120Hz LCD Monitors

[Dcode]

Has anyone played with these yet?

These monitors do not use the same tech as 120 or 240 Hz TV's that use the frame insertion bull crap. They are fed a genuine 120Hz signal from your video card.

Some of the guys in fullmj think these are a waste of time but they don't know what they are talking about

Unfortunately your stuck with dirty TN panels as IPS/VA technology is not up to the job of delivering low enough response times.

Basically they are designed for nVidia's stereoscopic 3D features. When using this feature; standard 60Hz monitors cause players serious headaches so the 120Hz refresh is to feed each eye with 60Hz as opposed to 30Hz for each eye on a standard 60Hz monitor.

But using 120Hz in 2D gaming makes everything super smooth - in fact it is as CRT like in smoothness and response as LCD's are going to get. It really does make an enormous difference in FPS games. Especially with a good mouse running at 1000hz polling rate. Textures don't blur when your move your mouse and everything is super responsive. Your frame rates need to be above 60FPS to notice though.

I have been using a Samsung 30T+ 30" monitor for over 2 years and it really is the Rolls Royce of screens in terms of viewing space and image quality but going from the 23" 120Hz TN back to the 30" 60Hz VA is like going from 60FPS to 30FPS. Going back to RO on the Sammy was painful - sure it looked better in terms of picture quality but everything was a blurry mess and I even noticed some input lag that never bothered me before trying the 120Hz screen.

I wall mounted the 30" Sammy and use it for everything else other than gaming.

I have linked some popular models below:

Alienware OtpX AW2310
BenQ XL2410T
Samsung SM2233RZ
LG W2363D
ASUS VG236H

I tried the BenQ but it went back as the image quality - I think; is rubbish. Even after tweaking the OSD and using calibrated ICC profiles. The Asus however, is much better after some minor tweaking.

Post your thoughts. I am interested in what the hardcore CRT fans make of them.

 

[Apos]

I've tried Samsung. Image quality was fine and I would buy one for 2D gaming if that would have FullHD resolution.

I haven't tried other monitors, but my next one will be 120Hz, fullHD 23-24" for sure. I need to take a look on them. However I would wait till new models will come, 120Hz monitors are still new technology, same as SDD HDD.

Here's updated list of 120Hz LCD monitors:

Samsung 2233RZ (No longer in production)
Viewsonic 2265WM (No longer in production)

Alienware OptX AW2310
Asus VG236HE (No 3D Vision Kit)
Asus VG236H (Has 3D Vision Kit, costs more)
Acer GD235HZbid
Benq LX2410 (Not released yet, at least not USA, UK Price $630+)
Hannspree HS233 (Not released yet)
LG W2363D
Lenovo L2363dwA (Not released yet)
Planar SA2311W
ViewSonic VX2268WM (Replaced 2265WM)

 

[Dcode]

Thanks for posting that list dude.

Some of them are 27" models right?

Just to make people aware the 27" versions will still be 1920x1080 resolution, so the image will not be as pin sharp as the smaller screens running the same res.

There is a bandwidth limitation on dual link DVI cable's so 1920x1080 @ 120Hz is the max it can go. HDMI-B can deliver at higher resolutions but its not become mainstream yet.

There are some compromises with current 120Hz screens; 24" max (currently) 1080P resolution and TN panel technology with its limited viewing angles and 6bit colours. However they are still excellent, and well worth a look.

 

[HeyCarnut]

I use two models, viewsonic and acer. Image quality on both is quite mediocre. They are smoother than most, but you'd be hard pressed to tell the difference against a quality 60Hz gaming monitor, and the latter can still offer far superior image quality. As far as targeting ability, until someone shows a valid test where scores are increased, I call placebo (not that smoothness may not be increased beyond 'lesser' monitors, but it just doesn't matter for scoring, the 'lesser' monitors are good enough. Just like a 400MPH tractor won't make you a better farmer.) You can't compare your Samsung 30 to a proper gaming monitor - it is a slug. You'd likely have the same OMG if you'd plugged in most quality gaming monitors.

