23' 120hz IPS monitor

Quote:

---

Sometimes having a computer monitor and a separate HDTV are just too much for your feng shui to handle, and Mitsubishi is here to enhance your qi with its MDT231WG all-in-one monitor. No, not an all-in-one in that it has a PC built in there, but rather it's intended to serve double-duty as a computer monitor and an HDTV. Its 120hz refresh rate and 5.5ms response time mean it'll keep up with Call of Duty, while its 178-degree viewing angle, 5000:1 contrast ratio IPS panel, and integrated 2.1 channel sound system means it should do a decent job at movie playback. And, with a combined power output for all three speakers of 11 watts you won't even have to worry about waking the neighbors. Right now this is looking like it'll only be hitting the Japanese market and, while Mitsu hasn't announced a price yet, we found one for pre-order at ¥118,000 -- just over £871.17 and a small price to pay for finding your perfect spot.

---

http://www.engadget.com/2010/11/16/m...aming-goodnes/


About time! Now lets see that price fall :p:
Turns out this uses motion interpolation rather than a true 120Mhz :(

I'm guessing this thing only does 1920x1080? I did a lot of searches and everybody has the same information. Why would anybody pay $1,400 for this?

Safan80, 120hz enables you to have 3D Vision, and much much smoother 2d gameplay with lower input lag and fast response times, the problem is up to now none of the panels were IPS, only TN's, in the consumer market, resulting in a poor overall display. A lot of people have been waiting on a 120hz IPS monitor... I hope it hits the US market. I wish it were 1920x1200 (or oh, if only... 2560x1600!!!!!) , and it seems a bit highly priced, but... DROOL!

Very good news. I'm an owner of a Samsung 2233rz and I wouldn't be able to buy a non 120hz monitor since I got it when released

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GoldenTiger

Safan80, 120hz enables you to have 3D Vision, and much much smoother 2d gameplay with lower input lag and fast response times, the problem is up to now none of the panels were IPS, only TN's, in the consumer market, resulting in a poor overall display. A lot of people have been waiting on a 120hz IPS monitor... I hope it hits the US market. I wish it were 1920x1200 (or oh, if only... 2560x1600!!!!!) , and it seems a bit highly priced, but... DROOL!

---

Not necessarily. Both NVIDIA's solution and AMD's have hardware checks built into their engines. If a panel isn't certified, it won't work.

In addition, I think this uses motion interpolation rather than a true 120Mhz panel as there is no 3D-certification info for it...yet. We'll see though.

step in right direction.
need 240fps
and 2560 x something
and under 1500$, then i will upgrade from my current IPS

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GoldenTiger

Safan80, 120hz enables you to have 3D Vision, and much much smoother 2d gameplay with lower input lag and fast response times, the problem is up to now none of the panels were IPS, only TN's, in the consumer market, resulting in a poor overall display. A lot of people have been waiting on a 120hz IPS monitor... I hope it hits the US market. I wish it were 1920x1200 (or oh, if only... 2560x1600!!!!!) , and it seems a bit highly priced, but... DROOL!

---

For good 3d you want 240hz. There is nothing on any site suggesting this even does 3d. It only has a contrast ratio of 5000:1, and its only LED backlight and not OLED. http://techngear.com/mitsubishi-vise...or-review.html

There is no reasonable reason for the price to be so high, or for a PC user to even want to use this monitor.

dont want/need 240, it looks just as bad as interpolated 120.

skymtl - whats the point of hardware checks? All you need is true 120hz (mostly).

for all the gamer...

i have tryed all 120hz monitor....

the only 2 best monitor are:

ASUS VG236H
LG W2363D

anyone try it, simply buy it...

PS: my last monitor..... dell u2711.... solded.. LOL

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Andrea deluxe

for all the gamer...

i have tryed all 120hz monitor....

the only 2 best monitor are:

ASUS VG236H
LG W2363D

anyone try it, simply buy it...

PS: my last monitor..... dell u2711.... solded.. LOL

---

did you get your hands on the benq xl2410t as well?

Forget 3d vision, 120hz means your effective FPS cap gets raised to 120FPS from 60FPS. Should be a significant reduction in noticeable screen tearing too if I'm not mistaken.

120 Hz, IPS - hmm guess this guys were paying attention to people who know what they're talking about...

Interesting. :up:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SKYMTL

Not necessarily. Both NVIDIA's solution and AMD's have hardware checks built into their engines. If a panel isn't certified, it won't work.

In addition, I think this uses motion interpolation rather than a true 120Mhz panel as there is no 3D-certification info for it...yet. We'll see though.

---

I meant 120hz can enable 3d on a PC :). Didn't notice it wasn't certified, though... and that's pretty bad if it's an interpolated panel and not true 120hz :(.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by safan80

For good 3d you want 240hz. There is nothing on any site suggesting this even does 3d. It only has a contrast ratio of 5000:1, and its only LED backlight and not OLED. http://techngear.com/mitsubishi-vise...or-review.html

There is no reasonable reason for the price to be so high, or for a PC user to even want to use this monitor.

---

You don't need 240hz for 3d with active shutters... in fact I've never even heard of a 240hz panel for a PC.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Zaskar

Forget 3d vision, 120hz means your effective FPS cap gets raised to 120FPS from 60FPS. Should be a significant reduction in noticeable screen tearing too if I'm not mistaken.

---

That too, your effective visible framerate goes way up.

Who buys IPS for gaming? At the speed of most games, who's ever going to notice that a colour is a few shades out?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by [XC] Oj101

Who buys IPS for gaming? At the speed of most games, who's ever going to notice that a colour is a few shades out?

---

Not all games are based around twitch reflexes... RPG's, racing, some slower-paced shooters, 3rd-person action, singleplayer stuff, etc. all has nice eye-candy that benefits from NOT having a huge color shift from top-to-bottom and left-right on the screen, not to mention poor color definition in general.

That's like saying "Why bother buying a nice projector for your home theatre, a junk one with bad color and viewing angles still shows a picture." :).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by [XC] Oj101

Who buys IPS for gaming? At the speed of most games, who's ever going to notice that a colour is a few shades out?

---

i have a 750$ 27" IPS, and a 130$ LED 22" (not sure if its TN). and honestly they both look great, and i would be very happy with both. BUT once i got to testing its clear the viewing angle on the LED monitor is pretty bad, a little off and the colors go way off. with my IPS its fine for any observers, and when it comes to doing work, a good color pallet means more accurate greys and blacks and thus web browsing wont be an eye sore (and my job requires me to have decent color accuracy)

for gaming TN isnt bad, but most people do alot more than gaming on their PCs

Only those that care about quality and obviously "those that afford it" ... others are satisfied with a cheap TN Monitor, a 10$ Headset and so on...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RaZz!

did you get your hands on the benq xl2410t as well?

