Flat panel LCD, gaming, and Radeon?

[SHRED]

I am building a system for my friend and was wondering if the LCD
monitors are gaming friendly. There are some LCD monitor reviews where
people are happy with theirs and they claim there is no "ghosting".

I plan on building it with an ATI AIW 9800pro.
Is there an LCD spec that I should look for to enhance gaming?

Anyway I sure like how they look and hope they can be used for games.

thanks

 

[Martin]

I am building a system for my friend and was wondering if the LCD
monitors are gaming friendly. There are some LCD monitor reviews where
people are happy with theirs and they claim there is no "ghosting".

I plan on building it with an ATI AIW 9800pro.
Is there an LCD spec that I should look for to enhance gaming?

Anyway I sure like how they look and hope they can be used for games.

thanks

If you buy an LCD with a total response time of 16ms or less, you should be
fine for gaming.

Martin

 

[redTed]

I am building a system for my friend and was wondering if the LCD monitors
are gaming friendly. There are some LCD monitor reviews where people are
happy with theirs and they claim there is no "ghosting".

I plan on building it with an ATI AIW 9800pro.
Is there an LCD spec that I should look for to enhance gaming?

Anyway I sure like how they look and hope they can be used for games.

thanks

I use a Sony SDM-HS93P with an ATI X800 Pro. Works beautifully with all the
latest games. Half-Life2, Far Cry, Flat Out, NFS-U2. No blurring at all and
fantastic colours.

 

[SHRED]

Thanks!

 

[Andi Cole]

I'm using a BenQ FP937s, 12ms and it's brilliant in HL2 and GTR.

 

[HockeyTownUSA]

I use a Sony SDM-HS93P with an ATI X800 Pro. Works beautifully with all
the latest games. Half-Life2, Far Cry, Flat Out, NFS-U2. No blurring at
all and fantastic colours.

Yep. I've got a Dell 2001FP - 1600x1200 native resolution, 16ms response.
Great for gaming. And those are the key attributes to look for really. High
native resolution and 16ms or faster response rate. The higher resolution
makes the picture crisp and translates very well to lower resoltions because
the density of the pixels is so high. The 16ms response rate is equivilent
to approximately a 60Hz refresh (1 divided by 0.016 seconds = 62.5 Hz)

 

[JimBob]

If you buy an LCD with a total response time of 16ms or less, you
should be fine for gaming.

Mine is 25ms. What will the games be like? Unplayable? I havn't tried any
yet cos my system isnt that good.

 

[Martin]

Mine is 25ms. What will the games be like? Unplayable? I havn't tried
any yet cos my system isnt that good.

I've seen people posting that games are perfectly acceptable with their
particular 25ms LCD, but I've not personally tried one. It certainly will
not be unplayable!

Martin

 

[JimBob]

I've seen people posting that games are perfectly acceptable with
their particular 25ms LCD, but I've not personally tried one. It
certainly will not be unplayable!

Thanks.

 

[Conor]

If you buy an LCD with a total response time of 16ms or less, you
should be fine for gaming.

Mine is 25ms. What will the games be like? Unplayable? I havn't tried any
yet cos my system isnt that good.
[/QUOTE]
Not at all. Also the 16ms response time is a red herring as it only is a
measurement of the time a pixel takes to go from black to white. It
actually takes longer to change to different colours or shades as the
pixel needs time to settle down...up to 90ms on some TFTs which is
equivalent of 11 frames per second.

It all depends on the panel technology used. The TN+Film technology is
faster than S-IPS with MVA/PVA being the slowest but ironically you can
only find TN+Film being used on budget 17" monitors.

Personally I find my cheapo 17" 25ms response time monitor fine for
CStrike, HL2, Doom3.

 

[JimBob]

Not at all. Also the 16ms response time is a red herring as it only
is a measurement of the time a pixel takes to go from black to white.
It actually takes longer to change to different colours or shades as
the pixel needs time to settle down...up to 90ms on some TFTs which is
equivalent of 11 frames per second.

It all depends on the panel technology used. The TN+Film technology is
faster than S-IPS with MVA/PVA being the slowest but ironically you
can only find TN+Film being used on budget 17" monitors.

Personally I find my cheapo 17" 25ms response time monitor fine for
CStrike, HL2, Doom3.

Mine is a 15" Samsung Syncmaster 152V. I'll be upgrading soon so i hope to
be happy with it.

 

[smithy]

I have an 1715bm acer, with 12ms response time, HL2, etc, are awesome, dvds
are awesome.

The refresh rate on this gem is 75mhz

smithy

 

[johns]

Color and response time is so-so. What you will lose
big time is fine detail. Most games don't have any to
begin with, but with Far Cry, you'll lose the sand
totally. The sand and rocks will just be splotches.
As long as you are moving around in the game, you
won't see any problems, but if you look at details
you won't see any. As for resolution. Resolution doesn't
change for any setting. An LCD pixel is the same size
regardless of the size of the monitor. The way you get
better resolution on an LCD monitor is to buy a bigger
screen with more pixels. Then you can move the monitor
further away from you and THAT is called improved
resolution. To get resolution equivalent to an analog
monitor, you need a fairly big LCD monitor .. 21 inches
.... and set it back about 3 feet. That is expensive.

johns

 

[HockeyTownUSA]

Color and response time is so-so. What you will lose
big time is fine detail. Most games don't have any to
begin with, but with Far Cry, you'll lose the sand
totally. The sand and rocks will just be splotches.
As long as you are moving around in the game, you
won't see any problems, but if you look at details
you won't see any. As for resolution. Resolution doesn't
change for any setting. An LCD pixel is the same size
regardless of the size of the monitor. The way you get
better resolution on an LCD monitor is to buy a bigger
screen with more pixels. Then you can move the monitor
further away from you and THAT is called improved
resolution. To get resolution equivalent to an analog
monitor, you need a fairly big LCD monitor .. 21 inches
... and set it back about 3 feet. That is expensive.

johns

For one, I have an LCD with 16ms response with 1600x1200 native resolution.
Far Cry looks fabulous. And secondly, yes, you should get a high native
resolution as it scales downward beautifully. My Dell 2001FP cost me $700
(that's for a 20.1 viewable area). That's not that expensive considering
even some great 21" tube monitors cost $500 or more and probably have less
than 20" viewable area, plus they weigh about ten times as much and take up
a HUGE footprint. I couldn't believe how much space I cleared up on my
desktop when I went from a 19" Trinitron tube to my 20" LCD.

 

[Matt]

Ive got a View Sonic VX900 thats 25ms and its fine.


Matt

(e-mail address removed)

M and M Electronics
6661 Stanford Ranch Road
Suite F, PMB 105
Rocklin Ca 95677
916-275-5871