![[H]ard|Forum](/styles/hardforum/xenforo/logo_dark.png){kind=logo}
Dell 30" vs 120hz for gaming?
- Thread starter arachn1d
- Start date
Skripka
[H]F Junkie
- Joined
- Feb 5, 2012
- Messages
- 10,791
Completely opinion. Having a 30" 16:10...there's no way I'd go back to 1080 even if the panel shat rainbows and peed liquid gold.
FM_Fixxxer
Limp Gawd
- Joined
- Mar 2, 2012
- Messages
- 303
For me, this right here. I've had an Asus 120hz 27" and since I've got my Dell U3011, I wouldn't go back to 1080p for anything.
Bluesun311
2[H]4U
- Joined
- Sep 21, 2013
- Messages
- 2,523
If you want to get a 24 or 27 for gaming I'd get an asus TN, see if you like it or not, see if you need bigger. Then, if not try an Eizo fg2421 and see if you like it or not. By the time you get through playing with and returning those we may know more about the much anticipated ROG Swift 27" gsync/ULMB.
WorldExclusive
[H]F Junkie
- Joined
- Apr 26, 2009
- Messages
- 11,547
It took me a while to get back to my 30". Won't sell it for anything.
I will buy a large 4K monitor/tv and keep the 30" on the side.
Small monitors are underwhelming after using a 30", regardless of the refresh rate.
I will buy a large 4K monitor/tv and keep the 30" on the side.
Small monitors are underwhelming after using a 30", regardless of the refresh rate.
An overclock-able (96hz+) 1440p 27" Qnix/X-Star is much better than any 30" for gaming, especially compared to a grainy, glowy CCFL back-lit 30."
Bluesun311
2[H]4U
- Joined
- Sep 21, 2013
- Messages
- 2,523
I've noticed your fervent support of Twisted Nematic technology. Also I happen to know you like photography. These things seem incongruous but perhaps you have a TN that is somehow free from backlight bleed and handles dark images well. Both the VG278HE's I tried had backlight bleed the entire way around the bezel and made me sad because the motion was soooo good. The bleed was intensified by Lightboost.
96Hz on my new Qnix is not bad at all. There's no smearing like the FG2421 I'm coming from, but it's not nearly as clear in motion, and the blacks are obviously far from MVA depth. Still, it's a better all around display because the Eizo has varying issues with clouding that were beginning to constantly distract me, but it was not as distracting as the bleed on the Lightboost TNs I had.
I'm bit curious how much clearer motion is on the Overlord Tempest and Yamakasi 2B OC Extreme (supposedly can do up to 135Mhz).
No mate, I just hate motion blur. It ruins a lot of shots, and it hurts my eyes. Both my Q270 and my U2311H blur so much that it's annoying even to use them in a slower game: World of Artillery (I mean, tanks.) I didn't like my old 60Hz TN either, but it was definitely more tolerable.
I have two IPS monitors, I can use them for photo editing. I use CRT right now, for fast-moving games. I have a U28D590 ordered, that I *might* use to replace the CRT.
More importantly, I love any opportunity to bug NCX.
Bluesun311
2[H]4U
- Joined
- Sep 21, 2013
- Messages
- 2,523
Understandable. : ) I figured 96Hz OC would be like... *yawn* compared to Turbo240 or Lightboost... and it sort of is, but it's tons better than 60Hz. I don't like motion blur AT ALL but I gotta admit the little bit of extra refresh frequency (just from 60 to 96) helps a lot more than I would have thought. I'm at 105Hz and topping out, think it's the cable because I have 3 of them and they all have different limits. But I'd be surprised if a fatter cable can get me 120Hz. I tried upping the voltage on the card and changing to the other DVI port--so it's the PCB or the cable.
Yeah, going from 75Hz to 105Hz on the CRT makes a huge difference.
Grats on your 105!houkouonchi
RIP
- Joined
- Sep 14, 2008
- Messages
- 1,622
I upgraded to a 27 inch yamakasi from a 30 inch dell for the high refresh rate and ran it at 100Hz. It was great. Later I upgraded to a seiki 4k display and that was a upgrade as well. 4k resolution for desktop stuff and 120hz for gaming. The constrast were so much better on the seiki that it seemed far superior to the yamakasi in everyway (even response time). Even the colors seemed just as good and viewing angles were very comparable.
I live with the 30Hz for video/desktop/work use and drop down to 1080p@120Hz for games (or 720p@240 Hz for games i can't handle the 9 ms of input lag which so far is only quakelive). Considering the the 39 inch seiki can be had for $400 and its even bigger and higher resolution than the other options its just a no brainer IMHO.
I live with the 30Hz for video/desktop/work use and drop down to 1080p@120Hz for games (or 720p@240 Hz for games i can't handle the 9 ms of input lag which so far is only quakelive). Considering the the 39 inch seiki can be had for $400 and its even bigger and higher resolution than the other options its just a no brainer IMHO.
Just a small note of info (lol):
I've been using 27" 1440p displays for years. Including 120hz Korean models. And never felt completely comfortable gaming on such screens.
I first tried the 24" 1080p DELL monitor because I needed something less stressful for my eyes, because the PWM was awful on the last 27" display. I found the monitor much more comfortable to use not just because it didn't have any PWM but also because of its size.
Then, having read the review of the Acer H226HQL monitor I decided to at least try it. And now I can say that is the monitor I needed all the time long. It is 21.5" 1080p monitor and the image quality simply blows you away. Yes, it does. The 21.5" is also very comfortable to play on, because you see the whole scene on the display not just the center part of it like on a 27".
So, my point is - I went from 27" to 21,5" and not only do I not feel that I downgraded, but I found this monitor size and resolution perfect for gaming and general use. Big size and crazy resolution is at least not that important for gaming.
Check this monitor guys, it might be what you really looking for:
H226HQLbmid on google.
I've been using 27" 1440p displays for years. Including 120hz Korean models. And never felt completely comfortable gaming on such screens.
I first tried the 24" 1080p DELL monitor because I needed something less stressful for my eyes, because the PWM was awful on the last 27" display. I found the monitor much more comfortable to use not just because it didn't have any PWM but also because of its size.
Then, having read the review of the Acer H226HQL monitor I decided to at least try it. And now I can say that is the monitor I needed all the time long. It is 21.5" 1080p monitor and the image quality simply blows you away. Yes, it does. The 21.5" is also very comfortable to play on, because you see the whole scene on the display not just the center part of it like on a 27".
So, my point is - I went from 27" to 21,5" and not only do I not feel that I downgraded, but I found this monitor size and resolution perfect for gaming and general use. Big size and crazy resolution is at least not that important for gaming.
Check this monitor guys, it might be what you really looking for:
H226HQLbmid on google.
Bluesun311
2[H]4U
- Joined
- Sep 21, 2013
- Messages
- 2,523
Dell 30" or 120hz!?
Neither. Get a 21.5 1080p 60hz monitor and it will blow your mind.
Neither. Get a 21.5 1080p 60hz monitor and it will blow your mind.
The 3014's game mode has locked color controls, awful color presets, uses the wrong color gamut for consumer media and it still suffers from excessive overshoot ghosting and IPS glow. Praising it's low lag is like praising the light weight of shit you stepped in, barefoot.
I also fall into this camp.
But that's not to say I wouldn't like to upgrade to a faster 30" IPS/MVA given the opportunity (and the right price). The blur is definitely noticeable in dark scenes and GtG transitions, I just don't play FPS competitively enough to give up 30" of awesomeness for the 2% of the time I'm playnig FPS games.
almendragrande
Weaksauce
- Joined
- Dec 8, 2013
- Messages
- 71
This. Love my 30.
jcvjcvjcvjcv
Gawd
- Joined
- Sep 28, 2007
- Messages
- 703
D
Deleted whining member 223597
Guest
Only time a 120/144hz monitor makes sense is if you really need that little extra edge in FPS games competitively. The colors are probably going to be much worse and of course a lower resolution + worse viewing angles if you go TN.
