Hard Light Productions Forums
Off-Topic Discussion => General Discussion => Topic started by: est1895 on August 28, 2014, 05:36:47 pm
-
Hi I'm looking for a new monitor for my brother. I found this one on Newegg: http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16824009642
It's an Acer monitor and I was wondering if anyone else has it or owns an Acer Monitor, and please give me some feedback.
Normally I buy Asus monitors, but this one seems to out perform and is better on reviews than any of the other Asus monitors.
-
Acer is a very capable brand, esp. when it comes to price/performance.
I have not used this particular screen though.
-
A few years ago I never heard anything but bad about Acer monitors, mostly related to poor lifetime and really washed out colors. A lot can change in that time though. That one looks pretty ridiculous on paper though. I really wish my desk didn't prevent me from using a 24" monitor, because I can't find anything nearly that good in a smaller size. I've got a hard limit of 21" total width.
-
It would not "Outperform" anything. There are several rebrands of that same concept, including Asus who started the 144hz thing;
http://www.newegg.com/Product/ProductList.aspx?Submit=ENE&N=100007617%20600030958%20600416634%20600417886&IsNodeId=1&name=144%20Hz
Acer has a reputation for being "that cheap brand". However, being that the panel and controller are likely the same used in anything else, it comes down to warranty and extras. Vesa mount compatible, connector types, custimization optios (R/G/B control, brightness, contrast, etc), build quality, the strand's directions of movement, etc. Functionally the Acer shouls be no different than any of the others, it simply comes down to what other things you want.
The panel (not this specific monitor, but the things likely used to make it) has been extremely widely praised and is very popular among FPS players, it should not be a problem. Obviously keep in mind that if you're going to use a 144hz panel you should actually be able to power it. It would be a pointless monitor if all he has is a 5770 or something.
-
Acer typically makes great stuff that i find will last. On the other hand, i still have my 19 inch wide screen samsung monitor from 2007 i bough for $200 back in the day that is truly a champion. It survived being packed in luggage multiple times and i still use it. Get whatever lasts, and has a good redraw rate. Crt monitors don't have a redraw rate and display shades better. Not to mention, because of redraw rate, i can't tell a difference when i turn up the hertz on an lcd..
-
I own the Asus VG248QE (the ASUS competition to the monitor you are recommending) and I must say that it looks fantastic. However, you really need the hardware to push out the 120+ fps or its pointless.
I personally have a 7970 in my PC, which is more than sufficient for the games I play.
Cheers!
-
I do like the Asus VG248QE except for the (negative) Newegg.com reviews. http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16824236313
I do have a capable video card. An Asus 650Ti Boost 2gb, but the rest of the computer will need to be upgraded soon.
I have enclosed three of the major the culprits as pics that worry me.
[attachment kidnapped by pirates]
-
Three reviews out of seven hundred and three. Seems legit. Combined with the fact people are more likely to post if it's to complain, I'm going to have to say majority rules here. The wireless disruption bit in particular makes no sense... This monitor is not wireless, and nothing in it should run at that frequency band. It isn't a CRT.
------
Worth noting, I obviously do not know what games you play, but a 650Ti is not enough to power a 144hz 1080p screen at reasonable settings in most modern AAA games. Keep in mind that this is the same effective GPU power requirement as a 2560x1600 60hz screen, which is more 680/770/7970/280X territory.
FSO will be fine. HL2 will be fine. BF4 not so much.
-
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?
-
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?
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.
For a long time I had not used a high-refresh monitor because I saw no point. I considered IPS panels to be more worth my time. I still do. However the latest monitor I've added to my "have owned" list is a 120hz 1440p IPS panel (Tempest X270OC). I can say with first hand experiance that 120hz does make FPS type games feel smoother. It is easier to see during fast movement. I play a bit of CS:GO and it does actually feel a little easier to control.
In the grand scheme of things in the computer space, this is not an expensive investment. $240-280 sounds bad, but a monitor like this should be lasting the user for more than 6 years at minimum. It should out-live everything else in the computer except maybe the case. I do not think a 650Ti will do this monitor justice... But the monitor should also survive well after the GPU is upgraded. I know a lot of people who have gotten that series of monitor and not been disapointed.
