Back to Article

  • ganeshts - Saturday, August 07, 2010 - link

    Is there any monitor that supports HDMI 1.4a (and thus, 3D over HDMI)?

    With the upcoming HDMI 1.4 GPUs, I just wish we had a monitor capable of acting as a sink for those signals instead of having to hunt down a 3D TV to test it out!
  • softdrinkviking - Saturday, August 07, 2010 - link

    two other 120hz computer monitors i can find online...

    i can't, for the life of me, figure out what revision of the HDMI standard it uses. alienware does not report those details, and dell offers no manual for this monitor in their support page. someone would have to call them and ask, but i live outside the US.

    and an acer model...

    this product sheet has a maximum reported 75hz over HDMI, so I am going to say "NO," not 1.4a, but it doesn't actually say that.
  • therealnickdanger - Sunday, August 08, 2010 - link

    If 3-D game technology works the same as 3-D Blu-Ray, then it's really only 60Hz x2 (alternating per eye). It may be capable of 120Hz natively, it may display 120Hz from 2-D, but for 3-D I'm pretty sure you're still only getting 60Hz per eye.

    What strikes me most about this whole 120Hz topic is that I had a Sony CRT that could handle 1280x1024 @ 240Hz about 10 years ago. And yes, VSYNC @ 240Hz is why the LCD boom disappointed me so much. LCDs, while thin and light, were a horrible step backward for gaming - at least for those of us who were used to high framerates and refresh rates.

    LCDs still have such catching up to do...
  • softdrinkviking - Tuesday, August 10, 2010 - link

    you'll get no argument from me about lcds vs crts.
    but that's the way the industry has gone, oh well.

    in any case, the acer monitor specs the HDMI 70Hz, and a different refresh rate of 120Hz for using DVI.
    I believe that HDMI 1.4a is capable of delivering more than 70Hz, so I was attempting to answer that question, not to determine whether or not it is capable of playing 3D over HDMI. However, ganesh seems to think so, and I was giving him the benefit of the doubt there.

    As to the second question, is there a someone who can say with authority that 3D can (or cannot) play over HDMI with a limit of a 70Hz refresh rate?
  • softdrinkviking - Wednesday, August 11, 2010 - link

    this nvidia 3d vision compatibility chart is interesting.
    looks like 120Hz refresh is definitely a necessity for 3D.
  • Sabresiberian - Friday, August 13, 2010 - link

    It clearly states in the article that the 3D effect is 60Hz each eye. Brian's comments lead me to believe it is a true 120Hz display in 2D, but I can't say that's a fact.

    I have to agree about the refresh rate - and it's one reason why I run a Sony FW900 CRT. I run it @ 85Hz, 1920x1200. 60 Hz is a poor standard to settle for, in my opinion. I know we all live with 60Hz flashes in our modern lives and think nothing of it, we are conditioned to our lighting doing that, but it makes a difference. 100 Hz should be the standard we build to, not 60.

    I was excited about this monitor at first, but .265 dot pitch and 1920x1080 aren't what I want. .265 is better than the LCD I have, but not much, and I prefer the 16:10 over 16:9 ratio.

  • xef6 - Wednesday, October 19, 2011 - link

    I know this is an old comment, but I can confirm that it is indeed a 120hz 2D display. I haven't used it for 3D stuff yet. I just use it as a 120hz display and enjoy a much smoother interface. ATI config reports its maximum refresh rate as 120. Reply
  • Luke212 - Sunday, August 22, 2010 - link

    hate to tell you but the highest ever Sony at that 1024 would have been 126Hz Reply
  • Cushgod - Wednesday, December 08, 2010 - link

    I 240% agree with you!! :P LCD's do have catching up to do ... its sad we are coming back to the Hz I used to enjoy. I am currently on an asus-vg236h, and I am thrilled to play all my games with better framerate, and clear and smotth scrolling left and right turning, awesome BF BC2, Warhammer, and Global Agenda look beautiful. Its night and day to me. Night and Day. Reply
  • Fleeb - Saturday, August 07, 2010 - link

    Why HDMI for monitors when DisplayPort can do the job? Reply
  • ganeshts - Saturday, August 07, 2010 - link

    True, but the fact of life is that more monitors support HDMI compared to DisplayPort.

    Also, most upcoming GPUs claim HDMI 1.4a support, but DisplayPort 1.2 is not seen (that is necessary for 3D).

    All 3D TVs use HDMI 1.4. So, if there is one interface to do the job for both TV and monitor, I will gladly take it :)
  • Pozz - Saturday, August 07, 2010 - link

    Most Importantly, why component instead of vga/another hdmi input? meh Reply
  • mbtgood - Tuesday, August 24, 2010 - link

    i like mbt alot
  • BladeVenom - Saturday, August 07, 2010 - link

    As much as that monitor is going to cost, it's just not worth it when they skimp on the connections.

    I'm not going to buy another monitor without Displayport.
  • DarkUltra - Sunday, August 08, 2010 - link

    Me too. DisplayPort is needed if we want 120hz in anything higher than 1920x1200. Dual-link dvi maxes out at 1310p @ 120hz I think. 2560x1600x120x24 = 11.8Gbps and displayport can do 17.28Gbps. Fonts look real nice in 135dpi. Reply
  • medi01 - Saturday, August 07, 2010 - link

    I rather wish I could buy new 4:3 monitor... Reply
  • softdrinkviking - Sunday, August 08, 2010 - link

    you can
  • mino - Tuesday, August 10, 2010 - link

    Check the price ... not everybody who need a screen for work is a DTP/CAD/media professional. Reply
  • softdrinkviking - Saturday, October 23, 2010 - link

    true. it's pricey, but they look fantastic and it won't need replacing for a good, long time.
    when you want an older tech that has become a specialty item, you have to expect it to be more expensive, that's life.
  • mino - Tuesday, August 10, 2010 - link

    Yeah, tell me about it.

