Gaming on 2560x1600 60hz or 1920x1080 at 120hz 2ms

[inzone]

I am torn between a monitor that is 30" and 2560x1600 and 60hz at 7ms and a monitor that is 27" 1920x1080 and 120hz and 2ms.
Which would be better for gaming.
There is no issue with powering either display as I have multiple GTX 580's with 3gb v-ram.

 

[gary1]

27.

 

[welshmousepk]

I currently have a 120hz monitor, and im probably going to ditch it to grab a 1440p.

3d is a pointless gimmick in 99 percent of situations, and the higher framerate really isn't noticeable unless you are looking for it.

thats just my opinion though. you probably would be best trying them out first.

 

[inzone]

I'm not looking for 3D gaming but rather I had heard that a 120hz refresh rate was a lot better than a 60hz and that the 7ms response time was not good for gaming.

 

[inzone]

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16824176177
HP ZR30w Black 30" 7ms S-IPS Panel Height &Swivel Adjustable Widescreen LCD Monitor w/USB Ports 370 cd/m2 DC 3,000:1

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16824001472
SAMSUNG S27A950D Black 27" 2ms Full HD 3D LED BackLight LCD Monitor w/ 3D glasses 300 cd/m2 DCR 1,000,000:1 (1,000:1)

These are the two monitors that I am looking at and while the HP is for sure the Samsung is a maybe with an Asus or an Acer with the same options as alternate considerations. I am leaning towards the HP as the 30' S-IPS panel is very appealing as is the 2560x1600. I just wanted to make sure that the 7ms response time wasn't an issue with gaming.

 

[azeem40]

I am torn between a monitor that is 30" and 2560x1600 and 60hz at 7ms and a monitor that is 27" 1920x1080 and 120hz and 2ms.
Which would be better for gaming.
There is no issue with powering either display as I have multiple GTX 580's with 3gb v-ram.

Competitive: 120Hz.
Non-competitive: IPS cuz it doesn't take much skill to beat the computer.

 

[jaguarskx]

I don't particularly like TN panel monitors so between the two I would choose a 30" 2560x1600 monitor. Not too crazy about 16:9 aspect ratio for monitors so 2560x1440 would not be an option for me.

 

[maxinexus]

No question what so ever 30" 2560x1600 IPS the best thing that ever happen to me
Like in metro 2033 "thRow your junk away...the best gun in the woRld... Recommend"

 

[swifty_morgan]

leaving size out for the moment, gaming or doing almost anything else on a monitor that has a 120 refresh rate is noticeable. more "fluid". there will be people who say you can't see more than 60 but until you try them both you won't know. I use a 27"'er most of the time. plenty big enough. unfortunately this one is 60Hz. an other is 120Hz. there is a difference.

 

[azeem40]

There is no competitive advantage to 120Hz over 60Hz other than the placebo affect.

I am no fan of 120Hz, but that is what I heard. Guess it was wrong. I prefer IPS too.

 

[swifty_morgan]

here. watch this....... best i can do on short notice




http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6CML9GaMSdg

 

[bystander]

He'd certainly have lower response with the 120hz monitor, maybe not so much due to the hz, but due to higher FPS. The higher the resolution, the lower the FPS, though it might not be a big advantage.

That said, I purchased a 120hz monitor for a couple reasons, and not for 3D. I experience less motion sickness higher FPS and I can't stand screen tearing. 120hz and v-sync allow me to not experience motion sickness when I get to about 80-90 FPS. Having higher FPS is also a lot easier with a lower resolution.

As it turns out, I ended up loving 3D and now rarely play without it. About 1/3 of my games work well with it, and I've learned of a modder, Helix, who has fixed a lot of other games I own as well, so now most my games work great with 3D.

 

[hellfire24]

$1k+ for a monitor???you can get a nice eyefinity setup for less price.make sure you have enough gpu power(i know you have just doing the formality )

 

[bystander]

If you have 120hz and FPS near 120, you can tell a noticeable difference when trying to track and line up targets vs 60hz. Though you also need a mouse that polls fast as well.

That said, when I first started using 120hz, I was expecting more than what I got. I didn't feel it was that big of an improvement until a couple months later when something happened and I was put into 60hz. It was very noticeable going down to 60hz from 120hz.

 

[hellfire24]

i can see a very good discussion is going on.carry on i like to read

 

[inzone]

So I'm guessing the perfect monitor would be a 30" at 2560x1600 and a 120hz refresh rate and 2ms response time?

 

[bystander]

So I'm guessing the perfect monitor would be a 30" at 2560x1600 and a 120hz refresh rate and 2ms response time?

I don't believe current tech supports 120hz at that resolution and even if it did, you'd lose a lot of FPS, likely taking away the 120hz advantage.

The question is, do you want smoother gaming (mostly noticed when turning or tracking a target) or a sharper image.

 

[hellfire24]

So I'm guessing the perfect monitor would be a 30" at 2560x1600 and a 120hz refresh rate and 2ms response time?

:lol: :lol:

 

[inzone]

I am thinking at this point that a sharper image might serve me better since I'm over 60 and things would look better on a bigger screen. I think that if I had top quality internet service I would go for the 120hz but the town I live in has poor quality when compared to other places.

 

[bystander]

When it comes to tracking a target or turning, the visuals of it are not effected by internet connection. It may be true that the internet might cause you to not be lined up, even though it shows correctly on your screen. I'm not sure how that translates to any competitive difference, but it does look smoother and easier to track the visual representation of a target.

I have not tried with a high res monitor to compare the advantages of the sharp image.

 

[JackNaylorPE]

Speaking from direct experience (not something I read in a forum post on the internet), I'd recommend 120 Hz in a heartbeat.....tho more on that later I have two setups almost side by side up stairs.

One has a GTX 580 w/ Dell IPS Panel .... Son No. 2 is minoring in Photography at college and IPS made sense for this application. A+ in Photography ..... between B+ and A- in gaming

Son No. 3 has twin 560 Ti's w/ Asus 120 Hz TN panel. While it can't touch the IPS panel in true color rendering for photo apps, Son No. 3's box blows away the one above in gaming.....fps, game image quality, brightness, response time are all well above the Dell IPS panel which frankly looks "washed out" in games by comparison.

As for 3D, frankly 3D movies don't do anything for me.....and tho I haven't watched one on this PC, Son No. 3 bought himself the nVidia 3D vision glasses and I did play Batman 3D and parts of a few other games. It was a kick and surprised the hell outta me.....I enjoyed it immensely . To the point where if a game had 3D capability, I couldn't imagine not turning it on.

As to the size, worth doing a bit of research on dot pitch and pixels per inch. The human eye (normal vision) can start to distinguish individual pixels at about 96 ppi at normal desktop viewing distances.

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

Here's some common PPI

1920×1080 23.0 95.8
1920×1080 23.6 93.3
1920×1080 24.0 91.8
1920×1080 24.6 89.6
1920×1080 27.0 81.6

1920×1200 23.0 98.4
1920×1200 24.0 94.0
1920×1200 27.0 83.8

2560×1440 27.0 108.8
2560×1600 30.0 101.6

So if ya it at normal desktop viewing distances, the ones in bold will likely appear (to most people) a bit "grainy".

 

[bystander]

I have two setups almost side by side up stairs.

One has a GTX 580 w/ Dell IPS Panel .... Son No. 2 is minoring in Photography at college and IPS made sense for this application.

Second has twin 560 Ti's w/ Asus 120 Hz TN panel. While it can't touch the IPS panel in tru color rendering for photo apps, Son No. 3's box blows away the one above in gaming.....fps, game image quality, brightness, response time are all worlds above the Dell IPS panel which frankly looks "washed out" in games by comparison.

As for 3D, frankly 3D movies don't do anything for me.....and tho I haven't watched one on this PC, Son No. 3 bought himself the nVidia 3D vision glasses and I did play Batman 3D and parts of a few other games. It was a kick and surprised the hell outta me.....I enjoyed it immensely . To the point where if a game had 3D capability, I couldn't imagine not turning it on.

I'm curious as to why the IPS monitor would look washed out. Not that I don't believe you, as I had a similar experience from going from a normal 60hz monitor to a 120hz monitor. The 60hz monitor looked washed out and almost blurry, even though it had a higher resolution (1200p). I wonder if the hz plays a part in image quality.

I also had a similar experience with 3D. I bought this 120hz monitor for gaming in 120hz, but decided to get one that was 3D ready for the option. It turned out that I loved 3D gaming, while 3D movies don't impress me at all.

 

[inzone]

If you play a game like MW3 they have the replay function of when you arer killed that shows what happened. In all of those replays where I came face to face with an opponent and I started shooting first but I am still shot and killed , when I look at the kill cam I notice that the other person is shooting first and then I start second which is why I'm killed. So it means that I'm actually shot when I start to shoot ,I just don't know it yet and it's because that other persons internet connection is faster than mine. My connection is around 30 mb down and 3 mb up and I know that other towns around me have up to 100 mb down and 10mb up which is a big difference.
So anyway I still will be giving it some more thought as there is no real rush but I apperciate the input from everyone and I will take what everybody has offered and consider all the options.

 

[bystander]

If you play a game like MW3 they have the replay function of when you arer killed that shows what happened. In all of those replays where I came face to face with an opponent and I started shooting first but I am still shot and killed , when I look at the kill cam I notice that the other person is shooting first and then I start second which is why I'm killed. So it means that I'm actually shot when I start to shoot ,I just don't know it yet and it's because that other persons internet connection is faster than mine. My connection is around 30 mb down and 3 mb up and I know that other towns around me have up to 100 mb down and 10mb up which is a big difference.
So anyway I still will be giving it some more thought as there is no real rush but I apperciate the input from everyone and I will take what everybody has offered and consider all the options.

Just to clear things up, you are getting shot first due to latency, which might be due to the distance to the server you play on. It is not due to the speed of your connection. Your speed calculates how fast you can down load a certain amount of data. Latency is how long it takes a single packet of information to reach the server and return.

You might try a different server to find one that has a lower ping time to help yourself out.

 

[inzone]

I'm not sure that I have that option as in MW3 of the people in the map one with the best connection is chosen as the host and for those times when it's me I notice a difference.