120Hz Monitor LIST -- Includes LightBoost, G-SYNC, Overclockable, etc.

[tweakboy]

These monitors have horrible access time, 5 to 12ms .... so you turn on vsync like I do you will notice slight lag.... Im 1ms ,, that is ghostless as well.

 

[BoFox]

Yep.

Nope, it's also a strobe backlight too. It says so in the EIZO FG2421 manual, page 18.
If it looks like a duck, quacks like a duck, it is a duck -- it's a strobe backlight, just like LightBoost (unofficial) and G-SYNC's upcoming low-persistence mode (official).

- It beat G-SYNC to official announcement
- LightBoost is unofficial.

So yep, this is the first official modern vendor-sanctioned LightBoost-like mode intentionally to reduce motion blur. (I'm assuming Eizo is also sending AnandTech a review unit too. Eizo is also sending me a review unit as well). BENQ did come out with AMA-Z in year 2006 and others, which attempted to use backlight modulation to reduce motion blur, but those were horribly inefficient (Why? Explanation at TFT Central about how today's strobe backlights are more efficient).

2014 is an exciting year of low-persistence strobe-mode monitors!
LightBoost modes. G-SYNC modes. Turbo 240 modes. And possibly other brand names of strobe backlights.

Congrats on getting Eizo to send you a review unit - can't wait to see your review on this groundbreaking monitor that has STATIC contrast ratio looking more like OLED screens, plus 120Hz input and 240Hz strobing!!

I'm waiting for a bigger version (at least 27") before I take the plunge into heaven!

 

[VulgarDisplay]

You may check out the display that looper linked: http://www.tftcentral.co.uk/reviews/eizo_fg2421.htm

It is 120hz with a pulsing backlight system, but instead of a TN panel, it is a VA panel. The bad news is it probably won't ever get a kit for G-sync, like the VG248QE.

I like what they are doing with that monitor, but I'm really just looking for a cheapish placeholder until 4k gets affordable.

Also, it looks like that monitor is $600 for 1080p

 

[Deasnutz]

I have the Ezio and it is amazing to game on. I wish the strobing feature worked at 100hz and had higher pixel density, but I'm satisfied. The gaming experience is so much better. The TN panels just tarnish all the hard work done by the gpu's.

I do think that I'm done with PC gaming after this gen, because it's too much money and time devoted to perfect the experience.

 

[gigahertz20]

Trying to decide between the Eizo and the Dell P2414H which also got a pretty good review on tft central and it's only $220 on Amazon right now with 5 left in stock. I've always used IPS monitors for gaming and never really noticed blurring/ghosting that much so I'm not sure if it's worth $600 for the Eizo....really wish I could test it out first. Also thinking of waiting until next month, new Dell Ultrasharp line will be out and the bezel is super thin, the panel is probably going to be the same as the p2414h though so no difference in performance if so.....
http://www.tftcentral.co.uk/news_archive/29.htm#dell_u2414h_2

 

[Mark Rejhon]

Trying to decide between the Eizo and the Dell P2414H which also got a pretty good review on tft central and it's only $220 on Amazon right now with 5 left in stock. I've always used IPS monitors for gaming and never really noticed blurring/ghosting that much so I'm not sure if it's worth $600 for the Eizo....really wish I could test it out first. Also thinking of waiting until next month, new Dell Ultrasharp line will be out and the bezel is super thin, the panel is probably going to be the same as the p2414h though so no difference in performance if so.....
http://www.tftcentral.co.uk/news_archive/29.htm#dell_u2414h_2

It's a tough call. But once you've tried 120Hz, most people never go back. Some people aren't as sensitive to motion, but many are sufficiently sensitive that this becomes the new norm for them. See this:
Blind Test Suggests Gamers Overwhelmingly Prefer 120Hz
88% of gamers could tell the difference in a random blind test. And that's not even strobe-backlight based either, either.