You might have your info wrong re: DVI bandwidth. IIRC, there is NO bandwidth limit in the spec for dual link, unlike single link, and it is up to the driver (electrical, that is, meaning big $ to do it) and the limits of the carrying media (copper in most cases). On top of that, dual link is allowed 2 px/clock cycle. Quite capable of handling 2560x1600 at 120Hz. I haven't read the spec in some time, YMMV.

For speed / quality junkies, nothing can yet compare to something like a Sony gdm-fw900. But CRT have their own issues w/r to eye strain, text quality, etc. Mine can be re-purposed as a space heater, for example.

Edit: Just chatted w/ a BSD in the industry. There is no limit, other than what I wrote. That said, there are good reasons / advantages to want displayport / HDMI as your connection media.

 

[Colt .45 killer]

hmm I originally had my heart set on a 120hz as my next monitor, now due to all the coding i'm doing I think i'd like to get one of those 'HAS' monitors so I could rotate it and use it as a very tall screen for long code files..

 

[Dcode]

I use two models, viewsonic and acer. Image quality on both is quite mediocre. They are smoother than most, but you'd be hard pressed to tell the difference against a quality 60Hz gaming monitor, and the latter can still offer far superior image quality. As far as targeting ability, until someone shows a valid test where scores are increased, I call placebo (not that smoothness may not be increased beyond 'lesser' monitors, but it just doesn't matter for scoring, the 'lesser' monitors are good enough. Just like a 400MPH tractor won't make you a better farmer.) You can't compare your Samsung 30 to a proper gaming monitor - it is a slug. You'd likely have the same OMG if you'd plugged in most quality gaming monitors.

You might have your info wrong re: DVI bandwidth. IIRC, there is NO bandwidth limit in the spec for dual link, unlike single link, and it is up to the driver (electrical, that is, meaning big $ to do it) and the limits of the carrying media (copper in most cases). On top of that, dual link is allowed 2 px/clock cycle. Quite capable of handling 2560x1600 at 120Hz. I haven't read the spec in some time, YMMV.

For speed / quality junkies, nothing can yet compare to something like a Sony gdm-fw900. But CRT have their own issues w/r to eye strain, text quality, etc. Mine can be re-purposed as a space heater, for example.

Edit: Just chatted w/ a BSD in the industry. There is no limit, other than what I wrote. That said, there are good reasons / advantages to want displayport / HDMI as your connection media.

Hmmm very informative. I am now curious about the information I received regarding the dual link DVI limits.

However I beg to differ regarding the difference between the 60hz and 120hz gaming monitor. I have seen some quick 60Hz TN's and they are nowhere as fluid as the 120Hz.

I am open to be proved otherwise though and i'll be at i42 this April so i'll get to do some side by side comparisons with lots of top gear.

 

[fiftyone]

Thanks for this thread...

I have a Samsung 2232BW 60mhz 2ms response time, is this considered a "gaming monitor"?
I was thinking about a new fan-dangled TV and plugging it into the computer.
I guess this is not a good work around.

Thanks.

 

[HeyCarnut]

Hmmm very informative. I am now curious about the information I received regarding the dual link DVI limits.

Ahh, the internet perhaps? Where the clueless feed the clueless that feed the blind that listen to the idiots?

The beauty of the web is information spread is subitaneous. Unfortunately, you'll find much in the context of enthusiast technology to also be wrong.

However I beg to differ regarding the difference between the 60hz and 120hz gaming monitor. I have seen some quick 60Hz TN's and they are nowhere as fluid as the 120Hz.

I'm sure - I've seen the same, and also have 60Hz that beat my two 120Hz in my subjective opinion, and those of several competitive gaming buddies.

I am open to be proved otherwise though and i'll be at i42 this April so i'll get to do some side by side comparisons with lots of top gear.

