Stop Suggesting IPS monitors for gaming.

[SpaghettiCarbonara]

I know me saying this might not make much of a difference, but I'll give my 2 cents anyway.

 

I know how you feel, OP. Some people like IPS because richer colours, others don't care and prefer a smoother image, that's fine. If, however, someone specifically says they want a 120+hz monitor for a specific reason, it irritates me when people will argue with them and say "eugh get an IPS causebettercolourseEUHGHHg". Just... Stop.

 

I just want to point out something stupid here... Everyone is talking about input lag. Yes, you probably won't notice the difference between 1ms and 5ms. It's not about that. 120+hz cuts out the majority of screen tearing and smooths out the overall image feed IF your graphics card is producing more than 60fps. If your graphics card produces less than 60fps and you're gaming on an IPS monitor with a refresh rate of 60hz or less, you won't see screen tearing.

 

I think the problem here is related to circlejerkery and fanboying. For example, I talk about getting a 350d in one of my posts (and I've seen this countless times in other threads), the response was basically "get an r4 because r4". I don't like r4's, I think they look ugly and are slightly impractical for what I want so stoptellingmetoGETITARRGH.

 

Anyway, I know how you feel OP. Get whatever the hell you want.

[jmaster299]

I know me saying this might not make much of a difference, but I'll give my 2 cents anyway.

 

I know how you feel, OP. Some people like IPS because richer colours, others don't care and prefer a smoother image, that's fine. If, however, someone specifically says they want a 120+hz monitor for a specific reason, it irritates me when people will argue with them and say "eugh get an IPS causebettercolourseEUHGHHg". Just... Stop.

 

I just want to point out something stupid here... Everyone is talking about input lag. Yes, you probably won't notice the difference between 1ms and 5ms. It's not about that. 120+hz cuts out the majority of screen tearing and smooths out the overall image feed IF your graphics card is producing more than 60fps. If your graphics card produces less than 60fps and you're gaming on an IPS monitor with a refresh rate of 60hz or less, you won't see screen tearing.

 

I think the problem here is related to circlejerkery and fanboying. For example, I talk about getting a 350d in one of my posts (and I've seen this countless times in other threads), the response was basically "get an r4 because r4". I don't like r4's, I think they look ugly and are slightly impractical for what I want so stoptellingmetoGETITARRGH.

 

Anyway, I know how you feel OP. Get whatever the hell you want.

I feel the same way, and it doesn't just apply to IPS monitors. People will ask about two different Nvidia GPUs and all people do is respond with "OMG, stop being dumb and buy such and such AMD GPU instead". But some people don't like AMD, and for good reason. If it was such a good brand they wouldn't constantly be losing money and they wouldn't be losing to Nvidia in market share. Yes IPS monitors have better color, but they are also more expensive. TN panels are also not as bad as the IPS fanboys like to pretend either. The quality of TN panels has improved over the years.

[Geekazoid]

Okay. Fine. I'll start suggesting VA monitors then.

[Shakaza]

I feel the same way, and it doesn't just apply to IPS monitors. People will ask about two different Nvidia GPUs and all people do is respond with "OMG, stop being dumb and buy such and such AMD GPU instead". But some people don't like AMD, and for good reason. If it was such a good brand they wouldn't constantly be losing money and they wouldn't be losing to Nvidia in market share. Yes IPS monitors have better color, but they are also more expensive. TN panels are also not as bad as the IPS fanboys like to pretend either. The quality of TN panels has improved over the years.

Um, I hate to break it to you, dude, but in total graphics market share, AMD is beating Nvidia...AMD has a few problems, sure. They consume slightly more power than their Nvidia counterparts that are equal in performance, and their stock coolers suck. Their method of installing drivers is somewhat worse than Nvidia's as well, but the bad stuff pretty much ends there. Their cards offer great competition to Nvidia's, like how their R295x2 is about equal in performance to 780 Ti's in SLI and is only a bit more expensive, but that is a little bit of a trade-off for its water cooling. Nvidia is not inherently better than AMD.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/jasonevangelho/2014/02/19/pc-gpu-market-bounces-back-with-nvidia-up-and-amd-down/ AMD went down a little bit, but that was more than likely caused somewhat by the cryptocurrency craze.

Also, I've never tried an IPS panel, and I dunno if I will anytime soon, so I'll just stick with my 5 ms TN panel.

