Head-Fi.org › Forums › Misc.-Category Forums › Video Games Discussion › Best gaming Displays?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Best gaming Displays? - Page 2

post #16 of 37

I need to demo one of these, I didn't realize they reduced so much motion blur. :O

post #17 of 37
It should be noted that it is probably the best looking 144Hz monitor while the VG248QE is theoretically the best performing (although I haven't tried it yet)
Edited by Dave Zember - 10/24/14 at 1:36pm
post #18 of 37

Dell u2312hm.

 

Very good colours, good blacks, very fast response times, aspect ratio options in osd and fantastic viewig angles. It is an ips panel after all.

+ downsampling works on it like a charm

post #19 of 37

120hz is something worth looking at.

 

Recently I bought an Eizo Foris FS2333 and very content with it. Had been struggling with an Asus PA238Q and Iiyama ProLite B2280WSD-B1. Asus had terrible bleed and the Iiyama's colours just weren't right. The Eizo does great straight out the box. Only real drawback is the limited height adjustment. A lot of money for a display but worth it.


Edited by moriez - 7/7/13 at 3:01am
post #20 of 37
Eizo make great displays. But if it's not a Lightboost display, you are at a disadvantage. Lightboost is a significant improvement over any other LCD when it comes to motion handling.
post #21 of 37
I really love the Samsung Syncmaster series.
Exceptional picture quality, full RGB, deep whites and blacks.
Just marvelous to game and work with
post #22 of 37

Alphascan AOC series for me.

Whatever monitor I get it has to be an IPS display.

post #23 of 37

Yamakasi Catleap 2B. 27", IPS, 2560x1440 resolution, 120+ Hz refresh rate. Only downside is the absolutely massive amount of GPU power/VRAM it takes to hit 120FPS@1440p. We're talking dual 670s or a 780 for BF3, and that's with AA turned down. Definitely a future-proof monitor though.

Barring that, get something with LightBoost. Too bad the only ones I've found are 1080p...

post #24 of 37

Lot of people are switching from "TN" to "IPS"

The dell s2240l is a very good IPS for the money.

If you want 1440/1600's go for Shimian's or Catleap's :D

 

If you want the pure refresh rates , then this one is hard to beat - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U02a4Z1-htI


Edited by MrTechAgent - 7/20/13 at 6:13am
post #25 of 37
Right now you have to compromise. Either you get an IPS panel with poor motion handling and good color, or a Lightboost (TN) panel with the best motion of any display you can buy.
Lightboost is limited to PC gaming though. The best alternative is one of the new Sony LCD TVs with its "Impulse" mode.
post #26 of 37
Thread Starter 

Thanks for all the recommendation guys. Last week a friend told me i can use his BenQ display, since he upgraded to another one. Quality is pretty fair, i think i can live with it until i can afford an expensive one. 

 

I have a small list of favorites. 

post #27 of 37

I have the XL2720T.  I love 27" / 120Hz for BF3 (had to upgrade to a 6-core Intel to maintain 100+ fps).  For anything other than gaming, the monitor is absolutely horrible.  For example, I'm on a 27" iMac for work and it destroys the BenQ in every way EXCEPT for gaming.

post #28 of 37
Quote:
Originally Posted by ethan7000 View Post

I have the XL2720T.  I love 27" / 120Hz for BF3 (had to upgrade to a 6-core Intel to maintain 100+ fps).  For anything other than gaming, the monitor is absolutely horrible.  For example, I'm on a 27" iMac for work and it destroys the BenQ in every way EXCEPT for gaming.

 

Why would you need 100+ fps? 60+ is fine IMO. YMMV of course but just wondering.

post #29 of 37
Quote:
Originally Posted by ethan7000 View Post

I have the XL2720T.  I love 27" / 120Hz for BF3 (had to upgrade to a 6-core Intel to maintain 100+ fps).  For anything other than gaming, the monitor is absolutely horrible.  For example, I'm on a 27" iMac for work and it destroys the BenQ in every way EXCEPT for gaming.

What , I have 2011 - 3930k myself and there are only a handful of games which support more than quad core.
A iMac is having a 2560*1440 display it obviously is better for productivity.
Now I just think you are a troll smily_headphones1.gif
Edited by MrTechAgent - 7/29/13 at 7:44am
post #30 of 37
Quote:
Originally Posted by MrTechAgent View Post


What , I have 2011 - 3930k myself and there are only a handful of games which support more than quad core.
A iMac is having a 2560*1440 display it obviously is better for productivity.
Now I just think you are a troll smily_headphones1.gif

I went from a 2600K to the 3930K.  64-player multiplayer BF3 went from 60fps minimums to 100fps minimums.  Definitely not trolling, read this: http://chipreviews.com/main-feature/main-news/frostbite-2s-limit-6-core-performance-in-battlefield-3/5/

 

 

Also, I absolutely agree with you about the iMac, that's what I said as well.  It destroys the BenQ in every way except gaming.

Quote:
Originally Posted by conquerator2 View Post

 

Why would you need 100+ fps? 60+ is fine IMO. YMMV of course but just wondering.

Nobody needs 100+ fps, it's just a lot smoother and I prefer it.  Plus you don't get the lightboost benefit under 100fps.


Edited by ethan7000 - 7/29/13 at 8:51am
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Video Games Discussion
Head-Fi.org › Forums › Misc.-Category Forums › Video Games Discussion › Best gaming Displays?