- Status
Love mine that I ordered a month ago. It had a scratch, but overlord support was so helpful and instantly contacted me for the RMA. Now I am sitting here with a non scratched panel with 2 ONLY 2 Dead Pixels 
, and it's overclocked to 120hz. Now all I need is to watercool my Cm Storm Stryker and wait for my reference r9 290x to deliver.
, and it's overclocked to 120hz. Now all I need is to watercool my Cm Storm Stryker and wait for my reference r9 290x to deliver.
jlwtech
Honorable
- Mar 8, 2012
- 58
- 0
- 10,630
Is there really anything to gain from going above 60fps?
From what I understand, the average human cannot tell the difference between 30fps and 60fps, as long as frame rates are consistent.
Can you tell the difference? Particularly, if you did not know about the higher refresh rate?
From what I understand, the average human cannot tell the difference between 30fps and 60fps, as long as frame rates are consistent.
Can you tell the difference? Particularly, if you did not know about the higher refresh rate?
mapesdhs
Distinguished
- Jan 22, 2007
- 2,507
- 0
- 21,160
Blimey, someone who clearly doesn't know how old TV standards work. Do some research on
interlaced NTSC - utter garbage compared to progressive scan HD, etc. Colour reproduction with
NTSC was poor aswell, hence the industry joke that it stood for Never Twice the Same Colour.
PAL has 16% higher information content overall, but when broadcast, both standards gave the
viewer a lot fewer lines in the final image than the picture spec suggested, often less than 400
with NTSC, less than 500 with PAL, depending on the make of TV (in the UK, TV companies
exploited this by using the top few lines for 'teletext' services such as Ceefex).
Ian.
PS. Bondfc11, you're not quoting peoples' posts properly. You've merged one of mine with a
post from someone else.
trogdor796
Distinguished
- Nov 26, 2009
- 998
- 0
- 19,160
Yes, there is absolutely something to gain by going above 60fps.
I have a 120hz monitor, and I could never go back to a 60hz one. It's so much smoother, at the desktop and playing games, when doing it at 120 frames.
As for the human eye not being able to tell the difference between 30fps and 60fps, that's a load of <mod edit>...start up a game and limit its fps to 30. Now play the same game uncapped/at 60fps. You can absolutely tell the difference. People have been spreading this lie for years, and it's not true. The human eye doesn't see in frames, so technically there's not a certain number that we stop seeing higher frames at. When you stop noticing higher frames is actually like over 200fps.
skit75
Splendid
- Oct 7, 2008
- 2,682
- 1
- 21,460
The best way I usually describe this is using an audio example.
While you may not be able to actually perceive the increased frames especially over 90FPS, you can feel or experience a difference in a similar way that most people cannot hear sound frequencies below 25Hz. You begin to feel or experience those sound waves rather than audibly hear them.
60+ FPS won't make you crap your pants like a low frequency sound wave < 16Hz, A.K.A. the legendary "brown" notes but, you will be able to experience a difference.
If nothing else, you are providing such a high FPS overhead, that high action frames will no longer appear to drag your system down.
mapesdhs
Distinguished
- Jan 22, 2007
- 2,507
- 0
- 21,160
Plenty of people can tell the difference. Like so many aspects of human senses, people vary,
just as animals do. There's certainly no biological reason why an eyeball can't detect frame
rates beyond 60 (many birds operate more as if they're using 100 to 200Hz given their
visual acuity). For more than 20 years, it's been a cliche in the visual simulation idustry
that, "60Hz, but 30 hurts."
Ian.
just as animals do. There's certainly no biological reason why an eyeball can't detect frame
rates beyond 60 (many birds operate more as if they're using 100 to 200Hz given their
visual acuity). For more than 20 years, it's been a cliche in the visual simulation idustry
that, "60Hz, but 30 hurts."
Ian.
jlwtech
Honorable
- Mar 8, 2012
- 58
- 0
- 10,630
I suppose I should have phrased that a little differently. The study I am familiar with, was not done with computer games. This was done with video projection equipment, at a consistent 30fps and 60fps. Most of the "audience" couldn't tell the difference.
