ASUS Outs Designo Series IPS LED Monitors

[btarunr]

ASUS introduced its newest line of stylish consumer PC monitors under the Designo series. It includes 23-inch MX239H and 27-inch MX279H models, most likely featuring native resolutions of 1920 x 1080 and 2560 x 1440, respectively. The two feature a design which ASUS claims to be "inspired by sundials." Living up to the idea, the design consists of a combination of curves and sharp angles. The most distinct feature is slim bezels around the panel.

At the heart of the Designo series is IPS LCD panels with edge LED illumination. The illumination source is at the edges of the panel, an arrangement that reduces power consumption even further down from conventional LED-backlit LCD monitors, and older CCFL-lit LCDs. Both monitors feature dual-HDMI inputs and Bang & Olufsen ICEpower speakers. The company did not give out pricing information.



View at TechPowerUp Main Site

 

[btarunr]

Many Thanks to NHKS for the tip.

 

[Chaitanya]

The display certainly looks good.

 

[Black Haru]

The display certainly looks good.

But will the price?

 

[1c3d0g]

No 120 Hz support = fail.

 

[gorillagarrett]

No 120 Hz support = fail.

Why is that? Why do you need 120? Oh 3D, the most useless technology developed in the last couple of decades. 3D just gives you blurry and badly shaded animation.Here take a look, and it strains your eyes muscles cuz it stimulates the muscles of each eye separately .
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3h6S1CapH98


For normal usage, the human vision system require a latency of 10ms - 15ms from when the an image is captured to when it's realized by our brains. So having more frames rendered per second will not make the animation look smoother. 75hz - 80hz is all we need to get the best and smoothest form of animation.

As for the monitors, if it does well in the color accuracy, contrast ratio, input lag, and pixel transition times tests, then heck, the 27" one could become my next monitor.

 

[Black Haru]

Why is that? Why do you need 120? Oh 3D, the most useless technology developed in the last couple of decades. 3D just gives you blurry and badly shaded animation.Here take a look, and it strains your eyes muscles cuz it stimulates the muscles of each eye separately .
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3h6S1CapH98


For normal usage, the human vision system require a latency of 10ms - 15ms from when the an image is captured to when it's realized by our brains. So having more frames rendered per second will not make the animation look smoother. 75hz - 80hz is all we need to get the best and smoothest form of animation.

As for the monitors, if it does well in the color accuracy, contrast ratio, input lag, and pixel transition times tests, then heck, the 27" one could become my next monitor.

Your information is flat out wrong. There was an extensive thread about the potential benefits of higher refresh rates. If fighter pilots can detect differences at over 400fps I think even hour average gamer can see 120.

I'm sure someone can link the thread.

 

[thematrix606]

No 120 Hz support = fail.

Absolutely! All screen should at least be 120hz +, back to the good old CRTs. I can easily see a difference between 60 and 80 fps on my samsung 950d! It's not really hard, and all the way up to 120 fps it's about 5x better than 60 fps with regards to FPS games.

Why is that? Why do you need 120?
For normal usage, the human vision system require a latency of 10ms - 15ms from when the an image is captured to when it's realized by our brains. So having more frames rendered per second will not make the animation look smoother. 75hz - 80hz is all we need to get the best and smoothest form of animation.

You're flat our wrong. Why? Because you don't represent the entire 6 billion of people alive out there. Look into the research John Carmack is doing with this Oculus rift goggles. 120hz DOES matter. I mean when I switch between 60 and 120, i see a difference just in windows dragging stuff around. In BF3, I feel like my reflex and rotation is ~3x faster @ 100fps +

 

[stinger608]

At 60hz I have to wonder what the price will be on the 27" version.

 

[gorillagarrett]

Your information is flat out wrong. There was an extensive thread about the potential benefits of higher refresh rates. If fighter pilots can detect differences at over 400fps I think even hour average gamer can see 120.

I'm sure someone can link the thread.

The question here is how many frames we can see in a second. Try this:

Write something on the palm of your hand, and then, start moving your hand up and down slwoly while you're staring at it. Can you read clearly what's on your hand? You can do the same test with a picture.

