New monitor: TN or IPS

Originally Posted by Kordanor
Well, I saw 2 screens side by side by the same company and basically the same model.
The one was IPS 60Hz and the other TN 144Hz.

Had a really hard time to tell the 60 and 144Hz apart. IPS compared to TN was a pretty clear case though.

Of course especially the refresh rate is also something which is very subjective.

This is the problem in the thread. You said you personally looked at them. Which is great. That's what everyone should do. But I feel a certain theme of people wanting to say "no no this is better". And considering there's other people here with varying opinions, it only makes further sense that it's all going to come down to personal preference.

To use ears instead of eyes as an example, if you asked an audiophile what the BEST headphones/speakers are, they would have a good chuckle. There's no such thing.

You can have 2 of the same company and "model" and be completely different experience. A TN screen and an IPS screen in the same brand, can come from completely different manufacturers. For instance, the IPS screen in my x220 laptop is not a Lenovo, it's an LG.Phillips. An Asus monitor might have a Samsung or LG panel. To make it even harder, you can get the same "model" line of an LG IPS monitor, and compare the current and previous year and have 2 different experiences. I personally have compared an LG Flatron W2442PA (which is an older but premium 2012 NON-LED model TN panel) to some of the newer lower end IPS models from LG, and the older Flatron blows them out of the water, and even rivals a VA panel with blacks.

Originally Posted by Kordanor
Regarding Gsync:
Gsync essentially replaces Vsync (software) with a hardware solution.
You save a couple of frames by using it over vsync.
The biggest effect is apparently at around 40-60 fps. If you got more, you might not see the difference as the picture is refreshing too fast anyways.
In addition you'll probably go for a 144Hz screen anyways these days. And with that you will see even less difference.

I am not saying that gsync is crap. But in most cases the additional costs of the monitor, which are likely 100-200€ compared to a similar model without gsync are not worth it and better invested into a better graphics card. Unless you are already rocking a gtx 1080 ti and desparately trying to find a way to improve the performance even further even if you'd hardly see any effect.

To explain the difference between v-sync and g-sync. If you have a 60Hz monitor, it refreshes the display 60 times every second. So if your game is performing at 59 FPS, then your monitor will be refreshing in between a frame, causing screen tearing. So:

G-SYNC / Freesync - Will lower the refresh rate of your monitor down to 59Hz so that the screen will match the FPS.

Pros: No lag. Movement on screen looks excellent.
Cons: Costs more. Needs the appropriate technology in the monitor and the GPU.

V-SYNC - Will create a copy of 1 frame to trick the monitor to think it's running at 60 FPS instead of 59. Since it's not instant, it needs to be buffered.

Pros: No screen tearing. Cheap since it's software or driver based.
Cons: Frames aren't as accurate. Input Lag. Looks worse at lower FPS.

Again, unless you can keep that 60Hz monitor at a constant 60 FPS forever, you will see a benefit with G-SYNC.

Even on high end monitors. If you have a 144Hz monitor, you're not going to be pulling a constant 144 FPS, so if there's no G-SYNC there will be screen tearing, or frame buffering/stuttering.

This is again why you need to try it yourself. Might not be a big deal for some. It might mean the world for another.

Have you used a 27" at 1440 for any length of time before? Just be aware that size monitor at that res equals smallish text when set at default. Within 6 months of 27" monitors being rolled out here at work half a dozen people had taken to wearing glasses, myself included. I was also running with text set at 125% for a while which isn't always ideal.

At home I use a 32" at 1440 for most things. The increased screen size makes up nicely for the higher resolution. I have a smaller monitor on the side that I turn on when I'm working to give me some extra real estate.

I can't offer any advice on screen type. I've used a bunch of different screen techs over the past few years, I haven't been unhappy with any of them. I don't play anything particularly demanding though, my PC is getting a bit long in the tooth.

Good luck, is (usually) always fun to get new toys.

I've been using a 27" @ 1440 for the past 4 or 5 years. However I have no clue if i'm using hte 'default' font size or not. I adjusted the font size at some point and it is what it currently is - of course most of my text usage is on linux so maybe windows just can't handle these things - no clue.

Ok, so we see from Kordanor's research that IPS has improved in response times, and the price is not that much higher than TN. I guess it really does all come down to personal tastes, as Caddy remarked, and the best decision is to go to an electronics store, and eyeball the different monitors to really see which visuals you find more pleasing.

Let me explain a little bit more of where I'm coming from with my opinion on the two monitor types. If this is at all analogous to matte vs glossy monitors (maybe it is, maybe it isn't, or maybe it is, if only just a little) I'm the guy who, when presented with a choice between a glossy monitor vs a matte monitor, then I would always choose the matte one. It wouldn't matter if a high pressure salesman was right there, explaining how the glossy monitor had so much more brighter and vivid, amazing colors, and why in the world would I choose a dull, "boring" matte monitor instead?

It's because I don't like glossy, reflective monitors with colors that are too vibrant and popping off the screen. I actually find them ugly. I much prefer subtle, less garish colors. Even if they are a bit washed out. That goes for games too, btw. If I see a game with colors turned up to 11, like it's eye candy for some ADHD teenager who can't sit still for 5 minutes, but the garish, hypnotizing colors may do a number on him and hold his attention based on that, fine, but that just isn't for me.

I think if you really wanted though you can (most of the time) "scale down". A 144Hz monitor can probably run on 60Hz, and if you really like washed out colors, IPS might have a "washed out mode" of some kind (don't know, use less contrast in the monitor panel or whatnot).

So I think in general IPS is (most of the time) by itself (without considering price, or response time or anything else) better than TN.
A higher refresh-rate is better than a lower one.
A low response time is better than a high one.
A higher resolution is (most of the time, scaling can be a bitch) better than a lower one.
And G-Sync and Free-Sync are better than not having them (if you have a card which supports that).
Oh…and of course a smaller price is better than a higher price.

The question is…how to you weight all this.

Finally, here's the verdict from the Norwegian jury. This is what I did

I bought the HP Omen (TN), thinking that if I didn't like it, I could use it as my 2nd monitor, for text and things like that. I like having two monitors, and I like them to be of equal size with the same resolution. So from the start I was going to buy two. And because it was on sale, the Omen actually would cost me less than an ordinary non gaming monitor would.

First of all, I hadn't expected that going from 24" p1080 to 27" p1440 would make such a huge difference. It did. Don't know exactly how to describe it, but it felt like I was in the game world rather than watching it through a window. Yes, it did affect my immersion. I assume that an even larger monitor might be even more impressing, but it seems that, for p1440, a 27" is the sweet spot, at least according to the reviews I read. And I wasn't ready to go 4K.

Secondly, I noticed that while color was over all good, there were problems in the darker parts of the scenes. Black was dark grey, and dithering effects were clearly visible. I can't say if it's like this on all TN monitors or if it was just HP monitors being of suboptimal quality. Anyhow, the problems were very visible, and I decided to go for option B. I bought an Asus ROG 279q (IPS). And the difference was significant. Color a bit more vibrant, but perhaps not that much as I would have expeccted, not sure if that alone would have been enough for me to drop TN. However, the changes in the dark were very visible. Black was black, and no more dithering. I was sold.

So, why the ROG? Why not the (Acer) Predator? Both cost about the same (in Norway). Both have got very good reviews, but from those I read it seems that the ROG got a slightly better verdict, although both monitors were considered an excellent choice.

Thanks to you all, I really appreciate the feedback, which despite lack of concensus, helped me make up my mind.

Pibbur

Good choice. Don't save on the monitor. It is the single most important component of a PC. I rather have a mid range cpu and GPU instead. People often underestimate that.

OK, I've had the monitors (the ROG and the Omen) for a week, and I am very happy with them, especially the ROG, which is my main gaming monitor.

I'm glad I kept one Omen monitor, for two reasons:

1. The ROG monitor doesn't support 3DVision. The Omen does.
2. The Omen has a nice, ominous red light directed downwards.

Regarding 3DVision. I've used it occasionally, with games that support it (LOTRO is among those). I foolishly thought that the only monitor requirement for 3DVision was being capable of running at 120Hz. Turns out that isn't enough, and this particular ROG hasn't got what it takes (I've consulted the net, it doesn't support it). Fortunately, as I said, the Omen does support 3DVision, so I can use that one whenever the need comes. 3DVision requires running games in full-screen mode (borderless window is not enough), so if a game doesn't offer the opportunity to choose monitors, game will run on the non 3dvision primary monitor (shifting output monitor by Win+Left/Right Arrow doesn't work for fullscreen view). This, and a couple of other things requires some fiddling with monitor configuration in Windows. I like 3DVision, but I'm not sure I'll use it as much as I've done hereafter.

BTW: Apparently there is software that can be used to do the configurations non interactively on the fly (and switch back to original configuration afterwards). Does anyone have any experience with that?

pibbur who now sees the world in brightly colored 2560x1440, which is far better than in '88 when everything was in 256 level 640x480. (And who wouldn't recommend the HP 27" Omen to Damian).

PS: Those of you with memory going 1 week back, will remember that I initially bought two Omens, and was going to return one of them. Unfortunately, while moving the Omen I had used for testing, I tipped it, if fell down on the table. Not a huuuge drop, but it fell with the picture side down and there were sharpish things on said table. Omen didn't like that. Fortunately, a couple of months before I had been persuaded to upgrade my Insurance of Things to a Super Insurance of Things, which covers accidents like that. So all in all, my net loss was only around 100 EUR. DS.