WorldExclusive
[H]F Junkie
- Joined
- Apr 26, 2009
- Messages
- 11,547
You know that you'll come in last place if you don't have a 120Hz monitor?
But seriously, BF was the only FPS worth a damn on PC and after the latest version, BF4, it's dead to me.
No need to buy any FPS game until something comes out that really changes how we play the genre.
Input lag is much more important than refresh rate. Actually.
WorldExclusive
[H]F Junkie
- Joined
- Apr 26, 2009
- Messages
- 11,547
Correct.
That's why the Dell 3007WFP-HC was the best 30" made.
I'll take lower input lag over faster refresh rate.
Bluesun311
2[H]4U
- Joined
- Sep 21, 2013
- Messages
- 2,523
Well they usually come together these days. That particular display sounds interesting. But the modern 30s don't. All the 120hz displays I can think of also have low input delay. The ROG swift will have a nice trifecta of refresh rate/high res/low input delay (and then ULMB or gsync to boot). If it doesn't have crazy bleed like all the TNs I've ever tried I'll be on it for sure, but it probably will. 24 to 27 isn't a huge difference to me, personally--unless we stay at the same res. going to 30 at 1440p for anything but equal performance doesn't make sense to me.
3014=grain free matte coating, wrong color gamut for consumer media, awful game mode colors, excessive dark scene ruining IPS glow and obvious overshoot ghosting caused by poorly implemented overdrive.
3007=grainy matte coating, wrong color gamut for consumer media=gross over-saturated and inaccurate colors, excessive dark scene ruining IPS glow and obvious color streaking and smearing due to the slow pixel response times.
Not much of a comparison since they both suck, along with 99% of 30" monitors. People with standards buy 27" 1440p monitors.
i love how the only people who ever have anything bad to say about high refresh rate monitors are people who have never even used one
"probably" ugh
go buy a vg236h (highest quality 120 Hz panel available and only $250 because it'd old), use ncx's icc profile and settings, mirror it with an ips panel, play some games, and then try to tell me how ugly and unusable it is.
Bluesun311
2[H]4U
- Joined
- Sep 21, 2013
- Messages
- 2,523
Yah, Jeez just move your mouse around and scroll on a webpage and tell me that isn't worth the trouble. 60Hz hurts my eyes more than PWM. I still feel like a lot of people have not yet realized higher refresh rate is for more than just games. It makes everything smoother.
Frankly input delay is more of a competitive issue in FPS games than motion blur. Lightboost and 120Hz don't help you so much as much as make the whole thing more pleasant. Motion blur reduction helps a LITTLE, but mostly it just *looks* a lot better. Just get a cheap 120Hz display and run ufo test on it. You'll understand.
Last edited:
D
Deleted whining member 223597
Guest
I don't remember saying it was ugly or unusable. I don't remember saying it was bad. What I said was that the TN's are generally going to have worse colors, terrible viewing angles and other issues. I don't care for those issues, but some people do. An IPS screen, that isn't shit, will have better colors and black detail.
elvn
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- May 5, 2006
- Messages
- 4,993
Even 2560x1440 is quite demanding to average 100fps or more. I would use dual 780's to get that but I am waiting until 20nm to do sli.
GTX 780Ti Benchmarks 1x-4x SLI (Work in Progress)
Gsync and high hz are greatly advantageous for gaming experience even at somewhat lower fps.
High hz does two things. It cuts movement blur (by 1/2 comparing 120hz vs 60hz, 60% at 144hz). At higher fps it also increases motion definition, animation definition, and overall motion flow/control flow and motion tracking. (More "slices" of unique newer action, animation, and control path states shown per second).
www.web-cyb.org 120hz-fps-compared
..
The amount of FoV movement blur at 60hz is not even definably a solid grid resolution to your eyes during continual FoV movement (movement keying, mouse-look pathing, etc). You don't play a still screen shot.