    Needed 1600x1200 (even 1600x1600 would be welcome) had to go for 1920 and got luxky a reasonable 1920x1080 are still made ...

    Most is just 16:9 useless junk.
  • mino - Tuesday, August 10, 2010 - link

    .. reasonable 1920x1200 .. Reply
  • dingetje - Saturday, August 07, 2010 - link

    I will immediately get one....when 1920 x 1200 models are available.
    A 1920 x 1080 screen is just not acceptable for me, even when it's 120hz goodness.

    Looking forward to more 120hz screen reviews....thx
  • Taft12 - Saturday, August 07, 2010 - link

    How long can you hold your breath? I don't think 1920x1200 is coming back on the market ever again. Reply
  • ZoZo - Sunday, August 08, 2010 - link

    You may have to wait a long time.
    It appears that 16:10 is being abandoned.
  • DarkUltra - Sunday, August 08, 2010 - link

    For now, yes but if there is a market for it it will hopefully return. The 23" 16:9 we have at works is just too wide for me; the 1920x1200 24" my father have is really much higher, it can fit an entire Windows 7 double-sized task bar and a ribbon menu more than 1080. Reply
  • martin5000 - Saturday, August 07, 2010 - link

    16:9 is absolutely horrible for computers. Its so disappointing that this is the current trend.

    Glossy is also terrible, maybe the colours do look a bit more vibrant, but at the cost of not actually be able to see the screen unless you're in the perfect light conditions, no thanks!
  • medi01 - Saturday, August 07, 2010 - link

    I second that. Basically it's all about marketing:

    1) glossy screens probably look better in shops
    2) X inches monitor with 4:3 ratio has 12% more pixels than 16:9 => it's cheaper to produce
  • Mr Perfect - Saturday, August 07, 2010 - link

    I imaging that being able to put "FULL 1080P HD!" on the box doesn't hurt sales either.

    So, to recap, change this into a 16:10, matte finish, IPS panel.
  • BansheeX - Sunday, August 08, 2010 - link

    You're both nuts. No aspect ratio inherently gives more resolution than any other. Case-in-point, 3200x1800 is a 16:9 resolution that is much higher than 1600x1200 (4:3) or 1920x1200 (16:10). The reason 1920x1080 is so common for 16:9 is mainly the result of established manufacturing processes and 1:1 scaling of HD material. Reply
  • Quidam67 - Sunday, August 08, 2010 - link

    I genuinely don't understand why some people are showing such a strong reaction against 16:9 monitors. I must be missing the point, or is it really just the slightly different aspect ratio + slightly less pixels that has them all worked up?!? Reply
  • B3an - Sunday, August 08, 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 08, 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 08, 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 08, 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 09, 2010 - link

    16:10 gives 23% more area with 4:3 pillarboxed content. That's huge. Reply
  • medi01 - Monday, August 09, 2010 - link

    To create 4:3 X inches monitor, you need 12% more stuff. Is it clear? Reply
  • Stokestack - Sunday, August 08, 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 09, 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 07, 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 08, 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.
  • user72 - Saturday, August 07, 2010 - link

    I have some molecular modeling programs that use OpenGL QuadBuffer for 3D rendering. Do you know if this monitor is compatible with QuadBuffer? Thanks! Reply
  • Sp12 - Saturday, August 07, 2010 - link

    Until I can get 120hz IPS technology I'm unimpressed. 120hz is in no way worth it for the dithering and inconsistent colors TN brings. Especially if it comes at a premium like that.

    I may be waiting forever until blue phase or autostereoscopic displays come around.
  • Soldier1969 - Saturday, August 07, 2010 - link

    1080 monitors suck after having 1920 x 1200 since Jan of 2007 I will never go backwards in resolution. When they make a 2560 x 1600 LED backlit 120hz panel I'll get one but these 1080 ones cater to the poor folk. Reply
  • Daeros - Saturday, August 07, 2010 - link

    This review just highlights why I still use a pair of HP 1230 21" crt monitors. Sure, they weigh about 70lbs each, but they are like 6 years old and have no problem running at 2048x1536 @ 110Hz . Show me any lcd that can do that. And don't even get me started on gamut or black levels. Reply
  • Zok - Saturday, August 07, 2010 - link

    Well, without getting into the old CRT-LCD argument too heavily, my desk can't handle a 30" CRT - size or weight. Reply
  • DarkUltra - Sunday, August 08, 2010 - link

    1536x110hz = 169Khz horizontal frequency. That is amazing.. I thoght my lacie electronblue22 III was good at 1440x85hz :) Reply
  • Luke212 - Sunday, August 22, 2010 - link

    yeah its a nice story but his crt can only do 91hz at that rez.
  • adonn78 - Saturday, August 07, 2010 - link

    I think its over priced for a 23 inch monitor. I'd rather get a larger screen than one with features I'll never use such as 3D. Reply
  • DarkUltra - Sunday, August 08, 2010 - link

    It's not just the 3D. 120hz give you a much smoother Windows experience, and the lack of RTC artifacts is also good. Reply
  • SunLord - Monday, August 09, 2010 - link

    Any monitor over $300 isn't worth buying even fi its 120hz and the newest gimmick to get stupid people to pay more Reply
  • synaesthetic - Monday, August 09, 2010 - link

    If your livelihood depends on color accuracy, you can damn well bet it's worth spending money on. Monitors cheaper than $300 have terrible color reproduction. Reply
  • Seikent - Saturday, August 07, 2010 - link

    I have the Samsung 2233RZ monitor (120 hz, 3d ready, 16:10), it is a bit cheaper than this one, but it has some limitations.

    I don't have the shutter glasses, but I don't care too much because I don't have a Nvidia card. I bought it just because the 120 hz refresh rate. Playing with vsync on is awesome, the visual experience is much better, it feels fluid and it is hard to go back. It is hard to understand because you can't see it how it feels without having this monitor in front of you. I recommend you to try one.
  • JGabriel - Saturday, August 07, 2010 - link

    Brian King: "I’d say the vertical angle you get isn’t quite as advertised, but honestly if you’re viewing the monitor from so far down below that this is noticeable, you’re probably doing something wrong ..."

