Say hello to my new monitor (well soon)

B

bhavv

Glorious World Dictator
Joined
Jun 13, 2006
Messages
7,358
I've been searching for a new monitor for ages to replace my ancient Acer G24 (1200p, 60 hz).

The rules were that I wouldnt accept a lower resolution (no 1080p allowed), and I wanted 120 hz.

Finally my dreams were answered and I ordered this:

http://www.overclockers.co.uk/showproduct.php?prodid=MO-070-AS

Hurry up and get on my desk! Just dont let me see my bank balance again for the rest of the year QQ.
 
^Looks great, of course, but at 720 pounds you can rent a decent studio flat in Bayswater (central London), for a month. So it is a bit out of reach from most people these days, monitor-wise... :)

Pretty sure a relatively good new computer here will not cost 720 pounds, but very considerably less..
 
I had some savings. Wait, where did they just go??? :(
 
144 GHz is pretty impressive. That's quite a bit more than the 85 Hz the old CRTs tended to max out near. 3D must be contributing to the price as well. Although I'm somewhat sad that it's 16:9 instead of 16:10 like your old one. As a vertical pixel fan, 16:10 was one of my requirements when I bought my (much less expensive) monitor. Hopefully the old 1200p monitor finds a good new home as well!

I am curious if you'll be able to tell a difference between 60 Hz and 144 Hz. I can tell a difference between 30 FPS average and 40 FPS average, as well as 40 FPS average and 60 FPS average, but I'm not sure I could tell a difference beyond that. Even then, it's only certain types of games that I can tell a difference on easily. Civ4, I don't really mind if it's 20 FPS if the turn times are fast. Racing games, that 40 FPS to 60 FPS jump is significant. So I'm curious if racing games and other similar fast-action ones will indeed prove better than ever before for you with this monitor.
 
Oh I'll keep the 16:10 Acer G24 as my second monitor. That one cost £350 and wouldn't even be worth £100 second hand. Then I'll put my ancient current second monitor back in its box (19" Sony x black, also £350 when I got it).

Basically I've always bought the highest end gaming monitors each time, and they last for ages.

I also don't like 16:9, but there's never going to be a 2560x1600 monitor with these kind of specs and its still much much better than my current one.
 
The Asus is probably a bit of a compromise on the desktop being TN rather than IPS, but looks like pretty much the best gaming monitor available.

Quintillus said:
144 GHz is pretty impressive. That's quite a bit more than the 85 Hz the old CRTs tended to max out near. 3D must be contributing to the price as well. Although I'm somewhat sad that it's 16:9 instead of 16:10 like your old one. As a vertical pixel fan, 16:10 was one of my requirements when I bought my (much less expensive) monitor. Hopefully the old 1200p monitor finds a good new home as well!
Click to expand...

I didn't much like 16:9 either, but at 27" 1440p it's much, much better than at smaller sizes/resolutions, to the point where my next monitor purchase will probably be a 27" 16:9 4K monitor after over a decade of 24" 16:10 monitors. (And I actually just purchased another of Dell's 1200p monitors for my mom.)

Quintillus said:
I am curious if you'll be able to tell a difference between 60 Hz and 144 Hz. I can tell a difference between 30 FPS average and 40 FPS average, as well as 40 FPS average and 60 FPS average, but I'm not sure I could tell a difference beyond that. Even then, it's only certain types of games that I can tell a difference on easily. Civ4, I don't really mind if it's 20 FPS if the turn times are fast. Racing games, that 40 FPS to 60 FPS jump is significant. So I'm curious if racing games and other similar fast-action ones will indeed prove better than ever before for you with this monitor.
Click to expand...

It's not purely an FPS thing, you also get better matching of video card frames with monitor frames. It also includes G-Sync (though you actually get diminishing returns with G-Sync with higher refresh frame rates), Anandtech explains it pretty well: http://www.anandtech.com/show/7582/nvidia-gsync-review/3

In pathological cases the impact can be shocking, particularly if you’re coming from a 60Hz panel today (with or without v-sync). The smoothness afforded by G-Sync is just awesome. I didn’t even realize how much of the v-sync related stutter I had simply come to accept. I’d frequently find a scene that stuttered a lot with v-sync enabled and approach it fully expecting G-Sync to somehow fail at smoothing things out this time. I always came away impressed. G-Sync also lowered my minimum frame rate requirement to not be distracted by stuttering.
Click to expand...
 
G sync would be seriously wasted on only 60 Hz refresh rate. It breaks the barrier of V sync, and eliminates micro stutter / frame lag entirely. You will see much better and smoother performance at lower FPS, and get 100% of your GPUs display on the monitor.

If my system is running a game at over 60 FPS, it surely would be nice to actually have that performance display on the screen, plus you can also use 3D vision with it.

Its also the latest tech TN panel, full 8 bit while cheaper IPS monitors are actually 6 bit, that also drives the cost up a lot.

You cant really get gaming specs like these on IPS, and probably wont ever be able to, and I don't think there's any IPS monitors with G sync either.
 
If you can maintain 144 FPS. I want to try 3D, but the glasses are sold separately.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom