Gaming monitor!

  • Thread starter Thread starter Apostolos
  • Start date Start date
A

Apostolos

Hello people ! Finally I decided to buy a new monitor to replace my
old sony multiscan 200GS 17 inch. The question is whether it is worth
it to but a tft monitor yet or not.

I have been reading about the new samsung 172x with the 12 ms response
time but I have read mixed reviews . Anald tech says it is pretty
decent. Toms hardware seems to like the FP783 benq. ANy thoughs.??

My problems with tfts are:

1) Scalling: I usually play games on 1024x768 resolution. The
current 17 monitor are native at 1280x1024. My eizo 465 scales to
1024x768 like shit (unreadable) How do the current monitors scale???
Any monitor that scales good? .

2) How is fading and ghosting? Are current tfts good alternatives to
crts??
Which one is best for GAMING?


The problem for me to judge for myself is that none of the shops in
Greece have their demo displays showing moving images just static
crappy backgrounds and I hate forking away 1000 euros for nothing.

Thanks!

Apostolos
 
2) How is fading and ghosting? Are current tfts good alternatives to
crts??
Click to expand...

I compared an LCD to a 19 inch .25 dot pitch crt, and the
flat panel monitor was horrible in Far Cry. To see what I
saw, look at the sand when displayed with environ on high.
Unbelievable garbage.

johns
 
My nod to the Mitsu SB2070. A 22 in CRT that sells now much lower
than it used to. Spectactular display, built well. Cons is the fact
that it is very large, heavy and delivers a fair bit of heat. I've
yet to see any flat panel that will perform as well as that monitor.
 
The best 17" inches right now would be, imo, the Viewsonic VP171b .... No blurring, no ghosting. Best
scaling down on the market, you won't notice you're playing in 1024x768 .. The colors are more vivid on
LCD..

I went from a SONY 20" crt to the LCD Hitachi CML174 17" and would never go back to crt again.

read this review.... for the Samsung 172x

http://www.gamepc.com/labs/view_content.asp?id=glcd17&page=1

but in the conslusion, guess what "For us, Planar's PX171M and Viewsonic's VP171B are still the best
overall 17 inch LCD monitors in our book "
 
Pluvious said:
On Wed, 14 Jul 2004 10:45:25 +1200, Paul Gunson

NEC makes excellent CRT's. I highly recommend the FE991SB if you want
a 19".

Pluvious
Click to expand...

Especially now that Sony's out of the CRT monitor business entirely - at
least that's what I've heard.
 
In comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.misc Apostolos said:
Hello people ! Finally I decided to buy a new monitor to replace my
old sony multiscan 200GS 17 inch. The question is whether it is worth
it to but a tft monitor yet or not. [...]
1) Scalling: I usually play games on 1024x768 resolution. The [...]
2) How is fading and ghosting? Are current tfts good alternatives to
crts??
Click to expand...

I decided to get another CRT exactly because of gaming. Sure,
at 1280x1024 it does not look quite as good when working, but
it it still acceptable. Quality at 1024x768 and 800x600 (for
some reason I like Battlefield Vietnam better at this resolution)
is superior. Ihave a Phillips 107-something, which also has
LightFrame. When you turn it on, you get TV-like brightness
and contrast. Good for some DVDs and unbelievable in Far Cry.

Arno
 
Hello people ! Finally I decided to buy a new monitor to replace my
old sony multiscan 200GS 17 inch. The question is whether it is worth
it to but a tft monitor yet or not.
Click to expand...

given points 1 and 2 below, TFTs are just not ready for gaming yet
IMHO.
My problems with tfts are:

1) Scalling: I usually play games on 1024x768 resolution. The
current 17 monitor are native at 1280x1024. My eizo 465 scales to
1024x768 like shit (unreadable) How do the current monitors scale???
Any monitor that scales good? .

2) How is fading and ghosting? Are current tfts good alternatives to
crts??
Which one is best for GAMING?
Click to expand...

Easy choice:

http://shop4.outpost.com/product/3482973

diamondtron tube, great horizontal scan rate, great price. had mine
for years now, and it is just flawless.

it weighs a ton tho, so its worthless for lanparties.

