ASUS VG236H 23-inch 3D Display Review: 120Hz is the Future
by Brian Klug on August 7, 2010 2:48 AM EST3D Vision on the VG236H
So let’s talk about 3D for a bit before going into the deep bits of the display’s performance. We’ve already covered NVIDIA’s 3D Vision here, but this review would just be incomplete without discussing how much I’ve changed my mind about 3D after playing with the VG236H.
First off, the NVIDIA 3D Vision kit itself is unchanged, though the packaging is a bit more compact. Inside is a soft cloth bag for the classes, two different nasal guides for comfort, two different length USB cables, the IR base station pyramid, shutter glasses, and demo and driver CDs. It feels like a high end product, with the base station pyramid and glasses sitting in foam cutouts, and the requisite accessories in a compartment above.
Additionally, you’ll need a 3D Vision compatible GPU, and can only drive 120Hz refresh rates over DVI-D, not HDMI. Because you’re rendering twice the frames (one for each eye), you’ll take a framerate hit for enabling 3D, so that GPU best be powerful. Zotac graciously supplied their ZOTAC GeForce GTX 470 for testing, which worked perfectly in my testbench.
I noted before that I’ve been skeptical about mainstream 3D gaming for some time now. I’ve seen my fair share of 3D content - though not as much as most of the other AnandTech writers that experienced it at CES on myriad displays - but have an above average grasp for the tech thanks to my optical sciences background.
That out of the way, most of the shutter or polarization based methods I’ve seen up until now suffered from being flickery. Refresh rate just wasn’t high enough, and the result was that I could detect individual frames when moving my head or really looking for it. In theaters, I tried the circularly polarized passive RealD system, and another IMAX 3D system using linear polarization. I had also tried a number of active LCD shutter systems on LCD TVs. While impressive, all of them had noticeable flicker.
The VG236H is the first 3D implementation I’ve played with that doesn’t have noticeable flicker. It just doesn’t. I was immediately impressed with the NVIDIA 3D Vision setup.
NVIDIA thankfully has a pretty comprehensive list of 3D Vision games and how good they perform with the whole system. At the top of the scale is 3D Vision Ready, meaning the game has basically been developed from the start to be viewed in 3D or 2D. Down the list is excellent, good, fair, poor, and not recommended. I first tried a number of ‘good’ titles, and found that while the 3D experience indeed worked, but often small things got in the way.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
121 Comments
View All Comments
B3an - Sunday, August 8, 2010 - link
It's the less pixels and the simple fact that it's not good for a monitor. If you watch movies all day then its great. But for pretty much ANYTHING else it's inferior, even for something like reading this review as you have less vertical space and have to scroll more.I also don't like paying the same as a 16:10 monitor for less pixels.
It's getting harder to buy a quality LCD these days, you have shitty glossy screens, more and more ridiculously poor image quality TN panels, and now a inferior aspect ratio to top it off. Technology is meant to improve over time not go backwards.
Mr Perfect - Sunday, August 8, 2010 - link
Yes, the cut down pixels are a large part of my complaint. 16:9 is great for TVs since it fits the format of the content, but why deliberately cut down the vertical viewing space for a PC monitor? What could we possible gain from knocking it from 1920x1200 down to 1920x1080? It seems that the mainstream monitors are using 16:9 in the 24" space, while the higher quality models still offer 16:10. All 30" screens seem to be 16:10 yet, but who's got that kind of money?BTW, B3an, there are some newer 16:10 IPS screens kicking around. None of them are 120Hz though. :( TFTCentral has recently reviewed the HP ZR24W, NEC PA241W, Dell U2410, NEC LCD2490WUXi, NEC 24WMGX3 and HP LP2475W. They report that Hazro will soon be launching an updated line of 24" IPS screens as well, the HZ24W models a, b, and c.
seapeople - Sunday, August 8, 2010 - link
I disagree, I think 16:9 is a good aspect ratio. Yes, you have to scroll a bit more vertically, but you always have to scroll vertically anyway so why does it matter that much? On the other hand, the wider aspect ratio makes it easier to look at content side by side and/or prevent horizontal scrolling on wide content which is a pain.With that said, obviously 1900x1200 is better than 1900x1080 because it contains more pixels. However, I've found 1920x1080 monitors to be generally cheaper than the 1920x1200 equivalent. My 1920x1080 23" Dell monitor that I bought on sale for $160 18 months ago is an example.
DarkUltra - Sunday, August 8, 2010 - link
It really is a lot of display real estate you lose. It's not just a slim border at top and bottom. You can actually fit two Ribbon menus in the 120 vertical pixels, or two Windows 7 double-sized task bars. It's not about less width; there are bigger monitors. It's about having 3,7 cm extra height "for free" at same desk space.Old games like the 1600x1200 resolution better, and RTS games like Starcraft with a hud at the bottom is much better with 1920x1200.
AnnonymousCoward - Monday, August 9, 2010 - link
16:10 gives 23% more area with 4:3 pillarboxed content. That's huge.medi01 - Monday, August 9, 2010 - link
To create 4:3 X inches monitor, you need 12% more stuff. Is it clear?Stokestack - Sunday, August 8, 2010 - link
Glossy doesn't look better ANYWHERE. Even in a pitch-black closet, the image from the glossy screen still illuminates YOU, creating your reflection in the monitor. Therefore, those "deep blacks" and "rich colors" are neither; they're covered by a sheen of reflection in essentially all cases.It's a fraud that preys on consumer ignorance.
synaesthetic - Monday, August 9, 2010 - link
I miss my old 17" samsung LCD monitor. :(yeah, it was only 1280x1024 but... 5:4, not glossy and it... was pretty.
Stargrazer - Saturday, August 7, 2010 - link
"Further, instead of getting tearing above 60 FPS like you would with vsync off on a traditional 60Hz LCD, you get smoother gameplay that just looks more fluid. I definitely can tell the difference, and now I don’t want to go back."How much of a difference do you notice when vsync is *on*?
DarkUltra - Sunday, August 8, 2010 - link
Twice as much I would say. IF the objects move across the speed at 120 pixels per second, or you got a big jittery object that darts all around the screen. To make an impression the object needs enough "samples" across the temporal dimension to let the eye follow it.In other words, if you look around slowly in an FPS game, even 10FPS could be enough. If you flick your wrist fast, or enemies move fast, you can track them at up to 60 movements per second in 120fps/hz.