LCD's w/ powerful video cards

[Tharkun]

With todays video cards being able to do great things in high resolutions, is it pointless to get a LCD with a top-of-the-line graphics card? If it can only display one resolution correctly, can all the power of these new graphics cards be utilized? Also, isn't there 128-bit colour in graphics cards? Isn't that also wasted on a LCD? Please tell me if I make sense, and if I don't, please correct me.

Thanks
Tharkun

 

[henmaster]

It won't be wasted if your LCD's one resolution is a high resolution. The 20" LCDs have native resolution of 1600x1200 which is the maximum for a lot of CRTs anyway. The 19" and 17" LCDs are 1280x1024 and the 15" are 1024x768. It's not like these LCDs are stuck at 640x480 or something. Also, you always have the option of turning on Anti-Aliasing which is almost as good as having a higher resolution.

 

[aswedc]

With todays video cards being able to do great things in high resolutions, is it pointless to get a LCD with a top-of-the-line graphics card?

If you do not play games, yes.

If it can only display one resolution correctly, can all the power of these new graphics cards be utilized?

Any somewhat modern video card will be equal at every task other than 3D applications. In games, you won't be able to notice the image quality loss caused by a LCD outside its native resolution.

Also, isn't there 128-bit colour in graphics cards? Isn't that also wasted on a LCD?

No. The highest is 32bit color, Matrox has a "Gigacolor" system which supposedly allows for more, but its doubtful you'll be able to tell the difference, especially on LCD's which have poor color range compared to the best CRT's.

 

[0roo0roo]

not wasted at all considering you shouldn't run below native resolution. meaning if your video card grows even a bit slow u are fuxored. esp if u want to run at 2-4x fsaa with 16aa at your 1280x1024 17" or even more extreme for 19-24" lcds. with crt you always have the option of falling back on resolution. lcds themselves are costly, keeping up with the 3d speed race on an lcd is even more expensive.

 

[Tharkun]

I'm not sure what I was thinking about 128 bit colour. I heard something about 128-bit floating point precision or something like that. I still think that CRT will be the way to go for games. I need something that works for games.

 

[bigshooter]

I have a gefroce3 ti200 running my Samsung 191T. I wish I had something newer (and I will soon!!) mainly for DVI, but in games like unreal2 when I run at 1280x1024 (native res) things slow down quite a bit. I can't even run Tiger WOods 2003 with all the eyecandy on.

 

[Dacalo]

i am running Planar PX171M w/ 16ms response time coupled with Radeon 9700 Pro on DVI connection and it is truly awesome.

Awesome clarity and no ghosting!!

 

[saltedeggman]

Originally posted by: Dacalo
i am running Planar PX171M w/ 16ms response time coupled with Radeon 9700 Pro on DVI connection and it is truly awesome.

Awesome clarity and no ghosting!!

the best combo aftm

 

[henmaster]

I think some graphics cards render internally at 128 bit color, but they still output at 32 bit.

 

[Tharkun]

When will the first truly good LCD for games (as good as CRT) come out under $900 (17")? Will they ever be as good as CRT?

 

[Dacalo]

Originally posted by: Tharkun
When will the first truly good LCD for games (as good as CRT) come out under $900 (17")? Will they ever be as good as CRT?

I consider my planar as good as CRT for games.

I got it for $473 at dell

you should order one and test it yourself... asking othes for opinion is very subjective