I am looking to get a new monitor and I have been trawling the internet to find a good one, I use my PC for most things and most game types but I do play a lot of FPS, BFBC2 being my favorite. What I have found is that you two choices, either get a good sized, high resolution, IPS, LED screen such as the Dell U2713HM or you get a high refresh rate 120Hz+ low input lag monitor for smooth FPS. You can't have both, IPS screens are ALL slow and unfortunately there are no high resolution 120Hz screens. I have read that having a high refresh is "like hacking" in FPS and that does sound appealing along with having the option to use 3D but having a larger monitor, with a x1440 resolution with good colour also sounds great. My big question to you all is that I currently have a Asus monitor that has served me very well indeed but only has a 60Hz refresh and I have topped the leader boards no problem so shall I get the Dell, it will look better with the larger resolution, colours and contrast and will benefit everything I do on my PC, keeping myself in the dark from 120Hz or is that super smooth 120Hz reeeeeealy worth it? I welcome any opinions you guys may have. Cheers
Slow? Don't just look at spec sheet, look at the monitor itself. You will be blown away by its colour, rather than TN panel's response time.
Chances are everybody but a hardcore FPS nut is not going to be able to tell the difference between a 8ms monitor and a 16ms monitor. 120hz sounds awesome but to get the benifit you gotta run at a solid 120fps for bf3 at least that's 2 680s in SLI and you will still be short. More so if you want game ran above medium details. Not a lot of other FPS are played super hardcore anymore to merit a purchase of a monitor for FPS games only Buy a 27inch dell ultra and be happy if budget does not allow that the 24inch is fine.
If your a keen fps player then 120hz all the way. Makes no end of difference. Yes your never gonna get the colours of a good ips monitor, but if set up correctly it won't be too far off.
You don't need 2x680 to run bf3 @1920x1080 to get 120fps. My old 570sli setup used to do that and when I went to tri sli it killed it
Input lag is unlikely to be a problem between an IPS and a 120hz TN as they both (and all monitors) generally have very low input lag between 8ms - 30ms. However, if you are a serious gamer and want that 'edge' and can push very high frame rates, I suggest you try a 120hz screen first to see if you believe it's worth it. That's the only way you'll be able to tell. Still, you really want a higher res display (1440p or more) if you do anything else on your pc other than game.
Waste of money, current screens don't really suffer from motion blur or ghosting unless you buy a really cheap one (or it's broken). Plus the Unreal era seems to be well and truly over, even supposedly fast paced current shooters are slow. IPS monitors will have better colour reproduction, which could be more important in today's grey washed out environs.
Definately go for pretty, haven't noticed any lag with my dell. Im no pro fps player though so it may affect others.
It's time for you to read my Monitor Guide post: It's a bit old, needs updating. Will do it in December. But aside for some model recommendation, the actual content is still very relevant. http://forums.bit-tech.net/showthread.php?t=218867 In short, yes it's balance between the 2. They are no 2560x1440 TN panels out now. So if you want that resolution which you get on a 27inch monitor, you don't have the choice than to go with IPS. As the resolution is higher, it is normal that the response time will be slower than a lower resolution screen, like 1920x1080. You have more pixels, it takes more time to go line by line to refresh the content of the entire screen. Response time are gray-to-gray, as I explain in my guide, its what ever gray color (could be the same), to another (or the same) gray color. So you can have potentially a 0ms response time. They are on the market 1ms response time monitor, but in reality they are terrible, at 16 ms. Dell uses the same measurement for all their panels. And they are more realistic. For example the Dell U2410 with a 6ms response time, beats many/most 2-5ms response time TN panels. DESPITE being an IPS. Its normal that it beats it, as it's much more expensive and fancier panel, and we not talking about a low end IPS panel either (eIPS). The reason why TN panels have low input lag, is the same as any eIPS panels. No color processor. In term