120Hz vs 1440/1600p

well if you are happy then thats what matters :)

guess you have to be lucky though, A to get a good panel and B to get it to overclock, then C it not break down and even D: test if its actually 120hz not just saying it!!

but like i said, im happy for you to have a good one, but its a risk i cant take myself
 
I also have one of the 2B catleaps, mines running 120hz haven't tried any higher, but if I had to choose between 120hz and a bigger resolution...

I would probably go with the resolution. :)
 
james_2k said:
There's rumours its not real 120 hz on those things
Click to expand...

spread by people like you who are too pussy to try and get one ;)

I'm sure the monitor is able to hack fraps and make it lie to me....

ETA: one thing is no one has been able to get them to do 3D yet (but those trying haven't given up yet, I think they might be getting close from the thread on the forum)
 
Thing is these catleap monitors even though are running at silly high resolutions and refresh rates will have silly high input lag to go along with it.

It is an IPS monitor after all.
 
Speedy Pete said:
Thing is these catleap monitors even though are running at silly high resolutions and refresh rates will have silly high input lag to go along with it.

It is an IPS monitor after all.
Click to expand...

Well its doesn't as it has no scalar, osd or other processing that usually gives input lag.
 
Presumably he meant a TN panel.

I think it boils down to where you spend most of your time. If you spend most of your time in desktop a 2560x display is going to make your life easier but this is a downside in many games as the resolution is so high you'll need extremely good hardware to keep up the frame rates even in older games.
 
DeathStorm said:
Presumably he meant a TN panel.

I think it boils down to where you spend most of your time. If you spend most of your time in desktop a 2560x display is going to make your life easier but this is a downside in many games as the resolution is so high you'll need extremely good hardware to keep up the frame rates even in older games.
Click to expand...

That's a bit of a myth really. Plenty of games will run at 2560x1440, especially older ones. People tend to forget how games run on older cards for some reason, and the power required for 2560x1440 is nearly always over exaggerated.

I ran plenty of games across 3x 24" 1920x1200 monitors on a 2GB 5870 and the performance was fine, 2560x1440 is less demanding than that. Currently I'm running a 6950, and a lot of my games run across 3x 2560x1440 monitors with decent performance.
 
DeathStorm said:
Presumably he meant a TN panel.
Click to expand...
Still, input lag is about the electronics inside a monitor, the less processing is going on (the simpler the monitor is), the lower the input lag. So I agree with Spoffle in that Speedy Pete seems to be lacking somewhat in knowledge on the subject.

The Dell U2312HM for example has nearly no input lag as can be seen in the tftcentral.co.uk Dell u2312hm review. In fact it has less input lag than the BenQ XL2410T in game mode, a 120Hz gaming monitor.
 
Pixel response is slower on IPS, but thankfully as it has a low input lag and runs at 120hz+ you don't really notice it as much. It still feels better than a 60hz monitor for gaming, but when I compare it to my old LG W2363D it doesn't feel quite as fluid which will be the slower pixel response.
 
blackoctagon said:
Best of both worlds: Overlord Tempest X270OC Perfect Pixel

(if they're as good as they appear, they'll blow the Catleap 2B out of the water)
Click to expand...

Why? From my understanding Scribbys just got the same A- panels and some more PCBs from Korea, the only diff is he will be stocking them in the US himself.

Tbh I've not really followed what hes doing since he had to stop posting on 120hz.net.

Either way I don't quite get your comment about it blowing out the Catleap?
 
spoffle said:
That's a bit of a myth really. Plenty of games will run at 2560x1440, especially older ones. People tend to forget how games run on older cards for some reason, and the power required for 2560x1440 is nearly always over exaggerated.

I ran plenty of games across 3x 24" 1920x1200 monitors on a 2GB 5870 and the performance was fine, 2560x1440 is less demanding than that. Currently I'm running a 6950, and a lot of my games run across 3x 2560x1440 monitors with decent performance.
Click to expand...

This isn't an assumption on my part, while I've been generally quite happy going from 1920x1200 to 2560x1440 I have clearly worse in game performance. Now for most of the stuff I do it's tolerable but if I were focused on anything fast paced this monitor would have been a very bad idea.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom