New monitor.

**HeavyG** · 05-21-13, 10:34 AM

I agree with Kibner.

**Guyver** · 05-21-13, 08:56 PM

Originally Posted by Kaido

Yeah I know what IPS is and the benefits of it, but I wasn't sure if you wanted a monitor that you're gonna be gaming on a lot (FPS games) etc or not. Still don't know what the main use is going to be but if its gaming, you might want too look into why refresh rate and response time > IPS for gaming.

You can certainly use that IPS monitor for gaming.

**Kaido** · 05-21-13, 11:07 PM

Sure you can, just like you can use a TN 60hz to game or watch movies. I don't watch movies on my desktop, so I'd get 120hz or higher even if it is TN. Reason behind this is because if my pc is capable of getting over 120fps, why gimp myself and use a monitor that can not keep up and display those frames. Anyways I myself am on a TN 60hz atm, that ASUS 144hz is on my wishlist and hope to get it soon.

**HeavyG** · 05-22-13, 06:30 AM

Originally Posted by Kaido

Sure you can, just like you can use a TN 60hz to game or watch movies. I don't watch movies on my desktop, so I'd get 120hz or higher even if it is TN. Reason behind this is because if my pc is capable of getting over 120fps, why gimp myself and use a monitor that can not keep up and display those frames. Anyways I myself am on a TN 60hz atm, that ASUS 144hz is on my wishlist and hope to get it soon.

This is one of those debates that has been going on for ages. Some people swear by 120Hz to eliminate frames not being displayed and screen tearing. Others want the superior image quality that an IPS panel offers.

If I was a pro gamer, I would probably go with the 120Hz monitor, which knowingly would sacrifice performance. Since I am not, and I want the absolute best looking display I can get, I run IPS. Most of my games don't run at 120 FPS anyways, so this is fine (I typically run 90-100 in most modern titles, with more demanding titles around 60 FPS... such as Crysis 3 and Far Cry 3).

If you want a higher res monitor, it will be an IPS, which will look better, but will require more horsepower from a GPU standpoint. That being said, even the lower res 1920x1080 and 1900x1200 IPS panels are often desirable if you are doing things other than gaming with your screen.

Because most gamers run at 1080p resolution, 120 FPS is easy to reach, even with the most modest of hardware on the latest and most demanding titles. Personally, I will never go back to 1080p after using a 1440p monitor.

**Allane** · 05-24-13, 07:51 AM

For the record, my monitor is the VS229H-P. I played 6 or 7 rounds of Battlefield 3 last night, and I actually played better than I normally do. Despite being insanely bright, this monitor puts out some really good blacks (ie. having trouble seeing people in shadows). The color balance is really good, and the gamma coming out of the box is almost perfect.

As for input lag, Newegg lists a response time of 5ms on Gray-to-Gray, meaning that the response time is much higher for colors, but it was still lower than the time it takes to draw a single frame at 60fps, so I didn't notice any input lag while playing Battlefield 3, even when making rapid movements and snap shots.

Technically the monitor uses an e-IPS display, which is supposed to have none of the great features of the higher quality IPS panels, but so far this one blows my old LED Backlit TN out of the water while still being very suitable for a high intensity game like Battlefield 3. I think Guyver would like the 23" version for ANY purpose he has, if he hasn't already received it.

**Guyver** · 05-24-13, 06:50 PM

Originally Posted by Allane

For the record, my monitor is the VS229H-P. I played 6 or 7 rounds of Battlefield 3 last night, and I actually played better than I normally do. Despite being insanely bright, this monitor puts out some really good blacks (ie. having trouble seeing people in shadows). The color balance is really good, and the gamma coming out of the box is almost perfect.

As for input lag, Newegg lists a response time of 5ms on Gray-to-Gray, meaning that the response time is much higher for colors, but it was still lower than the time it takes to draw a single frame at 60fps, so I didn't notice any input lag while playing Battlefield 3, even when making rapid movements and snap shots.

Technically the monitor uses an e-IPS display, which is supposed to have none of the great features of the higher quality IPS panels, but so far this one blows my old LED Backlit TN out of the water while still being very suitable for a high intensity game like Battlefield 3. I think Guyver would like the 23" version for ANY purpose he has, if he hasn't already received it.

I've got it, just haven't set it up yet. This weekend, hopefully.

**kibner** · 05-25-13, 07:30 AM

Just an fyi, but input lag is not the same thing as response time. Response time measures how long it takes a pixel to completely change colors. Companies usually state their response times in terms of how long it takes one shade of gray to change to another shade of gray (gray-to-gray).

Input lag is generally not advertised by companies. It marks how long it takes a monitor to start changing pixels once it receives an image from a video source. One way that I have seen people on other boards test it is by hooking up a video card to two monitors: one a CRT (which has 0 input lag) and the other the LCD they are testing. A stop watch app is run on both monitors and pictures are taken. The pictures are used to compare the times on bot monitors. If there is 0 input lag on the LCD, then the monitors will show the same time on the stopwatch app. The difference in the times is a rough estimate of input lag.

This may not be a problem nowadays, but it was a big deal when I picked up my Doublesight 27N (I think that's the model) about five years ago. This monitor was one of the first IPS panels to have a really low input lag: 16 ms which worked out to slightly less than a frame at 60 fps. Again, this stat is usually not advertised and you have to go to forums to find out. HardOCP forums usually have this information in their user review threads, though it isn't something I have had to look up lately; I'm still using that Doublesight monitor as it still has the best picture of any that I have seen in person.

Sent from my DROID3 using Tapatalk 2

**deathgodusmc** · 05-25-13, 07:47 AM

Originally Posted by Kanati8869

I've been running the same Dell 24" for the last... I'm kinda guessing... 7 and a half to 8 years. Perfectly happy with it. Except that it is only 1920x1200.

I run duals 24's. One is a dell with the same rate and the other is an aoc in the same rate. I have to admit the aoc is the better picture of the two. The colors are more vivid.

The part i like is i dont pay full price for monitors. When they go clearance or the displays are being sold at my wifes work i get a call on whats available. Its been a while but i believe i paid 80 a piece for these two. The best deal i get is on the chairs. They had 3 people order $400 high back chairs and all of them came in missing pieces from the manufacture. When that happens they throw them away but seeing as i do shit for their store like fix flooring issues or scrap out their metal they just give me the chairs. So now i have 2 really nice chairs.