    Or viewing it in portrait mode after attaching it to a pivot arm. Really, Brian, that should have occurred to you, as you bragged about "rolling your own" only a few paragraphs earlier.

  • JGabriel - Saturday, August 07, 2010 - link

    Whoops, sorry for getting your last name wrong, Brian. I mis-read it somehow. Apologies.

  • Brian Klug - Saturday, August 07, 2010 - link

    I agree, but the primary weird viewing angle is from below. From above, it seems much better (like many other TN panels, which is quite typical). I've encountered exactly that issue before putting a TN panel in portrait, and it definitely isn't desirable.

    I would definitely not recommend doing that with this ASUS ;)

  • FH123 - Saturday, August 07, 2010 - link

    Are 3D games, like Metro 2033, any better than what we get to see at the cinema? I saw Avatar (the film) and thought the 3D effects were laughable. In many scenes I could discern at most 3 or 4 planes of depth and, within those planes, everything looked flat. For example there might be a computer monitor in the foreground, then Sigourney Weaver, then the background. Where 3D worked it was mostly when things popped into the foreground, but the actors faces and backgrounds usually looked completely flat. South Park immediately sprang to mind. The actors looked like cardboard cut-outs in front of a background picture.

    Am I the only one noticing this effect? I admit my experience is very limited, as I walked out of Avatar half-way through and haven't watched anything 3D since. Nor do I have the desire to. The 3D effect was jarring and the film lost much of it's brightness, contrast and color saturation. What's the point? I own a good (JVC) projector. Something well recorded and not over-processed like, say, Treme (the TV series), looks far better to me than what I saw at the cinema that day. Depth perception, in that case, comes from low black-levels and proper dynamic range. Less dramatic, but it seems better to me.

    Having said that, perhaps there is some advantage games have over films, even films that rely heavily on CGI, such as Avatar? Do they, perhaps by virtue of having a depth coordinate for every pixel on the screen, give a better continuity of depth perception?
  • Brian Klug - Saturday, August 07, 2010 - link

    I agree with you, so that weird senstation is partly an artifact of 3D being added in after the fact, and partly just poor cinematography.

    The nice thing about games is that the 3D models are there already and have much finer meshes. I'd say that on the whole, no, that experience of things only existing in a few planes of depth is completely absent from gaming in 3D in any of the games I've tested thus far.

  • nvmarino - Saturday, August 07, 2010 - link

    Brian, great review, thanks!

    One of the benfits of a true 120Hz display (120Hz at the input) you didn't mention are the benefits for HTPC usage - a framerate that's evenly divisible by 60 and 24 means you can output both 24fps and 60fps content without having to change the refresh rate in the video card settings. Any chance you can confirm if the monitor supports HDCP on the DVI input? Also, any chance you could see if the commercial Blu-ray players (i.e. PowerDVD, TMT3, and WinDVD) play nice when outputting @120hz? Would also be good to know if Windows Media Center has any issues when outputting @120Hz as well!

    Also, one minor gripe about your review - I think you're incorrectly referring to the system you're testing as "3D Vision Surround". "3D Vision *Surround*" is when using 3D Vision with multiple displays. Since you're reviewing with a single display it's just "3D Vision"...
  • Brian Klug - Saturday, August 07, 2010 - link

    Excellent catch on 3D Vision Surround versus 3D Vision, fixed that!

    I'll test to make sure, but I'm 90% certain that it supports HDCP. It'd be absolutely unforgivable to be shipping a monitor in 2010 without HDCP. Having HDMI onboard pretty much guarantees that at least that input does, but I'll double check. I don't expect any problems though.

  • Brian Klug - Saturday, August 07, 2010 - link

    Just tested with PowerDVD 10 Mark II Version 10.0.1830.51 and playback is perfect - tried a variety of BD titles. Looks good at 120Hz (no stuttering). HDCP apparently does work over the DVI-D datapath.

  • killerclick - Saturday, August 07, 2010 - link

    Stop trying to push these stupid fads, I'm not buying 3D! Ever! Reply
  • Etern205 - Saturday, August 07, 2010 - link

    3D monitors are just regular LCD screens which support up to 120Hz. Enabling 3D requires those special glasses and it's entirely up to you whether you want to enable it or not.

    There is not such thing as a 3D monitor as if there is, then you will need to wear the glasses every single time you use it.

    And imo, that 3D logo on the stand looks hideous. Much like a ricer who puts sticker of tuners just to make it look cool or something.
  • Iketh - Saturday, August 07, 2010 - link

    ... but don't change the camera perspective when taking comparitive photos. The height adjustment images don't help a bit. Leave the camera in the same position for both. Reply
  • Etern205 - Saturday, August 07, 2010 - link

    I thought all monitors are "3D" ?

  • smookyolo - Sunday, August 08, 2010 - link

    That's what they'd like you to think, yes ;) Reply
  • dingetje - Sunday, August 08, 2010 - link

    yes, and the old crt's are even more 3D than the new technology ;) Reply
  • HDPeeT - Saturday, August 07, 2010 - link

    Thanks for the great review! I'm glad to see that there are professional sites out there that appreciate the advantages 120hz displays bring to the table besides just the 3D stuff.

    I know, I know, there are plenty of people out there that are really excited about 3D gaming and movies, but for me, it's all about the faster refresh and (hopefully) lower input lag.

    The one thing I'm little confused about is how you reached the conclusion that the display has 3.9ms of lag. When you say "The VG236H consistently lags 1 frame from the FP241W.", wouldn't this imply that it has at least ~8ms of lag at a 120hz refresh (or even 16ms at 60hz (still not clear on that)?
  • Mumrik - Saturday, August 07, 2010 - link

    Page 1: "On a technical level, the necessity for 120Hz arises from the need to drive two 60Hz images for each eye."

