Gaming monitor!

C

chrisv

Indeed, I've seen many a CRT advertised as supporting 1600x1200 resolution,
and indeed it will take such a signal from a video card and display the
image, but when you take the physical size of the CRT, the dot or stripe
pitch, and work out the number of physical light elements available to
display the image, you'll discover that you don't really have 1600 sets of
color stripes or dot triples horizontally across the tube, until you get
up to about the 21-inch size range.
Click to expand...

True. I've had a few arguments with people who were convinced that
their monitors could do X resolution, when in fact it was impossible.
The worst ever was an Amiga user who ran composite video (!) into a
television (!) at a supposed 1280x200, and, since he could see the
image, argued that his "monitor" was capable of that resolution!

Then there's my personal CRT monitor, which is capable of an honest
1800x1350 @ 85Hz. 8)
 
P

Peter Hucker

They are cooler. If you live in a hot climate, they will help save money
on cooling costs.

Also, when you go to dispose of the monitor, there are far fewer nasty
environmental pollutants in an LCD compared to a CRT.

They produce less eyestrain for most people than a CRT.

The geometry on an LCD is perfect. You don't ever have to calibrate the
geometry. Most CRT's, on the other hand, have trouble with the geometry,
especially the short neck designs where it can be impossible to get perfect
geometry. The screen on an LCD is also totally flat.

Their resolution is pure. Too often a CRT will not be delivering the high
resolutions gamers are thinknig they are getting, because of the shadow mask
on most CRT's. The number of scanlines isn't really the same as the
resolution (dot pitch).

The only real weaknesses for LCD's are that they sometimes are too slow to
show fast motion well, and their color and contrast are still not quite as
good as a CRT. LCD's also cost more than a comparable CRT. But in every
other way, the LCD is a better display.
Click to expand...

The trouble is I INSIST on 1920*1440 on each of three 19" CRTs. Can LCDs do this yet? (I've heard one can but it's VERY expensive).


--
*****TWO BABY CONURES***** 15 parrots and increasing http://www.petersparrots.com
93 silly video clips http://www.insanevideoclips.com
1259 digital photos http://www.petersphotos.com
Served from a pentawatercooled dual silent Athlon 2.8 with terrabyte raid

Evil Genius for a Better Tomorrow (apprentice level)
 
S

Slash

The trouble is I INSIST on 1920*1440 on each of three 19" CRTs. Can LCDs do this yet? (I've heard one can but it's VERY expensive).
Click to expand...

Almost all LCDs (I've seen) that you'll find in that range (21-24")
are going to be 1920x1200 in 16:10 widescreen aspect ratio. The most
obvious example is the new Apple 23" Cinema HD Display.

-Slash
 
P

Peter Hucker

Almost all LCDs (I've seen) that you'll find in that range (21-24")
are going to be 1920x1200 in 16:10 widescreen aspect ratio. The most
obvious example is the new Apple 23" Cinema HD Display.
Click to expand...

I take it these are £££££££££££££££££? Ans 21-24" is rather large, but then again I think I could get used to it!

However I don't want widescreen. I have 3 monitors next to each other, that IS widescreen!



--
*****TWO BABY CONURES***** 15 parrots and increasing http://www.petersparrots.com
93 silly video clips http://www.insanevideoclips.com
1259 digital photos http://www.petersphotos.com
Served from a pentawatercooled dual silent Athlon 2.8 with terrabyte raid

If all the world is a stage, where is the audience sitting?
 
S

Slash

I take it these are £££££££££££££££££? Ans 21-24" is rather large, but then again I think I could get used to it!

However I don't want widescreen. I have 3 monitors next to each other, that IS widescreen!
Click to expand...

If you stick with 1600x1200 there are a few panels (Viewsonic, Dell
OEM...others I'm sure) that are not too outrageous, and can be had for
under $800 during sales or with coupons.

http://accessories.us.dell.com/sna/...=us&l=en&cs=19&category_id=4009&page=external

-Slash
 
P

Peter Hucker

If you stick with 1600x1200 there are a few panels (Viewsonic, Dell
OEM...others I'm sure) that are not too outrageous, and can be had for
under $800 during sales or with coupons.

http://accessories.us.dell.com/sna/...=us&l=en&cs=19&category_id=4009&page=external
Click to expand...

The CRTs are ok just now, I suppose what I'll do is splash out when one of the three explodes or otherwise becomes unusable.


--
*****TWO BABY CONURES***** 15 parrots and increasing http://www.petersparrots.com
93 silly video clips http://www.insanevideoclips.com
1259 digital photos http://www.petersphotos.com
Served from a pentawatercooled dual silent Athlon 2.8 with terrabyte raid

A penny saved is a government oversight.
 
S

Seth Brundle

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?
Click to expand...

I have bought a slew of monitors in recent months in order to find out
which is best.

Let me say this - I *really* dont like LCDs for gaming. For everything
else, yes, they are great, but not gaming. LCDs have 2 major problems
for gaming:

1. Fixed resolution. Yes they can interpolate, but the quality
suffers. I have to admit the Dell 2001FP is very good at interpolation
for graphics (they all look lame interpolating text). It is nice to
have the flexibility of trying different video settings and
resolutions if you are a gamer.

2. Ghosting, etc - I have found this on all LCDs, even the Dell
2001FP, which was probably the best Ive used.

The problem with the Dell is that I do not like being forced to use
1600x1200 text mode. The text is too small, and the *content* of web
pages only take up about half of the monitor screen because the
resolution is so high. So your monitor is bigger, but text (and web
page graphics) are smaller, its annoying. You can adjust text size,
etc, in Windows, but it doesnt always look right in certain apps and
websites if you tweak it.

Sony has just released a 12ms 19" LCD 1280x1024, but it hasnt been
reviewed yet. I think this might be the ideal, because 1280x1024 is
definitely the sweet spot for default windows resolution. No tweaking
necessary.

For text, a 19" monitor is perfect - not too big, not too small.

For gaming, the bigger the better.

Right now I am using a pair of NEC Multisyncs. They are outstanding
gaming displays as they have a "Superbright" feature which isnt just
marketing - it *really* makes for vivid gaming.

However, they are not without their problems.

The 22" FP2141SB (20" viewable) is great at text and simply gorgeous
with games - the greatest gaming display I've seen. However, it is an
aperture grille, which means its a perfectly flat screen, but at the
expense of two very thin lines barely viewable horizontally across the
screen.

I personally never notice these lines unless I am looking for them,
but recently, a few months after purchase, I have noticed 7 new
VERTICAL lines that suddenly started appearing, and although they are
still invisible when gaming, they are getting annoying on a white web
page background.

FE991SB is Multisync's 19" monitor, which I have at work. Again, the
same great gaming performance, BUT THE TEXT IS HORRIBLE. I dont know
how the hell they released a monitor with such bad text.

Once they have a 19" LCD with ghosting performance a little better
then the Dell 2001FP, I'll switch, because I love my Samsung 191T LCD
except for gaming.
 
P

Peter Hucker

I have bought a slew of monitors in recent months in order to find out
which is best.

Let me say this - I *really* dont like LCDs for gaming. For everything
else, yes, they are great, but not gaming. LCDs have 2 major problems
for gaming:

1. Fixed resolution. Yes they can interpolate, but the quality
suffers. I have to admit the Dell 2001FP is very good at interpolation
for graphics (they all look lame interpolating text). It is nice to
have the flexibility of trying different video settings and
resolutions if you are a gamer.

2. Ghosting, etc - I have found this on all LCDs, even the Dell
2001FP, which was probably the best Ive used.

The problem with the Dell is that I do not like being forced to use
1600x1200 text mode. The text is too small, and the *content* of web
pages only take up about half of the monitor screen because the
resolution is so high. So your monitor is bigger, but text (and web
page graphics) are smaller, its annoying. You can adjust text size,
etc, in Windows, but it doesnt always look right in certain apps and
websites if you tweak it.
Click to expand...

What size is the LCD in question? I have 19" CRTs (equiv to 18" LCD?) set to 1920*1440, and prefer it for web use. Much less scrolling about, especially for long pages like ebay. The text is perfectly readable. Also yes you can zoom if you use a decent browser. IE seems to screw up the formatting when you zoom, but Opera zooms everything equally, very useful to look closely at a picture for example, or if someone has written blue on black text that's hard to read.


--
*****TWO BABY CONURES***** 15 parrots and increasing http://www.petersparrots.com
93 silly video clips http://www.insanevideoclips.com
1259 digital photos http://www.petersphotos.com
Served from a pentawatercooled dual silent Athlon 2.8 with terrabyte raid

"The knack to flying is learning how to throw yourself at the ground and miss."
 
C

chrisv

Let me say this - I *really* dont like LCDs for gaming. For everything
else, yes, they are great, but not gaming. LCDs have 2 major problems
for gaming:

1. Fixed resolution. Yes they can interpolate, but the quality
suffers. I have to admit the Dell 2001FP is very good at interpolation
for graphics (they all look lame interpolating text). It is nice to
have the flexibility of trying different video settings and
resolutions if you are a gamer.

2. Ghosting, etc - I have found this on all LCDs, even the Dell
2001FP, which was probably the best Ive used.

The problem with the Dell is that I do not like being forced to use
1600x1200 text mode. The text is too small, and the *content* of web
pages only take up about half of the monitor screen because the
resolution is so high. So your monitor is bigger, but text (and web
page graphics) are smaller, its annoying.
Click to expand...

Yes to all of that. For home/fun computers, LCD's suck. I can't
imagine being essentially limited to one (very high) resolution for
everything I do. 1600x1200? No thank you, not for normal work -
makes everything too small.

LCD's really suck hard for games, where only extremely expensive
state-of-the-art video cards can run the latest games at the very high
resolutions with decent performance. Then there's the ghosting.
Yuck.
 
G

Guest

FE991SB is Multisync's 19" monitor, which I have at work. Again, the
same great gaming performance, BUT THE TEXT IS HORRIBLE. I dont know
how the hell they released a monitor with such bad text.
Click to expand...

Nec/Mitsubishi diamond pro 930 sb is the 19" CRT to get.

And if you watch the sales, you can get one for close to the FE991SB
price.

The 22" ones are nice, but you can buy two of the 19's for the same
money.
 
Top