LCD Monitor for gaming ?

[Opus131]

What's a good LCD monitor for gaming ?

I'm looking for either a 19" or 21" (if funds allow) that can handle hight resolution (at least 1280x1024) and fast frame rates.

We have two 19" LCDs here at work, and i tested both with not very good results.

One wasn't bright enought and the liquid crystal nature was too evident, the other had the correct luminosity and picture quality, but it kep leaving 'trails' off dark colored object on screen during fast movements.

Both monitors were bought just recently and were around the price range of 300$.

Any tip on something that doesn't have this kinda of issues but doesn't need my arm, my leg and both my eyes to buy it ? http://forums.3drealms.com/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif

[Locnor]

Can 19" LCDs Pass the Frag Test?


http://graphics.tomshardware.com/display/20050110/index.html

[Wamplet]

I'd be interested as well.

I was at the store where they had Doom 3 set up on a few flat screens and a few other people said OMG WTF COOL SCREEN and I said, "ok watch this:"

I held "D" on the keyboard to make the camera pan right and as it turned you saw all the wonderful refresh lines and the other people were no longer impressed. http://forums.3drealms.com/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/redface.gif

[Inanimate Carbon Rod]

There are a few 19' Lcd's with 12 and 16ms refresh times, I would suggest looking into one of those.

[LeadBullet]

Watch the view angle on the 19" LCDs. With LCDs the screen seems to start to go white if you get off at an angle but its fine if you are directly in front of it. The thing Ive noticed is that given the big screen size, the outer portions of the screen seem to be out enough to where this starts to happen when I sit right in front of it.

Its no big deal at all, nothing really bad, but if you are watching a DVD, or playing a game in a dark area, you might noticed the black at the edges of the screen is a little brighter than whats in the middle. I thought it was just the lightbulb being uneven or whatever, but I noticed when I moved my head so I was straight in front of one of the edges, it went back to normal.

[boondocksaint]

Wamplet said:
I'd be interested as well.

I was at the store where they had Doom 3 set up on a few flat screens and a few other people said OMG WTF COOL SCREEN and I said, "ok watch this:"

I held "D" on the keyboard to make the camera pan right and as it turned you saw all the wonderful refresh lines and the other people were no longer impressed. http://forums.3drealms.com/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/redface.gif



Hahahahahahahah!

[biXen]

The expensive Dells are the best ones for games I think, but I avoid LCDs anyway, don't like the colors and contrast on them either.

[Locnor]

biXen said:
The expensive Dells are the best ones for games I think, but I avoid LCDs anyway, don't like the colors and contrast on them either.



I think it is important to note who Dell uses when they assemble their parts. Dell does not actually make monitors. They assemble parts. Like Gateway, HP, blah blah blah blah etc etc etc.

Know what you are actually buying. Don't buy Dell (or anything from anybody) because they are good at marketing and have cool commercials or something....buy a Dell (or whatever) if you think the parts they use are the best and what you want.

The "higher end" Dell monitors are made by.....Philips and Samsung.

http://www.anandtech.com/displays/showdoc.aspx?i=2332&p=4

http://www.anandtech.com/showdoc.aspx?i=1918&p=5

[Soothsayer]

I've got a BenQ 19" FP 937s with 12 ms response time. I use it for gaming only and do not notice ANY ghosting.

http://www.benq.com/display/lcd_fp937s.html

In terms of pricing, IMO it's pretty reasonable for the size, and the quality of picture. A quick search found it to be around $400.

[biXen]

That is pretty obvious, I said their high-end monitors are good, nothing else. There's only a couple of companies that make tubes or screens in total anyway, so that's pretty common knowledge.

[Locnor]

biXen said:
That is pretty obvious, I said their high-end monitors are good, nothing else. There's only a couple of companies that make tubes or screens in total anyway, so that's pretty common knowledge.



Just trying to make a clarification. You can buy a Samsung brand monitor for less that uses the same screen in the Dell. Why pay more for a Dell logo?

I just think that saying ... "Dell has good high end monitors"... is misleading.

And I don't think that is common knowledge. There are many people I know who would not and do not know things like that.

[8IronBob]

Locnor said:

biXen said:
That is pretty obvious, I said their high-end monitors are good, nothing else. There's only a couple of companies that make tubes or screens in total anyway, so that's pretty common knowledge.



