Yes, afaik its the best lcd for gaming, but 2233rz aint any worse really. All it does better than 2233rz is 3D-mode and lesser backlight bleed

Ah, I guess I missed the word that the 2233rz is 120Hz. I was looking for monitors based on that nvidia list of 3d-capable LCDs.

If they're basically the same, how does the 2233rz compare to a CRT for gaming? About the same with the usual slight LCD blur then?

Well I have always been very demanding on displays so I think my opinion helps you quite a lot. I used CRT 2years for competive gaming after that i bought 75hz TFT which felt like shit after 120hz CRT. I mean in every way, it had a little inputlag, ghosting way too low hz.... Now that I own 2233rz I can say that no gamer needs CRT anymore. There are no inputlag, almost no ghosting, sharp picture and 120hz, which is enought atleast for quakelive.

Anyway, my opinion is that any 120hz display will do, but if you have moneyy go for LG.

I want to agree with you, however I have to disagree.
Your observations about the 2233rz only hold true if you're getting 120 FPS (or more) on one. I havea 2233rz too, and I'm not even using it; I'm using my CRT. What I Found out is this:

If you're getting 120 FPS on the 2233rz steady, then it's great. But if you're only getting about 85 FPS or so (or playing a game that caps the FPS at 85 (e.g. some UT2004 servers), then it feels like shit. A CRT @ 85 hz refresh rate and 85 FPS feels significantly better than a 120hz LCD at 85 FPS. And I especially noticed this in AVA, where I can't maintain 120 FPS on my current hardware with the details cranked, but I can maintain 100 FPS. And again, 100 FPS @ 120hz on the 2233rz feels a lot worse than 100hz /100 FPS on my CRT. Enough that it affects my aim (which is already bad enough, since I'm not even a good player). But I'm very picky about what I feel, and I simply can't play as well with the 2233rz as I can with my CRT.

When you can lock a 120hz LCD at 85 or 100 hz/100 FPS and have it glass smooth (like a baby's bottom) like a CRT (you can NOT do this on ANY LCD yet), then I'll gladly STFU and move on. Until then, I will use my CRT until it breaks completely (almost there...)

why would ANYONE play ql with fps locked to anything else than 125? what you are experiencing is your pc being shit, not the 2233rz.

After switching from sony g500 to samsung 2233rz i can say this 120hz lcd is almost as fast as crt. Can recommend for playing ql, but it's no use in photoshop.

color calibrated it seems almost good, actually

Hmm can you advide me how to do it so that i wouldn't need to google it? :P

noup :)
gotta buy a color calibrator, and you have to pick one thats right for you

I dislike monitors that require you to activate a "gaming mode" to get the best performance, because that often means you lose out in other areas. I prefer just a general all round good performance, but whatever floats the buyers boat!

Gaming mode should stay with tvs none the less, i'll be waiting to upgrade my 2268wm a little longer :)

theyre lcd's, are u gonna wait till infinity for them to be perfect? cause its not gonna happen :p

only thing thats gonna have a super small dot pitch, high reso, high brightness and crystal clear colors might be the OLED panels we're gonna see in the future. theyre also supposed to have 0ms input lag in _any_ mode u put it.

omg someone on the internet that actually shares my opinion on lcds. I thought it would never happen.

+
Will never buy a LCD monitor/TV.. OLED soon enough here. :)

Last I knew the whole OLED tech was blocked due to scaling issues (been blocked like that for the past 3 years or so...)

But if this article has a seed of truth then we might be in for a treat in the next 1-2 years:

http://hothardware.com/News/Manufacturer-Clai...s-in-2011/

I'm still waiting for the Zowie BenQ monitor.

Any info on if it will be 120hz by chance?

I've got one, it's great.

It's better than the 2233rz but not really any better than the 2268wm (apart from less backlight bleed, which I suppose is nice for watching films/tv), just higher res.

Why do I say it's better than the 2233rz? On the 2233rz if you get a bright colour against a darker background (e.g. a yellow 25hp bubble against the background of the map) and strafe left or right, you end up with this black silhouette trailing behind the bright colour/object. I've no idea what the technical term for that phenomenon is, but that was my experience with the 2233rz at least.

As for the necessity to 'activate a "gaming mode"', don't monitors like the 2268wm just have no image processing and no option to turn it on? Just because the w2363d has the option why does that make it worse?

Oh i don't mean that it makes the monitor worse, i just have deep issues :D

"I've no idea what the technical term for that phenomenon is"

At least you recognize it , not like you know that newb Avenger who says LCD looks better than CRT. YA RLY.

Better than my Alienware?

Yeah, it's $500 and still has input lag.

http://www.digitalversus.com/duels.php?ty=6&a...&ph=12 Are you sure about that?

Clone mode adds lag and they say they put it into clone mode to test right there on that link. Every single one of their tests is inaccurate.

Why are there monitors on that site that report 0 input lag then?

I'm not sure but it doesn't matter to me either way. Their tests are inaccurate so I don't look at that site for any reason.

The Alienware has extremely low input lag in all tests, but it does have some afaik. I wanted the LG because it has none and costs less.

Damn this would be perfect it it was 16:10 and 1680x1050 instead of full HD (1920x1080)

I have both a CRT (which I don't use anymore) and a 22" 16:9 full HD LCD for browsing the internet, watching movies etc. but would need a monitor with a lower native resolution with 120 Hz for gaming and watching movies with resolutions below 1080p..

Can it do 120hz via the VGA port? If you have to have a 3d card with dual DVI thats kinda shitty.

Prepare youself, you're about to see the most high-tech thing ever !

http://www.pany-direct.com/Cable%20DVI-VGA/im...%20VGA.jpg

Prepare yourself, you're about to se hear just how stupid you are !

It wont work because its DUAL LINK DVI... bandwich of vga isnt enought for it....

i'm wondering :x will the 2233rz work in 120hz on my old xfx 7600gt agp card?

if you have dual-link connector in the back of your card it works, check it from here http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons...es.svg.png

http://www.digitaltigers.com/images/geforce-7...75x131.jpg

seems it works? thank you :)

uh huh, too bad all 120hz lcd monitors require 3d video cards with Dual DVI Input.

But thats what they don't tell you, even though the monitor price may seem fair, you have to go out and invest in a card for shitty technology that you will never use just to get to 120hz.

Is it really that big of a deal since pretty much all video cards have 2 dvi connectors. Nvidia cards started to have 2 dvi connectors with the 7800 series and those are almost 6 years old now.

it's not two dvi outs you need, you only need one dvi out but it has to dvi-dl (dual link).

except you are using the technology. dvi-d is capable of delivering the necessary bandwidth for 120hz.

not dual DVI input, but dual link dvi cable
dual link dvi cable = single DVI cable with ALL pins, so you only need ONE dvi slot
http://www.avforums.com/forums/attachments/sa..._types.gif

Apparently you figured it out wrong because you only need one DVI connection to run at 120hz, it just needs to be dual-link.

:( sorry for the haters, but they even missed out on the actual issue.
There are DVI-> VGA adaptors, yes. There are no (that I know of) VGA to DVI adaptors.

So ignore their insults and pay attention to mine instead. It is more pertinent.

Ye i forgot that, also i didn't understand his question at first.

pretty sure none of the 120hz lcds do 120hz via vga

Some of you seem confused. Dual-link DVI is a type of cable. It's not 2 separate DVI cables.
nubs.

can you get 120Hz through HDMI (my laptop only has it)

I'd assume so, since the 240hz tv's all use that as primary input connection type.

http://www.esreality.com/?a=post&id=1965809#pid1965809

the 3d capable blu-ray players play one frame each at 60hz for 120hz combined. I don't know if beefheart works in R&D for home theater equipment or something, but from all I've read, this is how the 3d dvd players work, so it'd have to be pushing at least a true 120hz.

I did mention blu-ray 3d stuff in the post he linked. The 3d blu-ray players do push a true 120Hz. The lame thing is unless a HDTV supports 3d content it simply won't be able to receive a true 120Hz signal through HDMI OR dual-link DVI. Half of the problem lies in the older HDMI specification: only HDMI 1.4 has enough bandwidth to transfer a true 120Hz 1080p signal, and the other half of the problem is the manufacturers being too cheap to add in whatever hardware is necessary to receive and display a true 120Hz signal through dual-link DVI. It simply isn't a feature that consumers would use in numbers that would make sense for a manufacturer to include unless it's being used for 3d.