---

sure...

i have made a return to the shop...

xl2410t is the worstest 120hz monitor

very slow

Lame... apparrently it is confirmed this is a 60hz panel with interpolation :(.

I have an IPS panel, and honestly for gaming I don't notice a difference. When doing graphic design, the difference is immense. Maybe it's just me :D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GoldenTiger

Lame... apparrently it is confirmed this is a 60hz panel with interpolation :(.

---

Lame indeed. now its 1500$ price tag makes zero sense

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Andrea deluxe

for all the gamer...

i have tryed all 120hz monitor....

the only 2 best monitor are:

ASUS VG236H
LG W2363D

anyone try it, simply buy it...

PS: my last monitor..... dell u2711.... solded.. LOL

---

Thanks, that jives with what I've heard. I'm tempted to try one... just don't like the idea of the size downgrade from 30" or TN. May be worth a look anyway though for the 120hz and for singleplayer games, 3d. Amazon has the LG W2363D-PF for $354 shipped right now, would be kinda cool to see and return if it sucks ;).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GoldenTiger

Thanks, that jives with what I've heard. I'm tempted to try one... just don't like the idea of the size downgrade from 30" or TN. May be worth a look anyway though for the 120hz and for singleplayer games, 3d.

---

take an asus and simply set color to normal, contrst to 70 and brightness to 80.

install nvidia driver without 3d vision set 120hz and force the max framerate into control panel of the vga.

after this.... is impossible return to play at 60hz...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GoldenTiger

You don't need 240hz for 3d with active shutters... in fact I've never even heard of a 240hz panel for a PC.

---

This is not a PC monitor just an HDTV with a DVI port, and there are plenty of HDTVs that can do 240hz. If it did any of the 16:10 resolutions than it would be closer to a PC monitor.

Aww its fake 120hz. Got my hopes up for nothing. Currently using 120hz TN and would never, ever go back to 60hz, but a 120hz IPS would be nice.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by [XC] Oj101

Who buys IPS for gaming? At the speed of most games, who's ever going to notice that a colour is a few shades out?

---

Umm I will, I guess TN is okay for the slightly color blind... but besides extremely low power laptop displays TN has no goddamn place in this age. Unless you like gaming at 16bit with :banana::banana::banana::banana: viewing angles. Grrr I hate TN. lol

Yeah it's fake see here.

And here is a wonderful picture :rolleyes:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by safan80

Yeah it's fake see here.

And here is a wonderful picture :rolleyes:

---

http://www.e-trend.co.jp/item/201011..._09_img_02.jpg

LOL

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by STEvil

skymtl - whats the point of hardware checks? All you need is true 120hz (mostly).

---

Not really. The refresh rate of the monitor is only the tip of the iceberg. At this point in the industry there is nothing even close to what you and I would call "standards".

Panel and 3D glasses manufacturers use sometimes-conflicting polarization methods. The same thing goes for the active sync technology between the monitor / TV and the glasses; there are I believe 5 different technologies being used currently. For example, this is why Panasonic 3D shutter glasses won't work on a Samsung TV. Granted, Bit Cauldron's HeartBeat technology is a way to overcome this but so far it hasn't been widely used outside of Monster's Max 3D glasses.

Certification and hardware checks ensure that the proper hardware is being used so the "experience" isn't clouded by mixing and matching products that were never meant to work together.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by safan80

Yeah it's fake see here.

And here is a wonderful picture :rolleyes:

---

You can still use 3D with an interpolated screen. Heck, you can even run 3D at 60Hz but the flickering of active shutter glasses working at 30 / 30 (and somtimes lower) will likely give you the mother of all headaches.

This would have been an important step in the right direction if it had a true 120Hz refresh rate. I don't care if the refresh rate is 120Hz, 240Hz, or 100000000Hz if it's interpolated from 60Hz. All the motion for interpolated panels looks like garbage.

Can current IPS tech even do a true 120hz? :shrug:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BababooeyHTJ

Can current IPS tech even do a true 120hz? :shrug:

---

5.5ms = 181 fps, so i assume this can easily do it :shrug:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SKYMTL

You can still use 3D with an interpolated screen. Heck, you can even run 3D at 60Hz but the flickering of active shutter glasses working at 30 / 30 (and somtimes lower) will likely give you the mother of all headaches.

---

As it stands I want good 3D for home use without the need for glasses and nothing can really do that right now. I was hoping that this was at least true 120hz at 1920x1200, but it only does 1920x1080 and there are a lot of monitors that already do that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BababooeyHTJ

Can current IPS tech even do a true 120hz? :shrug:

---

I don't think it can or we would already have IPS monitors that could do true 120hz

Don't think ill be changing my Dell U2711 anytime soon... :rolleyes:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by safan80

I don't think it can or we would already have IPS monitors that could do true 120hz

---

Why? Don't you think the costs/price and the relatively small target crowd such a panel would have is the reason not more manufacturers are pushing IPS panels with 120Hz? 120Hz TN panels haven't even been around for that long, it's just logical for it to take a while before we'd see IPS panels with 120Hz for obvious reasons.

Id have to try a 120hz Ips before making final judgement but from a gaming only standpoint current (60hz) Ips tech is to slow for me. From a photo editing and video viewing standpoint though they are no brainers. TN viewing angles do suck royally but I can overlook this for their superior Input and better response (again games only ) I use a 2nd non TM screen for most none gaming tasks by the way.

Im running 30" HP ZR30W S-IPS on my primary machine, 3 x 24" LG with TN-panel on my 2nd machine and on 3rd machine i have 24" ZR24W screen, and then is the htpc but thats whole different thing.

I use S-IPS on everything else exept FPS games where i use 3 x 24" TN screens due faster responce time and allmost zero input lag.

S-IPS have bit better image quality but while gaming it is not noticeable.

Id like to try one of those LED 120Hz TN and IPS screens and compare but i have litle or no use for it than just testing.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Manicdan

5.5ms = 181 fps, so i assume this can easily do it

---

Thats 5.5 GtG wont do, it needs be at least 8.3 B2B so its truly 120Hz panel and 240Hz panel would require 4.16ms B2B.
Short answer no. Long answer not with current panels, B2B tend to be at least around 10ms.
But TN panels, oh my theyre doing 4-5ms B2B (capable of 200-240Hz).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by safan80

I don't think it can or we would already have IPS monitors that could do true 120hz

---

The truth of the matter, is that even though 120hz is a useful and even needed feature... monitor makers, like with 3d, use it as stupid gimmick to sell more TN trash. I have a S-IPS TV thats over a year old that is true 120hz.

