Coming out soon, finally an LCD *I* would find worth buying. [Archive]

SlicerSV

08-28-2006, 08:51 PM

http://www.viewsonic.com/products/desktopdisplays/lcddisplays/xseries/vx2235wm/#specs

Elegantly styled, fast widescreen. ViewSonic's 22" VX2235wm widescreen LCD brings high style and high performance to desktop displays. Get set for intense GAMING, MOVIES AND ENTERTAINMENT with fast 5ms video response, DYNAMIC STRUCTURE™ TECHNOLOGY and an ultra-high 700:1 contrast ratio (typ). Images come at you in AMAZINGLY, CRYSTAL-CLEAR DETAIL with no blurs or ghosting. The widescreen enhances productivity because it lets you work in two applications side-by-side simultaneously. The integrated speakers provide rich sound to accompany your games, DVDs and other visual entertaiment. OPTISYNC® DIGITAL (DVI-D) AND ANALOG INPUTS provide flexible connectivity options. Mount this glossy piano-black, slim-bezel LCD on your wall and get to work - or play.

:toast: :toast: :toast:

It'd figure it'd be from the same people that made the CRT that i've not been able to give up in favor of LCD. My Viewsonic G90f has been completely owning all the LCD's I've ever worked with, but this one, this one will finally be able to put my CRT preference to rest. :fact:

According to the web site I originally found out about it on, it's also supposed to retail for a unbeatable price of ~300 euro's, or ~400 usd. Wait a minute... that's what i payed for my CRT! :woot:

phi|os

08-28-2006, 08:56 PM

What makes this LCD so special? I only ditched my CRT for my 24" ACER. It's sick.

SlicerSV

08-28-2006, 09:04 PM

5ms response time with a small price tag compared to other monitors of that size.

EDIT: and yeah, the acer is pretty sick, but it's got a sick price tag to match... 300:1 more contrast compared to the Viewsonic, 2" square more viewing area, but 1ms loss in response time. for that, you get to pay ~700, or ~300 more than the Viewsonic. wait... that's almost double the price.

WesM63

08-28-2006, 09:17 PM

SlicerSV

08-28-2006, 09:21 PM

The Viewsoinc uses a 6bit panel with dithering. Its not worth the $350 IMHO.

oh. hm... where's this info coming from?

iddqd

08-28-2006, 09:24 PM

LCDs have been making big steps in the right direction lately. Soon, they'll be on the same level as CRTs (they are getting incrementally closer, after all..)

I still prefer my 19" Flatscreen CRT for now, but in a couple years maybe I'd rather have an LCD :)

WesM63

08-28-2006, 09:31 PM

oh. hm... where's this info coming from?

http://www.hardforum.com/showthread.php?t=1088853

As much as I hate linking Hardocp, they have some really good info on LCD's.

InSanCen

08-28-2006, 09:32 PM

The Viewsoinc uses a 6bit panel with dithering. Its not worth the $350 IMHO. (You can buy this LCD at Costco)

Yea it'll work great for gaming if you don't care about real color accuracy. Its not good for people who work with photoshop and need color accuracy.

what would you reccomend for Photoshop?

I too haven't been able to step away from CRT's yet... the main photoshop rig runs 2x 22" LaCie's (Ouch!), I have a sweet 19" Gateway branded one on my rig, and the GF's runs an aincent, but workable 21" Compaq 210.

I'm looking to replace the LaCie's in a few months (amazingly, they will have resale value look what they still go for http://www.superwarehouse.com/LaCie_22_CRT_Monitors/b/307/c/1971/d )
but, as you say, I need colour accuracy, decent Brightness (Everything is matched at 9600K), and good contrast.

exhausted mule

08-28-2006, 09:41 PM

WesM63

08-28-2006, 09:47 PM

what would you reccomend for Photoshop?

I too haven't been able to step away from CRT's yet... the main photoshop rig runs 2x 22" LaCie's (Ouch!), I have a sweet 19" Gateway branded one on my rig, and the GF's runs an aincent, but workable 21" Compaq 210.

I'm looking to replace the LaCie's in a few months (amazingly, they will have resale value look what they still go for http://www.superwarehouse.com/LaCie_22_CRT_Monitors/b/307/c/1971/d )
but, as you say, I need colour accuracy, decent Brightness (Everything is matched at 9600K), and good contrast.

A true 8bit panel ;) It really depends on how big of a screen you want and how much your willing to spend.

Here is just a quick list of some:
BenQ FP231W
HP L2335
HP F2304
LG L2320A
Philips 230W5
Philips 230WP7
Sony P232W
Sony P234
ViewSonic VP231wb
http://www.eizo.com/products/lcd/S2410W/index.asp (supposidly the best, but very expensive at least from what i've heard)

EDIT: After looking some more, here are some 20" ws ones.

Dell 2007FP (*) has a 20 inch 16 ms S-IPS (LG.Philips LM201U04) eller et 8 ms (g2g) S-PVA (Samsung LTM201U1) panel.

Dell 2001FP (*) has a 20 inch 16 ms S-IPS (LG.Philips LM201U04) panel.

Acer AL2021ms (16 ms) has a 20 inch 16 ms S-IPS (LG.Philips LM201U04) panel.

BenQ FP2091 has a 20 inch 16 ms S-IPS (LG.Philips LM201U04) panel.

HP L2035 has a 20 inch 16 ms S-IPS (LG.Philips LM201U04) panel.

Iiyama E511S has a 20 inch 16 ms S-IPS (LG.Philips LM201U04) panel.

LaCie 20VisionII has a 20 inch 16 ms S-IPS (LG.Philips LM201U04) panel.

LG L2010T has a 20 inch 16 ms S-IPS (LG.Philips LM201U04) panel.

LG L2013B has a 20 inch 16 ms S-IPS (LG.Philips LM201U04) panel.

LG L2013P has a 20 inch 16 ms S-IPS (LG Philips LM201U04) panel.

NEC LCD2070NX has a 20 inch 16 ms S-IPS (LG.Philips LM201U04) panel.

NEC LCD2070NX-BK has a 20 inch 16 ms S-IPS (LG.Philips LM201U04) panel.

NEC LCD2080UX+ has a 20 inch 16 ms S-IPS (LG.Philips LM201U04) panel.

NEC LCD2080UXi has a 20 inch 16 ms S-IPS (LG.Philips LM201U04) panel.

NEC LCD2080UXi-BK has a 20 inch 16 ms S-IPS (LG.Philips LM201U04) panel.

Philips 200P4MG has a 20 inch 16 ms S-IPS (LG.Philips LM201U04) panel.

Philips 200P4SG has a 20 inch 16 ms S-IPS (LG.Philips LM201U04) panel.

Philips 200P4SS has a 20 inch 16 ms S-IPS (LG.Philips LM201U04) panel.

Philips 200P6IG has a 20 inch 16 ms S-IPS (LG.Philips LM201U04) panel.

Philips 200P6IS has a 20 inch 16 ms S-IPS (LG.Philips LM201U04) panel.

Sharp LL-T2015 has a 20 inch 16 ms S-IPS (LG.Philips LM201U04) panel.

Sony SDM-S204E has a 20 inch 16 ms S-IPS (LG.Philips LM201U04) panel.

Sony SDM-S204EB has a 20 inch 16 ms S-IPS (LG.Philips LM201U04) panel.

Sony SDM-S205FS has a 20 inch 16 ms S-IPS (LG.Philips LM201U04) panel.

Sony SDM-S205KB has a 20 inch 16 ms S-IPS (LG.Philips LM201U04) panel.

ViewSonic VP2000s has a 20 inch 16 ms S-IPS (LG.Philips LM201U04) panel.

ViewSonic VP201b has a 20 inch 16 ms S-IPS (LG.Philips LM201U04) panel.

ViewSonic VP201s has a 20 inch 16 ms S-IPS (LG.Philips LM201U04) panel.

MaxxxRacer

08-28-2006, 09:57 PM

This is one of their crap LCD's.....

WesM63

08-28-2006, 10:02 PM

This is one of their crap LCD's.....

Agreed. I've not seen any reviews and the only place that has it for sale is Costco. Somethings just not right about that.

InSanCen

08-28-2006, 10:17 PM

A true 8bit panel ;) It really depends on how big of a screen you want and how much your willing to spend.

Here is just a quick list of some:
{snip}
wow...

Okay, as you can see from the CRT's I use the best... will be looking for as much screen acerage as possible (I'm replacing 2x 1600x1200 with one screen), and the best image quality possible... I'm aware that this is going to cost me a fortune, but I should make enough from Photoshop to recoup it in a few months (got some nice work rolling in soon, invoicing on 30day terms)

So, I'll have about £2000 plus whatever I get for the Lacie's. Hopefully, will get somethng nice. would be fine with 2x smaller panels to make up on the screen acerage, but Image Quality is uber-important to me.

Care to narrow that list down a bit? (I know jack about high-end TFT/LCD screens)

Oh, and from checking out that Eizo, i prefer 4:3, but have a sneaking suspicion that I'm probably not going to get it.

lowfat

08-29-2006, 05:46 AM

Looks pretty crappy to me. I'll stick with my 3 year old BenQ until they start making LCDs with higher DPI like laptop LCDs.

Sanborn

08-29-2006, 07:03 AM

Sanborn

08-29-2006, 07:07 AM

Booo, I just noticed this monitor has decreased contrast and brightness over the VX2025wm.

nn_step

08-29-2006, 07:12 AM

Meh.. nothing uber special

krille

08-29-2006, 07:23 AM

Not impressed at all. Are you sure this is the right forum at all?

Hicks

08-29-2006, 08:02 AM

meh, no thanks, still be a long time till they reach CRT's for gaming.

WesM63

08-29-2006, 08:02 AM

I'll probbaly be buying this monitor, the VX2025wm has been getting rave reviews on all etailers like ebay and several people on IGN forums (which I hate) said they think the image is sharper than the 20" Dell wide (maybe its 19", but I dont care either way).

Add some size, lower the response time, and fix the tilt/swivel issues and this sounds like a damn good monitor. As for the 8bit vs 6 w/ dithering....is this even something you would be able to visibly see unless you were comparing pixels.

Double EDIT:
The 20" (2025wm) is a far superior panel compared to this one. (Most new 22-23" LCD's us a 6bit TN panel, besides the less colors, they have horrid viewing angles.) The 2025 uses a 8bit S-IPS panel. The 2007FPW also uses a 8bit panel.

Can you tell? Most people no, those of us who rely on colors to be accurate on the monitor before a image goes to print, yes!

Like I said, really a matter of opinion and what your going to use it for. 95% of people would be fine with a 6bit panel. FWIW, This monitor is FUGLY!

cadaveca

08-29-2006, 08:13 AM

Get a higher PPI w/ 20 inch.

I have LG 2013 and LG 204WT. The price difference was almost double for the 2013.

After using both screens, I appreciate the contrast ratio on the 204WT more than I do the 2013, when it comes to gaming.