We're not talking about a cheap monitor that has one redeeming feature here (*Cough*Catleap*Cough*). It is a quality monitor that has a major selling point around that feature. If I were to suggest anything other than this, it would be a G-Sync monitor since he has a Kepler nVidia card. Except, bonus feature of the monitor he linked, it's compatable with the G-Sync mod module should he decide to get one.
I think it is a fine investment, though depending on the rest of his computer I would suggest getting a stronger GPU as priority after the monitor.
-
I can add to this that I've had the same cheap 22" 16:10 Acer monitor for at least 5 years now, and it still works like a charm. Granted it does not have great view angles for example or HD resolution or anything else fancy, but in a standard entertainment use (videos & gaming) it does its job. I could concider another Acer monitor when the need comes.
-
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 :nod:
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.
-
My brother is using a 17" crt right now, but it only has 1280x1080 resolution. What should I get him then?
-
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
-
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.
-
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 :nod:
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. (http://imagizer.imageshack.us/a/img539/5874/hfwNYT.jpg) 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.
-
Seeing it is not using it. It does not give you experiance
Let me rephrase: I was at a computer store with a three monitor setup and I was mucking around on it. The game was Titanfall
-
My brother is using a 17" crt right now, but it only has 1280x1080 resolution. What should I get him then?
Well of course that depends on what he'll use it for? Refresh rate and response time are pretty much meaningless unless it's used for high-speed gaming or other special purposes.
You should also first just decide how much money you want to put into it, since you can get something that'd be an improvement over the current one for as little as <$150 already.
-
Well of course that depends on what he'll use it for? Refresh rate and response time are pretty much meaningless unless it's used for high-speed gaming or other special purposes.
Well said.
Determine intended use. For general purpose use, random off-the-chance playing of games pretty much any new off-the-shelf monitor is sufficient. If he intends to be doing serious image manipulation, he's not going to care about refresh rates but accurate colors, which means IPS panel. If he intends to be playing games regularly, then it wouldn't be wrong to go with a 144Hz monitor and pair it with a decently powered GPU. Determine budget. Obviously this is how you focus your selection of choice. Pick what's the best fit in terms of price, features, look and user reviews.
-
The intended use is basically to play Freespace. That's my brother's most favorite game.
-
Not much use for a computer then, eh?
-
Since he apparently isn't exactly an enthusiast gamer, I don't really see the point in investing in exceptional response times or refresh rates unless you think those will be needed for something specific (like 3D). I mean, sure, better is always better, but it seems to me that those kind of things are largely useful only for people who have unusual needs or standards.
I have a Dell U2412M (http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16824260047) myself and that has a 8ms response time on paper, and it's plenty good enough for me. If it affects my reaction times in any game then it's imperceptible and doesn't really affect my enjoyment.
I'd still pay attention to those kind of aspects and make sure I'm not getting something that's actually bad, but I don't think something like a 1ms response time and >60hz refresh rates (again, unless required by something else) are worth it for web browsing and Freespace 2 when the money could be spent on screen size and other conveniences instead.
Anyway, I'm not a hardware expert, so make of the above what you will.
-
The Acer he linked to originally isn't all that expensive and seems to be otherwise all-around decent buy too. He might just as well buy that one since it is more than he seems to ever need. That monitor should last him very long time and in the meantime can always upgrade the GPU and other components if need be.
If the Acer was any more expensive, I'd say find cheaper monitor. But monitor is probably what is going to last the longest, so might as well buy something that has a good chance of lasting next decade if his needs really are as low as it sounds.
But more seriously, why does anyone keep a desktop PC around just for FS2? I'd think a decent laptop would serve better.
-
If you mean, does he do online gaming, he probably won't. He surfs a lot and watches YouTube. He might play games like pilot x, star citizen and elite dangerous. He also watches a lot of movies. Since he uses it everyday, and he has a problem with the small screen. He wears bi-focal and needs a bigger screen. I just thought, why not 3D as a bonus?
-
He wears bi-focal and needs a bigger screen. I just thought, why not 3D as a bonus?
Well if he likes 3D or at least doesn't have any problem with it, then I guess so. I mean, if you plan a 3D monitor for someone with glasses then you should know whether that's something they're interested in having in the first place. You probably know if that's the case or not, but I feel the need to make that remark since you didn't actually say.
-
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",
Although capping FPS does often provide more stable FPSes and a card which runs hot less quickly.