With computer games, while the average framerate may be 30, the actual time between frames can vary wildly, so it's a lot more noticeable. If you have played on any console other than the 720 and ps4, it was 30fps. (with a few, rare, exceptions)
One of the reasons I asked my initial question was the fact that movies and tv shows are all displayed at 24fps.
Most people don't believe that the first time they hear it (especially gamers and enthusiasts)...
I have not yet experienced gaming over 60fps, but I have seen some video comparisons where one is 24fps and the other is 72fps, and I didn't really notice a difference.
mapesdhs
Distinguished
- Jan 22, 2007
- 2,507
- 0
- 21,160
jlwtech writes:
> ... This was done with video projection equipment, ...
Was this done with DLPs? Even so, it's not remotely the same thing.
> ... Most of the "audience" couldn't tell the difference.
The music industry made the same mistake with the hifi market, selecting 16bit over 24bit
as a default because, "most people", couldn't tell the difference. Thing is, the people could
tell the difference were the audiophiles, classic fans and people with the real money to spend.
> With computer games, while the average framerate may be 30, the actual time between
> frames can vary wildly, so it's a lot more noticeable. ...
Hence why there's such emphasis now on minimum frame rates and broken frames which
include analysis tools such as FCAT, newer technologies to drive displays in a better way, etc.
> If you have played on any console other than the 720 and ps4, it was 30fps. (with a few, rare, exceptions)
Traditionally, consoles could get away with lower frame rates because field-based analogue displays
naturally blended one half-screenfull of dots into the next (phosphor persistence). This doesn't work
so well with newer digital displays though (hence the use of overscanning, etc.), and certainly not
low-latency computer monitors.
> One of the reasons I asked my initial question was the fact that movies and tv shows are all displayed at 24fps.
Not exactly. Only traditional cinema film and the original lesser 1080p/24 are 24Hz, and that's
changing fast (who would by anything less than 1080p 50Hz today?), with standards up to 4K/100Hz
being explored atm (checkout what Douglas Trumbull is up to with this 3D research). 24Hz was a
hangover from the early days of cinema, there was never any rational reason to use it for TV (CRTs
used for radar in WW2 were way better) and certainly not for HD, but of course initial compatibility
meant it had to be that way. Personally I don't like fast motion in standard cinematic film, far too
jerky/blurry, but others are less bothered by it. Ironic that the recent higher refresh Hobbit movies left
some viewers feeling less than impressed - people have gotten too used to the 24Hz flicker, it's
become part of the cinematic norm for their visual experience, at least for older viewers anyway.
Unsurprisingly, younger viewers prefer the newer format, though perhaps part of the problem is that
with a higher refresh and greater resolution, the level of detail in set design, makeup, CGI, etc., has
to be much better, otherwise the result doesn't look right. Reminds me of comments from some TV
presenters who don't like HD, because the greater detail suddenly means audiences can see their
spotty/wrinkled faces in full hideous detail.
There are various TV standards, but the most common formats are 30Hz (60 fields) NTSC and 25Hz
(50 fields) PAL; the latter has a 40% higher resolution, but the lower refresh results in a 16% higher
overall difference, if one can use blunt math in such a manner. PAL does have better colour though.
There's also SECAM, which used to be used in France, though I'm not sure if that's still the case.
> Most people don't believe that the first time they hear it (especially gamers and enthusiasts)...
It helps if one reads the Ladybird book on TVs at age 6. And then ends up in a career messing
with VR tech, CAVEs, film, etc. My dissertation was on stereo vision and the side effects of gaming,
albeit it a narrow study due to limited time.
So much of this is a lot more complicated than typical hobbyists like to imagine - read the refs below
and you'll see what I mean.
> I have not yet experienced gaming over 60fps, but I have seen some video comparisons where one
> is 24fps and the other is 72fps, and I didn't really notice a difference.
Assuming you had a display capable of showing the difference, all this really means is that you may
not be able to discern the two, but most people can, and as with the hifi market, it tends to be that
gaming fanatics who want the best quality are also the people with serious money to spend.