On occasion you can catch the dithering used in the 204WT, and I've never seen anything like that on the 2013.

Comparing monitors is hard...it's not like you can post a screenshot...

The high contrast ratio of the 204WT(2000:1) helps it overcome alot of the usual issues with TN panels...probably 170 degrees before i notice the colour dim, which is less than my AOC CRT.

WesM63

08-29-2006, 08:56 AM

wow...

Okay, as you can see from the CRT's I use the best... will be looking for as much screen acerage as possible (I'm replacing 2x 1600x1200 with one screen), and the best image quality possible... I'm aware that this is going to cost me a fortune, but I should make enough from Photoshop to recoup it in a few months (got some nice work rolling in soon, invoicing on 30day terms)

So, I'll have about £2000 plus whatever I get for the Lacie's. Hopefully, will get somethng nice. would be fine with 2x smaller panels to make up on the screen acerage, but Image Quality is uber-important to me.

Care to narrow that list down a bit? (I know jack about high-end TFT/LCD screens)

Oh, and from checking out that Eizo, i prefer 4:3, but have a sneaking suspicion that I'm probably not going to get it.

Well, if 4:3 is what you want, HP makes a great 20" LCD (can't remember the model # offhand, will get back to you). That has a 1600x1200 rez. I think thats the biggest 4:3 LCD you can buy.

Wide screen seems to be the norm nowadays, you'd need at least a 24" to match 1600x1200. (like the eizo) Dell makes the 3007FPW which is a 30" wide screen with some ridiculously high rez (again not sure off hand, i've been looking into 20-22" ones).

Sanborn

08-29-2006, 09:02 AM

Thanks for the explination Wes, I think ill still be sticking with the 2025 then.

Revv23

08-29-2006, 09:24 AM

i love my 2005 dell, despite its bright spots (light shines through more in some areas then others)

i hate going back to my 19in viewsonic CRT, widescreen just owns...

I just wish it was a 24 in or even a 30 in.

HKPolice

08-29-2006, 11:21 AM

Nothing can beat the Sony FW900 24inch WS FD Trinitron CRT for gaming. No BS fuzzy resolution scaling, no measly 60Hz refresh rate. 1600x1024 gaming @ 100Hz and response time? 1ms? Or 1920x1200 @ 95Hz.

I know that 60Hz on an LCD looks smoother than 60Hz on a CRT, but 60Hz is still 60Hz, so your screen is only getting 60 updates a sec. All you gamers with Dual or Quad SLI setups pumping out 200FPS in games, none of it matters when your LCD can only refresh @ 60Hz!

Most people have yet to realize how important refresh rate is.

Sanborn

08-29-2006, 11:32 AM

^^ Sorry not all of us have $1000 to blow on a monitor. And the only part you got right about the 60hz LCD refresh was where you said "none of it matters".

I would rather play on an LCD with 60hz then a hulking massive 900 lb monitor at 100Hz, sorry. LCDs dont flicker like CRTs its not a big deal.

And I don't know what type of insane computer you have but unless you are running at 100fps in 1600x1024 at all times your screen would tear horribly in games.

HKPolice

08-29-2006, 11:49 AM

1) It goes for around $250-$350 on ebay after shipping. There are many rebranded versions out there as well.

2) It weighs about 90lbs, but it doesn't matter unless you goto LAN parties every week. The monitor is delivered to your house, you move it onto your desk and there it stays until whenever you decide to replace it.

3) I play CS Source a lot and I easily average ~130fps, dropping down to 70 in firefights.

4) You've got the tearing part backwards. If your video card is pushing out 100fps with VSync OFF, and your monitor can only refresh @ 60Hz then you'll see tearing. If your video is only pushing out 60fps but the monitor is refreshing @ 100Hz, then there is no tearing, it just won't be as 'smooth' as 100fps.

^^ Sorry not all of us have $1000 to blow on a monitor. And the only part you got right about the 60hz LCD refresh was where you said "none of it matters".

I would rather play on an LCD with 60hz then a hulking massive 900 lb monitor at 100Hz, sorry. LCDs dont flicker like CRTs its not a big deal.

And I don't know what type of insane computer you have but unless you are running at 100fps in 1600x1024 at all times your screen would tear horribly in games.

krille

08-29-2006, 12:08 PM

I know that 60Hz on an LCD looks smoother than 60Hz on a CRT, but 60Hz is still 60Hz, so your screen is only getting 60 updates a sec. All you gamers with Dual or Quad SLI setups pumping out 200FPS in games, none of it matters when your LCD can only refresh @ 60Hz!Pump up the eye-candy and turn on VSYNC and see those precious frame rates drop. Gaming on an LCD without VSYNC is, imho, repelling. And for a steady 60 FPS with VSYNC on in the latest games (and high eye-candy), I usually have problems even playing at 1024x768 with a single X19XTX. Then my LCD is crap so I notice any frame drops very easily (read 30+ms response time, it's got a few years on its neck).

~ Kris

SlicerSV

08-29-2006, 12:20 PM

well, then i guess it's not one i'd find worth buying. jeese... why does no one make a good lcd? i want the digital signal, but i don't want the crappy performance.

it's still a good stride imho, they just need to get a little further along and someone needs to make a high-performance panel that doesn't lose quality.

i guess i'm holding onto my CRT yet. until quality and performance on LCD come together with a 20+ inch wide display with 8ms or less response time, CRT is still the better technology.

my eyes are fast, i can definitely notice the lag on lcd, it creates an atrocious effect. i thought hey, 5ms, i shouldn't be able to notice that! but if image quality is really going to be as bad as you guys say, it's still not made it to what i need.

i guess i've got another non-news that i posted as news, eh? maybe i should stop trying ;)

kemist

08-29-2006, 01:27 PM

FWIW i have a FW900, and once you get them set up right they are very nice. I dont advocate them for internet or text, but for gamingthey are sweet and i dont think theres any lcd that can beat them for this currently (no input lag, flexible resolutions, no ghosting).

WeStSiDePLaYa

08-29-2006, 01:29 PM

whats the point of this thread? there is nothing special about this screen.

mdzcpa

08-29-2006, 02:20 PM

Nope, nothing special here :(

*sigh*

Editorial:
I'm really hoping an LCD comes along that'll make me want to part with my hulking CRT. My "22 NEC 2070SB runs hot and consumes desktop real estate the size of texas. It looks like old technology. I simply hate that. But I've yet to sit in front of any LCD that even comes close to my CRT in gaming. I've purchased 3 LCDs in the last 2 years and all of them were returned to the store. I'm also sick and tired of reading reviews claiming "no ghosting" in games only to be totally disappointed when I get the LCD home and I'm made half blind after 10 minutes of RTCW or BF2.

The search for the holy lcd grail continues..................

SlicerSV

08-29-2006, 02:29 PM

Nope, nothing special here :(

*sigh*

unfortunately...

I'm really hoping an LCD comes along that'll make me want to part with my hulking CRT. My "22 NEC 2070SB runs hot and consumes desktop real estate the size of texas. It looks like old technology. I simply hate that. But I've yet to sit in front of any LCD that even comes close to my CRT in gaming. I've purchased 3 LCDs in the last 2 years and all of them were returned to the store. I'm also sick and tired of reading reviews claiming "no ghosting" in games only to be totally disappointed when I get the LCD home and I'm made half blind after 10 minutes of RTCW or BF2.

and i have yet to sit in front of an LCD i can stand for surfing the internet! let alone games.

The search for the holy lcd grail continues..................

let's stop waiting for LCD to get better and start encouraging them to make something better. LCD technology was obviously never any good.

EDIT, at one time i was most optimistic about OLED, but now... SED (http://www.audioholics.com/techtips/specsformats/displaytechnologiesguide10.php) looks to be CRT's replacement... eventually... next year possibly!

eXa

08-29-2006, 03:16 PM

yeah, guess ill stick with my crt (or get a better crt cheap) untill sed or something else much better than lcd comes out.
Though, i do surf more than i play and for that the lcd is far superior than crt...

RPGWiZaRD

08-29-2006, 03:29 PM

Most people have yet to realize how important refresh rate is.

Finally some1's agreeing with me. :D

Until there's no 100Hz supporting LCDs, I won't bother with LCDs. :toast:

Seems like we'll never see one tho, I've seen a 100Hz LCD TV tho a philips one I think but it was like 42" and 700 - $800 sth. :rolleyes:

Sux for me currently, I've got here both a Sony Multiscan G420 19" trinitron CRT and a 19" Samsung SyncMaster 959NF diamondtron CRT, only had em for like a couple of weeks tops but both has scratches so I'm like forced to use an old Dell 1025HE 17" trinitron from 98'. Picture is great and supports up to 100Hz @ 1024x768 but I want 19" :nuts:

Both were scratchfree when I bought em, the Sony had a spot where the antiglare was coming off so I wiped away the antiglare of whole screen, everything was fine and all until I used some obviously not too smooth paper to dry away all liquid which resulted in 2 - 2.5cm pretty deep scratch and another not so deep ~3cm scratch. T_T

Then a couple of days ago I got a Samsung 959NF and all seemed great again but suddenly one morning I notice there's a ~2.5cm scratch and I'm like NOOOOOOOO, where the £@$@ did that come from. :brick: :wierd: :bsod:

It really sucks right now, two very nice monitors wasted and my parents are all like "you can't keep going on like this, need to save money for the studies blabla". I might be getting one other if can find a cheap highend 19" crt without scratches... This feeling keeps killing me... T_T

Bah, if they could still produce good ol' trinitron/diamondtron monitors I would be a happy chap. Sux having to hunt stuff I'd pay more for than some crap that costs like $200+. I used some 4ms LCD for 2-3 days once and then I switched back to the 17" CRT with broken red palette and felt more satisfied. Ghosting isn't a prob anymore on the LCDs but the refresh rate still is for "true" gamers!!! Sucks that they've been trying to improve resonse time since start (well I'm glad they did) and still are but nada is done to the refresh rate. That would bring many CRT lovers over to LCD market but oh well, let them have their ways...

I really prey that SED or whatever will be the next mainstream type isn't too far away and supports 100Hz+! The rest is just a bonus...

Why fix something that ain't broken, and replace it with a broken part?

WesM63

08-29-2006, 03:40 PM

HK,
60hz? I don't know where your getting that number, maybe from an old school LCD? Some of the ones I linked do at least 75hz at native resolution.

In my case, The Viewsonic VA1912wb, 85hz at 1440x900. (just a place holder till i finally decide which LCD I want)

afireinside

08-29-2006, 04:36 PM

It looks like old technology. I simply hate that. But I've yet to sit in front of any LCD that even comes close to my CRT in gaming. I've purchased 3 LCDs in the last 2 years and all of them were returned to the store. I'm also sick and tired of reading reviews claiming "no ghosting" in games only to be totally disappointed when I get the LCD home and I'm made half blind after 10 minutes of RTCW or BF2.

I feel the same way, Mike. My CRT is FAR from "great" (19" dell 75hz @ 1600*1200 85hz @ 1280*1024) and I'm sick of it taking up half my desk, but LCDs can't touch CRTs. I bought a 2005FPW back when they were all the rage and I must have talked to 20+ people who assured me there was NO ghosting. Anyway I get it, load up world of warcraft expecting to be "WOW'd" by widescreen gaming, instead I said "wtf does is look grainy for". Tried CS... "WHY DOES THE SCREEN LOOK LIKE A GIANT BLUR WHEN I TURN?" Anyway I delt with that for a few months before giving it to my mom and taking my CRT back, I couldn't have been happier. A few weeks ago I started hunting ebay for a 21-22" CRT but it just feels like going backwards to buy another CRT :(

HKPolice

08-29-2006, 04:54 PM

You have a (relatively small 19inch) 6bit TN panel. None of the 20inch+ widescreen S-IPS or MVA panels can go beyond 60Hz. There might be some 6bit TN 20inchers that can do 75Hz, but for hardcore gaming, 100Hz is the ideal. Even if you find a 100Hz panel, the response time will still be an issue.

From my experience, there is a difference even between 85Hz and 100Hz in CSS, especially when playing on 100tick servers (100 updates network updates per sec).

Of course, CSS is one of the most competitive FPS games out there, so it probably won't be as noticeable in other games.

HK,
60hz? I don't know where your getting that number, maybe from an old school LCD? Some of the ones I linked do at least 75hz at native resolution.

In my case, The Viewsonic VA1912wb, 85hz at 1440x900. (just a place holder till i finally decide which LCD I want)

HKPolice

08-29-2006, 05:02 PM

The 'grainyness' you experienced was probably due to resolution scaling. Turn it off, or run the game @ native LCD resolution and it'll be fine.

That's another point I hate about LCDs, this native resolution BS. If you buy a nice 24" for example @ 1920x1200 native res, you're pretty much forced to run all your games @ 1920x1200 or 1600x1200 to avoid any scaling. Not good if you plan on playing any current generation games (unless you have Quad SLI or something).

Or you could run the games @ lower resolutions with scaling off, and get stuck with a huge black border around your image, with nearly half of the LCD area unused.

It's been how many years since LCDs became mainstream? I am greatly disapointed at how slow things are progressing.

I feel the same way, Mike. My CRT is FAR from "great" (19" dell 75hz @ 1600*1200 85hz @ 1280*1024) and I'm sick of it taking up half my desk, but LCDs can't touch CRTs. I bought a 2005FPW back when they were all the rage and I must have talked to 20+ people who assured me there was NO ghosting. Anyway I get it, load up world of warcraft expecting to be "WOW'd" by widescreen gaming, instead I said "wtf does is look grainy for". Tried CS... "WHY DOES THE SCREEN LOOK LIKE A GIANT BLUR WHEN I TURN?" Anyway I delt with that for a few months before giving it to my mom and taking my CRT back, I couldn't have been happier. A few weeks ago I started hunting ebay for a 21-22" CRT but it just feels like going backwards to buy another CRT :(

[XC] Lead Head

08-29-2006, 05:16 PM

i've got an older BenQ V772 CRT, it works...but it only does 85Hz at 1024x768, and 60Hz at 1280x1024. 100Hz @ 800x600, but i can't stand gaming at 800x600

WesM63

08-29-2006, 05:33 PM

HK,
I was using my panel as an example, but all the 23 and 24" LCD's i've looked at are 1920x1200@85hz.

afireinside

08-29-2006, 05:45 PM

The 'grainyness' you experienced was probably due to resolution scaling. Turn it off, or run the game @ native LCD resolution and it'll be fine.

Only problem is, I WAS at native res. 1680*1050. Res scaling is another thing i don't like. I want a 1920*1200 screen for single player games and an xbox360/wii/ps3 when I get them, but I also need 1280*1024 for when I play multiplayer games. I play cod2 competitively and I can't deal with getting sub 125 fps at a higher res.

HKPolice

08-29-2006, 05:52 PM

Go check again. None of them can do 85Hz. They can do a MAX of 85Hz @ lower res maybe, but never @ native res.

Check out the Dell 2407FPW:

http://www.pricerunner.com/computing/peripherals/monitors/639757/details

Frequency at max. resolution : 60 Hz

HK,
I was using my panel as an example, but all the 23 and 24" LCD's i've looked at are 1920x1200@85hz.

shimq1

08-29-2006, 06:15 PM

I thought refresh rate didn't really matter for LCDs.

From Wikipedia:

"LCD displays

Much of the discussion of refresh rate does not apply to LCD monitors. This is because while a phosphor on a CRT will begin to dim as soon as the electron beam passes it, LCD cells open to pass a continuous stream of light, and do not dim until instructed to produce a darker color. Pertaining to LCDs, see also response time. "

SlicerSV

08-29-2006, 06:21 PM

yeah, refresh rate doesn't apply to LCD's, but response times do. and i'm sorry, but i think someone should try to do a comparison of perceived performance of CRT's at a specific refresh to LCD's at a specific response time. since CRT response time is equal to the refresh rate, it shouldn't be too hard. my estimation is that an LCD would need to have a response time less than 8ms MAXIMUM, for us CRTers to make the switch.

WesM63

08-29-2006, 06:30 PM

Go check again. None of them can do 85Hz. They can do a MAX of 85Hz @ lower res maybe, but never @ native res.

Check out the Dell 2407FPW:

http://www.pricerunner.com/computing/peripherals/monitors/639757/details

Frequency at max. resolution : 60 Hz

That my very well be true. None of the specs I see tell at what rez they can do 85hz. They just say "60-85hz vertical" and "native rez 1920x1200" i came to the conclusion based on previous experience with LCD's that they look like :banana::banana::banana::banana:e at any rez other than the native.

BTW, I don't want this to turn into a CRT vs. LCD thread. This was not my intention, i am trying to help those who had questions about LCD's. CRT's are still dominate for gaming IMHO. That is a separate thread on its own, same as the AMD vs. Intel ones.

HKPolice

08-29-2006, 06:38 PM

No, that statement is misleading.

Sure, if you're just websurfing then there is no difference between 60hz and 100hz because there is barely any movement on the screen.

When you're playing a fast paced FPS game where the smallest twitch of your mouse causes every single pixel on your screen to change, then it's a different story. Higher refresh rate is always better in this situation.

Also, DO NOT get confused between refresh rates and response times. Refresh rate is the number of times the screen gets refreshed every second.

Response time is the DELAY between when the monitor receives the signal from your video card, and when the actual refresh takes effect.

I thought refresh rate didn't really matter for LCDs.

From Wikipedia:

"LCD displays

Much of the discussion of refresh rate does not apply to LCD monitors. This is because while a phosphor on a CRT will begin to dim as soon as the electron beam passes it, LCD cells open to pass a continuous stream of light, and do not dim until instructed to produce a darker color. Pertaining to LCDs, see also response time. "

cadaveca

08-29-2006, 07:08 PM

I thought response time was the time it takes the pixel to go from black-white-black to grey-white-grey?:stick:

And unless you get 100FPS 100% of the time, then 100HZ is useless, IMHO. it's the lowest framerate that concerns me, not the fastest. Any setting that gets 100FPS ain't gonna get it consistently, and when framerate drops...whoa boy.

tear comes from the card drawing too fast for the refreshrate of the monitor, so the partially finished frame gets pushed out of the framebuffer. This is why triple buffering gives such a boost to "with v-sync".

HKPolice

08-29-2006, 07:43 PM

And what causes the pixel to go from black to white? A refresh signal from the video card. Which happens 60 times a sec on most LCDs. Upto 100Hz and beyond for CRTs.

If you want to turn on max eyecandy and run around @ 60FPS all day, go for it. But for those of us who are actually competitive in FPS games like CSS, 60FPS doesn't cut it. Going from 60FPS to 100FPS = a 66.6% increase in the frequency of updates.

To each their own, but you can't deny that running @ a higher refresh rate is always better than lower a refresh for gaming, unless you max everything out and cap the max FPS to 60.

Even if the FPS drops down to 60FPS on a 100Hz refresh screen, it doesn't mean that everything turns into a slideshow. It'll still look as smooth as 60FPS on a 60Hz screen. Such massive frame drops are not very common on a properly set up system anyways.

I thought response time was the time it takes the pixel to go from black-white-black to grey-white-grey?:stick:

And unless you get 100FPS 100% of the time, then 100HZ is useless, IMHO. it's the lowest framerate that concerns me, not the fastest. Any setting that gets 100FPS ain't gonna get it consistently, and when framerate drops...whoa boy.

tear comes from the card drawing too fast for the refreshrate of the monitor, so the partially finished frame gets pushed out of the framebuffer. This is why triple buffering gives such a boost to "with v-sync".

brandinb

08-29-2006, 08:39 PM

lol this is getting rediculious.

this monitor looks really good to me and it was on costco.com for 350 dollars thats friggen awesome.

i think im setteling for a widescreen 19 inch though its 5ms and only 179 on the egg its this one
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.asp?Item=N82E16824254005

cadaveca

08-29-2006, 08:51 PM

uh ,actually, the response time is as WSP says, exactly. The panel itself, @ 6-bit, say, for a TN, will do 16.7m colours. One of the things that limits this, is the response time of the aperature of the pixel itself from going from either black-white-black, or cyan to magenta. because this aperature can change only so many times per second, and because almost every colour is produced by dithering(multiple colours alternating), response time is most important, and not refreshrate, as, like WSP states, pixels only get "refreshed" if thier colour-state changes.

So, this also bring us to the difference in TN and IPS panels....IPS and VA screens will do 256 cyan, yellow, and magenta colours, while TN does 64 of each, and hence the difference in colour quality. However, because the response time of TN panels is higher, it can simulate the performance of a IPS or VA screen, and really is only apparant for those that use colour-matching with prints.

So, how does response time fit in with all of this? Well, manufacturer's only list GTG or BTB response times, so this is the only important part, however, most important is the fact that this is an aspect of the panel and not of signal time from the videocard. If the panel is not changing colours during a refresh, and how fast they change colour is not of any importance, than why does it matter if you use DVI or VGA, and why doesn't this affect HK's "response time"?

RPGWiZaRD

08-30-2006, 04:25 AM

To those who says refresh rate doesn't matter on LCDs, I can tell the difference even when moving on the mousepointer, anything that causes a movement is enough for me to tell difference between 60, 75, 85 and 100Hz.

Did a test on my bro's 4ms LCD, he switched randomly between 60 and 75Hz and launched Unreal Tournament and I was able to tell if it was running in 60 or 75Hz EASILY EVERY time. :p:

Maybe I'm a bit more sensitive than others I dunno but that's how it is for me and anything below 85Hz is disturbing when gaming for me. And I play all kinds of games, I'm not a CS freak or Q3 or whatever. Currently playing Flatout2 and the game runs much smoother in 100Hz than 85Hz for example.

