120hz TN or 60hz IPS?

[ElliotGS]

I mainly play FPS games and not sure whether sacrificing color vibrancy for refresh rate is worth it, my brother has a BenQ 60hz ips panel designed for RTS games and it looks amazing, so is 120hz really worth it?

[Izaya Orihara]

Nope. Get a nice IPS Monitor. 

[MegaDave91]

I have zero problems playing FPS on my IPS.

[Freaky_spider]

IPS ALL THE WAY!!!!! 

 

IPS MASTERRACE!!!! 

 

i hope that was clear enough for you to see my opinion in this

[Scionyde]

If you could find a high refresh rate monitor to see if you can even notice the difference between 120 fps and 60 fps, I would do that. The decision to sacrifice better colors for smoother motion is iffy if you're unable to see for yourself beforehand.

[GoodBytes]

Please use the forum search. They are plenty of post asking the same question.
In a nut shell it goes:

-> If you you want smoother visuals and better response time, get a 120 or 144Hz monitor. Note that to fully enjoy 120Hz monitor, your need to run your games at 120fps. Same for a 144Hz one, you need your game o run at 144fps. 1fps = 1Hz. You can disable V-Sync, and use something like Fraps to check the frame per seconds you get, to get an idea.
Usually, FPS players prefers to play their games at minimum or low settings at native resolution for smooth game place and solid 120fps experience with no dips with their 120Hz monitor.

-> If you see gaming as an art form, and seek for a more immersion experience, where you want the gaming graphics, well, the art work done by the artists of the game, really shine through, get an IPS panel.

[Gauzl]

I was asking the exact same question a couple days ago, so I tried playing CS:GO on 60fps and 120fps and the difference was daunting, after a couple minutes of playing at 60fps I knew I couldn't go back to it. Also spending a lot of time playing on a 120htz monitor will make you notice the difference between 60 and 120 so much more then someone who mainly plays at 60. So don't take everyone's word on it.

[Satlen]

The fact that you said you play FPS games and that alone makes the higher refresh rate worth it. The colors are not too bad once you get it calibrated and I use smart phones with IPS screens all the time. Unless you are super casual, I would get it. I have one and I cant even go back to 60hz.

[GoodBytes]

All of these people clearly did not read your post.  You said you play FPS games and that alone makes the higher refresh rate worth it. The colors are not too bad once you get it calibrated and I use smart phones with IPS screens all the time. Unless you are super casual, I would get it. I have one and I cant even go back to 60hz.

1- How is my post wrong? My friend only play FPS games, but prefer better visuals than speed. Doesn't mean that a personal that plays FPS a lot, are automatically hardcore FPS player, and seek to be the best and play championships. They are people that plays for fun. He doesn't have a mechanical keyboard and uses a high-en Logitech office laser mouse. I think it was 1000DPI or something. Doesn't mater for him.

 

2- Doesn't mean that it is an IPS display that the colors are good. An IPS display will help you achieve better color accuracy, but if the color blue shows orange, red shows purple, and so on, then the colors are simply wrong.IPS monitor doesn't output correct colors, they help output colors more accurately. And the more you pay for an IPS panel (general rule of thumb, not always correct), the better you can achieve this. That is why I usually recommend monitors that the manufacture color calibrate sRGB and/or Adobe RGB profiles. While yes, these are quick calibration, and definitely not adequate for color critical work, and that is with keeping in mind that as the monitor wears, the colors shifts. Hence, why professionals have a color calibrator in hand and frequently calibrate their monitor for pin point accuracy. Manufacture calibration is better than nothing, and help you enjoy, better, the most of the IPS display that you got. So to recap, IPS panels provide better color reproduction based on the set settings. So if they are wrong, they'll be wrong.

 

3- Phone screen are usually not color calibrated, or even close to it. They are over saturated or just plain wrong to optimize viewing under bright environment.

[Satlen]

1- How is my post wrong?

2- Doesn't mean that it is an IPS display that the colors are good. An IPS display will help you achieve better color accuracy, but if the color blue shows orange, red shows purple, and so on, then the colors are simply wrong. IPS monitor doesn't output correct colors, they help output colors more accurately. And the more you pay for an IPS panel (general rule of thumb, not always correct), the better you can achieve this. That is why I usually recommend monitors that the manufacture color calibrate sRGB and/or Adobe RGB profiles. While yes, these are quick calibration, and definitely not adequate for color critical work, and that is with keeping in mind that as the monitor wears, the colors shifts. Hence why professionals have a color calibrator in hand and frequently calibrate their monitor for pin point accuracy. It is better than nothing, and help you enjoy better the most of the IPS display that you got.

