Im not really an expert here, im running mostly on 1080 or 1200p.
Well the main difference is [img]http://cdn.overclock.net/7/7f/7f8a68ff_464948d1315327318-16-10-vs-16-9-eure-meinung-wuerde-mich-mal-interessieren-aspect-ratio-tmn.jpeg[/img]
After a bit research, it is, as i feared, the 120Hz at that resolutions will start to skip frames, simply its not possible to push that much data through it. Overlord was doing something crazy like that, they buy monitors from alibaba or somewhere, have it shipped there, then overclock and hand-check everything, and then sell them off.
Im sure you are better off with Ultrasharp series or something from Asus.
And well, to pull a stunt like that off, you need something crazy to run it, like Titan SLI, one would be mad to go there.
If you are doing gaming, especially fps, you want something with extremely low response time, 2-3ms, Larger screen / resolution, often means lower response time, no easy task to push that much traffic through a cable, let alone process it. and in comparison to 1080p, there are nearly twice as many pixels.
2,073,600 -1080p (2-5ms)
3,686,400 -1440p (U2711 6ms, PB278Q 5ms)
4,096,000 -1600p (U3014 6ms)
So yeah, i suppose you cant really have two things at once, you cant have maximum level performance and quality at the same time, unless you turn to other sourcers, like overlord.
So absolute best, i dont know, studio quality perhaps has what you are looking for, i dont know really, perhaps Nec http://www.necdisplay.com/p/desktop-monitors/pa301w-bk-sv, but it has even slower response time
i suppose there really isn't a market out there, because lets face it, only 1% or less are willing to pay 1000-2000$ on a monitor like that, it would make no sense to develope and manufacture one, if there is no market.