Help WIth Choosing Monitor

None of those monitors are either IPS panels or 120 Hz, so theres no particular reason to be picky about their purchase.

All 4 will have nearly identical image quality; In fact, they most likely even all have the same manufactured panel in slighty different housing. You can roll a dice and pick any of the four and you'll have a monitor that works well enough.

For your price range your best options IPS monitor options are: Dell 2212HM or LG IPS231B.

Dell 2212HM

XaosII

Do yourself a favor and get a 2560x1440 monitor. "HD" tv looks like SD after gaming on one of these for a few minutes. GoldenElementXL

[QUOTE="XaosII"]

Dell 2212HM

mitu123

You know nothing of how response time works, do you?

No monitor in the world has an 8 ms response time due to RTC.

[QUOTE="mitu123"]

[QUOTE="XaosII"]

Dell 2212HM

XaosII

You know nothing of how response time works, do you?

No monitor in the world has an 8 ms response time due to RTC.

[QUOTE="XaosII"]

[QUOTE="mitu123"]8ms, yuck!

mitu123

You know nothing of how response time works, do you?

No monitor in the world has an 8 ms response time due to RTC.

So all those tests on sites that do response time for monitors are pointless?

mitu123

Not at all. But a 2 ms monitor could look worse than an 8 ms monitor due to overly aggressive RTC. A blanket statement of "All 2 ms monitors perform better than 8 ms monitors" simply isn't true. Largely due to RTC, almost no monitor actually has a fixed response time value anymore, regardless of what they actually state. That is why those tests are done.

Ghosting and other issues like that were actual problems back when the typical LCD had no RTC and were in the ranges of 17 - 25 ms. Almost no modern monitor suffers from perceptible ghosting. Very, very, very few people can notice between 2 ms and 8 ms. Complaints about low response times are pretty much non-existant for any non-PVA/MVA panel monitor.

Im looking into getting a new monitor too. So far im leaning in the direction of a 1440p monitor. Most likely I will be getting theACHIEVA Shimian QH270. Its cheaper than the catleap, but the only worry I have with buying one of these monitors whethe rits a catleap, achieva, or crossover is the stuck/dead pixels. I don't want to order one and when it arrives see that it has like 4 dead pixels and I cant return it.

Response time isn't really a big deal. It's about the input lag which of course isn't listed. If you care about any of those things you buy a 120hz display. JigglyWiggly_

This is pretty much spot on.

In the end there really is two camps in monitors. IPS who uphold image quality above all else, these are THE best for image quality, but even the All holy Dell 27 inch ultra has inputlag so bad that I can both feel and see it when I play fastpaced games. But for image? yeah no contest IPS panels are a godsent for such, outside of the limping in the fasterpased games there is not much to come after, except price.

the 120 HZ camp which has the luxury of having most thier monityrs aimed specifically at gaming, tends to have less impressive image quality. But the pictures flow effortlessly, and when I say less impressive, most of them are second only to the IPS panels. They are not worthwhile using, if you are into photo or vid tho. Sadly many of them bank on the useless 3D gimick.

And then there is the everyman camp. the standard 60 Hz Not really counted, since these are the standards. They are not responsive enough, and often lack the image quality of most 120 hz monitors, and they fall WAY behind the IPS in quality, while the actual updatespeed and input lag, likely aint much better if any then an IPS.