Which is the best monitor 2560x1600 60 Hz or 1920x1080 at 120 Hz

this is really very hard to decide what should be best in this both range of monitor , which will be the best option to me the 30’ 2560x1600, 60hz at the 7ms or the 27" 1920x1080 120hz at 2ms. Which will be the best in reference for gaming? Also like to tell you that there is no problem with the powering either display on the multiple GTX 580's with 3gb v-ram. Is there any one here can help me on this I will be glad to know the solution to this .

I have used each. The U3011 is a tremendous monitor, and therefore the quantity of workspace is unparalleled, however at the tip of the day i can not utterly justify having a 1200 greenback monitor. For gaming, and for my personal preferences, the 120hz Asus vg236h I've as well got has won out. It takes lots of power to fuel 2560x1600 compared to 1920x1080. The U3011 will extremely build games look lovely and far more immersive provided you have got adequate hardware to urge 50+ fps. With the 120hz monitor you get those further sixty fps and an incredibly reduced quantity of motion blur compared to the U3011. I will simply browse fast paced text on the 120hz monitor, however on the U3011 it's totally blurred. I've been torn between these 2 lovely monitors for the past four months currently, however the thought of my Asus monitor costing 1/4th of the U3011 is difficult to ignore. My cash is best spent elsewhere.

Since I worth image quality, i would choose 2560x1600. I use a high finish CRT as my main monitor. I play most games at 2048x1536 for image quality at 85hz, however place it at 1600x1200 at 110hz for paced games. If I had to select one, i would choose the larger resolution and therefore the IPS panel. it'll usually be a bigger distinction in everything.

I realized that cannot afford the 2560x1600 (I never tested the costs until now). I as well just like the undeniable fact that 3D is probably on the 120Hz monitors as a as i am not coming up with on buying a 3D TV anytime soon, and this allows me to observe 3D movies.

I was coming up with on obtaining twin monitors, thus i assume i am going to simply get one, and then except a 2560x1600 monitor within the future thus I will get the simplest of each worlds. Hopefully the worth becomes a lot of affordable (around 1/2 of current prices) within the close to future.

With an older pc, and older tastes, I appreciate having a lower resolution I actually have the Acer GD235hz 120hz 23.5 1920x1080 monitor which is seemingly completely different from the opposite one , and that i like it. Yeah it's smaller, and yeah you have got less desktop real-estate, BUT, and here could be a massive however, you have got 120hz, 1920x1080, and extremely nice distinction. If you play any form of FPS i like to recommend it. to not mention I picked this one up for 195 USD. However, the bezel is annoying and shiny, there's not height adjustment, and therefore the stand is bright orange. Sides that it's nice and that i would totally obtain another one!

I remember when I was buying had a Viewsonic LCD to 120MHz which was 22 but was worth as one of 24 or even more, I personally fixed but in contrast with and inputs .. If you bring HDMI and DisplayPort speaks of high quality (and LCD models in Excel, because there are some with HDMI inputs that $ p $ ta should melt and make the toilets, because the remarkable thing). The other thing is that many say that LCDs do not have dead pixels but I read review of certain products more than all of 23-24 inches that I realized that there is that. Just add the new Displayport VGAs and bring reason? HDMI is better than the DELL several models that are cursed and do not put 120hz but put the latest technology DisplayPort .. but tell me there was misinformation. Although these 120z has its reason for being .. There is a video enhancement.. but those who bring that technology is expensive. Now THERE's 240MHz but I think it is for large LCD .. In any case .. for me not worth it. Still prefer to buy an HDMI cable with 1.3c class gold-plated connectors in the U.S. and then I will have better bandwidth and better refresh rate in videos and more. I think the wave of the LCD, there is a huge number of myths. Most ends mistaken in choosing a good thing.