You will in fact see the so-called GHOSTING effect that we are familiar with on LCD monitors.
That means your vision will be blurry and you'll see a kind of trail left behind due to the fact that your eyes don't look long enough at the picture to capture all the visual information off the image, so the brain doesn't get all the visual data that's needed to see the image properly.Let's call this the capture time latency.
Add to that the amount of time it takes for you brain to process the image (let's call this the input latency), and you get the human eye latency (that's what i call it).

What does that mean? It means that updating images at a speed that's higher than the human eye latency will not result in smoother animation. Meaning, if the image update time is lower than the capture time latency, you'll get ghosting and a blurry animation. And if it's higher than the capture time latency but lower than the human eye latency, then you'll not see it the instant it's put on the screen cuz you're brain will be still working on processing the previous image.

The human eye latency, which is the sum of capture time latency + input latency, is around 12-13 ms on average. So having anything higher than 80Hz refresh rate is pointless.

 

[LAN_deRf_HA]

Why most likely 1440p? Every new 27" being announced has been some horrible 1080p monstrosity.

As for 120hz and IPS, turns out those overclocked ones were frame skipping beyond 82hz or so.

 

[Solidstate89]

Why have I yet to see any IPS desktop monitors using RGB-LED? If they don't use CCFL, they use wLED. I hate wLED, it produces such harsh colors. I have an RGB-LED IPS panel on my laptop, why can't I get a desktop monitor with the same backlighting improvements?

 

[hhumas]

its just like apple

 

[altechi]

Absolutely! All screen should at least be 120hz +, back to the good old CRTs. I can easily see a difference between 60 and 80 fps on my samsung 950d! It's not really hard, and all the way up to 120 fps it's about 5x better than 60 fps with regards to FPS games.



You're flat our wrong. Why? Because you don't represent the entire 6 billion of people alive out there. Look into the research John Carmack is doing with this Oculus rift goggles. 120hz DOES matter. I mean when I switch between 60 and 120, i see a difference just in windows dragging stuff around. In BF3, I feel like my reflex and rotation is ~3x faster @ 100fps +

Firstly, not everyone plays games on IPS monitors.

Secondly....really? 27inch+IPS+120hz?, how much money are you willing to spend (better off getting those monitors meant for gaming)

 

[jomama22]

The question here is how many frames we can see in a second. Try this:

Write something on the palm of your hand, and then, start moving your hand up and down slwoly while you're staring at it. Can you read clearly what's on your hand? You can do the same test with a picture.

You will in fact see the so-called GHOSTING effect that we are familiar with on LCD monitors.
That means your vision will be blurry and you'll see a kind of trail left behind due to the fact that your eyes don't look long enough at the picture to capture all the visual information off the image, so the brain doesn't get all the visual data that's needed to see the image properly.Let's call this the capture time latency.
Add to that the amount of time it takes for you brain to process the image (let's call this the input latency), and you get the human eye latency (that's what i call it).

What does that mean? It means that updating images at a speed that's higher than the human eye latency will not result in smoother animation. Meaning, if the image update time is lower than the capture time latency, you'll get ghosting and a blurry animation. And if it's higher than the capture time latency but lower than the human eye latency, then you'll not see it the instant it's put on the screen cuz you're brain will be still working on processing the previous image.

The human eye latency, which is the sum of capture time latency + input latency, is around 12-13 ms on average. So having anything higher than 80Hz refresh rate is pointless.

Have you ever even used a 120hz monitor? Seriously, if you have ever used one you wouldn't be spouting these lies. I can't bare to use a 60hz monitor for desktop tasks let alone gaming. The difference is HUGE between 60 and 120. Even 100hz is noticeably slower.

Please, take your False information somewhere else. What you are describing in no way translates to how the images on a progressive scan LCD work. You examples are completely ignorant to the way our eyes handle the sight of moving images let alone an progressive LCD screen.

I own an PCBANK 2560x1440 ips, a 60 Hz 23" Asus 1080 and a benQ 24" 120hz 1080 xl2420t and will tell you that the ips has the best image while the 120hz has the best movement and reaction. The immersion itself from the 120hz is amazing to behold and probably the best upgrade I have made. It brings a whole new level to gaming honestly

 

[TheMailMan78]

The question here is how many frames we can see in a second. Try this:

Write something on the palm of your hand, and then, start moving your hand up and down slwoly while you're staring at it. Can you read clearly what's on your hand? You can do the same test with a picture.