3- Phone screen are usually not color calibrated, or even close to it. They are over saturated for better and easier viewing under bright environment.

I never said your post was wrong...

[GoodBytes]

ok. It's because you said: "All of these people clearly did not read your post", suggests that I have not read his post and therefor I don't know what I am talking about.

It's all good

[Satlen]

ok. It's because you said: "All of these people clearly did not read your post", suggests that I have not read his post and therefor I don't know what I am talking about.

It's all good

Yeah, I guess that line was a little harsh and vague. I will edit that out.

[Ryan Leech]

IPS makes so much more sense than TN. Unless you're playing professional CSGO at esports events, you have no need for a TN. The amazing colors and viewing pleasure of IPS is so much better

[Aphala]

ISP > Best colour panels avalible

TN > Only panel for refresh rates above 60hz

 

ISP > Just feels better for colour if you can get a 1ms or 5ms ISP then go for it! ROG Swift 2560x1440 @ 120hz IPS [it's TN Not IPS :3] looks like but it cost 800 big ones + G-sync.

TN > worst colour reproduction of all panel types usual @ 1ms + refresh rates are able to be changed at any time

 

Personal opinion

ISP, makes games feel more life like with it's insane colour reproduction, also 5ms isn't even bad for a IPS panel. Also high refresh rates means you need a good GPU 770 onwards or 7000/R9280 onwards for rates over 100hz.

[cae]

IPS makes so much more sense than TN. Unless you're playing professional CSGO at esports events, you have no need for a TN. The amazing colors and viewing pleasure of IPS is so much better

 

120Hz makes so much more sense than IPS. Unless you're professionally editing photo/video, you have no need for an IPS. The amazing smoothness and lack of motion blur on 120Hz is so much better.

[Aphala]

120Hz makes so much more sense than IPS. Unless you're professionally editing photo/video, you have no need for an IPS. The amazing smoothness and lack of motion blur on 120Hz is so much better.

You also forget to render @ 120hz you need the power to back it up. You have essential doubled the work needed to smooth out the frames, not everyone has a high end GPU mate. If you dive into it unprepared you will have tearing and an awful FPS. Failing to have the recommended specs on your GPU will ruin the experience, if you can barely push 60fps on a game doubling the power needed won't help. It is recommended that you can at least reach 100fps before amping up the refresh rate. 100Hz is basically all you need. anything above is pretty much a gimick for fools.

 

Just because you can buy a jazzy 100hz+ monitor doesn't mean your GPU is going to be like "Well...Eh...I don't like this"

[TymmVonD]

Much frame and uh verry smoove=TN

[cae]

You also forget to render @ 120hz you need the power to back it up. You have essential doubled the work needed to smooth out the frames, not everyone has a high end GPU mate. If you dive into it unprepared you will have tearing and an awful FPS. Failing to have the recommended specs on your GPU will ruin the experience, if you can barely push 60fps on a game doubling the power needed won't help. It is recommended that you can at least reach 100fps before amping up the refresh rate. 100Hz is basically all you need. anything above is pretty much a gimick for fools.

 

Just because you can buy a jazzy 100hz+ monitor doesn't mean your GPU is going to be like "Well...Eh...I don't like this"

 

It was more "ridiculous blanket statements can work both ways" than an actual response - which I feel GoodBytes summed up nicely.

 

Bolded - Oh hey, you can do it too!  :rolleyes:

[MegaDave91]

 

ISP > Just feels better for colour if you can get a 1ms or 5ms ISP then go for it! ROG Swift 2560x1440 @ 120hz IPS looks like but it cost 800 big ones + G-sync.

 

That monitor is TN, not IPS.

[Aphala]

It was more "ridiculous blanket statements can work both ways" than an actual response - which I feel GoodBytes summed up nicely.

 

Bolded - Oh hey, you can do it too!  :rolleyes:

 

<insert sarcastic response here>

[Aphala]

That monitor is TN, not IPS.

 

Ah, mistake corrected.

