Completely made for fps games? Otherwise 229 for a FHD monitor nah I’m fine with my quad hd 32” ips which I paid similar price to this one but I wanted game time and movie time.
Gonna vote hot - the gamers out there might like this one.
daastle to 3ak
8 Oct 17#2
Which do you have?
3ak to daastle
8 Oct 17#4
^
rossysaurus to 3ak
8 Oct 17#6
Yours is double the resolution (QHD vs FHD), this one is double the refresh rate (60hz vs 144hz). Luxury 4-door VS sports car.
3ak to rossysaurus
8 Oct 17#7
Ahah I like that analogy - totally agree.
Chuggee to 3ak
9 Oct 17#8
Unless your luxury 4 door has GSync or Freesync, then it's a Tesla.
Bizness to 3ak
9 Oct 17#10
Sorry, so which am I spending my money on? :smile:
I've got the original non esports version, 2411z model, great for fast pace games. 144hz is night and day difference, hopefully 4k 144hz eventually at a decent price in the future.
parkertron
9 Oct 17#9
I'm struggling a bit with choosing a new monitor, obviously I can choose FHD/QHD/4K - TN/IPS - 24/27 inch or whatever - 60/144 or higher refresh rate - and Freesync/Gsync/No sync depending on Nvidia/AMD. Its the Freesync/Gsync thing thats confusing me, some stuff I've read say you dont need it and I dont understand why, surely theres always going to be some frame rate changes when the screen gets busier and thats when gsync/freesync will make stuff smoother? These Benq Zowie seem to be highly thought of but dont have freesync/gsync. I think I want to settle on a FHD/TN/144/24/Freesync but its a bit of a minefield, dont have space for a 27 inch, and think at that size FHD is probably enough (running a Vega 64).
rossysaurus to parkertron
9 Oct 17#11
You are correct in all areas. You don't need adaptive sync (G-SYNC or freesync) if you can keep your framerate above 144fps but when you drop below that you will benefit from adaptive sync. Most people will drop below 144fps at some point. Competitive gamers still prefer no adaptive sync as they introduce tiny amounts of lag similar to runners shaving their legs for aerodynamics; normal people would prefer to keep their leg hair and be marginally slower. Full HD is fine for 24" but at 27" it starts to look bad and QHD is a better choice. 4k is still very hard to run for games. IPS is technically better than TN for colour reproduction but IPS glow is getting worse in recent years causing clouding and uneven backlight. I would say neither is "best" as they both have problems but summer people are more sensitive to over perform then the other. Also "panel lottery" means some people get great results and others get terrible from the same model of monitor. > I think I want to settle on a FHD/TN/144/24/Freesync Perfect budget choice. You will spend a lot more to get marginal improvements.
![Fresh Breakfast Meat Box (Using code) @ Campbells Meat [Haggis / Lorne Sausage / Bacon / Black Pudding & More]](/images/topics/208684_1.jpg)
![[Xbox One] Q. u. b. e: Director's Cut on Deals with Gold](/images/topics/208716_1.jpg)
Opening post
people say it's very good
no free/gsync option
lowest price this year
12 comments
Gonna vote hot - the gamers out there might like this one.
Competitive gamers still prefer no adaptive sync as they introduce tiny amounts of lag similar to runners shaving their legs for aerodynamics; normal people would prefer to keep their leg hair and be marginally slower.
Full HD is fine for 24" but at 27" it starts to look bad and QHD is a better choice. 4k is still very hard to run for games.
IPS is technically better than TN for colour reproduction but IPS glow is getting worse in recent years causing clouding and uneven backlight. I would say neither is "best" as they both have problems but summer people are more sensitive to over perform then the other. Also "panel lottery" means some people get great results and others get terrible from the same model of monitor.
> I think I want to settle on a FHD/TN/144/24/Freesync
Perfect budget choice. You will spend a lot more to get marginal improvements.