IPS panel Vs 120 Hz panel for gaming

I’ve got the possibility of getting a 120 Hz 3D monitor from a friend at a steal.

I already have a 60 Hz IPS panel that I’ve been gaming on, and has it treated me very well.

What I like about it are the resolution (2560x1440) which at 27" is fantastic. Even very close up I cannot make out individual pixels. Of course the viewing angle is amazing, and so is color quality.

The only drawbacks is that I need a lot of GPU horsepower to max out games since my PC has to render twice the number of pixels than a 1080p panel. Also, although fairly responsive, I do notice slight ghosting on some fast paced games.

The 120Hz 3D panel is also 27", but is only 1080p. So the pixels are noticeably larger. I hear 120 Hz makes a noticeable difference in fast paced games over 60 Hz, and of course I have the option of playing some games in 3D. Being a TN panel, the viewing angle is going to be smaller too.

Do any of you guys have experience with these two technologies? Do you have a preference, any things to watch out for/keep in mind? Any suggestions?

The allure of 3D and 120Hz are powerful :wink: On the other hand, I don’t know if I’ll get used to the larger pixels, and smaller desktop space!


Until my 3d monitor died on me a few weeks ago I had both types of monitors available. I vastly prefer gaming on the high res ips panel.

If you want to use both you need to keep in mind that for the 3d to work you have to make the 3d monitor your primary display, at least with NVidia’s 3d system. So if you want to use the high resolution display for general work and switch to 3d display for gaming or watching movies you need to switch which monitor is the primary and that will disorganize any toolbars you use on the taskbar, desktop icons, and often the default window positions various programs use. Very annoying.

The 3d effect loses it’s lustre somewhat after a few days of playing with it. While it’s always nice to come back to every few months there are various issues with it that I found annoying enough that I never used it often. Such as having to wear the glasses, and the triple image effect on bright elements in a scene that comes from the glasses not being able to go completely opaque.

More pixels, better viewing angle, and better colours are all much preferable to me than occasionally playing in 3d.

And if you’re worried about the power it takes to render to a 2560x1440 monitor at 60hz it will take noticeably more oomph to render 1920x1080 at 120hz. Since that’s doubling all the game logic and rendering whereas rendering to 2560x1440 pretty much only increases the runs of the fragment shader by about 80% over a 1920x1080 monitor at the same framerate.

The 3d monitor will probably have less ghosting but I don’t notice ghosting unless it’s really bad so it’s not something I can really comment on.

A solid 120 Hz is better than IPS for gaming. It’s amazing. I think you’re right to worry about the pixel density of the 27" 1080p screen though. You don’t go 120 Hz for the 3D though. You do it 'cause 120 Hz is like butter for your eyes.

There is always that cheap 100 Hz 2560 x 1440 IPS (Catleap Q270) going around though. You know. Just sayin’.

I thought this was a myth?!?!

There’s a 100 Hz IPS panel out there??

Ordering it now.

Thank you!

Jeebus, it’s cheap too. Any drawbacks to it? Anyone know how it compares to my Dell U2711. Man, I can sell my Dell and save myself a good $400 after buyign this panel.

BTW, my friend let me try out the 120 Hz panel last night. I LOVED the 2D performance of it. I could play all my games without VSYNC and there was 0 screen tearing, and everything was super fluid and responsive.

I had mostly negative feelings about the state of 3D for gaming. I’ll repost what I put on another message board, including trying out some 3D gaming on consoles plus 3D TV:
My impressions:

3D is not yet ready for prime time when it comes to gaming. I think the movie experience is better off.

On the console side the game HAS to support 3D natively, and many do not. On the PC, native support is nice, but profiles by Tri-Def or Nvidia CAN allow stereoscopic 3D on most games. However, there are problems, eve when the game natively supports 3D.

Performance issues with “True 3D” (what I mean by true 3D is when the engine is rendering two seperate images to for each eye, and NOT just using the z-buffer to create pseudo 3D) are a BIG hurdle.

On the consoles, games that already run at 20 30 FPs, at 720p or below, with low to medium settings, are downgraded even further on 3D. Sometimes AA is compltely gone, the resolution is dropped even lower, the frame rate drops more often and even lower at times, and occassionally you can notice other graphics settings being lowered, like draw distance. Not to mention that on many 3D games on console “true 3D” isn’t being used. So you are not getting the full 3D experience. Things look like cardboard cut-outs, rather than objects with real depth. And there are occasional artifacts around the edges of moving objects.

