Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question
Solved

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

Tags:
  • Gaming
  • Monitors
  • Graphics
  • Product
Last response: in Graphics & Displays
Share
a b 4 Gaming
a b C Monitor
April 8, 2012 4:45:38 AM

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. :D 
There is no issue with powering either display as I have multiple GTX 580's with 3gb v-ram. :sol: 

More about : gaming 2560x1600 60hz 1920x1080 120hz 2ms

April 8, 2012 4:48:36 AM

27.
m
0
l
a b C Monitor
April 8, 2012 4:59:15 AM

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.
m
0
l
Related resources
a b 4 Gaming
a b C Monitor
April 8, 2012 5:03:57 AM

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.
m
0
l
a b 4 Gaming
a b C Monitor
April 8, 2012 5:47:04 AM

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E168...
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=N82E168...
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.
m
0
l
a b 4 Gaming
a b C Monitor
April 8, 2012 5:52:10 AM

inzone said:
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. :D 
There is no issue with powering either display as I have multiple GTX 580's with 3gb v-ram. :sol: 

Competitive: 120Hz.
Non-competitive: IPS cuz it doesn't take much skill to beat the computer.
m
0
l
a b 4 Gaming
a c 196 C Monitor
April 8, 2012 5:53:03 AM

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.
m
0
l
April 8, 2012 5:58:05 AM

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"
m
0
l
a b 4 Gaming
a b C Monitor
April 8, 2012 6:02:13 AM

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.
m
0
l
a b 4 Gaming
a b C Monitor
April 8, 2012 6:03:12 AM

BigMack70 said:
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.
m
0
l
a b 4 Gaming
a c 135 C Monitor
April 8, 2012 6:11:05 AM

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.
m
0
l
April 8, 2012 6:33:39 AM

$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 :p )
m
0
l

Best solution

a b 4 Gaming
a c 135 C Monitor
April 8, 2012 6:46:23 AM

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.
Share
April 8, 2012 6:59:21 AM

i can see a very good discussion is going on.carry on i like to read :) 
m
0
l
a b 4 Gaming
a b C Monitor
April 8, 2012 6:48:10 PM

So I'm guessing the perfect monitor would be a 30" at 2560x1600 and a 120hz refresh rate and 2ms response time?
m
0
l
a b 4 Gaming
a c 135 C Monitor
April 8, 2012 6:51:25 PM

inzone said:
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.
m
0
l
April 8, 2012 6:57:08 PM

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

:lol:  :lol: 
m
0
l
a b 4 Gaming
a b C Monitor
April 8, 2012 7:12:15 PM

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.
m
0
l
a b 4 Gaming
a c 135 C Monitor
April 8, 2012 7:16:31 PM

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.
m
0
l
a c 246 4 Gaming
a c 85 C Monitor
April 8, 2012 7:20:16 PM

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".
m
0
l
a b 4 Gaming
a c 135 C Monitor
April 8, 2012 7:29:52 PM

JackNaylorPE said:
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.
m
0
l
a b 4 Gaming
a b C Monitor
April 8, 2012 7:30:17 PM

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.
m
0
l
a b 4 Gaming
a c 135 C Monitor
April 8, 2012 7:34:19 PM

inzone said:
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.
m
0
l
a b 4 Gaming
a b C Monitor
April 8, 2012 7:40:44 PM

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.
m
0
l
a b 4 Gaming
a b C Monitor
April 8, 2012 7:50:04 PM

Best answer selected by inzone.
m
0
l
April 8, 2012 7:55:19 PM

A 30" monitor 2560x1600 is a much difference animal. Much higher resolution makes it (in my opinion) a much more desireable situation vs a 27" 1920x1080/1200. Requires more gpu muscle to keep framerates playable, but you also should require less AA to make edges look smooth. I'd go with the 30". Just make sure your wallet can take the hit. Dell U3011 and HP ZR30W are both pretty good options in the $1200-1400 range.
m
0
l
a c 246 4 Gaming
a c 85 C Monitor
April 8, 2012 7:59:12 PM

bystander said:
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.


The reason it looks washed out is TN is not too color. Let me make an analogy. When CD's came out for music, most audiophile still preferred the old vinyl LP. This had as much to do with the mix as it did the technology. The "least common denominator" on most music buyers was the "boom box" or "Walkman". The audio quality on these device is poor compared to audiophile systems but the number of audiophiles is small compared to the "general public". Record companies artificially boosted the lows and high so they could "stand out". While this makes it sound good to the general public on the boom boxes and walkmans, the over emphacization of the low and high end made them sound overly harsh on
"audiophile" systems.

Same here...... the IPS monitors have true color rendering capability. The TN's are intentionally saturated and games designed to exploit that. While this makes them look better on the store shelves (look brighter and sharper) if using photo apps, you won't see on the print what you see on the screen.....and, after while, it does get to be "too much" on the eyes. Tweak an image say of a woman's face to look real on an IPS panel and it tends to look a little "overly made up" on a TN panel.

However in gaming .... redder reds, and bluer blues and "brighter" colors on the TN will make the IPS look pale by comparision.
m
0
l
a b 4 Gaming
a c 135 C Monitor
April 8, 2012 9:10:23 PM

I always perform a color correction program to tune the colors to some degree, although I know it has only 6bit per color accuracy. I guessing the difference for my change was due to the age/quality of my other monitor.
m
0
l
April 8, 2012 9:21:12 PM

Put it simple it will take over $1000 in GPUs to drive a 120hz monitor but a 2560x1600 monitor costs $1000 but you could run it respectably with just $300 to $500 in GPUs.
m
0
l
a b 4 Gaming
a c 135 C Monitor
April 8, 2012 9:27:28 PM

MMO Fan said:
Put it simple it will take over $1000 in GPUs to drive a 120hz monitor but a 2560x1600 monitor costs $1000 but you could run it respectably with just $300 to $500 in GPUs.


Where on earth did you come up with that?

The 2560x1600 has double the resolution of a 1080p monitor. So if you feel the 120hz monitor requires double the frames to be worth getting, then they'll cost you about the same. But one of the nice things about going with 120hz is that if you play a game with high GPU demands, you can still play at the highest settings and get good FPS (50+), while the 2560x1600 monitor will require you to lower settings to get playable FPS.

I think you got that one backwards if anything.
m
0
l
April 8, 2012 9:31:19 PM

bystander said:
Where on earth did you come up with that?

The 2560x1600 has double the resolution of a 1080p monitor. So if you feel the 120hz monitor requires double the frames to be worth getting, then they'll cost you about the same. But one of the nice things about going with 120hz is that if you play a game with high GPU demands, you can still play at the highest settings and get good FPS (50+), while the 2560x1600 monitor will require you to lower settings to get playable FPS.

I think you got that one backwards if anything.

Point is it will end up costing around the same in the end. Personally 60hz and 2560x1600/1440 are where it's at with the highest PPI and image quality possible until 4K monitors hit the market for around a grand.Plus do you even understand how many games just will not run @ min 120fps even on a GTX 590 which is why 120hz is a joke unless you just play WoW and COD opps EDIT COD is capped @ 90fps LOL
m
0
l
a b 4 Gaming
a c 135 C Monitor
April 8, 2012 9:58:58 PM

I have a 120hz monitor, I do know what can and cannot hit 120 FPS. The point is this, it takes about the same GPU setup to get 60 FPS with a 1600p monitor as it takes to hit 120hz with a 1080p monitor (assuming the CPU won't bottleneck you), but the 120hz monitor can play a game at 60 FPS and look good, where as 1600p at 30 FPS is not good.

Anyways, you don't need 120 FPS to see a difference in smoothness. I personally shoot for 80-90 FPS (the point motion sickness stops for me) and anything more is gravy. I'll occasionally lower graphical settings to achieve that, but 90 FPS isn't that tough to achieve unless playing Crysis or something of the like.
m
0
l
April 8, 2012 10:14:31 PM

bystander said:
I have a 120hz monitor, I do know what can and cannot hit 120 FPS. The point is this, it takes about the same GPU setup to get 60 FPS with a 1600p monitor as it takes to hit 120hz with a 1080p monitor (assuming the CPU won't bottleneck you), but the 120hz monitor can play a game at 60 FPS and look good, where as 1600p at 30 FPS is not good.

Anyways, you don't need 120 FPS to see a difference in smoothness. I personally shoot for 80-90 FPS (the point motion sickness stops for me) and anything more is gravy. I'll occasionally lower graphical settings to achieve that, but 90 FPS isn't that tough to achieve unless playing Crysis or something of the like.

See myself and I know many others would visually prefer 1600P @ 60fps with image setting turned down a bit then 120hz fps. I don't win or lose any more or less when going from 60hz to 120hz and back.
m
0
l
a b 4 Gaming
a c 135 C Monitor
April 8, 2012 10:33:29 PM

MMO Fan said:
See myself and I know many others would visually prefer 1600P @ 60fps with image setting turned down a bit then 120hz fps. I don't win or lose any more or less when going from 60hz to 120hz and back.


If you are using 1600p, you aren't going to 120hz and back.
m
0
l
April 8, 2012 10:39:51 PM

bystander said:
If you are using 1600p, you aren't going to 120hz and back.

Which is why I said I would pick the 1600P not 120hz
m
0
l
a b 4 Gaming
a c 135 C Monitor
April 8, 2012 10:46:19 PM

Ah, so you are speculating.

Anyways, I'm not saying 1600p isn't good, I'm saying 120hz is better than 60hz.

I also was in disagreement with your GPU requirement speculation. You had that one backwards if anything.
m
0
l
April 8, 2012 10:55:35 PM

bystander said:
Ah, so you are speculating.

Anyways, I'm not saying 1600p isn't good, I'm saying 120hz is better than 60hz.

I also was in disagreement with your GPU requirement speculation. You had that one backwards if anything.

I did not speculate anything stop baiting me. EDIT - my own words "See myself and I know many others would visually prefer 1600P @ 60fps with image setting turned down a bit ((( RATHER ))) then 120hz fps."
m
0
l
a b 4 Gaming
a c 135 C Monitor
April 8, 2012 11:02:01 PM

You worded it like you didn't own either, which is why I assumed you were speculating. You still haven't said what you use or used. The only person on this post that has used both, or at least stated it, was JackNaylorPE. His is the easily the best post on the subject as he has used both side by side.

I still don't buy your idea that it takes more graphics power for the 120hz setup. They should be about the same requirements only that if you don't have enough power to achieve 120hz, it's easier to live with the reduced FPS and both can reduce settings to get the FPS back up, that isn't reserved only for 1600p.

edit: Just wanted to add that I am not arguing that 120hz is "best". I only gave it's advantages, like you said when you claimed that the 120hz system takes 2-3 times more costly of GPU's to run. I repeat, it was only that I disagree with completely.
m
0
l
April 8, 2012 11:05:45 PM

bystander said:
You worded it like you didn't own either, which is why I assumed you were speculating. You still haven't said what you use or used. The only person on this post that has used both, or at least stated it, was JackNaylorPE. His is the easily the best post on the subject as he has used both side by side.

I still don't buy your idea that it takes more graphics power for the 120hz setup. They should be about the same requirements.

How many graphics cards can run 120fps MINIMUM across most or all games ?
m
0
l
a b 4 Gaming
a c 135 C Monitor
April 8, 2012 11:15:16 PM

MMO Fan said:
How many graphics cards can run 120fps MINIMUM across most or all games ?


You don't have to have 120hz on all games to use a 120hz monitor. You see improvements the moment you cross the 60hz barrier and continue to see improvements up to 120hz.

Look at this review of the 680: http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/geforce-gtx-680-rev...

That one card is playing maxed settings on most those games with 90 FPS and over 120hz. If you feel you need 120 FPS, a little setting adjustment can get you there.

You'll notice that at 1600p, your performance on average is about 60% of that of the 1080p system.
m
0
l
April 8, 2012 11:26:19 PM

bystander said:
You don't have to have 120hz on all games to use a 120hz monitor. You see improvements the moment you cross the 60hz barrier and continue to see improvements up to 120hz.

Look at this review of the 680: http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/geforce-gtx-680-rev...

That one card is playing maxed settings on most those games with 90 FPS and over 120hz. If you feel you need 120 FPS, a little setting adjustment can get you there.

You'll notice that at 1600p, your performance on average is about 60% of that of the 1080p system.

No point turning Vsync off then it just gets choppy up and down with the framerate therefore if you can't maintain 120fps full time it was kinda a waste of money to by a 120hz monitor best to keep it real at 60hz or until #1. GPUs get much more powerful and the price of them comes down or 2. Games start to become more optimized on the PC. I would bet on neither of those two happening but I would bet on 60fps being perfectly smooth an playable and 1600P looking much better than 1080/1200P
m
0
l
a b 4 Gaming
a c 135 C Monitor
April 8, 2012 11:33:39 PM

MMO Fan said:
No point turning Vsync off then it just gets choppy up and down with the framerate therefore if you can't maintain 120fps full time it was kinda a waste of money to by a 120hz monitor best to keep it real at 60hz or until #1. GPUs get much more powerful and the price of them comes down or 2. Games start to become more optimized on the PC. I would bet on neither of those two happening but I would bet on 60fps being perfectly smooth an playable and 1600P looking much better than 1080/1200P


Are you saying that if you can't maintain 60hz, you think it's best to cap your FPS at 30?

Wow, we've all been doing it wrong.

Seriously, I get vomit inducing motion sickness with anything below 40 FPS. I continue to get motion sickness to a lesser degree until I reach 80-90 FPS. No, I will not be capping my FPS at 60 because of some crazy notion you have. You do indeed see improvements, even if you aren't capped at 120hz and if you look at the link I gave you, about half those games did average over 120hz, and you could have easily adjusted several of them to get 120hz if you felt you had to be compulsive about it.
m
0
l
April 8, 2012 11:36:38 PM

bystander said:
Are you saying that if you can't maintain 60hz, you think it's best to cap your FPS at 30?