I couldn't see any ghosting on that TN panel tho in whatever game I tried, UT1 & Q3 for example. Just not the same feeling with lower refresh rate.

Sanborn

08-30-2006, 04:53 AM

I don't know what kind of crappy LCDs you guys are using but I have a Sony 17" with 14 ms responce and there is 0 ghosting. I've used Dell 19 and 24" wides, all types of low responce LCDs, and many CRTS. As long as you don't buy bottom of the barrel back alley monitors or ones with refresh rates above 16-18ms in my opinion there is no difference. I'm fairly sure that all of you who are being hardcore CRT supporters have used 1 LCD in your life and seem to think you know everything about it.

I switched from a fantastic 21" viewsonic CRT to a 17" Sony LCD and couldn't be happier. Maybe I had the worst crt in the world, who knows........... but I would be able to tell if there was blur, trust me.

and rpgwizard:
"Did a test on my bro's 4ms LCD, he switched randomly between 60 and 75Hz and launched Unreal Tournament and I was able to tell if it was running in 60 or 75Hz EASILY EVERY time. "

Thats a load of bull, you would need a side by side comparison to even notice the difference and even at that point it would be hard to tell. Not to mention if your brother was playing UT while this so called "test" was going on he could have easily done something in game to bring the FPS down that would change the appearance of the performance.

RaZz!

08-30-2006, 05:20 AM

60hz + vsync on is teh crap tbh. i can't stand competitive first person shooters with less than 85 fps. 85fps is the minimum for me.

believe it or not, there is a huge difference between 60hz, 75hz and 85hz, especially when vsync is enabled...

my father has a 19" viewsonic ftf with 8ms response time and i was disappointed in the tearing and ghosting in games. for games like age of empires or something this might be enough, but für games like ut, quake and other fps i'd get eye cancer lol
i've tested a lot of tfts and unfortunately none was able to convince me. the only tfts which - in my opinion - are suitable for fps-gaming are some benq 15/17" with 4ms response time. but who wants to buy a 17" or even a 15" tft.
19" is the minimum for me.

i'd like to buy a sony fw900 crt, but that thing consumes way too much power. my bill would be terribly high lol

hopfully, the next generation monitors (oled & sed) kick ass. sooner or later i'm going to upgrade to this kind of monitors.

kemist

08-30-2006, 05:49 AM

I don't know what kind of crappy LCDs you guys are using but I have a Sony 17" with 14 ms responce and there is 0 ghosting. I've used Dell 19 and 24" wides, all types of low responce LCDs, and many CRTS. As long as you don't buy bottom of the barrel back alley monitors or ones with refresh rates above 16-18ms in my opinion there is no difference. I'm fairly sure that all of you who are being hardcore CRT supporters have used 1 LCD in your life and seem to think you know everything about it.

I switched from a fantastic 21" viewsonic CRT to a 17" Sony LCD and couldn't be happier. Maybe I had the worst crt in the world, who knows........... but I would be able to tell if there was blur, trust me.

I have a VP191b which has one of the most uniform response times, not the lowest at any one point, but the entire gtg response is under 16ms so theoretically there should be no ghosting; its widely regarded as a very good monitor w/ regards to ghosting. However, i still do see ghosting with this monitor. Because you dont notice ghosting doesnt mean it doesnt exist, different eyes see different things. Like i said before, im not going to argue CRT over LCD for normal desktop usage. But CRT is still the benchmark for gaming. That said LCD gets better every year, but its probably still at least a good year or two behind, and it will never not have a native resolution.

Sanborn

08-30-2006, 05:52 AM

Lies Kemist lies !!

If I do not hear a sound it is not made!
If I do not feel the wind from inside it does not blow!

I'm just messing around, but I knew someone would respond with that. I agree it really is a useless debate, and both formats will be in the trashcan when SED arrives anyways (OLED might as well just get skipped over and stick to other markets)

Shpoon

08-30-2006, 06:03 AM

Honestly, I could care less...My monitor (lcd - Hyundai L90D+) runs @ 60Hz @1280 x 1024, and I could care less...I don't expeirance ghosting, and the ocntrast is enough to satisfy me...I'd never go back to CRT...

60 FPS is honestly fine...I'd take that over a flashing monitor anyday...(or huge priced monitor). I'll just turn up all the settings...

WeStSiDePLaYa

08-30-2006, 06:03 AM

I have a VP191b which has one of the most uniform response times, not the lowest at any one point, but the entire gtg response is under 16ms so theoretically there should be no ghosting; its widely regarded as a very good monitor w/ regards to ghosting. However, i still do see ghosting with this monitor. Because you dont notice ghosting doesnt mean it doesnt exist, different eyes see different things. Like i said before, im not going to argue CRT over LCD for normal desktop usage. But CRT is still the benchmark for gaming. That said LCD gets better every year, but its probably still at least a good year or two behind, and it will never not have a native resolution.

GTG response time of 16ms isnt that good at all. i wouldnt be suprised at all if you see ghosting with it.

with my 8ms acer i see very very minimal ghosting. small enough that i dont notice when im playing an FPS. and acer has been known to embellish their specs.

if you get a good 5ms or less samsung or such you shouldnt be able to notice it no matter how much you look.

BlackX

08-30-2006, 06:06 AM

and rpgwizard:
"Did a test on my bro's 4ms LCD, he switched randomly between 60 and 75Hz and launched Unreal Tournament and I was able to tell if it was running in 60 or 75Hz EASILY EVERY time. "

Thats a load of bull, you would need a side by side comparison to even notice the difference and even at that point it would be hard to tell. Not to mention if your brother was playing UT while this so called "test" was going on he could have easily done something in game to bring the FPS down that would change the appearance of the performance.

No its not BS.
There is a big difference between 60 and 75 Hz. If you dont see it, its your problem.

Sanborn

08-30-2006, 06:10 AM

It's not a problem at all...its just a horrible way to test something. Its like staring at a moving car and saying you can tell that its moving 30 mph vs 25.......

Look I have no doubts you guys think all LCDs blur and your CRTs are vastly superior, thats fine. It just irks me when people jump in LCD threads and instantly go "LCD's suck CRTs are sooooooo much better"

cantankerous

08-30-2006, 07:37 AM

My Samsung 204b plays fantastic at 1600 x 1200 5ms with 60hz. It plays just fine.. no lag, no ghosting nothing. I see no issues with 60hz on an LCD cause it doesn't refresh or flicker. Gameaplay is silky smooth for me on just about everything.

Magnj

08-30-2006, 07:57 AM

Meh, I went for a HannsG 19" widescreen and I could not be happier for 185$ @ my door. :banana::banana::banana::banana: I might buy a second one because it looks so damn good.

cadaveca

08-30-2006, 08:22 AM

To those who says refresh rate doesn't matter on LCDs, I can tell the difference even when moving on the mousepointer, anything that causes a movement is enough for me to tell difference between 60, 75, 85 and 100Hz.

It DOES matter, but it's not as important on an LCD as it is on a CRT. To me, most ghosting happens because the response time of the pixels is very different depending on the colour state, and when one pixel changes slightly faster than the pixel next to it, you get a "ghost". So, the faster teh response time, the less ghosting is apparant. Think of a staduim "wave"...the ghosting is the peak of the wave.

However, ghosting is a cumulative effect of FPS, response time and refresh rate all being out of whack, and when you get a good panel with a good controller, 16ms response times are not that big of a deal, as the transitions from colour to colour can be managed to reduce ghosting. Dithering can also reduce this, and of course an IPS panel is going to be better than an TN in doing this, supposing the response times where equal. The larger colour pallete of the IPS panel can make the transition alot smoother to the eye.

TN panels with low refresh rates tend to have bad vertical viewing areas, however i have noticed that this is mostly a contrast issue, when comparing my FP93GX and the L204WT.

kemist

08-30-2006, 09:36 AM

GTG response time of 16ms isnt that good at all. i wouldnt be suprised at all if you see ghosting with it.

with my 8ms acer i see very very minimal ghosting. small enough that i dont notice when im playing an FPS. and acer has been known to embellish their specs.

if you get a good 5ms or less samsung or such you shouldnt be able to notice it no matter how much you look.

IIRC it was marketed as 8ms gtg and actual testing showed sub 16ms along the entire curve. Just because an lcd is supposed to be 8ms means crap; where in the curve did they measure. If you look at almost all response curves for "fast" lcds there are huge regions above 16ms (16ms = 60fps). So despite the 2ms rating on some LCDs you should still see ghosting in certain parts of the grey to grey or color range.

Another problem increasingly seen is that with the large overdriven panels input lag is introduced on top of the typical response time lag. Some dont notice, but many competitive FPS gamers have. Also highly overdriven panels usually lag on the fall from the color overshoot, leaving things bright for too long ( i may be seeing this with my panel, im not sure, its usually a white halo on a dark background)

Finally, crt is still more flexible due to non native resolution. I wont say crt is for everyone. It is big and hot and looks old. But like i said before it still cant be beat for gaming. I'm with sanborn though, i hope SED comes soon :)

Also let me clarify a bit: i'm not saying that LCD's look completely terrible and arent usable at all (even for gaming). I'm just saying that CRT is still better in regards to gaming, its not as huge a lead as it once was and for some the other benefits of LCD outweigh the remaining disadvantages.

I still have the LCD and i use it daily for desktop stuff (which LCD excels at) the CRT is specifically for gaming and gaming only.

afireinside

08-30-2006, 09:46 AM

i can't stand competitive first person shooters with less than 85 fps. 85fps is the minimum for me.

That's it? I want AT LEAST 125 when I play cod2. I deal with 100 in CS because over that and the game gets screwey :p: I can tell between 125 and 200 fps easily. It feels very different.

It seems most casual gamers don't care and will say it's fine, but it's really not. Hardcore gamers or even more importantly, those who play for money, will notice 60/75hz refresh and ghosting EASILY.

cadaveca

08-30-2006, 11:07 AM

LoL. If you are playing for money, then the most expensive IPS monitor is best for you. A Carpenter is only as good as his tools...

revenant

08-30-2006, 11:25 AM

What makes this LCD so special? I only ditched my CRT for my 24" ACER. It's sick.

heh... I just got the 2423, that what you got? man, it's fast.. color me happy. :D

JamesAvery22

08-30-2006, 11:35 AM

Well I'm not playing to get paid... But I'd sure like to see an LCD for myself before buying it. Anyone in the Northern VA area that has a 3007WFP A01 that I could watch you play a game or two on? :(

Specs are specs and you should fully understand them before purchasing. But I don't think anyone should say "It's an LCD so it won't look as good in gaming compared to a CRT" or "It's got this refresh rate so it will ghost." It won't look good to who? Who will notice ghosting?
With anything visual there are tolerances. Those tolerances GREATLY depend on the person that is observing(I'm guessing the range of eye's on this forum varies greatly :D ). If you have 20/20 and can see a flies wings flap then hats off to you. Just remember there are some that can't. Same goes for vice versa. If you tend to run into poles and skinny people on a regular basis, remember there are some that can see better than you can :)

RPGWiZaRD

08-30-2006, 11:57 AM

It DOES matter, but it's not as important on an LCD as it is on a CRT. To me, most ghosting happens because the response time of the pixels is very different depending on the colour state, and when one pixel changes slightly faster than the pixel next to it, you get a "ghost". So, the faster teh response time, the less ghosting is apparant. Think of a staduim "wave"...the ghosting is the peak of the wave.