Alas the problem with TV standards and video, etc., is the plethora of legacy issues which affect
how the tech has evolved, never affording the possibility of a clean break with the messy early
analogue days which endured so many compromises. This is true even of the latest 2K/4K/etc.
formats which are a bit of pickle for similar reasons (there's no single standard; I can post a
summary if you like).
If you want to get a headache with some proper background reading on all this, see:
http://www.lurkertech.com/lg/
ie.:
http://www.lurkertech.com/lg/video-systems/
http://www.lurkertech.com/lg/fields/
http://www.lurkertech.com/lg/pixelaspect/
Sometimes I miss my old CRT monitor for gaming which supported 2048x1536 @ 96Hz, but there's
no doubt that a modern IPS panels like the HP/Dells I have now do give much better pixel precision,
colour accuracy, etc. At 96Hz, the CRT was struggling with just a VGA signal feed, but Oblivion
& Stalker did look good.
Ian.
> ... This was done with video projection equipment, ...
Was this done with DLPs? Even so, it's not remotely the same thing.
> ... Most of the "audience" couldn't tell the difference.
The music industry made the same mistake with the hifi market, selecting 16bit over 24bit
as a default because, "most people", couldn't tell the difference. Thing is, the people could
tell the difference were the audiophiles, classic fans and people with the real money to spend.
> With computer games, while the average framerate may be 30, the actual time between
> frames can vary wildly, so it's a lot more noticeable. ...
Hence why there's such emphasis now on minimum frame rates and broken frames which
include analysis tools such as FCAT, newer technologies to drive displays in a better way, etc.
> If you have played on any console other than the 720 and ps4, it was 30fps. (with a few, rare, exceptions)
Traditionally, consoles could get away with lower frame rates because field-based analogue displays
naturally blended one half-screenfull of dots into the next (phosphor persistence). This doesn't work
so well with newer digital displays though (hence the use of overscanning, etc.), and certainly not
low-latency computer monitors.
> One of the reasons I asked my initial question was the fact that movies and tv shows are all displayed at 24fps.
Not exactly. Only traditional cinema film and the original lesser 1080p/24 are 24Hz, and that's
changing fast (who would by anything less than 1080p 50Hz today?), with standards up to 4K/100Hz
being explored atm (checkout what Douglas Trumbull is up to with this 3D research). 24Hz was a
hangover from the early days of cinema, there was never any rational reason to use it for TV (CRTs
used for radar in WW2 were way better) and certainly not for HD, but of course initial compatibility
meant it had to be that way. Personally I don't like fast motion in standard cinematic film, far too
jerky/blurry, but others are less bothered by it. Ironic that the recent higher refresh Hobbit movies left
some viewers feeling less than impressed - people have gotten too used to the 24Hz flicker, it's
become part of the cinematic norm for their visual experience, at least for older viewers anyway.
Unsurprisingly, younger viewers prefer the newer format, though perhaps part of the problem is that
with a higher refresh and greater resolution, the level of detail in set design, makeup, CGI, etc., has
to be much better, otherwise the result doesn't look right. Reminds me of comments from some TV
presenters who don't like HD, because the greater detail suddenly means audiences can see their
spotty/wrinkled faces in full hideous detail.
There are various TV standards, but the most common formats are 30Hz (60 fields) NTSC and 25Hz
(50 fields) PAL; the latter has a 40% higher resolution, but the lower refresh results in a 16% higher
overall difference, if one can use blunt math in such a manner. PAL does have better colour though.
There's also SECAM, which used to be used in France, though I'm not sure if that's still the case.
> Most people don't believe that the first time they hear it (especially gamers and enthusiasts)...
It helps if one reads the Ladybird book on TVs at age 6.
And then ends up in a career messingwith VR tech, CAVEs, film, etc. My dissertation was on stereo vision and the side effects of gaming,
albeit it a narrow study due to limited time.
So much of this is a lot more complicated than typical hobbyists like to imagine - read the refs below
and you'll see what I mean.
> I have not yet experienced gaming over 60fps, but I have seen some video comparisons where one
> is 24fps and the other is 72fps, and I didn't really notice a difference.
Assuming you had a display capable of showing the difference, all this really means is that you may
not be able to discern the two, but most people can, and as with the hifi market, it tends to be that
gaming fanatics who want the best quality are also the people with serious money to spend.
Alas the problem with TV standards and video, etc., is the plethora of legacy issues which affect
how the tech has evolved, never affording the possibility of a clean break with the messy early
analogue days which endured so many compromises. This is true even of the latest 2K/4K/etc.
formats which are a bit of pickle for similar reasons (there's no single standard; I can post a
summary if you like).
If you want to get a headache with some proper background reading on all this, see:
http://www.lurkertech.com/lg/
ie.:
http://www.lurkertech.com/lg/video-systems/
http://www.lurkertech.com/lg/fields/
http://www.lurkertech.com/lg/pixelaspect/
Sometimes I miss my old CRT monitor for gaming which supported 2048x1536 @ 96Hz, but there's
no doubt that a modern IPS panels like the HP/Dells I have now do give much better pixel precision,
colour accuracy, etc. At 96Hz, the CRT was struggling with just a VGA signal feed, but Oblivion
& Stalker did look good.
Ian.
photonboy
Titan
- Jun 20, 2006
- 21,566
- 13
- 85,015
1) Standard definition PAL is 20% higher resolution than NTSC, not 40%: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PAL
2) 24Hz video:
a) A large part of the 24 frames per second has to do with COST. Celluloid film used to be very, very expensive unlike digital today (though BANDWIDTH to stream video is another type of cost); film cost was not only for making the movie but also for distribution to theaters so there was no interest in adding to that cost. Also, Disney animators were actually paid by the frame to create cartoons or feature films.
24FPS is not because we can't see more, but rather it's "good enough."
3) VIDEO also has to have motion BLURRED to trick the brain into thinking the lower frame rate looks correct or close enough. It's a bit complicated but basically our EYE-BRAIN can't process faster objects in the real world which is why we perceive them as blurred such as a car speeding buy at 200mph. The car isn't actually blurred just our perception of it.
However, if we displayed only 24FPS of still images (no blur) our EYE-BRAIN can actually process this data since we haven't saturated it. This doesn't look right to us so we artificially BLUR. The faster the object the more we blur it to "trick" our eye-brain.
As said, people have issues with the 48FPS Hobbit movie. Ignoring any 3D for now, the main issue is that it looks TOO SHARP since we don't need to blur the video as much so it has more of a DOCUMENTARY feel (the higher the frame rate, the less we need to blur. At a high enough frame rate we would not need to add any blurring at all). It's uncertain if we would adjust to 48FPS or not; a lot more testing needs to be done. Consider that we've watched 24FPS movies our whole life, so even if it is better it just feels "wrong" at least for now.
4) LAG, Frame Times etc...
As said above somewhere the perceived frame rate feels LOWER if the frame times aren't consistent. That's another reason MOVIES can get by with 24FPS, they are exactly 1/24th of a second per frame.
Further, movies aren't interactive like video games. When you play a video game and press a button, there's a delay then an updated image affected by your input appears on the screen. The lower the frame rate, the more noticeable this is. The issue is even worse when using VSYNC which has to buffer frames to keep the monitor and PC in synch. I won't get into it, but this is where NVidia's G-Sync technology steps in to solve a lot of issues at the same time.
5) Maximum frame rate we can see?
It will vary by the person, however what many people don't get is that it's a combination of many factors. Our eye-brain gets overloaded (as I said one aspect of that is moving images get blurry). The SIZE of the monitor/TV alone is significant. The more of our field of vision is taken up by video, the more we have to process.
Most of the tests I've seen are poorly done. I pieced together a lot of data and came to the conclusion that we can see up to roughly 200FPS but again that will vary significantly due to several factors so it would fluctuate even on the same screen depending on the amount and type of data we are exposed to. This also drops off significantly the closer we get to the maximum. Lag aside, most people can see the advantage of 120FPS vs 60FPS if we've properly setup the conditions. Even just moving the MOUSE CURSOR looks smoother.
6) I'll just briefly mention that there are other factors to consider when discussing monitors such as RESPONSE TIME which is the time for a pixel to change color. If it's too high we perceive blurring. This is basically the same thing as what happened on CRT monitors when the phosphor coating showed the image for too long just a different type of process. For example, on an IPS panel with a higher response time consider a completely black screen with a white ball moving right to left... At 60Hz, ideally the ball would simply disappear when the screen updates 1/60th of a second later whilst appearing slightly to the left in a different spot. If the ball took one second to travel the entire width of the screen it would have moved 60 TIMES.
The BLUR issue though causes the old image to still appear for a while hence the ghosting. If it took 8ms for the pixels to go from white to black that's very significant considering a 60Hz image changes every 16.7ms (milliseconds). So, the white ball leaves a bit of a trail. In movies this is most noticeable for moving objects in dark scenes. We really need 2ms or less to tune this out.
SUMMARY:
Video is a lot more complicated than many people think.
2) 24Hz video:
a) A large part of the 24 frames per second has to do with COST. Celluloid film used to be very, very expensive unlike digital today (though BANDWIDTH to stream video is another type of cost); film cost was not only for making the movie but also for distribution to theaters so there was no interest in adding to that cost. Also, Disney animators were actually paid by the frame to create cartoons or feature films.
24FPS is not because we can't see more, but rather it's "good enough."
3) VIDEO also has to have motion BLURRED to trick the brain into thinking the lower frame rate looks correct or close enough. It's a bit complicated but basically our EYE-BRAIN can't process faster objects in the real world which is why we perceive them as blurred such as a car speeding buy at 200mph. The car isn't actually blurred just our perception of it.
However, if we displayed only 24FPS of still images (no blur) our EYE-BRAIN can actually process this data since we haven't saturated it. This doesn't look right to us so we artificially BLUR. The faster the object the more we blur it to "trick" our eye-brain.
As said, people have issues with the 48FPS Hobbit movie. Ignoring any 3D for now, the main issue is that it looks TOO SHARP since we don't need to blur the video as much so it has more of a DOCUMENTARY feel (the higher the frame rate, the less we need to blur. At a high enough frame rate we would not need to add any blurring at all). It's uncertain if we would adjust to 48FPS or not; a lot more testing needs to be done. Consider that we've watched 24FPS movies our whole life, so even if it is better it just feels "wrong" at least for now.
4) LAG, Frame Times etc...
As said above somewhere the perceived frame rate feels LOWER if the frame times aren't consistent. That's another reason MOVIES can get by with 24FPS, they are exactly 1/24th of a second per frame.
Further, movies aren't interactive like video games. When you play a video game and press a button, there's a delay then an updated image affected by your input appears on the screen. The lower the frame rate, the more noticeable this is. The issue is even worse when using VSYNC which has to buffer frames to keep the monitor and PC in synch. I won't get into it, but this is where NVidia's G-Sync technology steps in to solve a lot of issues at the same time.
5) Maximum frame rate we can see?
It will vary by the person, however what many people don't get is that it's a combination of many factors. Our eye-brain gets overloaded (as I said one aspect of that is moving images get blurry). The SIZE of the monitor/TV alone is significant. The more of our field of vision is taken up by video, the more we have to process.
Most of the tests I've seen are poorly done. I pieced together a lot of data and came to the conclusion that we can see up to roughly 200FPS but again that will vary significantly due to several factors so it would fluctuate even on the same screen depending on the amount and type of data we are exposed to. This also drops off significantly the closer we get to the maximum. Lag aside, most people can see the advantage of 120FPS vs 60FPS if we've properly setup the conditions. Even just moving the MOUSE CURSOR looks smoother.
6) I'll just briefly mention that there are other factors to consider when discussing monitors such as RESPONSE TIME which is the time for a pixel to change color. If it's too high we perceive blurring. This is basically the same thing as what happened on CRT monitors when the phosphor coating showed the image for too long just a different type of process. For example, on an IPS panel with a higher response time consider a completely black screen with a white ball moving right to left... At 60Hz, ideally the ball would simply disappear when the screen updates 1/60th of a second later whilst appearing slightly to the left in a different spot. If the ball took one second to travel the entire width of the screen it would have moved 60 TIMES.
