I've always yearned for a monitor with a significantly higher refresh frequency than what's been the standard for what seems like forever. Came across a few 22" models with 120hz, namely from Samsung and Viewsonic. What's up with the 3D glasses though? Does the monitor have some special display mode that let's you play games in 3D? Do these LCD's perform significantly better even without the glasses?
PS2Fish wrote:I've always yearned for a monitor with a significantly higher refresh frequency than what's been the standard for what seems like forever. Came across a few 22" models with 120hz, namely from Samsung and Viewsonic. What's up with the 3D glasses though? Does the monitor have some special display mode that let's you play games in 3D? Do these LCD's perform significantly better even without the glasses?
No, the glasses are for another NVIDIA gimmick called "3D Vision" or some-such. As the name implies, you can see and do things in "3D." I've never tried it out but I've heard it's considerably better than the shit that's still being used from 50 years ago and actually adds a much greater level of immersion in certain games. It only works with 120Hz LCDs or 100Hz CRTs. But if you don't have an NVIDIA graphics card + drivers + special glasses you can still use the monitor sans 3D.
PS2Fish wrote:I got ya. No real interest inthe whole 3D thing anyway. The 120hz is hard to sneer at though. I don't think mine gets above 75hz. The difference between HDTV's with 60hz and 120hz is like night and day. I can only imagine what it would do for a monitor.
Yeah, I have an LCD that plays at 60 Hz and an HDTV LCD at 100 Hz and the difference is amazing.
The local Frys had an NVidia demo booth with the 3D glasses. I thought it was pretty cool at first, but I started getting a migrane and feeling weird after about 2 minutes. If I had continued playing, I would have probably been nauseous and/or puking after 30 minutes. It might (emphasis on might) be alright if the monitor were 120hz and the machine were able to maintain very high framerates (60+ minimum).
E8400 | P45 | 8GB CAS4 | HD4850 + VF900 | Samsung 2693HM
Callred wrote:
I've never really paid much attention to the 120Hz units until now. Do any of you own one? Are there any specific ones you'd say to buy? Thanks Cec
Looks like there are only two models available right now; the Samsung 2233RZ and the Viewsonic VX2265wm, both 22". They're a little pricey for 22 inchers, but I'm sure the benefits of the extra refresh are worth it. The few consumer reviews I've read look pretty promising. Apparently, in order for these to give optimum results, you've gotta have a good video card that'll keep your frame rated above 60FPS at all times during gaming, which won't be an issue for most of us. Visual performance peaks at 120FPS to match the refresh rate.
The thing is, I had to look to find these, so they're either the first ones to market and are fairly new or the tech just isn't something of interest to other manufacturers. Also, there's the issue of the 1680 x 1050 resolution, which many like myself may not wanna sacrifice if they using a native 1080p display. I might be willing to give an inch if I get a mile in return, but I wanna read more about them first. Just not sure why 1080p was not the target res for such displays.
Review of the Samsung model with comments
Consumer comments on the Viewsonic model
One Fan To Another wrote:
I want to know where the holy hell the LED LCD monitors are. Samsung had a release statement almost a year ago for an LED backlit LCD monitor but it would seem that, and all others, went no where.
I still have a top quality CRT and it kicks every NT panel LCD monitor I've ever seen's ass in terms of refresh rates (obviously), picture quality, color representation, contrast, etc. It's **bleep**ing sad that after all these years we had to trade in a superior technology (as huge and combersome as it is) for a tech that I obsolutely can't **bleep**ing stand to look at. Even power hungry plasma is better.
So, until these 240hrz, LED backlite LCDs monitors (or those Sony OLG, or whatever they're called, monitors) come out I'm sticking with my CRT.
They're already on the market. Dell's got one, as does Apple, LG, ViewSonic, and Acer. Newegg's got the latter three.
I also held out and stuck with CRTs until early last year. Being able to switch to any resolution is nice, but it also comes with some major drawbacks. The biggest problem is that every CRT (that I know of) uses an analog VGA cable. What good is being able to run "any resolution" if everything 1600x1200 and above looks like absolute horseshit?? I was forced to run 1280x960 on a top-of-the-line 22" CRT because everything above that looked like garbage.
1280x960 analog VGA versus 1920x1200 DVI/HDMI is no comparison. The only thing I miss is the vividness of the colors, but it's not enough to make up for the things I just mentioned. My LED backlit laptop also seems to get some of that vividness back. So yeah, if you've made it this far, I'd make sure to get something LED backlit.
E8400 | P45 | 8GB CAS4 | HD4850 + VF900 | Samsung 2693HM
Werepossum wrote:
Egglick wrote:I also held out and stuck with CRTs until early last year. Being able to switch to any resolution is nice, but it also comes with some major drawbacks. The biggest problem is that every CRT (that I know of) uses an analog VGA cable. What good is being able to run "any resolution" if everything 1600x1200 and above looks like absolute horseshit?? I was forced to run 1280x960 on a top-of-the-line 22" CRT because everything above that looked like garbage.
1280x960 analog VGA versus 1920x1200 DVI/HDMI is no comparison. The only thing I miss is the vividness of the colors, but it's not enough to make up for the things I just mentioned. My LED backlit laptop also seems to get some of that vividness back. So yeah, if you've made it this far, I'd make sure to get something LED backlit.
Oddly I never noticed 1600x1200 looking anything but sharp on my 19" CRT, but on my 19" work LCD I can sure tell the difference between digital and analog at 1280x1024.
The degradation was pretty obvious to me, but I've probably got better eyes than 98% of the population. It's easier to contrast the two on an LCD because you can just switch back and forth. On a CRT there's no DVI for comparison. Higher refresh rates also seem to exasperate the problem. 1600x1200 over analog VGA might be somewhat acceptable if you run it at 60hz, but I'm not comfortable at anything less than 85hz on a CRT.
E8400 | P45 | 8GB CAS4 | HD4850 + VF900 | Samsung 2693HM