    That would take 240hz. You mean ONE 60Hz image for each eye.
  • cactusdog - Saturday, August 07, 2010 - link

    Brian, Do you see the same benefits (of smoother motion on the desktop) when the VG236H is set to 60Hz? Reply
  • 7Enigma - Monday, August 09, 2010 - link

    Good question. The obvious answer is no, but I agree it should quickly be tested. Reply
  • Seikent - Monday, August 09, 2010 - link

    No, when the monitor is using 60hz, it is like a normal lcd monitor (tested with other 120hz monitor). Reply
  • sleepeeg3 - Saturday, August 07, 2010 - link

    TN+Film is 256k colors. Have fun stumbling around in a pitch black room at 120fps, because the display can not render enough gray levels to show any detail.

    The sooner people stop settling for this inferior technology, the sooner prices will drop on IPS panels.

    Quit buying TN+Film!
  • dingetje - Sunday, August 08, 2010 - link

    yep, we need more picky buyers!!....and well, that's not gonna happen...that's why we now have 1920X1080 panels instead of 16:10 displays :( Reply
  • DarkUltra - Sunday, August 08, 2010 - link

    Don't sell us short. Keep enlightening people, and before you know it there will be a market for excellence just as there is a market for high quality motherboards. You know, things like 24 phase power, 2oz Copper layer, Solid Capacitors, Ferrite core chokes, dual bios etc. Reply
  • Heatlesssun - Sunday, August 08, 2010 - link

    Would be nice to have a 120Hz IPS monitor to buy. Reply
  • seapeople - Sunday, August 08, 2010 - link

    Have fun paying 2x as much for an IPS monitor to appease your color sense. People have obviously chosen price over quality here, it's not necessarily ignorance. There are plenty of $600+ IPS panels for you to buy, and I'm sure in a while they'll bring out an $800 120h IPS panel for you to buy six of in your Eyefinity set up. But for the rest of us there's something called money that constitutes an important part of purchase decisions.

    I always get the feeling that the anti TN-monitor freaks are somewhat similar to the Apple fanboi's... "But my $3000 Macbook Pro is just so much nicer than that similar functionality $1500 Windows Laptop! Everything looks better! The quality! The smoothness! I don't understand all you Windows lemmings who settle for such crap!"
  • AnnonymousCoward - Monday, August 09, 2010 - link

    $400 more for my window into the world, which I look at every day, for the next 5 years, is well worth it. You can drive your $12000 car, and I'll drive a $11600 and enjoy a much better screen. And no, I don't like Apple. Reply
  • Patrick Wolf - Monday, August 09, 2010 - link

    Your Apple fanboi comparison is laughable. They aren't remotely similar. You can put a good IPS next to a "good" TN and see an immediate and obvious difference. Some people are willing to pay for that difference, some aren't. IPS people choose quality. Peried. Reply
  • Zap - Monday, August 09, 2010 - link

    Sure, put them next to each other and you can probably see a difference, but can the average Joe see a difference if they weren't next to each other? I have a number of LCD monitors in my household, including TN (Acer Ferrari), MVA (Soyo Topaz) and IPS (Dell 2005FPW). My primary use is gaming and web browsing, and I don't notice much difference past the size, which while engrossed in games I don't notice after a while but I do notice the extra pixels of the 24" for stuff like web browsing. Beyond that, they all look fine to me. Of course I'm not actively looking for flaws, but I'd be willing to wager that neither are most computer users.

    Now, I do notice some difference between really old LCD monitors and newer ones. I don't know if the picture degrades over time or if panel tech has improved, but if you want to do those side-by-side comparisons with TN panels, try a new (and decent quality) TN based monitor next to some 8 year old LCD of any kind, and see which one looks better (outside of viewing angle). I mentioned "decent quality" because you can get two different monitor models/brands using the exact same panel and one may have a better looking picture than the other due to factors beyond which panel they use.
  • Pastuch - Monday, August 09, 2010 - link

    Fantastic post ZAP. I couldn't agree more. TN has made huge strides in picture quality in the last couple years and the new E-IPS displays don't compare to S-IPS AT ALL. Not even close.

    Asus VW246 vs Dell U2311 vs NEC EA231Wm vs Dell 2005fpw vs HP2475
    In the last year I have purchased an Asus VW246h (TN), NEC EA231WMi (E-IPS) and a Dell U2311 (E-IPS). I also own a Dell 2005FPW (S-IPS) and I use an HP 2475 (S-IPS) at work.

    I have 20/15 vision in both eyes and I'm a picture quality snob. I wish I didn't love video games because finding a monitor that is good for everything is impossible.

    Note: I have not calibrated any of the displays tested here. I am ordering an X-Rite I1 Display LT soon.

    Picture Quality comparisons:

    Asus TN vs Dell and NEC IPS:
    I prefer the blacks and contrast on the Asus VW246H (TN) compared to the Dell and NEC E-IPS displays. The Asus has a more life-like 3d image and I was blown away by it immediately. It's easily the best picture quality I have seen on a TN monitor (Yes it still sucks compared to an S-IPS). The E-IPS have good color accuracy and viewing angles. The Anti-glare coating on the NEC was HORRIBLE, the Dell has a much less distracting AG coating. I found very minimal back light bleed on any of the new monitors I have purchased, this was a welcomed surprise. The E-IPS definitely do have color uniformity issues from left to right. The TN does not have that problem. The TN is also more responsive in FPS games and has less ghosting. The difference between the Dell and the Asus was small though (Re: Ghosting). I have yet to try a 120hz monitor so I can't give an opinion there. I honestly think E-IPS is a disappointment and a high quality TN panel can match and/or beat it's performance despite the inherent limitations. It seems like all the new monitors coming out in 2010 have made big improvements in reducing input lag which I think is terrific. Ghosting I can live with but Input lag is just awful. I will be returning the Dell U2311 (Already returned the NEC) even though it has a great stand and excellent user interface because I like the picture quality of the less expensive Asus TN more. If you're hell bent on getting an E-IPS display I would definitely buy the Dell over the NEC. The new 27 inch Asus VE276Q looks really interesting. I would probably buy that or the Dell U2410 depending on your priorities. I'm assuming the Asus VE276Q has a low input lag based on the fact that most Asus monitors have VERY low input lag.

