Changing SCREEN 24 to 27 worth it?

Tuexnovia · 3 Aug 2012 at 03:01

Hi guys I got my G2420HDBL

** No Hotlinking - Rules on posting images ***

Well, I have discovered that playing without V-sync I kill 40% more I promise you, I can't believe but is like this, at least in shooters, battlefield 3 etc. Well now I'm playing V-sync adaptive, and I can feel much more performance, but I'd like something to play without V-sync I don't want it anymore.

Well I don't know if is worth it or not to change my screen for something like 27 or even 24 but no v-sync pls...

I'm very happy with my screen but my friend at home is telling me you got now your 670 buy a new monitor...

What would you recommend me, my screen is good can I get better quality for 300 pounds or something like that?

Sorry I'm a quite drunk I don't know if I wrote nicely my question... LOL

THANKS...

titaniumx3 · 3 Aug 2012 at 03:18

If you're finding that v-sync lag is hampering your performance in games, then it's most likely you'll see a benefit from going to a 120hz monitor, rather than a bigger screen.

Tuexnovia · 3 Aug 2012 at 03:29

titaniumx3 said:
If you're finding that v-sync lag is hampering your performance in games, then it's most likely you'll see a benefit from going to a 120hz monitor, rather than a bigger screen.

any idea? do you know of a very very nice monitor not to expensive?

Nate Silvers · 3 Aug 2012 at 03:55

Huh who uses vsync in FPS games? It introduces input lag. Just play with it off you don't need a new monitor to disable v-sync. I play counter strike and limit the fps to 61 and it's perfect, no lag and no tearing.

I'm very happy with my screen but my friend at home is telling me you got now your 670 buy a new monitor...

Why? I don't buy a new monitor every time I get a new GPU.

Chrisbes · 3 Aug 2012 at 05:06

Nate Silvers said:
Huh who uses vsync in FPS games? It introduces input lag. Just play with it off you don't need a new monitor to disable v-sync. I play counter strike and limit the fps to 61 and it's perfect, no lag and no tearing.

[Quote about friend saying to change monitor]
Why? I don't buy a new monitor every time I get a new GPU.

This. Vsync is pointless in fast paced games. In slower games such as Skyrim it's fine, but in bf3, where you need to move quickly, Vsync just introduces input lag.
On terms of changing the monitor - You said you're happy with it, if you're happy with it, don't go throwing £300 at a new one for no reason.

Phil2008 · 4 Aug 2012 at 01:36

Ummm Vsync is pointless? I beg to differ as it gets rid of the tearing and makes games run smoother with vsync enabled. Ive got use to vsync and have it on by default now. So what if the fps being lower then they should, at the end of the day if games run nice and smooth, that should be all that matters. I would prefer that to have the screen tearing and not running smoothly, due to high fps anyday.

Enabling "triple buffering" should stop the fps being cut in half if they go lower then your monitors refresh rate

smilertoo · 4 Aug 2012 at 04:21

27" isnt really worth it unless youre looking for higher res. 2560x1440.

Tuexnovia · 4 Aug 2012 at 04:22

Nate Silvers said:
Huh who uses vsync in FPS games? I play counter strike and limit the fps to 61 and it's perfect, no lag and no tearing

I heard that if you LIMIT THE FPS FROM THE GAME is 100% much better because you don't lose something or whatever rather than activate V-sync "Adaptive or not it doesn't matter" from your Graphic card is that true I can understand why but I don't know if that is true or I'm just talking bul*****.
I mean to limit from battlefield 3 trough the console not from the menu you know what I mean.

Phil2008 said:
Ummm Vsync is pointless? I beg to differ as it gets rid of the tearing and makes games run smoother with vsync enabled. Ive got use to vsync and have it on by default now. So what if the fps being lower then they should, at the end of the day if games run nice and smooth, that should be all that matters. I would prefer that to have the screen tearing and not running smoothly, due to high fps anyday.

Enabling "triple buffering" should stop the fps being cut in half if they go lower then your monitors refresh rate

I won't activate triple buffering not for FPS I heard that is not good, besides since I deactivate V-sync in battlefield 3 when I'm running and I see someone I got time to eat something and come back and kill him, or when I turn a corner or whatever and before I was dead straight away.

