Comments Locked

31 Comments

Back to Article

  • Eden-K121D - Friday, October 14, 2016 - link

    Why would a gamer pay for some overpriced garbage like this which doesn't even have freesync
  • Phasenoise - Friday, October 14, 2016 - link

    It's almost like these monitors are designed for some other usage entirely!
  • alfalfacat - Friday, October 14, 2016 - link

    Are you saying it's possible for computers to do things other than mlg pro 120hz gamez?
  • basroil - Sunday, October 16, 2016 - link

    Heaven forbid anyone actually works on a computer rather than using it for pointless games! Imagine what the world would be like if photo and video professionals used computers instead of a dark room and cutting board...

    (Pretty sure all this sarcasm is going over eden's head though)
  • HollyDOL - Friday, October 14, 2016 - link

    Obviously you never tried one. But indeed, playing primitive FPSes would be wasting of screen like these have.
  • Flunk - Friday, October 14, 2016 - link

    Funny story, I game on "professional" monitors and I'd rather have the better image quality than the additional refresh rate. "Gaming" monitors always sacrifice picture quality for frame-rate and I'm not even sure > 60 fps is anything other than marketing fluff.
  • Flunk - Friday, October 14, 2016 - link

    Not to imply that these monitors are designed for gaming.
  • Inteli - Friday, October 14, 2016 - link

    As someone who regularly uses a 144 Hz monitor, the difference between 60 and 120 Hz is noticeable, and does make the game look a fair bit smoother and more fluid, which I personally like a lot. It's really a difference that you only notice after having a comparison, and I found it worthwhile. That said, the colors are atrocious on my example. It doesn't matter much to me, because I have a second display accurate enough for my needs. If I wasn't playing competitive first person shooters and could feasibly do so, I would probably prefer to play games on my more accurate display as well.

    What I do find unnecessary in monitors is GSync/Freesync. Typically, any game that I specifically want to run at 120+ fps has no problem reaching those frame rates, and screen tearing doesn't bother me enough to do anything about it -- especially not spend an extra $200 on a monitor that eliminates it.
  • JoeyJoJo123 - Friday, October 14, 2016 - link

    Freesync adds a ~$25 to $50 premium, depending on the brand.
    GSync adds a minimum $100 premium, but is often more like $150...

    Cheapest 1080p 144hz: $188.83
    https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1073477-REG...

    Cheapest 1080p 144hz + Freesync: $209.99
    https://www.amazon.com/dp/B01BV1XBEI/

    Cheapest 1080p 144hz + GSync: $339.99
    http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N8...

    Also, don't be talking smack about a technology you've never used and saying it's not worth it if you've never seen it in action yourself. I'd wholeheartedly recommend getting Freesync 144hz displays if you happen to be on an AMD GPU, but not so for GSync if you're on NVidia, due to the large increase in price.
  • Morawka - Friday, October 14, 2016 - link

    but freesync is inferior in almost every other way compared to gsync. freesync has all those min FPS laws and everything must be a factor of halfs.
  • xthetenth - Thursday, October 20, 2016 - link

    The existence of cheaper freesync implementations doesn't mean that better ones with a plenty wide range don't exist.
  • Inteli - Saturday, October 15, 2016 - link

    Did you notice I was specifically talking about my use case, just like the other guy was? Any game I can't run at 144Hz I don't need to run at that high of a frame rate, and any game I do need 144Hz is easy to run.

    Besides, I use ULMB, which isn't compatible with either adaptive refresh rate standard.
  • JoeyJoJo123 - Monday, October 17, 2016 - link

    Moving goalposts.

    "What I do find unnecessary in monitors is GSync/Freesync... especially not spend an extra $200 on a monitor that eliminates it."

    My post proved:
    1) GSync and Freesync are not unnecessary advances in monitor performance; linking the monitor to the device generating the image to address discrepancies about when to refresh the screen helps to improve the fidelity of the monitor.

    2) Not all adaptive sync monitors come with a $200 price premium over non adaptive sync monitors. Freesync equipped monitors are only a small price premium over standard monitors. Gsync equipped monitors are necessarily expensive due to the extra Gsync module and integration needed for it to work.

    So if you happen to be running an AMD GPU, and you're in the market for a 144hz monitor, a $30 price premium to get the a Freesync equipped monitor is absolutely reasonable and not "unnecessary". But if you're running an nVidia GPU, then yeah, you might consider whether the benefit is worth a rather hefty ~$120 markup, or more.
  • paulemannsen - Monday, October 17, 2016 - link

    Hes playing competitively, so the added latency in Gsync/freesync is a nogo. Also with 300+ fps tearing becomes negligible. For his usecase he made the absolute right decision.
  • JoeyJoJo123 - Friday, October 14, 2016 - link

    The human eye can't see beyond 480i at 24 hz, anyways.
  • Despoiler - Friday, October 14, 2016 - link

