26 réponses à ce sujet

[montana_boy]

Hey Gang,

Appreciate a little info.

I am going to buy a Flat Screen but I recall (this is several years ago) reading that games played on Flat Screens Monitors had issues.  So... some questions

1) Any problems playing heavy, video intensive games on a F/S?
2) What I should look for tech wise before buying?
3) Any particular mfg stands out as better than others?

Thank you all.

-montana

[Monstruo696]

I own an HP w2207.

It's big, it's clear, and hasn't given me any problems since I bought it about 1-2 years ago. It can also be turned vertically if you're an artist and working on something that's taller than it is wider, but that's just a gimmick since I barely use it myself.

It's no longer made, but HP still sells similar screens with the same specs for around $200.

Modifié par Monstruo696, 15 décembre 2009 - 08:20 .

[boomgosthedino]

1) I have not seen any problems with my Flat screen monitor size 24'' res 1080p.



2) Kinda all depends on price. If I was picking a monitor I'd want one that supports HDMI and is 1080p for that nice HD look... But when it comes it monitors I'm a noob. Just trowing that out there..



3) Google is a nice place to search that.



Good place to look is Newegg.com but they only ship in the U.S with sucks

[REH1967]

When LCD's first came out they did have issues in regards to ghosting and full motion "lag" due to slow response times, but that's pretty much a thing of the past now and not enough of a reason to hang on to the ancient CRT technology. New LCD's have good response time, the key is to find one that will run in a native resolution that "fits" your PC's graphics capabilities. For my modest machine, 1440 x 900 is a sweet spot, I get the widescreen and am able run games at higher settings. Now if my LCD had a higher native resolution my PC might have some issues and I might have to run games at a low (non native) resolution. Additionally, non native resolution don't offer as clear an image due to LCD's inherent scaling limitations.



LG, Hannspree, Viewsonic and CTX are all good brands, but there are many others, as long as the specs are modern, I wouldn't worry too much about the brand. Go with pricing and specifications as the determining factors. 6 years ago my first LG 19 inch LCD cost me 800 bucks...prices are a lot lower now and image quality has improved tremendously. My Hannspree LCD cost around 200 dollars about 7 months ago.



http://computershopp...om/lcd-monitors

[montana_boy]

REH1967 wrote...

For my modest machine, 1440 x 900 is a sweet spot, I get the widescreen and am able run games at higher settings.

On my little gaming rig the Res "Sweet Spot" is 1024 X 768

[boomgosthedino]

yeah RE1967 is right, every thing has improved and you should have no problems.. And as he said, "the key is to find one that will run in a native resolution that "fits" your PC's graphics capabilities."

[Maria Caliban]

Flat screen monitors are awesome. I've had no complaint about mine, it's so much easier to move around, and screen is much clearer.

[montana_boy]

Thanks everybody I really appreciate your input... you guys are grrrrreat!

[Sa Seba]

The higher the resolution, the more your video card will be taxed. Keep that in mind when choosing between a 22" and 24".

Arg, ninja'd three posts above....

Modifié par Sa Seba, 16 décembre 2009 - 03:35 .

[montana_boy]

Sa Seba wrote...

The higher the resolution, the more your video card will be taxed. Keep that in mind when choosing between a 22" and 24".

Arg, ninja'd three posts above....

My vid card is GeF 7600 GS 512 MgB.  Will probably get a 22 " F/S

[mrofni]

REH1967 wrote...

When LCD's first came out they did have issues in regards to ghosting and full motion "lag" due to slow response times, but that's pretty much a thing of the past now and not enough of a reason to hang on to the ancient CRT technology. New LCD's have good response time, the key is to find one that will run in a native resolution that "fits" your PC's graphics capabilities.

You're not entirely correct on this. Current LCD's still have some problems for gaming for the lag. If you're a heavy game for fps's and such, anything over a 6 ms gives you a slight disadvantage, over 10 a moderate disadvantage, considering equal play skill of course.  If you're not careful, I've seen LCD monitors on the market up to 16 ms or more, which is horrific for FPS gaming. I personally got a LCD monitor recently, 2 ms lag time, 20 inch, $225 when ordered online. Really nice for gaming.

Lag speed only really matters when you're playing FPS's though. If you aren't, it isn't a big deal.

Modifié par mrofni, 16 décembre 2009 - 05:24 .

[Xiphias]

mrofni wrote...

REH1967 wrote...

When LCD's first came out they did have issues in regards to ghosting and full motion "lag" due to slow response times, but that's pretty much a thing of the past now and not enough of a reason to hang on to the ancient CRT technology. New LCD's have good response time, the key is to find one that will run in a native resolution that "fits" your PC's graphics capabilities.

