User panel stuff on forum
  274 posts on 10 pages  First page12345678910Last page
General Discussion
2013-05-23, 13:18
News Writer
907 posts

Registered:
Jan 2006
Gaming is the primary reason for a monitor upgrade.

Very minor photo viewing and editing is a secondary thing.... 24" or 27" and 1080p are both way better than the 2233 which I am using now...
2013-05-25, 08:17
Member
188 posts

Registered:
Feb 2008
http://forums3.armagetronad.net/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=23173

How to use lightboost on linux (you'll still need a windows installation to enable lightboost on your monitor, after that it can be used from linux too).
2013-05-29, 17:34
Member
459 posts

Registered:
Mar 2008
I'm pretty certain 144hz on the XL2411T is broken. At least it feels way more choppy than 120hz for me. Without LightBoost that is. Anyone else here who can confirm the same?
2013-05-30, 01:42
Member
28 posts

Registered:
Feb 2013
well 120hz samsung and asus 144hz is mutch smoother what i can tell
whit lightboost on
2013-05-31, 17:52
Member
188 posts

Registered:
Feb 2008
Rikoll wrote:
I'm pretty certain 144hz on the XL2411T is broken. At least it feels way more choppy than 120hz for me. Without LightBoost that is. Anyone else here who can confirm the same?

Same here, with the ASUS VG248QE. 120hz feels smoother then 144hz, no idea why that is though, maybe from playing with 120hz for 2-3 years or 120hz is some
magic value for the eyes
2013-06-06, 20:35
Member
176 posts

Registered:
Mar 2012
markus if your looking for a gaming monitor but trying to use it for other puproses then i can recommend this one


http://www.amazon.de/Eizo-FS2333-BK-Widescreen-TFT-Monitor-Reaktionszeit/dp/B008APX4P0/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1370549079&sr=8-1&keywords=eizo+fs2333

i read amazing stuff about it .. it came out 2 weeks ago its from eizo basically the best cad monitors on the market for years...its the best ips tft on the market for gaming atm and its effortable

peace
2013-06-08, 23:11
Member
28 posts

Registered:
Feb 2013
leopold wrote:
Rikoll wrote:
I'm pretty certain 144hz on the XL2411T is broken. At least it feels way more choppy than 120hz for me. Without LightBoost that is. Anyone else here who can confirm the same?

Same here, with the ASUS VG248QE. 120hz feels smoother then 144hz, no idea why that is though, maybe from playing with 120hz for 2-3 years or 120hz is some
magic value for the eyes




well if you just sync 144hz higher values is smoother then 120hz

same if you try go ud numbers whit 120hz
2013-08-30, 14:05
Member
131 posts

Registered:
Apr 2007
http://www.overclock.net/t/1422869/new-eizo-fdf2405w-240hz-va-panel-released/0_100

new eizo 240hz : D
could be good but its a va-panel and upscaled so the latency should be high but it says 4ms..
2013-08-31, 16:06
Member
286 posts

Registered:
Sep 2012
"There are currently no details on the price (a 4 figure USD price tag is a safe bet)"
2013-10-13, 08:41
Member
176 posts

Registered:
Mar 2012
http://www.amazon.com/BenQ-XL2420TE-Performance-24-Inch-Professional/dp/B00D7IG556/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1381613772&sr=8-1&keywords=BenQ+-+XL2420TE

out in europe soon best of the best
2013-10-13, 11:50
Moderator
1329 posts

Registered:
Apr 2006
Adrenalin wrote:
out in europe soon best of the best

Not even close.
Servers: Troopers
2013-10-13, 11:52
Member
176 posts

Registered:
Mar 2012
cha cha cha? no seriously i would go for the benq instead the asus better color less input lag and much hotter?
just my opinion
2013-10-13, 17:41
Moderator
1329 posts

Registered:
Apr 2006
Adrenalin wrote:
cha cha cha? no seriously i would go for the benq instead the asus better color less input lag and much hotter?
just my opinion

Opinion based on what, your 15 year old crt and no experience on the actual product, or any gaming TFT in general?

BenQ, as usual, has worse colors, worse black level (backlight bleeding), god awful gamma curve and bad uniformity of the panel. You'd think these would be close since they use the same panel with Asus VG248QE, but no. Inputlag is similar between the two, but it is already pretty much lowest you can get currently. At least this time BenQ probably did get the OD overshoot in control, which has been a serious problem with every single BenQ TFT always, along with the problems mentioned before.

