A few LCD questions

[Johnbear007]

My primary use of my system is gaming. I also watch alot of movies on it.

I have a 19inch CRT now. A nice viewsonic. I like it, but I worry that it is becoming hard on my eyes because I spend so much time in front of it.

So, I am considering an LCD.

First, am I right to assume a 17inch LCD has the room of a 19inch CRT?

If so, I would consider either a 17 or 19inch LCD depending on price and features etc.

I don't want to break the bank, but I'll consider any advice.

So, basically I want the best LCD for gaming. Warranty is also important. I really don't want to deal with ghosting.

Another question is, will Ihave issues because of resolution? What if I want to game at 1600x1200, or I play a game that doesnt support the native resoltion etc.

All advice is very much appreciated. Thanks!

 

[Error Macro]

A 17" LCD measures 17" exactly in viewable area, whereas your 19" CRT probably has a viewable area of around 18". So the 17" LCD would be smaller still. I'd go for a 19" LCD if you can afford it. Plus, in my opinion, a 19" LCD is the perfect size/native resolution combo, since they use 1280x1024. A 20" LCD with 1600 x 1200 just makes things too small for my liking. My personal recommendation is for the Viewsonic 912b. 12ms response time, 19" with beautiful colors and a strong backlight.

 

[Johnbear007]

How is the viewsonic for gaming?

 

[VIAN]

Viewsonic are good monitors. Even HL2 has Viewsonic monitors in it.

I would try an LCD, before you buy if I were you. You can't judge by specs or anything like that. I would make sure it says typical next to it's response time and going for 12ms is just silly because I here they degrade color quality for it. Make sure its a TN+Film monitor and not a PVA, which sucks for full 3d gaming.

1600x1200 are 20in expensive monitors like 800 and above.

Playing out of native resolution will be like having free AA in most cases. But I would still like to not venture into that area. Again you should try it to see what you would like.

17in LCDs are expensive enough at 500 bucks and provide better picture quality than 19in because it squeezes the same amount of pixels into a smaller space.

 

[knyghtbyte]

19in monitor (LCD or CRT)is best for RTS games, or games with large button interfaces as you do have more real estate, but 17in would provide better quality for FPS games as the post above mentioned.

when they state the 8ms or 12ms response times, those are usually for grey-grey change, for black-white they still wont be quicker than 16ms at the moment, but give it time and that might change......

the Dell 2001 20in with 16ms seems to be quite popular among a lot of people using these forums, might be worth checking that out...
i personally stick with a CRT for gaming, cannot beat the quality or response time and the sense of depth is far superior, LCD doesnt come close.
but for using the net or just general puter stuff i prefer LCD as its easier on the eyes.

best thing to do is to have a card capable of hooking up a CRT and an LCD and just change on your windows which is the main monitor for whatever task it is you are about to do

 

[Error Macro]

I was a die-hard CRT fanatic until I saw the Sony Xbrite 19" LCD in the store one day, which uses the same panel as the Viewsonic 912b. It actually produced better color than my Mitsubishi Diamond Pro 920. I was amazed.

 

[VIAN]

It's cause it has that really nice screen in front of the LCD that gives it contrast, too bad those are rare and expensive as they only include it in highend models

 

[Johnbear007]

Originally posted by: VIAN
It's cause it has that really nice screen in front of the LCD that gives it contrast, too bad those are rare and expensive as they only include it in highend models

you can get one at bestbuy for 564 after rebate, which is cheaper than a dell 2001fp

 

[lnin0]

Something to think about. I have a 17" with a native resolution of 1280x1024. I just had to upgrade my PC because you need a beast to run Doom3, FarCry and HalfLife2 at that resolution and high detail. I have a 16ms response time on mine and don't notice any loss of color or ghosting.

The big problem with the native 1280x1024 are jaggies and general uglieness caused when you run games at a lower than native res (like when you want more than 20 fps). 1280x1024 (/2=640x480) is not a offered in most games so almost all games have to run native if you want clean artifact free images.

The best way around interpolation uglieness, and what I did prior to upgrading to a system that could push high detail at 1280x1024, was run games in a 800x600 windowed mode. You get black boarders around your 800x600 window but you also get a clean un-interpolated image. It can be a pain to deal with in games and you do lose some realestate which kind of defeats the purpose of owning a big monitor but there is not much you can do if your system can't run smoothly at 1280x1024 and you don't care to look at jaggies.

