The classic 120Hz vs 2560x1440 - Page 2

Right now 120hz seems more plausible. I own one. I currently want a 2560x1440 monitor with built a built in webcam/array mic using a thunderbolt port (once thunderbolt becomes more widely adopted.) This way, I have the elegance of one wire, high resolutions, and the ability to chat with friends on array mic without pulling out my headset every time. But right now, using the DVI-D interface at 120hz seems like the way to go.

With the adoption of thunderbolt I'm hoping for 2560x1440 at 120hz with data transfer for built in webcams etc. It seems like the Apple thunderbolt display has this down (aside from the 120hz) . But due to the lack of adoption of thunderbolt, it just isn't the right time. The bandwidth of these interfaces are being are being pushed and DVI-D isn't going to cut it for much longer. When I buy an expensive monitor at 800$, I wouldn't want it utilizing older interfaces. I think thunderbolt is the future (10GBps), and thus the 800$ price tag is not warranted. Thus, 120hz all the way.

Sorry for the small tangent but it boils down to this:
Neither is solely superior, and one has a much larger price tag. While both are good, the price tag is unwarranted for the 1440p monitor (at least until adoption of thunderbolt/1440p and 120hz/ data and power in a single cord etc).

PS: (DisplayPort also transfers data and power but I can't find it anywhere that that samsung utilized DP 1.2, meaning the DP is also an older interface). A 800$ monitor should have all the latest and greatest.
Edited by invena - 8/16/12 at 10:51pm

Get the monitor with the higher resolution. It's gorgeous.

120hz is only going to benefit you when you play select FPS games.

Not just FPS games, the overall fluidity is increased in any fast moving element since it is drawing data 120 times per second (refresh rate). It doen't only mean it can show 120frames per second. It just so happens that FPS is measured in seconds, thus since it is pulling data 120times per second, and a theoretical 120 frames can be displayed every second, the monitor can display 120frames per second.

As for this, both seem to be quality panels. But as far as IPS goes some of Dell's ultrasharp monitors seem to have great reviews about them (great color accuracy and viewing angles), 120Hz I'm hearing good things about the BENQ model and surprisingly the Alienware AW2310 seems to be quite good (if you can find a good price).

Lastly as far as 3D goes, tried it.. it's just not my forte. If you love 3D films, then maybe have a go. If you don't, then I don't recommend it.
Edited by invena - 8/16/12 at 11:45pm

depends

if u want a matte monitor the IPS solution is patetically horrible whit its AG coating that dirt the images !

I guess it comes down to whats more important. Games(120hz) or work(ips).

I currently own an asus vg236h and the vs238h-p. the colors look pretty remarkable on the vg

i had 27" 120hz, sold it...have 2560x1440 now. Would never go back to TN panel ever. unless full fledge 120hz 2560x1440 straight out the box existed

Depends one your preference. I personally hate glossy screens to death and would never use one as my main monitor. Some love Glossy other don't, to call AG horrible is more or less your preference not the rest of the worlds.

2560x1440.

Why can't you guys just look at the million other threads on this.