Chrisbes said:
This. Vsync is pointless in fast paced games. In slower games such as Skyrim it's fine, but in bf3, where you need to move quickly, Vsync just introduces input lag.
On terms of changing the monitor - You said you're happy with it, if you're happy with it, don't go throwing £300 at a new one for no reason.

Yes mean you are right, I can activate V-sync in Alan Wake is perfect but in battlefield modern warfare FPS bla bla... NO COMMENTS:.. I won't play again with V-sync.

And when you said input lag you mean just the reference of your mouse in the screen or something else?

Because I don't have any input lag with battlefield but yes with ARMA, so I know what you mean, but I don't know if you know what I mean when I'm telling you that without V-sync I can kill people much easier and before I was dead and I couldn't see what was happening...

I hope you understand me sorry for my English is quite late I'm drunk and I want to go to sleep so I won't cheek what I wrote GN.

craarc · 4 Aug 2012 at 04:42

for fps go low res .....

Nate Silvers · 5 Aug 2012 at 12:19

Phil2008 said:
Ummm Vsync is pointless? I beg to differ as it gets rid of the tearing and makes games run smoother with vsync enabled. Ive got use to vsync and have it on by default now. So what if the fps being lower then they should, at the end of the day if games run nice and smooth, that should be all that matters. I would prefer that to have the screen tearing and not running smoothly, due to high fps anyday.

Enabling "triple buffering" should stop the fps being cut in half if they go lower then your monitors refresh rate

Play something like counter strike with Vsync on, it's not about FPS being lower as I get a full 60 with it on, it just feels REALLY floaty and weird and laggy.

Tuexnovia · 5 Aug 2012 at 20:04

Nate Silvers said:
Play something like counter strike with Vsync on, it's not about FPS being lower as I get a full 60 with it on, it just feels REALLY floaty and weird and laggy.

Obviously my friend with V-sync activate even seeing your fraps 60 or or 59 FPS that is not true it goes straight away to 30. I don't know if you knew that but when I was playing battlefield o man I could kill like 40% more than I was doing before, besides NOW I can just hide after being SHOOT by someone -BEFORE NOT- (Before I was just dead right on the spot)

As most people consider 60 FPS to be a very smooth gameplay experience, this sounds like there would be no drawbacks, but unfortunately there is. The problem with turning VSync on is that the framerate is locked to multiples of 60. If the framerate drops even just a little below 60 FPS VSync will drop all the way from 60 FPS to 30 FPS. This is a huge drop in framerate, and that large change in framerate becomes noticeable to the gamer. The result is called stuttering, and when you are playing a game that consistently changes between only 30 and 60 FPS, the game speeds up and slows down and you feel this difference and it distracts from the gameplay experience. What's worse is that if the framerate drops ever so slightly below 30 FPS the next step down for VSync is 20 FPS, and then the next step down is 15 FPS.

ORIGINAL ARTICLE:
http://www.hardocp.com/article/2012/04/16/nvidia_adaptive_vsync_technology_review/

Nate Silvers · 6 Aug 2012 at 20:13

Holy **** that's why I hate Vsync in FPS games then.

Tuexnovia · 7 Aug 2012 at 10:25

Nate Silvers said:
Holy **** that's why I hate Vsync in FPS games then.

you see... and I discovered this like one week ago, and let me tell you that to change my old 5870 to my new 670 it made a huge difference not just about the graphics is also the performance in battlefield and I kill quite more people now than before I promise you. V-sync Better in put-LAG (Regarding graphics no mouse I mean)

So no idea exactly why, but is like this and I can feel it.

Sorry I have put the original article here: (I forgot it sorry)
http://www.hardocp.com/article/2012/04/16/nvidia_adaptive_vsync_technology_review/

Yaayuh! · 7 Aug 2012 at 10:49

I will be trying this tonight... Thanks for posting that, i clearly missed it.

kh85 · 9 Aug 2012 at 02:03

smilertoo said:
27" isnt really worth it unless youre looking for higher res. 2560x1440.

