btw have you reviewed the LG W2363D pcm2?
Afraid not. It's a bit of a long story but I have used one briefly that had been set up by a colleague of mine. Although it was a brief stint I couldn't really find too many complaints - pretty decent image quality, 120Hz and excellent responsiveness at that price is something unique.
I had been after a few LG monitors including this one to review a couple of months back but their PR department was being shaken up. Initially LG handled their PR internally on the monitor side but they have recently been handing over to LG One (the PR company they use for their TVs). I was supposed to chase them up about this again but I've been a bit busy trying to review Samsungs and Dells recently so never got around to it.![]()
this thread has confused me, was thinking of getting the dell 27inch on special offer that is IPS , but not really sure will it work well on FPS's :/
I am purely after the best option for fps gaming.
Personally I'd go with the colours over fps. I've seen some tvs that have high hz and they just look wierd somehow. I'm sure you get used to it though. An extra sixty(supposedly) frames a second isnt going to improve your playing performance in first person shooters by fifty percent.
The reason TVs with 'high Hz' look weird is that they achieve this using methods such as frame interpolation. They don't display 120 true distinct frames like a 120Hz monitor, they simply insert 'made up' intermediate frames that are a combination of actual frames. Also it isn't as clear cut as going for 'colours' over fps. Whilst this is a valid principle there are more things to consider than just panel type when it comes to colours.
And that brings me back to that article that skalragg inspired me to write. I'm not joking, it will be published this evening. Hopefully it will help consolidate some thoughts but more than likely will simply add to the confusion and give people more things to think about.![]()
The reason TVs with 'high Hz' look weird is that they achieve this using methods such as frame interpolation. They don't display 120 true distinct frames like a 120Hz monitor, they simply insert 'made up' intermediate frames that are a combination of actual frames. Also it isn't as clear cut as going for 'colours' over fps. Whilst this is a valid principle there are more things to consider than just panel type when it comes to colours.
And that brings me back to that article that skalragg inspired me to write. I'm not joking, it will be published this evening. Hopefully it will help consolidate some thoughts but more than likely will simply add to the confusion and give people more things to think about.![]()
I'm in the same exact boat right now. I'm not much of a gamer anymore where a 1ms discrepancy can make the difference between losing or winning a nice prize at a LAN party. The only FPS I'm looking forward to is BF3 and that's no near as fast paced as competitive CSS/CoD2. I'm more looking forward to playing Diablo 3, any new WoW expansion, ES5 etc. Games that I would prefer to look pretty than play smooth. Games that don't need the responsiveness a competitive FPS player would need.
I'm going to check out the BenQ XL2410T tomorrow to see if 120Hz is really all it's cracked up to me. If not, the Dell U2412M it is. Reading PCM's article right now, love his website.