(Protip: extend your graphic's card lifetime by always capping your FPS to your monitor's frequency whenever possible - and if not, force it via RadeonPro or the nvidia driver).
-
One other question: the 1ms (GTG) response time seems to apply to the Asus monitor mentioned, but the Acer says 1ms and no (GTG). Is that better? I'm not really looking for a 144mhs, but a response time of 1ms or less. In addition, the Acer has a better contrast ratio then the Asus.
-
Three reviews out of seven hundred and three. Seems legit. Combined with the fact people are more likely to post if it's to complain, I'm going to have to say majority rules here. The wireless disruption bit in particular makes no sense... This monitor is not wireless, and nothing in it should run at that frequency band. It isn't a CRT.
------
Worth noting, I obviously do not know what games you play, but a 650Ti is not enough to power a 144hz 1080p screen at reasonable settings in most modern AAA games. Keep in mind that this is the same effective GPU power requirement as a 2560x1600 60hz screen, which is more 680/770/7970/280X territory.
FSO will be fine. HL2 will be fine. BF4 not so much.
I also took in account the need for a better video card: http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814121770
Thanks for the tip KyadCK!
-
The Tempest does look like a great deal at the high end. However, I don't like the lottery with the refresh rates on it. I think they do guarantee at least 100hz though.
120hz makes a big difference in games that maintain that framerate, and you can notice the improvement even when just browsing websites or doing other basic things. Older games can usually do a consistent 120fps with vsync on modern cards, although FS2 has engine limitations that make the framerate drop frequently even on modern systems.
The other thing that improves games a lot is a strobing backlight (Lightboost or something equivalent), which literally reduces the motion blur down to CRT levels. This makes a huge difference in Freespace and Descent 2/3, more than any other games I have. The slow, steady turning motions in these games (and background nebulas in FS2) bring out motion blur quite heavily, even on the fastest TNs, but they look incomparably better with this technique. I think only certain monitors support it though. It needs at least 100hz to work (120hz or 144hz is preferable), and I'm not sure if the IPS models work as well as TNs with it.
I have an older Samsung S27A750D, which has a number of quirks and is long discontinued, but it's the only monitor out that is 120hz, glossy and supports this type of mode (not Lightboost, but it has a hardware setting that does the same thing). It does have the grainy look in motion common to TNs, but the black levels are better than most IPSs due to the glossy coating.
-
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",
Although capping FPS does often provide more stable FPSes and a card which runs hot less quickly.
(Protip: extend your graphic's card lifetime by always capping your FPS to your monitor's frequency whenever possible - and if not, force it via RadeonPro or the nvidia driver).
Alright, two things.
1) If your GPU is getting so hot under full load that it actualy endangers the card (which would be 85-95C+ by the way depending on the card, anything under that doesn't reduce the lifespan measurably), then something is wrong. You need better cooling somewhere.
2) It isn't the heat that kills GPUs. They have thermal limits built in for a reason. What kills the card is getting hot, getting cold, getting hot, getting cold. That fluctuation in heat can break the solder, which is why the oven reflow method can sometimes revive a dead GPU.
Correct on stable frames however. By limiting yourself to the FPS cap, you help keep the frametimes consistent if you are at or above your refresh.
One other question: the 1ms (GTG) response time seems to apply to the Asus monitor mentioned, but the Acer says 1ms and no (GTG). Is that better? I'm not really looking for a 144mhs, but a response time of 1ms or less. In addition, the Acer has a better contrast ratio then the Asus.
1) All responce times are GTG. They just aren't required to say it.
2) Dynamic contrast is BS. You want colors, you go IPS, not TN.
I also took in account the need for a better video card: http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814121770
Thanks for the tip KyadCK!
Heh... enjoy. That should do just fine in modern games.
The Tempest does look like a great deal at the high end. However, I don't like the lottery with the refresh rates on it. I think they do guarantee at least 100hz though.
120hz makes a big difference in games that maintain that framerate, and you can notice the improvement even when just browsing websites or doing other basic things. Older games can usually do a consistent 120fps with vsync on modern cards, although FS2 has engine limitations that make the framerate drop frequently even on modern systems.
The other thing that improves games a lot is a strobing backlight (Lightboost or something equivalent), which literally reduces the motion blur down to CRT levels. This makes a huge difference in Freespace and Descent 2/3, more than any other games I have. The slow, steady turning motions in these games (and background nebulas in FS2) bring out motion blur quite heavily, even on the fastest TNs, but they look incomparably better with this technique. I think only certain monitors support it though. It needs at least 100hz to work (120hz or 144hz is preferable), and I'm not sure if the IPS models work as well as TNs with it.
I have an older Samsung S27A750D, which has a number of quirks and is long discontinued, but it's the only monitor out that is 120hz, glossy and supports this type of mode (not Lightboost, but it has a hardware setting that does the same thing). It does have the grainy look in motion common to TNs, but the black levels are better than most IPSs due to the glossy coating.
It doesn't help that they are 100% out of stock. The latest Temptest was out of stock about one week after the pre-order period. Mine is a glossy btw. :D
Correct on Lightboost. Combined with G-Sync... It's a pretty thing.
I am not aware of any IPS monitors that support lightboost though because I am not aware of any IPS monitors that are officialy 120fps, even at 1080p.
-
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 :nod:
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.
Calm down there captain. Vsync does what no such thing? I made quite a good allusion to the fact that vsync doesn't let the frame rate go higher than the refresh rate. Aside from saying everything that i said about vsync, you totally misunderstood me. I wasn't saying that vsync is meant to open up the resources of your video card, that's just what tends to happen depending on what refresh rate you choose to cap the fps at. Why i liked 75hz, because it wasn't a crazy high refresh rate to try to have my video card attempt to do crazy high fps all the time if say i chose 120hz instead (geforce 7600gt was a great card, but not that great). Why do i use the word cap instead of match? I use the word cap instead of match because frame rate is capped at going no higher than the refresh rate.
I also was not saying that vsync is pointless to use on an lcd. Of course it'll still get rid of graphical tearing on an lcd, but that because of ghosting what good is it to have an lcd that has a crazy high refresh rate if you can't really tell the difference from lower refresh rates on these kinds of monitors.
I'm not disagreeing with anyone. The other detail about crt monitors was that you could tell when the monitor was doing a higher refresh rate as it went from a 60hz strobe light to something that wasn't anywhere near as much of an eye irritating display (the main reason why i did higher refresh rates). Turning up the refresh rate on an lcd is next to impossible to detect with the human eye.
-
Calm down there captain. Vsync does what no such thing? I made quite a good allusion to the fact that vsync doesn't let the frame rate go higher than the refresh rate. Aside from saying everything that i said about vsync, you totally misunderstood me. I wasn't saying that vsync is meant to open up the resources of your video card, that's just what tends to happen depending on what refresh rate you choose to cap the fps at. Why i liked 75hz, because it wasn't a crazy high refresh rate to try to have my video card attempt to do crazy high fps all the time if say i chose 120hz instead (geforce 7600gt was a great card, but not that great). Why do i use the word cap instead of match? I use the word cap instead of match because frame rate is capped at going no higher than the refresh rate.
I also was not saying that vsync is pointless to use on an lcd. Of course it'll still get rid of graphical tearing on an lcd, but that because of ghosting what good is it to have an lcd that has a crazy high refresh rate if you can't really tell the difference from lower refresh rates on these kinds of monitors.
I'm not disagreeing with anyone. The other detail about crt monitors was that you could tell when the monitor was doing a higher refresh rate as it went from a 60hz strobe light to something that wasn't anywhere near as much of an eye irritating display (the main reason why i did higher refresh rates). Turning up the refresh rate on an lcd is next to impossible to detect with the human eye.
You said, and I quote, "Vertical sync opens up the resources of the card for other factors of graphics aside from just frame rate.".
That is false. It does not enable you to do anything, it's only fuction is to cap the FPS. You can always chose to spend resources any way you like even if you do not turn on VSync.
----------
You over generalize. I advize you look into Lightboost, low-responce LCDs (like this exact monitor we're discussing, it supports both though 2d lightboost needs a patch), and actually while we're at it, G-Sync as well. This 144hz ASUS monitor solves many of your complaints, yet you are saying you agree with deathfun about "just get a regular 60hz" when that type of monitor is the source of your complaints.