of overall image quality (in general, they are always exceptions), I would put them in this order: TN < MVA < eIPS < the rest of the IPS models < PVA In term of blacks (contrast): TN < eIPS < the rest of the IPS models < MVA < PVA In term of contrast for backlight technology: CCFL < LED (because the LED's aren't directly behind the panel, but at the bottom, so blacks are automatically better) In term of white reproduction of the backlight: LED < CCFL (high-grade CCFL provide true whites, and has little to no warm up time. While LED's don't exists. They output a light blue, or a cold white color at best) REMEMBER: To enjoy 120Hz monitor, your game needs to run at 120 FPS. If you don't have the computational power to run games at such setting, V-Sync will drop you down to 60FPS, so it will be like if you game runs at 60Hz. You COULD disable v-sync, and get FPS in between, but you'll have tearing. While you have technologies from Nvidia for example, which can turn on/off V-Sync while playing to balance out tearing and 120Hz, if your games runs at 75FPS, it will be set to 60fps regardless (or stay at 75 fps, but V-Sync will be off, and you'll get tearing). It all comes down to, do you want your games to look kick-ass like you never seen them before, and really enjoy the art style, and graphic artists hardwork. Or you want speed to help you ensure that you keep your high-score. In this particular forum, from my own obvervation, most people are more intersted in having games look nicer over speed. Currently what's popular is the: U2711 which costs a lot, but the build quality is no joke, true 8-bit panel, full color processor, pre-calibrated, high-grade CCFL backlight, everything to get the best visuals. This is by far the best, in my opinion, monitor in the consumer market. If you want better, it will be in the professional market. Second choice is the U2412/U2312, while it is not as impressive, and uses an eIPS panel it is a cheaper than the U2410, and offers an excellent entry to the IPS panel world, all by having great features, such as adjustable stand, descent build quality, and some pretty good white LED backlight. The U2412 is also excellent for people that do work, as it 16:10. With it's basic color circuit it also provide excellent low input lag for an IPS panel, competing with most TN panels Third, LG low end eIPS panel. They are several models going around, some are region specific, but essentially its an entry/budget IPS panel. Its about as good as a high-end TN panel, but you get to enjoy the wide 178 degree view angle in all directions, and colors appears better. The only downside is that these monitor don't feature an adjustable stand. They are like any cheapo TN panel. Fourth popular model on this forum, is the U2410. This monitor is exactly (except resolution) the U2711, but smaller. It is 16:10, and 1920x1200 resolution. If you want the U2711, but can't afford it, the U2410 fits exactly that spot. Colors, pictures, features, all the same as the U2711. The U2713H, isn't in the list as it is brand new. It will take time. But it is a great addition for those who seek an affordable standard gamut version of the U2711. I think it will pick up. Please note that all monitors above all uses LG panels, so you can find LG own monitors with the same specs (or very close), and other manufacture like HP. Dell is more recommended as its the most competitive, and you don't pay for the LG brand. So if you don't like Dell for what ever reason, have a look at HP web site or even LG website for similar spec monitors. They are few panel manufacture, that is why it's like this. The big ones are (in no order): LG, Samsung, AOC (mostly on laptops and cheapo monitors), NEC, EIZO, AU Optronics (like AOC), BenQ, Sharp and Iiyama, maybe I missing one or two, I am going by memory here. Here is the full list: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_liquid_crystal_display_manufacturers
I'd say it's a myth that input lag will affect your gameplay in any way. Do you blink your eyes while you play? You should stop that because it kills your leaderboard scores. One blink takes between 100 and 400 milliseconds. Typical 'large' input lag is a tenth of that, and response times are even less. Another silly target of complaint are wireless mice. Radio waves travel at the speed of light. If you can see a delay there, you should probably move your head closer to the screen as it takes too long for the light from the monitor to reach your eyes.
While I am not sure radio wave goes to the speed of light, the speed different won't be noticeable compare to wire as the distance is too short. If we are sending a signal across country, then yes, maybe. The problem with wireless mouse, is only the on the crappy ones, where they have extremely aggressive power saving feature, where as soon as you stop moving your mouse for a sec or two, the mouse goes to "sleep", so when you move it the first few pixel the mouse should move, but doesn't. So you have have this perceived lag. So unless you plan to buy a 8$ wireless mouse instead of a 8$ wired mouse, or buy one of the first wireless mouse ever made, this issue isn't a concern.
As others have said, 120Hz is really only worth it if you have some ridiculous GPU firepower at your disposal, so I would rule that out. As far as an IPS panel goes, the Dell 2713 is really good, but expensive. If you're on a tight budget and want a good IPS panel consider one of the Korean panels (e.g. the Yamakasi Catleap). The build quality of the bezel and stand is not the best, but the panel itself is very good. I could be wrong, but I think it uses the same panel as teh 2712. Obviously the Dell is better overall, but like I say, if you're on a budget... Regarding input lag, don't believe manufacturer specs. Check reviews. Also, I know it may seem this way, but I highly doubt a slightly lower input lag can account for your better performance in FPS games. 95% of your kills will come from being smart, looking at your minimap and anticipating where enemies are going to be, and a slightly faster response time won't help you get more of those kinds of kills. I suppose a quicker response time is good for those relatively rare situations when it comes down to reaction speed, but it probably wouldn't make a massive difference even then. I think anything less than around 16ms is fine for gaming.
Thanks for all the comments, really helped with the decision. . . . . and that is to go for pretty especially if the response time doesn't actually make that much difference in real world tests. GoodBytes, you mention the 2711 with CCFL backlight to be first choice but is this still preferable to the 2713HM with LED that I guess is the "new generation" 2711? Also what card would you recommend to run it, I don't play BF3 but I would want most other games to be smooth under x1440 on high to utilize my new Dell screen It would only need to run the one monitor as I have a great idea to use my other 2 with another machine but software on both so they use the same inputs, basically scroll your cursor from one screen to the next but its actually another OS. . . I'm thinking pure dedicated gaming rig and then another machine for EVERYTHING else . . . it would be like you just re-formatted. . . all the time . . . well, thats the plan anyway!
Forgot to add that I read the guide, top notch stuff! Wish I had found it before, there are so many lieeeesssss on the internet!
Both are great monitor. Yes the U2713 is really new, so my comments on the U2711 don't reflect this new model. The U2713 is a lighter version of the U2711, hence the lower price. It feature like the U2711 a true 8-bit panel, but has less inputs, and less monitor features. The U2713 does come with sRGB pre-color calibrated profile., but not AdobeRGB like the U2711 (this has to do with the gamut difference, I'll get to that) Other changes: -> As the U2713 isvnewer it does have a USB 3.0 hub while the U2711 is USB 2.0 (USB 3.0 didn't exists on consumer product) when the U2711 was released. -> The U2713 can be put into portrait mode,. and go a bit higher in height, the U2711 can't. A key difference is the gamut difference. As the U2713 uses white LED's, it output standard gamut colors, while the U2711, as it uses a CCFL it outputs wide gamut colors. All content in games, and web and so on, is all designed for standrd gamut, due to the sheer popularity among the average consumer of white LED monitor, due to the low price, and better than low end CCFL used on budget LCD monitors, which output poorer colors compared for LED back light. If you do color critical work and is on a very tight budget, where you can't afford professional line monitor: you want standard gamut monitor OR, a wide gamut monitor (like most professional grade monitors), but get a color calibrator (if you don't have one) to adjust the color and configure the photo editing programs correctly. To me it doesn't make much sense, as you would normally have a color calibrator in the first place... and won't trust pre-calibrated stuff, for several reasons, also not to mention that he normal usage of the monitor will wear the panel and back light which will result in de-calibrated monitor by a few percentage every year, which won't be good if you need tings to be pin point color acrate. Anyway, My point is, standard gamut is now forcefully preferred, but for most of us, using a wide gamut monitor, the slight increase in saturation isn't the end of the world, and not really noticeable, unless you have the 2 monitor next to each other. So far, on this forum, no one complained, and are simply astonished. The up side of using CCFL is getting true white, and amazing looking gray scale images (areas where it will be most noticeable), while white LED's won't. So it comes down to preferences, what you care about, and what you don't. Based on reviews the U2713 is a very good monitor as well. For me, I prefer CCFL back light. The only time I want LED back light is on a laptop for the reduce power usage. The GTX 670 and 680 seams to handle the game well at max settings. Now do you need 2GB or 4GB, that I can't answer you. There was a thread where that was a battle. Seams like if you want stable high fps get the 4GB version, else the 2GB. But don't quote me on that, and take it as a grain of salt. If both system are Windows (different or same version): -> InputDirector (free): http://www.inputdirector.com/ -> Microsoft (well an employee at Microsoft did it on his free time): Mouse without boarders (free): http://blogs.technet.com/b/next/arc...ft-garage-download-mouse-without-borders.aspx If both OS are different: -> Synergy or a variant of it. Sorry dude, but I don't see why you want to do this?
