To perform these tests, we use a high-speed camera that shoots at 1000 frames per second. Analyzing the video frame-by-frame allows us to observe the exact time it takes to go from a zero-percent signal to a 100% white field.
We had to do things differently for this review since our pattern generator maxes out at 60 Hz. So, we filmed a mouse movement that triggers the field pattern’s appearance. Since this is less precise than using the generator, we averaged five measurements.
Here is the screen draw result:

At 120 Hz, the draw time is about two-thirds faster than a typical IPS panel’s time of 25 milliseconds. Needless to say, the reduction in motion blur is more than subtle. We ran through many of the tests at blurbusters.com and saw clear improvements in all of them when running at 120 Hz versus 60.
Here are the lag results:

All of the high-refresh displays we’ve tested, including the Tempest, demonstrate extremely low input lag. Consider the advantages enjoyed by the AOC, BenQ, and Asus VG248QE. They employ TN panels with 6-bit/FRC color depth. And they’re only driving a resolution of 1920x1080. The Tempest is IPS. It’s a full 8-bit panel. And it’s refreshing 44 percent more pixels. Now that’s impressive. A price tag of $450 is just icing on the cake.
- Overlord Tempest X270OC: 27” 120 Hz IPS Gaming Monitor Review
- Packaging, Physical Layout, and Accessories
- Setup and Calibration Of The Overlord Tempest X270OC
- Measurement and Calibration Methodology: How We Test
- Results: Brightness and Contrast
- Results: Grayscale Tracking and Gamma Response
- Results: Color Gamut and Performance
- Results: Viewing Angles and Uniformity
- Results: Pixel Response And Input Lag
- Overlord’s Tempest X270OC Satisfies The Speed And Resolution Obsession
any idea if there will be a similar monitor spec but 4k resolution ?
thanks,
any idea if there will be a similar monitor spec but 4k resolution ?
thanks,
Question is how much will this cost here in Europe.
Also, now make the same thing happen in a 30" format with 2560x1600 resolution, and than I am definitely opening my wallet.
MonsterCookie, alas I doubt that will happen. A few years ago, 1440 and 1600
height monitors were priced basically the same, ie. expensive. Back then, top-end
GPU reviews tended to use 2560x1600 as a typical max res test for gaming. But
then buying patterns evolved, the usual feedback between pricing and demand,
people tended to opt more and more for 1440 displays instead. As a result, when
I wanted to get a 1600 IPS a while ago, I was amazed to find 1600 hieght displays
were about 4X more expensive than 1440 IPS models.
Presumably it suits the industry to home in on a more typical standard, and for
the moment, beyond HD, 2560x1440 seems to be it. Very unlikely the industry has
any interest in pushing 1600 height to the masses, so probably the next main step
up will be to 4K, or as I wish they'd call it instead, quad-HD.
Ian.
http://overlordcomputer.com/blogs/news/7384176-the-overclock-overview
It's like hoping you'll get an i7 that will have a stable OC to 4.5Ghz 24/7. It's the luck of the draw.
I don't much like putting my money on hope. If they did have a guarantee or just sold a monitor that shipped to my house with 120Hz capability, I'd be more likely to hand over my cash.
You know darn well they make sure the review site is getting a good one.
1) Yes, This works perfectly at 90Hz. Yes, it is a great improvement. Much greater improvement is 60->90 than 90->120.
2) All monitors are from this day to the future to come 16:9. So, its useless to fancy 16:10 monitors anymore, they wont be coming ever again.
3) 4K 120Hz gaming monitors wont be coming, either. At least not in the foreseeable future.
4) Overclocking this is not luck of the draw. They all come at least 96Hz, and the great majority work 120Hz.
5) The lack of displayport etc is what helps keeping input lag low.