Which 120Hz 23" monitor? Need advice!

[Wiltrold]

Hi everybody!

I recently bought a new rig, as I was growing tired of my playstation 3 and it's poor performance compared to PC's. I've been using my 4 years old 1650x1050 monitor, and the quality of it is ****ty to say the least. I've then decided to buy a new monitor:
BenQ XL2420T

My biggest concern is the 120 Hz on the BenQ. I have a single GTX 570, and it's able to pull over 120 FPS in most old games, but when it comes to new games like BF3 or Skyrim or Anno 2070, it simply can't pull much more than 60-80 FPS. Maybe it's not worth spending extra $$ on the 120 Hz features if I can't use it to it's full potential.

Maybe you have other suggestions?

Thanks.
Wiltrold

[Keller]

Depends on your setup. Are you going to continue using your old monitor? Are you going to SLI in the future?
You should be fine in most games as you said, and if you dont care much about BF3 and the newer ones you might aswell go for it. If you do you'd be better off with an IPS panel. ( LG have some really nice cheap ones)

[glo]

It's just going to sync down to 60FPS on new games anyway, unless you turn v-sync off, but then say hello to screen tearing. Is it really worth it to you? Most modern games + modern hardware are never going to get up around 120FPS. It usually takes a few generations to pull off those numbers.

[Wiltrold]

If you were to pick a screen without 120 Hz. Should I pick a IPS panel instead? What screen would you pick?

[glo]

If you were to pick a screen without 120 Hz. Should I pick a IPS panel instead? What screen would you pick?

If you have the money, IPS panels are hands down the best choice. They look fantastic.

Thinking back on what I said earlier, you may definitely -not- see screen tearing with v-sync off as long as in-game FPS doesn't go above 120 on a 120hz monitor.

[DeltrusDisc]

It's just going to sync down to 60FPS on new games anyway, unless you turn v-sync off, but then say hello to screen tearing. Is it really worth it to you? Most modern games + modern hardware are never going to get up around 120FPS. It usually takes a few generations to pull off those numbers.

Without Vsync on I can get up to 110fps in SWTOR (which seems like the max encoded fps limit) so, technically what you're saying is flawed. And that is on 1920x1080 with a 560 Ti with maxed graphics. (Granted the graphics have not been optimized.) I guess it really all comes down to what is *reasonable.* Reasonable being perhaps a $250~ single graphics card, not Synthaxx or Cyanotical's setups. Will my single 560 Ti run BF3 on near ultra settings 1080p at 120fps? No. Will Synthaxx's? Last I recall him saying was it did.

[nbm02ss]

I <3 my ASUS 120hz monitor. Adjustable screen height and it came with a rebate. It was down to the Acer 120hz vs. the Asus and I couldn't justify a orange colored monitor stand on my desk, plus the Asus has a rebate.

[Wiltrold]

So what 120 Hz/IPS screen would you guys recommend?

[glo]

Without Vsync on I can get up to 110fps in SWTOR (which seems like the max encoded fps limit) so, technically what you're saying is flawed. And that is on 1920x1080 with a 560 Ti with maxed graphics. (Granted the graphics have not been optimized.) I guess it really all comes down to what is *reasonable.* Reasonable being perhaps a $250~ single graphics card, not Synthaxx or Cyanotical's setups. Will my single 560 Ti run BF3 on near ultra settings 1080p at 120fps? No. Will Synthaxx's? Last I recall him saying was it did.

Running past v-sync levels (with it turned off) is pointless unless you have 120hz monitor, which he is debating getting. However, that will typically generate screen tearing. If you honestly don't believe what 99.9% of hardware developers and users believe, and think you can somehow magically see more frames than your monitor can refresh, I suggest you post your own thread debating the matter instead of introducing such unfounded ideas here.

[Speedlance]

It's just going to sync down to 60FPS on new games anyway, unless you turn v-sync off, but then say hello to screen tearing. Is it really worth it to you? Most modern games + modern hardware are never going to get up around 120FPS. It usually takes a few generations to pull off those numbers.

Games like MW3 you can switch to vsync and change hz to 120 and it will give you 120 fps ingame without tearing.