    Dell S-IPS vs. HP 2475 vs. E-IPS and Modern TNs.
    My much older Dell 2005FPW has good blacks, great contrast and solid color accuracy but it's definitely showing it's age when compared to the modern TNs. When I bought the 2005FPW it absolutely destroyed any TN available at the time but that performance advantage is gone. The Asus TN is comparable to my Dell 2005FPW in every way but it's larger and has less ghosting and less input lag. The S-IPS I use at work is light-years ahead of the E-IPS displays and the Asus TN. The colors, contrast, blacks, and depth are amazing but the response time on my S-IPS is awful which is no surprise. I found both the Dell and the Nec to look very flat (The illusion of 3d) compared to any PVA, S-IPS or even the Asus TN I own. A very good friend of mine has the Dell U2410 and it looks outstanding. Blu-rays are a joy to see on that display. It has a real 3D look to the picture.


    Dell owns this category. Since the start of LCD production Dell has had the best stands with the most connectivity options and the best user interfaces. My HP 2475 at work is comparable.

    NEC has a very good stand with not as much connectivity and the user interface is a bit of a pain in the ass. None of that really matters though, what made me angry was the insanely thick AG coating.

    Asus TNs like most TNs have horrible stands. Absolutely no adjust-ability (Tilt doesn't count!). The Asus does have decent connectivity options but the user interface is bad.
  • B3an - Sunday, August 08, 2010 - link

    Is 120hz possible on a 2560x1600 monitor? As the res is the highest a DVI dual-link cable can handle, and i'm not sure if the latest Display Port or HDMI specs have enough bandwidth for 120hz at this res? Anyone know? Reply
  • mac2j - Sunday, August 08, 2010 - link

    Is 120HZ possible on a 2560x1600 ?

    Yes. And personally I agree that would be my dream also ... although we're probably talking ~$2000. The mostly likely place to look would be Dell's next revision of the 2008WFP.

    The other consideration is you'd need a serious graphics card to drive 3D at that resolution with that framerate .... really with the current offerings you're probably looking at needing the top 1 or 2 models in SLI for good performance.

    I have a rudimentary understanding of where monitors excel in relationship to TVs in this area but can anyone tell me what kind of performance/picture you could expect using one of the new 240Hz 3D TVs as a monitor?
  • mac2j - Sunday, August 08, 2010 - link

    Ugh type I meant 3008WFP ... need edit button... Reply
  • DarkUltra - Sunday, August 08, 2010 - link

    No you need DisplayPort to get 2560x1600 at 120hz. Dual link DVI maxes out at about 1300p 120hz. If you have such a high resolution and lack the 3d perfromance, why not run games at half, say 1280x800. Fonts in Windows look real nice in high dpi on my crt (1530p 134dpi) Reply
  • mac2j - Monday, August 09, 2010 - link

    OK here's the breakdown as far as I can tell:

    Regular DVI & HDMI <1.3 max out at 1920x1200x60Hz.

    Dual-link DVI maxes out at 1920x1200x120Hz

    HDMI 1.3 & DisplayPort 1.0 max out at 1680x1050x240hz

    1920x1200x140hz or 2560x1600x120hz would require DisplayPort 1.2 or HDMI B (which may become 1.5)

    Nothing I've heard of can handle 2560x1600x240hz as far as I know (would require =24 Gbit/s capacity)
  • mac2j - Monday, August 09, 2010 - link

    Its worth mentioning that as far as I know the first commercial cards to support DisplayPort 1.2 will be the ATI 6000 series late this year but I could be wrong. Reply
  • B3an - Monday, August 09, 2010 - link

    I've got two 5870's and they run pretty much everything at 2560x1600 no problem, even with AA + AF... not really anything these days that really stresses cards like games used to, too much console port crap. Also had a single GTX480 and that could get way over 60+FPS at this res with 98% of games.

    So after looking into it... mac2j is right, Display Port 1.2 should definitely be able to do 2560x1600 @ 120hz.

    Just hope the 3008 replacement can do 120hz, but i highly doubt it will, these monitors are not really for gamers, even though it would benefit other things too...
  • ralgha2001 - Monday, July 11, 2011 - link

    I know this may be a dumb question.. but could I use a Samsung 40" Full HD TV (S-PVA supposedly 4 ms response) @ 120 hz for gaming and have 1920x1080 @ 120 hz (it has HDMI and RGB inputs). I don't quite care about 3D but I would like to know if I could do gaming on this and skip buying a new monitor for now..

    I'm actually building a new rig from ground zero. I'm thinkin in nvidia's GTX 580 and a mobo for the intel 1155 socket (maybe along the 2500K to save some bucks from 2600K). Since detailing the other components might not be needed or care about I'm stopping here.

    But I'm not sure if i should go for the AW2310 or another current monitor since I might still be able to go with my HDTV and save a bunch. Doesn't seem like an actual option since nobody seems to mention it and still wonder in with monitors @60 hz.

  • TareX - Sunday, August 08, 2010 - link

    Any shutter glasses system is not the future.

    The future is autostereoscopic lenticular lens 3D screens.
  • bill4 - Sunday, August 08, 2010 - link

    I think you guys play fast and loose with the input lag tests. It's great that you do them though, dont get me wrong.

    For one thing as far as I know, turning almost any processing on only increases lag. For that reason I'm rather doubtful turning overdrive on reduced lag. I mean think about it, if the display has to process the image in any way, you're adding lag.

    Next you mention some monitor that you claim has no scaler and no lag. Well again as far as I know, ANY LCD display inherently has lag. So again I'm rather dubious.

    In total, it reads like you wanted this monitor to have low lag, because you liked it so much, so you sort of brushed aside evidence otherwise.

