120 fps is the minimum for me when it comes to playing games. Then again I was used to 120hz monitors on CRTs in the early 2000s with 0 input lag.
I would only ever consider 4k for normal desktop usage but there's no way I would pay anything for 60 fps and we all know 4k monitors will be stupidly expensive for at least 10 years.
Then again, the audience of hardcore gamers who would notice that sort of thing is probably small, so I guess it makes economic sense.
LCD manufacturers in general are really crooked. They have been accused and found guilty of price fixing on multiple occasions.
They also love to release monitors with high quality panels initially so they get good reviews and swap in garbage panels without letting consumers know and then sell it for the same price as the same model.
It went on for a few years after its initial release so it's still semi-current although now a days I doubt anyone would be buying that model.
I remember a 100ish page thread on hardforum documenting which panels lined up with what serial numbers. I actually played the roulette and bought one off a dude. I ended up getting an s-ips panel and I still use it as my second monitor. It's not 120hz but I don't game with it.
Here's the link to the thread: http://hardforum.com/showthread.php?t=1111100
I'm sure there were/are more cases but this was the most popular one because the s-ips version of this monitor was amazing for its time. It was my first LCD purchase.
More to the point, I'm a graphics programmer / researcher, so monitors with low Delta E are important for my work. The Dell U2711 combined with an i1Display Pro can be calibrated to exceptional color fidelity.
I'd say go for 24s or a 30; if you have the 27 you'll just wish you had the 30 :-p but definitely go IPS, they are fantastic. I haven't read much about the Korean monitors as they were nonexistent when I researched the market 4-5 years ago.
It's not like modern games have that much CPU time to prepare each 1/60 sec frame -- 16ms actually.
As for input lag, they can scan inpput at different frequencies and adapt the next frame accordingly, but it's not like the input is gonna show in any less than 1/60 for an graphically involved game.
A lot of panels have a varied amount of input lag. Some of them are in the single digits of milliseconds. On the other side of the spectrum you could see upwards of 100ms.
It's really bad when you get something like 30ms to 70ms of random delay. You can't predict this type of randomness and since it happens every frame it makes for a very poor gaming experience.
Think about a competitive game like quake 3 where you might be playing at a LAN where you have a 5ms ping but your monitor is giving you 30-50ms of random input lag. You would be at a -massive- disadvantage if your opponent had a monitor with 2-7ms of input lag.
There is a world of difference between 30ms and 60ms at a competitive level.
</joke>
Honestly, I don't care after 60fps, even for games. Are 4k monitors (smaller screens) available? I only see huge 4k TVs, never heard of monitors. (It is not like I can afford one though :()
You like wasting CPU power for placebo-level difference?
In a few years (assuming 20-something) you won't care much for games anymore, and 99.999% of the kids are perfectly fine with 60 fps anyway.
Look at how many grown men/women play or watch televised sports. There is nothing different than some 40 year old person watching an NFL game and a 40 year old person watching a quakelive or heroes of newerth tournament.
I don't watch regular sports but I can see the appeal. I mean, look at a sport like basketball. It seems like a single player can almost carry a team by himself as long as the other players are somewhat competent. Watching someone who is so good that he makes "professionals" seem like amateurs is really entertaining.
Well, statistically speaking, most of them do. They get a job, family, etc.
If you sleep 7 hours a day and work 40 hours a week there's still 9 hours a day to do whatever you want and free weekends assuming you work a typical 9-5 job which might be common but certainly isn't what everyone does.
How you choose to spend those remaining 9-10 hours a day is up to you. Some people would rather watch TV for 3 hours a night and sleep more so they lose almost half their free time because they enjoy sleeping in and watching some shows. Nothing wrong with that but not everyone spends their time doing that.
You do not have the statistics to back that statement up.
People usually have less time for games once they have kids, but they have less time for basically everything. Super Mario Bros came out 28 years ago; it's existed for essentially the entire life of anyone younger than mid-30s, into people in their 40s for it being around since their childhood. And that still doesn't even cover people that grew up with an Atari 2600 (36 years ago) or grew up in the culture of arcades (Pong was 41 years ago).
Even getting past the "competitive level" that the GP is going on about, the comparison to spending the afternoon "watching the game" is exactly right, and it's really not that big a deal for most people.
(the best statistics you'll find, by the way, put the median age of gamers at 30--meaning the every single person in the group you think soley cares about games is matched by a person older than that--though the methodology is so-so and it includes a wide variety of "gaming", including on the ever-present mobile device)
1. (120)fps you refer is about the graphic card not the monitor. 2. (120)hz is refresh rate of an LCD is completely different than CRT. BTW, I never heard of 120hz high-res monitor. Mitsubishi or NEC maybe. could you give the brand and model? 3. monitor input lag will _always_be there with LCDs. there is no 120hz or higher LCD panels. they do real-time interpolation with 60hz panels. and that's not natural if you look closely. maybe just maybe OLED will improve response time or input lag as you refer.
A popular one is: http://www.overclock.net/t/1374065/korean-qnix-qx2710-evolut...
Most 120hz LCDs run at 1080p though, and you can typically buy them at Newegg or wherever you usually get computer parts. You should be able to find dozens of models by Googling for "120hz LCD monitors".
Btw 3D using shuttered glasses on a nomral 120Hz LCD might look ok when playing games and whatnot but is in reality not: the amounts of crosstalk are beyond what can be used for scientific research unless you stick to a small area on the screen and tune everything specifically for that area.
If I were to drop $700 on a new display I would rather buy 2x $350 2650x1440 monitors that can run at 120hz at that resolution. They've been on the market at that price for quite a while now.
Back in 2001 or 2002 I bought a 21" 1600x1200 120hz CRT for $80 for comparison. It also had no input delay, perfect colors and the screen itself was flat. The only downside is it weighed like 80 pounds.
Its a different story for PC gaming and competetive gaming though.
People after 4K displays in the current market aren't going for game machines...
May I ask, which monitor are you referring to? A $350 monitor that can do 2650x1440 and run at 120hz? I need a monitor like that for my graphics research.