There's no definitive information to go on, but considering all the factors I'd say the probability of him getting this stuff free from ASUS is something around 85%. Since there isn't any definitive information, anything regarding this has to be a guess/assumption/presumption/whatever-you-want-to-call-it, yes. I AM guessing, that's obvious by how I specifically stated that, so you pointing it out is meaningless, especially since you're guessing that I'm guessing when there is definitive proof that I am guessing. So now that we've covered that, can you tell me what purpose your post serves?
Originally Posted by dvanzo
There's absolutely no definitive frames per second that a human can tell between, it depends on the material. A slow camera pan in a film would appear completely fluid and that's just 24FPS, however if you have fast motion and differing colors etc. you'd need plenty more FPS in order to have the same fluidity as that slow camera pan at 24FPS. With the fast action and motion of some video games I'd probably be able to tell the difference between 80FPS and 120FPS, however I don't have a true 120Hz display so I wouldn't be able to test this.
Originally Posted by curaga
2560x1440 is only useful if you sit 6 inches away from your screen or never ever do any sort of 3D work.
1920x1080 is more than enough for sitting a reasonable distance away from a 27" screen.
1600x900 would be more than enough for a 13" screen.
Otherwise you're simply wasting the computational power required for the higher resolutions.
I barely missed the (relatively small...) 5 minute edit window, I meant to add this:
Originally Posted by MWisBest
I have 20/10 vision (to save you the Googling, yes that exists, it's twice as good as 20/20), so if anybody can tell the difference in display resolutions it'd be me. I have a 720x1280 4.65" Galaxy Nexus and two 1600x900 15.6" laptops and at a normal viewing distance I can't point out an individual pixel. Anybody saying they can either has the screen 2 inches in front of their face or is lying through their teeth.
One of the most common patterns I see at work is people ordering really high resolution displays, then spending the next year or two leaning in and squinting to read text.
I used to be more diplomatic about it but these days not so much. I find 1920x1080 for a 23.8 or 1680x1050 for a 22 (both ~90 pixels/inch) just a *bit* too small (although all my displays fall into that range), so my first guess is that 1920x1080 on a 27" display (80 pixels/inch) might be OK. A 2560x1440 27" comes in at roughly 108 pixels/inch, which seems like it would make the text too small at default settings.
That said, I agree completely with the "because we can" sentiment, even though I always regret it when I make purchases based on it.
Last edited by bridgman; 03-15-2014 at 12:07 AM.
Yes, in that case it would be 60Hz per eye and make sense. That said, I pity the fool who buys into the fad.
Originally Posted by Serafean
Just switch to gaming mode on your display -> no delay at all.
Originally Posted by elapsed
120 fps is better option only if main use of monitor is kind of games where fast reaction is important because 120 fps should decrease total display lag by 8 ms. Higher resolution is more useful for non-games because you can display more text or text using more pixels, more windows at same time, bigger part of high resolution images with 100% zoom etc.
Originally Posted by Ferdinand
I have a 27" Samsung 3D monitor (120Hz) and I have to say that the 1920x1080 resolution is at the low end. It's good for gaming (and movies of course) but a bit lacking for coding. I really would like to have 2500x1440 for work.
Regarding the 120 Hz, I do have to say that 120 Hz is better than 60. It's a subtle difference but it's there. 120 Hz is probably overkill though, I'm guessing I wouldn't notice any difference between 90 Hz and 120 Hz.
I'm running it at 96 Hz most of the time. The difference between 60 and 96 is highly noticable even on the desktop when dragging windows around.
Originally Posted by JS987