Any good IPS or even MVA screen is every bit as quick as TN, as far as 120hz and input lag is concerned. Heck I have a 3 year old LG P-MVA that is lag'less. LCD panel tech, irregardless of matrix has been ghostless for nearly 5 years. Any lag present is a peculiarity with the monitors controller chip and HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH whether ITS TN/MVA/PVA OR IPS. And yes we are talking off CRT measurement, they are all pretty uniform.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by safan80

This is not a PC monitor just an HDTV with a DVI port, and there are plenty of HDTVs that can do 240hz. If it did any of the 16:10 resolutions than it would be closer to a PC monitor.

---

There are no HDTV's that can do 240hz true. They are all interpolated.

Interpolation is crap. :down:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SKYMTL

Not really. The refresh rate of the monitor is only the tip of the iceberg. At this point in the industry there is nothing even close to what you and I would call "standards".

---

I would call true field display rate (30hz, 50hz, 60hz, 100hz, 120hz) a standard, but I do agree it depends on if the manufacturer is after your wallet or your loyalty.

Quote:

---

Panel and 3D glasses manufacturers use sometimes-conflicting polarization methods. The same thing goes for the active sync technology between the monitor / TV and the glasses; there are I believe 5 different technologies being used currently. For example, this is why Panasonic 3D shutter glasses won't work on a Samsung TV. Granted, Bit Cauldron's HeartBeat technology is a way to overcome this but so far it hasn't been widely used outside of Monster's Max 3D glasses.

Certification and hardware checks ensure that the proper hardware is being used so the "experience" isn't clouded by mixing and matching products that were never meant to work together.

---

For use of 120hz on a true 120hz display there should be no need for checks. For 3D I agree with you.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SKYMTL

You can still use 3D with an interpolated screen. Heck, you can even run 3D at 60Hz but the flickering of active shutter glasses working at 30 / 30 (and somtimes lower) will likely give you the mother of all headaches.

---

Yes, you can use 3D on a 60hz display (whether it is interpolated to 120, 240, 480, or 600hz or not, pretty much every TV on the market that can do 60hz is 3D capable) but you are limited to 30hz which is only good for watching movies.

Thats fine for movies.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dainas

The truth of the matter, is that even though 120hz is a useful and even needed feature... monitor makers, like with 3d, use it as stupid gimmick to sell more TN trash. I have a S-IPS TV thats over a year old that is true 120hz.

Any good IPS or even MVA screen is every bit as quick as TN, as far as 120hz and input lag is concerned. Heck I have a 3 year old LG P-MVA that is lag'less. LCD panel tech, irregardless of matrix has been ghostless for nearly 5 years. Any lag present is a peculiarity with the monitors controller chip and HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH whether ITS TN/MVA/PVA OR IPS. And yes we are talking off CRT measurement, they are all pretty uniform.

---

What TV do you have that's true 120Hz?

OLED = won me over.

IPS + 3D = welcome.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dainas

The truth of the matter, is that even though 120hz is a useful and even needed feature... monitor makers, like with 3d, use it as stupid gimmick to sell more TN trash. I have a S-IPS TV thats over a year old that is true 120hz.

Any good IPS or even MVA screen is every bit as quick as TN, as far as 120hz and input lag is concerned. Heck I have a 3 year old LG P-MVA that is lag'less. LCD panel tech, irregardless of matrix has been ghostless for nearly 5 years. Any lag present is a peculiarity with the monitors controller chip and HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH whether ITS TN/MVA/PVA OR IPS. And yes we are talking off CRT measurement, they are all pretty uniform.

---

I'm using the same LG you are referring to and I have to disagree. Although it has great color reproduction and solid viewing angles, i find it noticeably ghosts and has a discernible increase in input lag compared to many tn displays, 120s included. It's still a nice unit even by today standards but I never enjoyed gaming on it. It's currently my secondary productivity display and struts its stuff there.

As for the whole interpolation thing, I think it sucks. It makes it look like I'm watching a movie from an on set perspective and not as a viewer of the final product. Kinda of like looking through a window really. It totally destroys all the post processing that makes a movie look like a movie and not merely a.cheap home video. Movies are filmed and finalized with the standard 24 frames in mind.

why are people so obsessed with ips panels???

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Andrea deluxe

take an asus and simply set color to normal, contrst to 70 and brightness to 80.

install nvidia driver without 3d vision set 120hz and force the max framerate into control panel of the vga.

after this.... is impossible return to play at 60hz...

---

Did you test the ACER 245HQ?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by safan80

Yeah it's fake see here.

And here is a wonderful picture :rolleyes:

---

To bad...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by saaya

why are people so obsessed with ips panels???

---

Guess it's same reason why others can be satisfied with an entry level VGA, an integrated sound card or a pair of 10$ Headset which does work - as in, you get image and sound but some want better quality and so on...

Don't really care if it's IPS or other panel with similar potential... but I was never satisified with TN, when switch from CRT to TN models, tried 7 of them and eventually end-up with one that had a *VA panel which, which was the only one I could consider "decent"... After broking it, switched to e-IPS which has some advantages - but not as good when it comes to black level and viewing angles, yet still x times better than a TN.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jeager

Did you test the ACER 245HQ?

---

crappy color.

crap overdrive effect on the daily use.

little ghosting.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rintamarotta

Thats 5.5 GtG wont do, it needs be at least 8.3 B2B so its truly 120Hz panel and 240Hz panel would require 4.16ms B2B.
Short answer no. Long answer not with current panels, B2B tend to be at least around 10ms.
But TN panels, oh my theyre doing 4-5ms B2B (capable of 200-240Hz).

---

xactly! didnt know there are 4-5ms b2b tn panels... thats insane!
i did see 200-240hz tn demos at the display and led show after computex 2 years ago, and they looked awesome... i dont think they interpolated anything, it was incredibly sharp... they were running 40"+ demos with old chinese scrolls being pulled in front of the camera from left to right.
on the 200-240hz demos you could see every fine detail and there was 0 ghosting... no blur either... if that was interpolation im impressed...

anyways, when i asked them when i can buy one they said it depends on the display makers, as they only produce the panels... they told me display makers probably wont pick it up as its too expensive, even for premium tvs, and that they will wait until its cheaper, which will probably be 2013/2014... sigh...

until then 3d will suck it seems... :/

btw, i tried a samsung 40"+ 3d tv demo last weekend... the ghosting was terrible... i thought there was something wrong with the glasses, but then i realized each eye was seeing a blurry impression of the other eyes frames cause the response time was that bad...

this kind of 3d ghosting is way worse than any ghosting ive seen on 2d displays so far...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by XSAlliN

To bad...

Guess it's same reason why others can be satisfied with an entry level VGA, an integrated sound card or a pair of 10$ Headset which does work - as in, you get image and sound but some want better quality and so on...

Don't really care if it's IPS or other panel with similar potential... but I was never satisified with TN, when switch from CRT to TN models, tried 7 of them and eventually end-up with one that had a *VA panel which, which was the only one I could consider "decent"... After broking it, switched to e-IPS which has some advantages - but not as good when it comes to black level and viewing angles, yet still x times better than a TN.

---

what kind of games do you play?
you dont notice any probs?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Andrea deluxe

crappy color.

crap overdrive effect on the daily use.

little ghosting.

---

how dell U2711 for the game, which is better than the Asus VG236H 120Hz..??:clap:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by synthetic2008

how dell U2711 for the game, which is better than the Asus VG236H 120Hz..??:clap:

---

u2711 have a ridicolous input lag...

is impossible to be competitive on-line on most fps.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by synthetic2008

how dell U2711 for the game, which is better than the Asus VG236H 120Hz..??:clap:

---

i bought that monitor recently and i love it.
i havnt played an FPS with it yet since no good FPS has come out in a couple of years... but so far fallout vegas and dragon age looks and plays amazing on it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by saaya

what kind of games do you play?
you dont notice any probs?

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by saaya

what kind of games do you play?
you dont notice any probs?

---

All kinds if they're good, mostly RPG and some RTS...

- the other model (HP LP1965) - which was based on P-MVA panel, had a little input lag and some ghosting but the black level and viewing angles were as close as possible to an CRT.

- the new model (LG W2220P) - which is based on e-IPS panel, has no noticeable input Lang and no ghosting, which is a bonus for FPS games - yet the black levels are not his strong point (IPS glow related) and the viewing angles are pretty good but not as good as with the other one or a CRT. And also, the color reproductions - is better on this one...

....compared to TN's - well, there's no room for comparison... since games or one thing, but I also use this monitor for movies, some editing and so on... Yet, it's true this is not good for 3D movies, but I'm not that desperate for 3D to watch it on a monitor with TN panel... And when I said games or one thing, didn't mean it's not as capable as a fast TN:

LG W2220P vs. Asus VG236H

... was refereeing to a TN which beyond FPS games, on which you stay focused on the screen like a statue, the other games and watching a movie could be more enjoyable on the model from LG (for my standards at least - don't play FPS like CS 1.6 anymore, which was optimized with 90 FPS in mind for smoother game-play, wile new shooters work great even at 30+ FPS and nor room for complaining at 60 FPS).

new shooters working well at 30fps+? huh?
if you dont notice the difference between 30fps and up when playing shooters, im not surprised you think ips monitors are fine for gaming :P

i know the image quality is better on ips panels, but if your playing games, whats the point?
and even if you watch action movies some panels might have slight ghosting in fast scenes... i prefer less intense colors and high refresh rates...

crossfire at 5760x1080 and dropping under 90fps is highly noticeable.
30fps I cant even hit a target.

Cut the BS-ing, it's getting pathetic - seriously now...When Crysis was released, few cards could run the game with all on max at 30+ FPS on a 1680 x 1050 resolution or higher... yet, didn't see many complaining they can't play the game unless it's close to 90 FPS. That game runs more than fine and real smooth on 60 FPS, cause wasn't optimized with 90 FPS in mind... Did see that difference in CS 1.6 - but CoD 4 was running real smooth at 60 FPS.

No offense, but if you can't hit a target at 30+ fps you probably have some kinda handicap - eyes, hands... you tell me. Yet, don't see how more FPS could help you in that situation... who knows, maybe some strange and rare disease - that makes you see blur images or very bad coordination at 30+ FPS's... Can't say for sure - but your problem is a specific one, doesn't apply to rest of us... Don't mean to sound offensive, sorry for you problem but you shouldn't add it in this discussion, not being relevant in any way.

I'd take any TN panel 120Hz LCD monitor over 60Hz IPS monitor, if 120Hz LCD monitors hadn't been released I'd still be using a CRT today. :D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by XSAlliN

[...]

---

it depends on the game.

did you ever play a fast paced online shooter (ut, quake, ...) with 30fps? you won't have a chance at all.
even quake4, which is capped at 60fps, feels jerky. i couldn't stand that and quit it after only a few weeks. for me, such shooters need to have at least 85fps to be considered smooth.

the only reason crysis looks pretty smooth at 30fps is the motion blur. this doesn't change the fact that your mouse movement is still linked to the fps. the less fps you have, the more inaccurate the mouse.

e.g. the ice level in crysis where you leave the alienship - my fps were sub somwhere in the 20's and i had a hard time dealing with the drones as it felt so jerky.

well, you can always say this and that is enough to "play" it, but to really have fun or be good at smth you'll need more than that.
if you're happy with 30fps, well that's your thing - it's purely subjective. it's only your personal perception, nothing more, nothing less.

Crysis is a single player game(MP is just an afterthought), you cant compare it to a competitive online shooter.
when the other guy says that at 30frames he cant hit jack:banana::banana::banana::banana: i believe that to be the case when playing vs good players in a competitive shooter ´.
if you like pretty tech demos like Crysis then more power to you,stick to them,just dont try to educate people on a matter that you have no idea about.

That's also true, it does depend on the game - didn't say UT would run nice on 30 FPS, but it's more than playable at 60 FPS...Warsow for example, which was build on an enhanced version of QII engine - runs pretty smooth on 60 PFS, yet those games could also be played better on lower resolutions (800 x 600 being one of the best). But this kinda scenarios are valid for "professional FPS gaming" not enthusiasts and their high - end rigs and eyefinity setups... If you put two professional gamers in a vs. one on a CRT with 800 x 600 resolution vs one with a high end rig and eyefinity setup - i'm pretty sure the one with lower setting... not only that it would own him, the other might even play like a noob ... :p: Eyefinity may look fun for few seconds, but it's a joke for professional gaming of fast passed FPS - that extra sight being a burden, not a bonus and also harder to bunny jump on the map... (i've been a witness to a similar situation, so it's not a theory ).

PS.Quake 4 was a fail when it comes to MP, not a true successor of quake series - so it's more like a general scenario for that game, not one specific... capped is one thing "optimized" is another... In Q4's case, even if they remove that cap it could still run jerky even at 90 FPS... As far as I know that engine is capable of more than that, but was capped at that value for some reason. As you putted, depends on the games - other optimized at 60 FPS could runt just fine.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by XSAlliN

Cut the BS-ing, it's getting pathetic - seriously now...When Crysis was released, few cards could run the game with all on max at 30+ FPS on a 1680 x 1050 resolution or higher... yet, didn't see many complaining they can't play the game unless it's close to 90 FPS. That game runs more than fine and real smooth on 60 FPS, cause wasn't optimized with 90 FPS in mind... Did see that difference in CS 1.6 - but CoD 4 was running real smooth at 60 FPS.

No offense, but if you can't hit a target at 30+ fps you probably have some kinda handicap - eyes, hands... you tell me. Yet, don't see how more FPS could help you in that situation... who knows, maybe some strange and rare disease - that makes you see blur images or very bad coordination at 30+ FPS's... Can't say for sure - but your problem is a specific one, doesn't apply to rest of us... Don't mean to sound offensive, sorry for you problem but you shouldn't add it in this discussion, not being relevant in any way.

---

People that are different from you must be BSing :rolleyes:

I also can not hit things at 30fps. Hell, I can't even play properly at 60fps. It is uncomfortable. Yes, I do not play crysis, doom 3, quake 4, etc because I like to beat my shooters on hardest difficulty and I can not do it at 60fps because there is too much input lag.

Many years of competitive shooters like CS make you really sensitive to the input lag of many newer games.

Quote:

---

Many years of competitive shooters like CS make you really sensitive to the input lag of many newer games.

---

No, just those that are BS-ing... :p:

Well, I know a guy like you - he still has the same PC as 7 years ago, never feel the need for an Upgrade - CS 1.6 still running decent on that system and of course he has a CRT. He was pretty good in CS competition - playing at 640 x 480 resolution and 100 FPS, as many CS Pro's did back then and some still do (640 x 480/ 800 x 600 being the most used resolutions). Beyond FPS playing a Shooter at resolution higher than 800 x 600 for him is a major drawback...

As for me, well I'm not a professional gamer - never was for that matter (yet I knew some), did play many shooters in MP and was many times top player from my team - but mostly in random games with random teams and random players... Besides SC, AoE 2, Quake 2, CS 1.5 and UT (1) can't say I played a team game with friends or as part of a clan and so on... but that was 8 - 10 years ago, so yeh I'm also not that young... :) Mostly was generally speaking about games...

Quote:

---

All kinds if they're good, mostly RPG and some RTS...

---

...and did mentioned, I could play a shooter from the new ones, as in those with intense graphics at 30+ FPS and didn't had a problem hitting a target and more than satisfied on how they work on 60 FPS, so makes sense you guys having other problems not really monitor related in cases like this... As for CS - don't see the point of mentioning a 6 - 10 years old FPS compared to games intended for enthusiast systems, which or obviously not intended for professional gamers.

For me, the main interest on the monitor from this topic was not gaming related - more like video as in 3D. Already have a decent monitor which more than decent for any kinda of gaming (no ghosting or input lag) and being based on a superior panel, I get better viewing angles, better color reproduction - which beyond gaming, is more than welcomed for movies... A TN at 120 Hz is still a TN so still junk - which I personally can't stand, unless it's work related as in "Office". :shakes:

Fact is the human brain is able to dicern very minute differences. The more data presented to our senses, the better the potential to use it to our advantage. Now how quickly one can process and thus respond to given data varries from person to person ( for many reasons be it ones sight, hearing, physical condition or general mental prowess ) which in part is why there are differing views as far as what is viable framerate wise.

Now it might simply be some people are unable to process the difference or it might be they haven't been given a fair opportunity to see it. Myself amongst others here *do* notice a tangible improvement playing a game at *much* higher framerates than the generic "30 fps is playable" stuff. It has been accepted for the most part that games are reasonably fluid at 30 frames per second but that isn't to say it there are no benifits associated with higher framerates. I feel it's not that people "can't" play at 30 frames per second but there that more is to be had with higher performance.

A few years back I was reasonably content with 30fps performance. Now after having spent considerable time with higher quality input / output devices, I find the same experiance to be severely lacking. Theres no comparison as far as I'm concerned. To me its like low quality hamburger and prime cut steak. Sure the hamburger is edible and will fill you up but its not nearly as sastifying as a nice juicy steak. By the same merit if one is satisfied with hamburger and has never tried steak, they don't know what they are missing. Damn. I'm hungry.


PS: Another thing regarding online games, which I don't want to get into too much here, is netcode. Many games have netcode reliant on framerate so much of the percieved difference of higher framerates ( ie 100+fps on 60hz displays ) is due to more consistent netcode performance. The Half Life, Quake III ( of which the COD franchise is built on ) and Source engines are prime examples of this. Both the source and half life engine run ideally at 100 packets per second which requires 100 frames per second, with 125 packets per second being ideal on the Q3 engine ( 300 can be as well but not as achieveable ) You can have a great connection and low latency but if the packet quality is poor, your experiance will suffer and this is directly tied to framerate.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by XSAlliN

Cut the BS-ing, it's getting pathetic - seriously now...When Crysis was released, few cards could run the game with all on max at 30+ FPS on a 1680 x 1050 resolution or higher... yet, didn't see many complaining they can't play the game unless it's close to 90 FPS. That game runs more than fine and real smooth on 60 FPS, cause wasn't optimized with 90 FPS in mind... Did see that difference in CS 1.6 - but CoD 4 was running real smooth at 60 FPS.

No offense, but if you can't hit a target at 30+ fps you probably have some kinda handicap - eyes, hands... you tell me. Yet, don't see how more FPS could help you in that situation... who knows, maybe some strange and rare disease - that makes you see blur images or very bad coordination at 30+ FPS's... Can't say for sure - but your problem is a specific one, doesn't apply to rest of us... Don't mean to sound offensive, sorry for you problem but you shouldn't add it in this discussion, not being relevant in any way.

---

Unfortunately you do sound offensive. :down:

Have you spent more than 5 minutes in front of a 120hz panel? Of course most can hit targets at 30fps but the point is why would you want to when at 60+ fps everything looks/feels/plays smoother. If you disagree with that then its simply because you have not actually used a 120hz monitor. Its the closest feel to CRT and when looking at a 60hz side by side to a 120hz the difference is dramatic to say the least.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Darth_Penguin

Unfortunately you do sound offensive. :down:

Have you spent more than 5 minutes in front of a 120hz panel? Of course most can hit targets at 30fps but the point is why would you want to when at 60+ fps everything looks/feels/plays smoother. If you disagree with that then its simply because you have not actually used a 120hz monitor. Its the closest feel to CRT and when looking at a 60hz side by side to a 120hz the difference is dramatic to say the least.

