| Forum Index > Tech Support |
|
ExPresident
United States215 Posts
On July 16 2015 05:22 Cyro wrote: Well worth the $60 extra for 2.4x refresh rate IMO, though not very useful for ps4 $60 extra for which Cyro? Asking because I only quoted the linked 24 inch BenQ. And I'm assuming it's not as uswful for PS4 due to low FPS of consoles but otherwise it would still.be a great monitor for it? Thx | ||
|
Cyro
United Kingdom20323 Posts
and yea, just playing console games at ~20-60fps doesn't get nearly as much benefit from >60hz refresh rates. | ||
|
DarthPunk
Australia10857 Posts
| ||
|
decafchicken
United States20138 Posts
| ||
|
Blazinghand
United States25557 Posts
I tend to either buy my monitors super super used and know they'll be crappy, or completely brand new and know they'll be great. If you wanted to spend $200 on a monitor my friend picked up this asus VS239H-P off newegg for cheap: http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16824236288 If you want to spend $100 on a monitor, this Acer is on sale for $100 http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16824009437 though it's not as good as the Dell your'e talking about. Pcpartpicker recommends this acer http://www.amazon.com/dp/B005LJWJSG which appears the be brighter and have higher contrast, so it might be a better deal overall. In general, if you buy a new monitor for $100, you are getting what you pay for. There won't be anything better than 1080p60hz, and your monitor will likely just have two inputs, VGA and DVI. Also, these are all TN displays Don't expect a good sturdy stand or VESA mount capabilities. That being said, the monitor will work fine and meet most people's needs. | ||
|
Myrmidon
United States9452 Posts
Older monitors used flourescent backlighting and have more drift over time than stuff these days with LED backlights. Most anything you find in the last few years uses LED backlighting. Besides, a P2314H can't be older than mid-late 2013 and is probably 2014 or 2015 stock in this case. The VS239H-P uses a grainier, previous generation eIPS panel, doesn't have the monitor stand adjustments the P2314H does, and uses PWM-based backlighting (a drawback). | ||
|
felisconcolori
United States6168 Posts
| ||
|
decafchicken
United States20138 Posts
| ||
|
decafchicken
United States20138 Posts
| ||
|
findingthelimit
Hong Kong219 Posts
*just read that IPS has lower response time - can anyone confirm? I'd like to reduce input lag as much as possible. | ||
|
decafchicken
United States20138 Posts
| ||
|
Cyro
United Kingdom20323 Posts
response time increases input lag a little if it's significant, but that's only one part of input lag. The whole amount of input lag that the monitor creates will always be at least slightly higher, sometimes a lot of input lag is created from stuff that's unrelated to the pixel response time. pixel response time is only a measurement of the time that it takes pixels to change color once they recieve the signal to do to - and it's a very specific measurement too (usually grey to grey). Since G2G transitions are way faster than other transitions (speed varies by the colors transitioned to and from), your monitor might have a 5ms response time grey to grey, but take 30ms to show a black to white transition - the 5ms or 1-2ms figure isn't law. That's basically describing how fast the monitor can be in a best case scenario, it will be way slower on average color changes. --- Good 1440p 144hz is much more expensive and keep in mind that it's a good ~70-80% harder on the GPU as well - it's impossible to get near to maxing out demanding games at 1440p and ~100-150fps with a single GPU and adding a second GPU to help out will increase framerates but will make your input delay at that framerate significantly longer. I have a 980 (not 980ti, so i only have about 70-75% of the performance of a highly overclocked flagship GPU) but am regularly turning down settings even at 1080p because i'd rather have the framerate than some graphics settings like turned up Tesselation, MSAA, Shadows, AO, foliage density/distance etc. I don't think you'll physically be able to tell the difference in response time as long as your IPS is <8ms You can, because the response time (and the main reason it's a notable stat) is seen as blur on moving images as there is a trail of partially transitioned pixels in front of and behind moving objects - and the average response time increase creates a mentionable increase in percieved display lag too, because the images are not ready for significantly longer. Not huge, but mentionable | ||
|
Myrmidon
United States9452 Posts
You can, because the response time (and the main reason it's a notable stat) is seen as blur on moving images as there is a trail of partially transitioned pixels in front of and behind moving objects - and the average response time increase creates a mentionable increase in percieved display lag too, because the images are not ready for significantly longer. Not huge, but mentionable For a relatively fast IPS* without substantial reverse ghosting, it doesn't look much different in practice at all if comparing monitors with 60 Hz refresh and pixel persistence throughout the frame. Even if pixel response were instantaneous, you'd still get blur from images not moving between refreshes and staying in one place despite eyes tracking and continuously moving on ahead. So really, a fast 60 Hz IPS isn't much worse at all than a fast 60 Hz TN with real-world response times that are a few ms faster. I just looked at some testufo.com patterns on such 60 Hz IPS and TN panels to refresh my memory (and a third monitor, an IPS with hideous reverse ghosting that's just used for static stuff). It's virtually identical. *Note the quoted figure is useless because of lack of standardization in reporting and the fact that a single number doesn't encompass the range of different position transitions. | ||
|
Cyro
United Kingdom20323 Posts