However, ghosting is a cumulative effect of FPS, response time and refresh rate all being out of whack, and when you get a good panel with a good controller, 16ms response times are not that big of a deal, as the transitions from colour to colour can be managed to reduce ghosting. Dithering can also reduce this, and of course an IPS panel is going to be better than an TN in doing this, supposing the response times where equal. The larger colour pallete of the IPS panel can make the transition alot smoother to the eye.

TN panels with low refresh rates tend to have bad vertical viewing areas, however i have noticed that this is mostly a contrast issue, when comparing my FP93GX and the L204WT.

As usual ppl mistake that we're talking about ghosting... :rolleyes:

I already said I COULDN'T notice the SLIGHTEST ghosting/blur in any game I launched on my bro's 4ms for example (this includes CS/UT/Q3 which are very sensitive to ghosting). That's not it, but every1 seem to think CRT lovers are talking only about ghosting when they say LCDs suck and :banana::banana::banana::banana:. Well it's not, I'm talking about refresh rate myself not response time. I know an LCD doesn't blink but it still has to change colors on the pixels where refresh rate seems to matter. The higher refresh rate the smoother gameplay, some notice this better than others, period. I'm glad I'm not the only1 to think the same one this one, HKPolice seems to share same view. I agree refresh rate doesn't matter as much on LCDs as the screen doesn't flicker, but when there's movements on the screen and the colors has to change, then it seems to matter.

If you don't notice any difference then good for you, I'd wanna move to LCDs myself but I've tried different LCDs at friends place (even a 2ms) but none just could give the same feeling and since I'm able to tell difference also between 60 and 75Hz on a LCD (trust me on this one it's not any difficult for me, I would be using analog 75Hz mode on my bro's LCD rather than DVI which is limited to 60Hz in the native res on his) I'm sure the refresh rate is the problem. If there would appear a 19" LCD with 100Hz and 8ms or faster response time I'd buy it anyday.

Is the technology not allowing it or don't they think it matters or what's the problem, I'm sure the company that made the 1st comp LCD to support 100Hz in the native res would become praised by gamers and sell very well. Of course the native res is still a slight prob with LCDs but it's not anything that would stop me from using one.

Sparky

08-30-2006, 12:31 PM

The Viewsoinc uses a 6bit panel with dithering. Its not worth the $350 IMHO. (You can buy this LCD at Costco)

Yea it'll work great for gaming if you don't care about real color accuracy. Its not good for people who work with photoshop and need color accuracy.
didn't have time to read the whole thread so if this was already addressed then please ignore this :p:

I own the vx2025wm and it is a true 8-bit panel. Many viewsonics are 6-bit but the vx2025wm among a few others are 8-bit.

Again, if this was already mentioned then I'm sorry for repeating it but I didn't have the time to read everything.

:toast:

WesM63

08-30-2006, 06:27 PM

didn't have time to read the whole thread so if this was already addressed then please ignore this :p:

I own the vx2025wm and it is a true 8-bit panel. Many viewsonics are 6-bit but the vx2025wm among a few others are 8-bit.

Again, if this was already mentioned then I'm sorry for repeating it but I didn't have the time to read everything.

:toast:

.... ;)

The 20" (2025wm) is a far superior panel compared to this one. (Most new 22-23" LCD's us a 6bit TN panel, besides the less colors, they have horrid viewing angles.) The 2025 uses a 8bit S-IPS panel. The 2007FPW also uses a 8bit panel

WeStSiDePLaYa

08-30-2006, 06:54 PM

believe it or not, there is a huge difference between 60hz, 75hz and 85hz, especially when vsync is enabled...

my father has a 19" viewsonic ftf with 8ms response time and i was disappointed in the tearing and ghosting in games

obviously if it was tearing you didnt have v-sync enabled. because tearing is not a monitor problem, but a video card/driver issue. so you say LCD's suck because you cant configure your drivers?:slap:

"oh noes! my graphics are having teh bad artifaks! it must be teh evil LCD's!"

Sparky

08-30-2006, 08:30 PM

.... ;)
heh I knew it probably was addressed already but o well slap me :slap: :D

WesM63

08-30-2006, 08:58 PM

heh I knew it probably was addressed already but o well slap me :slap: :D

NP, there was/is alot of good info in this thread.. now its kinda turned into a LCD vs. CRT pissing match. Which i'm clearly choosing to stay out of.

Cooper

08-31-2006, 08:21 AM

This one goes to PC related discussions.

And do behave yourself guys - no personal insults in ANY form :nono:

cadaveca

08-31-2006, 09:06 AM

As usual ppl mistake that we're talking about ghosting... :rolleyes:

I already said I COULDN'T notice the SLIGHTEST ghosting/blur in any game I launched on my bro's 4ms for example (this includes CS/UT/Q3 which are very sensitive to ghosting). That's not it, but every1 seem to think CRT lovers are talking only about ghosting when they say LCDs suck and :banana::banana::banana::banana:. Well it's not, I'm talking about refresh rate myself not response time. I know an LCD doesn't blink but it still has to change colors on the pixels where refresh rate seems to matter. The higher refresh rate the smoother gameplay, some notice this better than others, period. I'm glad I'm not the only1 to think the same one this one, HKPolice seems to share same view. I agree refresh rate doesn't matter as much on LCDs as the screen doesn't flicker, but when there's movements on the screen and the colors has to change, then it seems to matter.

If you don't notice any difference then good for you, I'd wanna move to LCDs myself but I've tried different LCDs at friends place (even a 2ms) but none just could give the same feeling and since I'm able to tell difference also between 60 and 75Hz on a LCD (trust me on this one it's not any difficult for me, I would be using analog 75Hz mode on my bro's LCD rather than DVI which is limited to 60Hz in the native res on his) I'm sure the refresh rate is the problem. If there would appear a 19" LCD with 100Hz and 8ms or faster response time I'd buy it anyday.

Is the technology not allowing it or don't they think it matters or what's the problem, I'm sure the company that made the 1st comp LCD to support 100Hz in the native res would become praised by gamers and sell very well. Of course the native res is still a slight prob with LCDs but it's not anything that would stop me from using one.
You're missing the point, tho. Because each pixel does not get "refreshed" there really is NO REFRESHRATE ON LCDs. Because we are dealing with individual pixels and not scan lines the responsetime is effectively the refreshrate. Although you may THINK you're not talking about ghosting, in reality, you are. Not that it's your fault, blame the ambiguous nature of the industry's nomenclature for that.

When it takes 2ms for the pixel to change, it's effectively capable of displaying 500hz. But because the colours produced by an LCD are not just one colour, but a multitude of repeating colours(once again, dithering), the refreshrate term does not apply. When you see one colur, you are effectively seeing the LCD "refresh" itself every few ms, for just one colour. This ends up being FASTER THAN A CRT, as a CRT scans each pixel in succession, and not every every pixel at the same time as an LCD could(assuming the controller can handle such a load).

kemist

09-01-2006, 08:14 AM

Cadaveca,

I understand what you are saying about refresh rate for lcds. But the max framerate you can ever get with a 60hz refresh rate, at least with vsync on cuz tearing looks nasty, is 60fps; the comp is only outputting to the display 60 times a second. This IS a problem and manufacturers have been starting to make some LCD's, mainly tv's i think, with refresh rates up to 100hz.

Correct me if this is wrong, but i believe this is correct. If this is true it doesnt matter if the pixel is update 500 times per second, its updating the same color for many of those frames and is therefore just staying static.

also heres a monitor that actually finally sounds decent, from travbomb an NEC employee over at hardforums:

NEC will be launching the LCD2490WUXi this Nov/Dec with the A-TW-IPS panel. I think we will be the first to use it but i am not sure. The 23 inch panels are going to be discontinued across the board at some point here and replaced by 24's but that may not be until beginning of 07.

LCD2490WUXi - Preliminary Specs
$1400
1920x1200
12 bit LUT
Color Comp
Spectraview II Calibratable - Firmware Calibration.
4 Year warranty.
Fully adjustable - Height, swivel, pivot
178/178
500 cd/m2 (based off LG panel spec - not final)
800:1 (based off LG panel spec - not final)
6ms GtG (based off LG panel spec - not final)

Let me know if I forgot anything.

mat128

09-01-2006, 08:32 PM

mat128

09-01-2006, 08:43 PM

edit: sorry for double post.

[XC] Lead Head

09-01-2006, 09:15 PM

I did read the whole thread and I just wanna add something, having a p90f (crt) and tried a vx922 for a whole month, compared in clone mode, the LCD has a much higher contrast, possibly higher brightness (if set such) and most importantly, perfect geometry. Something I could add is that the first time I plugged the vx922, I felt my mouse was moving differently, setting it @ 75hz somehow fixed the problem, because I was usually running at 85hz on my crt. So it seems that either windows or something is acting up and I was feeling my mouse differently. I did not see ghosting at all on my vx922 but I got some tearing in BF2 which is probably related to the fact that I had vsync off. Another note I could add is that LCDs seem more vulnerable to low fps (sub-40 for my personal preference). It just seems like lag is more affecting my eyes, or something similar. Apart from that, I could see a bit of dithering in photoshop's color gamut but that's it. The overall monitor was better looking for both me and my family, while set in clone mode. Plus LCDs have very small footprints which is a good thing if you have a limited desk space. To conclude, the only thing I didn't like about the vx922 is the tearing I was getting in bf2, but that was due to vsync I suppose.

LOL. ALL LCDs have crap contrast compared to CRTs. The best PC LCD only has like a 700:1 contrast ratio or seomthing, CRTs have a near infinite ratio, of course if you wacked up your CRT's brightness to 100% then the contrast ratio changes dramaticly, but if your CRT is functioning properly, it will be able to display optimally at 0% brightness, wich is what mine is set to, blacks look completely black, no light leak at all. EDIT:Also, if i wack up the brightness on my CRT to 100, its bright enough to hurt your eyes, but at that brightness the contrast ratio goes down

sephiroth8748

09-01-2006, 11:16 PM

My Samsung 215TW has a 1000:1 contrast ratio.

[XC] Lead Head

09-02-2006, 04:40 AM

My Samsung 215TW has a 1000:1 contrast ratio.

And? Thats still nothing compared to CRTs

cadaveca

09-02-2006, 08:21 AM

I have 2000:1 on my LG204WT. Still not as nice as a crt, but it's getting there.

Correct me if this is wrong, but i believe this is correct. If this is true it doesnt matter if the pixel is update 500 times per second, its updating the same color for many of those frames and is therefore just staying static.

Yeah, you are right, to a degree. The pixel will "refresh" itself a few times displaying a single colour in order to keep sync with the slowest colour "refresh", as well as to display more colours. A TN panel, for example, as I mentioned before, only has 64 of each yellow, cyan, and magenta, and this only ends up giving some 200,000 colours, but ANY TN panel can display 16.7 or 16.2 million colours by quickly alternating one colour after another. This change happens so fast that we perceive it as a single colour, rather than two or three alternating.

Going from blue to red is very fast, but red to blue is much slower. in order to compensate for this, many colours may be used to make this transition smoother, and sometimes to lengthen the time the colour is displayed. When the timing of this is off, you get ghosting, and under very higher framerates, ghosting is a more common problem, as the pixel has less time in any given state. This is why we see TN panels as "gamer" LCDs...the faster response time means it can display more FPS before ghosting, of course, giving up a bit of colour quality to do so, however and IPS panel, with it's many more colours than a TN, has more colour transitions, so can deal with ghosting in an entirely different way, but, is still slower.

Anyway, this is where things get a bit confusing...in a CRT, a "refresh" is displaying one full screen, top to bottom; how long the cannon takes to "scan" the screen is what we are talking about.

In an LCD, a refresh is simply changing from one colour state to another, assuming the slowest colour transition is displayed only, and not the full range of colours available. An LCD with 60hz refresh can display EVERY colour at a minimum of 60hz...but some can, and are, displayed MUCH faster. And more often than not, it's not really 60hz, it's 62.5hz, but becasue comsumers are used to 60hz, 60hz is listed. But in that 60hz, that screen might actually be refreshed @ 180hz...but due to dithering we don't see it.

But then bring in a IPS panel, that is rated @ 60hz...it displays a far more varied colour palette, so it's refresh is really very different from a TN panel...it can display an almost limitless amount of colours, but it takes a bit longer to do so. It's also does not use as much dithering(depending on the LCD's controller and firmware), and therefore it's 60hz is a far more accurate to the CRT's labelling of "refresh".

response time on an lcd is changing from one colour state and back again, and usally rated @ black to white to black, or grey to white to grey. Obviously, by this standard, when you realize how LCD's work, it's quite obvious that even during that response time the pixel is displaying more than one colour state, and therefore is being "refreshed" more than once to do so.

kemist

09-05-2006, 05:36 AM

Yes that makes sense. What i was getting at though is that if you are using Vsync with a 60hz refresh rate you are limited to 60fps. Earlier others were saying that this wasnt an issue, but this is obviously a lot less visual information than 75 or 100fps. Whether or not you can see the difference you can probably feel it with regards to responsiveness.

cadaveca

09-05-2006, 09:28 AM

Well, that's a given, and one of the major reasons that I just got my first LCD a few months ago. I've been used to 1600x1200 @ 85hz, and sure, there is a slight difference in the way games look via the LCD, in regards to framerate, but to me, this is offset by the accuracy of a LCD in comparison to a CRT...a CRT, due to using a lens, will never have the definition of each pixel that a CRT does.

kemist

09-06-2006, 09:13 AM

Haha i think the only conclusion we can form from this thread is that LCD vs CRT is personal opinion.

cadaveca

09-06-2006, 09:26 AM

I don't think so. It's more of the application of the device that makes the difference. In all ways a LCD is inferior to a CRT...except size(only in footprint) and consumed materials. A LCD can be much bigger and retain more clarity than a CRT does...and when bigger is better...well...

MrDeeds

09-06-2006, 09:34 AM

Haha i think the only conclusion we can form from this thread is that LCD vs CRT is personal opinion.

The arguement is such a joke at times. The crt fanboys never admit that the overall viewing experience on a lcd is much better than a crt a good 70% of the time.

I've seen bad lcds and i get the majority of the arguement. People buy a $170 on sale 19" lcd see ghosting and put that on all lcds across the board. It just isnt that bad with the more quality lcds. To the op, that monitor is crap.

[XC] Lead Head

09-06-2006, 10:09 AM

InSanCen

09-07-2006, 11:13 AM

The arguement is such a joke at times. The crt fanboys never admit that the overall viewing experience on a lcd is much better than a crt a good 70% of the time.

I've seen bad lcds and i get the majority of the arguement. People buy a $170 on sale 19" lcd see ghosting and put that on all lcds across the board. It just isnt that bad with the more quality lcds. To the op, that monitor is crap.

Okay... you can call me a CRT fanboy if you want, but I simply have not seen an LCD that is better (Why would I spend money to get the same?) than my 2x22" Lacie's at an affordable price! (I don't care about Power Consumption or Footprint)

I think you'll find that with a large amount of the poeple still using CRT's by choice.

Oh, and I take objection to you saying that I would compare a el-cheapo 19" to any other monitor... it's like comparing a 14" CRT to my Lacie's... Ths is XS, people are usually better informed. Don't treat us like idiot's, please.

And I'm not even getting into the whole"Mine os better than yours" argument.. I love my viewing experience, you love your's... end of, people are different, with different needs.

Quest_7F

09-07-2006, 04:11 PM

ugh my 19inch was 189.99 samsung 940bw, it has 4ms, but i use my viewsonic crt still.

syne_24

09-07-2006, 09:03 PM

Guys, ultimately it comes down to personal preferences. There is nothing wrong with CRT or LCD. One thing for sure is that LCD will replace CRT eventually as it gets even better. Technology changes to be more efficient, space saving, and a better product. And that is basically what LCD is aiming for. It's fine if you dont think it's better for you but it's a great alternative.

kemist

09-08-2006, 06:58 AM

The arguement is such a joke at times. The crt fanboys never admit that the overall viewing experience on a lcd is much better than a crt a good 70% of the time.
.

Like i said before, this is true with text/desktop stuff, but generally not true for video, and definitely not true for gaming. That probably is 70% of the time but if you are a hardcore gamer it may not be true.

mdzcpa

09-08-2006, 03:56 PM

The arguement is such a joke at times. The crt fanboys never admit that the overall viewing experience on a lcd is much better than a crt a good 70% of the time.

This is simply horse crap (no personal offense). First off there isn't an LCD made (regardless of price) that can keep up with CRT image quality in video and gaming. Not a one. Every LCD I've tried has been been top end, well reviewed, well received, and well complimented by the media and users. And everyone one has had at least some issues with video and gaming compared to my high end crt.

Sorry but having an LCD that "isn't that bad" is not good enough for me. I demand a high quality LCD to be at least on par, if not better, than a high quality CRT. I'm not going to settle for nasty ghosting because its "not that bad." I want zero ghosting in face paced games and videos....Z-E-R-O.

The real truth is that the guys that like the LCDs simply tolerate less than great video and gaming viewing in exchange for better power consumption, smaller footprint, and (sometimes) better text/desktop stuff. More power to em, but I'm not willing to settle in the video and gaming departments.

EDIT- Just for giggles I hit up the local BB ad CC tonight and yet again, disappointment. They had the 204wt noted below, and it looked great except for uneven backlighting, colorbanding, and a little ghosting when playing a FPS. Desktop, IE, and text looked awesome though.

cadaveca

09-08-2006, 04:54 PM

Actually, i think most LCD users that report they are happy have gone from a dying, dark CRT to a new fresh bright LCD, like myself. ALthough the framerate is better, side-by,side to my CRT's, the CRT's suck against the 204wt. Of course, I can hear it now"that's YOUR opinion".

SXS

09-10-2006, 12:40 AM

Jeeez, all this warfare between LCD and CRT...

Look, nearly all cards have dual ports on the back right?

Right!

So get a top-notch LCD like the VP2030b (MVA! not cheapotastic ugly pixelation TN panels!) for photoshop/cad/general pc use...

and plug a top-notch CRT (like a diamontron/top shadowmask) to the other port, set the Nvidia/ATI profiles to use the monitor you want for D3D and there you go, sorted.

IMO, its the people that cant afford to buy a decent LCD or justify its purchase which are still living in the dark ages.

My VP2030b is SHARP, solid, colour clarity FAR exceed my old Mitsubishi 22" crt, and DVD's look beautiful, I get NO tearing in f1-2002 with v-sync OFF!!! no pixelation, no gradient crap and no backlight bleeding.

A top-of-the-range MVA panel is the way forward, TN's DO NOT COME CLOSE! and I HAVE tried a lot of panels, believe me, I've been through a 4 month RMA trial of a dozen odd TFT's, the new cheap LG's suck! SERIOUSLY! unless you've tried a VP2030b you dont know how much the difference is between a gneral entry LCD and a TOP-CLASS TFT, the 8ms on top-notch MVA's is normally as acurate as you're gonna get, and there is NO GHOSTING! NO BLEEDING!.... but the TN panels suffer a lot more, the 5ms and less on TN's is achievable in this day and age and current technology advancements, but its still the old-hat tech, and the pixels are visible, its like sitting up-close to a CRT! the whites might be BRILLIANT white but this aint supposed to be a washing-up power commercial! lol

There are some CRT owners who are genuinely not impressed, because they have been exposed to poor setups. I would suggest you look in the yellow-pages and find a design house, walk in and see their TFT's, most likely it will be Eizo or the top-of-the-line Viewsonics, in Mac users case its probably the huge Apple Cinema screens (which are consequently S-IPS, which is a good screen but not the best for FPS games!) This is why I rate the Viewsonic VP2030b soooo highly, its currently using the latest in MVA panels and at the same time its 8ms is REAL! all this 5ms and 2/4ms screens out there, rubbish! put them side by side to an MVA and you will see the difference, it REALLY is night and day... but get a pro to set them up and calibrate the ICM correctly before you fall for the 'see this one is wicked for its price' crap...

A screen is your gateway to the information super-highway and your pleasuere - games/pron whatever takes ya fancy... dont go cheap on it... you tend to keep a good screen a lot longer... look at the old diamondtron screen hardcore users for example!

Anyway thats my peice!

:)

[XC] Lead Head

09-10-2006, 07:54 AM

I don't know where you get dying dark CRTs from...I have my CRT set to 0% brightness, at that its bright enough for everything. If I whack it upto 100%, its bright enough to hurt my eyes.

I believe SED technology will be the winner out of them all.

for those who dont know,
Instead of one big electron gun like in CRTs, there is a tiny electron gun for each pixel. It will have the same space profile as a LCD, but all the things that make CRTs rock

WeStSiDePLaYa

09-10-2006, 06:57 PM

kemist

09-11-2006, 11:08 AM

This just keeps going back and forth. For the guys that say LCD/CRT is "teh uBer Roxxorrs 200056375x more beTTAR than teh oTohher 4 everyTHIngz". Here's a quote i saw over at [H], "Nobody can say CRT > LCD or LCD > CRT. As with so many other things in life, there are tradeoffs and depending on your application one will be better suited than the other."