You will in fact see the so-called GHOSTING effect that we are familiar with on LCD monitors.
That means your vision will be blurry and you'll see a kind of trail left behind due to the fact that your eyes don't look long enough at the picture to capture all the visual information off the image, so the brain doesn't get all the visual data that's needed to see the image properly.Let's call this the capture time latency.
Add to that the amount of time it takes for you brain to process the image (let's call this the input latency), and you get the human eye latency (that's what i call it).

What does that mean? It means that updating images at a speed that's higher than the human eye latency will not result in smoother animation. Meaning, if the image update time is lower than the capture time latency, you'll get ghosting and a blurry animation. And if it's higher than the capture time latency but lower than the human eye latency, then you'll not see it the instant it's put on the screen cuz you're brain will be still working on processing the previous image.

The human eye latency, which is the sum of capture time latency + input latency, is around 12-13 ms on average. So having anything higher than 80Hz refresh rate is pointless.

Oh cool we have never had this conversation before. By the way your analogy with the hand waving is bunk. Its more of write something on your hand and open and close it 120 times per second........yes you will still be able to read it. Fighter pilots are able to see and identify a plane at over 700 flashes per second. Maybe higher but I don't remember. Anyway you're wrong and have been proven wrong 100 time before on this forum but honestly I don't care enough to look. Didn't even feel like replying other then I am waiting for BF3 to reinstall and I'm bored.

 

[1c3d0g]

Why is that? Why do you need 120? Oh 3D, the most useless technology developed in the last couple of decades. 3D just gives you blurry and badly shaded animation.Here take a look, and it strains your eyes muscles cuz it stimulates the muscles of each eye separately .
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3h6S1CapH98


For normal usage, the human vision system require a latency of 10ms - 15ms from when the an image is captured to when it's realized by our brains. So having more frames rendered per second will not make the animation look smoother. 75hz - 80hz is all we need to get the best and smoothest form of animation.

As for the monitors, if it does well in the color accuracy, contrast ratio, input lag, and pixel transition times tests, then heck, the 27" one could become my next monitor.

Did I mention ANYWHERE in this thread about wanting 120Hz for some stupid 3D technology? :shadedshu I am probably the biggest hater of 3D content out there (it gives me headaches, go figure), yet you assume 120 Hz = 3D. Sigh...

Like the other posters excellently pointed out, the difference in daily use between a 60 Hz monitor and a 120 Hz monitor is like day and night. So before judging a technology that is clearly superior than what we have now, try it out first before spouting crap out of your mouth.

 

[gorillagarrett]

Oh cool we have never had this conversation before. By the way your analogy with the hand waving is bunk. Its more of write something on your hand and open and close it 120 times per second........yes you will still be able to read it. Fighter pilots are able to see and identify a plane at over 700 flashes per second. Maybe higher but I don't remember. Anyway you're wrong and have been proven wrong 100 time before on this forum but honestly I don't care enough to look. Didn't even feel like replying other then I am waiting for BF3 to reinstall and I'm bored.

Can you open and close your hand 120 times within a second? The fastest you can go with that test is 10 times per second.
Waving your hand means that you get a real time animation test looking at a moving object.That's the same kind of test that's used to test pixel response time at tftcentral and anandtech (the PixPerAn test).
If the movement speed exceeds a specific limit, you lose clear sight of whatever is written on your palm, or moving (a car in the PixPerAn test), and that's ghosting.

See and identify planes at 700 flashes? That's some big bs. You clearly don't know what you're talking about. Less than 5% of humans have a eye latency time that's less than 12ms. This means that from the instant an image is displayed, it will take the average human 12 - 15 ms to see the image. Anything faster than that will not make any difference at the least and might end up reducing the smoothness of the animation.

 

[gorillagarrett]

Did I mention ANYWHERE in this thread about wanting 120Hz for some stupid 3D technology? :shadedshu I am probably the biggest hater of 3D content out there (it gives me headaches, go figure), yet you assume 120 Hz = 3D. Sigh...