Generally:
60Hz = baseline
120Hz = 50% less motion blur
strobed = 80-95% less motion blur

To witness motion blur, see www.testufo.com/eyetracking and www.testufo.com/photo ... Some people say 120Hz vs strobed is bigger than 60Hz vs 120Hz, while others disagree, it depends on how sensitive to motion blur you are.

It's often a case of switching from "I wonder what it will look like, I never noticed", to "I can't live without 120Hz anymore", because once you regularly see the improvement, you see the loss when you downgrade back to 60Hz.

It is always a tough decision on which monitor to get, but if you primarily play games, and you've got a GPU capable of pushing triple-digit frame rates, then the benefits of 120Hz becomes really dramatic. If you can only push double-digit frame rates, the benefits of 120Hz becomes much less. So once you've seen triple-digit frame rates of 120Hz, and then try newer games (e.g. Battlefield 4), be noted you will be tempted to upgrade your GPU, too, if you get addicted to the more fluid motion.

Another route is G-SYNC, which is another innovation to pay attention to (and it also has optional strobing, too.)

 

[lockdown571]

It's a tough call. But once you've tried 120Hz, most people never go back. Some people aren't as sensitive to motion, but many are sufficiently sensitive that this becomes the new norm for them. See this:
Blind Test Suggests Gamers Overwhelmingly Prefer 120Hz
88% of gamers could tell the difference in a random blind test. And that's not even strobe-backlight based either, either.

It's such an interesting phenomenon. Before I went to 120 Hz, I never thought "man, this 60 Hz is really choppy". Now that I have a 120 Hz display though, 60 Hz looks terrible in comparison. Similarly, I just went from a non-strobbing (Acer HN274H) to a strobbing 120 Hz monitor (Eizo FG2421), and the difference is also readily apparent. With my Acer, I never once thought "man, motion is really blurry". When people mentioned the blurriness with non-strobbing 120 Hz displays I always thought they were crazy. Now that I have the FG2421 I know what they mean.

The unfortunate thing now is that you have to compromise. Things have gotten better with the FG2421. Before you had to chose between an IPS with good color and viewing angles and a 120 Hz TN model with terrible color. The FG2421 is a decent compromise (and also has the best black levels of any LCD I've seen), although sadly it's very expensive and only 23.5". Hopefully though the FG2421 will leave an impression on the market and we will start to see more options!

 

[Merkin420]

Hello, thanks for the awesome thread.

I just got my self the Benq 144Hz BenQ XL2420TE
but have a few little querks and questions.

When I have Strobelight on, my monitor options (when i click the monitor buttons)
are disabled. I can only get into Menu and everything else is greyed out. Is this suppose to happen? I think even without strobelight some things are still greyed out..
What is going on here?

Also when i do the UFO test, I seem to be getting 120FPS @ 120Hz.
Since it's set to 144Hz, shouldn't these both be running at 144 then?

ta

 

[Kitlope]

Merkin, yes most menu functions don't work when using strobelight. This is because you're now fooling the monitor into thinking it's in 3D.

 

[Mark Rejhon]

Added 2 new upcoming monitors, XL2411Z and XL2420Z, released by late 1Q2014 or early 2Q2014.

There's been a lot of news about GSYNC lately too, so there may be new monitor models with GSYNC being added, as manufacturers announce those.

 

[rasczak]

it's been about 8 years since i've looked at monitor hardware. for heavy fps gaming on a limited budget are those ips monitors good?

 

[amddude]

it's been about 8 years since i've looked at monitor hardware. for heavy fps gaming on a limited budget are those ips monitors good?

If you wanna play fps, I can't recommend an IPS. It's just slow. I know some people say they can't tell a difference. Maybe they have slow brains? I dunno.

 

[taq8ojh]

IPS monitors are perfectly fine for gaming. You just have to buy something better, with better than just regular IPS panel (like, AH-IPS or H-IPS).
I will take superior colour quality over some theoretical gain in response time anytime of a day.

 

[Mark Rejhon]

some theoretical gain in response time anytime of a day.

Not theoretical.

1. See for yourself with your eyes at www.testufo.com/eyetracking
GtG is not the cause of motion blur anymore; persistence is the main cause.

2. Can you successfully pass the TestUFO Panning Map Test?
If you can read the street name labels, your display passes.

3. A scientific blind test show that 88% of gamers overwhelmingly prefer 120Hz from 60Hz [article on TechReport]

As a general rule of thumb:
60Hz -- baseline
120Hz -- 50% less motion blur
strobed -- 80-95% less motion blur (Passes TestUFO panning map test)

So, definitely not "theoretical"...

 

[imaheadcase]

Not theoretical.

1. See for yourself with your eyes at www.testufo.com/eyetracking
GtG is not the cause of motion blur anymore; persistence is the main cause.

2. Can you successfully pass the TestUFO Panning Map Test?
If you can read the street name labels, your display passes.

3. A scientific blind test show that 88% of gamers overwhelmingly prefer 120Hz from 60Hz [article on TechReport]

As a general rule of thumb:
60Hz -- baseline
120Hz -- 50% less motion blur
strobed -- 80-95% less motion blur (Passes TestUFO panning map test)

So, definitely not "theoretical"...

1. No i can't.
2. No i can't.
3. The "blindtest" was setup by a monitor company AOC fyi. Hardly scientific. Not even considering it was only 50 people. Hardly a slamdunk.


It still is theoretical. Depends on many factors, age, room lighting, contacts, etc. I would rather play some games on IPS vs this 144hz Benq. My vision is fine, but its not a slam dunk by any means saying they are better at every game.

 

[taq8ojh]

I should have worded my post differently. I guess I could tell some difference in that the image would probably feel sharper due to lower response time and higher refresh rate (but I wasn't even talking 120Hz in the first place, just general IPS vs TN), BUT I would still take IPS over anything due to image quality. Like I said elsewhere, I value how my games look just as high as they play.

 

[ejjpi]

I currently have a 120hz (Viewsonic vx2268wm) monitor but I can't wait to test this http://www.testufo.com/#demo=tearing&foreground=00C000&test=stutter&background=000000&max=12&pps=720 with a gsync enabled monitor

 

[Mark Rejhon]

1. No i can't.

Why? It's not a Yes/No test -- does the eye tracking animation produce an Error 404? Or are you using a non-LCD display such as CRT? Or older LCD (those will not produce the correct optical illusion on that motion test). Do you have a stutter free web browser? (Aero ON, primary monitor only, VSYNC-supported browser). This test pattern seems to works for about ~80% of humans, the remaining 20% either has browser problems or has a vision behaviour (e.g. diffent motion psychotropics) that makes their vision deviate from the norm.

2. No i can't.

Correct, it's not possible on most IPS displays. But try again on a CRT, and you can.

And on all modern strobe-backlight LCD's. I have an EIZO FG2421, G-SYNC monitor (NVIDIA sent me one for testing), several LightBoost monitors, and a beta BENQ XL2720Z sitting on my desk (BENQ sent me one to test it strobe mode; as I'm the "LightBoost" guy). So I've seen the major strobe-backlight monitors. All of them pass the TestUFO Panning Map Test. And everyone who've I've asked to come to the computer screen, says they can read the map labels on these monitors.

3. The "blindtest" was setup by a monitor company AOC fyi. Hardly scientific. Not even considering it was only 50 people. Hardly a slamdunk.

Fair comment, depending on what is defined as "science" nowadays. It is still more scientific than most "science" being done nowadays. It's sad how public research has declined. However, that aside, let's touch base on a few fundamental concepts, to at least point out it is not a theory.

It still is theoretical.

That I disagree. Unless you mean anything less than "five sigma" is a theory. Then I give up arguing with you.

It's true that only roughly about two-sigma of human population can see the difference with LightBoost in a framerate=stroberate test. It's already confirmed to be a majority. Key is a test with controlled variables (framerate locking), not a random game. Very few games can run stutter free and tearing free, at framerate=stroberate that LightBoost require for ideal-motion scenario, or it doesn't look massively better. Even at variants (e.g. framerate>stroberate) can look better motionwise for many.

