Originally Posted by coelacanth
One of the major points of getting these monitors is to OC them. And OCing is not overrated. Switching from 60Hz to 96Hz or 120Hz is glorious! It seems that some people cannot detect the difference between 60Hz and higher Hz. 60Hz looks like a slideshow to me now compared to 96Hz+.
I'd contend that the best point about these monitors are that they're cheap
. The overclocking is a bonus. Having probably owned one of the best overclocking monitors (Catleap 2B), for one of the longest periods of time (just about 2 years), I have to say that overclocking isn't the reason why I enjoy the monitor so much. Keeping the overclock alive through driver updates, rehacking and all, dealing with breaking HDCP... I have to say that it's not all peaches and cream. And I don't have to deal with the finicky pixel clock settings to optimize against image retention, gamma shifts, tinting and darkening images. Hence why I say overrated. Not that overclocking is worthless (far from it, it's amazing that you can overclock it) just that I think people value it more than it's actually worth.
Originally Posted by Overfiend
Hey man - did you go ahead with the True10? I just ordered one. The way I see it, is that if it frame skips at 75hz (which is what it is advertised to run at), then it is not being sold as advertised, and the seller should pay for returns...
75hz might work at a lower resolution; there are a lot of monitors (including my Dell U2312hm/U2311h) have monitor modes that support higher refresh rates, but at a lower resolution. If someone still has a True10, it might be worth testing that.