Just trying to make a clarification. You can buy a Samsung brand monitor for less that uses the same screen in the Dell. Why pay more for a Dell logo?

I just think that saying ... "Dell has good high end monitors"... is misleading.

And I don't think that is common knowledge. There are many people I know who would not and do not know things like that.



With that in mind, who is the OEM of the Ultrasharp Digital LCD Monitor? Those are Dell's good ones, as you well know. I wish that this Gateway LCD would be able to height-adjust and pivot like the Ultrasharp, but I don't think that the "cowspot" brand would be able to do any monitors like that. However, I played a good few games on this monitor from Gateway that came with my PC, and it appears to refresh fairly well, also good since I hooked up a TV Tuner card to my PC to take advantage of watching TV on my computer, instant LCD TV! I may consider upgrading to high-def one day, a lot cheaper watching high-def on a PC than buying those multi-thousand dollar plasmas, DLPs, or even LCDs outside of computer monitors.

[biXen]

Maybe, but I KNOW those Dells are good, so what if I say someone that made the tube/lcd is good and someone buys something from a different second-hand manufacturer that ****s up some other area of the display design? That is why I said Dell http://forums.3drealms.com/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif

[Phait]

I've realised just recently since we got a Samsung 512N 15" that LCD's just aren't for gaming, at least for me.

It has no ghosting issues with 16ms response time, but the only problem I have is it's optimal viewing angle or brightness. The monitor needs to be cranked bright, or at least my video card settings for fullscreen video do, else I see 'negative' black areas in the game, which is only countered by upping the brightness in game. Soon you're getting washed out because your gamma or brightness is too high but you have no choice.

Then I have to keep my desktop brightness on par with our CRT, which of course is darker, but I need it in that range for graphics and webdesign. Then of course with certain images and sites, I'll have that negative-black problem again.

So, my problem is I can't at least use an LCD for both designing and gaming. I've been meaning to get a CRT for design anyway.

I also read this in the hardware forum:

Using the proper connection (DVI instead of VGA, thanks) helps obscene amounts as well.
How so? I'm gonna try it with my adapter...

I hope this issue is resolved somehow with future LCD's.

[TerminX]

phait said:
Using the proper connection (DVI instead of VGA, thanks) helps obscene amounts as well.
How so? I'm gonna try it with my adapter...


Uh, you don't use an adaptor. You plug one end of a DVI cable into the DVI out on your video card, and the other end into the DVI input on the LCD. If you don't have DVI out on your video card or DVI input on the LCD, either the video card or the monitor is a piece of trash.

[Phait]

The card has DVI. The monitor doesn't, although it was stated to have it DVI in the manual, which is probably a more general LCD manual.

I was skeptical of using an adapter anyway. It works, but I'm not sure if your claimed differences would appear in use.

[Inanimate Carbon Rod]

LCD's can and are good for gaming, its just that 15' anything are not good for gaming.

[Phait]

What does size have to do with gaming performance? FOr what it's worth, I probably couldn't run games higher than 1024 x 768 on this, and I personally don't need to.

When I build my own gaming rig I might consider, but I dunno. Not really an important factor to me.

[8IronBob]

My monitor's not that bad for either gaming or watching my TV Tuner with, so I believe that this could easily double as an LCD TV, because I sort of have that feature with my media center upgrade (no not Microsoft's MCE, this media center comes from SnapStream, www.snapstream.com (http://www.snapstream.com) called Beyond Media/Beyond TV, and I am using the Firefly Remote and the PVR-150). The Media Center package, TV Tuner, and the 17" LCD Display seem to go very well together. Also, I've played some Postal 2 and Counter-Strike and some HL2 on this bad boy, and I don't find any dead pixel problems whatsoever. This LCD was built to accept high-definition quality video, and for DirectX 9-style games and beyond, so I have no complaints about the way this LCD was set up at all. Most LCDs 17" or larger do appear to do a phenomenal job, from how I see it.

I believe that the monitor that Gateway uses seems to have a better refresh and response time than some other LCDs that I've seen, or at least at the time I bought this PC package. I believe that this has a 12 ms response time, so that may be fairly decent, and it's still as clear as day looking at it. I'd say that today's LCDs are far better than when flat-panels first came about a few years ago, built more ready for faster refresh rates, can double as LCD TVs if you have a media center/TV Tuner, and no hiccups whatsoever, and still very bright and very clear. I see no problems with this whatsoever. The technology between an LCD TV and an LCD flat-panel display are not that much different, I don't believe, not too sure what the response times or refresh rates differences would be between a TV and a monitor, but it seems to be quite similar this day in age.

[Alcoholic 007]

My best gaming performance setup used to be the following, until steam happened:

Windowed or fullscreen mode at 640x480. (this depended on the game)

Screen was minimum of 13" and up to 19" of viewable area (depending on where I was using the computer) and the extra large sized pixels helped me see shit on the screen much easier.

I would go so far as to say that steam changed the output size to what they did on purpose so people could no longer do what I was doing. (windowed for CS; fullscreen didn't give any advantage in seeing things.)

[avatar_58]

I did eventually buy a BenQ FP931 19" LCD and let me tell you, ditch your CRT...

I used to think the ghosting and colours were bad and I would never want an LCD. However once you get one and use it for a few days you'll change your tune. I'll go into details of why this beats blows my old 17" CRT away


1) Larger Screen Size. I actually get 19" not a "viewable" measurement thats hidden from you.

2) Ghosting is a non issue with this LCD. At first I could easily tell. After a while in Doom3, HL2 and even 2d games it doesn't bother me in the least. I can play a few hours in UT 2k4 and forget there even is any ghosting because its not that bad (assuming you get a good timer of 12ms or less)

3) I don't have to resize the friggen the screen anymore! I like to play games of all different resolution types (I'm a dos games fan as well :P) and I never have to adjust anything. With digital it is done automatically and its always 100% scaled.

4) Lower resolutions as low as 800x600 are not as blurry as some make them out to be. For older games that can use dosbox, a scale2x option will fix it. Emulators can use Hq2x filtering.

I say try it....I got mine for $480 CAD and I say it was a great deal. http://forums.3drealms.com/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/cool.gif

[Scotty]

If you have a 1600x1200 native resolution, 800x600 would look OK.

I can play games in other resolutions, but anything text-based looks like crap in non-native resolutions.

[avatar_58]

BTW, I forgot one point...

Its easier on the eyes! Big time. I can use my machine much longer and not have to worry about any strain. http://forums.3drealms.com/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/wink.gif I never thought I would notice this change but believe me...its there.

[Phait]

So does anyone have the "negative blacK' issue like I do, unless I pump up my brightness?

[Inanimate Carbon Rod]

I dont.

[Tedski]

Nor me. http://forums.3drealms.com/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/wink.gif

[biXen]

I can sum up your post in one sentence. The CRT screen you had was also crap.

If you have a good flat 19" or 21" CRT it's still heaps and bounds ahead of an LCD screen in colors and contrast and vividness. And for movies, and especially colors there's miles of difference. In general one can often see webpages designed on LCD being way too bright, cause they use shades of the color that looks totally different on an LCD. And from LCD to LCD.

THAT said. If you are a gamer, and a game first and foremost. You can get pretty good LCDs with low responsetime and it shouldn't be a problem at all. And they are easier on the eyes. But try to combine gaming with designing or doing any other demanding things and it still falls short unless you fork out a bucketload of cash. Personally I don't like LCDs at all, I dislike the brightness and tone the image have got, and it only favours me if I have the room around me completely dark.

[Phait]

biXen said:
But try to combine gaming with designing or doing any other demanding things and it still falls short unless you fork out a bucketload of cash. .



Tell me about it. CRT & LCD for me (right now I'm using my Powerbook with a CRT for design, the LCD for everything else... not to mention the extra space (a bit tedious to manage windows though).

[avatar_58]

I have my contrast set to a level where even the brightest whites don't bother me. I think most people forget there are contrast and brightness controls on an LCD and just assume it should be perfect on the first go....I've never encountered a CRT like that so theres no difference.

I have to say watching movies on my 19" LCD beats the living hell out of doing the same on my old 17" (15" viewable) CRT. The colours seem a tad better to me...I don't seem to have any 'accuracy' problems at all. I also use powerDVD which options to fool with the colour in case something did arise....but I haven't had to.

Then again I guess this comes down to analog VS digital maybe? I had an analog Samsung LCD which I returned a day later due to the fact that I was lied to (they said it had a DVI port) and to me the colours did seem to be too bright and not as accurate as my current digital BenQ. The funny part was that the samsung had 8ms and yet I actually think my BenQ is faster, perhaps the whole digitalVSanalog arguements are true?

[biXen]

Again avatar58, your CRT can't have been a good one.

And of course digital is better. But my screen for instance is a CRT, has two inputs, so I can choose whatever cable I want and never had any problems with that. A normal non-flat CRT, especially 17 or under, and low in pricerange is most likely pretty crappy, so a LCD feels like heaven. But compare it to Diamondtron or Trinitron and it still has got some big shoes to fill. But at least it's easier to carry eh :P

[avatar_58]

biXen said:
Again avatar58, your CRT can't have been a good one.



It was the best CRT I owned....clear, crisp and bright. However I have begun to finally see why flatscreens are the future. I used to be a die-hard CRT man as well...but not anymore. I use a CRT at work and it kills me to have to return to it after a few hours on my LCD. http://forums.3drealms.com/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/wink.gif

Btw, Doom 3 on an LCD is heavenly....the contrast really helps in the darkest of rooms.

[8IronBob]

Yeah, this is the first LCD monitor I believe I've ever owned myself. With the Compaq and all the others before that were all CRT, and not the flat-screen CRTs, either. With the reflections off the glass, and the eyestrain on some of the stuff I was using, that really gave me red-eyes up the wazoo, and I had an aching head each morning I woke up after heavy use of the PC. With this LCD flat-panel, that hardly ever happens anymore, and I wake up headache-free, I can see the screen without having those red, aching eyes, and I like that you don't have any reflections off the screen, either, and the response time seems to be better than most LCDs that I've seen. Most LCDs made within the last year or so have been significantly better with response times than those that first came out a few years ago...

[NutWrench]

phait said:

Using the proper connection (DVI instead of VGA, thanks) helps obscene amounts as well.





This is important! If your video card has a DVI connector (and if you bought it recently, it should), USE IT!

[avatar_58]

NutWrench said:
This is important! If your video card has a DVI connector (and if you bought it recently, it should), USE IT!



Just makes sure you open the box or examine the display model carefully. Don't take the salesman's word on it being digital. BELIEVE ME! http://forums.3drealms.com/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/doh.gif Luckily you can always return it.

[Lou Dog]

I purchased a samsung 191t+ about a year ago, it supports my resolution of 1280x1024 and has a 750:1 ratio. It has the dvi and such as well. I was skeptical about the 25ms response time but to tell you the truth i havent ever had a problem during a game becuase of it. I know that everyone says that thats too high for gaming, but i have never had an issue with my response time. I dunno just my 2 cents on the topic.

[biXen]

No people that are blind don't have any problems with seeing either.

[Tedski]

biXen said:
No people that are blind don't have any problems with seeing either.



Which will probably apply to you a lot sooner than those of us who happily use LCD screens. http://forums.3drealms.com/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/rolleyes.gif

[biXen]

I'll die happy http://forums.3drealms.com/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif

[Cerberus_e]

Wamplet said:
I'd be interested as well.

I was at the store where they had Doom 3 set up on a few flat screens and a few other people said OMG WTF COOL SCREEN and I said, "ok watch this:"

I held "D" on the keyboard to make the camera pan right and as it turned you saw all the wonderful refresh lines and the other people were no longer impressed. http://forums.3drealms.com/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/redface.gif



refresh lines? wtf

[TerminX]

Cerberus_e said:

Wamplet said:
I'd be interested as well.

I was at the store where they had Doom 3 set up on a few flat screens and a few other people said OMG WTF COOL SCREEN and I said, "ok watch this:"

I held "D" on the keyboard to make the camera pan right and as it turned you saw all the wonderful refresh lines and the other people were no longer impressed. http://forums.3drealms.com/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/redface.gif



refresh lines? wtf


They go away when vsync is enabled.

[Cerberus_e]

I have never played a game WITH vertical sync, whatever that is.
but I don't know what refresh lines are

[avatar_58]

VSYNC helps some games that have those problems. Mind you, they happen on CRTs as well....Doom 3 tears like a bastard without vsync on any monitor.

