Anyone using a 120hz 3d monitor?

[spaceelf]

I'm seriously considering getting one of these after I trade in my useless 360 and Kinect and all the games and controllers with it. I don't really need one per se, but I definately don't need my console anymore either.

[spaceelf]

I guess not. I'll probably pick one up if I can get enough on my returns. (Should be employed again shortly so I'll pick one up then if not.)

[nytiger73]

I'm using one. It's totally worth it. I've not used it in 3D mode, but the 120hz refresh rate is great for gaming. I don't think it's worth the performance hit to use 3D mode. But most games appear to run A LOT smoother. I hope this helps.

[DAOWAce]

I would be, but display manufacturers STILL have not released a 1920x1200 (or greater 16:10) 120Hz monitor.

My 24" 1920x1200 was manufactured in 2004, it even has RCA/S-Video inputs (no HDMI since it wasn't really used back then).

I have been waiting for a replacement monitor for years, but since every 120Hz has been 16:9 garbage, I'm still waiting.

I e-mailed all major manufacturers requesting a monitor like this, but nothing has come of it.

120Hz is well worth the price, but not worth downgrading my resolution.

[SuperKid]

Don't you need to run games at 120fps with 120hz?

[spaceelf]

Don't you need to run games at 120fps with 120hz?

You really just need to get above 60 to notice the difference. Even at 60fps it'll be drawing the data it does process quicker. If you use vsync it'll be even more noticable, since most devs still don't use the newer smart vsync techs...not that I use vsync usually.

[Slammers]

Don't you need to run games at 120fps with 120hz?

why? that's like saying you need to run 60hz at 60fps. Sure 120fps is preferable - but you'll notice a difference from 60fps+

[Blackhearted]

I would be, but display manufacturers STILL have not released a 1920x1200 (or greater 16:10) 120Hz monitor.

My 24" 1920x1200 was manufactured in 2004, it even has RCA/S-Video inputs (no HDMI since it wasn't really used back then).

I have been waiting for a replacement monitor for years, but since every 120Hz has been 16:9 garbage, I'm still waiting.

I e-mailed all major manufacturers requesting a monitor like this, but nothing has come of it.

120Hz is well worth the price, but not worth downgrading my resolution.

16:9 has become the standard now whether you like it or not. You're better off just sucking it up and taking what's on offer nowadays than sitting there whining and waiting for what you probably wont get.

[The King of GnG]

Unfortunately my laptop has just a 60Hz display, but months ago I put the notebook next to my old CRT (17") monitor with a 1024x768@85Hz resolution (attached to a Pentium 4-based machine I had just recovered and cleaned from my parents' garage). Well, the difference was pretty noticeable (on Windows and playing video files with VLC media player), and being forced to return to "just" a 60Hz display was a pain in the ass in the first moments....

P.S.Dunno about 3D. In fact, I pretty much dislike everything is "3D".

[spaceelf]

Met a few people who say that but I have nothing against the tech. Seems like it could be neat with comp games, considering.

I'll check it out before buying so whatever works.

[nytiger73]

I would be, but display manufacturers STILL have not released a 1920x1200 (or greater 16:10) 120Hz monitor.

My 24" 1920x1200 was manufactured in 2004, it even has RCA/S-Video inputs (no HDMI since it wasn't really used back then).

I have been waiting for a replacement monitor for years, but since every 120Hz has been 16:9 garbage, I'm still waiting.

I e-mailed all major manufacturers requesting a monitor like this, but nothing has come of it.

120Hz is well worth the price, but not worth downgrading my resolution.

Yeah I doubt you're going to see a 120hz 16:10 monitor, unless you downgrade to a 1680X1050 resolution. Standard HD resolution is 16:9 @1920X1080 (1080p). Is the difference really noticeable between the 2? The last monitor that I owned that was 16:10 was an HP 1680X1050 @ 60hz,