Wow, we've all been doing it wrong.

Seriously, I get vomit inducing motion sickness with anything below 40 FPS. I continue to get motion sickness to a lesser degree until I reach 80-90 FPS. No, I will not be capping my FPS at 60 because of some crazy notion you have. You do indeed see improvements, even if you aren't capped at 120hz and if you look at the link I gave you, about half those games did average over 120hz, and you could have easily adjusted several of them to get 120hz if you felt you had to be compulsive about it.

funny none of my games cap at 30fps even with Vsync on.I hear NOOBs talking like that nonsense probably cause they bought a Bum GPU ala GTX 550ti so they cant play much above 30fps.
m
0
l
a b 4 Gaming
a c 135 C Monitor
April 8, 2012 11:41:38 PM

MMO Fan said:
funny none of my games cap at 30fps even with Vsync on.I hear NOOBs talking like that nonsense probably cause they bought a Bum GPU ala GTX 550ti so they cant play much above 30fps.


I realize that v-sync does not cap you at 30 (unless using OpenGL because triple buffering isn't default), but if you are getting FPS between 30 and 60, you have the same issue as you do with 120hz monitors at FPS between 60 and 120, yet no one complains and we all feel the game is much smoother than being capped at 30 (you'd have to use a FPS limit to cap at 30 with DirectX).

You were the one who was being ridiculous about capping at a constant FPS divisible by the refresh rate. Not I.
m
0
l
April 8, 2012 11:47:16 PM

bystander said:
I realize that v-sync does not cap you at 30 (unless using OpenGL because triple buffering isn't default), but if you are getting FPS between 30 and 60, you have the same issue as you do with 120hz monitors at FPS between 60 and 120, yet no one complains and we all feel the game is much smoother than being capped at 30 (you'd have to use a FPS limit to cap at 30 with DirectX).

You were the one who was being ridiculous about capping at a constant FPS divisible by the refresh rate. Not I.

I have ran Vsync in every ga,e I have played since 2006 and only a couple games have had issues Wolverine which was a crappy console port and Dead Space which also was a crappy console port but good game none the less but in both cases I was able to force Vsync in the CCC and maintain 60fps locked to my monitors Native refresh rate for best image quality and optimal performance that my monitor could allow and thats why I leave Vsync on all the time.

Typical Noob Rhetoric

#1 Vsync locks framerate to 30fps

#2 Microstuttering

#3 Nvidia has better Drivers
m
0
l
a b 4 Gaming
a c 135 C Monitor
April 9, 2012 12:02:05 AM

MMO Fan said:
I have ran Vsync in every ga,e I have played since 2006 and only a couple games have had issues Wolverine which was a crappy console port and Dead Space which also was a crappy console port but good game none the less but in both cases I was able to force Vsync in the CCC and maintain 60fps locked to my monitors Native refresh rate for best image quality and optimal performance that my monitor could allow and thats why I leave Vsync on all the time.

Typical Noob Rhetoric

#1 Vsync locks framerate to 30fps

#2 Microstuttering

#3 Nvidia has better Drivers


I understand, as I always used it too. (edit, in the last few years).

However, there used to be some truth to #1. Before the dominance directX, OpenGL did not always use triple buffering, which v-sync would drop you to about 30 FPS if you could not maintain 60. Eventually drivers added a way to force triple buffing in OpenGL (You can see this option in the driver settings). It hasn't been an issue for a while now, but some people still remember that old issue.
m
0
l
July 21, 2012 6:04:31 PM

Unlike a lot of people posting in this thread, I actually have a Dell u3011 and a Samsung 27" 120hz S27A950 monitor.

They are both great. However, if you like FPS games then you'll want a 120hz monitor with the super fast response time. No question about it. If you are in doubt, buy the 120hz monitor and give it a try. It's cheaper - by about $500 and of course, if you don't notice a difference you can always just return it and go out all with the 30" 1600p.

I would strongly suggest the 120hz to anyone on the fence about this issue. I can CLEARLY notice a big difference when going from 60hz to 120hz and my level of play has great improved due to faster reaction times.
m
0
l
July 21, 2012 6:06:44 PM

i'd day 30 inch... multi 580's are great but 3d isnt really. PLus you have to spend like over $200 of equipment (glasses, etc).
m
0
l
September 26, 2014 1:16:35 PM

inzone said:
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. :D 
There is no issue with powering either display as I have multiple GTX 580's with 3gb v-ram. :sol: 


WHAT? 60Hz 7ms for gaming??? Only 2ms 120Hz, I too select this.
m
0
l
!