View Single Post
#32
Old 03-22-2013, 05:26 PM
Yottabyte Yottabyte is offline
L5: Journeyman
  • Apr 2011
  • 510
  • 245 Yottabyte has a spectacular aura about
  • 0
Quote from werewasslw View Post :
The thing about these large monitors for gaming is that if you get something with a really high resolution like 2560 and you play your games up close to enjoy the fine details of the increased resolution, the monitor was still be limited to 60 Hz refresh rate which means you will suffer eyestrain when you're up close with such a low refresh rate. This is why really want to see 120 Hz monitors in the size of 30 inches or above come down in price and be more common. People don't realize the difference that 120 Hz and 60 Hz makes not only on the aesthetics of the game graphics, but also the comfortability of the eyes.

So that you will be forced to sit or stand farther away from your monitor, but that eliminates the advantage of getting a high-resolution monitor. In this case you would be fine with a 1366 720 P monitor because you won't be able to tell the differences in pixel density when you are that far away. I'm talking like 5 feet away or father.

So one day I will buy one of these monitors when they are cheaper in price but also when one of these feature a 120 Hz native refresh rate that you can game on without input lag. I'm not talking about the cheap interpellation that's found on TV sets which will give you 120 Hz at the expense of unplayable input lag for gamers.

Oh and not to mention if you're sitting up close then motion blur/ghosting is an issue so if you get an IPS screen the lowest is 5 ms which for me still is not enough compared to the smoothness of plasma, CRT, or 2 ms TN panels.
Sorry but your post is a load of misinformation. 60Hz might have been a problem for eye strain in the age of CRT monitors but this is irrelevant with LCD displays. CRTs literally flickered on and off at their refresh rate but the phosphors in LCDs remain lit constantly; there is no flickering so the refresh rate isn't even a literal term anymore. It's just an expression for how often the image is redrawn so it has nothing to do with eye strain.

120 Hz could make a difference in frames per second but even if you wanted to game at 120 FPS, the hardware needed to do so with any modern game at this resolution would be out of reach for 99.99% of gamers anyway. As for your issues with the 5ms response time; 5ms is so low it's indistinguishable to the human eye. Anyone claiming to see a difference between 5ms and 2ms is either lying or Superman. 60 Hz and 6ms is plenty adequate for this monitor and it should not be a concern of anyone debating a purchase.

Last edited by Yottabyte; 03-22-2013 at 05:29 PM..