 

[Johnbear007]

Originally posted by: lnin0
Something to think about. I have a 17" with a native resolution of 1280x1024. I just had to upgrade my PC because you need a beast to run Doom3, FarCry and HalfLife2 at that resolution and high detail. I have a 16ms response time on mine and don't notice any loss of color or ghosting.

The big problem with the native 1280x1024 are jaggies and general uglieness caused when you run games at a lower than native res (like when you want more than 20 fps). 1280x1024 (/2=640x480) is not a offered in most games so almost all games have to run native if you want clean artifact free images.

The best way around interpolation uglieness, and what I did prior to upgrading to a system that could push high detail at 1280x1024, was run games in a 800x600 windowed mode. You get black boarders around your 800x600 window but you also get a clean un-interpolated image. It can be a pain to deal with in games and you do lose some realestate which kind of defeats the purpose of owning a big monitor but there is not much you can do if your system can't run smoothly at 1280x1024 and you don't care to look at jaggies.

Yeah, I wondered about those concerns myself. I actually might go ahead and get a relatively cheaper 19inch LCD like the princeton, and keep my CRT as well, using the LCD for most things, and games that I can run fine at the native resolution. I will be mainly playing World of Warcraft, I've played it since the alpha test, so I know how it runs on my system, and I can run it fine at 1600x1200 so 1280x1024 will do fine, if I get that resolution. I may just head to bestbuy, a place where I can return it if I don't like it, and give an LCD a try. The only thing that is really holding me back is the whole native resolution thing. That really stinks

 

[zephyrprime]

Originally posted by: knyghtbyte
when they state the 8ms or 12ms response times, those are usually for grey-grey change, for black-white they still wont be quicker than 16ms at the moment, but give it time and that might change......

That's all backwards. Manufacturers measure rise fall from black-white change, not gray-gray. Also, b-w is faster than g-g.

dell manual

 

[Shiznaught]

What's all that stuff about native resolution and running into problems withg ames? I currently have a 17" old CRT taht I am thinking of upgrading, and I like it at 800x600, so I can actually read the letters on the screen. Are you saying that a bigger LCD wont' be able to run that?

 

[fisheye]

@Inin0: 1/2 of 1280x1024 is 640x512 (5x4 aspect ratio), so you'd still be getting scaling at 640x480

@Shiznaught: LCD native resolutions are determined by their physical number of pixels (a 1280x1024 native res LCD has exactly 1280x1024 physical pixels making up the panel). That makes them very crisp at that resolution, but running a lower resolution won't have the same 1:1 matchup of physical vs. displayed pixels, so the image is blurrier.

If you have a 1600x1200 native res LCD, you can run 800x600 without the scaling and loss of image quality, since 1600x1200 is an exact multiple of 800x600, and the physical pixels vs the displayed pixels will match up (but 4:1, exactly 4 physical pixels (a 2x2 square) for every displayed pixel)

 

[lnin0]

Originally posted by: fisheye
@Inin0: 1/2 of 1280x1024 is 640x512 (5x4 aspect ratio), so you'd still be getting scaling at 640x480

@Shiznaught: LCD native resolutions are determined by their physical number of pixels (a 1280x1024 native res LCD has exactly 1280x1024 physical pixels making up the panel). That makes them very crisp at that resolution, but running a lower resolution won't have the same 1:1 matchup of physical vs. displayed pixels, so the image is blurrier.

If you have a 1600x1200 native res LCD, you can run 800x600 without the scaling and loss of image quality, since 1600x1200 is an exact multiple of 800x600, and the physical pixels vs the displayed pixels will match up (but 4:1, exactly 4 physical pixels (a 2x2 square) for every displayed pixel)

Sorry about the bad math but you made my point in your last paragraph. 1600x1200 native is what I would aim for if your system can't run a decent framerate at 1280x1024. Or just keep a nice CRT nearby. Then again, some people might not notice it or care about interpolation artifacts as much as I do.

 

[Thermalrock]

i wouldnt worry about the crt being bad for your eyes. the new ones are all pretty easy on them. also crts are superior in image quality and you can run any resolution you want perfectly fine. the only reason i could see to get a lcd/tft is if you move your computer a lot as they are definitely nicer to transport.

 

[AndyD2k]

I was waery about buying a LCD. Spent months doing research but kept deciding to hold off. Well, with all the deals that Dell has been having lately I decided to cave in and get their 20 inch LCD. This is what I have to say...

Any negative comments about how it peforms in games are unfounded. So far, I haven't noticed any ghosting whatsoever. Games look great in their native resolution of course (even on a GF 4400) but still look good when scaled down to 1280x1024. Games played on the LCD since I got it...

Doom 3
Half Life 2
Counter Strike: Source
Call of Duty: United Offensive
Unreal Tournament 2004 - the fact that it can handle the madness of this game should be enough to do away with any doubt

I really have no complaints about the Dell 20inch. I recommend it to everyone especially considering you can get it for around $600 if you check out the Hot Deals section. I doubt you will regret it.

 

[Johnbear007]

personally I like the pciture on LCD's, and I have a decent CRT I can keep around as well. Is there an LCD that is good for gaming that is less than the 600$ dell?

 

[mrkoko164]

Anybody notice any differance in text quality with their LCD monitor when hooking it up with DVI vrs. Analog?

 

[BenSkywalker]

So, basically I want the best LCD for gaming.

Kind of like wanting the best pickup truck to run the Indy 500. Seriously, either you want a good gaming monitor or you want a LCD- and then look for the one that sucks the least for gaming. You are going to have ghosting using a LCD, you are going to have non native res issues running a LCD- you stand a fairly good chance of getting a display with dead pixels(though this certainly isn't a certain).

In the price range you are looking at why not pick up a high end 22" CRT? The 2070SB or 2141SB both slaughter any LCD in gaming and their SuperBright modes work very nicely on movies too.

 

[Johnbear007]

Originally posted by: BenSkywalker

So, basically I want the best LCD for gaming.

Kind of like wanting the best pickup truck to run the Indy 500. Seriously, either you want a good gaming monitor or you want a LCD- and then look for the one that sucks the least for gaming. You are going to have ghosting using a LCD, you are going to have non native res issues running a LCD- you stand a fairly good chance of getting a display with dead pixels(though this certainly isn't a certain).

In the price range you are looking at why not pick up a high end 22" CRT? The 2070SB or 2141SB both slaughter any LCD in gaming and their SuperBright modes work very nicely on movies too.

I already have a nice 19inch CRT. I want the LCD because after using an LCD at my sister's I realize that it causes much less eye strain for ME. It's not about the quality of my CRT, I have a nice viewsonic with suffciently high refresh rates. I know that CRT's are better for gaming, I'm not arguing that. You are right to say I want the LCD that sucks least for gaming

 

[w00t]

Originally posted by: Error Macro
I was a die-hard CRT fanatic until I saw the Sony Xbrite 19" LCD in the store one day, which uses the same panel as the Viewsonic 912b. It actually produced better color than my Mitsubishi Diamond Pro 920. I was amazed.

wow....that is a load of bs dont even compare a crt to and lcd no competition.

 

[Johnbear007]

Originally posted by: w00t

Originally posted by: Error Macro
I was a die-hard CRT fanatic until I saw the Sony Xbrite 19" LCD in the store one day, which uses the same panel as the Viewsonic 912b. It actually produced better color than my Mitsubishi Diamond Pro 920. I was amazed.

wow....that is a load of bs dont even compare a crt to and lcd no competition.

You know, people say that all the time, honestly I really like the color reproduction of an LCD. I like my CRT as well though. The LCD colors seem exxagerated, but sometimes I enjoy that.

 

[knyghtbyte]

there is nothing wrong with a good LCD from a general point of view, if you have space in the room that has your PC then have both, keep the CRT for playing fast moving games, use the LCD for working/surfing/slower citybuilding type games.......my 19in Dell LCD only has 25ms response time, but looks gorgeous in regards to colours, its just a bit restricted on games like Doom3 but fine for Pharaoh or C&C Generals etc.

Or, get a projector......hehe......that way there is no light source at all burning out from behind something to affect your eyes and the text is big enough that a ninety year old with cataracts could read it....lol