-Gremlin
 
Get an LCD monitor with a DVI. Also, make sure it is at least 16ms
response. The 172X seems to be a good LCD monitor, just make sure it has
12ms response time because the older version before the revision was not
very good (16ms- but actually much slower than most 16ms monitors).

DVI is good to have because a 1280x1024 resolution is actually a 5:4
aspect ratio which is slighly taller than most TV or CRT monitors. It's a
small nit but 1024x768 will not scale to 1280x1024 without a little
distortion vertically. If you get a DVI, you can tell the driver that you
have a flat panel display and it will crop the image for you as appropriate.
Now days, though, most games either support 1280x1024 or can be hacked to
support it (often in the registry or config file).

Scaling on most modern LCD's, outside of the aspect ratio issue, is good.
Not perfect but fairly good and should be more than adequate for most games.
LCD's produce an extremely sharp image, not like a CRT, so at non-native
resolutions the image is more "CRT-like". Also, if you use the DVI your
graphics card can do the scaling instead of the monitor.
 
i've used just about every name brand 17 and 19 inch crt monitor.i did alot
of research and got the viewsonic vx-900 which is viewsonics high end 19
inch lcd.i've played old and new games on it and i would'nt use a crt
monitor again if you gave it to me.:)
 
Hello people ! Finally I decided to buy a new monitor to replace my
old sony multiscan 200GS 17 inch. The question is whether it is worth
it to but a tft monitor yet or not.

I have been reading about the new samsung 172x with the 12 ms response
time but I have read mixed reviews . Anald tech says it is pretty
decent. Toms hardware seems to like the FP783 benq. ANy thoughs.??

My problems with tfts are:

1) Scalling: I usually play games on 1024x768 resolution. The
current 17 monitor are native at 1280x1024. My eizo 465 scales to
1024x768 like shit (unreadable) How do the current monitors scale???
Any monitor that scales good? .

2) How is fading and ghosting? Are current tfts good alternatives to
crts??
Which one is best for GAMING?


The problem for me to judge for myself is that none of the shops in
Greece have their demo displays showing moving images just static
crappy backgrounds and I hate forking away 1000 euros for nothing.

Thanks!

Apostolos
Click to expand...
Do LCD displays have any advantages for any purpose other than size
and office aesthetics?
 
I read the report. It is the same old fog-factor that is
used in all LCD monitor reports ...NOTHING about
image resolution. The truth is ... LCD monitors give
crappy resolution, and a game like Far Cry looks bad
and you might as well send your ATI x800 back
because it is going to perform like an ATI 9000 on
the lowest settings. As for setting the screen to these
extremely small 1600 x ?? sizes, that is just nonsense.
You would not be able to read anything on a 17 inch
screen set to that resolution. You'd need granny-
glasses with dial-in magnification. The only advantage
of an LCD monitor is its footprint and weight. You get
a lot of desktop back. But it is crappy viewing for sure.

johns
 
given points 1 and 2 below, TFTs are just not ready for gaming yet
IMHO.
Click to expand...

(scaling and ghosting)

New LCDs are usually quite good at scaling and (non-)ghosting these
days. I don't miss my CRT at all even though I have a last year's
cheapo 17" LCD which I use for all kinds of PC gaming. Just make sure
the LCD you buy is able to smooth the picture when scaling (my LCD
monitor does that quite well, just like my laptop screen does it as
well).

In fact, the only thing I don't like about my LCD for gaming is that
with resolutions under 1280x1024, it stretches the image somewhat to
fit the screen. It is not that bad (doesn't affect gameplay ;)), but
naturally I'd like to play all games with the right aspect ratio. The
solution for this problem would be to either buy a LCD monitor with a
native resolution of 4:3 aspect ratio (1400x1050, 1600x1200 etc.), or
to buy a LCD monitor which retains the right aspect ratio for
non-native resolutions by inserting black borders up and down, using
only part of the screen.

I wonder why 17" LCD monitors don't use the 1400x1050 native
resolution but 1280x1024 with the wrong aspect ratio, when most laptop
LCD screens seem to use 1400x1050?
 
Do LCD displays have any advantages for any purpose other than size
and office aesthetics?
Click to expand...

For gaming purposes, I would say no. But the small size is such a
super-hyper big plus for many of us.
 
juha said:
I wonder why 17" LCD monitors don't use the 1400x1050 native
resolution but 1280x1024 with the wrong aspect ratio, when most laptop
LCD screens seem to use 1400x1050?
Click to expand...

Because consumers are more willing to pay a premium for high-end
notebook displays (the current 15" laptop displays are 1600x1200 on
the premium models), but less willing to spend the extra when it's
just a stand-alone monitor.

I'm very happy with my 1280x1024 17" display, but 1400x1050 would have
been very sweet -- and worth the extra to me. I couldn't find one at
the time I was buying, though.

Nick
 
johns said:
I read the report. It is the same old fog-factor that is
used in all LCD monitor reports ...NOTHING about
image resolution. The truth is ... LCD monitors give
crappy resolution,
Click to expand...

Huh? LCD monitors generally offer the same resolutions
as CRTs, both in terms of total number of pixels on each
axis and the number of pixels per inch.
and a game like Far Cry looks bad
and you might as well send your ATI x800 back
because it is going to perform like an ATI 9000 on
the lowest settings. As for setting the screen to these
extremely small 1600 x ?? sizes, that is just nonsense.
You would not be able to read anything on a 17 inch
screen set to that resolution. You'd need granny-
glasses with dial-in magnification.
Click to expand...

Incorrect; many notebook models offer 1600x1200 resolution
on a 15-inch screen, and it's quite readable. Of course,
you usually have a choice of font sizes.
The only advantage
of an LCD monitor is its footprint and weight.
Click to expand...

Wrong again. LCDs consume less power. LCDs do not suffer
from focus problems. LCDs do not suffer from convergence
problems.
You get
a lot of desktop back. But it is crappy viewing for sure.
Click to expand...

I disagree. To be sure LCDs have their drawbacks, such as
color shifting with viewing angle (particularly with certain
shades of purple).
 
juha said:
I wonder why 17" LCD monitors don't use the 1400x1050 native
resolution but 1280x1024 with the wrong aspect ratio, when most laptop
LCD screens seem to use 1400x1050?
Click to expand...

I've often wondered why 1280x1024 is so much more popular than
1280x960, which has the same aspect ratio as the 640x480, 800x600,
and 1024x768 predecessors. After that, some went to 1600x1280
rather than 1600x1200, again deviating from the 4:3 aspect ratio.
Of course, now things are getting even more varied, what with the
wide screen panels being made. The 16:9 aspect ratio has become
rather common, but Mac offers 3:2 on some of their notebook models.
 
Get an LCD monitor with a DVI. Also, make sure it is at least 16ms
response. The 172X seems to be a good LCD monitor, just make sure it has
12ms response time because the older version before the revision was not
very good (16ms- but actually much slower than most 16ms monitors).

DVI is good to have because a 1280x1024 resolution is actually a 5:4
aspect ratio which is slighly taller than most TV or CRT monitors. It's a
small nit but 1024x768 will not scale to 1280x1024 without a little
distortion vertically. If you get a DVI, you can tell the driver that you
have a flat panel display and it will crop the image for you as appropriate.
Now days, though, most games either support 1280x1024 or can be hacked to
support it (often in the registry or config file).

Scaling on most modern LCD's, outside of the aspect ratio issue, is good.
Not perfect but fairly good and should be more than adequate for most games.
LCD's produce an extremely sharp image, not like a CRT, so at non-native
resolutions the image is more "CRT-like". Also, if you use the DVI your
graphics card can do the scaling instead of the monitor.
Click to expand...

I'd make sure a return for full refund is possible, because there's still a
large possibility that scaling on an LCD will provide an utterly shite
image...
 
Monroe said:
My nod to the Mitsu SB2070. A 22 in CRT that sells now much lower
than it used to. Spectactular display, built well. Cons is the fact
that it is very large, heavy and delivers a fair bit of heat. I've
yet to see any flat panel that will perform as well as that monitor.
Click to expand...

Not sure what country you are in, but in the US NEC sells an identical
monitor (FP2141SB) that's usually priced $50 (or more) less than the
DP2070SB. I am viewing mine as I type now.
 
Back
Top