120hz vs 2560x1440...

[rahulr1]

I don't really have much need to discuss this topic for any personal endeavour but I though it would be interested for me and everyone else to see what the community's view on this is . And yes I know there will be hardcore arguments on this thread :)

[rahulr1]

By the way 2560x1440 also includes 2560x1600. And the versus is primarily against the 3D 120hz monitors and high-res PLS or IPS monitors.

[Dim]

Let's not let it get too hardcore.

My personal opinion is that 2560x1440 is better, but this is mainly because I do stuff other than game on my PC -- a higher resolution in things such as documents, browsers, etc. is much more beneficial overall than a 120Hz refresh rate. I would still choose 1440 over 120Hz for gaming, as well.

It is entirely opinion, though. In addition, if you're running a high performance card with limited VRAM, then 120Hz would definitely be better, in my opinion.

[Mo5]

I can see the point in both of those. 120Hz is awesome for fast moving action where response really matters, whereas 1440p brings the positives of higher resolutions: more desktop space, bigger FOV, but requires more GPU power to drive it. Running a 120Hz has no impact on performance, unless you want to do 3D.

Since I don't buy 500$ GPU, I'm more interested in 120Hz monitors :P

[Prettyfinej]

Between those two I would prefer a 120Hz monitor over higher resolution primarily due to screen size (I prefer 23-24"). However, I have neither, I went with a 23" ips because I prefer to better colours and viewing angle over refresh rate.

[GoodBytes]

2560x1440 will also get you better colors as you are passing to an IPS panel. And if you get it from a known quality brands like Dell (uses LG panels), or LG or ASUS among others, hey are also jam packs with features to deliver the best colors, like color processor, high end back light technology providing true whites, making an excellent base for other colors, and some models even comes with pre-color calibrated at factory profiles, which is a big plus if you don't have a color calibrator in hand, and get as you started with wonderful colors.

[WayToWenzhou]

1440p for two reasons:

-High resolutions will make your game look much sharper and better. Have you ever played a game like crysis or far cry 3 with the highest details and effects but with 720p instead of 1080p? At a low resolution you won't be able to feel that you're playing on very high quality (except for the resolution). The resolution itself will make the image look more detailed to, compared to a lower one. I personally would prefer my native resolution (1920x1200) with medium quality over 720p with highest quality, simply because, again, on a lower resolution you won't notice you have cranked up settings enabled.

-99% of the 120 hz monitors are tn-panels with overclocked refresh-rates. They can't be compared to the far superior image quality and color depth that ips-panels have, which get used a lot for 1440p-screens.

[WaspishVyper]

2560x1440, because you see in 30fps and can only see about 60fps, so there is simply no point in more than a 60hz monitor, also higher resolutions = better pictures and better video quality. I would also prefer a game to run at 60fps at a higher resolution and higher settings, then for it to run at 120fps on low resolution with low settings.

[WayToWenzhou]

2560x1440' date=' because you see in 30fps and can only see about 60fps, so there is simply no point in more than a 60hz monitor, also higher resolutions = better pictures and better video quality. I would also prefer a game to run at 60fps at a higher resolution and higher settings, then for it to run at 120fps on low resolution with low settings.[/quote']

I'm gonna play devil's advocate now for a bit: your brain does notice a difference between 60 fps and something higher like 80 or 90+ fps. So it will feel smoother when playing a game.

[GoodBytes]

2560x1440' date=' because you see in 30fps and can only see about 60fps, so there is simply no point in more than a 60hz monitor, also higher resolutions = better pictures and better video quality. I would also prefer a game to run at 60fps at a higher resolution and higher settings, then for it to run at 120fps on low resolution with low settings.[/quote']

Actually this is not true. And I know where you are coming from... idiotic studies done by incompetent researchers, evaluated with other incompetent research which results to be published.

This reminds me of a study that I read, that basically said that the human eye can see something like less than a 10million colors, so one can say that anything about 16.7 million colors is useless. Well, if you read the research, the way they do it, is that they take a subject, and show them a color square.. lets say blue. And ask, what color is it? Then they show the next color square which is 1 shade of the previous color, and ask, what color is it? Then they put them side by side, and ask teh subject if they are the same... and they go on like this. And then with lots of assumptions and iffy math, they come with the result that the human eye can see less than 16 million colors.

Well here are the facts:

1- If you see a 10-bit+ monitor, with 10-bit+ content, you do see a difference. In fact if you display a gradient on your monitor from black to white, it's not perfectly smooth to perfection.

2- You can't identify a color that is 1 shade different from the next one in big colored squared. You just can't.. but you can see it and notice it on a big picture

3- Lots of assumption was done.

4- The printer that printed these colors might not have the capacity to differentiate the different colors.

and there was other problems with the research which I don't recall at the moment.

We are lucky to have very sharp eyes, that I believe, can identify trillions of colors and kick ass brain to process all.

When I had a CRT monitor, I could go between 60Hz to 200Hz refresh rate (it was a high end consumer grade monitor). People said back in the days that anyting at 75Hz or above you dont' see flickering. I am sorry, you see flickering big time. And between 120Hz and 200Hz there was a difference. 120Hz was really nice, it lefts like looking an LCD screen. But at 200Hz... it felt I am looking at a peace of paper, and that was on a static image. I could not identify the flickering, but you definitely felt something strange, Now I could not leave it at 200Hz, as my resolution would require to be 640x480 to achieve such refresh rate, but none the less, interesting result.

I beleive that the human eye is really fast, but our brain does lots of processing to make sense out of it all and show a continuous smooth image. Maybe that is why we fall with optical illusions.

[glewin7]

Let's face fact here, neither a 2560x1440 or a 120hz monitor are budget options. Although they are becoming cheaper (as technology always has) they are still fairly pricey for the average consumer. The shear fact of the matter is that the larger resolution is going to have a higher level of detail, hands down. We are looking at PC monitors afterall, and you aren't going to be more than 3 feet from your display, so detail matters. As with every piece of tech ever, it comes down to the individuals usage. It is my personal opinion as someone who absolutely fiends FPS games, and also has a competitive nature combined with a lust for Battlefield 3, that 120hz is well worth the money. Some people say that you can't see over 60fps, and that may well be true. Let's say for arguements sake that you can't see past 60fps, being capped at 60hz has negative side effects reguardless of weither your eyes see 120 frams per second. You see, without v-sync you have to deal with screen tearing, and with v-sync (even adaptive v-sync) you have to deal with fps drops in intense scenarios. Running at 120hz therefore gives your GPU configuration room to breath if it is capable of running over 60 frames per second in your favorite games. However I can also see where having a higher quality panel comes into play, because I personally think that some of the high refresh rate TN panels out there look like absolute garbage. For those of us who want to come out of that firefight on top, a higher quality image is just not as important. If you find yourself looking at your monitor and wishing it was bigger, wishing it had more detail, save your cash and get an HD+ screen. There are tons of options and reviews (this is the LTT forum afterall) that will help you make an educated decision. If you feel that you just aren't getting the responsiveness you should be in competitive games like Battlefield 3 (120hz actually makes all experiences smoother and more responsive) then go for a monitor with a higher refresh rate. One thing you always have to keep in mind is, depending on the application of these displays you are in all likeliness going to need quite a powerful system, my gtx 670 runs bf3 over 60 fps, but only has 2gb of VRAM, so in order to play games on a 2560x1400 monitor I would probably need a second card or atleast one with a larger amount of memory. Hopefully this post lends some form of clarity, or at the very least didn't just confuse everyone...

[BCMods]

2560x1440, because you see in 30fps and can only see about 60fps, so there is simply no point in more than a 60hz monitor, also higher resolutions = better pictures and better video quality. I would also prefer a game to run at 60fps at a higher resolution and higher settings, then for it to run at 120fps on low resolution with low settings.

You are so wrong it's not even funny -_-

[Huntsman]

it all depends on what you do with your monitor. if you're like me who plays twitch reaction fps games then a 120Hz monitor would benefit me greatly. i wouldn't mind getting a crappy color or low resolution as i game on 800x600 and i sure don't care how many shades off the color of my enemy's armor is. also i sure won't complain if a sphere isn't perfectly rounded and has jagged edges. to gamers who plays fast paced fps like me, we only care about how fast an action out there in the game is presented to us. at 60Hz, i can spot how the opponent just corner warps from cover and that is bad since that puts you at a disadvantage in firefights. not to mention the motion blur which is immensely annoying.

moving on to 75Hz the difference is not very significant but it is useful at times. corner warps are less obvious but still noticeable and motion blur pretty much the same. this is where i am now.

next stop is the 120Hz monitor. i do not own one but i've tried it on a rich friend's rig(they're so expensive at where i live). it is clear as day that it is far superior if you prefer performance instead of pretty colors. but to get the best out of this you must have a rig that could get your fps to about 120 else it is a complete waste of money. haven't tried 144Hz monitors, pretty sure it would perform slightly better than 120.

dont get me wrong, high resolution is great for gaming too. the objects in game will look more crisp and details are more noticeable, allowing you to enjoy great quality games. so it all comes back to what you're using the monitor for. twitch fast paced games or just LoL which, no offence, but doesn't need that kinda of response time.

[bennyino]

if my card could run it i would prefer 2560x1440 partly because im pretty sure im one of the 5-10% of people that can't really distiguish refresh rates over 24hz, at least i can't notice the difference from 30 to 60 fps and i can't test a 120hz monitor or one of those 200hz tv's or 600hz tv's

[GoodBytes]

These 200Hz+ TV's is just the back light refresh rate (how fast the back light flickers). The panel is still 60Hz. Flickering the back light faster is a cheap trick to show smoother a image (it also have higher input lag, as it takes the current frame and the next one and merges between the 2, and gives this strange transition between the 2 frames). It's a B.S feature, most disables it.

[bennyino]

i heard it wasn't true 200hz or more but i think there are a couple of actual 240hz tv's