New 120Hz/"240Hz" VA monitor for gamers (Eizo Foris FG2421)

For the money 4K just isn't worth it at the moment, if anything it will give a worse gaming experience. Thanks for sharing with us.
 
maka12 said:
just received mine today really pleased with it, the build quality is excellent far better than what i have seen from asus and samsung, the blacks are amazing just like my old pioneer plasma,
when i fired up BF4 is when the monitor shines it looks stunning and miles smoother than my asus 120hz you can really tell the difference.
I much prefer it over the 1440p for gaming it runs far smoother,
if you are just a gamer like me and only play games this is the monitor to buy, if you use the monitor for photo editing, and business related stuff i would choose a 1440p.
I was shocked by the packaging it came in, it was terrible, was expecting better didn't even mention it was gaming monitor

i rated this 9 out 10

if anyone has some good settings for it can you post them
thanks
Click to expand...

Are you running BF4 at more than 120fps? What GPU(s) do you use?
 
maka12 said:
Fps varies from different maps some u can hit 120 others around 80 running radeon 7990
Click to expand...

Well I'm a bit confused. How can it look smoother than your previous monitor when you're not getting over 120fps? You're only going to benefit from this monitor when you acheive FPS's greater than 120. :)

Still though it looks like an amazing monitor. Would love to see how Source games look like as most decent GPU's can achieve over 200fps in them. I'm quite jealous, would love to see it in the flesh :D
 
Last edited:
Hi ,
It looks smoother Wilkeh because the screen flicker is not a noticeable....the image looks much more stable at 120hz, The mouse and graphic movement in games is more fluid solid smoother looking... I think 60hz is a bit like blinking your eye lids fast :) 120 is like eyes wide open no blinking :)

Think it it like having 2 screens like double glazing windows lo the first panel of glass it the refresh rate flicker then seeing thru this to next bit glass is the fps, higher is more smoother..... lowers is like little micro shutter not as smooth :P

The problem with not matching fps and hz on your high refresh rate monitor is you get graphic tearing in games (look on youtube for tearing examples if never seen it must be some on there. warning tho ppl probley show extreme examples of it tho )...but not all games its noticeable or you only get it sometimes when moving your mouse fast..
its not bad some games u hardly notice it or cant see it all ...it can be small or big.

I don't find it a problem in bf4 when my fps drop below 120fps....its just so much nicer with the 60hz flicker gone.
I had 2 friends come round the other night and both no nothing about computers but they spotted my screen wasn't flicking straight away, I was quite surprised
your go get one know and say u cant see a difference :)

Hope I helped mate made some sense.... its getting late :) someone help me (badass!
 
Last edited:
IPS is not a gaming / multimedia technology, its just PC users have got used to this being the best compromise due to the lack of options.... IPS monitors are for professional colour critical work. TN is a budget technology which should have been phased out years ago.. Hopefully PC gaming will now get away from the abysmal contrast ratio's of IPS and TN and we will start to see lots of VA panels using tricks to reduce motion blur... The response times are the only big issue with VA and now that this can be reduced using strobing and 120hz hopefully we will see IPS / PLS used for professional use and lots of nice VA gaming panels.
 
Last edited:
swampy said:
Hi ,
It looks smoother Wilkeh because the screen flicker is not a noticeable....the image looks much more stable at 120hz, The mouse and graphic movement in games is more fluid solid smoother looking... I think 60hz is a bit like blinking your eye lids fast :) 120 is like eyes wide open no blinking :)

Think it it like having 2 screens like double glazing windows lo the first panel of glass it the refresh rate flicker then seeing thru this to next bit glass is the fps, higher is more smoother..... lowers is like little micro shutter not as smooth :P

The problem with not matching fps and hz on your high refresh rate monitor is you get graphic tearing in games (look on youtube for tearing examples if never seen it must be some on there. warning tho ppl probley show extreme examples of it tho )...but not all games its noticeable or you only get it sometimes when moving your mouse fast..
its not bad some games u hardly notice it or cant see it all ...it can be small or big.

I don't find it a problem in bf4 when my fps drop below 120fps....its just so much nicer with the 60hz flicker gone.
I had 2 friends come round the other night and both no nothing about computers but they spotted my screen wasn't flicking straight away, I was quite surprised
your go get one know and say u cant see a difference :)

Hope I helped mate made some sense.... its getting late :) someone help me (badass!
Click to expand...

We're not comparing 60hz to 120hz mate, we're comparing 120 with 240. I'm fully aware of the difference between 120 and 60hz, I personally have a Asus 144hz 27" and I absolutely love it. I would never use a 60hz monitor again. All I'm saying is the monitor won't look any smoother at 90fps if using a 120hz monitor or a 240hz one.
 
Wilkeh said:
We're not comparing 60hz to 120hz mate, we're comparing 120 with 240. I'm fully aware of the difference between 120 and 60hz, I personally have a Asus 144hz 27" and I absolutely love it. I would never use a 60hz monitor again. All I'm saying is the monitor won't look any smoother at 90fps if using a 120hz monitor or a 240hz one.
Click to expand...

