VP2770-LED Vs. S27B970D: 27" Monitors At 2560x1440

Page 3 - Seeking answers? Join the Tom's Hardware community: where nearly two million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Status
Not open for further replies.

maxinexus

Distinguished
Jan 1, 2007
1,101
1
19,360
36
[citation][nom]BigMack70[/nom]It's not always a case of someone else controlling the "purse strings"... it's a case of why the heck should I spend $800+ on one of these when I can get basically the same experience for $400? It just doesn't make any sense at all. It's like someone saying "well I bought a 3960X to play games on"... well that's great, but you basically just wasted $800 compared to that 3570k you could have gotten which would game just as well.[/citation]

Gaming at 2560x1600/1440 and 1920x1200/1080 is much different if you have not tried it there is no point of arguing with you. You are kinda comparing Lexus to Chevy Aveo. Yes they both get you from point A to point B but...quality IPS monitors are far more superior in image quality that regular LCD/LEDs
 

quickstrike

Honorable
Feb 24, 2013
1
0
10,510
0
The PWM dimming on the Korean monitors [I bought and resold a Catleap 2703] killed my eyes. I am on my computer all day, so these PWM-free models make a huge difference when it comes to reducing eye fatigue/headaches.

 

Ghostface23

Honorable
Feb 25, 2013
4
0
10,510
0
Uhm, this is not a 'new series 9 monitor from Samsung'. Its the model that came out May 2012. And an even bigger problem: The SB279*1* D is coming out very soon.... how about a follow up on details on that release?
 
[citation][nom]BigMack70[/nom]Do you think that the issue was inherent to the whole type of monitor (all the grade A or A- panels sold for cheap), the Auria version of the monitor in particular, or your individual monitor (given that panels can be downgraded from A+ to A for different reasons)?[/citation]
Who knows? It could have been the luck of the draw in my case. I guess I'm just not into taking $400 chances, so I can't recommend that monitor.
 

ShouldntHave

Distinguished
Aug 31, 2009
44
0
18,530
0
[citation][nom]JOSHSKORN[/nom]Just bought a ASUS VS278Q-P for $310. It's a 60Mz monitor and I do game, but I'm happy. My previous monitor lasted 8 years (Samsung SyncMaster 213T, bought it for $1k). I'll upgrade when this one dies, hopefully 4k/UHD will be affordable. Supposedly, only serious gamers can tell the difference between 60Hz and 120Hz. I'm not a serious gamer, so it works just fine for me. 120Hz monitors of that size are nearly twice the price.[/citation]
List of ppl who can tell the difference between 120Hz and 60Hz:
-- ppl who have used 120Hz for any length of time and now (are forced to) use 60Hz

The difference is more than obvious once you know what to look for. I have used 60Hz for the last 8-9 months and just switched back to 120Hz today. Haven't booted a game yet but I can totally feel and see the difference just in basic use of the PC. In a subtle way, it's like your whole PC will seem faster -- i.e. more responsive -- when using 120Hz. the difference is present in every single action. from scrolling a document, to typing, to .. anything! the real problem is, 60Hz is still slow enough that u actually notice it. 120Hz is at least approaching, if not beyond the point where u are even aware there is a refresh.

What that is worth in $$ is subjective, of course.

But I will give this rule of thumb as far as gaming goes: if u are a shooter player, don't kid urself; 60Hz is getting you killed! :p u need 120Hz (assuming ur GPU can deliver those 120 frames per second, of course). if u are a strategy/etc. player, the 120Hz is much more of a nice-to-have than an essential. but still, nice-to-have. very-nice-to-have.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

ASK THE COMMUNITY

TRENDING THREADS