Lightboost example;
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hD5gjAs1A2s
---------------
For Fury;
http://www.tftcentral.co.uk/news_archive/31.htm#144hz_ips
-
Meanwhile my reasoning behind getting just a regular ol' inexpensive monitor is because it looks fine, works fine, does what I need it to do and doesn't hinder enjoyment of anything
Most of all of this low response, ghosting, smoother tech talk was either unnoticeable, or didn't overall add anything significant to my experience
In the end, we're all here to serve as opinions for both sides. If you find that having higher framerates improves your enjoyment of a game by all means go for it then. It's down to preference and your budget. Figure out what your personal requirements require from a monitor and then get the monitor that gives you all of that
From what I've gathered from what you've mentioned is this:
1) He needs a large monitor as it'll help with his vision issues
2) He's not really that much of a gamer making a top end graphics card more than what he needs. You could easily save money by getting an older one which still runs games these days pretty decently (Hell I'm using a 1GB 460 on Watch Dogs. Sure I can't run it max settings, but I don't have them on the lowest either. It's actually rather stable to boot. I'm not saying get a 460, but a 500 series is perfectly suitable)
3) Since it seems he uses his computer for more video related stuff, contrast ratios are important as well as how well the monitor handles colours.
4) Watching movies isn't going to be improved with a monitor that refreshes each frame at least four times. The movie is still going to look the same unless there's that really annoying soap opera feature that some TVs do. God I hate that. Am I the only one who hates that?
-
Movies are actually another reason to get a 120hz or 144hz display. They run at 24fps, which does not exactly divide 60hz and causes slightly jerky movements, since the frames alternate between being displayed 2 and 3 times. At 120hz or 144hz, this is not an issue and results in fully uniform motion.
Also, as KyadCK said, the contrast ratios they post are complete nonsense. The companies just tack on 4 or 5 extra zeros on the number. The true contrast ratios of TN and IPS monitors are more like 1000:1 or so. VA displays actually have the best black levels and arguably look better than IPS, but they are rare these days and usually have poor response times.
-
Movies are actually another reason to get a 120hz or 144hz display. They run at 24fps, which does not exactly divide 60hz and causes slightly jerky movements, since the frames alternate between being displayed 2 and 3 times. At 120hz or 144hz, this is not an issue and results in fully uniform motion.
Also, as KyadCK said, the contrast ratios they post are complete nonsense. The companies just tack on 4 or 5 extra zeros on the number. The true contrast ratios of TN and IPS monitors are more like 1000:1 or so. VA displays actually have the best black levels and arguably look better than IPS, but they are rare these days and usually have poor response times.
One: I have yet to actively notice these jerky movements on a 60hz monitor. Movies play fine
Two: I was non-specific as to what contrast ratio I was referring to. Don't assume
Three: Response times are tiny little numbers that some argue make all the difference, and whereas others don't see a difference because they're so miniscule
I'm the one who hasn't seen it
-
All you're saying is that you don't notice it personally. That doesn't change the fact that the jerkiness exists, as it must in that situation. My only point there is that the higher refresh rate is good for movies and not only games.
-
That's precisely what I'm saying, you are correct
Now, relay that question to the person we're suggesting monitors to. (Being, do you notice it)
Because if you don't notice it, you'll essentially be paying more for something that is essentially meaningless to you personally
I'm in the interest of saving someone money where they can.
-
I wish there were more monitors with 16:10 aspect ratio. I like my 1920x1200 resolution.
-
i also find 16:10 to be the superior aspect ratio.
-
With a new GTX770 video card, will my brother need a bigger power supply? He currently has an Antec 850wt Quattro. Will that be enough?
-
the card will probably have a recommended minimum power supply listed, but i can't imagine 850 not being enough.
-
I believe 850 is probably already slightly overkill for any single-GPU system, so I'm pretty sure it's quite enough. I'd think you need to go over that only if you have some massively power-hogging AMD CPU, several high-powered GPU's and a literal pile of hard drives.
-
Some system requirements for a GTX 770 card require at least a power supply of 600wt or more.
-
Ultimately as long as the PSU supplies enough amperage on the 12v lnes you should be fine. Most manufacturer recommendations concerning "wattage" specs are overkill because cheap power supplies usually vastly overrate what they can actually put out.
-
http://www.anandtech.com/show/2624
The article is dated obviously, but the principles still hold.
A quick google search brought up the recommended PSU wattage direct from NVidia - 600w. (http://www.geforce.com/hardware/desktop-gpus/geforce-gtx-770/specifications). 230w for the card itself.