5ms grey to grey on 16.67ms per frame is quite different to 5ms grey to grey on 6.95ms per frame. At that point your average transition is lagging an entire frame or two behind I will say though the motion blur caused by low frame rate (and sample+hold effect) is dominant visually to me, even dropping from ~100-120 to ~60fps i easily notice the increased motion blur - especially on things like health bars over sc2 units and moving text (like over peoples heads) in WoW. The effect of the fastest TN's vs IPS is likely relatively small, i'm just not willing to write it off entirely :D | ||
|
Myrmidon
United States9452 Posts
It was the old Asus VH236H I looked at the other day, a popular 60 Hz TN monitor from a few years back that was used a lot in competitive play. If I set Trace Free (the overdrive setting) to 0 or 20 or even 40, it looks slower than a fast 60 Hz IPS, with more noticeable trailing. If I set 100, there's some readily noticeable reverse ghosting and the reverse-color trail is noticeable and motion looks worse than on a proper 60 Hz IPS. At Trace Free of 60 or 80, it looks pretty much the same as the IPS—all blurry on fast motion primarily from the sample+hold but with not much additional trailing and issues. And to be honest, most actual transitions on a fast IPS will be slower than 5 ms. More like 7-8 ms on average unless the overdrive is too strong and there's bad reverse ghosting. For reference, something more in the range of 3 ms on average is typical for a fast TN like the ROG Swift that's not being overdriven to too much reverse ghosting. In any case, the old days of early LCD monitors and many VA panels still, not to mention some IPS and TN models that aren't tuned properly (or are just cheap), will have noticeably worse motion performance. But after a certain point, which the better IPS models already hit, it's the 60 Hz sample+hold that's the main problem, not as much the pixel response times. At 120+ Hz then that wall is shifted and the times matter more again. But there aren't 120+ Hz IPS monitors at 24" so it really depends on whether or not the question was interpreted as a hypothetical. | ||
|
Cyro
United Kingdom20323 Posts
you won't get 24" 1440p 144hz at all | ||
|
findingthelimit
Hong Kong219 Posts
On August 29 2015 00:20 Cyro wrote: Ah i didn't see -strictly 24"- you won't get 24" 1440p 144hz at all Thanks for your help! the response was really elaborate. Viewing angles are not too important for me, so I guess i could go with either. Can you elaborate what you mean by I wont get 24" 1440p 120+hz? does the technology not allow for it, or is there no market for it so a monitor of those specs wont ever get produced in the bear future? | ||
|
Myrmidon
United States9452 Posts
On August 31 2015 01:57 findingthelimit wrote: Thanks for your help! the response was really elaborate. Viewing angles are not too important for me, so I guess i could go with either. Can you elaborate what you mean by I wont get 24" 1440p 120+hz? does the technology not allow for it, or is there no market for it so a monitor of those specs wont ever get produced in the bear future? It just doesn't exist right now, as in nobody makes one yet. There are 24" 1920x1080 120+ Hz TN monitors and 24" 2560x1440 60 Hz IPS monitors, but not 24" 120+ Hz with 2560x1440 or IPS. There exists 27" 120+ Hz IPS at 2560x1440 (that's considerably more expensive), though. There is also 24" 1920x1080 IPS that can be tweaked to run at 75-84 Hz or so, so above 60 Hz. In fact, a lot of 1920x1080 60 Hz monitors—and others too—can be fudged to run a little or somewhat higher than 60 Hz. Also, "viewing angles" as an issue implies that you need to have to sit or stand somewhere that's not in front of the monitor to notice the problem. At normal viewing positions the gamma and color shifting on many monitors is noticeable, though some notice or care about it much less than others. For some contrived examples that are easy to tell, see here: http://www.lagom.nl/lcd-test/viewing_angle.php | ||
|
findingthelimit
Hong Kong219 Posts
On August 31 2015 03:16 Myrmidon wrote: It just doesn't exist right now, as in nobody makes one yet. There are 24" 1920x1080 120+ Hz TN monitors and 24" 2560x1440 60 Hz IPS monitors, but not 24" 120+ Hz with 2560x1440 or IPS. There exists 27" 120+ Hz IPS at 2560x1440 (that's considerably more expensive), though. There is also 24" 1920x1080 IPS that can be tweaked to run at 75-84 Hz or so, so above 60 Hz. In fact, a lot of 1920x1080 60 Hz monitors—and others too—can be fudged to run a little or somewhat higher than 60 Hz. Also, "viewing angles" as an issue implies that you need to have to sit or stand somewhere that's not in front of the monitor to notice the problem. At normal viewing positions the gamma and color shifting on many monitors is noticeable, though some notice or care about it much less than others. For some contrived examples that are easy to tell, see here: http://www.lagom.nl/lcd-test/viewing_angle.php Thanks for the response; really helpful thus far. I'm decided in getting a 120/144Hz, 24" monitor. Leaning towards TN since sometimes my girlfriend watches me play so greater viewing angles would be nice. Do you guys have any recommendations, and is there anything to look out for? I looked through the OP but don't see too much specific info. I'm looking at the ASUS VG248QE, and it seems to have pretty good reviews on amazon. The only thing tipping me off is that the OP only mentions Eizo and BenQ, and I"m not too familiar with these. Could you comment on that regard? Greatly appreciate your help! - Eizo Foris FG2421 (VA based) - BenQ XL2411Z (TN based) | ||
|
Blazinghand
United States25557 Posts
| ||
| ||
StarCraft 2 StarCraft: Brood War Dota 2 League of Legends Super Smash Bros Other Games |
|
WardiTV Invitational
Replay Cast
The PondCast
WardiTV Invitational
Replay Cast
RongYI Cup
herO vs Maru
uThermal 2v2 Circuit
Replay Cast
Wardi Open
Monday Night Weeklies
[ Show More ] |
|
|
EPT