[BrightCandle]

Bare in mind that not all IPS monitors are the same. If you want the better colour you need to get a Adobe RGB gamut based one with true 8 bit colour, otherwise its only going to be marginally more accurate than a TN monitor. A lot of the IPS owners on here don't realise that not all IPS monitors actually support wider gamuts and they haven't even set it up. I did a questionaire and over half here don't know how to set the monitor up correctly, haven't calibrated etc so the end result is that likely don't get better colour at all!

 

Also bare in mind despite the specs no IPS monitors really achieve a latency of 5ms. IPS pixels basically take 12ms+ to switch, many take much more than that and 20ms is quite common on certain switches. On the other hand a decent quality TN will switch in 2-5ms. So even without the higher refresh rate the image is a lot less blurry on a gaming TN than on an IPS screen.

 

IPS screens are meant for image and video professionals, they are targetted at people who need accurate colour, mostly for printing to paper. TN monitors are the better monitors for gaming, and once calibrated will achieve very good colour quality and less blur than the IPS alternative. I have both and while the IPS with Adobe RGB is nice its also really blurry in motion and its actually one of the best IPS monitors for blur there is available. i know a lot of the guys here tout IPS, IPS, but honestly most of these guys don't have their monitors set up to even show the difference.

[GoodBytes]

Bare in mind that not all IPS monitors are the same. If you want the better colour you need to get a Adobe RGB gamut based one with true 8 bit colour, otherwise its only going to be marginally more accurate than a TN monitor. A lot of the IPS owners on here don't realise that not all IPS monitors actually support wider gamuts and they haven't even set it up. I did a questionaire and over half here don't know how to set the monitor up correctly, haven't calibrated etc so the end result is that likely don't get better colour at all!

Well not really. While they are exceptions, assuming we just talk about monitors that are recommended and well reviewed, and please note that, this is as we speak today (It might change over time), an entry-level IPS panel is about as good or better than a high-end TN panel in terms of out of the box experience with an IPS panel. The difference is that the IPS panel has no view angle limitation per se, and cost less than high-end TN panel, last I checked. The difference in color will be there, but more subtle. The more you pay, the better the colors, as you essentially jump to monitor that come with 1 or 2 color calibrated profiles, ready to be selected, and also jump to true 8-bit panel.

Wide gamut is however, not the reason. In fact, a wide gamut monitor, for professionals, will output better colors (but pro's don't use the monitors suggested, they go with true professional grade monitors, like the ones from EIZO or NEC. Wide gamut support is something that requires to be setup with the image editor/viewer software. It's not an out of the box experience.

You COULD set, so that you use sRGB default Windows color profile, and that will results images that are correct visually, with an offset of saturation by about 10% or so (visually), which by conclusion and from discussion with a forum that I participated, who has several true professionals, came out with "fine for consumers" and "a mater of preferences, as all the colors are close to be accurately represented for a consumer grade monitor, just more vivid". (quotes are put, to highlight that the discussion is not really set as a fact, but rather the consideration that we are using consumer grade monitors, and that no color critical work is done). In other words, wide gamut will offer a bit over saturated colors, however it is a mtaher of opinion. Some prefer it, other don't.

The problem is in gaming, games don't use ICC color profiles (as it costs performance to implement), so while things will look right, thing that are like perfect green (laser fire, for example), will just be incredibly vivid, which again is subjective.

Professional seek more that what they see on the monitor reflects the printed work of the poster or magazine or even pamphlet and business card will show. They obviously want color accuracy. But if the printer they work with is a wide color gamut one, then they want a wide color gamut monitor, else a standard gamut one will do. Of course, they seek color accuracy as well, but it's not the only point.

 

Also bare in mind despite the specs no IPS monitors really achieve a latency of 5ms. IPS pixels basically take 12ms+ to switch, many take much more than that and 20ms is quite common on certain switches. On the other hand a decent quality TN will switch in 2-5ms. So even without the higher refresh rate the image is a lot less blurry on a gaming TN than on an IPS screen.

 

I guess by latency you mean response time. The speed of the LCD liquid turning in the panel?

If we were in 2007 or 2008, I might agree with you, with a note that that it's not all IPS panels, but many. But today it is not the case for most IPS panels.

Here are some figures made by TFTCentral, in depth monitor review sites, which you can confirm with other sites if you want.