The amount of herz is, the amount of times the screen refreshes per second was of vital importance in the era of CRT monitors because of low amounts of eg 60 Hz flickering screen and thus more disturbed by the view sometimes ended a teary-eyed and tired because of the flickering vision. Well let me tell you how it goes: it is that CRT monitors the image was not constantly lit but the screen projected a frame for a split second and then went out, was coming down in black over a period so short that no was receiving change and then back to "lit" with the next frame, ie we were faced with a sort of flashing light in which the transitions are still perceived as "flicker" on monitors with low refresh rate. This is independent of the frame rate that has a video, because it was not to perceive the transition between images which is smooth and soft from just 24 FPS but to avoid the annoying flicker effect which became almost imperceptible only when the refresh rate was equal to or higher than 85hz. But on LCD monitors this change because these monitors work in a completely different, in a LCD monitor screen is not generated by the light as happened in the CTR but the screen only contains pixels with their respective color the light actually comes from another source placed behind the screen, ie it is like when we put a slide in color from light of a projector. Ie in the LCD light source is constant and therefore there is no flicker and refresh rate of LCD refers only to the number of times the pixels are regenerated per second is serious and think how many slides per second pass front of the projector. But if the projector is fixed, constant light flicker.

That right That's why we not seen any visual difference by putting a higher refresh rate on an LCD. If anything the utility of a high rate of hz would only see softness in the games that are the only ones capable of generating such high FPS rates, a standard video film does not surpass 30 FPS, but in the games even rates above 60 FPS is very difficult to perceive any visual difference. Now I will tell you that is what they serve 120 hz monitors and because it is advertised as a convenience: now we all know that in film there is a possibility for a large number of movies to see them in 3D using special glasses, as While many companies are beginning to provide such glasses in conjunction with a compatible graphics card be able to see 3D movies and games at our house monitor. But these glasses 3D technology making each lens operates for each eye glasses in an interleaved fashion show us only half of the frame is a 60 hz monitor we would have 30 Hz for one of the lenses and 30 for the another, which is enough to watch movies but it would be disastrous for the games as a game that we can only see 30 hz game is definitely a little fluid current viewing requirements. It is said that according to current standards should be a game to 60 fps to be considered optimal and smooth, but then to see if its 60 fps in 3d mode compared to 60 Hz for one of the lenses and 60 for the other then just the sum required the monitor must be 120 hz. That's why these glasses 3d recommend having a monitor of 120 GHz. So my advice is that if you do not think 3D glasses now or hereafter serves as any monitor you although not be 120 Hz.

Interestingly as mentioned 3D glasses these monitors usually come with these glasses as a combo. Although not the idea is to have these LCD glasses are separate but work together better. So far the best LCD say the cream of the cream. DELL UltraSharp-They are extremely expensive. And the other point is that 120MHz does not mean you'll have 120fps in games anyway. If Gamer were all wondering if there would be 60MHz or 120MHz. To this day, and if something does not change what we know the quality of the graphics quality is given by the monitor and the quality of the VGA. There are several 26-inch LCD are good option, because those who purchase more than 26 inches do not try to find quality LCD Gamer.. Generally have a TV and LCD (no connection to TV) is not good option Gamer .. TV to have you drop a lot of potential to play games as it should be.

If they are right than the only important point that can have the 120 hz are the 3D glasses, taking good quality but still a highly selected option is not even, is better than TV or monitor has an HDMI 1.3cy a high contrast, and what Gamer, it depends because if you play in front of the monitor clear that a 26-inch monitor in more than enough, but if you who likes to play on the bed or sofa and from afar, a 42-inch 1080p TV will be your orgasm depends on how you play and what kind you play but if the right corner to 120 hz is irrelevant to me, and the game with 3D glasses, a lot are uncomfortable, dizzy and confused at times and have him lose quality 3D , and q is an effective visual supports the q it is not the same monitor will give you quality, so the option 3D video game will look a bit far but the option 3D movies 60 Hz is more than enough and I think that if you can get more benefit, but thanks for your comments I decided to 60hz, 120 hz q and the like $ 150 more expensive and not worth it for something that may never use.

More than the refresh rate . I think something very important for the LCD and not mentioned here is the response time. It turns out that the pixels on an LCD are not updated instantly, but it takes a while (rather short) to update. The first LCDs that came out had fairly long response times, some went by 50ms. If you divide 1000ms (1s) between 50ms (response time) will give them 20. This means the LCD will update the pixels effectively to no more than 20fps. For still images this may not be a problem, but for videos and games produced the so-called effect of "ghosting". This effect was not observed if it ever occurred that the fast-moving videos look like they were left with a shadow. Although the refresh rate is 60Hz monitor if the response time is too high, then it might not be so nice to see videos or games with too much movement on the monitor. Newer LCDs have response times of less than 10ms pixel some reaching 4 or 5 ms, so that this effect has practically disappeared . however low quality monitors may still have long response times.