ooo, I was planning on buying one of the 120hz panels in the new year, il have to see what the prices are like tbh..

£275 @ dabs.com for the Acer 24" model

I've been planning on buying the 2233RZ but full hd @ 120hz is basically everything I could ask for :)

the vx2268wm comes for 250-275 euros and is not that bad either

I know, been looking at them both for some time now

I recently bought a 2233rz, what's the point of 24" on a TN panel ? I already got backlight bleeding, poor colour uniformity and narrow viewing angles, can't ask for worse :P I still miss my trusty lg F900P .....

btw acer's 24" model is no longer orange now, just the stand

so you regret buying the 2233rz? Was thinking about getting one for christmas.

what's the difference between that and these 120 hz full hd things?

1680*1050

vs

1920*1080

or smting

1920*1200 no ? At least I hope it is since 1080 on a 24" is bullshit.

http://img.donanimhaber.com/images/haber/WTM_...h_fx57.jpg

Optimal (AKA native) resolution != maximum resolution

This could easily mean that a 16:9 aspect ratio looks better on the monitor than a 16:10 ratio. Doesn't mean it's excluded altogether.

Yes, optimal resolution for my 22" is 1680x1050, but i can go over 9000 also.

For LCD's optimal is always(?) highest one. Lol.

no other differences, picture quality etc?

dont know :| i guess practically none

I know jack shit about monitors but I'm curious if a monitor has supposed 2ms delay (gray to gray), what difference does it make if it's 2ms or 15 ms when it's refresh rate is 60 hz anyway?

Well most people say it is about ghosting, I have seen 8ms TN that were fine as far as ghosting is concerned so that shouldnt be big issue anymore for TN based screens. However what I personaly cant stand is input lag which every LCD has. Usualy it is at least 15 to 25ms in good screens. Interesingly it is rather fine in FPP games (probably just like playing with higher ping), but I simply cant play driving games like that. It may be possible to get used to it if you start driving in certain title on LCD, but if you learn driving in certain title on CRT then there is way too big difference in reactions for transition. I think that the more analogue game is, the more noticable difference will be.

how would you get ghosting if the delay (which causes ghosting) is less than 1 frame?

Im not specialist in LCD screens either, but lets try it.

One frame at 60Hz is indeed shown every 16.7ms, however 2ms (as well as 8, 15 and usualy what is claimed by producers) is just grey to grey and transition from certain colour to another takes various times, which are always higher than grey to grey. For marketing purposes as well to keep information simple, they only show one transition value and unsurprisingly it is the lowest one possible. It shouldnt be suprising that for example transition from lets say yellow to violet takes even 18ms or more. This already exceeds time for a single frame, and since we dont get a whole colour transitions chart on packing, we dont really know if there will be ghosting or not without testing it.

If the way Im getting this is valid that would also limit available usable refresh rate. Meaning if they sell hardware with higher refresh rate then reaction time for certain colour transitions is reduced. Assuming they didnt just put black screens in between actual frames.

Early LCD TVs offering higher refresh rate actualy did it by inserting black screens, I think also Samsung did it, but rather to simulate CRT style flickering which they found out actualy makes viewing better (basicaly a lot of what we were told before that wasnt good is now coming back, for example glossy screens).

However thats just assumpion based mainly on logic, as I said Im not LCD nor screen specialist.

Actually I think g2g is used because it's slower then black to white, because you can't use overdrive as easy.

Monitor sends the data to refresh screen at 60 herz, so...

Pixels get the data at 60 herz. Once they have the data - ie change from purple to pink, the pixel takes its time to actually chnage its state. This is where the speed of the panel counts.

So in reality, you have the 60herz lag + the lag of the pixels being drawn. Effectivly, most LCD's are actually a frame behind at whats actually happening.

so presuming the pixel lag on a 120hz monitor < monitor lag, otherwise pixels couldn't change state between frames, you'd get roughly 8ms monitor lag + 8ms pixel lag (max) = 16 ms total lag tops?

I guess, but dont know really.

It may be just that pixels wont change to the correct color in time and be ordered another chage before they reach the needed color.

In theory thats 8ms lag of the monitor hardware + whatever time the pixel needs to adjust.

It is pushing but, 24 is basicaly TN limit I think.
Since vertical viewing angles are extremaly low, anything larger cant be viewed without some part of screen distorted.

Hm, what about increasing distance to the screen?

You run out of desk then :P

Buy more desk! :)

what's the asus price?

can't wait for the Full HD 120hz'ers to roll on in

LG is also coming out with one but it looks like shit and it's supposed to be 120hz but i can't confirm this:

http://www.engadget.com/2009/05/27/video-lg-d...d-monitor/

according to the vid, with their 120Hz monitor the video card process images faster, interesting

im thinking seriously to purchase a macbook, 3 friends of mine told me even the HW aspects of the mac is much better than a top laptop of most of any common laptop

What in tarnation is "HW aspects"?

hardware i suppose

your friends are tools

the hardware is the same. you just have to decide whether the coat of white paint and the mac douchebag status are worth the 50% price premium.

How FullHD is gaming? It is not a PC gaming resolution, the aspect ratio is different, FullHD is only usable for consoles, and most people use them with larger TV screens.

there's no such thing as "PC gaming resolution" and most if not all new games support 16:9 aspect ratios as well

There isnt, but PC games for many years usualy used widescreen resolutions with 16:10 aspect ratio, this may be different with new games that are often console ports, but we shouldnt change popular standards cause it breaks continuity. You can easly add different aspect ratio to new software, but you cant do the same with old one.

Not to mention 16:9 is actualy smaller than 16:10, so producers can do more matrices from one wafer, yet they sell both for the same price. FullHD became great way to fuck people :P

Yeah but that's the problem. There are some people who also plug consoles into these things, and would like movies without massive black bars etc. Not to mention some crappy console ports that don't actually have 16:10 ratio (though almost all actually do). So I guess Asus decided that the monitor would be best at 16:9 just for those situations. That's assuming the monitor doesn't have 1:1 pixel mapping, in which case they should really use 1920x1200 like the monitor I have, but then in the cases you have to use pixel mapping you get processing delay.

Im astounded at how little people know here about Hz and call themselves gamers. These screens are gonna be bigger then God himself. OMG.

You dont seem to know much about it yourself. So shut up if you dont have anything usefull to add?

well.. still the same old shitty TN-panel with massive backlight bleeding, all colors are fucked up and i dont even start with viewing angles hahhah..

Gotta love the H-IPS <3

Hopefully the 120Hz is good enough reason to buy that crap :)