i'm not sure why they even call the eizo a "gaming" monitor. 60hz can't hold a candle to 120hz in terms of smoothness / response. if you're on the edge about this, if you have an old CRT laying around somewhere (or can find one at a garage sale/goodwill for a few dollars) you can most likely test out the difference between 60hz and 120hz+ on a low resolution. i'd recommend this before blowing all of your money on something you don't like.

yes it does matter

60hz blows

- a 60hz user

.

this.

quote

I think the best way to convince you is telling you that I got the XL2420T and my aim got up 7% in LG and rail. Simple as that, 120Hz make a difference for QL.

nice troll

How is that a troll?

7%...

guess what he could do if he got his hands on toxic.se config :S

0% as cfg is personal preference?

and hardwere isnt ?:>

Depends what you mean by "hardware". If you mean mouse/keyboard, sure.
But going from (for example) a rig that can't do 125fps to one that can will help you, just like going from a monitor with input lag and low hz to one with no input lag and high hz will help.

its not true... not all of it at least...

human eye doesnt give a fuck after certain point, thus all this 500hz tvs and stuff is just a way to get money from ppl

"human eye doesnt give a fuck after certain point"

Yes it does, we don't see "frames per second" irl. More is better, end of story.

500hz TVs are bullshit because they are not 500hz at all (they don't even do more than 60hz actually) and just extrapolate frames to make 24fps material look smoother. The difference is very noticeable btw, it makes films look like videos (and not everyone likes that).

no.

he is right. Current 120-500hz TVs are still 60hz

Though I agree the human eye doesn't give a fuck after....no idea, but there must be a limit. Most I've tried is 170hz, which is noticeably better than "true" 120.

Yeah, above 120hz the benefits start getting smaller and smaller so at some point you could say it doesn't matter anymore I guess. But that depends entirely on the individual and on the specific application. There's no fixed limit.

he would get headache cause of his binds

well, thats how it turned outfor me
I guess you didn't notice the difference...

this is what it matters.

60hz blows

- previously 60hz user, now 120

I will conduct a short play to express my feelings for 120 hz vs 60 hz.

(curtain lifts)

120 hz >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>....

(5 mins later)

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>...

(5 mins later)

>>>>>>>>>>60 hz

(curtain falls)

i liked the part where it said ">"

And to say you were using a 60hz with 12+ms lag :>D

that part was meant to make you feel depressed about mankind's fallacy and weakness in the universe.

i actually thought its a metaphor representing the eternal fight of justice against evil in the slums of africa in connection to the drama of goethe`s faust

never thought of it in that way, I feel enlightened

Whoa. Settle down, Shapespeare.

doesnt matter.. if ur good -> ur good... if ur bad, ur bad, nothing will change it...

just look @ mofo ins

Well, 120hz and low input lag go hand-in-hand, usually. They're two separate things though, and I'd rate input lag itself somewhat higher on the priority list than refresh rate, but make no mistake, both are extremely important.
There are some standard 60-75hz screens with low input lag, but normally there's no reason to go for one of these, unless it's a special case such as: money is a concern, you play casually but want to have decent gameplay experience, you run other games or applications where you can't get 100+ fps anyway, etc.

Personally, I went from a fairly laggy 17" to a Samsung 2233RZ.
I was a bit worried about going widescreen, but got used to it in like a day. Shame that it's 16:10, not 16:9, it's a little bit inconvenient when it comes to watching livestreams or tricky when rendering for 720p/1080p YT, but not a big deal I guess.
Now, to the actual difference in gameplay. Here are the two most remarkable improvements:
1. Around-the-corner shots, such as opponent is just about to leave your line of sight - these become way more frequent, as you're not hindered by input lag anymore.
2. LG fights. It becomes easier to track a dodging opponent, since the visuals are smoother, obviously.
And of course overall gameplay is just way more enjoyable.
My lg and rail instantly improved by at least 5%, just to give you a general idea how much of a difference it makes.

Also, monitor reviews here with input lag tests: http://www.prad.de/en/

TLDR: low input lag, high refresh rate, that's what you want atm.

Don't get the Ezio unless you want an amazing picture quality (it's an IPS, factory calibrated etc). It's 60hz with no input lag and good overdrive (hence why they call it a gaming monitor). It's very pricey as well.

It's useless for Quake but great for playing pretty games/watching films/working with pictures etc.

Anything less than 120hz suck ass

What truly matters is love, compassion and having a good time while drinking corporate-sponsored beverages with your friends. ^_^

I have an Asus vg236he and an Asus vh236h right next to each other. They're both identical except the vg236 is glossy and 120hz and the vh236 is matte and 60hz. The difference even in general desktop smoothness is huuuuuge and I won't ever be able to go back to 60hz. You don't even have to be playing games at 120fps(+) to benefit imo.

Btw the Asus has a tiiiiiny bit more input lag than the BenQ but can be bought for $100+ cheaper.

120hz looks smooth 60 doesn't

120hz > 60hz