Only if both your laptop and your display supports HDMI 1.4. So far none of these 120Hz monitors has HDMI 1.4 or better.

And most HDTVs that claim 120Hz or higher don't actually support display of a true 120Hz signal. It's all frame interpolation.

Thx, I once read that (think fazz wrote it) we are able to get 120Hz through VGA in laptop (of course not in full HD). Is this is possible?

DVI-D is a single connector which requires 2 seperate DVI cords to connect to your PC's 2 DVI slots.

you must have a pretty old card for this to be an issue

no

My 2233rz worked fine on my "old" 8800GTX, with only 1 DVI cable. Not sure what this dual cable stuff is all about?

I think people are just confused by "dual-link". It's just some extra pins in a regular DVI connector. One cable. Practically every video card made in the last 2-3 years supports the standard.

Does it work fine to play versus ZeRo4 too ?.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons...es.svg.png propably you used dual link dvi, but u just didnt understand it !

I'd still reccomend the Alienware AW2310. I've got the 120hz AW2310 and LOVE it. These cost $380 in Australia now when a 15% coupon code is used (easy to find on the net). I just checked and average price in Australia for these new LG's is around $580 ....doesn't really make it a hard decision which one to choose :P ...My 2c

where do i put the other cable?

i can't buy anything from LG except maybe air-condition

When ure rly willing to spend a hefty premium on a gaming monitor you need to reevaluate your life imho.

oh noes 3 msec input lag on a standard screen, kill me now ...

My LG came yesterday and speaking as someone coming from an old Dell 2005FPW I have to say it is fucking incredible. I never realized how much input lag my old LCD had.

120Hz LCD feels better than 120Hz CRT imo. This shit is so perfect I'm still sort of in awe a day later.

Even Windows is smoother and easier on the eyes... well worth the "hefty premium".

no wonder u have 45% rail instead of 65% =p

According to the test on prad.de the LG has 0 inputlag even with thru-mode *disabled*.

Can somebody make a video review on this monitor :D plz
I am waiting for good 120hz LCD/LED whatever :)
so i can buy it :D

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zwGSGdTG1us

btw friend got Acer GD245HQ and it has very big input lag :/

ahhh... should i wait for ViewSonic V3D241wm

there should be a thread here about 120hz lcd reviews.

Someone here knows a lot about those screens, and hopefully works in an area that requires knowledge about colors, image quality and all that?

This should just be sticked to the top of the forums:

http://hardforum.com/showthread.php?t=1496801

I'll take a look at that. Thanks.

well eather i buy this LG W2363D or Samsung 2233rz....

As the LG has no inputlag vs. supposedly 10ms for the Samsung (which I cannot really find reliable tests of) I would say go for the LG if you can afford it. The samsung should come cheaper ofc.

BenQ is releasing a 120hz LCD soonish as well the BenQ X2410T. Might want to wait a little and see if its any good (same price as the LG).

Tnx, i will go for LG but maybe i should wait and see ViewSonic LED

What's the difference between a pc lcd screen that does 120hz and a 120hz lcd tv?
Price-wise they really differ, being pc lcds much more expensive (including size and tv tuner)

I know 240hz screens are bullshit but are 120hz lcd tvs too?

just read there are "effective" and "passive" 120hz screens, but the effective ones don't have judder (check next post)

back then it was so easy to buy lcd screens, lol

The VAST majority (i'm talking 99.9%) of HDTVs that advertise refresh rates of 120Hz and above are all bullshit. They may refresh at that number but there are no sources aside from a PC that can generate and push a true 120Hz signal.

So, when an HDTV receives a signal from a typical dvd player or xbox it sends at either 25, 30 or 60 fps signal (in the USA). What a 120Hz or higher HDTV does with that signal is interpolate the frames, which means it actually guesses what the frames between each real frame would look like and displays it on your television. This leads to fucked up vision artifacts, input lag, and etc.

Right now as far as I know the only platforms that can send a TRUE 120Hz signal are: 1) PC with dual-link DVI and/or HDMI 1.4+ 2) anything that supports 3d Blu-Ray technology. But even then a blu-ray player that supports 3d can't take regular blu-ray media and magically turn it into a true 120Hz signal without interpolation.