You're not entirely correct on this. Current LCD's still have some problems for gaming for the lag. If you're a heavy game for fps's and such, anything over a 6 ms gives you a slight disadvantage, over 10 a moderate disadvantage, considering equal play skill of course.  If you're not careful, I've seen LCD monitors on the market up to 16 ms or more, which is horrific for FPS gaming. I personally got a LCD monitor recently, 2 ms lag time, 20 inch, $225 when ordered online. Really nice for gaming.

Lag speed only really matters when you're playing FPS's though. If you aren't, it isn't a big deal.

You're not entirely correct either.

Those are the response time figures which how long the picture takes to change from one frame to the next once it's started. The display lag is something different and is how long the monitor takes before it starts initiating that change which is typically one or two frames (~16 or ~32ms) but can go as high as three or four. CRTs are zero frames.

Modifié par Xiphias, 16 décembre 2009 - 06:21 .

[mrofni]

You're right, but my point still remains that a higher amount can have an effect on gaming.

[montana_boy]

Xiphias wrote...

mrofni wrote...

REH1967 wrote...

When LCD's first came out they did have issues in regards to ghosting and full motion "lag" due to slow response times, but that's pretty much a thing of the past now and not enough of a reason to hang on to the ancient CRT technology. New LCD's have good response time, the key is to find one that will run in a native resolution that "fits" your PC's graphics capabilities.

You're not entirely correct on this. Current LCD's still have some problems for gaming for the lag. If you're a heavy game for fps's and such, anything over a 6 ms gives you a slight disadvantage, over 10 a moderate disadvantage, considering equal play skill of course.  If you're not careful, I've seen LCD monitors on the market up to 16 ms or more, which is horrific for FPS gaming. I personally got a LCD monitor recently, 2 ms lag time, 20 inch, $225 when ordered online. Really nice for gaming.

Lag speed only really matters when you're playing FPS's though. If you aren't, it isn't a big deal.

You're not entirely correct either.

Those are the response time figures which how long the picture takes to change from one frame to the next once it's started. The display lag is something different and is how long the monitor takes before it starts initiating that change which is typically one or two frames (~16 or ~32ms) but can go as high as three or four. CRTs are zero frames.

Not technically brilliant am I so.... am guessing that any  F/S .05ms (or better) will be just fine and dandy.  Right? 

[Monstruo696]

Good lord, a 7000 series?



You should spend some money on a better card first. Unless of course your computer is as old as your card, then you might just want to buy a new computer.

[montana_boy]

Monstruo696 wrote...

Good lord, a 7000 series?

You should spend some money on a better card first. Unless of course your computer is as old as your card, then you might just want to buy a new computer.

I appreciate your comments however my +7-year old computer was built by Falcon North West and it is a Small Form Factor Machine consequently does not take kindly to upgrades, I have tried.

A new machine would be great but that is not on the horizon at this time.

PS/ BTW the current 7000 series card is an up grade... originally I had a 5700!!!! LOL, kinda

Modifié par montana_boy, 16 décembre 2009 - 07:57 .

[Monstruo696]

montana_boy wrote...

Monstruo696 wrote...

Good lord, a 7000 series?

You should spend some money on a better card first. Unless of course your computer is as old as your card, then you might just want to buy a new computer.

I appreciate your comments however my +7-year old computer was built by Falcon North West and it is a Small Form Factor Machine consequently does not take kindly to upgrades, I have tried.

A new machine would be great but that is not on the horizon at this time.

PS/ BTW the current 7000 series card is an up grade... originally I had a 5700!!!! LOL, kinda

I used to have a 7 year-old computer with a 5200.  I know your pain.

Now I have a computer that can run 2 firefox screens and 9 tabs and every other computer I use feels like a pain in the ass because they can barely run 2-3.

[montana_boy]

[/quote]

I used to have a 7 year-old computer with a 5200.  I know your pain.

Now I have a computer that can run 2 firefox screens and 9 tabs and every other computer I use feels like a pain in the ass because they can barely run 2-3.

[/quote]

Lol.... How jaded we quickly become.

[Tyrax Lightning]

Consider this one for a try:

http://www.ecost.com...navid=155441519

I'm eyeballing this as a potential monitor upgrade for my low budget. It can connect to VGA & DVI. (For me, it'll be DVI.)

[BFBHLC]

Tyrax Lightning wrote...

Consider this one for a try:

http://www.ecost.com...navid=155441519

I'm eyeballing this as a potential monitor upgrade for my low budget. It can connect to VGA & DVI. (For me, it'll be DVI.)

That's fine and dandy, but most "monitors" are glorified HDTVs these days. They put that 720p (1366x768) limitation on most HDTVs/Monitors recently. Hell my Samsung 22" runs most games at 1600x1200, but it's only 22-inches. Whereas that would be PERFECT for my Westinghouse 32" HDTV, the 32" has a 1366x768 limit. I pushed it up more with a DVI-to-HDMI adapter, but it flickers a lot which probably isn't very good for it.