This is still a 120hz input monitor. Its 240hz output is a combination of 120hz frames with a black frame in between each (called black frame insertion). It essentially gives the same effect as the lightboost hack with 3d vision monitors but its built in and fully supported so it will be smoother then a 120hz monitor if both were running 90fps.
 
Jeps said:
This is still a 120hz input monitor. Its 240hz output is a combination of 120hz frames with a black frame in between each (called black frame insertion). It essentially gives the same effect as the lightboost hack with 3d vision monitors but its built in and fully supported so it will be smoother then a 120hz monitor if both were running 90fps.
Click to expand...

I'm really struggling to grasp the concept on this really. If my game is running at 90fps then I can see 90 frames a second on the screen. If the screen is a 120hz or 240hz they are still both showing just 90fps. How can 90fps look smoother on one screen than the other? They are the same fps and "hz" is technically just "fps" is it not? I always thought that a 120hz monitor can show a maximum of 120fps, anything more than 120fps you're still going to be capped by the monitor at 120. I'm sorry for my ignorance but this is what I always thought was the case and I'm eager to learn.
 
Last edited:
Wilkeh said:
I'm really struggling to grasp the concept on this really. If my game is running at 90fps then I can see 90 frames a second on the screen. If the screen is a 120hz or 240hz they are still both showing just 90fps. How can 90fps look smoother on one screen than the other? They are the same fps and "hz" is technically just "fps" is it not? I always thought that a 120hz monitor can show a maximum of 120fps, anything more than 120fps you're still going to be capped by the monitor at 120. I'm sorry for my ignorance but this is what I always thought was the case and I'm eager to learn.
Click to expand...

Its something to do with how LCD displays work when the pixels are changing from one image to another. You get a ghosting effect as they change which leads to motion blur regardless of how fast you can refresh them (although the faster you can refresh them, the less time there is to see the blur). If you make the screen completely black when they are changing and only turn it on when they have fully produced the next image, you get almost no motion blur as you cant see any of the ghosting happening. That's how I understand it at least.

So this isn't a true 240hz monitor. If it were, then at 120fps it would be identical to a 120hz monitor as you say as the backlight is always on and you always see the transition of the pixels. This monitor takes your 120fps input, sticks black frames in between each of them 120 frames as they transition on the monitor (for 240hz effectively) which reduced the blur you can see.
 
Jeps said:
Its something to do with how LCD displays work when the pixels are changing from one image to another. You get a ghosting effect as they change which leads to motion blur regardless of how fast you can refresh them (although the faster you can refresh them, the less time there is to see the blur). If you make the screen completely black when they are changing and only turn it on when they have fully produced the next image, you get almost no motion blur as you cant see any of the ghosting happening. That's how I understand it at least.

So this isn't a true 240hz monitor. If it were, then at 120fps it would be identical to a 120hz monitor as you say as the backlight is always on and you always see the transition of the pixels. This monitor takes your 120fps input, sticks black frames in between each of them 120 frames as they transition on the monitor (for 240hz effectively) which reduced the blur you can see.
Click to expand...

Fancy not knowing that! :eek:
 
I am so tempted to get one of these (or possibly a 27" Asus 144hz) but need a few more opinions to make up my mind. My finger has been hovering over the button for a few days now. Eta is still showing as today.
 
Last edited:
I have ordered one direct from Eizo through my company (i was supposed to get it yesterday but someone put a forklift through the pallet of screens when it was delivered to eizo....... yes i know impressive)

My ETA is now middle of next week
 
Have to say I've lost my enthusiasm for this monitor after watching input lag comparison with the XL2411T. It appears to be 15-20ms slower, and the XL2411T has been accurately measured at ~13ms. That's way too laggy for me.
 
pmc25 said:
Have to say I've lost my enthusiasm for this monitor after watching input lag comparison with the XL2411T. It appears to be 15-20ms slower, and the XL2411T has been accurately measured at ~13ms. That's way too laggy for me.
Click to expand...

That's not correct. The lag is about 14ms (total including response time) at 120Hz and a few seconds slower at 18ms with Turbo 240 enabled. That's been confirmed by numerous sources as well
 
Baddass said:
That's not correct. The lag is about 14ms (total including response time) at 120Hz and a few seconds slower at 18ms with Turbo 240 enabled. That's been confirmed by numerous sources as well
Click to expand...

Sorry, meant XL2410T. Did you test either side by side with the Eizo? I don't think you did.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B1pQ5k0MzvY

Other people on overclock.net have posted about significant lag, including a guy who claims to have tested it with a lag tester.
 
No I didnt but then that doesn't have any bearing on the result compared with a CRT which has been achieved by various reliable sources and using various reliable methods in fact. There isn't a lag of 33ms on the Eizo (13 + 20ms) I'm sure of that and I wouldn't be out of by one random video personally
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom