![[H]ard|Forum](/styles/hardforum/xenforo/logo_dark.png){kind=logo}
120Hz LCD Info Thread
- Thread starter JayteeBates
- Start date
Does anyone know where to buy the Asus VG236H WITHOUT the 3d Glasses kit?
I was reading the review on Anandtech and it's supposed to be ~$360 without the kit. However, the only stores I can find only are selling the monitor with the kit for ~$500.
I was reading the review on Anandtech and it's supposed to be ~$360 without the kit. However, the only stores I can find only are selling the monitor with the kit for ~$500.
NKDietrich
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- Jul 25, 2004
- Messages
- 5,442
I haven't seen it anywhere either, and it pisses me off. I want three of them, with no kits, or maybe one. So instead of selling me three, they'll sell zero, because I will have to go with another model.
addictedto60fps
[H]ard|Gawd
- Joined
- Mar 31, 2010
- Messages
- 1,329
Yup, freaking lame indeed. I want to get their monitor just for gaming, but I don't want the 3d glasses. I just want the monitor itself, so that's another lost sale for them.
addictedto60fps
[H]ard|Gawd
- Joined
- Mar 31, 2010
- Messages
- 1,329
Yeah, Asus has the monitor with no 3d glasses, but I don't think you can buy that anywhere. Do you know where you can buy that specific model?
Besides the Asus VG236H review on FlatpanelsHD they have also released a Asus VG236H vs. LG W2363D comparison:
Asus VG236H vs. LG W2363D
Asus VG236H vs. LG W2363D
SixtyWattMan
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- Aug 4, 2008
- Messages
- 4,466
Indeed. I might have jumped on the ASUS but I found a much better deal on a U2410 instead here on the forum. Too bad ASUS.
cannondale06
[H]F Junkie
- Joined
- Nov 27, 2007
- Messages
- 16,180
the VG236H looks nice but the damn thing is super glossy. grrr. I cant stand a reflective screen like that. hell even the frame is very glossy so that means reflections galore. the screen will also reflect on the inside edges of the frame which is pretty annoying. why in the hell cant somebody make a gaming monitor with a completely non glossy screen and frame???
NKDietrich
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- Jul 25, 2004
- Messages
- 5,442
More choice in 120Hz monitors would be nice...
I always thought that the difference between TN panels and IPS was not as great as people where saying it was. Until I put 120Hz TN panels next to my 30" IPS display. Man what a difference. Granted, the 120Hz is super smooth in Windows, but the colors, contrast, and black levels are garbage compared to IPS.
Then I realized that with a three screen nVidia surround setup with 7 to 12 million pixels to process, there was no way I was going to get any game to 60 FPS let alone 120 FPS, even with 3-4x SLI 480's. Not to mention I've tried nVidia 3d; and while it was cool for a bit it's not something I'd use very often. 3d has very limited "hardcore" gaming use.
Given that 120Hz LCD's are all TN (with all of TN's pitfalls) and use the horrible 16:9 aspect ratio (besides the super small 1680x1050 screens), I've pretty much given up on 120Hz LCD. If 120Hz ever comes to 16:10 in a IPS panel, I'll surely be back.
PS. Even though my main setup will be 3x 30" IPS for nVidia Surround, I will keep a single 22" 120Hz LCD for "serious" FPS type gaming and a fourth monitor for running 4x EvE clients.
Then I realized that with a three screen nVidia surround setup with 7 to 12 million pixels to process, there was no way I was going to get any game to 60 FPS let alone 120 FPS, even with 3-4x SLI 480's. Not to mention I've tried nVidia 3d; and while it was cool for a bit it's not something I'd use very often. 3d has very limited "hardcore" gaming use.
Given that 120Hz LCD's are all TN (with all of TN's pitfalls) and use the horrible 16:9 aspect ratio (besides the super small 1680x1050 screens), I've pretty much given up on 120Hz LCD. If 120Hz ever comes to 16:10 in a IPS panel, I'll surely be back.
PS. Even though my main setup will be 3x 30" IPS for nVidia Surround, I will keep a single 22" 120Hz LCD for "serious" FPS type gaming and a fourth monitor for running 4x EvE clients.
Rambler358
n00b
- Joined
- Jul 9, 2010
- Messages
- 40
As long as your CPU speed is not bottle-necking the GPUs, you should indeed be able to get 60 FPS with most games in 3D Vision Surround. Perhaps not with DX11 and very high settings though.
I guess we'll agree to disagree here. I'm hooked on 3D gaming, and everyone I've shown it to wants it! Yes, it does require a pretty good investment in hardware, but IMHO it's worth it!
Been re-thinking the whole 120hz thing and am now leaning towards getting one for gaming, and would consider the Asus but the fact it's glossy just kills it for me.
