Sony FW900 or ROG Swift?

[rabidz7]

Which one would be the best for gaming? Money, size, and power consumption are not important to me.

[sharknice]

The swift has a higher maximum resolution and refresh rate and GSYNC. If your rig can handle running games at 1440p I would go with the swift.

[rabidz7]

The swift has a higher maximum resolution and refresh rate and GSYNC. If your rig can handle running games at 1440p I would go with the swift.

I can't even use G-Sync because I have a 290X. The FW900 can unofficially do 150Hz-200Hz at its 1024x640 and 60Hz-85Hz at 2880x1800. The monitors seem to be about equal in refresh and resolution, but the CRT has better colors, so the CRT defiantly seems better.

[sharknice]

The swift has a higher maximum resolution and refresh rate and GSYNC. If your rig can handle running games at 1440p I would go with the swift.

I can't even use G-Sync because I have a 290X. The FW900 can unofficially do 150Hz-200Hz at its 1024x640 and 60Hz-85Hz at 2880x1800. The monitors seem to be about equal in refresh and resolution, but the CRT has better colors, so the CRT defiantly seems better.

If you don't have an NVIDIA card the FW900 is probably a better option since you can't use ULMB.

But 2560x1440 @144hz is a over twice the refresh rate the FW900 can do at that resolution.

[flood]

Money, size, and power consumption are not important to me.

well why not get both

[spacediver]

If you have the opportunity to get a good condition FW900 and are willing to invest some time into learning how to do proper WinDAS calibration (I recommend an i1 display pro colorimeter), you won't be disappointed.

Granted, I haven't seen the swift in person, but the contrast ratio of the FW900 blows it out of the water. Also, personally, I have no need to run higher than 1920x1200 resolutions - I think there is a lot more to image quality than resolution.

But perhaps if I saw a swift in person I'd be more open minded

[RealNC]

Also consider that the FW900, even though it says it's 24", it's a CRT, so it's not really 24". It's has more like 22" visible area. So if you're currently on a standard 24" TFT, then the FW900 is going to be a downgrade (when it comes to size, of course, since with everything else, it's an upgrade compared to TFTs.)

[rabidz7]

Also consider that the FW900, even though it says it's 24", it's a CRT, so it's not really 24". It's has more like 22" visible area. So if you're currently on a standard 24" TFT, then the FW900 is going to be a downgrade (when it comes to size, of course, since with everything else, it's an upgrade compared to TFTs.)

I'm using a 21.5" right now.

[spacediver]

22.5 viewable, but yea, I believe the 24 inch just refers to the size of the entire faceplate, not the viewable area.

[sharknice]

If you have the opportunity to get a good condition FW900 and are willing to invest some time into learning how to do proper WinDAS calibration (I recommend an i1 display pro colorimeter), you won't be disappointed.

Granted, I haven't seen the swift in person, but the contrast ratio of the FW900 blows it out of the water. Also, personally, I have no need to run higher than 1920x1200 resolutions - I think there is a lot more to image quality than resolution.

But perhaps if I saw a swift in person I'd be more open minded

I totally agree there is a lot more to image quality than resolution. I'm looking at it from a pure competitive gaming standpoint.

It is much easier to hit long range targets using 2560x1440@144hz than 1600x900@144hz or whatever resolution you need to lower the FW900 to get that refresh rate. In certain circumstances using the higher resolution you'll be able to make out a head and arms and at the lower resolution you'll only be able to see a tiny blob of pixels. Instead of landing a headshot you'll just be hoping you get a hit.