XL2420TE seems to have flickerfree backlight, which is great thing if you are sensitive to the backlight flicker. Otherwise in short:

+ similar performance (response time and input lag) with Asus VG248QE
- worse image quality on all fronts

Among the years one thing I've noticed about BenQs is that they never get the IQ part of their monitors sorted out, instead they add useless (and cheaty) "gamma improvement" and other useless things to their products. This is what you get when you waste money on "professional gamer help/opinions" instead of trying to get the IQ up to par (without "black equalizer" for CS and so on).
Servers: Troopers
2013-10-14, 07:22
Member
188 posts

Registered:
Feb 2008
Just went back from the Asus VG278HE 144 hz to my old Benq XL2420T 120hz. The colors are better on the benq and I am less annoyed by its overshooting the the ASUS' blurriness. And I spend quite some time fiddling with the Asus, color profiles etc. included, never got it to work to my satisfaction. Beside that the Benq feels more precise/sharp for reading etc.

Maybe just the particular models I have though.
2013-10-14, 08:46
Moderator
1329 posts

Registered:
Apr 2006
leopold wrote:
The colors are better on the benq and I am less annoyed by its overshooting the the ASUS' blurriness.

According to a lot of tests, the colors on VG278HE are more accurate than they are on XL2420T. The colors "being better" is probably the same thing as with XL2410T, for some reason it looks like BenQ has more contrast ("more vivid colors", optical illusion, not more accurate or "better", most likely due to coating) even though the measured contrast is very similar between the two when calibrated.

Asus blurriness?

http://www.tftcentral.co.uk/images/pixperan/asus_vg278he.jpg

http://www.tftcentral.co.uk/images/pixperan/benq_xl2420t.jpg


This is exactly how I remember all the BenQs I've used. Too much overshoot and still not as fast panel. Actually even the old Samsung 2233zr looked better in motion because of this.

In anyway, VG248QE is better than these monitors and the new XL2420TE because of BenQs lack of interest in improving the IQ of the monitor.
Servers: Troopers
2013-10-22, 16:53
Member
14 posts

Registered:
Oct 2013
Why is this discussion even happening..? at least when we are talking for QW anyway... I spent $475 being patient on TigerDirect and waiting for things to be on sale last year and built a 6-core AMD 2.8 GHZ PC with an above average ATI Card and a 22" ASUS 60hz 16:10 monitor and with gfx fully maxxed out on ezquake, I get a stable 600+ fps and on a normal preset, i'm over 900 fps.

If you think that any of these extra bells and whistles is helping you play better in a 17 year old game, it's not.
2013-10-22, 19:47
Member
286 posts

Registered:
Sep 2012
You don't need a 6 core AMD processor, nowadays ezquake runs on a smartphone. Much better and practical !
2013-10-22, 20:31
Moderator
1329 posts

Registered:
Apr 2006
Tulkas wrote:
Why is this discussion even happening..? at least when we are talking for QW anyway...

...and a 22" ASUS 60hz 16:10 monitor and with gfx fully maxxed out on ezquake...

...If you think that any of these extra bells and whistles is helping you play better in a 17 year old game, it's not.

You have absolutely no idea what you are talking about. 120Hz TFT is a tremondous help for qw compared to 60Hz TFTs, while CRT is still the best choice for fluidity and response times.
Servers: Troopers
2013-10-23, 10:55
Member
176 posts

Registered:
Mar 2012
tulkas is obviously missing the point
2013-10-23, 11:49
Member
305 posts

Registered:
Sep 2006
Obviously, Tulkas never tried 22 inch-200hz iiyama for QW. Smooth as butter!

Im considering buying that 144hz Asus, but i have a dilemma which one: 24 or 27 inches?
I've heard they have a different response time, with 24 inch one being better (1 ms)
2013-10-23, 13:19
Member
176 posts

Registered:
Mar 2012
the 24 is alot better but the new benq is even better imho i know renzi wont agree ...
http://www.amazon.com/BenQ-XL2420TE-Performance-24-Inch-Professional/dp/B00D7IG556/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1381613772&sr=8-1&keywords=BenQ+-+XL2420TE
2013-10-23, 15:45
Moderator
1329 posts

Registered:
Apr 2006
Kapitan Kloze wrote:

Im considering buying that 144hz Asus, but i have a dilemma which one: 24 or 27 inches?
I've heard they have a different response time, with 24 inch one being better (1 ms)

Yes, VG248QE has faster response time and also lower input lag, one of the lowest like I mentioned earlier. But in this case it all comes down to the size. Are you willing to pay more and sacrifice a bit on the "speed" of the monitor and have bigger screen or do you want to get the latencies as low as possible?

I would recommend the smaller one for QW even though I have the bigger model myself (seen my review?) and I probably wouldn't choose the smaller one if I was given another chance, because BIGGAR IS BETÖR!!

And yes, benq is an option but it is worse than the asus for reasons explained a bit earlier in this thread.
Servers: Troopers
2013-10-23, 15:46
Administrator
634 posts

Registered:
Nov 2008
So... I'm about to get rid of my 2233rz and get a 24'' 144hz (if they are indeed smoother... Rikoll didn't seem very happy). Which one should I get? There are many opinions in this thread and I tend to trust Renzo, but any input is valuable so please help me out :-)

Yours,
Andeh
2013-10-23, 16:30
Member
14 posts

Registered:
Oct 2013
Of course they are smoother... Obviously 120hz > 60 Hz... but we are talking about a 17 year old game... there is only so much difference that a human eye can tell between 60 hz and 120 hz when you are already getting 5 million fps. if you arent getting at least a steady 300 fps (with max gfx) now a days, you need to look at working on your PC rather than your Monitor. And... like i said before... if you think 120 hz vs 60 hz makes you a better player in a 17 year old game, you're doing it wrong to begin with.

And yes, I have used a 120 hz monitor before... but that was for playing games with higher gfx where it mattered such as TF2/CoD.

I just recently used a 19 inch TV as my monitor and it made no difference in my aim in Team Fortress (which is pretty damn good if I do say so myself) and I've got the Demos to prove it.

Anyway, just my opinion, but I think it's just a bunch of fanboy crap, a way for people to try to legitimize themselves, and in some cases an excuse for people to use who dont "perform to their expectations." Again, if we were talking about a more graphically intense game... even as old as say QuakeLive... I would agree with what everyone is saying... but in a 17 year old game, i think it's a waste of time, energy, and money.

/endrant
/continueflaming
#inittowinit #hashtag #lolololol #QuakeisOLD
2013-10-23, 17:06
Member
286 posts

Registered:
Sep 2012
Nice troll.


As for the question between 24 and 27" the main différence is that both screens run at the same resolution, and most people would find 1080p on a 27" really ugly.
I really hope someday we will have better resolutions ( at an affordable price ) than shitty TV standards !
2013-10-23, 17:30
Administrator
634 posts

Registered:
Nov 2008
Tulkas wrote:
Of course they are smoother... Obviously 120hz > 60 Hz... but we are talking about a 17 year old game... there is only so much difference that a human eye can tell between 60 hz and 120 hz when you are already getting 5 million fps. if you arent getting at least a steady 300 fps (with max gfx) now a days, you need to look at working on your PC rather than your Monitor. And... like i said before... if you think 120 hz vs 60 hz makes you a better player in a 17 year old game, you're doing it wrong to begin with.

And yes, I have used a 120 hz monitor before... but that was for playing games with higher gfx where it mattered such as TF2/CoD.

I just recently used a 19 inch TV as my monitor and it made no difference in my aim in Team Fortress (which is pretty damn good if I do say so myself) and I've got the Demos to prove it.

Anyway, just my opinion, but I think it's just a bunch of fanboy crap, a way for people to try to legitimize themselves, and in some cases an excuse for people to use who dont "perform to their expectations." Again, if we were talking about a more graphically intense game... even as old as say QuakeLive... I would agree with what everyone is saying... but in a 17 year old game, i think it's a waste of time, energy, and money.

/endrant
/continueflaming
#inittowinit #hashtag #lolololol #QuakeisOLD


Try playing on a high level on a 60hz. Then try a 120+hz. Then sit down.
2013-10-23, 18:22
Moderator
1329 posts

Registered:
Apr 2006
Tulkas wrote:

there is only so much difference that a human eye can tell between 60 hz and 120 hz when you are already getting 5 million fps.