You still get a 5:3 increase in movement definition, animation definition, and overall smoothness/flow at 100fps at anything over 100hz vs 60fps-hz max.
This is not just something for those who seek a gameplay advantage and motion tracking advantage, it aesthetically looks much better and feels better in controls.
I'm sure most people have seen the mouse pointer tracking examples of 60hz vs 120hz. That applies to the entire view-port and control pathing in a game.
This is just a graphic trying to simulate it
(5frames of world state action vs 3 ~> 100fps at 100hz+ shown vs 60hz-fps max ceiling.. 120fps-hz would be 6:3)
If you get a g-sync monitor, you can get dynamic hz to match whatever your fps is all the time. This eliminates the use of v-sync (which causes input lag) while avoiding judder and tearing from unmatched fps roller coaster vs hz due to different gpu demands in different scenes(complexity, number of characters)/action/viewpoints(distances,etc).
G-sync monitors (and monitors like the eizo fg2421 VA's own tech) have an ulmb mode you can use instead of the g-sync mode on games that are less demanding (of if you have an extreme gpu budget) too. Games where you get 120fps average. This is a backlight strobing mode which results in zero FoV movement blur much like a crt's pristine movement.
IPS monitors have their advantages but lack all of that advanced gaming tech. 60hz monitors have double the FoV movement blur of 120hz (tn vs tn) + worse due to ips response time, they lack upcoming g-sync tech and backlight strobing options, and they have a 60fps max viewable motion slices ceiling due to their refresh rate. Even the overclockable korean 120hz one's response times are slow so that they blur a lot more than a gaming by design 120hz-144hz monitor, and obviously lack g-sync and strobing tech options.
..
That's why I have always used two monitors, one dedicated to gaming. Personally I can't see gaming in a 1st/3rd person game with a 60hz monitor, and without g-sync and backlight strobing options going forward. I'm definitely watching the asus PG278Q closely.
...
For much greater immersion I'm hoping for the oculus rift and competiting VR rigs in the next few years, and at higher resolutions than 1080p in later models. For their first consumer release the oculus rift dev's are shooting for 90hz - 100hz, 1080p, and some kind of low persistence or strobing tech to eliminate FoV blur (which they consider essential for immersive perspectives/VR).
. High rez screenshots (4k at low hz and low fps getting pushed by review sites now) might look pretty in a still, but "You don't play a still screen shot".. and you can't show people on 60hz what 120hz and high fps looks like at full speed, nor what blur reductions of 50%+ or complete blur eliminations looks like in motion.
I'll also leave this graphic I made here since people were mentioning different resolutions and aspect ratios.
I'll leave this here too since we are talking gaming vs aspect ratios.
GTX 780Ti Benchmarks 1x-4x SLI (Work in Progress)
Gsync and high hz are greatly advantageous for gaming experience even at somewhat lower fps.
High hz does two things. It cuts movement blur (by 1/2 comparing 120hz vs 60hz, 60% at 144hz). At higher fps it also increases motion definition, animation definition, and overall motion flow/control flow and motion tracking. (More "slices" of unique newer action, animation, and control path states shown per second).
www.web-cyb.org 120hz-fps-compared
..
The amount of FoV movement blur at 60hz is not even definably a solid grid resolution to your eyes during continual FoV movement (movement keying, mouse-look pathing, etc). You don't play a still screen shot.
You still get a 5:3 increase in movement definition, animation definition, and overall smoothness/flow at 100fps at anything over 100hz vs 60fps-hz max.
This is not just something for those who seek a gameplay advantage and motion tracking advantage, it aesthetically looks much better and feels better in controls.
I'm sure most people have seen the mouse pointer tracking examples of 60hz vs 120hz. That applies to the entire view-port and control pathing in a game.