Depends on many factors, age, room lighting, contacts, etc.

That I agree.

Everybody is different & every environment is different.
Many factors, even color blindness -- a certain percentage (8%) is color blind.
And tons of others, as you've pointed out.

Now, motion blur caused by persistence is not a theory.
Google "MPRT response" in Google Scholar, for a lot of science on this already.
And the papers about the amount of motion blur relationship to camera shutters.

Each refresh on a LCD is often mostly static -- you've seen see high speed videos. Your eyes are in a different position at the beginning of a refresh cycle than at the end of a refresh cycle. This causes static frames to be blurred across your retinas. Reducing this motion blur involves shortening the persistence (aka reducing sample-and-hold / persistence / frame visibility). This reduces the opportunity for that specific frame to be motion blurred across your retinas. It's already well-established science by vision researchers with plenty of peer reviewed papers.

The photographers equivalent also exists -- if you pan your camera fast past scenery, a shutter speed of 1/240sec creates less tracking-based motion blur than a shutter speed of 1/120sec or 1/60sec. There's already a peer reviewed paper somewhere that shows an uncanny co-relation between perceived motion blur and the frame duration time, especially at rates high enough for motion fluidity.

As your eyes track a moving object on a screen at 1000 pixels/second, if there's 60 frames per second, and each frame is shown for 1/60sec, then your eyes have moved 60/1000ths of the screen width on average (there's the eye saccade effect, which varies between human to human, but at slower speeds, eye tracking is pretty accurate and an insignificant error margin). 60/1000ths of 1000 pixels/second is 16.7 pixels. So that's a linear motion blurring of about 16.7 pixels for the static frame.

Of course, this is just a Coles Notes 101 version of the science papers I've read over the last two years, and already linked to several times in the past.

The existing knowledge is all easily (for the typical human vision case) simplified down: For easily calculated persistence (e.g. square wave persistence, such as ON-OFF, or instant transition to next frame, no decay effects or ghosting effects to muddy up the persistence), 1ms of persistence (static frame time) exactly equals 1 pixel of motion blur during 1000 pixels/second.
It of course, makes several assumptions:
-- Square wave persistence (ON-OFF, or if no off cycle period, then instant transition to next frame); phosphor decay and other effects complicate the math
-- Certain modern displays now closely resembles square wave persistence (e.g. OLED's, fast LCD's, some DLP's) moreso than ever before, which makes tracking based motion blur accurately calculable for motion cases (e.g. framerates sufficiently high enough to be perceived as motion without stop-motion feel or edge-strobing effects during motion).

Here, the tracking-based display motion blur caused by persistence (static image time) corresponds very accurately (for most human vision) to the well-known photographic camera equivalent is -- 1ms of shutter open time on a panning camera equals motion blur of 1/1000th the distance the camera pans during 1 second. (2ms equals twice the blur, 3ms equals three times the blur, etc). On-screen persistence behaves accurately as a camera shutter in terms of motion blur behaviours during framerates sufficiently high enough to be perceived as motion. For flickerfree dispoays, 120fps has half the motion blur of 60fps, and flickerfree 240fps has half the motion blur of flickerfree 120fps. (We're talking about completely flickerfree displays; no strobing, no phosphor decay, no light modulation).

Vision researchers have confirmed this effect (for typical vision; aka most humans) already -- vendors such as vpixx and others sell a true-500Hz or true-1000Hz scientific projector for such experiments and related. It will be a long time we will simultaneously be blur-free AND flicker-free since that requires framerateless technology (or ultrahigh framerates to simulate framerateless -- much like 1/1000sec high speed camera shutter, or a 1000fps@1000Hz display -- in order to limit motion blurring to 1ms without using black periods until the next frame). Strobing is only a band-aid for now (even as I advocate LightBoost heavily...) Strobing has its cons -- flicker -- and the need for high strobe rate to eliminate flicker -- and the requirement of stroberate=framerate for proper motion clarity (otherwise LightBoost motion clarity isn't worthwhile) -- is often problematic with today's GPU's -- and the cons such as the unofficial LightBoost brightness/color degradation (finally solved by EIZO FG2421 and some next-generation strobe backlights).

But fortunately at least not impossible anymore, given sufficient money (good GPU's...) and game choice. (e.g. If you visit many forums, then you've noticed those "LightBoost is crap below X fps" posts in threads I never read before today but googled and easily found). As a result, users of ultrapowerful GPU's are more likely to see LightBoost benefits. Controlled tests confirm the effect is maximied at framerate=stroberate (e.g. 120fps panning photo tests). Metaphorically, much like a movie camera or video camera opening the shutter only once during each frame -- otherwise the resulting movie would look crap. As the motion tracks, the eye tracks, the frame presents in the correct time with the resulting objects in the correct place, zero stutter, zero motion blur.

What's not well covered/resarched is the sudden emergence of really good strobe-backlight displays including unofficial ones (LightBoost) and official ones (EIZO Turbo240, BENQ Blur Reduction, and G-SYNC monitors' LightBoost sequel revealed by John Carmack), and so little scientific study have been done on those. However, the persistence science and tracking-based motion-blur is long well-established. The monitor manufacturers are finally starting to pay a bit more attention...

That said I agree; more scientific research is needed as I would love to see peer reviewed papers on the widely confirmed benefits of lower persistence on recent (2013-era) gaming computer monitors.

Either way, it's not disputable that there can be benefits from including optional strobe modes with various monitors. Even if it doesn't benefit you. And several gamers may not see/track motion that exercise the ideal case scenarios that strobing benefits (even if the vast majority of the same gamers easily see it in motion tests).

 

[joseph0042]

Thanks I was looking into a 120Mhz monitor.

 

[looper]

Maybe I missed it, but have there been any real comparisons yet of the Asus and BenQ TN 120hz gaming monitors with the Eizo Foris FG2421?

 

[looper]

.... I just went from a non-strobbing (Acer HN274H) to a strobbing 120 Hz monitor (Eizo FG2421).....

I have the Eizo FG2421, but I'm not sure if I have it completely optimized for 'FPS' gaming, as my son and I play a lot of Battlefield 4.

Could you list here all the settings you have for yours?

 

[BrightCandle]

http://www.tftcentral.co.uk/reviews/eizo_fg2421.htm

Reviews the Eizo and compares to the Benq XL2420T amoung others in blur and such.

 

[jhbball]

question: I just picked up a crossover 27qw panel on amazon. My 7950 has 1x dual link dvi port. It sounds like I'll be unable to power a second monitor with a hdmi > dvi-d adapter. Would I be able to use the onboard graphics (Dvi-D) of my motherboard (Asrock z77 extreme 4) to power a second monitor?

 

[Midwayman]

I wish I could find more info on the strobe rate of the xl2720z. Mark twittered that it was variable. Hopefully that means I can make strobe rate=frame rate without a SLI setup on modern titles. Was looking into a Ezio, but no way I'm hitting 120fps.

 

[Mark Rejhon]

I wish I could find more info on the strobe rate of the xl2720z. Mark twittered that it was variable. Hopefully that means I can make strobe rate=frame rate without a SLI setup on modern titles. Was looking into a Ezio, but no way I'm hitting 120fps.

Strobe rate on BENQ Z series can run from about 75Hz through 144Hz, so if you wanted 87Hz strobing or 125Hz strobing, you can do it with the BENQ Z series. That said, there is more strobe crosstalk (double-image effect) at higher strobe rates. Plus, it is further worsened by a strobe timing bug in the XL2720Z firmware so I would advise making sure the firmware is fixed first.

Strobe rates:

LightBoost: 100Hz, 110Hz, 120Hz
ULMB: 85Hz, 100Hz, 120Hz
Turbo240: Any Hz in range 105Hz through 122Hz
BENQ Blur Reduction: Any Hz in range 75Hz through 144Hz

However, in the first firmware released (strobe timing bug), the BENQ Blur Reduction is not as high quality as LightBoost/ULMB/Turbo240, due to a double-image effect.