The BLUR issue though causes the old image to still appear for a while hence the ghosting. If it took 8ms for the pixels to go from white to black that's very significant considering a 60Hz image changes every 16.7ms (milliseconds). So, the white ball leaves a bit of a trail. In movies this is most noticeable for moving objects in dark scenes. We really need 2ms or less to tune this out.
SUMMARY:
Video is a lot more complicated than many people think.
I just pre-ordered one of these. I believe Overlord Computers is a small company right now so it would take a lot extra man-hours for them to cherry pick panels and boards that will run at 120 out of the box. It would probably drive the cost up quite a bit.
I do think it would great if Tom's Hardware could share the color profile they used in the review with Overlord so it could be posted to Overlord's forum and downloaded by owners.
tryingmybest
Reputable
- Jun 5, 2014
- 15
- 0
- 4,510
Totalslaughter
Distinguished
- May 5, 2010
- 37
- 0
- 18,540
Yea I have one of the first Overlord computer monitor preorder monitors. They don't promise all monitors will do 120hz though, I think they say 90. Mine originally would do 117 but then had red lines and eventually backed it down to 102hz where it has been fine for months.
If I reinstall new graphics drivers and forget to patch to get the higher refresh rate and launch a game I notice right away I'm running at 60hz and go oh yea. So even if you don't hit 120 I think anything like 90+ is way better then 60hz. I recently ordered a 2nd monitor from them. Good company, good monitors!
If I reinstall new graphics drivers and forget to patch to get the higher refresh rate and launch a game I notice right away I'm running at 60hz and go oh yea. So even if you don't hit 120 I think anything like 90+ is way better then 60hz. I recently ordered a 2nd monitor from them. Good company, good monitors!
Schwanzstuck
Honorable
- May 24, 2013
- 38
- 0
- 10,540
I bought one of these about 6 months ago, and have had zero issues. simple as pie to get 120hz and its huge in Everything. you notice it in FPS games the most, but makes a difference in little things like cursor movement too. This monitor is awesome. I was concerned before I bought it, but reasoned that for $500 and 60hz I wouldnt be getting cheated. Now that I have 120Hz and 1440p IPS I cant go back. Now I just need SLI 880s and buy two more.
I can't believe how few people are aware of the real 1440p Korean Monitors which are being rebranded and sold by Overlord. I personally bought one of the 2560 x 1440p X-Star monitor from South Korea a years ago.
The only difference, for the extra 170$ that you are paying for the overlord, seems to be the vesa stand and guaranteed 120Hz.
The South Korean monitors weren't guaranteed to be 120Hz, the manufacturers didn't even knew that their monitors reached 120 Hz (Sometimes even 144 Hz) when overclocked.
The brands if I remember correctly are Yamakasi, Achieva Shimiens, Qnix, X-Star and a few others.
My review of the X-Star 1440p that I bought can be found at http://www.overclock.net/t/1384767/official-the-qnix-x-star-1440p-monitor-club/1100_100#post_19959799
You will also realize how hot these products are on that forum
A great news for people who just came to know about this is that, these are all Samsung or LG panels and if possible get the PLS monitors they are even better than IPS, there are even 16:10 aspect ratio available and also 32" monitors are available.
Even 4K are available for only 500 to 600 $ and the products are delivered in less than a week.
The only difference, for the extra 170$ that you are paying for the overlord, seems to be the vesa stand and guaranteed 120Hz.
The South Korean monitors weren't guaranteed to be 120Hz, the manufacturers didn't even knew that their monitors reached 120 Hz (Sometimes even 144 Hz) when overclocked.
The brands if I remember correctly are Yamakasi, Achieva Shimiens, Qnix, X-Star and a few others.
My review of the X-Star 1440p that I bought can be found at http://www.overclock.net/t/1384767/official-the-qnix-x-star-1440p-monitor-club/1100_100#post_19959799
You will also realize how hot these products are on that forum
A great news for people who just came to know about this is that, these are all Samsung or LG panels and if possible get the PLS monitors they are even better than IPS, there are even 16:10 aspect ratio available and also 32" monitors are available.
Even 4K are available for only 500 to 600 $ and the products are delivered in less than a week.