    I dont understand how in the same article you run a test apparently showing it to have 14 ms lag, then later claim it has 3.9 ms by comparing it with some third monitor. It just doesnt make sense, and is confusing at the least. Which test do you consider definitive? And if this third LCD has no lag, why didn't you test it versus a CRT? Simply having no scaler is not proof it has no lag.

    I mention this because in the HDTV lag thread at AVS forums, it's a generally accepted tenant that 120hz displays have more lag than 60 hz ones. That's why I would expect this 120hz display to have relatively more lag, such as your first test seemed to hint at.
  • HDPeeT - Sunday, August 08, 2010 - link

    120hz HDTVs have more input lag because they don't actually accept 120hz input signals but instead interpolate frames from a 60hz or 24hz signal. This of course takes a considerable amount of time since the display has to analyze several frames before it can create the interpolated frames. 120hz/3D monitors such as this one actually accept a true 120hz signal from your video card, so there is no need to create additional ones through interpolation. All things being equal, a monitor that is receiving 120fps SHOULD have LESS lag than one that is only receiving 60fps. Of course all things might NOT be equal here, as the display might have more processing than some of the faster 60hz monitors out there.

    Like you, I also don't understand how they came up with the 3.9ms figure............he did say that the Asus was "consistently" 1 frame behind the other LCD, which would mean it has at LEAST 8ms of input lag.
  • DarkUltra - Sunday, August 08, 2010 - link

    The DVI link tech is not buffering or packadge based. It transfers all three colors, one pixel at a tiime. Fortunately, LCD can have zero input lag (compared to a CRT). Overdrive is not really a digital processing job, like say interpolation or scaling. It just gives the crystals an initial volt bump, then lowers the volt to normal levels. This is so the crystals turn faster.

    However, input lag should be measured on the same output.

    testing with two displays connected to the two outputs of a video card and using a clone mode does not give accurate results – they simply vary too much! So in order to compare displays and have an accurate judgment on the presence or lack of input lag you must use a passive video splitter that is capable of splitting a single video signal to two displays.
  • nvmarino - Sunday, August 08, 2010 - link

    Great news! Thanks for the extra effort! Reply
  • Stokestack - Sunday, August 08, 2010 - link

    "and I’ve yet to see passive polarization methods used outside the movie theatre"

    They exist. At SIGGRAPH at least two years ago, someone (I think it was JVC) demoed a 3-D monitor that had every other horizontal line polarized in the opposite direction. Not a bad choice; you got half vertical resolution, but full horizontal resolution.
  • DarkUltra - Sunday, August 08, 2010 - link

    Is there a white halo effect around text and graphics in 2D "desktop" use like the Acer GD245HQ? Is there a sharpening effect? Can it be adjusted?
  • dgz - Monday, August 09, 2010 - link

    "The necessity for 120Hz panels arose entirely out of the ongoing 3D obsession" is plain wrong.

    Quake should be played at 120Hz as all other frantic FPS games. For CoD kids 60Hz and "3D" may be fine, though.
  • dgz - Monday, August 09, 2010 - link

    Good ol' CRTs, how I miss you :( Reply
  • dgz - Monday, August 09, 2010 - link

    Just asking. Reply
  • Zap - Monday, August 09, 2010 - link

    Regarding polarized 3D mentioned in the article, IZ3D has brought polarized 3D tech (using cheap polarized glasses) to gamers for several years. Just wanted to throw that out there. Reply
  • zoxo - Monday, August 09, 2010 - link

    I think every 3D technology that uses active glasses is garbage. Manufacturers need to create circularly polarized monitors before it is really usable. Reply
  • Gris - Monday, August 09, 2010 - link

    "Manufacturers need to create circularly polarized monitors before it is really usable."

    I think you may be right, (if that's even viable), but more so for tv's than computer monitors where viewing in a vertical position is more the norm.
  • zoxo - Monday, August 09, 2010 - link

    Yes indeed, but why settle for a half-solution?
    But I agree, that anything that uses passive glasses is a huge step-up. Those active glasses drive me nuts.
  • ChongDOTcom - Monday, August 09, 2010 - link

    I guess this display is quite popular, since it's sold out at nearly every online retailer. The only site I could find that has some in stock was Best Buy, where I luckily just ordered one last night.

    I was originally going to get the Alienware Optx, but that's the same price but doesn't come with the glasses. It looks a little cooler, but they seem extremely similar. I don't even need the glasses, though (I have an ATI card). I'll likely sell them.

    Anybody know any workarounds to get 3D to work on this screen? I'd be willing to purchase another 3D kit.
  • meldog11 - Tuesday, August 10, 2010 - link

    i think most of you are missing the point...the point is true functioning 3-d gaming on almost 24 inches of landscape @ true 1080p.....i hear you throwing out a huge wish list of things that arent available now nor where they available before....but this is closer to your wish list of demands, at a price point that 3 months ago you could only get 22 inches and 1680 x 1050.....what i took from this whole review is that the reviewer was overwhelmingly impressed with the 3d technology...meaning it actually "works" and a worthy skeptic is converted! if your not a fan of 3d technology then fine, if you wont be impressed with a new level of immersion in the games that you play fine, if close to 24 inches of landscape dont improve on the previous 22 inches of landscape fine.....but make no mistake about it this is a definite step in the right direction in terms of gameplay and performance for an imerging tech and at a price point that is impressive or at least competative to its predeccesors......just my humble opinion Reply
  • RaZz! - Thursday, August 12, 2010 - link

    Nice review. In the conclusion you mention the Acer and Alienware monitors - in my opinion the LG W2363D should be named in this league as well.

    Since reviews of these monitors are cluttered all over the web on different sites with different test methods etc, it's pretty hard to really compare the monitors respectively the results from these tests.

    I'd really love to see these 120Hz monitors tested with the same test methods - compared from one source.