Typing this from my work 27 inch iMac and I can see my entire face, striped sweatshirt, and individual eyebrows in my reflection. I despise glossy, reflective screens.
Is the LG panel matte? Been reading reviews but can't seem to get confirmation. Also be nice to have a real release date.
Typing this from my work 27 inch iMac and I can see my entire face, striped sweatshirt, and individual eyebrows in my reflection. I despise glossy, reflective screens.
Is the LG panel matte? Been reading reviews but can't seem to get confirmation. Also be nice to have a real release date.
As long as your CPU speed is not bottle-necking the GPUs, you should indeed be able to get 60 FPS with most games in 3D Vision Surround. Perhaps not with DX11 and very high settings though.
I guess we'll agree to disagree here. I'm hooked on 3D gaming, and everyone I've shown it to wants it! Yes, it does require a pretty good investment in hardware, but IMHO it's worth it!
Do you know how hard it is on GPU's to drive 12 Mega Pixels even with tri-480's? It's virtually impossible to get 60 FPS at 7680x1600 (3x 30" monitors) with decent graphical setting. Just to give you a perspective, that pixel fill rate is relatively the same as driving over 6 - 1920x1080 HD LCD's. A lot of people can't even get 60 FPS in a lot of games on one 30" LCD, let alone three.
Don't get me wrong, I really did like the 3D effect. It was definitely cool to play around with for a few days but the detractors for me just overcame the coolness factor. The dark room, the dark LCD view through the glasses, the shuttering effect, tons of games having depth item issues such as cursors not lining up on the object to be clicked, ghost images, etc etc, etc. If you ever do any higher level of play online, you will ALWAYS be at a disadvantage to people playing on 2D screens.
I concur, gloss on a screen is for mad-men. I would like to view the image and not my face, lights and the room behind me.
Rambler358
n00b
- Joined
- Jul 9, 2010
- Messages
- 40
Sorry, I was referring to three 1920x1080 120Hz displays for 3D gaming. Yeah, surround with three 30" monitors would not be fun.
rogercomley
n00b
- Joined
- Jan 13, 2010
- Messages
- 37
There is also a new BenQ 120Hz model coming. Search the internetz. SpawN and HeatoN made it, CS players. Lame.
Michaelius
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- Sep 8, 2003
- Messages
- 4,684
That's a good news. Benq displays are usually good for gamers.
But just wondering if you have 120 Hz display how important is it to get 60+ fps in games ? Could i push for example Borderlands into 100-120 fps on GTX 470 ?
But just wondering if you have 120 Hz display how important is it to get 60+ fps in games ? Could i push for example Borderlands into 100-120 fps on GTX 470 ?
Pretty sure that's the whole point. If your video card(s) can't get you more than 60fps, the advantage of 120hz monitors is pretty much lost as far as gaming is concerned.
I suppose Peggle and Plants VS Zombies and the move-windows-around-really-fast-game would still benefit from 120hz monitors, but unless you can consistently drive more than 60fps you might as well get a 60hz monitor.
I'm pretty much resigned to upgrading my GTX 285 when I finally find a zero-input-lag, non-glossy, 24-inch+ 120hz monitor.
sadbuttrue
Gawd
- Joined
- Feb 16, 2008
- Messages
- 519
Don't forget that when using triple buffering or standard vsync you need to be outputting far more than 120fps to keep a stable 120fps on screen, due to the extra frames being buffered.
Not quite, you only get half the benefit.
5FPS is still refreshing at 120hz not 5hz, there is a noticeable improvement, regardless of framerate.
I suppose if you want to be super-technical.
A game running at 60fps but refreshing at 120fps is essentially being frame doubled. Like most consumer LCDs do to film and television sources which creates that "soap opera effect." Which to me is heresy, as a hardcore Plasma fan.
The SOE's the reason I have a Plasma in my living room, which runs 24p at 96hz. Looks much better than one of the LED LCDs overdriven to display 24p at 240hz, at least to my eyes. Of course I also still prefer vinyl, so I'm probably an oddball.
I suppose if you want to be super-technical.
A game running at 60fps but refreshing at 120fps is essentially being frame doubled.
Im almost certain thats not how it works.
Frame doubling in LCD TV's causes input lag and can introduce artifacts. There is no soap opera effect. Its real-time smoothness, there is no downside, only ups.
In a true 120hz display, its going to improve your motion perceptibility, increase smoothness, and reduce artifacts even over 60hz displays which already have few to none.
