Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question
Solved

please help monitor question

Last response: in Computer Peripherals
Share
February 12, 2014 10:02:21 AM

So I need help with monitor. I have a guy offering me a benq va gw2750hm for a 150$ and only a few months old. Or should I save my money and get a asus vg278he. I want a 27inch. It will be pretty much be for gaming. Like dayz ,bf4, the division, titanfall and so many others

MY specs are
770 4gb sli
Fx 8150 liquid cooled at 4.2ghz
8gbs of dominator gt 1866
Rm850 PSU
And I currently have 3 dell 2001fp monitors in surround

Thank you for anyhelp

More about : monitor question

February 12, 2014 10:30:19 AM

I read a few reviews on the gw2750hm and a number of peeps mention ghosting while gaming and its pixel pitch is 0.311, but for $150, your saving $60+ off retail. So bang for the buck its a good deal if you can put up with some ghosting.

The vg278he offers 144hz refresh which is great if you are a competitive FPS player and your system can pump out 144 FPS consistently. Also, the pixel pitch on this guy is .31 which I find to be a little fat (they just stretched out a 24" monitor to 27")

if you have the means take a look at this ASUS PB Series PB278Q 27 for $550.

Its a 1440p monitor and its beautiful! I have had this monitor for about 5 months now and I wouldnt think of going back to 1920x1080. I play games like Skyrim, Bioshock, Borderlands2 and I love it. Just love it.

If I had to choose between the two you mentioned, I would go with the vg278he as I think the ghosting issues reported on the other would drive me nuts.


m
0
l
February 12, 2014 10:43:01 AM

Preecher said:
I read a few reviews on the gw2750hm and a number of peeps mention ghosting while gaming and its pixel pitch is 0.311, but for $150, your saving $60+ off retail. So bang for the buck its a good deal if you can put up with some ghosting.

The vg278he offers 144hz refresh which is great if you are a competitive FPS player and your system can pump out 144 FPS consistently. Also, the pixel pitch on this guy is .31 which I find to be a little fat (they just stretched out a 24" monitor to 27")

if you have the means take a look at this ASUS PB Series PB278Q 27 for $550.

Its a 1440p monitor and its beautiful! I have had this monitor for about 5 months now and I wouldnt think of going back to 1920x1080. I play games like Skyrim, Bioshock, Borderlands2 and I love it. Just love it.

If I had to choose between the two you mentioned, I would go with the vg278he as I think the ghosting issues reported on the other would drive me nuts.




see that was what i heard about the ben q monitor and i just want one really amazing monitor and want my money to go wisely. also thank you for the help and reserch so far. Now isnt 1440p only 60hz? and doesnt it take much more graphics to run? i dont know much about 1440p. and how would my 770 4gb sli fair with it? i also play all of those games as well. And those 2 monitors were the only 2 i looked at really i just saw the ben q cheap from this guy but i think its only 60hz wich i dont think would be much of a upgrade from my dell 2001fp. how much of a difference is there between 60hz and 120hz or 60hz 1440p vs 120hz 1080p

thanks for the help im dont know much about monitors just want the best i can afford and want my money to impress me
m
0
l
Related resources

Best solution

February 12, 2014 11:35:40 AM

In my opinion, the difference between 60hz, 120hz, 144hz is a bit subjective and there are so many facets but here is my take....

Visually, all other things being equal, you are not going to "see" any difference between 60/120/144 hz monitors. Yes, a 120hz monitor can flash 2 more images per second but if anyone can truly distinguish that then they need to go on Stan Lee's Superhumans TV show (or maybe my "palette" is not distinguished enough) . What the higher refresh rates can help with tearing and ghosting but that also has to do with the FPS your PC can put out. So that's an arguable statement too.

Tom's recently wrote a relevant article http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/graphics-card-myths... . Please give it a once over. Some articles indicate that you can get a competitive edge in FPS games with higher refresh rates and some say higher refresh rates look/feel "smoother". I can't support or refute those statements.

So refresh rates being aside, I can say from real world experience that 1440p is a very noticeable difference in real estate on your screen. Many more pixels and with the monitor I mentioned, its .233 pixel pitch which means tinier pixels which means crisper, more detailed image compared to 0.311. Everything just seems crisp and big! Hopefully you have a desk big enough that you can put it back a good arms length or more from your head :)  It felt like going from 1280 x 720 to 1920 x 1080 if that makes better sense.

You will need a decent video card to run games at 1440p at high\ultra settings but that can vary from game to game and it looks like you have a 770 gtx SLI solution? I suspect your system can bear the burden.

At any rate, read that article and see if that helps you decide if > 60hz really matters to you. If a higher refresh doesnt matter, then seriously consider 1440p.

Sorry, im at work and rushing this response, probably better get back to it...

Cheers!

Share
February 12, 2014 1:53:53 PM

Preecher said:
In my opinion, the difference between 60hz, 120hz, 144hz is a bit subjective and there are so many facets but here is my take....

Visually, all other things being equal, you are not going to "see" any difference between 60/120/144 hz monitors. Yes, a 120hz monitor can flash 2 more images per second but if anyone can truly distinguish that then they need to go on Stan Lee's Superhumans TV show (or maybe my "palette" is not distinguished enough) . What the higher refresh rates can help with tearing and ghosting but that also has to do with the FPS your PC can put out. So that's an arguable statement too.

Tom's recently wrote a relevant article http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/graphics-card-myths... . Please give it a once over. Some articles indicate that you can get a competitive edge in FPS games with higher refresh rates and some say higher refresh rates look/feel "smoother". I can't support or refute those statements.

So refresh rates being aside, I can say from real world experience that 1440p is a very noticeable difference in real estate on your screen. Many more pixels and with the monitor I mentioned, its .233 pixel pitch which means tinier pixels which means crisper, more detailed image compared to 0.311. Everything just seems crisp and big! Hopefully you have a desk big enough that you can put it back a good arms length or more from your head :)  It felt like going from 1280 x 720 to 1920 x 1080 if that makes better sense.

You will need a decent video card to run games at 1440p at high\ultra settings but that can vary from game to game and it looks like you have a 770 gtx SLI solution? I suspect your system can bear the burden.

At any rate, read that article and see if that helps you decide if > 60hz really matters to you. If a higher refresh doesnt matter, then seriously consider 1440p.

Sorry, im at work and rushing this response, probably better get back to it...

Cheers!



i really do appreciate all your work on this for me. but let me ask you this cause now im at 1600x1200 right now... so is 1440p gonna be mind blowing for me and the 120hz isnt gonna be to big of a deal for me cause i still destroy people on a 60hz 1600 x 1200 monitor. but my thing is i wana see what all my games truely look like ya know? so i have no problem spending a little extra for more eye poping detail cause thats what im really after i just thought i was doing bad cause i was at 60hz. but if its better to get a 1440p vs 120hz 1080p then im tottaly down...is it a crazy diff? also how important is the MS on 1440p should i look for the lowest?

and i read that article alittle im at work as well but what did you want me to read on it perticulary so i can skim to that section?
m
0
l
!