Neither one of us has to 'prove' anything, I think. It's your money. You think it looks better, buy it. You think it helps your game score, buy it. At least these 'gamer' 120Hz monitors are pretty cheap, and it's not like a multi-thousand dollar mistake experimenting with real monitors.

 

[HeyCarnut]

hmm I originally had my heart set on a 120hz as my next monitor, now due to all the coding i'm doing I think i'd like to get one of those 'HAS' monitors so I could rotate it and use it as a very tall screen for long code files..

If your code segments / modules fill a portrait screen, time to refactor it
Just get more monitors - real estate is real estate for coding. I can't imagine doing work without multi-monitors. And you can get several smaller for << price of a 30" tilt-o-matic monster.

 

[Colt .45 killer]

ncix has 24" monitors on right now. BENQ has a few for around 180 without HAS, there is an LG with HAS for 200$. 30" Tiltomatico is a wee bit out of my price range right now.

As a monitor ignoramous ( ok not complete but 85%) I googled for that monitor you mentioned there carnut, what makes a horking 100lb crt so good that people would buy it for 2300$!


edit: I'm also currently in university, so ehhh.. nicities of programming like refactoring are often ignored as you plow through large assignments just to get to the next large assignment...

 

[HeyCarnut]

As a monitor ignoramous ( ok not complete but 85%) I googled for that monitor you mentioned there carnut, what makes a horking 100lb crt so good that people would buy it for 2300$!

They have been going up it price, but only a gibbon would pay that much, if that's US dollars. The going rate for an A+ condition is ~ $900US. There's a guy in So. Cal. that was/is a factory tech, he finds, refurbishes, and recalibrates these as a main line of business, along with the really big dollar professional line.

Why is it worth $900, when other old CRT can be had for $20, or even free? It has some of the best objective and subjective performance ever from a consumer CRT. There is simply no comparison to even the best LCD in many aspects. That said, mine sits in my storage room, back in its original and HUGE box, because I get eye strain from hours and hours in front of CRTs, as do many / most. The good LCDs are good enough in the areas that matter to me, and so much easier on the eyes, I prefer them.

But, like a rare old Leica, where digital has become good enough, I don't think I'll ever get rid of it. I'll just get it recalibrated every now and then, pull it out, and have my breath taken away by the IQ. If you have the chance to see one (properly cared for, else any CRT becomes a mess), take a look. It will depress you as to the state of what passes as 'good' with LCD.

 

[Dcode]

They have been going up it price, but only a gibbon would pay that much, if that's US dollars. The going rate for an A+ condition is ~ $900US. There's a guy in So. Cal. that was/is a factory tech, he finds, refurbishes, and recalibrates these as a main line of business, along with the really big dollar professional line.

Why is it worth $900, when other old CRT can be had for $20, or even free? It has some of the best objective and subjective performance ever from a consumer CRT. There is simply no comparison to even the best LCD in many aspects. That said, mine sits in my storage room, back in its original and HUGE box, because I get eye strain from hours and hours in front of CRTs, as do many / most. The good LCDs are good enough in the areas that matter to me, and so much easier on the eyes, I prefer them.

But, like a rare old Leica, where digital has become good enough, I don't think I'll ever get rid of it. I'll just get it recalibrated every now and then, pull it out, and have my breath taken away by the IQ. If you have the chance to see one (properly cared for, else any CRT becomes a mess), take a look. It will depress you as to the state of what passes as 'good' with LCD.

They are legendary screens. Does this guy have a website?

What do you think are the best non 120Hz gaming screens?

If you lived local to me then I would have liked to pop round and see that CRT for myself haha!

 

[HeyCarnut]

They are legendary screens. Does this guy have a website?

What do you think are the best non 120Hz gaming screens?

If you lived local to me then I would have liked to pop round and see that CRT for myself haha!

Yes, all done via ebay.

[URL="http://myworld.ebay.com/unklevito/?_trksid=p4340.l2559"][url]http://myworld.ebay.com/unklevito/?_trksid=p4340.l2559[/URL][/URL]

Unfortunately, due to weight and damage concerns, he will only do local pickup for these.