Last edited:
On the first post overview, Is the size specifications of the monitors wrong? Everywhere I search, the following monitors are listed as being 23", not 23.6." Can someone that own these monitors measure them, or should I trust the model number? I don't mind an extra .6" though
Asus VG236H 23.6" 1920x1080 TN
http://www.asus.com/product.aspx?P_ID=RiEoeerrSbelIxh7&content=specifications
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produ...92&cm_re=120hz_monitor-_-24-236-092-_-Product
LG Flatron W2363D 23.6"
http://www.lg.com/uk/it-products/monitors/LG-3d-lcd-monitor-W2363D.jsp
http://www.come.bit2u.lv/en/computer_technology/monitors/lcd_lg/LG_23_W2363D-PF.html
Asus VG236H 23.6" 1920x1080 TN
http://www.asus.com/product.aspx?P_ID=RiEoeerrSbelIxh7&content=specifications
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produ...92&cm_re=120hz_monitor-_-24-236-092-_-Product
LG Flatron W2363D 23.6"
http://www.lg.com/uk/it-products/monitors/LG-3d-lcd-monitor-W2363D.jsp
http://www.come.bit2u.lv/en/computer_technology/monitors/lcd_lg/LG_23_W2363D-PF.html
Rambler358
n00b
- Joined
- Jul 9, 2010
- Messages
- 40
Yeah, that's what she said!I don't mind an extra .6" though
I'd be the first one to buy a 30" 120Hz panel with Display-port 1.2. My only fear is that it would be the god-awe-full 16:9 ratio. Manufacturers need to realize that a lot of people don't buy computer monitor's just to match up the aspect ratio to Blu-ray movies.
Who the heck besides kid's in their room's watch Blu-rays on a computer monitor anyway? Doesn't everyone have their own home theater? If not, work harder.
Who the heck besides kid's in their room's watch Blu-rays on a computer monitor anyway? Doesn't everyone have their own home theater? If not, work harder.
Rambler358
n00b
- Joined
- Jul 9, 2010
- Messages
- 40
Raises hand.
Our family room has the HT in it, but I don't always win when it comes to watching something. In that case, it's the PC for me.
cannondale06
[H]F Junkie
- Joined
- Nov 27, 2007
- Messages
- 16,180
well I watch movies from time to time. I mainly like 16:9 for games though as the little extra width is nice. not to mention, thanks to consoles, games are usually designed with 16:9 being the intended format.I'd be the first one to buy a 30" 120Hz panel with Display-port 1.2. My only fear is that it would be the god-awe-full 16:9 ratio. Manufacturers need to realize that a lot of people don't buy computer monitor's just to match up the aspect ratio to Blu-ray movies.
Who the heck besides kid's in their room's watch Blu-rays on a computer monitor anyway? Doesn't everyone have their own home theater? If not, work harder.
Extra width with 16:9? Surely you jest! 1080P displays are 1920 pixels wide. A 16:10 23-24" series monitor is also 1920 pixels wide. There is no width lost there. The 16:10 monitor also gives a much better vertical space for web pages, gaming, everything.
If your playing 16:9 content on a 16:10 screen, you literally lose only like 1/3rd of an inch horizontal dimension on a 24" sized screen taking into account the top and bottom black bars you would have.
Personally, I'd take the black bars top and bottom with a marginally smaller picture for Blu-ray and have all of the extra vertical real estate there for when you need it for everything else. You lose pixels on a 16:9 display versus 16:10 no matter how you look at it. Less pixels, less resolution, a lesser view of the game "world".
cannondale06
[H]F Junkie
- Joined
- Nov 27, 2007
- Messages
- 16,180
please not this crap again. 16:9 is slightly WIDER for games than 16:10. for desktop use sure the 16:10 is better.
and playing games in 16:9 on a 16:10 does not always work properly. sure with movies you get black bars but some games don't do that. they sometimes just fill the screen but give a slightly distorted view.
One thing I forgot to mention about the current 120Hz displays: They all have not insignificant input lag. Only the future release of LG's W2363D with thru-mode will give a 120Hz panel with no input lag. Something to consider as all is not rosy on the 120Hz front.
16:9 is slightly wider for games then 16:10 when they are both 1920 pixels wide? Let's take a look:
16:9 1920x1080 on 24" LCD:
16:10 1920x1200 on 24" LCD:
Call me crazy but there is nothing "wider" about the 16:9 image. It just clearly shows all of the vertical information you are lacking in the game world.
cannondale06
[H]F Junkie
- Joined
- Nov 27, 2007
- Messages
- 16,180
I guess you are trying to run 16:9 on a 16:10 screen which I already told you doesn't always work. or that could be the rare game that doesnt properly support widesreen. MOST modern games are Hor+ which simply means they add more to the sides with wider aspect ratios.
I guess you are trying to run 16:9 on a 16:10 screen which I already told you doesn't always work. or that could be the rare game that doesnt properly support widesreen. MOST modern games are Hor+ which simply means they add more to the sides with wider aspect ratios.
It appears the answer is based off of what games you play. I play mostly flight simulators which appear to be Vert- .
So since it depends on the game(s) you play. Let me ask you this: If you where to do Eyefinity/nVidia Surround, would you rather have 3x 16:10 LCD"s or 3x 16:9? Since the "width" of the display would have diminishing returns after a certain width point even with Hor+ games, 16:10 would be the clear winner wouldn't it? So 16:9 in effect, is a detractor for ultra wide-screen gaming.
Another point that you conveniently left out or haven't thought about is that if the in-game image vertically is the same size between a 16:10 and 16:9 screen, then you could clearly deduce that you would have yes a wider view, but more zoomed out view of the game world with less detail given the same size-class monitors. You can't simply eliminate pixels and have it not detract from another aspect of the image.
Your StarCraft 2.gif is misleading, it doesn't portray the zoomed out effect and loss of detail in the 16:9 image.
I just tested SC2 on my 24" 1080P vs my 24" 16:10. Compared them on my 2560x1600 LCD.
16:9:
16:10:
So while in a game like SC2, you get a "wider" field of view, it also zooms out the screen and you lose detail in the vertical. In the screen shots above you can clearly see that the command center in the 16:10 is larger and more detailed than the one in the 16:9 screenshot. Like I said before, you cannot cut 10% of your screen's pixels and not have the image negatively altered in a different way when you get such a wide field of view.
Granted, this is not much of a problem in a game like SC2, but in a lot of games with more detail it could be an issue. So, if you do play only Hor+ games on a single monitor, I do agree with you that 1080P might offer a gameplay advantage. But when you move up to 3x screens, 16:10 would be the clear winner as when you go extremely wide, you have greatly increased diminishing returns and Hor+ basically becomes use-less. BTW there is a multi-screen; ahh-hem "mod" out for SC2.
cannondale06
[H]F Junkie
- Joined
- Nov 27, 2007
- Messages
- 16,180
there should be ZERO negative effect on a hor+ game when going to 16:9 over 16:10. there is no zoom effect or loss of detail on hor+ games at all. 16:9 does nothing but add a little more viewing width on hor+ games. and again nearly all games made in the last few years are hor+.It appears the answer is based off of what games you play. I play mostly flight simulators which appear to be Vert- .
So since it depends on the game(s) you play. Let me ask you this: If you where to do Eyefinity/nVidia Surround, would you rather have 3x 16:10 LCD"s or 3x 16:9? Since the "width" of the display would have diminishing returns after a certain width point even with Hor+ games, 16:10 would be the clear winner wouldn't it? So 16:9 in effect, is a detractor for ultra wide-screen gaming.
Another point that you conveniently left out or haven't thought about is that if the in-game image vertically is the same size between a 16:10 and 16:9 screen, then you could clearly deduce that you would have yes a wider view, but more zoomed out view of the game world with less detail given the same size-class monitors. You can't simply eliminate pixels and have it not detract from another aspect of the image.
Your StarCraft 2.gif is misleading, it doesn't portray the zoomed out effect and loss of detail in the 16:9 image.
I just tested SC2 on my 24" 1080P vs my 24" 16:10. Compared them on my 2560x1600 LCD.
16:9:
http://i119.photobucket.com/albums/o139/callsign_vega/Screenshot2010-08-2519_33_39.jpg?t=1282786988
16:10:
http://i119.photobucket.com/albums/o139/callsign_vega/Screenshot2010-08-2519_33_10.jpg
So while in a game like SC2, you get a "wider" field of view, it also zooms out the screen and you lose detail in the vertical. In the screen shots above you can clearly see that the command center in the 16:10 is larger and more detailed than the one in the 16:9 screenshot. Like I said before, you cannot cut 10% of your screen's pixels and not have the image negatively altered in a different way when you get such a wide field of view.
Granted, this is not much of a problem in a game like SC2, but in a lot of games with more detail it could be an issue. So, if you do play only Hor+ games on a single monitor, I do agree with you that 1080P might offer a gameplay advantage. But when you move up to 3x screens, 16:10 would be the clear winner as when you go extremely wide, you have greatly increased diminishing returns and Hor+ basically becomes use-less. BTW there is a multi-screen; ahh-hem "mod" out for SC2.
I guess what I am trying to convey is going over your head. You are saying that you can get a wider field of view in game (a LARGER image), with the same zoom settings, with 10% less pixels (less screen surface area). I take it you didn't do too well in physics class? This concept is rudimentary.
cannondale06
[H]F Junkie
- Joined
- Nov 27, 2007
- Messages
- 16,180
well I got an A in physics but thanks for the smartass remark. the number of pixels doesn't mean a damn thing because its the aspect ratio that is the issue here. 1280x720 and 1920x1080 will both have the exact same view within a game. sure the 1280x720 will be less crisp but again what you see on the screen will the same. nothing is lost going from 1920x1200 to 1920x1080 in hor+ games and in fact only change is that slightly more info is added to the sides with 1920x1080. there is NO loss of detail or zoomed effect when going from 16:10 to 16:9 in a hor+ game.
Last edited: