19" LCD Monitor for Gaming and MS myth?
JoeSmooth
to be good for gaming. First, any model suggestions or any place to go for
good reviews?
Second I've read that CRTs are better in the aspect of Response Time because
LCD's with a slow response time might lead to a slight blurring effect
during fasts action. Is this really a big deal and at what point does it
become unnoticable? (I don't care so much about how DVD movies look.. just
gaming). 12 or 8ms isn't unusual but some monitors are boasting 4ms.
Anandtech in Nov '04 sort of mock the idea that Response Time under 25 ms
matters much and they imply that most gamers insist it be below 16.
http://www.anandtech.com/showdoc.html?i=1918
Advice wanted! Thanks!
Schrodinger
"JoeSmooth" <f...@ke.net> wrote in message
news:443c62eb$0$76292$4d5e...@reader.city-net.com...
I have used Digimate 17" LCD with 12ms response time and now a 19" with (I
think) 8ms. I haven't noticed any blurring down to response times.
If you can't run games in the monitor's native resolution (in my case 1280 x
1024) then they won't look as sharp as they should. IMO, a CRT looks better,
but that's probably because I have cheap LCDs!
Mr. Stabby
widescreen LCD monitor that runs at 1680x1050 and has a great picture.
I upgraded from a 17" CRT.
I've played a lot of UT2004, Oblivion, and Day of Defeat and haven't
noticed anything strange in the images, just nice clear widescreen fun.
I have an nVidia 6600GT AGP card.
BTW, the 1680x1050 isn't quite a true 16:9 widescreen ratio but it's
really nice having the extra horizontal desktop space. A panoramic
landscape in Oblivion is breathtaking.
Memnoch
>X-No-Archive:yes
>
>I have the Viewsonic VX924. It has a 4ms response time.
>Nice for gaming, but a bit squarish ... took some getting
>use too. Now I really like it. Colors are brighter than a
>crt, so you can adjust for more dynamic play to get
>better FPS in games.
You can adjust the colours for better FPS? Er, how does that work?
Trimble Bracegirdle
because it might mean having to use higher than my card can do, or that I
want, properly ...having to upgrade the graphics card just for this reason
seems silly..
Mouse
@@@@
look@worldnet.att.net dawg
19". they look shitty in anything but native res.
"JoeSmooth" <f...@ke.net> wrote in message
news:443c62eb$0$76292$4d5e...@reader.city-net.com...
Tim O
wrote:
>Better have a top of the line system to push the native resolution on that
>19". they look shitty in anything but native res.
I have a 21" Samsung (Syncmaster 214T) that has a native res of
1600x1200.
Running stuff at 1024x768 or 1280x1024 looks fine. I was actually
expecting much worse based on all the comments about it. Resolutions
below that produce artifacting, but honestly the only place I've
noticed it is in the low rez Windows XP startup screen, and a DVD
movie I put on it just to see what it looked like. I have a TV in my
computer rooms, so that isn't an issue for me.
I held out from buying an LCD for a long time, but I really like the
new ones. I'm not gaming full time and the crisp, bright beautiful
text on the Samsung makes any CRT I've owned look like shit.
Tim
JT
I have a 204B Samsung with a native res of 1600x1200 and those same
resolutions you mentioned look just fine to me as well. Plus I have zero
ghosting. I wasn't expecting games to look this good on this monitor as I
too thought not running at the native res was going to make it look
distorted or something, but it just isn't the case. I was going to keep my
CRT for some gaming, but I haven't seen any reason to have to hook it up
yet.
Alex
>On Wed, 12 Apr 2006 23:24:51 GMT, "dawg" <don't lo...@worldnet.att.net>
>wrote:
>
>>Better have a top of the line system to push the native resolution on that
>>19". they look shitty in anything but native res.
>
>I have a 21" Samsung (Syncmaster 214T) that has a native res of
>1600x1200.
>
>Running stuff at 1024x768 or 1280x1024 looks fine. I was actually
>expecting much worse based on all the comments about it.
I believe that running LCDs in resolutions with the same ratio as the
native resolution produce OK results.
--
Alex
atheist #2007
Memnoch
>X-No-Archive:yes
>
>It is just that the colors are more "saturated" on the 924,
>so you can adjust the video card settings to less "quality"
>and more "dynamic" play ... and it still looks good. On
>a crt, the colors tend to be somewhat less saturated,
>so the typical setting is more to quality .. which drops
>FPS in the game. It is a slide bar in the video settings
>on all the modern game cards.
Ah. I see what you mean.
Benjamin Gawert
> BTW, the 1680x1050 isn't quite a true 16:9 widescreen ratio
Which should be obvious since 16:9 is the widescreen format of TVs, not
of computer monitors. In the computer world widescreen ratio always has
been 16:10...
Benjamin
Benjamin Gawert
> Better have a top of the line system to push the native resolution on that
> 19". they look shitty in anything but native res.
No. Interpolation looks usually very bad on low resolutions like 800x600
and 640x480, but running higher resolutions like 1024x768 or more on a
TFT with high native resolutions like 1600x1200 doesn't look bad...
Benjamin