    Lol I hope you are joking...
  • HollyDOL - Saturday, October 15, 2016 - link

    Although, let's see from evolution perspective... Human evolved to move in low speed - max walk speed is about 2.5m/s (ok, Ussain Bolt's sprint record is 12.4m/s, but that can't really be taken as a reference as he's the only person ever to reach it) ... We are not predator species by nature. We don't need superfast super high framerate vision. For 2.5m/s speeds 20-30Hz is more than enough. And nature doesn't invest in things which are not needed.
  • HollyDOL - Saturday, October 15, 2016 - link

    Bleh, tried several times to comment and it gets stuck on submit and then I copypasted just last paragraph...

    so, the beginning here:
    as for visible resolution, this chart could be useful: http://s3.carltonbale.com/resolution_chart.html

    as for refresh rate:
    In my old school notes, there is a note about Na-K bridge on optical nerve interconnect, that it takes about 100ms to rebalance to be able to send another impulse. Easy to do your maths.

    In general:
    I have asked AT folks many times to publish article with science backed analysis and reliable claims about resolution and refresh rate of human eye , never even had an answer on that.

    (And now should have come the paragraph above^^^^^ :p)
  • Solandri - Saturday, October 15, 2016 - link

    Your eyes make rapid tiny motions to overcome this limitation of the nerves. Basically, the image is quickly shifted across different nerves, so the image is always falling on "fresh" parts of the retina.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fixation_(visual)
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microsaccade
  • HollyDOL - Saturday, October 15, 2016 - link

    Interesting reading, thanks. Though, that means eyes work on pretty much 'hyperinterlaced' mode meaning instead of progressive frames the actual image in your head is 'deinterlaced' several partial frames.

    Funny thing is, if we consider this micro motion, it occupies much more bandwidth... so in total out of those 100M neurons we use 10-fraction interlacing to achive 100Hz.. leaving us with usable 10Mpix for whole vision (although it's very far from even distribution)... so I guess we can get at about 5-7Mpx for a screen scan in optimal range...

    Eh, I'd be willing to pay for an article giving complete picture. There are way too many variables here.
  • djmcave - Saturday, October 15, 2016 - link

    Actually when your adrenaline kicks in you can see as high as 200 Fps, that's why it appears in slow motion. I notice the difference from 60Hz to the 120Hz I currently have.
    Still waiting on a decent 4k or 21:9(not 1080p streached) with 120+Hz, if it can add decent color it's a bonus.. that is to say Displayport 1.3/1.4, that is supposed to appear till end of year.
  • Solandri - Saturday, October 15, 2016 - link

    Actually it "appears" as slow motion because the adrenaline kick causes a lot more detail of the incident to be committed to your memory. So when you later recall the incident, there's a lot more detail for you to remember, giving the illusion that everything happened in slow motion.

    They've done experiments testing people's reaction times during stressful and (faked) life/death situations. There is no improvement in reaction speed, indicating your actual perception at the time of the incident is not altered.

    But a lot of people can see flicker at 100+ and even 200+ Hz. I'm one of those unfortunate people, and the PWM flickering of LED car tail lights drives me nuts. Same goes for some dashboard displays - I hate driving a Lexus at night. It bugs me up to about 200 Hz, and I can still detect it up to about 600-800 Hz.
  • Michael Bay - Tuesday, October 18, 2016 - link

    Oh, so that`s why time seems to go slower when you fall.
    Thanks, didn`t know that.
  • Eden-K121D - Friday, October 14, 2016 - link

    I'm only referring to the gaming aspect. For Professional work these may be the best but for gaming hell no
  • HollyDOL - Saturday, October 15, 2016 - link

    You're crying on wrong grave, for gaming only you should look for Foris line: http://www.eizoglobal.com/products/foris/fs2735/in...
  • Gothmoth - Saturday, October 15, 2016 - link

    why would a moron like you ask such a stupid question?
  • euler007 - Friday, October 14, 2016 - link

    What's the MSRP?
  • Death666Angel - Friday, October 14, 2016 - link

    "EIZO did not announce MSRPs for its new displays"
  • Lolimaster - Friday, October 14, 2016 - link

    Considering the horrible contrast this pro monitors have, how about switching to high quality AMVA.

    This monitors black are more towards semilight grey.
  • madwolfa - Saturday, October 15, 2016 - link

    Wat? 1:1000-1:1500 is now considered horrible contrast?
  • Kamus - Saturday, October 15, 2016 - link

    What do you mean "now" It's always been horrible. LCD contrast is utter crap compared to the contrast of the CRT's of the 90's.

    You must have never heard of AVS forums. Those people would spend thousands of extra dollars just to get 5000:1 CR compared to something crappy like 1000:1.

    Or when the JVC projectors came out, 15,000:1, which was ground breaking at the time the JVC RS1 came out.

    And now we live in a world where OLED is finally going mainstream, and yet there are still people that think that an LCD like the one in the iPhone is comparable to an OLED in a Samsung phone (ever since the note 4 came out)

    To be fair, LCD isn't utter crap on a phone, because the viewing conditions kill contrast most of the time to begin with.

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now