    Anandtech would do a lot of people a favor with a 120Hz monitor roundup ;) Many forums have threads going on with exact this topic and a lot of people are unsure which monitor is better. Facts and detailed field reports are very rare, even though some of these monitors are out there for quite some time already.

    On a side note: there have been a lot of issues reported for the Acer, like too aggressive Overdrive which makes fonts too sharp and hardly readable as well as green and red coronas when doing fast turns in games. Videos of these problems can be found on Youtube for example.
  • Sabresiberian - Thursday, August 12, 2010 - link

    I'm sooo glad to read an up-to-date article that describes the 120Hz LCD monitor in a discreet state. The previous articles I read (back when they first came out ) left me with the impression that they weren't really 120 Hz, just 60Hz gimmicked-up, and not much better. Brian has answered that question and I am thrilled to know we aren't entirely hampered with 60Hz as a standard for future video.

    Looking forward to a real quality unit along the lines of the Dell U2711 or HP ZR30w in true 120 Hz capability. Better yet, true 240 Hz so that each eye can live with 120 Hz in a 3D setup! Heh.
  • Orip - Saturday, August 14, 2010 - link

    Seems to be doing whatever the Asus VG236H is doing (except that the 2233RZ is 22" but is also a 16:10).

    What am I missing?
  • Orip - Saturday, August 14, 2010 - link

    Being keen on the sanctity of my fps I'm still using my good ole' trusted Iiyama CRT.
    Now that LCDs are nailing down 120mhz I could finally grab one but there seem to be no concensus as to where one's money would be best spent.
    The samsung is cheaper by far out of all the 120mhz LCDs out there (atleast in israel that's the case).

    A lil' help here would be welcome :)
    Thanks! :)
  • fingerbob69 - Tuesday, August 17, 2010 - link

    As the subject line says 120hz ips panels are the way to go; colour reprodution and fluidity of movement... with no issue regarding viewing angles.

    I have one of those NEC ea231wmi panels and I have to say it's fantastic. I play a lot of fps games and have not noticed any colour distortion, left to right, ghosting or lag and I've had no problem with the anti glare coating. Maybe I'm just too easily pleased!
  • DarkUltra - Thursday, August 19, 2010 - link

    I don't see any black level impressions. Just that contrast is good and MEtro 2033 needs a bump in the gamma setting in 3D mode. Other reviews have found the black level on this monitor bad:

    The display was equally unable to separate very dark grays from absolute black. As a result, we had a difficult time seeing what was happening in the Blu-ray version of Watchmen’s opening fight sequence.

    This is not acceptable to me. I don't wanto mess with gamma settings in games and reduce the color representation further. I guess I'll get the LG W2363D or wait for a 16:10 or LED backlit 120hz monitor.

    The other 120hz monitors have other issues, AW2310 have blurring and smearing in 2d mode despite the 120hz performance, GD245HQ have serious sharpness issues, the others are "only" 22" panels.
  • DarkUltra - Thursday, August 19, 2010 - link

    PS I use and and a few new 23" 1080p lcd we have at work are really bad at these tests. My dads benq g2400w is good, so TN can perform and I hope the LG W2363D is similar. Reply
  • AllenP - Wednesday, September 08, 2010 - link

    Hey, I had a question about this statement:

    "It just so happens that it’s pulling one frame behind, which on average worked out to a lag of 1.9 ms."

    Sorry, I don't quite understand where those numbers are coming from... what do you mean by "one frame"? One frame is 8.3ms at 120 Hz or 16.7ms at 60Hz... To be honest, I guess it really doesn't matter: the graphics card ends up being the one that decides how much latency exists between outputs, especially when it's working with two signals at different refresh rates.

    I would recommend using a more simple method of testing that always tries to get the exact same frame, refresh rate, and resolution to both monitors after it leaves the graphics card though one DVI-I port... This will eliminate all the confusion about how much latency the graphics card has when reading from the frame buffer to two different DVI ports. You'll need a really good CRT for that kind of test (one that can support like 1080P+ at 120Hz+), but I'm sure they exist. This way you can just split the DVI-I to a DVI and VGA using a passive component like this: -- Then the only element introducing discrepancies would be the DAC inside your graphics card that is used on the DVI-I (which I would assume is happens /after/ the frame is read from the frame buffer with most graphics cards that support this type of simultaneous output).
  • v12v12 - Tuesday, September 14, 2010 - link

    You know when I 1st read the review of this, I thought to myself; hrmmm could I too be "wrong" about this whole 3D-imagery non-nonse... Am I missing out on something really good, bc I'm bias towards CRTs? Thankfully the answer is NO! I'm not missing anything lol!

    I love my habit of always reading through the comments section; you REALLY can segregate the meat from the fat when you go through pages of comments. Comments with BRUTAL honesty and usually spot on; what you don't find in Klug's fanboy-hyped review. Seriously I started questioning my judgment(s) about 3D, 120hz, and (omg) TN-panels, LMFAO! TN—really (?!), for all this money and supposed advancement?!
    __Thanks to the numerous comments about these and many more "overlooked" features/technological implements, I've slammed the gavel on this ridiculous review; GUILTY! This monitor is nothing more than old technology, souped-up with some racing stripe, coffee-can exhaust like "advances," repackaged for the sheepish plebs. Yep I said Plebs; the sheep that will do EXACTLY what the OP has suggested; go out and get this monitor right now! ORLY? Then you read the comments and see all the major flaws of this ricer "technology..." I've been saying this for YEARS when I saw LCDs starting to take a market foot-hold; high-tech MARKETING is selling low-end technology as STANDARD FOR US ALL! WTF?
    Haha, I love having a marketing background; makes seeing all these smoke and mirror, Vegas light and dazzle shows so much easier... But nope, plenty of sheep out there that will be saving up or going out right now to support this con-artist marketing of low-tech "advancement(s)," which hurts the real technological enthusiast or just simply someone that knows the TRUTH about how most folks are being duped on the daily, which sets market precedent for EVERYONE to get with, or pay much more for what we all should demand!