[Drunkenvalley]

Running past v-sync levels (with it turned off) is pointless unless you have 120hz monitor, which he is debating getting. However, that will typically generate screen tearing. If you honestly don't believe what 99.9% of hardware developers and users believe, and think you can somehow magically see more frames than your monitor can refresh, I suggest you post your own thread debating the matter instead of introducing such unfounded ideas here.

What the fuck are you even talking about here, glo? o_O

He says he's getting 110 FPS. That's the amount of frames the graphics card generated. It does not mean the monitor displayed 110 frames. Don't read shit that isn't there.

[Illuminance]

The 120 hz monitors (including BenQ) with TN panels look like complete shit.

I was curious about getting one because of how responsive they were, and I do believe there is a noticeable difference. In my attempt to compare monitors, I actually purchased and brought home the BenQ 120hz and an IPS monitor from Dell to stick them side by side.

I could not stand looking at the BenQ. Period. Sure, it was cool to get smoother frames in high FPS games, but the colors washing out in a gradient from top-to-bottom actually made it miserable to look at.

[Deleted]

Keep it civil people.

Backing up certain claims with facts (outside sources) might be a good idea in some cases. Also, please refrain from posting any personal attacks, direct or indirect. It makes the moderator-team very sad.

[glo]

http://www.tech-faq.com/refresh-rate.html

The Refresh rate is the number of times a display's image is repainted or refreshed per second.

Not sure why I need to back up an extremely basic concept that's been widely known since the dawn of television.

Also, there's no personal attacks intended. I only reaffirmed the facts so it didn't derail as it has done in the past with certain members. Unless somehow proven otherwise, the entire tech industry and consumers can agree that monitors cannot display more frames than it can refresh. It's simply impossible and well documented.

[DeltrusDisc]

http://www.tech-faq.com/refresh-rate.html



Not sure why I need to back up an extremely basic concept that's been widely known since the dawn of television.

Also, there's no personal attacks intended. I only put in my 2 cents on the subject so it didn't derail as it has done in the past with certain members.

Did you not read Drunken's post?

I NEVER said that I could see more than 60, I was saying my GRAPHICS CARD could PUT OUT more than 60, that doesn't mean my monitor DISPLAYS the amount it takes in from the graphics card.

You assume that I never changed my mind from that previous thread, though I believe I DID end up saying I was INCORRECT.

[Fuzzykins]

http://www.tech-faq.com/refresh-rate.html



Not sure why I need to back up an extremely basic concept that's been widely known since the dawn of television.

Also, there's no personal attacks intended. I only put in my 2 cents on the subject so it didn't derail as it has done in the past with certain members.

Glo, I think he's saying his despite the fact that his card runs at 110 fps with vertical sync off, and despite the fact that he can't see it, it's still overkill for SWTOR. He's saying that you could go for something that gets 60 fps regardless of Vsync to be more budget efficient.

Put your e-pitchforks away gents.

[Drunkenvalley]

It's nice to hear you understand what refresh rate is, glo, but why are you telling us this? Why are you telling us these things to people who already know these things...?

[DeltrusDisc]

Glo, I think he's saying his despite the fact that his card runs at 110 fps with vertical sync off, and despite the fact that he can't see it, it's still overkill for SWTOR. He's saying that you could go for something that gets 60 fps regardless of Vsync to be more budget efficient.

Or if I had a 120Hz monitor I could actually make use of it in SWTOR, to be quite plain. Current game, current hardware! (Almost last-gen hardware to be fair.)

[glo]

Did you not read Drunken's post?

I NEVER said that I could see more than 60, I was saying my GRAPHICS CARD could PUT OUT more than 60, that doesn't mean my monitor DISPLAYS the amount it takes in from the graphics card.

You assume that I never changed my mind from that previous thread, though I believe I DID end up saying I was INCORRECT.

Calm down. By the tone of your previous post saying that my logic was flawed, it seemed that's where you were going again. I'm not "following you around". I've been in this thread before you posted.

Just drop it.

[DeltrusDisc]

Calm down. By the tone of your previous post saying that my logic was flawed, it seemed that's where you were going again. I'm not "following you around". I've been in this thread before you posted.

Just drop it.

Yeah, it seemed so.

But maybe if you read my post and noticed how I never even mentioned monitor refresh rates, maybe you would realize that wasn't even the topic I was trying to get at. I was simply saying that SOME current hardware can produce 120 fps in SOME games. Will all monitors display that 120fps? No, only 120Hz.