I'd just stick with regular ol' 60hz. The best question to ask yourself is what the heck are you getting out of it with 144hz that's so fantastic over the 60hz? You can run games at a higher FPS sure, but that'll take away from the ability to delegate those resources elsewhere. That and, does it really add that much to your game?
Highly agree here. I was a big fan of vertical sync, 75hz, a good video card, and a crt. Vertical sync opens up the resources of the card for other factors of graphics aside from just frame rate. More than just capping a frame rate, matching the frame rate to the refresh rate had very smooth video for video games, eliminated graphical tearing, and let the video card have more horsepower for the special affects and other bull****.
Why i hate gaming on an lcd. Vertical sync there is just used to cap a frame rate because of that evil nasty redraw rate/ghosting. You get no where near as smooth video game play on an lcd (but they use less power and take up so much less space, indeed that's what's great about having them). **** graphical tearing when it got replaced with ghosting 
I'm not trying to convince you to go back to crt. What i'm saying is get something with a very minimal redraw rate. Another reasons i bought that samsung back in the day. That old monitor has 0.4 millisecond redraw rate (great for it's time), you don't hardly notice it just using normal programs, oh yeah, but you notice it when you play video games. At least the monitor displayed video games at 60 fps, but because of that redraw rate, it looked to me like 30; i no longer cared about frame rates from my games since frame rate didnt matter anymore. Lcd has yet to eclipse what was awesome about the former technology.
VSync does no such thing. VSync caps your framerate at your monitor's refresh rate, and that is all it does. It never "let the card have more hosrepower", you can always chose to sacrifice FPS for quality by turning up the settings even without it. VSync also adds heavily to the lag time that you complained about LCDs having. Sounds more like it's hurting you than helping you.
Lack of VSync on a LCD also results in tearing.
The Asus screen has one of the lowest responce times of any LCD monitor available at about 1ms (grey to grey, but they all lie like that). Such things typically come with 144hz panels. "cheap good ol' 60hz" panels come with GTG rates of 5 to 16ms, which means you're disagreeing with deathfun.
Right, see, this is the logic of someone who buys the $100 thing, says "it's fine", and never tries anything nice. I'm sorry if I'm misjudging, you may not be that way, but that's exactly the type of mentality. People who think that way miss out on quite a bit.
Apologies, but I've seen 120hz before in a three monitor setup with Titanfall. *Finger twirl*
My experienced for gaming was made better with the three monitors, but the 120FPS wasn't exactly adding anything to it
I can understand why many gamers would aim to get as smooth as possible experience for themselves, but you're not missing out by sticking with more inexpensive monitors that'll last the same amount of time at 60hz/FPS
Get three monitors instead! Now *that's* an experience
Seeing it is not using it. It does not give you experiance.
I have experiance with both 120hz and tri-screen and more. Between my own experiances and those of the hundreds of people I've talked to that use the monitor, I can safely say it's a good buy.
As much as I loved my eyefinity, there's a number of things that ruin it. One is bezels. Another is limited support, even in portrait. Landscape support is just abysmal. Another is desk space. The list goes on. A single 1440 or 1600 screen is usually enough of a jump over 1080 for people, but not on a 650Ti, which is why I did not recomend it. Tri-1080 is even harder to push than 1440, it's a horrible idea.
Huh, so there's now IPS panels with 120Hz+ refresh rates? I am now using two BenQ XL2420T's. One's little older 120Hz and the other is newer 144Hz. I am by no means hardcore gamer who plays competitive multiplayer games (or even any multiplayer games much at all), I still find the smoothness of 120Hz+ very compelling and I wouldn't want to go back to 60Hz panels.
Eh... Not "Officialy".
The PCB inside the Tempest and Catleap are very different from normal IPS panels. Unlike others, these screens can "overclock". Not every one is garunteed to work at 120hz, but they are up to 100 or so. Due to them being 1440p screens, you need a driver patcher to allow DVI freqs above 330Mhz to be able to handle the bandwidth required, and you need the CRU (Custom Res Utility) to make display profiles allowing higher than 60hz. Mine was able to do 120hz with no timing modifications out of the box.
Overclocking in this instance does not involve voltage. It's simply how fast you can get your pixels to go before they error out, like the 120 and 144hz TN panels.
I was skeptical of the Tempest at first, but it was the only way to get 1440, 120hz, and IPS at the same time from a company based in the US. I'm actually impressed with it's build quality, I wasn't expecting it to be made as well as it is.
