120hz Monitors. Futureproof? Help!!

[Gardnersworld1]

Hey, so in a nutshell my current monitor sucks. And I have been looking around the web and apparently these 120hz that show over 60 fps are pretty awesome, and make the game look that much smoother - period. The thing is these monitors are pretty expensive...

So the question is, if I pay £250 for one of these, could, hypothetically something come out a year down the line that kicks its ass come a year down the line? I mean I want this to last a good 2 years maybe, has anyone heard any rumors or anything about future displays? As always your insight would be awesome guys.

Thanks, chris.
P.S. here's the monitor - http://www.amazon.co.uk/BenQ-XL2411T-Widescreen-1920x1080-3D-Ready/dp/B00A2KZ2XS/ref=sr_1_4?ie=UTF8&qid=1360258426&sr=8-4

 

[gamingboy]

The only thing I can see coming in the near future is 4k resolution. However, they will be very expensive.

That monitor shouldn't become outdated for a long, long time.

 

[alvine]

I think in a year we will have 4k resolution displays for pcs but with that you will need better graphics so its a never ending upgrade cycle

 

[Gardnersworld1]

Cheers guys for those swift replies, 4k resolution? wow who would of knew, anyway i just had a look around google and well.. I ran into this article, pretty funny.

This is it - http://gizmodo.com/5813575/a-4k-resolution-display-that-fits-on-your-desk

If you dont want to read it I think the highlight is this quote here "But Japanese display maker Eizo thinks it also belongs on your desktop. For 36,000 dollars." So yeh gamingboy, quite true on the expense part.

If I just somehow magically did not have to spend any money whatsoever for a year i could get one.... Haah, but cheers for the replies guys, sounds like a investment

 

[alvine]

new technology is always expensive so it doesn't surprise me..think of first plasma tv's for example

 

[maestro0428]

You can't see over 60fps, so the only benefit to 120hz is for 3D. If you want something that will be relevant longer, go with a 1440p monitor.

 

[bystander]

You can't see over 60fps, so the only benefit to 120hz is for 3D. If you want something that will be relevant longer, go with a 1440p monitor.

You can't see more than 60 FPS, because your monitor won't display more than 60 FPS, but people can see more than 60 FPS with the right hardware.

But a lot of what makes games smooth feeling is the reduced latency that goes along with higher FPS.

 

[littleleo]

Nothing is future proof, lol. If your happy on how you current games are running enjoy. I always thought the 120hz models were more for 3D. Of course if some hot new game comes out tomorrow that requires more then what your monitor can do it will be time to upgrade. Until then your fine.

 

[cjl]

I just don't consider monitors with multi-thousand dollar price tags to be relevant to anything.

In some ways, I see them as more relevant than processors or graphics cards approaching a thousand dollars (and I say that as the owner of both a >$1k monitor, and a fairly high end GPU/CPU setup). GPUs and CPUs are obsolete relatively quickly, while a high-quality monitor lasts a long time, and the tech is advancing a lot slower than it is for most computer components. Someone who purchased a really nice, 30 inch 2560x1600 monitor back in 2006 (the dell ultrasharp 3007 for example) has something that's still basically top of the line, while someone who purchased a really nice, top of the line CPU at the same time got a QX6700 (which, while nice, is nowhere even close to top of the line anymore).

 

[cjl]

That's fair enough, and I will say that I'm more referring to the $1k-$3k price range (basically where current, top end 30 inchers have been for some time), not the >>$3k range. I purchased a Dell U3011 a few years ago for $1500 or so, for example, and I don't see myself replacing it until I can get a really nice 4k (or higher) display for a similar amount.

 

[Gardnersworld1]

Cheers for posting guys, bigmack in particular for cleaning up some stuff.

"You can't see over 60fps, so the only benefit to 120hz is for 3D. If you want something that will be relevant longer, go with a 1440p monitor." Yeah i heard that rumor was a load of garbage as well. I have a gtx 680 and get well over 60 frames so it should all be good. I just could not really find much on the progression and where monitors were right now in the market and how quickly they were evolving.

P.S. i was looking at the specs of this moam (mother of all monitors) and for gaming, the specifications are quite bad I think with the 8ms gray-to-gray response time
http://www.eizo.com/global/products/duravision/fdh3601/index.html#tab02 - if you guys are interested - peace!

 

[bigshootr8]

I think people misunderstand things when they look at 4k resolution screens and think that they are coming to the monitor market. Notice CES and how every screen that they have on display is a higher sized screen the reason they haven't pushed for a 4k resolution screen on the market is because at a lower screen size you wouldn't be able to notice it. Also, furthermore I think you are more likely to see 2k screens at some point when who knows but games will need something pretty strong to power that resolution most cards now would fall under that pressure at the frames that people are after.

In terms of telling the difference I can tell you that you can see a difference in fluidity from 60 to 120 and from 120 to 240hz. I was walking through the mall and I was walking through a store that had a 240 hz tv playing one of the pirate of the Caribbean movies I felt like I was watching a different movie there was a fluidity that was pretty intense I liked it however the problem is that monitors to my knowledge in the above 60hz mark are all TN+. And TN suffers from not being as strong color wise as well as viewing angles.