Modifié par BFBHLC, 16 décembre 2009 - 10:41 .

[montana_boy]

Tyrax Lightning wrote...

Consider this one for a try:

http://www.ecost.com...navid=155441519

I'm eyeballing this as a potential monitor upgrade for my low budget. It can connect to VGA & DVI. (For me, it'll be DVI.)

Hey, thanks

[Tyrax Lightning]

No problem.

[Sa Seba]

mrofni wrote...
You're not entirely correct on this. Current LCD's still have some problems for gaming for the lag. If you're a heavy game for fps's and such, anything over a 6 ms gives you a slight disadvantage, over 10 a moderate disadvantage, considering equal play skill of course.  If you're not careful, I've seen LCD monitors on the market up to 16 ms or more, which is horrific for FPS gaming. I personally got a LCD monitor recently, 2 ms lag time, 20 inch, $225 when ordered online. Really nice for gaming.

Lag speed only really matters when you're playing FPS's though. If you aren't, it isn't a big deal.

The problem is that fast response time can only be archived by TN Panels. Usually the faster the panel, the crappier the picture quality. A good middle way is an IPS panel, just like this one here: Dell 2209WA .
I know, its pricey but worth every penny.

I have a 5ms Samsung TN panel and it looks horrible compared to my IBM CRT.

[harrykim306]

I have a 30" dell lcd and it truly is beatiful completly blows the old crts out the window, admitly there were several problems when they were first launched but over the years the technology has gotten much better and now they are almost perfect.

[Xiphias]

harrykim306 wrote...

I have a 30" dell lcd and it truly is beatiful completly blows the old crts out the window, admitly there were several problems when they were first launched but over the years the technology has gotten much better and now they are almost perfect.

Yeah, but 30" 2560x1600 IPS screens are the cream of the crop and priced accordingly, if montana_boy can't afford to upgrade his 7600 I doubt he'll be buying one. Technically they do still trail CRTs in a couple of areas though, you'd be surprised how poor it's blacks looked next to a properly calibrated CRT.

montana_boy wrote...

Not technically brilliant am I so.... am guessing that any  F/S .05ms (or better) will be just fine and dandy.  Right? 

F/S?

If it's supposed to be something like seconds per frame then .05ms would be fine, but as that's 2000hz/fps then you won't find any monitors with that. 

If you're dealing with a 7600 then I wouldn't worry about response or delay or anything like that as you're probably used to a relatively low framerate anyway.

BFBHLC wrote...

That's fine and dandy, but most "monitors" are glorified HDTVs these days. They put that 720p (1366x768) limitation on most HDTVs/Monitors recently. Hell my Samsung 22" runs most games at 1600x1200, but it's only 22-inches. Whereas that would be PERFECT for my Westinghouse 32" HDTV, the 32" has a 1366x768 limit. I pushed it up more with a DVI-to-HDMI adapter, but it flickers a lot which probably isn't very good for it.

For 32" TVs it's not important, you usually view them from far enough away that you can't distinguish individual pixels so it's up to the manufacturer to decide whether the extra resolution is good for their screen or not. 

All this HD stuff has crept into monitors in the last year or two and for some bizzare reason it's being pushed rather heavily by some manufacturers. To me it doesn't make much sense. The standard mid-range computer resolution is 1920x1200, while Full HD is 1920x1080 so it's essentially 60 pixels chopped off the top and bottom. When so many common computer uses prioritise vertical space like web browsing, lists of music, pdf and text documents having a short monitor doesn't make much sense.

Another side effect is that it's made the market more confusing, it used to be that for a certain size virtually all screens had the same resolution so you just bought whatever would fit on your desk or whatever you could afford. Now, you can get 22" screens with more space than 25" screens. 

Unfortunately as well as aggressively promoting HDTV-shaped monitors they're also aggressively pricing them and 25-40% off at 1920x1080 isn't uncommon so you can't just leave this to the niche market it should be for and need to decide whether the reduced cost is worth the reduced height.


As to resolution in general you may have heard that LCDs are awful at non-native resolutions. This is intrinsically no more true than saying a resized photograph looks awful compared to the original. However, most LCDs do have fairly poor scalers so if you leave the scaling up to them it will look poor but modern graphics cards can do it as well and make a good job of it. I'm not sure if you're 7600 is new enough, check the nVidia control panel for options (sorry, I've ended up with ATI cards for the past six years so I've no idea where the option is). You should also be able to get the screen or card to display at 1:1 so the picture just uses the pixels it needs with no scaling and is the size it would be on a monitor of that resolution (with lots of black around it).

Modifié par Xiphias, 17 décembre 2009 - 04:04 .