There is no one that knows these better, or can calibrate them to factory+, than he. Very straight shooter, he will tell you everything plus and minus for a given piece. Hugely recommended if you're in the market for one of these beasts, or need one calibrated properly.

I think the current crop of 120Hz 'gamer' monitors are all pretty comparable, with differing features, all suffering from the panel weaknesses for IQ, but trading that for things advantageous to gamers. I did see a prototype Benq, it seemed pretty poor in IQ, but it was a prototype. I think in a few years we'll see 120Hz monitors for gaming that are much better IQ.

 

[Zetsumei]

The difference between IPS and TN screens is quite noticeable to be honest. But in a similar way for me with audio its not so much that it is less enjoyable it primarily ends up feeling less realistic at times.

120hz monitors are a definite advantage for gaming, even with regular 2d gaming. Although 24fps are enough to perceive fluid motion, your eye is able to notice frame changes much higher. (1/60 = 16ms meaning that at the end before the image is changed you have a 16ms delay with a 60hz monitor, not even taking into account how long the image had been stored in the buffer).

But primarily with framerates at 120hz things such as jitter and pixel banding stop being noticable for a lot of people. Making it possible to play without vsync, which often makes your mouse a lot more responsive in games. (just make sure you do not get the old 120hz monitors (1680x1050) as they have a quite high input lag).

Personally I've used a sony w900 and after that died a sony fw900 when I played the ROMod. And for gaming they were awesome as was the image quality. But those things are seriously deeper than they are wide (around 60cm deep), and they weight 45kg while allowing you to turn off your heater in the winter. And the image overall was a lot less sharp than with lcd monitors (yes i used bnc cables). which makes it harder to spot enemies over the distance vs TFT (important for RO players). Around the edges even when calibrated you could see that straight lines started to bend a bit.

From my fw900 I went to a 42 inch IPS HDTV, and beside the limited colour gamut (colour banding), and difficulty of seeing things when dark I never really had issues and overall would call it a better overall experience (if it weren't for the horrible ~80ms input lag).

As my input lag made me so ****e in video games I then switched to 3 very cheap but fast TN panel monitors. And while watching videos on it clearly looks a lot less nice, It doesn't stop you in any way from enjoying a film. You adapt very fast to the quality of a TN panel and quickly stop noticing imperfections, only when you then see the same thing on a IPS panel shortly after will you possibly notice the difference. With a lot of things is relative to what you're used to.

I notice imperfections quite easily, and tbh for gaming i think that true 120hz will be worth it over a better quality panel (especially as games are often not made so they look great on calibrated monitors, they are made to look good on your average monitor with too much red ). Those 120hz monitors are actually technically faster than the fw900 was, due to the phosphorous layer on the fw900 (which afaik was especially a sort of slow phosphor to make the imagery less flickery).

 

[HeyCarnut]

@Decode:
Sorry, misread your question, you asked about sub 120Hz monitors for gaming.
There are a bunch. The new Dell/HP/Hanns monitors all seem to test objectively/subjectively well, among many others. Take a look at the LCD thread at Anandtech, they keep pretty on top of developments. There's also a good set of threads at hardocp, with some guys that are in the biz doing real tests that are good. I've no plans to upgrade monitors soon, I'm planning a move out of kooky CA, and already have probably two to four tons of electronics to move...but once there, I plan on investigating some new state of the art, particularly projectors for gaming.

@Zetsumei:

120hz monitors are a definite advantage for gaming, even with regular 2d gaming.

Any peer reviewed evidence of this (advantage as in targeting/scoring, not 'I like the look better')? I've yet to see any, and a review of the literature shows none (military sim, since no one is going to do this for 'gamer' oriented things - too easy to market.)

You adapt very fast to the quality of a TN panel and quickly stop noticing imperfections, only when you then see the same thing on a IPS panel shortly after will you possibly notice the difference. With a lot of things is relative to what you're used to.

