Original post by TestType 1) Only follow this if your main priority is gaming. LCDs with response time lower than 6ms utilize TN technology. TN panels are the most low-end LCD tech available today with only two things going for it; fast response time and low cost. If color accuracy and range, viewing angles (espcially vertically) and color consistency at different angles is important to you then I would stay away from TN panels. Basically, if you do color critical work or value image quality over speed, don't buy a "gaming monitor" or any 22" model (they all use TN).
That's a good point. For me, gaming is important but not as important as development and graphics capabilities. I spend a lot more time reading, typing and drawing on my computer than gaming. However since I am making games on this computer then decent gaming capability is desirable. I'll have a read of your linked article to better understand the different LCD monitor types.
Quote:
(how the hell do you make clickable links here anyway? My BBcode's not working)
In these forums you make links using pure HTML with the angluar brackets, so:
Original post by T1Oracle 1) Response time: 5-2ms or less 2) Vertical Refresh Rate: 75Hz or better, 60Hz minimum
1) Only follow this if your main priority is gaming. LCDs with response time lower than 6ms utilize TN technology. TN panels are the most low-end LCD tech available today with only two things going for it; fast response time and low cost. If color accuracy and range, viewing angles (espcially vertically) and color consistency at different angles is important to you then I would stay away from TN panels. Basically, if you do color critical work or value image quality over speed, don't buy a "gaming monitor" or any 22" model (they all use TN).
You can read up on current LCD panel type offerings here: http://www.pureoverclock.com/article641-3.html (how the hell do you make clickable links here anyway? My BBcode's not working)
3) I was under the impression that all LCD are 60hz? Maybe somebody can enlighten me on that one?
I'm not sure I'd want a 22" monitor myself; that's pretty big, and a large jump from my current 17" CRT (with only about 15" viewable). Plus the native resolution is a bit taxing for my PC; I don't really have a strong gaming rig.
Nevertheless, a couple of people have recommended Samsung in this thread, so I'll look at their product range to see what else is available to compare with Dell.
I'm still debating whether LCD is the way to go. CRT monitors do have some advantages, such as greater resolution support, avoiding the dead pixel problem and a generally better colour range. However if I were to go CRT I'd probably have to get another 17", because there probably isn't enough room on my desk for anything larger.
One concern of mine is that I'm starting to get more into the artistic side of things, spending more time playing around with vector graphics in Inkscape than I used to. I'm not sure what monitor type would be best for this kind of work, as well as being good for lots of text-related activities such as programming and typing.
There is absolutely no reason to buy a monitor smaller than 22". Today 22" is standard for new computers. I'm using a 19" right now and it feels very tiny to do regular work with. In MSVC it's always annoying to have to resize the toolbars to get a good view. In Photoshop and 3D modellers it's even a lot worse.
My computer is really old now (5 years I believe), but I will upgrade later this year. I will probably go for a 22" but I would really like a 24" or 25". The only thing that stops me is that the averge 24" cost twice the price of a 22" monitor. Many of my mates have 25" inchers and some got 30" and they look so great! :D Doing 3D work/CAD etc on those would be so nice. Too bad I'm a poor student...
Edit: I just read you were considering buying a CRT monitor. Are you sure you can buy those now a days? In my country (Sweden) those haven't been for sale for a couple of years (can't buy CRT TV's anymore eighter). If you are worried about pixel errors. Go and visit a small computer store and ask if you can see the monitor before you buy it. Some stores can be really nice and helpful with this.
I have a Dell 24" WFP. Funny this topic came up, I'm sitting here after moving apartment and somehow in transit I got a dead pixel in it. I took great care, wrapped it gently in two towels and put it in a box and secured it so it would not move. So annoying since I've only had it for about 3 months and Dell don't cover dead pixels unless they are in a cluster of about 10 or more within 1cm squared.
Im using a samsung syncmaster 226bw after my 19"crt it was a big improvement.I really recommend it the widescreen really makes more room in visual studio.The colors are bright and it doesnt kill my eyes like my old flickering CRT :]
I'm using a BenQ 20.1" WS monitor and I've been completely satisfied with it. Its good for gaming (8ms) and the picture quality is very good. Also this monitor has a good history of having no dead pixels (not a single one on mine) and the price isn't too bad ($299 from newegg).
I think some people don't understand the difference between widescreen and non widescreen monitors.
A 19" widescreen is slightly bigger than a 17" normal (4/3)
A 22" widescreen is larger than a 19" normal, but smaller than a 21" normal.
A 17" and 19" normal are both 1280x1024 resolution, and it depends on if you like high DPI or normal DPI (17" is closer to high DPI, 19" is closer to normal DPI). You will find that a 19" LCD feels very good at 1280x1024 if you like your 17" CRT.
You will experience game slowdowns at 1280 compared to 1024 on a 9700 Pro, but it should handle that resolution very well for older games, or newer games on lower settings.
If you have the funds and want to upgrade to a newer GPU, the 1950 Pro was the nest bang / buck for AGP that was ever released, but a $150-$190 price tag is nothing to ignore. I currently use an X800 XL on a 19" @ 1280 and it runs every game I own except Supreme Commander as well as I'd want (FEAR, Oblivion, all of it). Supreme Commander runs fine, but I use a mix of low and medium settings. A 9700 Pro should run it jut fine at native resolution on the lower quality settings.
The key to remember is you have an old but high bandwidth (256 bit bus) video card, so your card has the bandwidth to handle 1280 without any problems- it just doesn't have the newer shader models and shader power to handle some modern quality options. It also has older AA algorithms so turning on FSAA and such cost you more performance than newer cards. If you don't use AA, you don't need a new card.
I used to really like my OLD 25 ms Samsung 19" LCD, until I got oblivion. That game made me get eye strain from the bad refresh rates in dark dungeons. Now I LOVE LOVE LOVE My Viewsonic VP930b 19" LCD with 8ms refresh. I chose the slower and more expensive 8ms refresh professional quality panel due to Tom's Hardware reviews. And I love it. The faster panels usually have either 6 bit color panels, and other color / rendering flaws. Also, the ratings are BS. If you read the in depth reviews, most panels rated 25ms are really like 16-55ms, those rate 8ms are like 8-25 ms, those rate lower at usually like <rating>-16ms or 25ms worst cases.
Mainly though I love my monitor because of its great quality and fidelity. It does cost too much though (still like $300-$325 when most are $200-$275) ... but has near ideal viewing angles and constrast, and a great build quality and 4" hight adjustment stand.
I'm using a 24" Dell LCD right now (Resolution is 1920x1200 which I think is the largest resolution a single graphics card can handle). At first, having such a big monitor felt really weird (coming from a 19" LCD), but now that I've gotten used to it, I wouldn't trade it for nothing. Big monitors or multi-monitor set-ups tend to make people more productive, so there's always that argument. And of course it's also great for playing games or watching movies (full HD). I think you can my monitor for around $600 which is a real bargain.
A few things to note:
- LCDs in the lower- to mid-price-range are really bad for doing graphics. The colors just aren't as good as on a CRT and the brightness distribution still isn't perfect. - Wide-screen monitors are bad if you want to play older games (1600x1200 stretched to 1920x1200 looks weird) - A lot of games run pretty well on these really high-resolutions, but pixel-shader heavy games (like all the really new ones) usually slow down noticably. Of course more modern games supports all kinds of wide-screen resolutions, so you can always go smaller. - It might be just me, but playing FPS on widescreen sometimes makes me a little motion sick
