I am doing research for a computer monitor that I may get with a $2000 to $2300 dollar gaming rig that I plan to build next year. I have read a source about issues such as tear, lag, and stuttering that can occur during the communication between a monitor and video card if the monitor cannot match capabilities of the card such as frame and refresh rates. Currently, I use an HP 2311x monitor and seems to work fine with Star Wars the Old Republic on default settings at 1920 x 1080 resolution. I am aware that the refresh rate of the monitor should match or exceed the frames per second capabilities of the video card to have smooth image movement (some are saying to go with a 120 Hz monitor) and that I should have a response rate of 3 to 5 milliseconds or less. I also know about using VSync, and that it can add lag. However, I currently do not see the need to go above a resolution of 1920 x 1080 or 3D capability. Are there any other factors that I should be aware of involving the capabilities between a video card and monitor so I can have smooth visual movements in games? Also, would the CPU such as an AMD FX 8150 or top end Intel i5 affect the communication between the video card and monitor? I am asking this because I pre-ordered a copy of the Mass Effect Trilogy and to me it looks more demanding visually than The Old Republic.
hey jpolk, it seems you have many questions. I'd like to answer all them for you but one at a time..
yes monitors can vary depending on the refresh rate and the and response time.
sync does not add lag, sync take the frame rates your getting and caps them at 60 fps so the game play is smoother. if I was to choose between processors I'd get the intel i5 3570k or the intel core i7 2600k. and bulldozer was a flop. pile driver is the successor to bulldozer and is supposed to be better using a new clock mesh. it should be out around this winter. but the i7 still out classes the AMD chips.mass effect seems to be a not so hardware intensive game now because of console porting. I hope that answers your questions but if not please let me know and I'll try the best of my knowledge to answer them
With your budget, I would consider a 2560 x 1440 27" monitor.
The added real estate lets you see more of the map with strategy type games.
Most monitors refresh at 60hz. That is normally very good. In fact, many games will limit their output to 6o frames per second.
It takes a very good graphics card to do 60FPS, particularly with higher resolutions and lots of eye candy.
For fast action shooters, 120hz is supposed to be better, and it tales lots of graphics power to do that.
If the graphics card can't keep up, you will get some sort of distortion.
By next year, we should see Nvidia launch the GTX700 series, and amd the 8000 series. Perhaps 120fps will not be much of an issue then.
Be skeptical about response time statistics. There is no standard on how to measure them. For what it is worth, a 5ms event can occur 200 times per second. It probably does not matter.
Today's best cards do not push the limits of a pcie graphics slot at X16, and barely at X8. I do not see that as a biggie.
As to the cpu. the only AMD chip that can match Intel today, at any price point is the FX-4100 compared to a i3.
Past that, the 3570K, with a mild OC is about as good as it gets, regardless of price.
I see that changing by perhaps 10% when Haswell launches next year.