Stick with my awesome CRT or take the plunge for an IPS or 120hz monitor for FPS gaming?

November 24, 2011 12:42 PM

Gaming Monitors: Should I upgrade from my awesome Viewsonic P220f CRT to a Dell u2711 or Samsung S27A950D? Do I really have to choose between quality/resolution and speed? Trying to make a Black Friday decision.

I have a Viewsonic P220f professional series CRT from 2005. Right now I'm running it at 1600x1200 @ 85hz and it is great and incredibly smooth for gaming (I get headaches on CRTs lower than 85hz). I primarily play FPS like BF3.

However it's only 22", and not widescreen. I've been reading TONS of reviews on many gaming monitors, and it looks like the top-end choices now for 27" screens (with price not being an issue) are the Dell u2711 Ultrasharp, and the Samsung Syncmaster S27a950d.

u2711 Tradeoffs
+Super high resolution (2560 x 1440)
+Gorgeous color
+Matte screen
-Slow response time
-Reports of noticeable input lag for FPS
-Reports of tearing

s27a950d Tradeoffs
+Capable of 120hz in 2D (I wouldn't really use it for 3D, just the extra smoothness in 2D)
+Higher end TN display so assumedly better color than most which is typically the biggest issue
-Limited adjustments
-Limited to 1080p resolution
-Doesn't support my Nvidia 3D capabilities yet

A couple things to get out of the way here...
1. I have a god box (Origin PC, hex core processors, 3x nvidia 580's in SLI, etc. I can max out any game at over 100FPS)
2. Money is not a factor in this decision
3. Only interested in 27" displays right now. 24" is too much of a loss of vertical screen real estate coming from my Viewsonic since it is a 4:3 aspect ratio

I'm so torn. I hear gaming in 120hz in 2D is fantastic for FPS, but the big thing holding me back right now is that my current CRT does a super high resolution, color looks great, and CRTs have ZERO input lag, ghosting, tearing, etc. due to how they operate. It feels like I have to sacrifice quality for speed in some regards where my current CRT offers both, just at a limited size, and at an undesirable aspect ratio.

Oh, and to add some pressure, I am hoping to make this decision tomorrow to capitalize on Black Friday deals as there are coupons/sales for both of these I believe.

Am I nuts for wanting to switch? Or should I just cave and go one or the other? If so, which would you go? Any input from folks who have done either for FPS gaming would be really appreciated.

posted by Elminster24 to technology (8 answers total)

Be careful of color quality issues with the Dell. See here and other places on the Dell community discussion site. I have a dell U2410 (purchased this past summer) and it is quite pink in the lighter grays. From what I've read, it is difficult to remove by calibration.
posted by DarkForest at 12:55 PM on November 24, 2011

Ok, but that's color quality, what about the crux of the issue in terms of resolution/speed and the tradeoff with a CRT? Should I just sit tight and keep my current CRT until they have 120hz monitors at or above my current resolution?
posted by Elminster24 at 2:02 PM on November 24, 2011

Although I don't have a recommendation, keep in mind that 60hz on an LCD is nothing like 60hz on a CRT. You will not see the horrible flashing, strobe effect on an LCD no matter what the refresh rate is.
posted by The Lamplighter at 5:21 PM on November 24, 2011

One thing you might want to consider is going for dual monitors rather than a single 27" behemoth. You'll have more selection, end up with more screen real estate, and will likely be able to find faster response times and color reproduction. Also, if you're a developer or designer, you might find it interesting to work with one monitor in "portrait" orientation—I've found that to be a huge, surprising productivity gain which was unfeasible before LCDs and dual monitors became common.
posted by sonic meat machine at 5:23 PM on November 24, 2011

You're running *THREE* 580's in SLI... are you sure you want to settle for something that you'll impulse purchase without sufficient research?

I'm not at the lab right now, but we splurged and got a 32" (or something) HP monitor with a 3000-somethingx2400-something resolution with an incredibly high contrast ratio. Incredible monitor, with excellent colour repro. Can't find that model on HP's site, though. Cost a pretty penny, and Zeiss punched in their own markup. But not my money. Now that I think of it, I should recommend that we buy a Kensington lock for it.

With 3 580's in SLI, go for the biggest screen, highest resolution, highest dot pitch/pixel density. Go for a monitor with IPS for superior viewing angle.

The problem with multiple monitor solutions is that even specialty monitors designed for arrayed viewing still have non-trivial bezels. Personally, very distracting/annoying as it irrationally takes me way far from simulated immersion.

I wouldn't worry too much about refresh rate - LCDs work a lot differently than CRTs. But check it out for yourself if you can. Personally, I can't see a difference between 60Hz and 120Hz LCD monitors (everything else being almost equal), although you'll need 120Hz for most 3D solutions. Turning off V-Sync will help... anyone who *isn't* running 3x580's. CRTs? Yeah, 60hz was painful; I didn't enjoy FPS games until I inherited an ancient ginormous (backend, not the display) 15" NEC running at 85Hz. I think the thing was in the 40lb range, not counting the weighted base.

But yeah, if you want to drop $500-1500 on a monitor, you really should see it in action in person (and being driven by something remotely close to 3x580's) before you decide.

That said, if money is of no concern, I'll go with a high-end Lenovo sight unseen. I've seen 3 different medium - medium-high Lenovo monitors (5 total) and they beat anything else I've matched them with side-by-side (a couple of high-end Dells, a decent Samsung, a couple of models of LGs, and random crap monitors) and the Lenovo's compare favourably even against the super-duper expensive HP in everything but screen real-estate and total resolution.

If I could justify $1.4k on a monitor, I'd go with this over any other $1.4k monitor, if forced to do it sight unseen. Although it looks like Lenovo is now selling 3rd party monitors without putting their own brand on them. Not a good sign, especially seeing their non-ThinkPad lines of laptops. Even their Thinkpads aren't what they used to be, but I'm chalking that up to minimizing weight. But, still.

Sign up for their newletter. Lots of deals/sales, although I don't think sales on their highest-end monitors are very common.

I don't think you'll be happy unless you see monitors side-by-side... and perhaps with your current CRT mon. I have major gripes about colour repro and contrast fidelity - sometimes I wonder if game developers tweak the game's palette so it looks "ok" on cheap monitors.
posted by porpoise at 8:21 PM on November 24, 2011

Update...went to Micro Center and tested out the Dell u2711 and u3011. Input lag is god awful and I cannot tolerate it. Shame--beautiful monitors.

I also tried a 120hz TV but the input lag was horrible so it was hard to tell. I think I'll wait for the new 27" Asus 120hz monitor to come out and hopefully find somewhere to test that, but its still 1080p.

Perhaps I'm destined to be stuck until the next generation of monitors...
posted by Elminster24 at 4:54 PM on November 25, 2011

120hz adds a massive amount of lag, because it needs to hold a few frames in memory to interpolate the extra 60 frames per second.
posted by The Lamplighter at 10:43 PM on November 25, 2011

@The Lamplighter

My understanding is that as long as the graphics cards can handle it, and you have triple buffering, it should be absolutely fine as any lag there is eliminated because it will easily have all it needs stored in memory which would actually speed it up.

I have a god box (hex core, 3 580 cards, etc.) and should have no problem pushing at over 120 FPS. Do you have any evidence to back that claim up? Would love to read more about it.
posted by Elminster24 at 10:00 AM on November 26, 2011