On the PC, this same performance issue rears it’s ugly head. On Dirt 3, for example I couldn’t enable AA, and even with two 7970’s (!!!) I was getting frame rates in the 20’s. Some games performed much better, but featured other issues/incompatibilities. Arkham City looked good, but it would not run in DX11, Mass Effect 3 could not run in real 3D so you had to deal with edge “lensing” issues and a subpar 3D experience. No AA was possible with Assasin’s Creed Brotherhood, unless you wanted to play at 3 FPS.

So performance and spotty support is looking bad right now. This will likely change, but I’m thinking things won’t get much better until DX11 GPU’s on the PC and game engines built aroudn that API finally come to their own, and we need next gen consoles for that to happen (and for 3D console games to look decent).

Another issue are problems built in to the system. With active glasses the LCD lenses cannot go totally opaque, so very bright light sources will have ghosting. In fact ghosted edges will often appear, even if the game otherwise runs flawlessly in 3D. It’s just somehting that’s going to happen with this technology.

Finally, modern games are not realistic, and detailed enough to do 3D justice, for the most part. Some, I admit are better than others.

I’ll discuss Assasin’s Creed Brotherhood to elucidate why.

Modern games are made up of a collection of 3D AND 2D objects. That is 3d meshes and 2d textures, as well as the occasional simple 3d mesh that is essentially just a single 2d polygon.

We can usually tell when we’re being shown a 2D object, rather than a 3D one on a 2D screen, but modern games do a decent job of “tricking” you into thinking 2D elements are actually 3D. They use texture and lighting effects to sell the trick to you. And for the msot part they work. You can still tell the difference between a flat texture for a floor, and say a floor that is actually a complex 3D mesh, either because it was designed that way, or because the engine uses tessellation to add detail. But for the most part game engines sell the effect decently. Think about tree leaves in games, or holes in the floor from a gun shot, bricks on a wall, etc.

When you add stereoscopic 3D to the scene, however, that illusion almost completley dissapears in most games. A door, that in 2D looks like it had depth to it, looks absolutley fake and flat in 3D. Things like armor on a character, desmond’s outfit, for instance, looks like fake cloth… I swear, he looked a lot like a Ken doll, fitted with an assasin’s outfit lovingly hand crafted by grandma.

And that’s where all the little things that you would never notice in 2D but become obvious in 3D add up to in a game like this. Everything looks… fake. The cities and the people go from looking bad-@ss and fairly realistic, to feeling like I’m playing with barbie dolls running around a bunch of doll houses.

I even gave the glasses to my wife and just told her to give me her immediate impressions. I swear to you, the first thing out fo her mouth was: Oh, desmond looks like an action figure! And the houses are so cute!

I just rolled my eyes.

There is no doubt that a game with a lot more 3D detail than Assasin’s Creed, as well as probably better lighting, would look much better in 3D. Racing games, specially looked really good, but with the issues mentioned above, and weird look of some games in 3D… well, let’s just say I decided to keep my high resolution IPS monitor.

Yeah, it’s cheap. You’re getting what you pay for. The QA isn’t good. Backlight bleeding is common. Some people complain about their stand being off. Some have a weird buzz. Some are DOA. Some have dead pixels. Some don’t run above 60 Hz (though the Catleap ones don’t seem to have this issue).

Some are flawless.

Odd that you should mention the u2711, since the Catleap uses the same LG panel.

Oh, and technically it’s a 60 Hz monitor that very reliably overclocks to 100 Hz. It isn’t officially 100 Hz, but people are getting it there. There is always that risk that you’re the one who gets the dog end of the production run.

Uhm… wait.

You can overclock monitors now?!?!

You just blew my mind.

Yeah, man. You just force your video card driver to push out a refresh rate beyond the monitor’s rating. You just need a monitor with a panel that can handle higher refresh rates and controller chips that can handle it too. For example, my vx2025wm displays are stock 60 Hz, but will go at 75 Hz if you override the setting with PowerStrip. Of course, if you use a single-link DVI cable they bug out due to lack of bandwidth.