Bondfc11
Honorable
- Sep 3, 2013
- 232
- 0
- 10,680
Mspamed :
I can't believe how few people are aware of the real 1440p Korean Monitors which are being rebranded and sold by Overlord. I personally bought one of the 2560 x 1440p X-Star monitor from South Korea a years ago.
The only difference, for the extra 170$ that you are paying for the overlord, seems to be the vesa stand and guaranteed 120Hz.
The South Korean monitors weren't guaranteed to be 120Hz, the manufacturers didn't even knew that their monitors reached 120 Hz (Sometimes even 144 Hz) when overclocked.
The brands if I remember correctly are Yamakasi, Achieva Shimiens, Qnix, X-Star and a few others.
My review of the X-Star 1440p that I bought can be found at http://www.overclock.net/t/1384767/official-the-qnix-x-star-1440p-monitor-club/1100_100#post_19959799
You will also realize how hot these products are on that forum
A great news for people who just came to know about this is that, these are all Samsung or LG panels and if possible get the PLS monitors they are even better than IPS, there are even 16:10 aspect ratio available and also 32" monitors are available.
Even 4K are available for only 500 to 600 $ and the products are delivered in less than a week.
The only difference, for the extra 170$ that you are paying for the overlord, seems to be the vesa stand and guaranteed 120Hz.
The South Korean monitors weren't guaranteed to be 120Hz, the manufacturers didn't even knew that their monitors reached 120 Hz (Sometimes even 144 Hz) when overclocked.
The brands if I remember correctly are Yamakasi, Achieva Shimiens, Qnix, X-Star and a few others.
My review of the X-Star 1440p that I bought can be found at http://www.overclock.net/t/1384767/official-the-qnix-x-star-1440p-monitor-club/1100_100#post_19959799
You will also realize how hot these products are on that forum
A great news for people who just came to know about this is that, these are all Samsung or LG panels and if possible get the PLS monitors they are even better than IPS, there are even 16:10 aspect ratio available and also 32" monitors are available.
Even 4K are available for only 500 to 600 $ and the products are delivered in less than a week.
These are not rebranded. Also - go back in time a look who came first with these in large numbers - Overlord. The rest are "rebranding" what Overlord brought forward in large quantity - and improved on customer service, warranty claims, and speed. First was the February 2011 Catleap - that was never remade in quantity. Then came Scribby with Overlord and their revisions to this panel and internals. Then came all the copycats (yes, even the ROG Swift is in a manner of speaking as no other major OEM was even thinking of 1440/1600 etc for pure gaming - only for professional use - Overlord was the first to focus on large format gaming monitors.)
Believe it or not there are people that care about customer service and supporting US-based companies. With every good thing said about the Korean monitor market there is a negative - someone getting a crap unit, horrible customer service (if any), or crappy RMA process. To each his own. People are aware of the Korean market, but choose to go with companies that provide better service.
Yes, there are monitors - 4K and the like - as cheap, but none have tested as well as the Tempest. The review speaks for itself and Overlord's customers have only had positive things to say. I for one will spend more to support a US-based company over any other similar product if I can. But that's just me.
footman
Distinguished
- Aug 26, 2004
- 69
- 5
- 18,635
Christian shared his profile for this monitor with Scribby from Overlord. You can download it from the Overlord forums, http://overlordforum.com/topic/121-color-profiles-oc-model/page-4#entry7313
- Status
TRENDING THREADS
-
-
News TSMC founder says Intel should focus on AI, not advanced process technologies- Started by Admin
- Replies: 22
-
News Intel CEO Pat Gelsinger retires, effective immediately — also steps down from BOD, two co-CEOs step in
- Started by Admin
- Replies: 124
-
Discussion What's your favourite video game you've been playing?- Started by amdfangirl
- Replies: 4K
-
Question What screw thread type are the mounting holes on a slim (SFF) optical drive?- Started by RAIDGoblin
- Replies: 0
Latest posts
-
Question Connecting AV sound system to non optical new computer- Latest: stonecarver
-
-
-
Question Can I use the P310 2280 with ASRock X870 Steel Legend WiFi 7?- Latest: DigitalInnovator9
-
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram