than 16:9.
But the Field Of View is wider in 16:9 than 16:10.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Field_of_view_in_video_games

 

Why? It's an extra inch of screen space and you can just turn scaling off and play at any res below native. I wish manufacturers would start making 16:10 monitors again. As The_Beast said, its almost always better.

edit: Pookey is right in pointing out 16:9 and 16:10 having same vertical in pic. what is that about?

16:9 is thinner not wider. 1920x1080 and 1920x1200

 

I edited my post from basically what Pookey said because that graphic is so damn confusing and wrong

Most 16:9 screens are: 1920x1080
Most 16:10 screens are:1920x1200

same horizontal res but more vertical res, and since when is that a bad thing? The only reason 16:9 would be better than a 16:10 would be if you only watched movies on it so you don't get black bars. Which really isn't a huge issue, they aren't really that annoying

 

Exactly. 16:10 has MORE pixels. Basically, it's the same width as a 16:9 screen, but has MORE pixels vertically.

16:9 screen = 2560x1440 pixels
16:10 screen = 2560x1600 pixels.

or if you use smaller screens

16:9 = 1920x1080 pixels
16:10 = 1920x1200 pixels

16:10 is the SAME width as 16:9.. but more vertical res.

Don't be silly No idea where that original graphic came from, but it's clearly made by a retard who has no idea about screen resolution. Please don't wade into a thread accusing people of not knowing what they are talking about until you are confident that you yourself are in possession of the facts.

Here's what that graphic SHOULD look like.

 

Don't flame the nerds of bit-tech - they will buttrape you with facts and leave you crying in the corner..

 

=] yep buttsecked