High-end gaming monitor

[dfloyd]

I am confused.

Most here seem to really be impressed by the ImageQuest L90D+.

But almost every single review I have read stated the Image Quality is not really that good, outside of games. The text is just ok at best and the dvd playback is subpar when compared to many others. I am confused as to why the majority of reviewers are stating this is just a mid level monitor but most here talk like its the cream da la creme of lcds.

 

[CaMSpoon]

i own a 16 ms 20 inch lcd and its nothing as good as my 21 inch trinitrion crt. Ghosting is the WORST thing youll come across when going from CRT to LCD. I have to admit when things are standing still LCDS tend to make games textures look really sweet looking. But once movement happens in a game lcds really stink. If i were you never get a LCD thats in its double digit ms, i dont care if its 12. I would get 4 or 8 max! Ghosting is awful!
I had to buy this monitor becuase my 21 inch CRT blew out : ( and i dont wanna another 60 pound ugly CRT on my desk even though graphics are way better. Just gotta dish out the extra money and wait for those new lcds to come out. Its a shame. Ill kill to have a new 22 inch CRT right now, but im not paying for it : )

 

[BenSkywalker]

Most would agree CRTs still rule the gaming scene. name your monitor pick.

As of this point I don't think there is an argument, the NEC FP-2141SB-BK or Mitsubishi 2070SB-BK are the best monitors you can buy for gaming. The Sony G520 might be OK for you if you don't mind 75Hz at high res, but it drives my eyes nuts not to mention the convergence on Trinitrons isn't as solid as it is on Diamondtrons. Whatever you choose, I would make the choice quickly as all of them are out of production and about to vanish. Then you will be stuck with some third rate POS like the 2001FP or other comparable extremely poor gaming display.

 

[xtknight]

for NOW, you'd want a CRT. here's the bottom line on 12ms (min) or less LCDs: if you look for ghosting you can find it. if you don't look for it, you can't see it. if LCDs ever get to 4ms response time at MAX, ghosting won't even be an issue. infact, that's 250 ghost-free updates per second. that's even better than crts! not to mention lcds are easier on your eyes than a flickering crt. benq just announced some 5ms and 6ms lcds. if you stood infront of a 5ms and a crt and moved around in a game, you couldn't even tell which was which, providing the colors were the same. 5ms. gives you more than TWICE the fps as a 12ms. a 12ms. definitely being fine, the 5ms. will best the crt at updates per second.

 

[CP5670]

Originally posted by: BenSkywalker

Most would agree CRTs still rule the gaming scene. name your monitor pick.

As of this point I don't think there is an argument, the NEC FP-2141SB-BK or Mitsubishi 2070SB-BK are the best monitors you can buy for gaming. The Sony G520 might be OK for you if you don't mind 75Hz at high res, but it drives my eyes nuts not to mention the convergence on Trinitrons isn't as solid as it is on Diamondtrons. Whatever you choose, I would make the choice quickly as all of them are out of production and about to vanish. Then you will be stuck with some third rate POS like the 2001FP or other comparable extremely poor gaming display.

Are the FP2141SB and the DP2070 exactly the same thing? The DP2070 seems to be much easier to find for some reason. I might pick one up while I can, as my current 21" CRT is a couple years old and has been getting slightly blurry at the edges (and never was all that great in the first place).

I don't think I want to go to LCDs yet. I don't mind the ghosting so much, but dark gradients (e.g. shadows) tend to look quite bad on LCDs and the fixed resolutions can be a hinderance, not to mention all the hassles with dead pixels. The monitors themselves look very nice, but I would rather get something that works better.

 

[BFG10K]

But I bet you you couldn't tell the difference between a CRT and LCD at 8ms running a FPS at 30fps max.

I bet you couldn't tell the difference if you were blind either. Of course that scenario is as nonsensical as the 30 FPS one.

 

[TempusMM]

I have both a 21" Sony Trinitron and a Dell 2005FPW. I've switched to the 2005 for gaming now just for the wide aspect view. It's awesome, no ghosting at all. Now if they just send my next one without any light leakage....

 

[bluslice]

from what i can tell about CRT's and LCD's in terms of gaming, CRT's still dominate. Yes, 8ms LCD's don't show any ghosting so they should be ok to play games on right? maybe not. From this point on, it's speculative so correct me if i'm wrong. i've found in counterstrike source that playing using CRT's produces higher frame rates. Some CRT's have refresh rates up to 100hz and above. I've seen a direct proportion in raised refresh rate to fps. But refresh rates don't apply to LCD's, so I don't know what's happening there.

Also, with SLI setups, it seems that SLI only kicks in when put under heavy loads such as high resolutions and high detail. This can't be fully acheived with LCD's. The max res is 1280x1024 for most low response time LCDs (8ms-12ms). I'm actually look to ohnnyj for a response; seeing how it seems he's the resident specialist on SLI.

 

[Ackmed]

Im happier with my old 2005FPW, and now my new 2405FPW than I ever was with any of my highend CRTs.

bluslice, why do you think response time matters for frames? It doesnt. A LCD can get just as high of frames as a CRT.

 

[jim1976]

Originally posted by: BenSkywalker

Most would agree CRTs still rule the gaming scene. name your monitor pick.

As of this point I don't think there is an argument, the NEC FP-2141SB-BK or Mitsubishi 2070SB-BK are the best monitors you can buy for gaming. The Sony G520 might be OK for you if you don't mind 75Hz at high res, but it drives my eyes nuts not to mention the convergence on Trinitrons isn't as solid as it is on Diamondtrons. Whatever you choose, I would make the choice quickly as all of them are out of production and about to vanish. Then you will be stuck with some third rate POS like the 2001FP or other comparable extremely poor gaming display.

Extremely poor gaming display? Are we exaggerating a bit?
Surely they cannot be compared to top notch CRTs but "extremely poor" is way beyond reality...

 

[BenSkywalker]

Are the FP2141SB and the DP2070 exactly the same thing?

Yes.

The DP2070 seems to be much easier to find for some reason.

The 2141 was about $30 cheaper on average, so everyone who knew they were the exact same thing picked up the NEC model making their supply dry up faster.

Surely they cannot be compared to top notch CRTs but "extremely poor" is way beyond reality...

Between the low refresh rates(bad for optimal performance), ghosting(which is rather extreme with the 2001FP) and horrible lack of blacks any CRT with the exact same gaming 'quality' would be totally unuseable garbage. The 2001FP is nice to look at static text with- movies are poor due to the very poor color accuracy(and aformentioned lack of black), even looking at larger documents fast scrolling is headache inducing. I haven't had any real hands on time with some of the latest offerings, but knowing what people on these forums said about the 2001FP and then spending a decent amount of time with a few different ones, I say they have to be damn close to legally blind.

 

[jim1976]

Originally posted by: BenSkywalker

Between the low refresh rates(bad for optimal performance), ghosting(which is rather extreme with the 2001FP) and horrible lack of blacks any CRT with the exact same gaming 'quality' would be totally unuseable garbage. The 2001FP is nice to look at static text with- movies are poor due to the very poor color accuracy(and aformentioned lack of black), even looking at larger documents fast scrolling is headache inducing. I haven't had any real hands on time with some of the latest offerings, but knowing what people on these forums said about the 2001FP and then spending a decent amount of time with a few different ones, I say they have to be damn close to legally blind.

Well what I trust is my eyes and thank God 2001FP is a great monitor for its money. Have you had the change to see it yourself? The only ghosting I experienced with this monitor is in extremely fast racing games, color reproduction is mediocre but not annoying by any means and movie playback is pretty good.I watch a lot of DVDs in my PC and I'm very pleased. And I don't have to call transportational service when I want to move it .

 

[bluslice]

Originally posted by: Ackmed
Im happier with my old 2005FPW, and now my new 2405FPW than I ever was with any of my highend CRTs.

bluslice, why do you think response time matters for frames? It doesnt. A LCD can get just as high of frames as a CRT.

i said that it seems that refresh rates matter for frames. not response time. response times matter for ghosting.

 

[Machine350]

Originally posted by: xtknight
for NOW, you'd want a CRT. here's the bottom line on 12ms (min) or less LCDs: if you look for ghosting you can find it. if you don't look for it, you can't see it. if LCDs ever get to 4ms response time at MAX, ghosting won't even be an issue. infact, that's 250 ghost-free updates per second. that's even better than crts! not to mention lcds are easier on your eyes than a flickering crt. benq just announced some 5ms and 6ms lcds. if you stood infront of a 5ms and a crt and moved around in a game, you couldn't even tell which was which, providing the colors were the same. 5ms. gives you more than TWICE the fps as a 12ms. a 12ms. definitely being fine, the 5ms. will best the crt at updates per second.

Check it out. Link.
I think I'm gonna hold out for the Viewsonic.

 

[SynthDude2001]

Originally posted by: bluslice

Originally posted by: Ackmed
Im happier with my old 2005FPW, and now my new 2405FPW than I ever was with any of my highend CRTs.

bluslice, why do you think response time matters for frames? It doesnt. A LCD can get just as high of frames as a CRT.

i said that it seems that refresh rates matter for frames. not response time. response times matter for ghosting.

This is correct, basically. With an LCD, you're always going to be limited to 60fps (75fps in some cases, for monitors/resolutions/"refresh rates" that support 75Hz). On a CRT, the limit is obviously not that low. I'm sure it's something that varies on a person-by-person basis, but I can very easily tell the difference between say, 75fps and 100fps.

It's true that CRT's are still better for gaming, and in a perfect world I'd be able to afford a huge 22" CRT to place alongside my 2005FPW to use for gaming - but I am not made of money, and I live in the fourth floor of a dorm building and move (and go to LAN parties) a lot. So it's LCD for me. There's ghosting, but it's not very bad. While I would much prefer 100fps over 60fps in some of the fast-paced games I play, no monitor choice is perfect I guess.