    TN? Glossy? 1/2 arse 3D? No game port? Lack of real lag testing? 16:9???! PRICE? Yeah MARKETING folks...

    I'll PASS!
  • Zoeff - Friday, September 17, 2010 - link

    Brian, what would be your recommended settings for this monitor when using it for both playing games and some photo editing?

  • Deusfaux - Monday, October 04, 2010 - link

    a 16:10 monitor won't allow you to better see/hunt down enemies in a videogame, as you imply, with it's increased height.

    Almost all widescreen compatible games are Horizontal+, and the vertical FOV is constant. You're actually seeing less with a narrower 16:10 display than a wider 16:9 one.
  • NiteTortoise - Wednesday, October 06, 2010 - link

    Hey Brian Klug -

    I think you have the wrong model # for the display without the glasses. You list it as VG246HE, but its actually VG236HE per Asus's website:

    I spent a couple hours trying to find the display without the glasses, and I'm sure others have been in the same situation!

  • snuuggles - Monday, November 22, 2010 - link

    I've been gaming on an older 32" 720p lcd tv for about 3 years. In a pinch I can use it as a monitor for work or browsing email, but of course the resolution is a bit low for that stuff...

    I'd really like to replace it with a higher resolution monitor, but I don't want to go too much smaller, and I'm *very* sensitive to input lag/low fps/ghosting/motion issues.

    Basically for gaming, the things that matter (to me) are:

    - input lag
    - size of screen
    - native resolution that is a good comprimise between sharp/useful-for-work and not-a-frame-rate-killer (hellooooo 1080p, booooo 2560x1600)
    - minimal ghosting/trailing/whatever motion artifacts

    not important:
    - viewing angle (it's just me!)
    - color reproduction (I don't edit photos)
    - energy consumption (unless it starts costing dollars per day, PC gaming is just going to cost real money, and my electric bill is just not an issue compared to all the other costs, even if it *doubles*)

    Seems like a large-format (27"+), 1080p TN+Film 120hz monitor for 500-600 would be something I should expect to be able to buy. Why is there no such thing? For *any* price?!?!

    Can anyone say *for sure* that any of the new 3d TVs actually accept 120hz input. In other words, I know at least some (most? al?) of them use a funny "frame packing" method to get the two frames to the tv, basically using the same 60hz input with a funny resolution that the tv then just splits and displays one after the other. Are there *any* 3d tvs that actually accept a true 120hz 1080p input that I could use as a large monitor? Anything in the next year?

    Should I just say screw it and get the zr30w and game at 1280x800 and work at full rez? There's no way I'm dropping 600 every year just to have a video card that can play the latest games at full rez.

    Seems really really lame that the only two 27" 120hz monitors I can find listed anywhere on google have no release date. What is going on, should I just wait, or is there some reason that the things I care about just don't seem to be something people want to deliver a product for?
  • snuuggles - Monday, December 06, 2010 - link

    Anyone (Brian) looking at this thread anymore? I know I'm basically posing on a dead article, but there's no 'display' section of the forums, and I haven't seen the answer to my questions anywhere (here, TFT reviews, avs forums)!

    My questions consolidated for convenience:

    - When are larger-format (27"+) 120hz input monitors coming out. Is there some reason they aren't out already?

    - assuming the above is going to take a while (6+ months), are there any TVs out there now that will take a 120hz input and display it at 120hz.

    - Assuming there are no tvs currently available that can do that, can anyone say with confidence that 2011 will bring some (given that they'll all have HDMI 1.4 and that supposedly would support 1080p@120hz input). Or will they continue to insist on the ridiculous "frame packing" bs, and not even allow 120hz input.

    It just seems strange that I can't get what I want which is a large (27-42"), low lag, 120hz input display at 1080p.

    Thanks again! Sorry if I'm posting in an inappropriate place.
  • Onslaught2k3 - Saturday, December 04, 2010 - link

    Every single display won't have everything you need. People bashing 120hz calling it a gimmick are just silly. Gamers spend hundreds finding the best mouse around that'll move at 5000+ DPI. After buying this montior, going over 2500 DPI on a laser gaming-grade mouse is unnecessary because the 120hz display effectively doubles the DPI @ 60Hz. You can use a cheaper mouse with this monitor and save money on what you would otherwise be spending on a freaking peripheral! That on its own is pretty good. I have a Samsung T260 paired with this monitor (I've paid MORE for the T260 back in may of 2008 than I did for the VG236HE - the one without the nvidia 3d kit since I use a AMD graphics card) and the difference is plain stunning. Since I focus what's on screen and not on my reflection I find that the glossy screen resembles a CRT with regards to colour reproduction. But as people have said here I know for a fact that CRTs are far better in almost every regard to an LCD picture and colour-wise. My next monitor purchase will most likely be a 120hz IPS panel that is around 27". This probably won't happen for another 3-5 years. Reply
  • MLSCrow - Monday, December 06, 2010 - link

    The title of the Article is, "...120Hz is the future", but I think what you really should say is, "...240Hz is the future".

    Reason(s) being;

    In the introduction of your article, you wrote, "I spent the first half hour seriously just dragging windows back and forth across the desktop - from a 120Hz display to a 60Hz, stunned at how smooth and different 120Hz was. Yeah, it’s that different."

    With that said, I agree, 120Hz is amazing in comparison to 60Hz. I've been noticing the difference ever since I tried noticing the difference, back in the CRT days, however, once you activate 3D mode, you break that value in half for each eye. So, as you said, the 120Hz, becomes 60Hz per eye in 3D mode. However, in order to have that same smoothness that you saw 120Hz prior to 3D mode, during 3D mode, you would need a 240Hz display and considering that 240Hz 3D capable displays (120Hz per eye in 3D mode) are currently available, I'm sure you'd agree that it really is 240Hz that is the future.


    -Fan since genesis.
  • MLSCrow - Monday, December 06, 2010 - link

    Though, I understand that 240Hz displays may not have been available or as available in August compared to now (December). Reply

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now