The hardware architecture is more important than those spec sheets. By the same methodology, a Pentium 4 4.00 GHz would be faster than an i7 920 2.66 GHz because it has a higher clock speed.
Stick with what you have. None of those three monitors will be an improvement in picture quality, input lag, or ghosting (lower response time usually means they used overdrive which causes artifcats worse than higher response time). You'll also be downgrading in resolution and screen size. Go with an monitor using an e-IPS panel if you want any noticeable improvement. Something like this will be a noticeable improvement over all TN monitors.
LG LD450 or Sony EX400, if you are stuck with LCD. I have bad experience with VIZIO. My aunt bought a VIZIO E420VA last week and the moment we turned it on there was a glaring bright red pixel and several dead pixels. A week later the whole screen blacked out. It also looked and felt very cheap and had a cheesy glowing VIZIO logo. Not to mention, the picture quality was inferior to the Sony 40EX401 we replaced it with.
This is the one I recommend:http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814125345&cm_re=gtx460_gigabyte-_-14-125-345-_-Product
You will be fine with a factory overclocked card. No tweaking required. Generally, the "OC" video cards will have higher quality components and cooling.
Actually, no. TN is still the better panel for gaming. If I wanted the best gaming computer, I would get a 120Hz TN-LCD or CRT.
Gambler_3
lol a 120Hz TN monitor is in no way better than IPS, lets not kid ourselves now. It might give a smoother picture but what good is it when the picture quality itself is so infinitely inferior?
CRT can be argued to be the best but this thread is not for that.
What good is the IPS panel for gaming if it lags behind the TN panel? Not only is the motion smoother on a 120Hz LCD, input lag is greatly reduced too, and more frames per second can be displayed.
Log in to comment