Like the other posters excellently pointed out, the difference in daily use between a 60 Hz monitor and a 120 Hz monitor is like day and night. So before judging a technology that is clearly superior than what we have now, try it out first before spouting crap out of your mouth.

Well, if you had read my reply, you would have known why 3d gives you headaches and why 120hz is not better than 80hz, if not worse.

And yes, I'm using a dual monitor setup. A Samsung S23A750D 120Hz monitor alongside a LG W2242TQ 60Hz monitor. I don't notice any difference between the two in L4D 2.

 

[Black Haru]

Can you open and close your hand 120 times within a second? The fastest you can go with that test is 10 times per second.
Waving your hand means that you get a real time animation test looking at a moving object.That's the same kind of test that's used to test pixel response time at tftcentral and anandtech (the PixPerAn test).
If the movement speed exceeds a specific limit, you lose clear sight of whatever is written on your palm, or moving (a car in the PixPerAn test), and that's ghosting.

See and identify planes at 700 flashes? That's some big bs. You clearly don't know what you're talking about. Less than 5% of humans have a eye latency time that's less than 12ms. This means that from the instant an image is displayed, it will take the average human 12 - 15 ms to see the image. Anything faster than that will not make any difference at the least and might end up reducing the smoothness of the animation.

this thread.

beaten to death.

 

[n-ster]

No 120 Hz support = fail.

how many ips LED 1440p monitors do you know that have 120hz? so every monitor that isnt 120Hz is fail?

no, you are fail for expecting that

 

[TheMailMan78]

Can you open and close your hand 120 times within a second? The fastest you can go with that test is 10 times per second.
Waving your hand means that you get a real time animation test looking at a moving object.That's the same kind of test that's used to test pixel response time at tftcentral and anandtech (the PixPerAn test).
If the movement speed exceeds a specific limit, you lose clear sight of whatever is written on your palm, or moving (a car in the PixPerAn test), and that's ghosting.

See and identify planes at 700 flashes? That's some big bs. You clearly don't know what you're talking about. Less than 5% of humans have a eye latency time that's less than 12ms. This means that from the instant an image is displayed, it will take the average human 12 - 15 ms to see the image. Anything faster than that will not make any difference at the least and might end up reducing the smoothness of the animation.

There was a study done on it a few years back. Google it up. You are wrong.

 

[1c3d0g]

how many ips LED 1440p monitors do you know that have 120hz? so every monitor that isnt 120Hz is fail?

no, you are fail for expecting that

The technology is available now, so yeah, IMO it is a big failure of them not to include it in their new, just-released monitors.

And yes, I'm using a dual monitor setup. A Samsung S23A750D 120Hz monitor alongside a LG W2242TQ 60Hz monitor. I don't notice any difference between the two in L4D 2.

Then your eyes are not sensitive enough to notice the difference. That's great for you, as you can continue to use 60 Hz monitors without seeing any difference. For the rest of us, we'll take that 120 Hz option, thank you very much.

 

[Black Haru]

how many ips LED 1440p monitors do you know that have 120hz? so every monitor that isnt 120Hz is fail?

no, you are fail for expecting that

my understanding is that some of the early ips monitors that people bought directly from Korea had some decent overclocking ability. meaning the possibility is there.

 

[n-ster]

my understanding is that some of the early ips monitors that people bought directly from Korea had some decent overclocking ability. meaning the possibility is there.

Why most likely 1440p? Every new 27" being announced has been some horrible 1080p monstrosity.

As for 120hz and IPS, turns out those overclocked ones were frame skipping beyond 82hz or so.

This...

It is possible to have a car as fast as a bugatti Veyron. Yet Ferrari isn't fail for not having a car that fast.

The technology is there to make 2880x1600 or wtv 15" screens. Is every new laptop that doesn't have that screen fail?

Stop being idiots saying "no ips = fail, no sub 400$ like monitor from Korea = fail" Theres always a better product somewhere, instead of complaining that this monitor aint the best thing in the universe, go buy the one that is... oh you dont want to pay that price? Get over it then

Noone is forcing you to buy this monitor