Printable View
^^ 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.
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sanborn
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).Quote:
Originally Posted by HKPolice
~ Kris
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 ;)
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).
whats the point of this thread? there is nothing special about this screen.
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..................
unfortunately...Quote:
Originally Posted by mdzcpa
and i have yet to sit in front of an LCD i can stand for surfing the internet! let alone games.Quote:
Originally Posted by mdzcpa
let's stop waiting for LCD to get better and start encouraging them to make something better. LCD technology was obviously never any good.Quote:
Originally Posted by mdzcpa
EDIT, at one time i was most optimistic about OLED, but now... SED looks to be CRT's replacement... eventually... next year possibly!
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...
Finally some1's agreeing with me. :DQuote:
Originally Posted by HKPolice
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?
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)
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 :(Quote:
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.
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by WesM63
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by afireinside
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
HK,
I was using my panel as an example, but all the 23 and 24" LCD's i've looked at are 1920x1200@85hz.
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.Quote:
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.
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...639757/details
Frequency at max. resolution : 60 Hz
Quote:
Originally Posted by WesM63
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. "
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by HKPolice
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.
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by shimq1
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".
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by cadaveca
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/Produc...82E16824254005