Would You Buy A 24" Monitor Or 22" 120hz Monitor?

[Fight Game]

+1 for necro. /twice

[AnomalousX]

I remeber playing nintendo on a 13" TV and getting over the air broadcast TV with lots of interference, not saying I'd like to go back, it's just amazeing how far we have come.

[WhenKittensATK]

I would go for the 22" 120Hz. Higher refresh rate.

[Sihastru]

Refresh rates are overrated. Get 24". Or better yet look for a good deal on a 30" 2560x1600. It will blow your mind!

[CowKing]

Refresh rates are overrated. Get 24". Or better yet look for a good deal on a 30" 2560x1600. It will blow your mind!

refresh rates are not overrated the difference between my Vh222h monitor and my 42LH40 TV is astronomic things are so much clearer in action games, but a 30" would also be nice

[cirro]

I couldn't really care less about having to have above 60mhz refresh unless it is needed for exactly what i want. plus unless i felt like wearing glasses nonstop I would of probally not gotten contacts in the first place. Remember that when you buy it if it is for 3D gaming, alot of people cant even put on glasses without headaches.

 

to "wacko"

 

Watching movies @ 29.97fps is not choppy. I don't know if its your lack of the ability to think of your mighty self wrong or if you just are backing up your wasted money on a 120hz monitor.

 

"In the complete raster (ignoring half-lines), the even-numbered or 'lower" scanlines (lines 21 to 263 in the video signal) are drawn in the first field, and the odd-numbered or "upper" (signal lines 283 to 525) are drawn in the second field, to yield a flicker-free image at the field refresh frequency of approximately 59.94 Hertz (actually 60 Hz/1.001). For comparison, 576i systems such as PAL-B/G and SECAM uses 625 lines (576 visible), and so have a higher vertical resolution, but a lower temporal resolution of 25 frames or 50 fields per second."

 

Overkill isn't needed to make something good, sometimes it does the vice versa.

Edited December 17, 2009 by cirro