Juddering is a completely different issue but basically you don't have to worry about it when looking at TRUE 120Hz LCD monitors. Just remember: HDTV refresh rates are bullshit because no current consumer media plays at 120 frames per second.

how about judder?
I read that most 120hz lcd tv screens get rid of it, and it gives the "cinema look" when watching movies and tv.

The best screen should have an option to put 60 and 120hz (or more. There're even "passive" 480hz screens)

link: http://www.lcdtvbuyingguide.com/lcdtv/120hz-240hz-60hz.html

edit: it also says there are effective 240hz screens. The most I've seen in a CRT screen is 180hz and it was awesome, plus watching the new 240hz screens but i don't know if those were active or passive.

So wtf should one get?

LG W2363D or wait for new Viewsonic / BenQ

For the which don't want to read through the thread:

LG W2363D is the best you can get at the moment.

ViewSonic V3D241wm and BenQ X2410T will be realeased soon. They both offer some unique features and the price may sink after they both air, so I'd think twice over buying the LG before actually doing it.

As I've been informed by the "other guy" its not sure that the testing prad did was accurate. So its not safe to say, that the LG has a true inputlag of 0. Another site reports it to be <10ms with Thrumode enabled, a third site praises it to be 0 like prad (again its always the testing thats questionable).

Pretty much the same with the 2233rz. There are reviews that put the inputlag of it as high as 10ms, others 2ms and others again saying there is none. My personal experience with the 2233rz tells me: I don't notice anything.

Testing inputlag seems to be a science of its own, unfortunately one where every scientist comes up with a different way of testing it...

What's the input lag on Viewsonic VX2268WM, do you have any information?

No I don't.

Ich finde das die Redakteure von prad.de ganz und gar nicht objektiv sind. Sie bewerten alle TFT Monitore, die gerade fürs spielen VIEL besser geeignet sind, mit befriedigend. Hingegen bewerten sie alle IPS Monitore, die absolut ungeeignet fürs spielen sind, mit sehr gut bewerten.

Wieso finde ich, dass die Dinge die sie schreiben blödsinnig sind?

1) Ihrer Meinung nach ist der ein zigste Einsatz von der 120Hz-Technologie die 3D-Bild Darstellung.
2) Statt die Hz Anzahl möglichst zu vergrößern, verringern sie sie begeistert bis sie an 50 Hz gelangen.
3) Sie schalten V-Sync beim spielen ein.
usw. usw. usw.

Meine Güte, die haben doch gar keine Ahnung mit welchen Einstellungen Profis spielen.

Ich verlasse mich auch nicht mehr wirklich auf prad.de. Was Inputlag angeht sind andere Quellen in ihren Testmethoden aber auch eher zweifelhaft. Man muss eben glauben, dass er die Testfotos mit einer hochwertigen und schnellen Kamera gemacht hat.

Ich versuche atm immer möglichst von vielen Seiten ein Review zu finden. Wenn die Mehrheit da n Inputlag von <10ms bzw. keinen mehr feststellt, dann kann man das Ding getrost kaufen.

I disagree with the form of your statement. ONE of the best atm - maybe. All this BS paranoia about input lag makes me laugh. 5ms, 10ms whatever, trust me you won't feel shit in games and it won't make you "slower". I own 2 of these 120hz monitors and you can barely put them apart in games.

I would say go get any of these and you can't go wrong:

Samsung 2233rz
Acer GD254HQ
Viewsonic VX2268WM
Alienware AW2310 (if you have extra large pockets)

Also note that Viewsonic will launch a 120hz LED-lit monitor soon so I'd wait for that as well.

Whether you can tell the difference between 0ms and 10ms input lag isn't the point. The W2363D is the only 1080p 120Hz with verified 0ms input lag as of right now. Therefore it's the objective best for gaming. Unless you're looking for a 1680x1050 monitor and then the first three monitors you listed make more sense, but noone should be buying the Alienware over the LG at this point.

no, stfu. you're doing LG's pr management for the past few days and i sincerely hope you get banned for this.

the test you cite is flawed, the LG monitor is NOT the only 120hz tft with low imput lag.

Do you realize where the fuck you're at, the hardware forum at ESRealiy where 90% of the posts are people discussing their preferred devices for every aspect of gaming?

Learn how to fucking read, you dunce. I said the LG is the only 1080p with REVIEWER VERIFIED 0ms input lag. Low is not the same as 0ms just as 1 is not 0, and not all of the available 120Hz monitors are 1920x1080.

Also, explain to me how the test I cited was flawed?

Both the Alienware and the Acer are 1080p monitors. Also there were other reviews out there who credited the Acer with 0 ms input lag, others who gave it a bit more etc.

Same thing for the LG. My point is that all this 0 ms BS is relative and you shouldn't blindly guide yourself based on it. You should also look at the other overall features such as backlight bleeding, colors, contrast ratio etc etc.

My mistake on the Acer. I can't find any reviews of the Acer where they used a DVI splitter to test the input lag... can you link one? From what I've read it is the only accurate method of testing input lag, as clone mode typically adds lag.

Now please make one in 4:3.

go build a time machine and get on ur way to 1995

In next 20 years 4:3 will be back and marketed as new more natural type of screen :P

cept that it isnt, cause the human view is closer to 16:9 than it is to 4:3 ;p

A high-five for peripheral vision.

While layout of bones and eye cavities may be set for horizontal orientation, you want to reduce eye movement (aside the very process of seeing) to minimum, and the ball itself is round, so slightly horizontal aspect like 4:3 should be enough to offset the distance between two of them.

Keep in mind that sole purpose of widescreen aspect ratios was to maximize space in cinemas due to economics, and it is no secret that the main reason why they were pushed so agrresively with LCDs is that widescreen ones are actualy way cheaper to manufacture. Interisingly some of early computer monitors used even vertical oriented ratio to optimize it for working with documents, and were even used for very first multiplayer fpp shooters. Personaly I dont see a point of having more space just to the sides, especialy in gaming.

while all that might be true and interesting and all that, eventually ur gonna be the only one with a 4:3 screen while the rest sees the same plus that little extra bit on 16:10 and in shooters it could mean getting spotted while u wouldnt of been able to, even if u feel that its too wide and increases eye movement. also u might wanna refrain from sitting ontop of the monitor, a bit of distance could help ;p

its quiet annoying how this site seems to remove extra spaces added, what purpose does that have anyway

The thing is I dont need any extra on sides, since I play games like UT, QL, and Tribes, I think some extra vertical space would be more useful (for vertical combat). It is due to same reason why people are fine with lowering their ingame FOV, cause good dueler will always keep track of his opponent and face him when needed, so higher FOV doesnt have the advantage it had years ago.

And well I like sitting close to monitor :P
When I use widescreen and have to back off it feels like there is a lot of missing space on top and bottom ends. I want to see whats going on there.

Thats reminds me Dragon Ball HD which was made by zooming in, effectively cutting top and bottom of the show :P

Except that in practice it doesn't happen this way. Even in FFA's you can still see everything when entering a room, and you can listen to sounds, and use your reasoning to know where the opponents are.

Cases in which a person flat out doesn't see the opponent are rare, and most of those cases involve novice players.

There's a reason that documents and most books are more tall than wide.

there have been pro duel matches where one didnt see the other sneak past in a left or right corner due to lower fov/4:3 monitors, sure its rare but having a little bit of extra vision on the left or right is gonna happen anyway, 4:3 is disappearing slowly :P

Peripheral vision means you don't move your eyes. You just notice something at the very edge of your vision and then you're able to react to it. Thats the hole point why people have been messing around with different FOV settings in games. To increase the field of view, which results in a lot more gain left to right than up or down.

If you havent noticed, for few past years players are going back to lower FOV. Increasing your vision to the sides lost its importance a long time ago.

Also try simple experiment. Move your head closer to monitor so it fills as much of your vision range as possible without need of moving your head. Do that with both 4:3 and widescreen. Now, which one leaves more unused space?

No I haven't noticed. Maybe that's due to the fact that there are no hard numbers. You may "notice" that and think the majority of players do it but that may or may not be the case :).

Also, you forgot to mention why increasing the FOV has lost its importance.

I fail to make sense of your experiment I'm afraid. Despite that, I'm happy to declare that I exeeded my own expectations and touched my nose to my screen successfully. I don't like to play that way though.

Sorry, you will find my point behind FOV changes here
http://www.esreality.com/?a=post&id=1968392#pid1968392
In short we arent just cruising the maps around in search of opponent like before, now our skills can compensate for limited field of view, so boosting our aim is more useful.

Regarding the experiment I should probably say try "without moving your sight around" instead of "head". Well even if that wont work or one is a cameleon, then I think I found myself a topic for an article, I will try to find the science behind it :P

This may hold some truth for duelers who only have one opponent to worry about (keep in mind though, that a good opponent is good in laying traps as well so a higher FOV may help with that). However, duel is not the only gamemode. I'd say in TDM or FFA or CTF a higher FOV still pays off.

no.
we've been playing this game for 11 years now and we're not suddenly able to "compensate for limited field of view" due to our new found skills. claiming that is just... weird.

over time and with baseq3 -> q3comp -> osp -> cpma -> ql aim became more important due to a number of factors but mainly netcode and hitboxes. when aim becomes more important people may be inclined to look towards playing with a low(er) fov.

apart from that by just looking at the players cfgs the opposite actually happened. cypher, avek and toxic for example recently increased their fov, so i'm not really sure where you are coming from.

besides that this is going away from the original point though, 16:9 over 4:3 makes sense as you see more horizontally with the same "zoom" level as before. there is no disadvantage apart the individual having to get used to the new aspect ratio.

Well I was talking overall, not just 11 years of Q3 incarnations. I agree that evolution of the game from base to QL is important factor toward changing gamestyle and as a result FOV, however for example in UT that switch went almost instantly. In heavy aim depended UT once people understood that lowering FOV gives their aim some boost, lowering it below 80 was blocked so they wouldnt go overboard.

The idea that people are lowering FOV came from observation, in case of QL it would be mainly from polish players, and forum discussions like the one I linked to. While by no means it could be called accurate, observations are based on dozens of games since early QW when I think changing FOV began. This includes all parts of Quake, UT, Tribes, Warsow, and some other more or less popular titles. You may agree or not.

And as for the point, 16:9 is actualy slightly reducing vertical space.

I don't think fov has much to do with it. Fovs of all values have been popular throughout history.

I think it has more to do with your mind's "chunking" of the picture in front of it.

Honestly I don't want anything in my periphery for quake. I think 4:3 keeps the entire picture in your field of focus, and makes it easier to aim by aesthetics.

It's kind of why some players prefer a relatively large crosshair, it's because the 'geometry' of the crosshair's position vs. the landscape is more clear, and therefore easier to 'correct'. Some people aim this way, where they slowly memorize what it 'looks like' to aim/move well and then try to 'correct' the picture when aiming.

This is what I mean by aesthetics, and imo it is easier with 4:3 than with 16:10. It might even be easier with 5:4 resolutions like 1280x1024.

The aesthetics are really easy to see with a very large crosshair, but then it blocks the screen and you lose precision. So, all things in moderation.

Exactly.

<3 4:3

I'm gonna need a new monitor soon but I'm not dropping over $200 on one though.

just hold out as long as poss, things can only get better ;>

The earlier you buy, the earlier you enjoy. Things always get cheaper and better, but life is short.

lcd's are an exception, believe it or not the LG might actually be the first monitor i'd consider getting. always had a crt and ill prolly keep using it for a little whole longer :>

I just read at prad.de, that the viewingangles r still so limited, that u don't even get correct colors everywhere when sitting right infront of it.

not satisfying.

Perfect LCD will come by the next years (probably 5years), full LED. Means no output lag, super constast/brightness/black, way way way more than 120hz which is imo not enough, around 160hz it's getting already better. But LED can turn over 1000 hz.

This also means = do you wanna wait more than 5 years ?

Probably not. Btw i hope there 'll be 28 inch 120hz soon. Which doesn't mean i won't buy a 23" at least.

How is 120Hz not enough? That's all you need for 125FPS games. I'd say it's optimal even. I don't know of any games where you need more than 125FPS.

1000 hz would be so awesome.

Imagine fast players such as cypher or av3k with a 1000hz monitor......

just to put it out there: there is always "the best" lcd on market. it just changes what the best is.

this has been grinding my gears ever since you made this thread...... i am anal

Actually when I posted I was referring to the best LCD that I knew of finally hitting the American market through Newegg. I suppose if I had added the word American in before market in the title it would've made slightly more sense.

Sure it's not enough http://www.100fps.com/how_many_frames_can_humans_see.htm

Btw i don't wanna debat about if it's usefull or not for QL to have more than 120.

Launch a practice match on AlmostLost go in spec mode, face the outside pillars at 2/3 meters of distance, and strafe right then left then again.

You'll notice that even at 120hz the pillar get cut (the whole screen is cut but it's far far easier to notice it here).

Then if u're lucky and you can go over 125, let's say just 126, you won't see any tearing.

This is totaly normal AND SO logic.

Now if you decrease the frequency from 120 to 60 you'll see how big the tearing will be / difference between the two frame 'll be higher.

Now i won't start a 'can u feel it' discussion. cuz of course the diff between 120 and 200hz is hugh, super hugh. i'd add that the faster you move, the bigger the difference is between 120/200hz.

IMHO you could also just use vsync with that high fps and hz. (well not with 120hz but with 125hz)

The inputlag can be only homeopathic.

vsync = lag

no thanks

have u tried it with 125hz?

I can't say to experience anything noticable, but the tearing is gone then ofc.

I used 127 Hz and had no tearing with that, whereas I can't stand when the screen is synchronized vertically.

i tried even 144hz and had tearing without vsync.

vsync introduces a "wait" rule. a new frame gets buffered and "has to wait" until after the monitor refreshes before it is drawn.

that's the reason most fps players despise it and claim it lags them. i'm not sure if that is the technically correct term but from my experiences that is pretty much what happens.

It's a shame so few people understand and appreciate the value of high frames/sec.

I remember people saying back in 96' that 30 fps was perfectly adequate, and they made those same, lame ass statements to the effect of your eyes not being able to see more.

I wish these people would auto-euthanize, or just never voice their opinion. Game developers listen to this kind of thing and they crank out games with low fps because hey, no one is going to notice right.

http://twitter.com/ID_AA_Carmack

;D

I like carmack.

Sample: "It is often better to use a global spherical sampling pattern and discard samples behind a plane instead of local hemispheres"

you have a naive view, they are gamers too and I bet the know that more fps is better ; they just pretend they don't, so they can lower fps in order to put more graphical details in their games (same shit with narrow fov) and say it's fine. anyway the customer will not judge this when he sees the game's review on a 30 fps flash video (and obviously not on screenshots neither), but he'll judge the graphical quality

Back to topic the W2363D is 120hz, it's good, BUT it has significant output lag.

http://www.digitalversus.com/duels.php?ty=6&a...0&ph=1

I have to add that from my experience, Asus flat monitor are very bad, colors are bad, the panel is from a cheep factory.

Uh...

1) Output lag?
2) You linked the wrong monitor(s).
3) It's an LG, not an Asus.

hehe, scroll down select LG then select th emodel ;)

http://www.digitalversus.com/duels.php?ty=6&a...0&ph=1

The word input lag is not correct, the real word for monitor latency is output lag ;) it's never too late to change that habit http://en.academic.ru/dic.nsf/enwiki/11141748

Also, you might be interrested to know that even CRT do have output lag, but it's around 1 to 6 ms max.

If you'll notice in their input lag pulldown they say their testing method is, "In this test
We put the screen in clone mode as well as our CRT reference (tube screen), a Mitsubishi DiamondTron, in clone mode and time them with an accuracy of 1/1000 of a second. We then photograph them in order to find ten consecutive time differences."

Putting the screen in clone mode can add variable amount of input lag therefore every single one of their tests is faulty. EVERY SINGLE ONE. Only trust input lag ratings that use a DVI splitter for testing.

no debause they don't use 2 different cables, they have a special cable which is divided in 2 output.

I had the same idea at start, then i asked them. They know that using 2 different cable is not accurate, that's why they use a special cable that has 1 input in the graphic card and 2 output ;) for 2 monitord.

If that's the case then why do they continue to say they put the display into clone mode? And why do the results not match up with what I've seen on sites that provide in-depth detail on their testing methods that involve a DVI splitter?

Accept the fact that those ratings are incorrect and move on. Either they didn't put the monitor into the 0ms input lag thru mode (which still wouldn't explain the uniform 33ms lag ratings) or the displays are in clone mode.