---

I did give a solid example for that, like "Crysis" as in - what if your video-card can't do more than 32 FPS on a Shooter with High-End graphics... To putted more simple - it was not about me wanting to play at 30 FPS, more like being the only solution in those circumstances and at 32 FPS being still playable. My next point, was that at 60 FPS most recent games play real smooth... and of course "I WOULD WANT ALL GAMES TO WORK AT 60 FPS CONSTANTLY (100 x DOH!)" but things don't always work as we want them...

And yes - I did try an LCD's at 120 Hz (watched few 3D movies and them and tried some games) but can't say I enjoyed using them being based on a TN panel (watching a 3D movie in "STATUE POSTURE" - could never get used to that), which is also the reason I was a little interested by the subject of this topic.

And no - I don't see that closer to a CRT monitor, since refresh rate was not to only bonus (viewing angles, color reproduction - i personally can't ignore that) and it's also worth adding that a CRT refresh rate is not the same as an LCD refresh rate...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RPGWiZaRD

I'd take any TN panel 120Hz LCD monitor over 60Hz IPS monitor, if 120Hz LCD monitors hadn't been released I'd still be using a CRT today. :D

---

Same here.
I have the Acer 245 since 2 months, the colors aren't that great but the resolution and work space is by far better than my old 19" Flatron 915+ that I was using since 10 years.
Everytime I enter in my room I wonder : wtf who's steal my screen ? oh wait .. I have a TFT now :up:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jeager

Same here.
I have the Acer 245 since 2 months, the colors aren't that great but the resolution and work space is by far better than my old 19" Flatron 915+ that I was using since 10 years.
Everytime I enter in my room I wonder : wtf who's steal my screen ? oh wait .. I have a TFT now :up:

---

Refresh Rate is the only bonus you get with that... :)

Unless you play only Quake 3 or similar shooters and like to watch movies in 3D - you get no other bonus, yet being TN you get some disadvantages like those related to viewing angles and color reproduction...

So yeah, the direction you're aiming is subjective - if coming from a CRT... If you don't care about viewing angles and color reproduction yet RR is very important then yeh, even a crappy TN panel with 120 Hz could be good enough...

It's same with audio - since usually gamers with those needs in terms of monitor, are interested in footsteps direction - and aim for Razer or similar products, wile those that care about sound quality go for AKG, ATH, Sennheiser, Beyerdynamic or similar products.

As mentioned above - with a 120 Hz capable IPS - I was expecting to get all advantages, that's why I was a little interested in it... A little, since IPS far from perfect - being aware of that, after I witnessed live both SED and OLED - yet, 1'st technology is "in the air" wile next is very expensive - has shorter life and not many models available being still new in this market. Here's a recent model from LG:

http://nexus404.com/Blog/wp-content/...lg-monitor.jpg

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by [XC] Oj101

I have an IPS panel, and honestly for gaming I don't notice a difference. When doing graphic design, the difference is immense. Maybe it's just me :D

---

+1, i also have a 120 ips monitor, for graphic work the colours kick ass!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Johnny87au

+1, i also have a 120 ips monitor, for graphic work the colours kick ass!

---

I dont think there are any 120hz IPS monitors...

I know it's not the same type of competitive shooter as CS 1.6 and even CS:S, but as a proficient sniper in TF2, my performance dropped significantly when playing in a server over 40-50ms latency. My home server I was in the teens to 20's, so when you factor in how 20ms can affect my performance in sniping, it follows as well that 20-30 FPS could make the difference between a kill and a miss. Nobody could ever see the difference watching me play, but I could feel a difference when shots that were headshots on one server were misses in another.

And what those server latency have to do with this monitor? :) - gaming at 30 FPS can be acceptable for SP and games like Crysis, nobody said anything about MP - where the FPS would drop even more... Yet at 60 FPS which is the default RR for most monitors, except older titles - as in FP shooters (like Quake or even those based on valve engines optimized with 90+ FPS in mind) the game-play is pretty smooth... Until 120 Hz LCD's got released, many competitions were made on 60 Hz capable LCD monitors (also true, that some organizers still used CRT's), where ms was their only bonus and considered suitable for hardcore gamers.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by XSAlliN

And what those server latency have to do with this monitor? :) - gaming at 30 FPS can be acceptable for SP and games like Crysis, nobody said anything about MP - where the FPS would drop even more... Yet at 60 FPS which is the default RR for most monitors, except older titles - as in FP shooters (like Quake or even those based on valve engines optimized with 90+ FPS in mind) the game-play is pretty smooth... Until 120 Hz LCD's got released, many competitions were made on 60 Hz capable LCD monitors (also true, that some organizers still used CRT's), where ms was their only bonus and considered suitable for hardcore gamers.

---

well, with the lack of 120hz tfts i had no other choice than to get a 60hz tft... it's almost impossible to find large crts that are in good shape.

and for me, 60hz tfts are craptastic for gaming for the following reasons:
- tearing is extremely annoying, especially in games with very high framerates (e.g. older games like ut, q3 etc...)
- when using vsync to prevent tearing you'll get uber mouse lag which makes lots of games unplayable. plus in newer games vsync destroys your fps (e.g. bc2 is unplayable with vsync on my 4850 since triple buffering doesn't work).

so yeah, even though i love my tft (lg l227wt), i've never been happy with the 60hz in most of the games. especially if you were playing games at 100/120hz on your crt... i still miss my crt, but it was bulky, had a relatively small screen (19") and a power consumption beyond good and evil.

every tft that matches my current l227wt + 120hz would be the perfect buy for me.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by XSAlliN

And what those server latency have to do with this monitor? :) - gaming at 30 FPS can be acceptable for SP and games like Crysis, nobody said anything about MP - where the FPS would drop even more... Yet at 60 FPS which is the default RR for most monitors, except older titles - as in FP shooters (like Quake or even those based on valve engines optimized with 90+ FPS in mind) the game-play is pretty smooth... Until 120 Hz LCD's got released, many competitions were made on 60 Hz capable LCD monitors (also true, that some organizers still used CRT's), where ms was their only bonus and considered suitable for hardcore gamers.

---

Whenever a game is capped at 30fps it's pretty blurry for me and brings on headachs. I have bad eyesight so i can't speak for everyone. But 50+ FPS has always been comfortable for gaming for me.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GoldenTiger

A lot of people have been waiting on a 120hz IPS monitor... I hope it hits the US market. I wish it were 1920x1200 (or oh, if only... 2560x1600!!!!!) , and it seems a bit highly priced, but... DROOL!

---

An 120Hz Monitor would be very good.
When someone enables vsync will play with 120FPS Maximum without horizontal Line!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rintamarotta

I use S-IPS on everything else exept FPS games where i use 3 x 24" TN screens due faster responce time and allmost zero input lag.

S-IPS have bit better image quality but while gaming it is not noticeable.

---

I think that you are right.
When the monitor Displays Static Pictures as photos, S-IPS is better than a TN.
Gaming is different. Explosions, very fast pictures, etc. S-IPS is better again, but without many difference from TN. imho.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by STEvil

There are no HDTV's that can do 240hz true. They are all interpolated.

---

In movies i don't like Interpolation. I want to watch True 24p. When i see movies Interpolated, is such has been recorded from VideoCamera.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by STEvil

Yes, you can use 3D on a 60hz display (whether it is interpolated to 120, 240, 480, or 600hz or not, pretty much every TV on the market that can do 60hz is 3D capable) but you are limited to 30hz which is only good for watching movies.
Thats fine for movies.

---

My HDTV is 60Hz.
That means that plays 3D with 3D Glasses via PS3 or via PC?

And something else.
Can i see 3d with 24p!? As i told above i don't like Interpolation in movies.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by acidpython

Whenever a game is capped at 30fps it's pretty blurry for me and brings on headachs. I have bad eyesight so i can't speak for everyone. But 50+ FPS has always been comfortable for gaming for me.

---

There is no shooter capped at 30 FPS - but crysis was playable even at those values... yet at 60 FPS was real smooth.

You have an eye problem which is a subjective case... I also have a similar problem, but get affected by other environments... for example "Mirror's edge" - after 20 minutes of playing that game, I got so sick that took hours to recover... yet that's also a subjective case - can't say the game is awful just cause "I" can't play it....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lafas1987

Gaming is different. Explosions, very fast pictures, etc. S-IPS is better again, but without many difference from TN. imho.

---

S-IPS is the old technology - H-IPS and e-IPS is newer and can be as capable as a TN... here's an e-IPS vs a fast TN, for example:

LG W2220P vs. Asus VG236H

Quote:

---

My HDTV is 60Hz.
That means that plays 3D with 3D Glasses via PS3 or via PC?

And something else.
Can i see 3d with 24p!? As i told above i don't like Interpolation in movies.

---

Most LCD/plasma panel type 3D requires two frames of data to complete one frame of rendering.

To produce a 30hz/fps image you need 60hz/fps of input data. This is fine for movies and some slow games (depends on your eyes mostly). For games which you want to play at 60fps in 3D you need a true 120hz display.

I disable interpolation on everything when I can, it makes the image "swim" to me :shrug:

for gaming 23 inch is too small.............. 27 or 30 is where is`s at.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by XSAlliN

Refresh Rate is the only bonus you get with that... :)

Unless you play only Quake 3 or similar shooters and like to watch movies in 3D - you get no other bonus, yet being TN you get some disadvantages like those related to viewing angles and color reproduction...

So yeah, the direction you're aiming is subjective - if coming from a CRT... If you don't care about viewing angles and color reproduction yet RR is very important then yeh, even a crappy TN panel with 120 Hz could be good enough...

It's same with audio - since usually gamers with those needs in terms of monitor, are interested in footsteps direction - and aim for Razer or similar products, wile those that care about sound quality go for AKG, ATH, Sennheiser, Beyerdynamic or similar products.
[/IMG]

---

It's not really a bonus because I was at 100Hz and 85Hz in 1600x1200 with my old screen. The bonus is more on the resolution where I don't have to rely on a second screen.

I used to move for many LAN (CS,Q3 UT, War3). I still play these games but less often and you can add TF2 and some others shooters. For SC2 and others games or just normal use, the color aren't that great like the view angle but I'm accustomed now and when I play it's not at 180° :D.
I can't imagine myself playing on a 60Hz screen. My eyes bleed even on the desk (scrooling and moving windows :sick:). I need at last 85Hz. I think I will only change my TFT if there is something cheap and better.

As for the audio I use a ATH-A700 which is awesome :yepp:
GO TO HELL RAZER WITH THEIR STUPID AND GEEK PRODUCTS ! :down:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jeager

It's not really a bonus because I was at 100Hz and 85Hz in 1600x1200 with my old screen. The bonus is more on the resolution where I don't have to rely on a second screen.

I used to move for many LAN (CS,Q3 UT, War3). I still play these games but less often and you can add TF2 and some others shooters. For SC2 and others games or just normal use, the color aren't that great like the view angle but I'm accustomed now and when I play it's not at 180° :D.
I can't imagine myself playing on a 60Hz screen. My eyes bleed even on the desk (scrooling and moving windows :sick:). I need at last 85Hz. I think I will only change my TFT if there is something cheap and better.

As for the audio I use a ATH-A700 which is awesome :yepp:
GO TO HELL RAZER WITH THEIR STUPID AND GEEK PRODUCTS ! :down:

---

You're wrong - you're judging LCD refresh rate as CRT refresh rate... setting CRT refresh rate at 60 Hz can affect your eyes that's true, but LCD it's an entirely different technology that only reflect in Frames per Second.

PS.Razer products are not for geeks... you'll see more gamers that didn't even finish high school because of gaming using those products, than you'll ever see geeks, which usually have higher standards - and being geek they get informed on what to buy... don't just settle with marketing "BS"... and another thing, geeks usually like rts's or rpg's, you'll rarely see one playing shooters like CS,Q3 UT - and the players of this shooters are the main target of Razer products. Beyond that, Razer products are "very good" for their purpose (shooters like CS,Q3 UT...) - the only problem with them is their quality... they look nice and used for office would last longer but gaming is kinda harsh on them and they need a string build.

Quote:

---

for gaming 23 inch is too small.............. 27 or 30 is where is`s at.

---

For general gaming yes - for professional gaming even "19 non wide is better (preferably a CRT what which can be set to 800 x 600).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by XSAlliN

[...]For general gaming yes - for professional gaming even "19 non wide is better (preferably a CRT what which can be set to 800 x 600).

---

why 800x600? what's so important about that resolution?

i did play on a pretty high level as well but never used such craptastic settings :p:

Quote:

---

For general gaming yes - for professional gaming even "19 non wide is better (preferably a CRT what which can be set to 800 x 600).

---

as for me, my 27 inch is much better than my old 24 inch at 1980 X 1200 :up:

I can see more.

Size matters...
The bigger, the best! :D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RaZz!

why 800x600? what's so important about that resolution?

i did play on a pretty high level as well but never used such craptastic settings :p:

---

For a twitch shooter, 800x600 resolution gives a very large target area compared to a resolution of 1600x1200 or higher. At higher resolutions, targeting can be much like pixel hunting.

Much of gaming has gone much more towards visuals versus purely competitive gaming, where maximum kills are the goal.

When I used to play CS - 800 x 600 was ideal for me, yet others played at 640 x 480 and still do... Old Shooters gaming works best on CRT's ("17 - "19) - and in those situations it's not about quality but "results". It's not just about targeting but also "control"...

If you put a Quake legend on a "27 - "30 LCD monitor (one capable of 120 Hz) at a resolution of 1980 x 1200 or higher, you might see him get own shamefully by a random good player... Even strafing and bunny jumping would be hard for him...

http://www.pctunerup.com/up//results...8_Immagine.png

wrong or right?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Andrea deluxe

[img]http://www.pctunerup.com/up//results/_201011/20101124233458_Immagine.png***[/img]

wrong or right?

---

Right. But take in mind that the extra field vision does not help you at all if you know the map and listen carefully.

Both wrong and right.

Display area will depend on the graphics engine. More pixels may just mean more detail with the same physical area shown.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Andrea deluxe

wrong or right?

---

Based on that drawing: Wrong! - more like:

640x480
http://img3.imageshack.us/img3/7645/cstrike640x480.jpg

1680x1050
http://img829.imageshack.us/img829/4...e1680x1050.jpg

http://img21.imageshack.us/img21/4826/10313170.jpg

In specific shooters like those mentioned above ....even with 30 inch monitor (once capable of 120 Hz) at a resolution of 2560 x 1600 - you'll still get owned shamefully (64 - 3 or something like that) by a mediocre player with a 17 inch CRT and 640 x 480. :p:

nah, at 2560x1440 I can see way better the poor victims at a ridiculous long distance in black ops, even at the max fov :D

I remember using console commands to remove every last drop of detail from Quake 3 till I was left with 640x480 with all textures being flat shades of yellowy white :D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by XSAlliN

http://img21.imageshack.us/img21/4826/10313170.jpg

---

i don't care that much about CS, but doesn't it have a proper adjustable FOV? currently, i'm playing UT and BC2 only, and both have an adjustable FOV which. e.g. in UT it's 4:3 -> fov 90 = 16:10 -> fov 100, etc...

Didn't play CS in years, yet still have it on steam... Don't remember any command related to FoV - it does have a Wide/Non-Wide option but that's not FoV related. The thing is, most average users misinterpret the size of their screen and how those it work in practice ( you can take the drawing of Andrea deluxe - as example).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by XSAlliN

[...]
( you can take the drawing of Andrea deluxe - as example).

---

you're right. didn't notice this posting...

i guess some people should read some basic widescreen and aspect ratio guidelines.
e.g. http://www.widescreengamingforum.com/wiki/FAQ
especially "Screenchange"

hor+ is what you ideally want to have. most of the games can be modded to hor+, some with editing configs others with 3rd party hacks (like widescreenfixer, just to name one).

I knew about that since the early days of Wide screens - learned about those differences live wile working in IT domain and had many as comparison with some CRT's from work. :).

Already made some screenshots as example with Warsow (which is based on an enhanced version of quake 2 engine - and can support resolutions up to 6144 x 1536):

640x480
http://img522.imageshack.us/img522/2...1125230243.jpg

1680x1050
http://img80.imageshack.us/img80/887...1125230331.jpg

...and FoV 100. It's funny how some think they can see more than 2x that much on a wide screen. :)

the fov is definately wrong in that 16:10 pic. this is vert-. if the fov is set correctly, it's hor+...

if you know what you're doing, then you'll always have an advantage over 4:3 resolutions.

A lot of games though are vert-, which sucks. This applies to cell phones too, WebOS (HPalm Pre) on orientation change (portrait to landscape) scales the browser vert minus instead of horizontal plus. In the realm of browser scaling though it's much more of a debate as to which is superior.

Both have same FoV (100) - that's the bonus of non-wide resolution, so you have to add +10/20 value to cover same space, which is normal considering the aspect ratio and the resolution of wide and non wide monitors - unless we talk about games designed especially for Wide Resolutions.

If you like fast paced shooters like Quake - you should really try Warsow (it's free) - that guy moves like Purri (an old school Q2 legend) but not so skilled at aiming. :) The weird thing about Warsow and also had a similar experience with CoD 4 and MW2 - they have very little tearing (so rare and the effect is so weak that you rarely noticed it) with VSync off (with on - there is no tearing at all but Q2 engine works awful with it "ON" - as in noticeable input lag) playing Warsow at 120 FPS wile CoD had a random value not being capped at all, but that's also optimized with VSync in mic and runs smooth even with it ON.

Cleaned dust from my old Sony G520 Trinitron CRT and oh boy i got better in multiplayer fps games like MW2, BC2 etc, fast screen just makes hell of big difference.

Still i doubt i will go back to CRT's now that i have 3 x TN screens and 1 huge 30" IPS screen.

Im still using my 20" viewable CRT with 85hz refresh rate. It beats all LCD's options out there in terms of gaming. I'd like to have a larger CRT of about 24" that is also 16:9 @ 85-100hz but that isn't going to happen now days.

I'm quite happy with this monitor and the fact that I'm not locked in a native res like an LCD just to get the best picture quality. I can switch from 800x600 up to 1920x1440 without any quality degradation.

Also achieving 85fps in games today for a perfect 1:1 frame to hz ratio without any duplicated frames is easier to accomplish than say a 120hz LCD which would require 120fps constantly. Even still that 120hz LCD isn't going to look as smooth as a 60hz CRT fading of light due to Phosphor.

P.S. on my CRT, I can tell a distinctive difference in games from 60fps @ 60hz vs 85fps @ 85hz.

I personally prefer LCD's but both CRT and LCD monitors have their negatives.

On a CRT, high resolutions result in lower refresh rates (60hz - flickering effect) and also result in "pixel merging" where each individual pixel will begin to mesh into the other pixels and lose their clarity in the image.

On an LCD monitor, you have no flickering effect at any resolution/refresh rate. However, there is noticeable "ghosting" that doesn't happen on CRT monitors. Also, LCD's look like crap on lower resolutions.




IMO, CRT's are best for low-res, high performance gaming (high refresh rate, no pixel distortion). While LCD's are better for high-res gaming (high image clarity, wider field of view on widescreen 16:10 or 16:9 models)

I value image clarity over high refresh rates, so I like LCD monitors better. To each their own, though.