2560x1600/240Hz was a slight exaggeration, at the very least 120Hz should be the new standard especially at this price point.

Careful throwing around the A word lol. My big gripe with this monitor is it's a TN panel and not an eIPS.

Well it's true no? I mean name one company that wasn't racing to the bottom with their displays before Apple showed up to the game? Then suddenly everyone needs to have a bigger higher DPI display. What most don't do though is properly calibrate their panels. Putting my Nexus 10 next to my brother in laws iPad 3 and it's pretty close detail wise but iPad still has significantly better color reproduction and contrast. With Apple redesigning portions of their OS for high resolution displays and pushing retina level displays into their MBP, it's only a matter of time before they start ordering production for 24" for iMac and eventually take orders for 24/27" for Cinema displays. At that point every other company will already be behind and start to play catch up and they will be doing it with panels that didn't meet Apple's spec.

I don't belieave response time is that important. I perfer good black levels, wide angles, and good color reproduction and i'd say TN panels lack that. And IPS panels have this strange bluish or greyish glow - made me switch monitor just after 3 months. Not long ago i bought Eizo FS2331 (PVA panel) and im very satisfied with it in games, even though there is some blur noticeable.

Sigh, why can't it ever be good news? "Gaming" monitors are an excuse to sell piss poor quality TN panels at stupid prices. 1ms GTG, yeah that sure helps, then those "pro" gamers use 20% of their GPU for in-game motion blur after buying these monitors to prevent blur.

lol, first thing they'll do when starting up a game is booting up the options menu and turn off all the useless crap like motion blur. And just as there is a market for high image quality, there's also a market for those desiring the smoothest, fastest monitors. Although if you want a fast gaming monitor, 120 Hz is the way to go imo.

here i was thinking faster response time then the 1ms that been around for while!!. Only to see 1ms useless and miss leading title. I wont replace my led/lcd monitor till it breaks like my last one or response times are no longer in the ms 1,2,4,6 ms are all no good as far as response time and motion blur on fast moving objects and panning on led/lcd. They dont compare to a good old CRT in that respect. as for the reset of the specs it nothing special.

lol, first thing they'll do when starting up a game is booting up the options menu and turn off all the useless crap like motion blur. And just as there is a market for high image quality, there's also a market for those desiring the smoothest, fastest monitors. Although if you want a fast gaming monitor, 120 Hz is the way to go imo.

btw the smoothest and fastest monitors are not led/lcd there crt they just dont make them anymore cause people rather has slim. Response times on crt where so fast there was no point in even mention it unlike lcd led.

The response time/input lag ordeal is overrated for the vast majority of users. LCDs are used even in competitive FPS fighting games (where players are able to count frames) without a problem. Comparing the response times and input lag now (even on some IPS monitors) is nowhere close to how bad it was a few years back. Hell, look at this: http://www.tftcentral.co.uk/images/hp_zr2740w_v2/input_lag1.jpg Source: http://www.tftcentral.co.uk/reviews/hp_zr2740w_v2.htm And that's an H-IPS panel. zz

The response time/input lag ordeal is overrated for the vast majority of users. LCDs are used even in competitive FPS fighting games (where players are able to count frames) without a problem. Comparing the response times and input lag now (even on some IPS monitors) is nowhere close to how bad it was a few years back. Hell, look at this: http://www.tftcentral.co.uk/images/hp_zr2740w_v2/input_lag1.jpg Source: http://www.tftcentral.co.uk/reviews/hp_zr2740w_v2.htm And that's an H-IPS panel. zz

that is subjective to the person, to me no lcd/led compares to the response time and motion blur free picture of CRT no amount of "charts" "testimonials" will change the plain and simple fact lcd/led even the 120 hz just cant compare to crt in that respect. Nothing is more annoying then seeing things blur and go out of focus while gaming or hell just general use. I not denying they have great PQ compared to most CRT but that is only if it still picture or really slow moving images. Sad part is they dropped that tech in favor of Smaller slimmer tech. oLED is the only tech tv/monitor wise i even remotely interested i and that tech is still long way out as far as consumers concerned.

The response time/input lag ordeal is overrated for the vast majority of users.

I disagree with you, todays monitors still sucks, i had a lot of them to play with, i do feel differences most of them are input lags. Lot's of my customers who are hard-core gamers, feel it more than i do, so those who use it for this kind of purpose need fast monitors.

I disagree with you, todays monitors still sucks, i had a lot of them to play with, i do feel differences most of them are input lags. Lot's of my customers who are hard-core gamers, feel it more than i do, so those who use it for this kind of purpose need fast monitors.

There is no pro in this world who can notice 3ms imput lag . Sorry but no.

There is no pro in this world who can notice 3ms imput lag . Sorry but no.

Nobody talks about 3ms, less than 15 is considered Very good. Display response time is different thing if accidentally you talking about that.

Nobody talks about 3ms, less than 15 is considered Very good. Display response time is different thing if accidentally you talking about that.

Im talking about input lag which in practice is more painful than panel response time. My screen has about 8-9ms GtG reaction and about 3ms imput lag, which is allmost perfect for "pro" gaming. (perfect is too much , enough is good word).