120hz Monitor vs IPS monitor

Aziru

Distinguished
Sep 7, 2011
37
0
18,530
I am currently torn between choosing 2 monitors that i will be using for gaming such as Skyrim and BF3. I will probobly be playing for extended persiods of time.
These two monitors i am torn between.
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16824236201
or
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16824236104
I am not interested in 3d but am looking for an amazing image quality for my 460 GTX SLI. Is 120hz really a noticable difference in games? What does the ips really have that makes it soo much better then the 120hz? Ive never seen any in person because there arent much shops except BestBuy around here in mass :(
 
I generally prefer IPS panel monitors to TN panel monitors. It's the viewing angles that really kills TN panels for me.

Some people have stated 120Hz monitors really makes things look smooth even when using it to surf the net or do other things besides playing games. Others do not notice any difference at all. As for games, as long as your graphics card setup is powerful enough to push much more than 60 FPS in first person games, then I would guess that you should notice a difference.

 
The PA24Q uses a P-IPS panel.

The PA238Q uses is less expensive e-IPS panel. It uses a 6-bit panel as opposed to an 8-bit panel in the more expensive S-IPS, H-IPS and P-IPS panels. All TN panels are 6-bit panels.

The PA238Q should be fine for most people, even though it is a 6-bit panel it should generally have more accurate colors (once calibrated) than a TN panel and the viewing angles will be better than a TN panel.
 
Generally the answer is no unless you are doing color critical work or there are subtle color differences in a video scene or picture.

The following is a link to my detailed review of the Asus VK246H monitor which uses a TN panel.

http://www.tomshardware.com/forum/54250-3-asus-vk246h-review-final-update

For the average person or a gamer it is a very good monitor. In the extended DVD playback review section believe I have noted a few very minor issues with the exception of Batman: The Dark Knight. In the Dark Knight, I noted several issues during the play of the movie. Most are considered minor unless you know what to look for. However, there are two instances basically in the same scene where image artifacts are blatantly apparent.

The Dark Knight is a long movie and is a very dark movie since most of the movie was shot indoors and at night. In other words, lots of shadows and different gradients of colors due to shifting low lighting conditions. This uses a lot of bit rate or storage space. A DVD can only store around 8.5GB - 8.6GB of data.

The blatant video artifacts are visible when the Joker blows up a hospital. The thick black smoke billowing out of the explosion is "blocky" or pixelated. Instead of seeing a cloud of black smoke you see something like it black boxes filling up the screen. On the street view of that same scene with the Joker dressed in a nurse uniform quickly walking away from the exploding hospital and towards a bus, I can see his bare arms changing colors form normal skin tone to something like dark green while his arms are swinging.

I do not notice those artifacts when I watched the Dark Knight DVD on my 47" LG 47LH90 HDTV (which has a S-IPS panel) or my NEC and Planar monitors (H-IPS panels).

Getting back to bit rate, I am going to assume that this issue will not be evident on the Blu-Ray version of The Dark Knight. Blu-Ray discs can store up to around 50GB of data, therefore a long movie does not need to compressed as much to fit on a Blu-Ray disc than on a DVD dics (8.5GB). However, that is offset by the fact that the movie is stored at HD video resolution (I assume 1080p) compared to 720p for a DVD. The larger the resolution, the more bit rate it needs.