So you ask about future proof well I would say that no matter what screen you get now chances are it will be supported in any game that you play. Hell I'm sure in most games 800x600 is still a resolution supported. So I would just advise in getting the best monitor that you can afford and if you like 120 hz I would look at the monitors from Benq and ASUS and if you are looking for more of a solid 60hz monitor I would take a look at the ASUS PA, and PB series of monitors.

 

[rb420]

Also, furthermore I think you are more likely to see 2k screens at some point when who knows but games will need something pretty strong to power that resolution most cards now would fall under that pressure at the frames that people are after.

4k resolution = 3840*2160

Sooo 2k would be half of that...care to do the math? That is right 1920 *1080

1080p references the vertical pixel count whereas 4k references the horizontal pixel count

 

[bystander]

I thought 4k was more a play on the fact that it's 4x the resolution of 1080p.

I thought it was as rb420 said.

I've never seen "k" used as a multiplier for anything. "k" is often used as shorthand for kilo, which is 1000 times the base measurement.

 

[bigshootr8]

Either way right now the resolution on the screens shown at CES is no indication that we will see those screens on the market and be ones people will use in the common marketplace because the current cards are unable to put out great fps at that resolution. Just doesn't seem like it will catch on for the foreseeable future. I would say the more noticeable difference would be in the hz of a monitor and not the resolution at this moment.

 

[bigshootr8]

correct and even so with the way cards are setup now and the way hd looks now do you really think that 4k on a smaller screen your normal 19-24 inch screen will be able to notice the definition probably not. Its like recommending a 7970 to someone running a 1280x1024 resolution.

 

[bigshootr8]

Right! But see for gaming its not normal for high frame per second scenario's at the moment to go beyond a 24 inch screen 1080, 1200p screen without moving into 2 cards so that means 1440p and 1600p screens.

 

[bigshootr8]

True because the definition is high enough to kind of push the smoothness out of the way. But again I would think a few years down the road maybe but right now it seems unrealistic for people to go into 4k resolution screens in the mainstream. People will remain with 1080p screens for the foreseeable future.

 

[bystander]

I imagine 4k resolutions would not be gamed at 4k. Either you'd game at 1080p, which would have no scaling issue, as it divides evenly into the 4k resolution, or you'll have some post process up scaling.

 

[bigshootr8]

4k I can see being more of a movie thing. Not a gaming thing at least for now.

 

[cjl]

P.S. i was looking at the specs of this moam (mother of all monitors) and for gaming, the specifications are quite bad I think with the 8ms gray-to-gray response time
http://www.eizo.com/global/products/duravision/fdh3601/index.html#tab02 - if you guys are interested - peace!

A lot of people overestimate the importance of the response time - 8ms is fine (though $35k for a monitor is a bit steep...).

As for driving a game at 4k? Sure, you'd need a high-end graphics setup to do it, but given how well current games run on 2560x1600, most would still do fine at 4k. A few of the most demanding would require the settings to be turned down, but for the most part, a modern, high-end GPU setup could run stuff natively at 4k without too much difficulty. As for whether you could see a difference between 4k and current screens? Absolutely. Anyone who has seen one of the new Macbooks (w/ Retina display) knows how much of a difference a high-ppi screen can make. I know I would love to have a 4k screen in the 24-30" size range.

 

[bigshootr8]

Not everyone has APPLE money to blow on there system. Sure tech is great not everyone has the money to get even a 27 inch 1440p IPS panel or a 24 inch 120hz monitor. There are applications where you could tell the difference however games are built in 4k They are build in lower resolutions to what people are using what the industry is using. There is a big difference between necessity and luxury and I feel that 4k displays are luxury at the moment. SSD's were like that for a while, Blu ray was like that for a while this may just be the next thing who knows.

But what I do know is if you get a decent 120 hz monitor or a good IPS panel that you will be fine for years to come. Because regardless of standards changing monitors have a far longer life cycle then anything else computer related with the exception of maybe our computer case.

 

[cjl]

Not everyone has APPLE money to blow on there system. Sure tech is great not everyone has the money to get even a 27 inch 1440p IPS panel or a 24 inch 120hz monitor. There are applications where you could tell the difference however games are built in 4k They are build in lower resolutions to what people are using what the industry is using.

(I'll assume that you meant to type "games aren't built in 4k")

Games aren't made for a specific resolution. They are rendered by your graphics card at whatever resolution you want. Higher resolution means you will see more texture detail out to a farther draw distance, and edges will be sharper and more detailed (including the ability to distinguish objects from farther away). This is even true of extremely old games. A game doesn't need to be specifically built to handle a high resolution like 4k to benefit from it. A good example of this is that I play Half Life 2, Counter Strike Source, and even older games sometimes on my 30 inch, 2560x1600 monitor. I guarantee you that HL2 was not designed with 2560x1600 in mind, but it looks great rendered at that resolution nonetheless.

(Now I have a sudden urge to play some half life...)

 

[Mousemonkey]

This topic has been moved from the section Graphics & Displays to section Computer Peripherals by Mousemonkey