I had the same issues when deciding a new monitor. Do I go for 120Hz or Higher Resolution? My decision was to go with 3 120Hz monitors (27" Asus VG278H 3D). My reasoning behind this is that I went for a Tri-Screen setup as I want to be as immersed in the game as I can and 3D Surround looks lush. Tri-Screen setups are ace however when you start pushing higher resolutions that IPS monitors offer your FPS will drop dramatically due to the huge increase in pixels causing you to need more graphics power. A 3 Monitor setup beats 1 IPS display and day, OK 3 120Hz wont be as pretty as an IPS but there more immersible, have that wow factor and you wont need as much graphical power for 3 120Hz vs 3 IPS. So as you can tell I settled on 3 27" Asus VG278H 3D Monitors. Also you get the ability to use 3D. So as soon as my new setup arrives (Hopfully this coming tuesday) I will have more feedback regarding the 120Hz monitors.
huh? 3x 1920x1080 TN vs 3x 1920x1080 IPS... I count the same pixels? In fact you lose big with your setup. You paid a premium for 120Hz monitors.. to enjoy 120Hz.. you need your games to run at 120FPS. So you either play them at near minimal settings. OR you get some crazy ass dual high-end GPU to be able to render 120fps. Already it's very difficult to play 120fps on a single screen. Due to Vsync, your games will go down to 60fps... so it will be exactly like if you had 60Hz. The Dell 2312M, 23inch a perfect resolution for 1920x1080, is 219.00$ Your ASUS is 700$, for 27inch.. but it's still 1920x1080... so now text will be hard to read, the colors will be over-saturated to compensate for the 3D glasses sun glass effect it does, and it doesn't even have DisplayPort in it, which I would assume to be standard in this day of age, and it's glossy. Well it least it has an adjustable stand.. it better for 700$! Sorry buddy, but I don't get your reason.
The PC that the monitors are on is purely for gaming so text doesnt really bother me. The screen is not glossy (from what I have read) I have 2 top end graphics cards (2 4GB Nvidia 680 GTX) SLI. As for 3 TN VS 3 IPS. The reason I said that is because IPS are best used at higher resolution than 1920x1080 so to get the most out of IPS you want the highest resolution you can get. I haven't got this yet as I'm still waiting for my order to be sorted (a expensive system build from scan). I didn't know that you needed a continuous 120FPS to display it at 120FPS. I thought if you got 80FPS then you got 80FPS. As you can tell I'm not monitor friendly lol. so do you recommend 2 IPS monitors ? Im able to change my order before its dispatched and obviously I want to get the best for my money. What monitors do you recommend? (24" Minimum 27" Maximum) Must be used in a 3 Screen setup. I did see 24" Dell U2410 Ultrasharp Or 27" Asus PB278Q WQHD LED Monitor
You don't need a continius 120hz. If your putting out 80fps you get 80fps. It doesn't drop to 60fps. Turn vsync off lol