This is just a graphic trying to simulate it
(5frames of world state action vs 3 ~> 100fps at 100hz+ shown vs 60hz-fps max ceiling.. 120fps-hz would be 6:3)
If you get a g-sync monitor, you can get dynamic hz to match whatever your fps is all the time. This eliminates the use of v-sync (which causes input lag) while avoiding judder and tearing from unmatched fps roller coaster vs hz due to different gpu demands in different scenes(complexity, number of characters)/action/viewpoints(distances,etc).
G-sync monitors (and monitors like the eizo fg2421 VA's own tech) have an ulmb mode you can use instead of the g-sync mode on games that are less demanding (of if you have an extreme gpu budget) too. Games where you get 120fps average. This is a backlight strobing mode which results in zero FoV movement blur much like a crt's pristine movement.
IPS monitors have their advantages but lack all of that advanced gaming tech. 60hz monitors have double the FoV movement blur of 120hz (tn vs tn) + worse due to ips response time, they lack upcoming g-sync tech and backlight strobing options, and they have a 60fps max viewable motion slices ceiling due to their refresh rate. Even the overclockable korean 120hz one's response times are slow so that they blur a lot more than a gaming by design 120hz-144hz monitor, and obviously lack g-sync and strobing tech options.
..
That's why I have always used two monitors, one dedicated to gaming. Personally I can't see gaming in a 1st/3rd person game with a 60hz monitor, and without g-sync and backlight strobing options going forward. I'm definitely watching the asus PG278Q closely.
...
For much greater immersion I'm hoping for the oculus rift and competiting VR rigs in the next few years, and at higher resolutions than 1080p in later models. For their first consumer release the oculus rift dev's are shooting for 90hz - 100hz, 1080p, and some kind of low persistence or strobing tech to eliminate FoV blur (which they consider essential for immersive perspectives/VR).
. High rez screenshots (4k at low hz and low fps getting pushed by review sites now) might look pretty in a still, but "You don't play a still screen shot".. and you can't show people on 60hz what 120hz and high fps looks like at full speed, nor what blur reductions of 50%+ or complete blur eliminations looks like in motion.
I'll also leave this graphic I made here since people were mentioning different resolutions and aspect ratios.
I'll leave this here too since we are talking gaming vs aspect ratios.
jcvjcvjcvjcv
Gawd
- Joined
- Sep 28, 2007
- Messages
- 703
Haha
I was never bothered by the grainy coating of the 3007. Wrong color gamut for consumer media: then calibrate is... 'd uh. The little dark glow is regrettable yeah, but streaking and smearing... definitely not. I'm interested what that 1% is?
People that are used to x1600 don't buy 27"...
You should probably use "probably" in your statement because I have owned and used plenty of IPS and 120hz TN panel monitors and I can safely say there is a problem with TN panels and that I'll use IPS and equivalent panel technologies from here on out.
WorldExclusive
[H]F Junkie
- Joined
- Apr 26, 2009
- Messages
- 11,547
Haha
I was never bothered by the grainy coating of the 3007. Wrong color gamut for consumer media: then calibrate is... 'd uh. The little dark glow is regrettable yeah, but streaking and smearing... definitely not. I'm interested what that 1% is?
People that are used to x1600 don't buy 27"...
I needed that laugh also.
Usually people who own good monitors are.
The only people worth laughing at in this thread are the 30" owners who clearly do not understand the products they purchase.
The 3007 lacks an sRGB mode as well as hardware calibration, so the gamut can not be 'calibrated'. The only way to get it to display colors properly is to use programs which support color management, and games, most movie playback software do not, and
color management usually needs to be manually enabled in web browsers.
NEC PA302W, but the superior, glow free Eizos (CG277 and CX271) are similarly priced.
Last edited:
WorldExclusive
[H]F Junkie
- Joined
- Apr 26, 2009
- Messages
- 11,547
We are using semi-pro tools. Good performance at a reasonable price.
You're touting near broadcast level monitors, people who need precise color management.
We want to play games and edit video.
Come on man.
Why buy monitors (wide gamut 30", especially single input options) meant to be used with color managed programs then? Consumer media (games, movies, tv, web) does not use the Adobe RGB color space.
Come on man.