Why would you buy a 1920x1080 monitor if you can barely run games at 1680x1050. Instead, put your money toward a new PC.

Who can run next gen games at steady 60 (or 120 fps) at 1920x1080 maxed out??

Decent cpu + 670 will play almost all games at 120 unless they're battlefield 3 or crysis or some shit.

Why not consider the Samsung SA950D range of monitors, in 23'' & 27''. Obviously the Benq is really highly rated, but I picked up the samsung model a couple of hundered dollars less than the Benq (which I find over-priced) and to be honest - the Samsung is brilliant.

Those Samsungs look better in colours due to a glossy screen coating, but they have a noticeably high input lag (floaty pointer thing) which if you are used to faster monitors, is very noticeable and ruins your life.

The BenQ is better for fast paced competitive type games for that reason. Also the BenQ can do lightboost if you have an nvidia card

For readers who don't know what LightBoost is:
http://www.blurbusters.com/zero-motion-blur

The WMO is totally worth it.

I did this exact upgrade and I think it was worth it.
If you have an nVidia card you can do the LightBoost thing which is fucking sweet. Even if you don't it's a better monitor.

Only downside as I see it is that you go from 16:10 to 16:9. It's so wide :(

Story time: I played K1llsen on bloodrun the other day. Even after that masssive rape I couldn't fit the BENQ inside my asshole. That's how wide it is.

Are colours much better than on the 2233rz?

dunno about 2233rz but default colors are shit and may be after calibration they will be not so great.

if need good colors buy some IPS panel instead of smooth 120/144hz TN. May be some overclocked to 120hz Yamakasi Catleap (27" 1440p IPS panel) with slow pixel response and some input lag will be ok for you.
benq xl2411t is for fast paced fps games like promode(quake3), quakeworld(quake), quakelive, etc and not for some "dark games". and ofc lightboost is a good or may be best feature of this monitor.

just tested 144hz on some resolutions...seems like xl2411t displays always in native resolution (1920x1080) with internal scaling. cheked nvidia GPU scaling option, it's off.

catleap's a good choice if you dont mind flames, smoke or ashes

The "overclockable" catleap's were special ones who are tough to get now I understand. So if you want that monitor you have to settle for 75/80 Hz anyways.

Also you have to order it from abroad, the failure rate is seriously high, the shipping back complicated etc. I wouldn't advice taking such a risk.

I'm also considering upgrading. Trying to decide between the BenQ or the ASUS VG248QE.

Live in eu get the BenQ, live in the states get the Asus. No question really :)

I bought a 2233rz - sold it after 6 months. Resorted back to CRT - much better! Just bought a mint condition mitsubishi 22" flat screen CRT for £30 to replace my tiring Sony Trinitron 21".

I cant handle good ol CRT's anymore. Need the extra space. Also not sure if the are as good as modern LCD to look at for large periods of time.

Are you aware that LightBoost now finally allow the CRT "smooth as glass" zero motion blur feel on an LCD?
http://www.blurbusters.com/zero-motion-blur

you don't have to spam your site everywhere, especially more than once in one thread.
http://esreality.com

I think you misspelled "Thank you for researching this and making sure that people find out about it".

144hz disables monitor scaling, so you'd have to use driver scaling to play in anything but a small box at lower resolutions

But with 120hz, scaling works? I'm getting an nvidia card for lightboost soon, so I'll have to run 120 anyway.

Yep, it should do with lightboost. For some reason 1280x720 doesn't scale properly full screen for me, though.

GPU scaling is supperioir to monitor scaling anyway and flawless.

Is it possible to run the 144hz monitor at 125hz? We only care about quake, really.

Yes. Or 120, rather.

but i want 125. i already have 120!

With custom timings using Nvidia drivers I would say yes, but I don't know how to find the right timings.

There is much less motion blur with LightBoost:

baseline - 60 Hz mode (16.7ms frame samples)
50% less motion blur (2x clearer) - 120 Hz mode (8.33ms frame samples)
60% less motion blur (2.4x clearer) - 144 Hz mode (6.94ms frame samples)
85% less motion blur (7x clearer) - 120 Hz mode with LightBoost set at 100% (2.4ms frame strobe flashes)
92% less motion blur (12x clearer) - 120 Hz mode with LightBoost set at 10% (1.4ms frame strobe flashes)

So, 120Hz LightBoost has more than 3x clearer motion than 144Hz non-LightBoost. Note that CRT phosphor decay is 1ms-2ms, so LightBoost makes LCD look like a CRT.

For readers who don't know how LightBoost allow the "CRT smooth-as-glass feel" on an LCD:
http://www.blurbusters.com/zero-motion-blur

Some pro competition gamers such as Team Exile 5 likes LightBoost, see their review at http://www.blurbusters.com/zero-motion-blur/media/

So... 125hz is a no?
It's more about tearing and getting out of sync with the frames making if feel kinda choppy

Is this for Q3? For QL you could just cap FPS at 120 and avoid the tearing, because 125 won't give you any benefits anyway, right?

fps and hz at same value don't avoid shit.

ok buddy.

If you turn off VSYNC, matching fps and hz can cause problems such as stationary and slowly-rolling tearing artifacts. That's why 125 fps can have less tearing than 120 fps (VSYNC OFF) -- and it avoids the harmonics caused by differences between fps vs Hz.

Personally, if I play VSYNC OFF, I prefer fps_max being uncapped or being much higher values. It heats up the GPU far more, but it reduces tearing quite significantly.

Also, tearlines have smaller offsets at higher framerates, so at 300fps, your tearlines have about 1/3 the horizontal offset of tearlines at 100fps. That makes tearing less noticeable. That's assuming consistent frame render times, because stutters means longer delay between frames, which results in bigger motion jumps, which results in bigger-offset tearlines, which are easier to see. There's also less average input lag at 300fps than at 100fps, since frames that are rendered 1/300sec ago are now being displayed (at least partially -- segments between each tearline) on the display, rather than frames rendered 1/100sec ago. So there's still some benefit to "insane framerates" from the perspective of tearing and input lag.

(This applies to VSYNC OFF gaming only, like for Quake Live, Team Fortress 2, etc. For Solo gaming, I prefer VSYNC ON because the motion looks perfect and input lag isn't critical for solo gaming)

You made your mind clear that you want a monitor be with good colors, so what exactly does it have to do with the size? That's just rude, I'm throwing up dude.

The fuck?

yeees, the bigger the size the more backlight bleeding, color distirtion of viewing angle etc. Only IPS can solve this, but then no 120 Hz lightboost, so chose one over the other. I'm disgusted.

yeah buy it, then mail me or 2233rz :)