This is where you go wrong.

Tulkas wrote:

but in a 17 year old game, i think it's a waste of time, energy, and money.

And this is where you go wrong again.

Like Andeh said, "try playing on a high level on a 60hz". And yes, this means QW. I know a lot of (good) players who have tried 60Hz TFTs when they first came out and then changed to 120Hz and noone has been unhappy about it. If you are playing QW with 60Hz monitor, you are at huge disadvantage when it comes to reaction times and accuracy.
Servers: Troopers
2013-10-23, 18:39
Moderator
1329 posts

Registered:
Apr 2006
Andeh wrote:
So... I'm about to get rid of my 2233rz and get a 24'' 144hz (if they are indeed smoother... Rikoll didn't seem very happy). Which one should I get? There are many opinions in this thread and I tend to trust Renzo, but any input is valuable so please help me out :-)

You shouldn't trust opinions, but to take them as heads up in the most cases. I mean everyone who has certain monitor is obviously of course "this is the best". This is where you start digging reviews and see the numbers AND images from response time tests and so on. After this you can count those opinions, since they might give you additional information that might have not been mentioned in the reviews.

My opinion about some of the monitors I have owned and played QW with goes about like this:

Samsung 2233RZ at 120Hz: Ok, quite smooth but a lot of inputlag that you can actually feel
BenQ XL2410T at 120Hz: Less input lag than above, more contrast than above, looks worse because of overdrive overshoot
Asus VG278HE at 144Hz: Smoother, a lot faster and less inputlag than in the both above than both above, a lot faster than both above, less input lag than both above

You can check a lot of these monitors reviewed from:

http://www.prad.de/new/monitore/testberichte.html
http://www.flatpanelshd.com/reviews.php
http://www.tftcentral.co.uk/reviews.htm
http://www.digitalversus.com/lcd-monitor/monitor-reviews-22-30-lcd-displays-a240.html

And you can randomly find monitor reviews with measurements also from anandtech, tomshardware and xbitlabs and from some other places, but prad.de is most likely the most professional one out of them all regarding monitor tests.

EDIT: Checked what problem rikoll had with his monitor, and it really confirms what I said in this post already. Steer away from BenQs if possible, Asus is the way to go at the moment.
Servers: Troopers
2013-10-23, 23:25
Member
226 posts

Registered:
Jun 2006
Just gonna jump in here about what monitor I recently purchased.

VG248QE

Thing is a fucking beast for qw. 120hz + Lightboost is smooth as butter. Better than my old Viewsonic VX2268WM by large amounts. Cheaper than the other larger monitors too.
--irc.quakenet.org #telefrag.me and #QWL | foogsQuakeWorld Ladder
2013-10-24, 05:44
Member
14 posts

Registered:
Oct 2013
Jissse wrote:
Nice troll.

lol

and

Andeh wrote:
Try playing on a high level on a 60hz. Then try a 120+hz. Then sit down.

lol. as previously mentioned. I have used a 120hz monitor before on MUCH more graphically intense games so I am aware of what it can do... Oh and I just so happened to have Quake installed on that computer as well... What a coincidence.

and

[quote ="renzo"] And this is where you go wrong again.

Like Andeh said, "try playing on a high level on a 60hz". And yes, this means QW. I know a lot of (good) players who have tried 60Hz TFTs when they first came out and then changed to 120Hz and noone has been unhappy about it. If you are playing QW with 60Hz monitor, you are at huge disadvantage when it comes to reaction times and accuracy.[/quote]

Of course... who is going to be UNHAPPY about a 120 hz monitor? Like I said... Ive used one before on multiple games, I know what it can do... I'm simply saying I can take my current desktop vs my desktop from 2008 vs my desktop from 2003/4 and not have any change in my gameplay (now that ezquake is out and has uncapped fps that is), But as far as quakeworld.. sure it's smoother, I never said it wasnt smoother... I'm saying it isn't necessary. I don't see it as being a deal breaker like you people seem to think it is. From what I read, you guys equate having a 120 hz monitor to cable internet versus a slow DSL or some shit. I just think it's funny because this is a discussion for a much newer game... But anyway, flame on because everyone in this thread is obviously on the same side or else you wouldn't be posting in this thread about your monitors

Derp.
  274 posts on 10 pages  First page12345678910Last page