The people saying that those that like CRT just havent tried high end LCD, this just doesnt fit, you can find many high end videophiles that still mourn the death of CRT because LCD/Plasma just cant compare in some ways. Likewise CRT isnt the king of everything; perfect geometry is nice, and so is text quality on LCD, but they both have their advantages and disadvantages and if you are able to delude yourself into believing that this isnt true for either then feel free. Like i said, i have a CRT and an LCD and use them for different things, the things that they are best used for respectively.

mdzcpa

09-11-2006, 05:01 PM

CRT guy: "buts i looked at teh lcd's at the local BB and they looked like teh :banana::banana::banana::banana:! it doesnt matter that those places have multiple monitors set up on a single, overly long piece of low quality vga cable instead of a decent dedicated quality DVI cable!"

Actually, for the record, I've purchased 5 LCDs in the last 18 months, had each them at my house, connected all of them to my top end gaming systems with DVI cable.......and they still looked like CRAP when gaming. Ignoring the poor color reproduction and backlight bleeding, they were simply blurry playing fast paced FPS games.

LOL...I was told "you'll get used it." But, I don't want to have to.

The people saying that those that like CRT just havent tried high end LCD, this just doesnt fit, you can find many high end videophiles that still mourn the death of CRT because LCD/Plasma just cant compare in some ways.

This is me. I don't dis the LCDs. As a matter of fact, my first post on this thread indicated just how bad I'd like an LCD. For general desktop use they are awesome. Not too mention the real estate and power savings too. They also simply look cool. I'd have one in a heartbeat if they could look good with faced paced gaming.

Perhaps others here on this thread have said CRTs>LCDs....I know I haven't. But I HAVE said that when it comes to fast paced gaming there still isn't an LCD that compares to CRT.....yet.

I think a lot of the arguement comes from tghe LCD guys that do not want to admit they have had to "settle" for something less in gaming when moving to LCD. As has been said...its a trade off between the technologies, nothing more. And, for me personally, a great gaming experience is paramount...therefore my preference to CRT......until now!! :eek: (that's right.....see below).

mdzcpa

09-11-2006, 05:13 PM

Unbeleivable, but true!

I think I found an LCD I am going to keep!! That's right...you heard it here first!!

This thread has had me researching for the last week and half looking for an LCD I could live with. I've been through a TON of them...priced from $450 to well over $1k. They all sucked for gaming IMO.

Then, above, someone recommended the inexpensive LG 204wt. I went to look at it at the store and it looked crappy. Text and desktop looked awesome, as did "some" gaming. But I fired up a first person shooter and proceeded to walk out the door disappointed.

However, while thumbing through the paper, I saw that my local CC was selling the monitor for an incredible $299. I thought "what the heck" I'll take one home and hook it up to my own system and see what i can get out of it. For that price why not. I can always return it in 14 days at no charge.

Sooooo, I brought it home and hooked it up. As usual desktop looked awesome. Great color production for being only 6 bit. No bleeding at all. No dead pixels. Hmmmmm....not a bad start.

I then fired up BF2 ready to be disappointed. OMFG!!! It looked great!! Ghosting and blurriness were almost undetectable. Unlike previous LCDs I've tried, within one hour of gaming I loved it. Its a keeper!!

To be honest, I was expecting it would take a $1,000 LCD to satsify me. But, nope. It was a inexpensive, no frills, widescreen. Paint me fickle, but I'm now an LCD convert:D

eXa

09-12-2006, 03:29 PM

lg 204wt, ill have to write that down...

edit: nice its cheap here in norway too. but 2000:1 in contrast... thats BS right? i was considering samsung 205bw wich cost about the same but maybe this lg is a better choise.

syne_24

09-12-2006, 04:57 PM

I dont see a lot of people talking about LG monitors. But they are pretty damn good. My old LG L1981Q had color that is still more superior than my Samsung 215TW. It was more rich and deep tone yet still vibrant. I wish it would make a 21-22 widescreen. LG makes some nice quality monitors for sure.

cadaveca

09-12-2006, 07:03 PM

Funny..imagine that..i mentioned the 204wt, and someone else bought one... and agrees it's a great unit...even someone that said CRT's were better. Glad you like the monitor, mdzcpa.

Like I said earlier, it depends on your usages which is best, but the difference, now, is so close, that only if you are worried about colour-correction does it matter.

But everyone, pls keep in mind i'm talking about newer monitors...and ya know...they really use the same old panels...but it's the controller pushing those panels that makes the real difference.

As well, the older LG monitors DO NOT COMPARE to the new line. Once agian, different controllers, as well as brightness. the 2000:1 on the 204WT really makes the difference of the 1400:1 of the old LG's, which were still very good units...passed over many time because of "ghosting"...:rolleyes:

BTW, let's be honest...
This is simply horse crap (no personal offense). First off there isn't an LCD made (regardless of price) that can keep up with CRT image quality in video and gaming. Not a one. Every LCD I've tried has been been top end, well reviewed, well received, and well complimented by the media and users. And everyone one has had at least some issues with video and gaming compared to my high end crt. would be "dissing" a LCD over CRT.

And i bet ya you are powering the monitor with a far better vidcard than was in the store...it matters...because ghosting isn't just a problem with the panel...

WeStSiDePLaYa

09-13-2006, 02:41 PM

mdzcpa

09-13-2006, 03:52 PM

Funny..imagine that..i mentioned the 204wt, and someone else bought one... and agrees it's a great unit...even someone that said CRT's were better. Glad you like the monitor, mdzcpa.

LOL....no surprise really. It was indeed your suggestion that had me check out the unit in the first place:)

Although it looked crappy in the store, I knew I had to bring it home to check it out first hand....as I had done countless times before with other LCDs. The only difference this time is that it did not disappoint.

As well, the older LG monitors DO NOT COMPARE to the new line. Once agian, different controllers, as well as brightness. the 2000:1 on the 204WT really makes the difference

This I agree with 100%. I've tried previous LCDs (at home on my system) and they did in fact disappoint. This new LG is clearly a better unit.

BTW, let's be honest... [mdzcpa comment] would be "dissing" a LCD over CRT.

I have to disagree here. Just because I feel LCDs do not compare to CRTs in fast paced gaming does not mean I am dissing LCDs. I beleive my previous comment stands. Although I really like this LG alot, it is, at best, only close in performance to my CRT for gaming. My CRT was still better. The difference now is that this unit is "close enough" in performance to my CRT for fast paced shooters that I am willing to concede a tiny bit of quality to gain the better power usage, real estate usage, desktop 2D performance, as well as gain a widescreen which is simply awesome for gaming.

And i bet ya you are powering the monitor with a far better vidcard than was in the store...it matters...because ghosting isn't just a problem with the panel...

Again I fully agree that this was indeed the case.

Every other LCD that I have tried in the past (and been disappointed with) was tried at home on my own system. And I have always had a top of the line video card. So my previous judgements are valid. I never disregarded an LCD by relying only on the in store performance.

That's why I continued to do my research (based on your recommendation of the LG 204wt) even after my in store look was negative. I knew I had to actually take it home to really know what it could do as i had done in the past. This time, however, I was pleased instead of disappointed:)

thunderstruck!

09-13-2006, 05:05 PM

Just to be clear, the LG 204wt has a 8 bit LG/Phillips panel. Great montior IMO, I am getting one soon.

mzdcpa: How close are your eyes to the monitor when gaming? Can you give me an exact length?

kemist

09-13-2006, 07:56 PM

Just to be clear, the LG 204wt has a 8 bit LG/Phillips panel. Great montior IMO, I am getting one soon.

mzdcpa: How close are your eyes to the monitor when gaming? Can you give me an exact length?

That an SIPS? From most of what i have read the newer SIPS panels are currently the best over _VA panels especially in large sizes.

Anyway glad mdzcpa could find a panel he liked :) Im hoping that some of the newer panels coming out in the next year or two rack it up a notch. Which looking at that 26" NEC seems like will happen. Until then, for gaming ill stick to my 24" trinitron :p:

cadaveca

09-14-2006, 06:27 AM

Just to be clear, the LG 204wt has a 8 bit LG/Phillips panel. Great montior IMO, I am getting one soon.

Actually, the 204wt features a 6-bit TN panel. It's an old slow panel, with a great controller and contrast engine. It's also the same panel in most other 20-inch widescreens, but LG has done this one right.

http://www.lge.com/products/model/detail/l204wt.jhtml

The monitor sits 15 inches from my face.

mdzcpa

09-14-2006, 03:02 PM

mzdcpa: How close are your eyes to the monitor when gaming? Can you give me an exact length?

I'd say about 17 inches.

Actually, the 204wt features a 6-bit TN panel. It's an old slow panel, with a great controller and contrast engine. It's also the same panel in most other 20-inch widescreens, but LG has done this one right.

They must have done something right, cause this monitor looks great. I knew the 6-bit TN panels were considered "old tech" (hence the very affordable price tag), but I'm not sure how they have it working so well.

I tried out the similar looking (but more expensive) Samsung SyncMaster 215TW and Dell UltraSharp 2007WFP. I'm not sure what panels these monitors use, but they just didn't look as good as this 204wt during gaming. They both ghosted noticeably enough to really bother me. The 204wt barely has any ghosting at all and only in the most unique of circumstances (eg first person shooter with many players on the screen, all up close and all moving fast in different directions...such as a spawn location). Even then, its barely noticeable. But with the Dell and Samsung it was terrible looking. And YES, I had both the Dell and Samsung at home and running off a good vid card (7800GTX 512 in SLI).

So, whatever LG did with this panel, it really does a nice job.

Do you think the 5ms response time is for real and the reason behind it looking so good in faced paced games?

thunderstruck!

09-14-2006, 03:30 PM

this is the email i got from LG about the 204WT, Dear Matt, Thank you for your e-mail. The monitor you are inquiring about has the 8-bit true color. If you need further assistance please contact our computer department at 800-243-0000. Thank you again for inquiring of LG Electronics. Kristi Email Administrator Customer Interactive Center LGEAI

its deff. the 8bit panel, it looked wayyy too good to be 6bit!

Here's a good thread. I don't normally visit, but they have some good information on LCDs: http://www.hardforum.com/showthread.php?t=1076405

mdzcpa

09-14-2006, 05:44 PM

Here's a good thread. I don't normally visit, but they have some good information on LCDs: http://www.hardforum.com/showthread.php?t=1076405

Wow...that's interesting. I thought the 204wt just used dithering to simulate up to 16.7 million colors. But that email does say "true" 8 bit color.

