Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question
Solved

1440p or 120Hz gaming monitor

Last response: in Graphics & Displays
Share
a b 4 Gaming
a b Ĉ ASUS
a b C Monitor
February 17, 2014 12:56:18 PM

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.
a b 4 Gaming
a b Ĉ ASUS
a b C Monitor
February 17, 2014 1:09:52 PM

The thing is atleast 40 inch monitor is required to feel the magic of 1080p and you are talking about 1440p which is one step ahead of 1080p so more bigger monitors

Our eyes can't see the difference between HD and Full HD on screen size of 27 -32 inch

So I would suggest go with 27 inch 120hz HD monitor
m
0
l
a b 4 Gaming
a b Ĉ ASUS
a b C Monitor
February 17, 2014 1:18:58 PM

Ravi Gagan said:
The thing is atleast 40 inch monitor is required to feel the magic of 1080p and you are talking about 1440p which is one step ahead of 1080p so more bigger monitors

Our eyes can't see the difference between HD and Full HD on screen size of 27 -32 inch

So I would suggest go with 27 inch 120hz HD monitor


From the distance of your lounge to the TV, 1080p and 720p aren't much different on a 40" TV.
I previously used a 40" 1080p TV as a computer monitor because it saved me buying a new monitor. It was very grainy and too big for a close viewing distance.
I then purchased a 27" 1920x1080 monitor and it is a big improvement over the TV in terms of clarity and motion blur, but there it is still grainy and there is still motion blur.

For a 1080p television, suggested viewing distance is 2 to 3 times the diagonal size of the television.
That means you should be no closer than 80" or 2m to a 40" 1080p TV.
For a 27" 1080p monitor, that suggests a viewing distance of at least 54" or 1.37m.
We sit much closer to the monitor than this, hence a higher resolution is required to avoid visible pixelation.

m
0
l
Related resources

Best solution

a b 4 Gaming
a b Ĉ ASUS
a c 128 C Monitor
February 17, 2014 2:10:17 PM

You might want to wait a couple months for both and G-sync:
http://www.tomshardware.com/news/asus-rog-swift-monitor...

It's a 27" 120hz 1440p G-sync monitor.
Share
a b 4 Gaming
a b Ĉ ASUS
a b C Monitor
February 17, 2014 2:31:28 PM

bystander said:
You might want to wait a couple months for both and G-sync:
http://www.tomshardware.com/news/asus-rog-swift-monitor...

It's a 27" 120hz 1440p G-sync monitor.


A 1440p monitor with response time of 1ms GtG is amazing. They claim a high quality TN panel so hopefully the colour reproduction and panel uniformity are good. I'm not sure how much G-sync will be useful compared to just enabling v-sync.

These Korean imports people are raving about may be able to run 100Hz, but they still have a response time of around 6ms GtG. At 100Hz the screen is rendering a frame every 10ms. Pixels may not have finished changing before the next frame starts to render. I'm pretty sure this is why no legitimate manufacturer has released a 120 Hz IPS or PLS monitor.
m
0
l
a b C Monitor
February 17, 2014 4:35:26 PM

It really depends on what you want. You definitely want to find a 120Hz monitor that's actually running on a 120Hz source and see if you notice a difference before going that way. I hear that some people can't even tell. Most stores run all monitors off of a common 60Hz source, so it may be difficult to find a good place to compare them.

A 2560x1440 panel doesn't just give you more resolution over the 120Hz panels, it also gives you far better color and higher contrast, as all (or nearly all) 2560x1440 monitors use better panels than TN. Performance will be worse, true, but you'll also need to run less AA for an equivalent picture because of the higher pixel density. You're going to find it MUCH easier to push 60FPS at 2560x1440 than to push 120FPS at 1920x1080 for any recent games.

Also, unless you own a colorimitor, calibrated values aren't meaningful. Some screens calibrate better than others, so you're generally better off referring to their uncalibrated performance (though that can of course vary by the sampled monitor).

Another monitor to consider is HP's zr2740w, if you live near a micro center. For the same price as the korean panels ($400) you get a name brand, a warranty, and a roughly equivalent to better panel (see reviews here and here). It also doesn't use PWM and has very low input lag.

I just switched to a 2560x1440 panel, and while it's not much larger than a 24'' 1920x1200 panel (it's only wider at the same height), pixel density is noticeably better for desktop use, and games generally look better even with reduced AA. I notice a substantial picture improvement compared to my 7 year old top-of-the-line VA panel, which was already substantially better than another TN panel I have.
m
0
l
a b 4 Gaming
a b Ĉ ASUS
a b C Monitor
February 18, 2014 12:12:24 PM

AnUnusedUsername said:
It really depends on what you want. You definitely want to find a 120Hz monitor that's actually running on a 120Hz source and see if you notice a difference before going that way. I hear that some people can't even tell. Most stores run all monitors off of a common 60Hz source, so it may be difficult to find a good place to compare them.

A 2560x1440 panel doesn't just give you more resolution over the 120Hz panels, it also gives you far better color and higher contrast, as all (or nearly all) 2560x1440 monitors use better panels than TN. Performance will be worse, true, but you'll also need to run less AA for an equivalent picture because of the higher pixel density. You're going to find it MUCH easier to push 60FPS at 2560x1440 than to push 120FPS at 1920x1080 for any recent games.

Also, unless you own a colorimitor, calibrated values aren't meaningful. Some screens calibrate better than others, so you're generally better off referring to their uncalibrated performance (though that can of course vary by the sampled monitor).

Another monitor to consider is HP's zr2740w, if you live near a micro center. For the same price as the korean panels ($400) you get a name brand, a warranty, and a roughly equivalent to better panel (see reviews here and here). It also doesn't use PWM and has very low input lag.

I just switched to a 2560x1440 panel, and while it's not much larger than a 24'' 1920x1200 panel (it's only wider at the same height), pixel density is noticeably better for desktop use, and games generally look better even with reduced AA. I notice a substantial picture improvement compared to my 7 year old top-of-the-line VA panel, which was already substantially better than another TN panel I have.


I don't think it is fair to say that calibrated values aren't meaningful. You can do a pretty good job of calibrating a monitor by sight using sample images, etc.
Any main stream monitor comes with terrible settings out of the box, it is very easy to improve on these values without any measurement devices.
m
0
l
!