[jmaster299]

Um, I hate to break it to you, dude, but in total graphics market share, AMD is beating Nvidia...AMD has a few problems, sure. They consume slightly more power than their Nvidia counterparts that are equal in performance, and their stock coolers suck. Their method of installing drivers is somewhat worse than Nvidia's as well, but the bad stuff pretty much ends there. Their cards offer great competition to Nvidia's, like how their R295x2 is about equal in performance to 780 Ti's in SLI and is only a bit more expensive, but that is a little bit of a trade-off for its water cooling. Nvidia is not inherently better than AMD.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/jasonevangelho/2014/02/19/pc-gpu-market-bounces-back-with-nvidia-up-and-amd-down/ AMD went down a little bit, but that was more than likely caused somewhat by the cryptocurrency craze.

Also, I've never tried an IPS panel, and I dunno if I will anytime soon, so I'll just stick with my 5 ms TN panel.

Hate to break it to you, but you need to learn to read your sources before quoting them. That Forbes article takes into account non-discrete graphics hardware, which is in no way a measure of the graphics card market. Hence why Intel is listed as the leader with over 60% of the market share. My MOBO has integrated Intel graphics, but that means absolutely nothing because it is never used. People who are gaming on PC aren't using integrated graphics.

The graphics card market only applies to discrete graphics cards, where Nvidia has nearly double the market share that AMD does. The most recent numbers I can find are from Quarter 2, 2013, and they show Nvidia with a 62% market share for discrete graphics cards, and AMD with only 38%. What integrated GPU comes with someone's motherboard is pointless. When it comes to discrete graphics cards, Nvidia is wiping the floor with AMD.

Edit:

This was posted right after I made my post here. AMD has lost even more it's market share since last year. Down to just 35% as of Quarter 1 2014 for the dedicated GPU market. Things are even worse in the overall GPU market. This takes into account mobile platforms as well, and AMD and Nvidia are separated by just 0.10%, but as I mentioned before, Nvidia has no integrated PC graphics chips.

 

[TymmVonD]

Here we go again...

 

I have a Samsung 4K IPS and and a 144Hz Asus. Running both at 1080p, the Asus is definitely faster and smoother and gives me an accuracy advantage. I just played BF4 on both of them last night. 

[Gontier]

I definitely don't think people should stop suggesting IPS monitors, but I see that there is definitely a bigger trend on these forums to instantly call out a monitor for being bad just because it's a TN panel and not an IPS, and not talking about any other specifications of the monitor just the panel. When reading a lot of the monitor recommendation threads here or info about new monitors I get the feeling there is kind of a circle jerk going on around the whole IPS thing only because Linus personally recommends them. Sometimes I even get the feeling that half of the people recommending IPS monitors have never even tried an IPS monitor and they're just hopping on the bandwagon. When you're that one guy that suggested something other than an IPS monitor you get shot down and bombarded by said individuals for throwing your own recommendation out there.

[juretrn]

After reading OP's post I wonder if he has ever tried gaming on an IPS. While it's true I haven't played a twitch shooter like Quake or Unreal Tournament on my IPS, it does not lag at all in any game I have tried yet. As for the colour reproduction....  :wub: IPS is NOT too slow for gaming, and with G-sync or Freesync that will become even less relevant.

Let's make it clear: I bought and experienced an IPS monitor waaay before I knew anything about Linus's preferences. Believe me, when I got mine, I became a firm believer. 

[Imabigmac]

Well i would agree to extent. Have i gamed on TN panels of course but not great 120hz ones. If someone is really into twitch shooters ips is a terrible idea, but man ips is amazing for skyrim and bioshock. I game to have fun abd enjoy the anaxing enviroments not to win competitions or be the best on my team. That is why i prefer ips/pls. I look very carfully at the games or activites people will do when they ask for monitor suggestion. I will always default to ips becuase that is what use and so its what i feel more expirenced with it and more confident recommending it.

[TheProfosist]

Well i would agree to extent. Have i gamed on TN panels of course but not great 120hz ones. If someone is really into twitch shooters ips is a terrible idea, but man ips is amazing for skyrim and bioshock. I game to have fun abd enjoy the anaxing enviroments not to win competitions or be the best on my team. That is why i prefer ips/pls. I look very carfully at the games or activites people will do when they ask for monitor suggestion. I will always default to ips becuase that is what use and so its what i feel more expirenced with it and more confident recommending it.

I dont see why I would spend so much money just to get something that would benefit me only while gaming for the most part. Also I seem to be doing perfectly fine in CS @60hz and have have use 60hz displays since I switched to a 1680x1050 "gaming" LCD years and years ago. it was my PA246Q that really showed me what a nice monitor can look like.

[Imabigmac]

I dont see why I would spend so much money just to get something that would benefit me only while gaming for the most part. Also I seem to be doing perfectly fine in CS @60hz and have have use 60hz displays since I switched to a 1680x1050 "gaming" LCD years and years ago. it was my PA246Q that really showed me what a nice monitor can look like.

I wont say that you cant play 60hz screen in twitch shooters, i do it and do fine as well.

[SpaghettiCarbonara]

I feel the same way, and it doesn't just apply to IPS monitors. People will ask about two different Nvidia GPUs and all people do is respond with "OMG, stop being dumb and buy such and such AMD GPU instead". But some people don't like AMD, and for good reason. If it was such a good brand they wouldn't constantly be losing money and they wouldn't be losing to Nvidia in market share. Yes IPS monitors have better color, but they are also more expensive. TN panels are also not as bad as the IPS fanboys like to pretend either. The quality of TN panels has improved over the years.

 

For me it's always been the other way around

 

I'm on the red team right now, but it's all because of the money. While I am prepared to save up as much as I need for the power I want, I'm not going to fork out an extra $100 to get the Nvidia equivalent of an AMD card. AMD has always been better for price. But yeah, I see tons of people saying "hurrhurr get nvidia cuz nvidia betterer" when, in fact, they're hopeless on price. Some people just can't be bothered paying the Nvidia Price Premium™. But again, if you were to tell me that you're going to get a 780 and that's final, I'd have to respect that you've got your reasons and I won't argue.

[jmaster299]

For me it's always been the other way around

 

I'm on the red team right now, but it's all because of the money. While I am prepared to save up as much as I need for the power I want, I'm not going to fork out an extra $100 to get the Nvidia equivalent of an AMD card. AMD has always been better for price. But yeah, I see tons of people saying "hurrhurr get nvidia cuz nvidia betterer" when, in fact, they're hopeless on price. Some people just can't be bothered paying the Nvidia Price Premium™. But again, if you were to tell me that you're going to get a 780 and that's final, I'd have to respect that you've got your reasons and I won't argue.

Again, like I posted, Nvidia has nearly a 2 to 1 advantage over AMD in terms of graphics card market share. That doesn't happen without good reason. AMD quality, especially their drivers and other software, falls far shot of Nvidia. Nvidia charges more because they can, because their products are worth it. AMD charges less because otherwise they wouldn't sell a single product.

[SpaghettiCarbonara]

Again, like I posted, Nvidia has nearly a 2 to 1 advantage over AMD in terms of graphics card market share. That doesn't happen without good reason. AMD quality, especially their drivers and other software, falls far shot of Nvidia. Nvidia charges more because they can, because their products are worth it. AMD charges less because otherwise they wouldn't sell a single product.

 

That may be so but AMD cards still get the job done, they might be a bit rugged, but they get the job done and that's what gets my money

[jmaster299]

That may be so but AMD cards still get the job done, they might be a bit rugged, but they get the job done and that's what gets my money

I'm not saying you or anyone else is wrong for buying AMD cards, but there is a massive problem with people claiming they are better than they really are and shitting on anyone who supports Nvidia. I'm actually impressed with the 295X2, it is the first and only dual chip card that I've ever considered worth getting. But go look at any thread in the GPU section with someone asking about an Nvidia card, and all the responses are nothing more than a flood of AMD fanboys telling the OP how stupid they are for wasting their money, making false claims that AMD is just as good as Nvidia.

Yes they "get the job done", but benchmarks should never be the only thing taken into consideration.

[Linus_torvalds]

People, stop suggesting IPS panels for gaming. 90% of you who do this only do it because Linus likes IPS. A decent TN panel is alw always superior to an IPS panel for gaming, and that "get a korean IPS monitor on ebay and overclock to 120hz" is a stuoid suggestion. Overclocked IPS panrls produce worse colors than a TN panel at 120hz, and IPS is way too slow for gaming. Please stop suggesting IPS monitors for gaming, especially the cheap ones. High end IPS panels have decent input lag, but the cheap ones are terrible.

I own 23" AH-IPS philips display and it's amazing in movies and games. It's colour reproduction is so much better then in TN panel based monitors. 1-2-4-5 ms you can not make any difference. They are the same for human eye that losses 300 ms to blink LOL if you blinked 304 ms you will be dead in games and if you blink 300 ms you will stay alive? your hand takes 50-100 times more time just to click that button and you say that 1-2 ms screen is better then 5 ms?

[minicale]

I have seen a IPS monitors next to TN panels and can't tell the difference I don't see the big deal of why people rave over IPS

[TheProfosist]

I have seen a IPS monitors next to TN panels and can't tell the difference I don't see the big deal of why people rave over IPS

There are numerous reasons this could be including you. Could have been what you were looking at, what the settings on each monitor were, how the displays were hooked up, and the quality of each display. A high end tn monitor will keep up with a low end IPS in the color department generally.