Hmmmm:confused:

cadaveca

09-14-2006, 06:48 PM

LoL. Tech support. I wonder if it's inhouse or outsourced :stick: lol. The L203WT is 8-bit...the 204 is a different beast. Or maybe not...lol..16.7 should be 8-bit, 16.2 should be 6bit. Still a TN panel tho.

eXa

09-21-2006, 08:58 AM

:woot: Now Samsung has a new 22"! i was considering the 205BW untill i read about the LG screen. but now samsung has an 225BW and it doesnt cost that much more... hard choise!
is there a 22" version of the LG too?

cadaveca

09-21-2006, 10:46 AM

yes, there is , but @ the same resolution...i'd take the smallest screen @ each res myself. Most 22 are 1680x1050...the odd one is 1920x1220. TN panels tend to not go that high. S-IPS for larger screens.

eXa

09-21-2006, 11:39 AM

i like that resolution!

Edit: soo... are you saying its S-IPS or TN?

eXa

09-23-2006, 06:07 PM

do you have any info about the 22" version of LG 204wt? cant find any!

gr8golf

09-24-2006, 07:51 PM

I tried out the similar looking (but more expensive) Samsung SyncMaster 215TW and Dell UltraSharp 2007WFP. I'm not sure what panels these monitors use, but they just didn't look as good as this 204wt during gaming. They both ghosted noticeably enough to really bother me. The 204wt barely has any ghosting at all and only in the most unique of circumstances (eg first person shooter with many players on the screen, all up close and all moving fast in different directions...such as a spawn location). Even then, its barely noticeable. But with the Dell and Samsung it was terrible looking. And YES, I had both the Dell and Samsung at home and running off a good vid card (7800GTX 512 in SLI).

Mike - I was happy to read this post. I have the Dell and have been thinking that I'd like a better panel for gaming. I have been an LCD convert for a year now, it was hard but the plusses outweighed the inferior gaming performance. I think I'll pick one of these up tomorrow and see how they compare - I hope I come away as happy as you sound. I had actually been considering looking into CRT's again.

gr8golf

09-24-2006, 07:56 PM

Unbelieveable! I just checked the 4 local stores for stock on this monitor and none of them have one! Is this model being discontinued?

thunderstruck!

09-25-2006, 08:21 AM

Nope, it just sells out fast because it's a damn good monitor. Also, it's pretty much only available at CC

gr8golf

09-26-2006, 06:24 PM

Okay - ordered it up off the CC website. Will be here on Friday. I'll be interested in the head to head comparison with the Dell 2007WFP. I also ordered up an XFX Extreme 7900GTX last night - for $238.99! Might be a price mistake deal that falls through, but I haven't had the order canceled yet - *crosses fingers*. If that doesn't work out I'll be ordering an eVGA 7950GX2. I hope the next gen (DX10) cards ship within the next 90 days - that step up program is the main reason for going eVGA.

mdzcpa

09-27-2006, 04:46 PM

Mike - I was happy to read this post. I have the Dell and have been thinking that I'd like a better panel for gaming. I have been an LCD convert for a year now, it was hard but the plusses outweighed the inferior gaming performance. I think I'll pick one of these up tomorrow and see how they compare - I hope I come away as happy as you sound. I had actually been considering looking into CRT's again.

Sorry I missed your post. I think you'll be happy trying this panel. It was definitely the best of the group I tried. Its not the largest....but it certainly looked better than some of the newer 22s and 24s.

Let me know how you make out.

afireinside

09-27-2006, 08:12 PM

Khaotic

09-28-2006, 12:17 AM

The Dell 2407 has me pretty impressed. I've got to spend time with last years 2405 (spare monitor at a fellow gamers house) and I like it. 24" wide screen.
The 2407 is this years model.
I WANT IT

mdzcpa

09-28-2006, 05:16 PM

Mike do you play with vsync on or off? Is there any input lag? Is tearing bad at 200+ fps? I was about to buy that 600 dollar NEC 20" display until I tried a 2005fpw again and couldn't get over the ghosting and tearing. Everyone I talked to says the tearing is terrible on all LCDs without vsync on. If this is ghosting free and minimal I'm sold :D

I play with vync off. Probably a "left over" habit from my crt days. I haven't noticed any tearing that would have prompted me to go back and turn it on.

That said, I run mostly new games with all the eye candy maxed, so I'm not seeing much at 200fps...even with my GX2. With res at 1680 x1050 with AA and AF cranked and all in game detsials maxxed, something in the 50 to 90 range is more common (for games like Company of Heros, Oblivion, Prey, etc).

afireinside

09-28-2006, 06:28 PM

Well if it doesn't tear at 90 then I'm not going to worry. Thanks for the answers :) Might pick one up soon.

gr8golf

09-28-2006, 08:07 PM

I got my LG 204wt today and hooked it up to my rig and fired up CoD2. First impressions are that it is pretty similar to my 2007WFP. I'll give it some time and go back and forth before I stick with that observation - maybe I was expecting too much. I have to tweak the settings some to get it to *look right* to me.

A couple minor complaints - I don't like that it is not height adjustable. It sits too low for me and I'll likely have to stack somthing underneath it for it to work. I also don't know why the hell they put the control buttons on the BACK of the panel as opposed to being right next to their labels. It is just wierd. It doesn't have the inputs or adjustments that the 2007WFP has, but much of that may well be irrelevant. Time will tell - gotta love the CC return policy. :banana:

mdzcpa

09-29-2006, 03:50 AM

Sorry to hear you're a little disappointed with it. I may have over rated it I guess. But I've found the LCD world to be terribly subjective. One of the most impressive qualities was simply the price. It lacks just about all the bells and whistles, but for under $300 out the door I guess my expectations were very low. I should have stressed the lack of features more.

As for the picture quality, well, that's the subjective part. With a far better contrast and actual response time, I'll maintain it looks better in games than the 2007WFP, especially in fast paced shooters. Colors are more accurate in photos as well.

Anyway, I'm learning a lot about LCDs and what makes them tic through all of this. I'd certainly love to hear more feedback about the LG from others even if it isn't as positive as my opinion might be. I'd like to know more about my other options out there.

cadaveca

09-29-2006, 08:29 AM

A couple minor complaints - I don't like that it is not height adjustable. It sits too low for me and I'll likely have to stack somthing underneath it for it to work.

This is my only problem with the unit, but i stuck a vidcard box underneath :p:

Color on any screen must be adjusted when you get it. LCD/CRT, TV or monitor, they all need to be adjusted.:D

gr8golf

09-30-2006, 09:50 AM

I'm still tweaking this thing and trying to get something that *looks* good to me. Then I'll get some side by side going with the Dell and see which one to keep. I may well be bottlenecked by GPU and seeing some issues there running CoD2 @ 1680x1050 (all effects off). I'm getting a 7900 GTO next week.

cadaveca

09-30-2006, 10:28 AM

The GTP should help. I can play pretty much every game @ the monitor's native resolution, with all details cranked, but i got Crossfired X1900's. I waited to buy the monitor until i had the cards to power it.

eXa

10-04-2006, 08:24 AM

@mdzcpa

Have you tried Samsung 205BW? (or 225BW)

mdzcpa

10-04-2006, 03:32 PM

@mdzcpa

Have you tried Samsung 205BW? (or 225BW)

No I did not. I did, how ever, try the more expensive 215TW which turn out to be "so-so" in my opinion. Perhaps the faster response time of the 205BW would make it better? No sure.

eXa

10-05-2006, 08:53 AM

it would be sweet if you could compare 205BW with the LG one!

thunderstruck!

10-05-2006, 09:00 AM

I'm compared the two as well as many others, LG gets the vote. :up:

WesM63

10-05-2006, 09:11 AM

Mike, Glad to hear you found a LCD that works for you!

I like my 19" Wide Viewsonic 1912wb. 6bit TN panel, 8ms response. Works great and i've noticed no ghosting. The only downfall IMHO is the 6bit panel and the 1440x900 rez. I'm still in search for that 22-24" beast that can do it all.

mdzcpa

10-05-2006, 03:33 PM

I'm still in search for that 22-24" beast that can do it all.

If you do, let me know. I'd love a bigger panel, but none of them do as well as the 20s IMO. When a larger panel comes out that looks and performs as good as this LG, I'll make the upgrade.

What is wierd about the LG I'm running is that all the stats say its 8-bit. I though all TFT were 6 bit, but the specs are clearly 8-bit. I'm not sure how, but that's what they say. The contrast is certainly consistent with 8 bit.

http://www.tftcentral.co.uk/newscontent.htm#l204wt

http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=51648&stc=1&d=1160091188

http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=51649&stc=1&d=1160091489

Dunno :shrug:

cadaveca

10-05-2006, 03:43 PM

8-bit it is. 16.7m colors=8bit. It's what makes the difference, i guess. I had no idea when i got mine, TBH...just knew it look damn sharp.

the higher res of 22" and up is what puts me off...I got crossfire, and there's already a few games that push the limit, @ 1680x1050. I guess I could forgoe some AA, or maybe the new AA that they supposedly have coming will make it ok, but 1920x1220 is gonna push a single-card config into the ground.

mdzcpa

10-05-2006, 04:00 PM

That's a good point. My GX2 seems awefully well matched for the 1680x1050 with max AA and AF along with all the game settings at max. I think a 1920x1220 would force me to back down things down in the newer games. I'm a stickler for all the eye candy :)

eXa

10-05-2006, 05:22 PM

samsung 225BW is still 1680x1050...

cadaveca

10-05-2006, 05:26 PM

yes, but that's the problem. Higher pixel/inch density on a 20 @ 1680x1050 than a 22 = less quality image for the 22, imho.

eXa

10-05-2006, 05:31 PM

okay. first you say that the higher res on 22" and up puts you off (because of low fps) and then you say that the 22" with the res of the 20" is to low... well then your stuck with 20"....

cadaveca

10-05-2006, 05:43 PM

...and that's what I got. Remember that it was me that recommended that LG unit in the first place. Best 20 i could find. For gaming, that is.

ak_47_boy

11-01-2006, 06:55 PM

I don't know what you people see in CRT's, i have seen very new and expensive ones and i would take a LCD any day.

Khaotic

11-01-2006, 07:35 PM

Hmmm.

I have both and enjoy both to an extent.
CRT's have the very large freedom of resolution. With a 20" CRT, i can push the resolution up to 2048x1536. With the wide selection of graphics cards we have at our disposal - a CRT gives you breathing room. A 20" LCD "looks best" at 1600x1200 but if you have a budget video card, you'll never be there with any degree of comfort. With a CRT, you don't have to sacrifice image quality on the screen compard to the up/down conversion required on an LCD.

Now, I do a lot of gaming on an LCD. Samsung 204B. It goes to all my LAN events - that's just a simple matter of weight ratio! I also enjoy the seemingly "brighter" feel of an LCD.

I'm looking hard at the 2407 24" Wide screen from Dell. It's price just dropped for $679. I have 2 friends that game on it, and they are VERy happy. I've even hooked it up to my LAN box and had a great time playing 2142.

Which also leads to look at the 30" LCD. But yeagh - the rez on that would probably require an SLI setup of 2x 7950GX2 cards - or a pair of the new 8800's when they come out. No offense ATI fans, but i'll never own another ATI card again. But we all know that's a debate for another thread.