Monitors for Gaming

Exonerate · Post by **Exonerate** » 2006-12-26 09:19pm

I'm considering getting a new monitor, since my old, outdated LCD with 25ms response time and poor contrast is hard on my eyes, and I have a bit more money from Christmas. Right now, I'm probably looking at getting another LCD, even if CRTs have a much higher refresh rate, simply because CRTs are so bulky, and I anticipate having to do quite a bit of moving in the next few years. On the flip side, I don't want to spend money on another LCD that might only offer a marginal improvement on my current one. Has anybody here switched from an old LCD to a new one and can perhaps voice in with how much of an improvement it was? Or anybody who games frequently (FPSes in particular) on a LCD and has any recommendations to make? I've found a good deal for a monitor (link), and am trying to decide whether I want to spend my money on that, or perhaps on a MP3 player to replace my old MD player.

atg · Post by **atg** » 2006-12-26 09:36pm

I've got a BenQ 4ms LCD at home, never noticed any problems with refresh rates on it. Even an 8ms screen should be decent enough for gaming.

Of course if your screen is hurting your eyes like you mention, then yes get a new screen if possible.

need4spd · Post by **need4spd** » 2006-12-26 09:38pm

CRT 22" like a Diamond pro 2070sb mitsubishi. Looks much brighter than lcd's too. i baught one used on ebay looks freaking sweet 2100x1700 or so resolutions too! at 85hertz

Screw lcd's

Uraniun235 · Post by **Uraniun235** » 2006-12-26 09:55pm

Exonerate, that monitor only has a 6-bit panel; it won't reproduce color as well as an 8-bit panel. (Note how it says it reproduces 16.2 million colors... an 8-bit panel is generally listed as being able to reproduce 16.7 million.)

The SH/SC forum over at Something Awful tends to adore Dell LCD monitors, and I believe Dell is having a sale right now.

AniThyng · Post by **AniThyng** » 2006-12-27 02:03am

need4spd wrote:CRT 22" like a Diamond pro 2070sb mitsubishi. Looks much brighter than lcd's too. i baught one used on ebay looks freaking sweet 2100x1700 or so resolutions too! at 85hertz

Screw lcd's

Which part of "simply because CRTs are so bulky, and I anticipate having to do quite a bit of moving in the next few years" in the OP did you fail to understand?

I have a 17" CRT for my desktop and it is a bloody chore moving it around, a daresay a 22" will be a back-breaking nightmare.

On topic...Dell is good, say what you will about thier computers, but monitors are good.

I've seen BenQ's and Samsungs in action, no problems I can discern. I'm using a notebook with an LG screen, it's about 16 ms or so refresh and i don't see much ghosting, but you'd want 8ms at least for comfort there if it bothers you.

Uraniun235 · Post by **Uraniun235** » 2006-12-27 02:04am

Yeah, I like my 21" CRT, but I like it because I have a huge desk with a huge monitor space and I never have to move it. If I had to lug it around I'd seriously consider discarding it in favor of an LCD.

(although I'm seriously considering that anyway as it's starting to deteriorate)

Faram · Post by **Faram** » 2006-12-27 04:26am

Is there really any way to see the difference betveen 25ms and 8ms screens?

The eye can only see at 18fps.

18fps=0,3s
25ms=0,025s
8ms=0,008s

A 25ms screen updates twelve times faster than your eye can see.
And a 8ms updates about forty times faster.

Stark · Post by **Stark** » 2006-12-27 04:28am

They're usually rated at their 'fastest' change, so a 25ms screen might go black-white that fast, but other changes much slower. I can't play games on 20ms monitors, but my 4ms is okay.

Uraniun235 · Post by **Uraniun235** » 2006-12-27 10:30am

Faram wrote:The eye can only see at 18fps.

Then how do people perceive excessive CRT flickering at 60hz?

Faram · Post by **Faram** » 2006-12-27 12:04pm

Uraniun235 wrote:Then how do people perceive excessive CRT flickering at 60hz?

Crappy monitor?

There is a reason that movies only shovs pictures at 24fps eatch a little diffrent than the one preeceding it.

Rightous Fist Of Heaven · Post by **Rightous Fist Of Heaven** » 2006-12-27 01:58pm

If widescreen display is ok, then I recommend the Samsung 225BW.

Post by **Edi** » 2006-12-27 01:59pm

At 60 Hz refresh you won't notice any jerkiness, slowness or lag wrt how pictures etc move on the screen, but the on/off flicker doesn't require nearly as much response time from the brain and therefore it's noticeable. 60-65 Hz is just about at the outer limit of that perception though, which is why even crappy monitors at 75 Hz generally don't cause irritation of the eyes.

Edi

Uraniun235 · Post by **Uraniun235** » 2006-12-27 03:50pm

Faram wrote:There is a reason that movies only shovs pictures at 24fps eatch a little diffrent than the one preeceding it.

Movies can get away with 24fps because they have motion blur. In a video game, show a person a scene running at 24fps and then show them the same scene at 48, and they'll likely be able to discern that the video at 48 is smoother than at 24.

Exonerate · Post by **Exonerate** » 2006-12-27 04:17pm

Faram wrote:Is there really any way to see the difference betveen 25ms and 8ms screens?

The eye can only see at 18fps.

18fps=0,3s
25ms=0,025s
8ms=0,008s

A 25ms screen updates twelve times faster than your eye can see.
And a 8ms updates about forty times faster.

No, the eye can most definitely see faster than 18 fps. Try watching a movie/playing a game at 18 fps, then turning the fps up - there is a world of difference, at least in terms of smoothness. I can personally notice differences in fps up to ~75. I also know people who swear they can notice a difference between 60 and 85 hertz and get headaches if the refresh rate is too low. For LCDs, there's no flicker, but pixels do take time to change. With a lower response time, you'll see less blurring (More commonly known as ghosting). My old LCD was decent, but it had dead pixels and was replaced with what I currently have. If I don't play games for awhile, I can notice a lot of chugging on my LCD before my eyes/brain adjust to it.

Anyways, I doubt if I could tell the difference between 16.2 million colors and 16.7 million, and even if I could, I don't anticipate having to do any heavy graphics work, so 16.2 million colors should be fine for me. I took a look at the Dell website, and most of their stuff seems to just be retailing monitors made by other companies, for prices that aren't all that impressive either.

Lisa · Post by **Lisa** » 2006-12-27 09:03pm

Exonerate wrote: I also know people who swear they can notice a difference between 60 and 85 hertz and get headaches if the refresh rate is too low.

I definately notice flicker on monitors at 75 hertz or less. I just wish LCD's could do the resolutions I like with out costing an arm and a leg

Stark · Post by **Stark** » 2006-12-27 09:20pm

Lisa wrote:I definately notice flicker on monitors at 75 hertz or less. I just wish LCD's could do the resolutions I like with out costing an arm and a leg

Most mid-range LCDs are 12x10 native, and do you *really* need to run everything in 16x12? The answer is 'no'.

InnocentBystander · Post by **InnocentBystander** » 2006-12-27 10:09pm

I love my Dell 2007wfp. I play games almost exclusively and have never noticed any problems at any resolution (be it native or less).

Stark · Post by **Stark** » 2006-12-27 10:29pm

On my Samsung (native 12x10), anything less looks like shit. It's blurry and indistinct, and while it's not hugely obvious it's really distracting if you're used to the sharpness of native. Bah, bah I say.

Uraniun235 · Post by **Uraniun235** » 2006-12-28 12:23am

Stark wrote:
Lisa wrote:I definately notice flicker on monitors at 75 hertz or less. I just wish LCD's could do the resolutions I like with out costing an arm and a leg
Most mid-range LCDs are 12x10 native, and do you *really* need to run everything in 16x12? The answer is 'no'.

For a moment I was about to call you crazy, when I realized that 12x10 wasn't meant as a ratio but as a shorthand for 1280x1024.

You don't "need" to have 1600x1200 but it's really pretty cool to be able to jump up that high (or higher...) on a game that your hardware can handle with ease.

My only problem is the whole 'native resolution' aspect of it. I currently run my 21" at 1280x960 most of the time, which pretty handily fits nearly any video I throw at it (most notably, high-def television). I want to get an LCD, but if I get a 20" LCD to match the screen size I currently have, the native resolution is going to be 1600x1200; newer games won't run well at such a high resolution, and dropping to a lower resolution won't look as good either.

I think I might have to bite the bullet and live with a 19" LCD. (Admittedly, the Dell 24" looks very shiny, although I really can't afford that degree of decadence.)

atg · Post by **atg** » 2006-12-28 12:43am

Uraniun235 wrote:
Stark wrote:
Lisa wrote:I definately notice flicker on monitors at 75 hertz or less. I just wish LCD's could do the resolutions I like with out costing an arm and a leg
Most mid-range LCDs are 12x10 native, and do you *really* need to run everything in 16x12? The answer is 'no'.
For a moment I was about to call you crazy, when I realized that 12x10 wasn't meant as a ratio but as a shorthand for 1280x1024.

You don't "need" to have 1600x1200 but it's really pretty cool to be able to jump up that high (or higher...) on a game that your hardware can handle with ease.

My only problem is the whole 'native resolution' aspect of it. I currently run my 21" at 1280x960 most of the time, which pretty handily fits nearly any video I throw at it (most notably, high-def television). I want to get an LCD, but if I get a 20" LCD to match the screen size I currently have, the native resolution is going to be 1600x1200; newer games won't run well at such a high resolution, and dropping to a lower resolution won't look as good either.

I think I might have to bite the bullet and live with a 19" LCD. (Admittedly, the Dell 24" looks very shiny, although I really can't afford that degree of decadence.)

While we're talking resolutions, my boss' setup at work consists of two old 22" Sun monitors. They support a maximum resolution of 2048x1536 each

However he found that anything on the screen was just too small at that res, so he reverted back to 1600x1200, and then 1280x1024, which he found much easier on the eyes.

Uraniun235 · Post by **Uraniun235** » 2006-12-28 01:18am

Shouldn't he be running 1280x960 for a proper ratio? All the other ones you listed are 4:3 resolutions but 1280x1024 is a 5:4 ratio.

atg · Post by **atg** » 2006-12-28 01:42am

Uraniun235 wrote:Shouldn't he be running 1280x960 for a proper ratio? All the other ones you listed are 4:3 resolutions but 1280x1024 is a 5:4 ratio.

Probably. I just checked and it does support running at 1280x960, but he's got it running at x1024

Stark · Post by **Stark** » 2006-12-28 04:03am

Uraniun, my LCD is 20" and 1280x1024 native. The 16x12's I saw when I was shopping (six months ago) were all larger, 22"+.

Post by **Vympel** » 2006-12-28 05:06am

I use a Samsung SyncMaster 931c (19'' LCD)- I'm quite happy with it.

Sam Or I · Post by **Sam Or I** » 2006-12-28 05:24am

Saying the human eye can pick up X frames per second is misleading. I bet the human eye could not pick up 3 frames per second if the object moved slow enough. Or it could pick up nearly 200 frames per second if a black screen flashed white for a frame.

Anyways, CRT's for me. I don't have a lot of moving to do, the display looks better, and the color is more accurate. I own an old 19 inch Nec Multi-Sync FE950+.