Yes.

Those 120hz monitors are actually technically faster than the fw900 was, due to the phosphorous layer on the fw900 (which afaik was especially a sort of slow phosphor to make the imagery less flickery).

You're smarter than that. I mean that as a sincere compliment. 160Hz refresh limit on the FW, and comparing phosphor (I'm sure you meant that and not phosphorous ) decay time to sample-and-hold lag is fatuous at best. And let's be real - the primary reason one can even notice this on a quality CRT is the surrounding black is BLACK, not the poor excuse of dark grey of most LCD. When you think about it, it is amazing that consumer LCD can be sold so cheaply and give results that are fine for gaming, and acceptable for semi-critical use. Even a $5k pro lcd for color work is inexpensive in a sense. A properly setup GDM is 95% of the artisan line to my eyes and measurements. The artisan itself seems 95% of the grade 1 sony broadcast monitors. Certainly, black levels are quite equivalent. Wonder how much you need to spend to get GDM black levels on an LCD? There is one I know of, I've seen, and it is mind blowingly good. The DPX-2310. Hold on to your wallet. $35,000 for a 23 inch 1920x1080 LCD with a sequential contrast ratio and black levels comparable to the GDM.

There's good reason broadcast studios still rely on the CRT, despite how heavy, power hungry, and maintenance needy they are.

Additionally, CRT of course have no input lag, though good LCD are so low that I see no reason to think that is an advantage for CRTs any more: the LCDs are fast enough that any lower would likely not increase targeting ability.

I agree in the net, however, the benefits of good LCD outweigh the benefits of quality CRT for me, at least for long session gaming, and certainly for text / code they are FAR superior.

 

[Dcode]

I think the current crop of 120Hz 'gamer' monitors are all pretty comparable, with differing features, all suffering from the panel weaknesses for IQ, but trading that for things advantageous to gamers. I did see a prototype Benq, it seemed pretty poor in IQ, but it was a prototype. I think in a few years we'll see 120Hz monitors for gaming that are much better IQ.

The BenQ I tested did have poor IQ. We have TN's at work that do better.

The LG W2363D and ASUS VG236 seem to be the best 120Hz screens in terms of picture quality.

The DPX-2310 you posted is seriously expensive. Such a premium for something that was done just as good 15 years ago yet for much cheaper.

 

[Zetsumei]

I meant the phosphorous layer. While the input lag of crts indeed is very low, todays lcds have a input lag so low that its difference with a crt is not measurable with a high speed camera when showing a counter on both screens, doing that sometimes you even see that lcds are ahead in the count vs a crt. (but that is likely due to weirdness in the buffer of the videocard, perhaps da conversion and again after burn of the phosphorous layer).

When in a game you turn around quickly with a CRT you see a distinct blur/shadow due to the phosphorous layer that looks very similar to response time on older lcds. (just take a high speed camera and take a shot while turning around). With a fast lcd that is happening far less, or at least I don't notice it there (again just connect 2 monitors, 1 crt and 1 lcd and compare it for yourself with a high speed camera).

And that is the main advantage as well with 120hz as lcd's only generally show a complete sample out of the buffer. This imagery can get pretty old, making it advantageous to take a sample out the buffer more often. With crt one line is placed at a time from top to bottom, allowing you always to have that line be the latest from the buffer. With lcd's this isn't the case afaik, meaning they show entire samples out of the buffer at that time, meaning a change (in an ideal situation) of a max 16ms old sample to a 8 ms old sample.

With 120hz with gaming due to the irregularity of the sampling speed of the videocard, you can notice an effect in motion that is similar to what happens with a 3:2 pulldown. This creates a sort of moving rainbow effect when looking at staircases or other areas with straight lines etc without anti aliasing, this becomes pretty hard to notice with 120hz monitors. Which in turn could make it easier to spot small targets at a distance.

If you just show imagery on the screen then most people won't see that something happens a few milliseconds faster or not. But the delay between moving your mouse and pressing a button on your mouse and something happening on screen is quite noticeable. You won't always find scientific research papers on every subject. But I'm sure that if you would test with a group of say 50 highly competitive gamers (pure guesstimate) you could find a significant (a < 0.05) outcome of a new 120hz lcd being advantageous over a new 60hz lcd with gaming.

Those 120hz monitors cannot compete with the GDW w900 or fw900 on terms of (real) contrast or colour representation. But in terms of gaming performance I highly doubt you would see any difference at this point. You don't need perfect colour representation to hit someone, most "pro" gamers if anything completely **** up the visuals to be able to spot enemies better better (stuff like far too high brightness / contrast and 9000k colour temperatures are not uncommon there).

 

[HeyCarnut]

I meant the phosphorous layer.

Sorry, Zets, either you're confused, don't understand the physics of a CRT, or there's some bizarre language difference I'm not aware of, but there is no 'phosphorous' layer in a CRT. Phosphorous is an adjective refering to something relating to or containng phosphorus. A CRT is not phosphorous, nor does it even use phosphorus, in case that is what you meant and made a typo (since you affirmed the word use, I doubt that, and it's just the former).

Phosphorus is an element that in one form has chemiluminescence. It does not exhibit fluorescence nor phosphorescence, used by CRT, and I'm sure that terminology is where you are confused. There is no phosphorus in, nor anything phosphoruous about a CRT.

A CRT uses phosphors to convert the energy into visble light, not phosphorus and most certainly not phosphorous. The two (three) terms have nothing to do with each other.

Show me a 'chemical' CRT and I'll buy you a copy of HOS.

You won't always find scientific research papers on every subject. But I'm sure that if you would test with a group of say 50 highly competitive gamers (pure guesstimate) you could find a significant (a < 0.05) outcome of a new 120hz lcd being advantageous over a new 60hz lcd with gaming.

Ahh, but you will. I researched this, and other similar things when investigating angel investing for a start-up that planned to build hyper-exotic gaming periperals. I spent quite a bit of time at Stanford, consulting with visual science researchers. The literatature and research available (non-gaming, as I said, but targetting in much more critical situatios: military) and related research, showed no such effect. I'd like to see it done specifically for simpler things like games and gamers, but I don't see that happening. It matters not to visual sciences researchers it seems, and the companies selling 'gamer' things certainly won't: they don't care, it's too easy to sell all sorts of bogus claims to the typical gamer, and should the results show no positive effect (likely with much of the junk marketed as 'gamer'), where would they be?

Those 120hz monitors cannot compete with the GDW w900 or fw900 on terms of (real) contrast or colour representation. But in terms of gaming performance I highly doubt you would see any difference at this point. You don't need perfect colour representation to hit someone, most "pro" gamers if anything completely **** up the visuals to be able to spot enemies better better (stuff like far too high brightness / contrast and 9000k colour temperatures are not uncommon there).

As I said, the IQ of the CRT is what makes it valuable, I already stated the LCDs are good enough that it does not matter for gaming performace, IMO.

 

[Dcode]

So has anyone got an opinion other than the one of the Harvard graduate?

 

[Zetsumei]

My apologies I just looked up the meaning of phosphorous and you are right there ^^.

Guess English not being my native language is ****ing me up here. I thought that phosphorus was the material, and that a phosphorous material was a material which showed the effects of luminescence . But no matter that, the overall point I tried to make should be clear regardless of the terms used.

Anyway I notice a distinct difference myself between 60 and 120hz on lcds while gaming, and again the key part of the difference is not so much in being able to spot those additional frames. But in the felt smoothness and input lag/oddities of your mouse in games (together with some benefits of less tearing).

So personally I'm interested in the test setup and methodology and the exact things they researched for those tests you've seen. As the difference I've experienced was so clearly noticeable that its unlikely to be attributed to a placebo effect (which makes me think that the research was done on a different effect than I was talking about).