For all my research I am having trouble deciding on a new monitor for my games PC.
These are the four I am currently considering:
Asus VG278HE
BenQ XL2720T
Asus PB278Q
Dell U2713HM
The Asus PB278Q (PLS panel) and Dell U2713HM (IPS panel) offer 2560x1440 resolution and better colour reproduction, but slower response time leading to motion blur.
The other two are 120Hz or 144Hz refresh rates, lower response time and reduced motion blur.
The Dell does not use PWM backlight dimming, so is flicker free. The others all use PWM backlight (despite flicker-free claims from BenQ).
The Dell has higher input lag than the other three, but I don't if it is enough to make a difference.
Calibrated contrast and colour are reasonable on all, best on the Dell and worst on the BenQ.
I'm particularly after people's personal experience with any of these monitors, or other 27" monitors they would suggest for gaming.
I don't see much appeal in stereoscopic 3D. I also can't imagine using Lightboost to reduce image blur at the expense of image quality and flickering. The 120Hz or 144Hz monitors are only of interest to me for smoother motion and reduced motion blur.
I have a GTX 770 graphics card, so I am concerned about some games not being able to run at 2560x1440. I'm prepared to turn down anti-aliasing and other effects but want to at least keep high detail textures and the native resolution of the display.
The last two games I have spent a substantial amount of time playing single player were Skyrim and Far Cry 3.
Skyrim is pushing the limits of my 2GB of video memory with mods, but there is a "light" version of the high res textures available so hopefully 2560x1440 will be OK.
Metro Last Light seems to be the most intensive game at the moment and the GTX 770 can manage about 37 FPS at 2560x1440 with very high quality. This means I would have to drop quality settings. Far Cry 3 isn't far behind in requirements.
The only multi-player FPS game I have played in a while is Team Fortress 2. This has such low requirements that it should easy manage 120 FPS at 1920x1080 or 60 FPS at 2560x1440 hence maxing out any of these monitors.
With the 2560x1440 monitors I am also concerned about motion blur. For all of that though, I wonder if the improved image quality at this resolution will be more beneficial than the 120Hz+ monitors.
These are the four I am currently considering:
Asus VG278HE
BenQ XL2720T
Asus PB278Q
Dell U2713HM
The Asus PB278Q (PLS panel) and Dell U2713HM (IPS panel) offer 2560x1440 resolution and better colour reproduction, but slower response time leading to motion blur.
The other two are 120Hz or 144Hz refresh rates, lower response time and reduced motion blur.
The Dell does not use PWM backlight dimming, so is flicker free. The others all use PWM backlight (despite flicker-free claims from BenQ).
The Dell has higher input lag than the other three, but I don't if it is enough to make a difference.
Calibrated contrast and colour are reasonable on all, best on the Dell and worst on the BenQ.
I'm particularly after people's personal experience with any of these monitors, or other 27" monitors they would suggest for gaming.
I don't see much appeal in stereoscopic 3D. I also can't imagine using Lightboost to reduce image blur at the expense of image quality and flickering. The 120Hz or 144Hz monitors are only of interest to me for smoother motion and reduced motion blur.
I have a GTX 770 graphics card, so I am concerned about some games not being able to run at 2560x1440. I'm prepared to turn down anti-aliasing and other effects but want to at least keep high detail textures and the native resolution of the display.
The last two games I have spent a substantial amount of time playing single player were Skyrim and Far Cry 3.
Skyrim is pushing the limits of my 2GB of video memory with mods, but there is a "light" version of the high res textures available so hopefully 2560x1440 will be OK.
Metro Last Light seems to be the most intensive game at the moment and the GTX 770 can manage about 37 FPS at 2560x1440 with very high quality. This means I would have to drop quality settings. Far Cry 3 isn't far behind in requirements.
The only multi-player FPS game I have played in a while is Team Fortress 2. This has such low requirements that it should easy manage 120 FPS at 1920x1080 or 60 FPS at 2560x1440 hence maxing out any of these monitors.
With the 2560x1440 monitors I am also concerned about motion blur. For all of that though, I wonder if the improved image quality at this resolution will be more beneficial than the 120Hz+ monitors.