Exactly. 1080p looks blurry(ish) on 27" monitors or colours "can be" weird.
I think you'd be happy with a nice 23/24" 1080p (120hz) monitor for games.
If you do go for 27" make sure you have a nice distance from the monitor at least.

Happy Shopping (if you haven't bought already!)

PCM2 · 9 Aug 2012 at 09:53

I am a bit tired of people spreading misinformation and confusion using words such as 'blurry' and 'stretched' to describe a 27" monitor running 1920 x 1080 natively. Obviously the pixel pitch is not as tight as on a 2560 x 1440 resolution display but that doesn't mean everything is somehow distorted as people seem to describe.

The pixels themselves are still absolutely tiny as you can see by looking closely at such a monitor. People often draw the comparison between 24" and 27" monitors running the same resolution but blow the difference out of proportion - you're looking at around 81.6 PPI on the 27" and 91.8 PPI on the 24". This raises to 108.8 PPI on 27" WQHD monitors which is obviously excellent - but that doesn't automatically make native 1080p displays of that size 'stretched', 'fuzzy', 'distorted' or 'blurred'.

In actual fact a glossy 1920 x 1080 display tends to have a crisper look than your matte 27" WQHD displays so pixel pitch is by no means the be all and end all. A glossy WQHD display is of course beautifully crisp (I know - I own a couple) but please stop distorting people's views of what to expect from a 27" Full HD model.

Yaayuh! · 9 Aug 2012 at 09:54

I also can't stand 1920x1080 on 27", too big of a screen unless of course you have it a foor further back than a 24" screen.

PCM2 · 9 Aug 2012 at 10:23

Personally I find a glossy screen surface suitably offsets any clarity drawbacks. I own 27" glossy and matte WQHD screens and 27" glossy Full HD ones but no matte 27" Full HD ones incidentally. I certainly like the 2560 x 1440 resolution on the desktop just as I prefer 1920 x 1200 on a 24" personally.

kh85 · 9 Aug 2012 at 11:50

PCM2 said:
I am a bit tired of people spreading misinformation and confusion using words such as 'blurry' and 'stretched' to describe a 27" monitor running 1920 x 1080 natively. Obviously the pixel pitch is not as tight as on a 2560 x 1440 resolution display but that doesn't mean everything is somehow distorted as people seem to describe.

That's cool. I've used a 27" at 2560x1440 and it was crystal, but it was just too big for me and for the things I was doing.

A lot of people are happy with the native resolution on a 27" at 1920x1080. I've used a couple of 27" monitors at that res now, and in my opinion the clarity is no where as near as good on a 23" or 24" native. Obviously the screens are smaller, but you can definitely tell the difference, and that's why I opted for a smaller screen. I wouldn't say it's confusing people on the matter, it's merely an experience of using one or the other and saying which they may prefer. Just make sure the OP has enough distance from the monitor and his seating position.

PCM2 · 9 Aug 2012 at 11:59

kh85 said:
That's cool. I've used a 27" at 2560x1440 and it was crystal, but it was just too big for me and for the things I was doing.

A lot of people are happy with the native resolution on a 27" at 1920x1080. I've used a couple of 27" monitors at that res now, and in my opinion the clarity is no where as near as good on a 23" or 24" native. Obviously the screens are smaller, but you can definitely tell the difference, and that's why I opted for a smaller screen. I wouldn't say it's confusing people on the matter, it's merely an experience of using one or the other and saying which they may prefer. Just make sure the OP has enough distance from the monitor and his seating position.

I think it was the straw that broke the camel's back.

I do think it is important for people to judge for themselves and completely agree that it is all about preferences (like most things with monitors, unfortunate though that may be). I have had many people email me saying that "they heard this" and "they heard that" and using phrases such as 'really blurry', 'huge pixels', 'pixelated', 'stretched' and whatnot. They are all just threads that spin a web of confusion for people - your comments alone wouldn't have made the whole web or even a big section of it but I'm sure you know where I'm coming from.

I completely agree about the importance of seating distance but some people seem to think you will see these golf balls of pixels if you are sitting 50cm away because of what they have 'heard'. And I do think people underestimate the importance of screen surface texture in all of this as that does make a massive difference, causing significant diffusion if the haze value is high that can really exacerbate the issue.