New TFT's are out with a 12ms response time. This should be adequate. But,what
bothers me most is native resolution. Anything other than native res is
stretched to fit the screen. And,decent 19" TFT have a native res of
1280x1024. I don't think many of us are going to be able to play DOOM 3 at that
res.Or HL 2 either.
And Toms Hardware now like an earlier poster suggested is downplaying
response times from manufacturers. Not that its worthless but he
suggests its highly inaccurate to use as an objective number that you
can compare with one monitor vs another.
Here explains the types:
There are now three competing technologies as far as liquid
crystals are concerned. These are: TN+Film, in entry-level and
mid-range monitors, MVA in mid-range and top of the range models
(there are several brands: MVA at Fujitsu, PVA for Samsung, ASV used
by Sharp, Super MVA by CMO) and IPS for high-end models.
Even if panel manufacturers are fairly numerous (we have tested
over 15 products), the panels used in monitors in recent years are
very often the same. Meanwhile, some very useful information can be
gleaned by taking two very useful metrics into consideration -
response time and screen size.
However, don't take the response time as the be all and end all.
This statistic, as practiced currently, gives only a vague idea of
screen quality.
He goes on to say - if the model has a 25 ms response time it means
its old technology and unsuited for games period. He seems to use the
response times in a real general , slightly vague way to lump them
into categories as old tech if they are 25 ms but faster times dont
mean they literally are as fast as claimed or even superior to slower
numbers. He seems to use the type of panel more as a indicator - the
top one being Hydis :
For games, the Hydis 20ms panel is still the one to beat. It's not
yet perfect, but we know of no other that is faster (based on our
tests, of course, and not manufacturers' specifications).
And in April he tests TWO new 12 ms LCDs and says the Hydis is still
better for games but has flaws too:
It was a duel between two 12 ms panels: AU-Optronics, used in the BenQ
FP767-12, and Samsung, used in the 172X Version 2. As far as ghosting
is concerned, the winner is ... Hydis. So what's new...
On the other hand, these panels offer better color rendering than the
Hydis panel and they have a wider angle of vision. To put it simply,
AU and Samsung can display a true black, while Hydis cannot.
In the latest June 17" test he likes the Benq rated at 16ms but still
says its worse than the Hydis :
Games
Like the FP767, the FP783 is one of the best monitors tested. Its
panel offers very low latency and the colors are stunning. All kind of
games can be played without too much strain. Some gamers will not like
the slight afterglow in the fastest games, such as in Unreal
Tournament, but you get used to it pretty quickly.
Like always, it's a shame that with the fastest response time on
paper, the FP783 has a higher latency than monitors built around 20 ms
Hydis panels. Let's insist on this once more: response time measures
these days are nearly worthless. They are only hints. We can't wait
for the ISO standard to be updated...
He goes on to mention a 10 ms rated Hydis panel in the works I think.
So if you go by Toms Hardware - he says the panel is the thing he
seems to suggest , not so much the manufacturer and the best panel
for gaming so far is the Hydis but its not the best static pic but new
ones are in the works obviously.
Im surprised at how well the Benq came out. One thing I dont like is ,
he doesnt test a lot of makes but if the panel is the thing I guess it
doesnt matter that much.