Dell U2410 - 2009 - true 8-bit IPS panel - 1920x1200 - 6ms response time (what Dell says)

Dell U2414H - 1920x1080 - 6-bit IPS panel - 8ms response time (what Dell says)

Dell P2414h - 1920x1080 - 6-bit IPS panel - 8ms response time (what Dell says)

EIZO FG2421 - 1920x1080 - MVA 120Hz - 4ms response time

BenQ XL2410T - 2011 - 1920x1080 - TN 120Hz - 2ms response time

As we can see above, the BenQ monitor, despite being TN, and claimed 2ms response time, has the worst results (not all 120Hz TN monitors are like, I picked counter example to show my point). The EIZO monitor is delivering more what it claims, at 4ms response time, and it shows, despite being an MVA panel, and we have presented above 3 IPS panels. One old from 2009, and 2 that are currently availible, in the entry level, and one high-end of the entry levels (med range?!)

 

IPS screens are meant for image and video professionals, they are targetted at people who need accurate colour, mostly for printing to paper.

Actually, PVA was that. PVA panels have extreme low response time, however, they had 0 back light bleeding, as the blacks where like MVA panels, where they were very black, which made it ideal for black and white photo editing, and color works as they could reproduce colors very well if calibrated right. IPS panels was more of an affordable professional grade panel, who delivered faster response time, at the exchanged of not being as great with blacks, and faces with the IPS glow effects, which could be alleviated using a an expensive polarizing technique of the grid, but few monitors even on the pro grade ones perform this, due to the cost, and only helps, doesn't solve the problem

But, IPS panels are taking off in the professional grade market, where today it's actually very hard to find PVA panels.

Over the years, and I mean back in 2008-09, IPS panels started to be affordable. And I mean still deliver close to entry-level professional grade monitor, or on par (if we ignore the: as advance color processor, uniform back light, programmable Look Up Table, and support for calibrators for direct monitor control). Still 8-bit, still solid stand, very good color reproduction abilities, still had a color processor, and Look Up Table, loads of inputs, and so on. It' wasn't some massive drop in specs to make it affordable. It was truly more affordable.

In addition, the panels were really fast. It was fighting against high-end 60Hz TN panels (120Hz didn't exists, if I remember correctly, or just started to appear).

So slow response time... not so.

[BrightCandle]

...

Dell U2410 - 2009 - true 8-bit IPS panel - 1920x1200 - 6ms response time (what Dell says)

Dell U2414H - 1920x1080 - 6-bit IPS panel - 8ms response time (what Dell says)

Dell P2414h - 1920x1080 - 6-bit IPS panel - 8ms response time (what Dell says)

EIZO FG2421 - 1920x1080 - MVA 120Hz - 4ms response time

BenQ XL2410T - 2011 - 1920x1080 - TN 120Hz - 2ms response time

....

So slow response time... not so.

 

The problem with the response times you have quoted is that they are the manufacturers claims. If you look further down in the tftcentral.co.uk review for the Dell 2410 you will find its actually 14.4ms total latency for game mode and 33.8ms total latency when not in game mode. Unfortunately back then TFT central wasn't doing detailed response pixel switching times so we only get that on recent reviews.

 

So for comparison a Benq XL2720Z in instant mode is under 5ms total but the Dell U2413 is more like 9ms and the IPS monitors tend to cluster higher than that around 20ms as you can see below:

 

 

And here is a more recent comparison of blur with a Benq XL2720Z against some IPS panels.

 

 

 

 

 

Despite some slight overshoot the Benq's worst is significantly better than what it is compared to. 

 

We also have a nice overshoot combined with delay chart in the later reviews as well:

 

 

This again shows the distinct difference in pixel switching times we see in TN v IPS monitors. But what it also shows us is that individual monitor models matter a whole lot more than the underlying technology, because there are good and bad in both IPS and TN monitors from an overshoot and latency perspective.

 

I just don't think its even remotely as simple as TN v IPS. I have seen plenty of TN monitors get to deltas below 2 once calibrated and hence they produce very accurate colour, within a very small margin (imperceptible to most human eyes incidentally) of accuracy that of IPS monitors. Simply put for gaming the only thing that matters is sRGB coverage, and some TN monitors do that pretty well indeed. Its not as good as IPS but none of the IPS monitors do that well compared to a modern TN in latency and blur. But rather than that generalisation I think its more important to talk about individual monitors, because some IPS screens do have very low latency electronics and do switch quicker and blur less, but normally with overshoot errors. Some TN screens have overshoot errors but really high switching times and some switch fast and have next to no overshoot. I just don't think the generic advice is as helpful as people think it is.

[GoodBytes]

The problem with the response times you have quoted is that they are the manufacturers claims.

You are talking with the person that hammers that point on pretty much any thread that people asks or talk about response time. and how manufacture claims on response time are b.s.

Did you read my post, or just skimmed it?

 

If you look further down in the tftcentral.co.uk review for the Dell 2410 you will find its actually 14.4ms total latency for game mode and 33.8ms total latency when not in game mode. Unfortunately back then TFT central wasn't doing detailed response pixel switching times so we only get that on recent reviews.

At the time, TFTCentral didn't have the equipment to measure input lag and response time separately. They are combined.

The U2410 has a color processor and Look UP Table circuitry. And that was back in 2009. If we look today in 2014, you can see the monitor like the EIZO one mentioned above, and teh Dell U2414H, and even the P2414H, you can see that the input lag is at 0ms. Game Mode on the U2410, only disables some image processing layer, not all. At the time, the Game Mode response time, where very competitive, and the non-Game mode ones, like adobe RGB or sRGB, where still competitive to professional grade monitors that tehse features at the time. Note that, back in teh days, The U2410 was one of the early consumer grade IPS panels. Dell I believe, had a 1 or 2 models before that, but while they were gaming ready, there not great for FPS genre. The U2410 is a massive step forward, allowing this. Not pro hardcore gaming, but playable for those who like the genre for the fin factor, and not playing competitively.

 

So for comparison a Benq XL2720Z in instant mode is under 5ms total but the Dell U2413 is more like 9ms and the IPS monitors tend to cluster higher than that around 20ms as you can see below:

The over all score (input lag and response time) of the BenQ matches the Dell U2414H, 1ms faster only. You don't see 1 ms. You don't. I don't care how twitch fast reflex you are, but even a high-end camera and oscilloscope have trouble. It is within margin of errors.

 

Despite some slight overshoot the Benq's worst is significantly better than what it is compared to.

SLIGHT? SLIIIGHT?

 

We also have a nice overshoot combined with delay chart in the later reviews as well:

 

Yup. If it did deliver those speed, we would have 120Hz IPS panels. We don't.

You are saying that you can't game with an IPS panels. I am saying that you can perfectly game with one.

Huge number of people here are enjoying their IPS monitor, and won't go back to their 60Hz TN panel, as it is better.

 

This again shows the distinct difference in pixel switching times we see in TN v IPS monitors. But what it also shows us is that individual monitor models matter a whole lot more than the underlying technology, because there are good and bad in both IPS and TN monitors from an overshoot and latency perspective.

Now you are considering non-recommended IPS panels. As I mentioned on top, if you cared to read, I am talking about recommended monitors, the monitor that are always presented here.

If you want horrible ones, just look at HP ones. They are business office environment focused, nothing more.

 

I just don't think its even remotely as simple as TN v IPS. I have seen plenty of TN monitors get to deltas below 2 once calibrated and hence they produce very accurate colour, within a very small margin (imperceptible to most human eyes incidentally) of accuracy that of IPS monitors.

That is your perspective. People here here and you can have a look on the YouTubes, that there is a visible difference between entry level IPS (again the ones that we are talkoing about and not the 15$ one no name brand one) with most TN panels.

Also, color calibrators results varies. Color calibrators at the consumer level, only tests some colors, not all 16.7 million of them. You need far better equipment to measure this, like the ones listed by ASUS and Dell in their reports, which cost several grands... used.

If what you say is true, believe me, professionals would just jump on TN panels, and just calibrate them. They can't even find acceptable high-end consumer grade ones, in all honesty, and not doing any buyers remorse, as the monitors are closely priced to entry level pro grade monitors, even brands using LG manufactures IPS panels (of course, higher end ones).

They might get one as secondary display, but not actual work.

 

Simply put for gaming the only thing that matters is sRGB coverage, and some TN monitors do that pretty well indeed. Its not as good as IPS but none of the IPS monitors do that well compared to a modern TN in latency and blur.

Thanks for repeating my view.

 

But rather than that generalisation I think its more important to talk about individual monitors, because some IPS screens do have very low latency electronics and do switch quicker and blur less, but normally with overshoot errors. Some TN screens have overshoot errors but really high switching times and some switch fast and have next to no overshoot. I just don't think the generic advice is as helpful as people think it is.

Yup. I agree with you.

But, saying that you can't game on an IPS panel, is something I don't agree with you.