Most games seem to work fine without any syncing at all... http://forums.3drealms.com/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/wink.gif

[Sephiroth]

You people mean Vertical retrace don't you?

[Cerberus_e]

I play without vsync and have no problems at all, what problem should I have, but for some reason, haven't?

[avatar_58]

Cerberus_e said:
I play without vsync and have no problems at all, what problem should I have, but for some reason, haven't?




Screen tearing. In other words, turn real fast and you'll see the screen wobble and kind of "tear" pieces of it apart. It's hard for to explain...picture this as a room


__________________________
|
|
|
|
|
|
__________________________


Now heres what happens with tearing when you turn without vysnc (pretend the *** arent there...ubb wont let me use spaces.. http://forums.3drealms.com/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/rolleyes.gif )

___________________________
|
**** |
|
|
** |
___________________________


It basically happens when you reach really high frame rates. If you don't experience it then that means your probably getting lower frame rates in Doom3.

[Dukefan]

You can get lots of good info on high-end LCD displays over at HardForum (http://www.hardforum.com/forumdisplay.php?f=78). Lots of knowledgable people there.

I just today ordered a Dell 2001FP 20.1" flat-panel, based partially on their recommendations. (I was also thinking about the Viewsonic VP201b, until I found out at HardForum that they're actually the same LCD panel made by LG, but the Dell is cheaper and also has a really good scaling chip. That's what they say, anyway.)

[8IronBob]

I am sort of wondering if an LCD HDTV is not out of the question. I mean, if an LCD TV can refresh and respond quickly to action movies or DVDs, and Live TV, then it should be just as good for gaming. Of course, you don't need those big 30" - 40" LCD TVs to double as a PC monitor, if you're going to be parked right in front of the keyboard and mouse, or a joypad/joystick. Then again, if you have a big home theater, then I'd say the bigger the LCD HDTV, the better off you may be. However, I'd just go with a standard 23" LCD HDTV for under $1,000, maybe closer to the $800 range. I believe that if you have a graphics card that supports DVI out, and you have an LCD HDTV, then you will be floored by the response times for digital flat panels, especially in HD widescreens. Most computer companies seem to push you into buying an HDTV instead of a PC LCD monitor if you plan on using your PC for extreme graphics use/gaming use from how I see it, or if you are purchasing a Media Center PC, one or the other.

[Cerberus_e]

avatar_58 said:
If you don't experience it then that means your probably getting lower frame rates in Doom3.



lower is a bit a too high term.
I'd say it like this: I'm happy if there is a second when I get a frame http://forums.3drealms.com/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif

[groovie]

I just built a new system and topped it off with one of these.
http://accessories.us.dell.com/sna/images/products/320-4111.jpg
2005FPW 20.1 inch widescreen LCD.
Click here (http://accessories.us.dell.com/sna/productdetail.aspx?sku=320-4111&c=us&l=en&cs=19&category_id=2999&page=external)
They ROCK for gaming!!!

[TerminX]

Dukefan said:
HardForum (http://www.hardforum.com/forumdisplay.php?f=78)




Lots of knowledgable people there.


Finally, I don't have to ask if a post is a joke -- I know this one is.

[Dukefan]

No? Well, they act like they know what they're talking about. (Not that that ever means anything on the INTARNET.) But are the guys in the Displays forum that wrong?

Show me how wrong they are. I'm not defensive about them, I just want the other side of the coin.

[avatar_58]

Cerberus_e said:
lower is a bit a too high term.
I'd say it like this: I'm happy if there is a second when I get a frame http://forums.3drealms.com/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif



Ah, well it only happens when you exceed the fps limit. VSYNC just basically...well "syncs" with your screen so that it is smoother and causes no tearing.

[g-dog]

Dukefan said:
You can get lots of good info on high-end LCD displays over at HardForum (http://www.hardforum.com/forumdisplay.php?f=78). Lots of knowledgable people there.

I just today ordered a Dell 2001FP 20.1" flat-panel, based partially on their recommendations. (I was also thinking about the Viewsonic VP201b, until I found out at HardForum that they're actually the same LCD panel made by LG, but the Dell is cheaper and also has a really good scaling chip. That's what they say, anyway.)



^^^^^^^^
I have this one...you WONT be disappointed http://forums.3drealms.com/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif