Care to elaborate?
4:3
Not sure why you want a square screen. This could totally be done, however it would likely be more expensive as this is not the main consumer grade mass manufactured display technology currently being produced. That = more $$
Secondly, while I believe most games have the ability to deal with a square format, most video content is (and always was) wide screen.
120Hz Display
Refresh rates don't really matter on TFT screens (I'll explain below), and if you are referring to the ability of some modern screens to oversample to 120Hz, or those rare but true 120Hz display panels, then the video chip would need to also be capable of delivering the content at 120Hz.
TFT screens do not refresh in the same way as a CRT screen does, where the image is redrawn at a certain rate. A TFT monitor will only support refresh rates coming from the graphics chip between 60Hz and 75Hz. The "recommended" refresh rate for a TFT is 60hz, a value which would be difficult to use on a CRT. The "maximum" refresh rate of a TFT is 75hz. This has to do with the way the LCD driver works. Since the whole screen is not refreshed at once. Those fake 120Hz screens use additional hardware to spit out literally extra frames of the same screen image; this has the added effect of reducing motion blur (a terrible thing if you ask me), and would, in a laptop, require additional power.
Strobed Display:
I will never, even as a gamer, understand the war on motion blur. If you don't want motion blur, please go back to the 80's when we didn't have motion blur (per se) on our analog video as the frame rate was basically locked at 60 interlaced fps.
Anyhow, if you want the ability to turn this feature on and off, I don't see a reason to not include it (if it is even available in a laptop screen).
2560x1920
LOLOLOLOLOLOLOL
Go learn about display resolution, screen size, and the list of monitors that display this resolution.
I'm sorry, I have nothing personally against your choice of resolution; a better selection would be 3200 × 1800 (which is 16:9 I know), and is readily purchasable. If you still want to go square, there is the choice of 2560 × 1700 [3:2] or 1600 x 1200 [4:3].
There is a maximum resolution outputable by the DisplayPort standard, but also note that as the chosen resolution increases on a single connection, the refresh rate decreases.
There are always trade offs.
4:3
Not sure why you want a square screen. This could totally be done, however it would likely be more expensive as this is not the main consumer grade mass manufactured display technology currently being produced. That = more $$
Secondly, while I believe most games have the ability to deal with a square format, most video content is (and always was) wide screen.
120Hz Display
Refresh rates don't really matter on TFT screens (I'll explain below), and if you are referring to the ability of some modern screens to oversample to 120Hz, or those rare but true 120Hz display panels, then the video chip would need to also be capable of delivering the content at 120Hz.
TFT screens do not refresh in the same way as a CRT screen does, where the image is redrawn at a certain rate. A TFT monitor will only support refresh rates coming from the graphics chip between 60Hz and 75Hz. The "recommended" refresh rate for a TFT is 60hz, a value which would be difficult to use on a CRT. The "maximum" refresh rate of a TFT is 75hz. This has to do with the way the LCD driver works. Since the whole screen is not refreshed at once. Those fake 120Hz screens use additional hardware to spit out literally extra frames of the same screen image; this has the added effect of reducing motion blur (a terrible thing if you ask me), and would, in a laptop, require additional power.
Strobed Display:
I will never, even as a gamer, understand the war on motion blur. If you don't want motion blur, please go back to the 80's when we didn't have motion blur (per se) on our analog video as the frame rate was basically locked at 60 interlaced fps.
Anyhow, if you want the ability to turn this feature on and off, I don't see a reason to not include it (if it is even available in a laptop screen).
2560x1920
LOLOLOLOLOLOLOL
Go learn about display resolution, screen size, and the list of monitors that display this resolution.
I'm sorry, I have nothing personally against your choice of resolution; a better selection would be 3200 × 1800 (which is 16:9 I know), and is readily purchasable. If you still want to go square, there is the choice of 2560 × 1700 [3:2] or 1600 x 1200 [4:3].
There is a maximum resolution outputable by the DisplayPort standard, but also note that as the chosen resolution increases on a single connection, the refresh rate decreases.
There are always trade offs.