Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Looking for a good gaming monitor for my first build

Last response: in Systems
Share
February 24, 2007 3:20:46 PM

Guys, i need some advice on gaming monitors. I'm not sure whether to get CRT or LCD, which one would be better for gaming? I know LCD is expensive, and i dont think i can drop more than $500 on a monitor.

Furthermore, i dont know what size to get, i've heard that one would need a 24" monitor to the get the most of high end cards like the 8800 (i'm planning to get either a x1950xtx or 2 x1950pro in xfire). I dont know how true this, so thats why i decided to bring this up.

As for which brand to get, i'm thinking of Samsung, they come highly recomended by some of the people i spokle to, plus i own one and it rocks! If anyone can recomend a different brand please bring it up.
February 24, 2007 4:02:57 PM

definately get an lcd. dont bother getting an x1950xtx. an 8800gts 640mb out performs it and there is not need to spend that much on a dx 9 card. and from what i heard if your goin sli with two 8800gtx then you will need a monitor that big. viewsonic makes good monitors too
February 24, 2007 4:15:15 PM

So you think LCD, huh? The problem is that 24" LCD is out of my league cash wise, they cost like $800, i was wondering if i could get away with something smaller like 22" or 23" may be, they cost a bit less. Also, i want to game in as high a realution a given game can support, and from what i can tell LCD doesnt support as high a resolution as CRT.

As far as the vid card goes, i really dont want to get that nvidia crap,even though they are currently ahead. i figure that either ATI card will last me a year to year and half until Vista and DX10 works out the bugs and more DX10 games ciome out, then i'll get the latest ATI offering. So this is already ben decided.
Related resources
February 24, 2007 4:36:54 PM

referring to 8800: "crap"

erm, whatever you say ;D
February 24, 2007 4:50:41 PM

Well, what i mean is, i dont want to get it, i dont like their cards, i know that it is the best card in the world right now, but come summer R600 will wipe the floor with 8800, because thats just how it goes. You know as well as i do that technology goes in cycles: AMD was on top a year ago, now its Intel, ATI was on top until Nvidia released 8800, now they are the king, when ATI will releases R600 they will be king until Nvidia comes up with something else. And on and on it goes. Its just a matter of personal preference, and i prefer not to get Nvidia its as simple as that.

Now since thats out of the way, lets go back talking monitors, shall we?
February 24, 2007 4:53:49 PM

theres no need to spend $800 for a monitor, go with the biggest that fits in your budget. a crt that size is huge. the only reason to get a crt is if you are doing a lot of work with photos and editing. (edit: monitor questions should be posted CE)
February 24, 2007 5:04:12 PM

Well, if buying an LCD i think the best i can afford is this:

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.asp?Item=N82E1682...

$339 for a 22", though the next monitor is 23" and they go for $700, isnt that a bit ridiculous $400 more for the next size up? The supported resolution on it kinda sucks too, only 1680 x 1050.

I also would like to explore my CRT options as well, what would be the optimal size for a CRt (if i were to get one) for gaming with high end vid cards?
February 24, 2007 5:08:39 PM

this is the biggest newegg sells link
20in viewable screen
February 24, 2007 5:14:26 PM

The 8800GTS 640MB wipes the floor with the x1950XTX and costs about the same, it makes no sense to buy an x1950XTX.

x1950XT is alot more reasonably priced, but even then the advantage of the 8800GTS is worth it for the small cost increase.

Saying "I just dont like nVidia" is silly, you are cutting your nose off to spite your face and just throwing your money away.

I'd come up with some monitor recommendations for you, but if I came up with a high quality 30" LCD for $20 you'd probably tell me you didnt like the brand...
February 24, 2007 5:14:59 PM

Hmm, so for CRT 21" would be optimal, right? Perhaps i should look outside of newegg for more choices for both CRT and LCD? Also another question, in your link there were monitors by NEC and Viewsonic (which had a horrible review by the way), are these supposed to be good brands? The reason i ask is because i would like to have as many choices as possible when picking a monitor so i would like to include other brands, can you give me a few names that are good?
February 24, 2007 5:22:19 PM

dont read newegg reviews and yes they are good brands. there really is no optimal size or resolution. its a matter of preference. heres a good thread that discusses LCD vs CRT link
February 24, 2007 5:22:49 PM

Quote:
The 8800GTS 640MB wipes the floor with the x1950XTX and costs about the same, it makes no sense to buy an x1950XTX.

x1950XT is alot more reasonably priced, but even then the advantage of the 8800GTS is worth it for the small cost increase.

Saying "I just dont like nVidia" is silly, you are cutting your nose off to spite your face and just throwing your money away.

I'd come up with some monitor recommendations for you, but if I came up with a high quality 30" LCD for $20 you'd probably tell me you didnt like the brand...


I already said everything i can on the subject of vid cards and i'm not going to repeat myself and start an ATI vs Nvidia arguement which has never led to anything but people getting mad at each other. Lets talk about monitors instead, if you have some suggestions i'm willing to hear what you have to say, if you dont, stop bringing up vid cards, i dont want to talk about it.
February 24, 2007 5:29:25 PM

Quote:
dont read newegg reviews and yes they are good brands. there really is no optimal size or resolution. its a matter of preference. heres a good thread that discusses LCD vs CRT link


Thanks drummerdude, looks like an interestingl ink, i'll need some time to read through the whole thing as it is very long. You are probably right about newegg reviews, a lot folks post them cause they have something to complain about, though i do use them as a general guide before buying things.

Any more monitor suggestions?
February 24, 2007 5:49:21 PM

I greatly prefer LCD monitors over CRT (just my opinion). LCDs have come a long way in the last year or so. I picked up this samsung http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.asp?Item=N82E1682...
which has been superb. I replaced my samsung 19" CRT with it and there was really a huge difference in quality (and deskspace). The LCD you linked to is very similar to mine, with the obvious exception of being widescreen, so I would recommend that one.

good luck :wink:
February 24, 2007 5:56:27 PM

Looks very nice, better resolutin than 22". Since you think 22" widescreen would be better, i should look for something in that size with the same resolution as the one you have. Thanks for the suggestion!
February 24, 2007 6:02:12 PM

From my experience, I like LCDs from Viewsonic and Samsung the best. But that's the way my eyes see the screens and may not be the same as yours. One major reason that I now buy LVDs instead of CRTs is that they are so much lighter in weight. A large CRT will put my back out of place. Ah, to be young again and have no back problems.

I'd also buy a monitor that is Vista certified. This may not seem important now if you're running XP and intend to stick with it for another year or so, but if you move to Vista and find out the monitor doesn't work right, you'll kick yourself as you go shopping for one that does work with Vista.
February 24, 2007 6:28:16 PM

CRT all the way. LCDs suck for gaming, if ONLY because running them out of their native resolution looks like crap. Plus, unless you spend a big wad, you end up with a monitor with a very low refresh (less FPS can be displayed), coupled with a less-then-stellar grey-to-grey time, and if you get good performance you buy low colour depth.

No, CRTs still spank the living daylights out of LCDs for gaming.

The casual, non-demanding, or non-expert gamer might not notice (or care) about the differences, but any discerning player knows: LCDs blow goats.

FYI: My development PC has 2 x 19" Viewsonic LCDs (2560 x 1024), and my gaming machine has 2 x 21" Viewsonic CRTs (3200 x 1200). They are all top-notch monitors, and I can tell you without a shadow of a doubt that the CRTs are far superior in every respect except geometry, power consumption and moveability. (21" CRTs are an absolute biotch to move!)
February 24, 2007 6:37:48 PM

Quote:
Looks very nice, better resolutin than 22". Since you think 22" widescreen would be better, i should look for something in that size with the same resolution as the one you have. Thanks for the suggestion!

Widescreens don't come in 1600x1200, because of the aspect ratio. 1680x1050 is a very similar resolution with almost the same amount of pixels.
1600x1200 = 1920000 pixels 4:3 aspect ratio
1680x1050 = 1764000 pixels 16:9 aspect ratio
It would be hard to see a definitive difference between the two monitors resolution just by looking at it. I just prefer widescreen(16:9) cuz I think it looks better. :) 

hope that helps
February 24, 2007 6:38:24 PM

I dont think its only your eyes, i've seen both LCD and CRT image quality and LCD does have brighter colors and things just look better on it. After thinking about it, my only problem with LCD is that it supports smaller resolutions, but looks like there are monitors out there that do have higher resolution suport and dont cost an arm and a leg, like the one suggested by PETEvsDRM.

You bring up a good point about Vista, i actually wanted to ask about that. So i must have a Vista certified monitor to use Vista? Idont plan to switch to it at least until they release the first service pack in a year or more but still you are right, i dont want to wind up kicking myself for not getting the right monitor.

You are also right about CRT taking up space and being heavy, though i do have the space on my desk (4' L x 33" W) for pc and large monitor.

It looks like LCD is the winner here, at least i dont hear anyone saying anything good about CRT. I i'll start resraching LCD monitors.

EDIT: While i was typing someone put a good word for CRT
February 24, 2007 6:42:02 PM

Quote:
CRT all the way. LCDs suck for gaming, if ONLY because running them out of their native resolution looks like crap. Plus, unless you spend a big wad, you end up with a monitor with a very low refresh (less FPS can be displayed), coupled with a less-then-stellar grey-to-grey time, and if you get good performance you buy low colour depth.

No, CRTs still spank the living daylights out of LCDs for gaming.

The casual, non-demanding, or non-expert gamer might not notice (or care) about the differences, but any discerning player knows: LCDs blow goats.

FYI: My development PC has 2 x 19" Viewsonic LCDs (2560 x 1024), and my gaming machine has 2 x 21" Viewsonic CRTs (3200 x 1200). They are all top-notch monitors, and I can tell you without a shadow of a doubt that the CRTs are far superior in every respect except geometry, power consumption and moveability. (21" CRTs are an absolute biotch to move!)


Just curious, what size CRT is optimal for gaming?
February 24, 2007 6:43:12 PM

Quote:

No, CRTs still spank the living daylights out of LCDs for gaming.

CRTs are far superior in every respect except geometry, power consumption and moveability. (21" CRTs are an absolute biotch to move!)


I agree, no question about it, that a CRT will give a better picture, along with a real choice in resolutions. I own both a 22 inch CRT and a 19 inch LCD, so I see the differences a lot. But when it comes to moving the CRT, I need someone to help me lift the thing and get it through doorways.

I wish some company would figure out how to improve LCD picture quality, but until then, it remains a question of what is more important, perfect picture or light weight. As it is, when I get around to replacing my CRT monitor, it will be with a LCD because of the weight factor.
February 24, 2007 6:48:20 PM

Quote:
You bring up a good point about Vista, i actually wanted to ask about that. So i must have a Vista certified monitor to use Vista? Idont plan to switch to it at least until they release the first service pack in a year or more but still you are right, i dont want to wind up kicking myself for not getting the right monitor.


Vista certified is a marketing term as far as monitors are concerned, don't worry about that. I assure you that vista is not going to send a different type of signal to your monitor.
that said...
you do want to make sure your monitor is hdcp compliant if you ever plan on watching high-definition movies on it.
February 24, 2007 6:59:33 PM

Quote:

You bring up a good point about Vista, i actually wanted to ask about that. So i must have a Vista certified monitor to use Vista? Idont plan to switch to it at least until they release the first service pack in a year or more but still you are right, i dont want to wind up kicking myself for not getting the right monitor.

EDIT: While i was typing someone put a good word for CRT


A non-Vista certified monitor may work, but its a gamble and from what I've seen, Vista certified monitors don't cost more, so there's no reason not to buy one. And as someone else noted, make sure the monitor is hdcp compliant. Even if you don't think you'll watch movies on it now, you might in the future.

CRTs do have their advantages and uses, and I grant those, but they have disadvantages that for me outweight (literally, like in very heavy) their advantages.
February 24, 2007 7:34:19 PM

Quote:

You bring up a good point about Vista, i actually wanted to ask about that. So i must have a Vista certified monitor to use Vista? Idont plan to switch to it at least until they release the first service pack in a year or more but still you are right, i dont want to wind up kicking myself for not getting the right monitor.

EDIT: While i was typing someone put a good word for CRT


A non-Vista certified monitor may work, but its a gamble and from what I've seen, Vista certified monitors don't cost more, so there's no reason not to buy one. And as someone else noted, make sure the monitor is hdcp compliant. Even if you don't think you'll watch movies on it now, you might in the future.

CRTs do have their advantages and uses, and I grant those, but they have disadvantages that for me outweight (literally, like in very heavy) their advantages.

Thanks for the info. And that goes for evryone who made suggestions. :) 

However, i have another question in regards to Vista support. I looked around at newegg and noticed that Some LCD monitors are Vista certified and some are not. But none of the CRT have that Vista support label, does that mean none of them are certified or all, i'm just confused by this.

Also, it looks like CRT has all the advantages over LCD in terms of gaming, the only drawback is the size and weight, i guess i have to make sure it will fit nicely on my desk. So i'm loking for a CRT monitor that will be HDCP compliant (even though i dont watch movies on my pc but who knows may be i will), but i still need to know what the optimal size is? 21" may be or thats overkill?

Now to the person who called me a fanboy. I didnt want to be drawn into this discussion again, but i have to say something. Yes, i do think that ATI cards are better quality in general, and i guess you could call me a fanboy and i really dont see anything wrong with that. Like i said earlier its all about who has the upper hand at the moment and personal preference, both companies make excellent quality cards, however Nvidia just happens to be on top at the moment. That will change very soon soon when R600 cards are released. Also for your information x1950xtx is an excellent card, 2 of my friends own it and it plays ANY game at the highest settings, so to say that its a poor choice is just wrong. It even costs less than 8800 GTS. When its time to get a new card in year i'll get the R600 so i'm only getting this so i can play games now.

And one last thing, if you want to discuss monitors then i'll welcome any suggestions, if you want to discuss video cards go to the video card section and do it there if thats what you want. I wont be replying to any more of these posts because my mind is already made up.
February 24, 2007 8:34:48 PM

RobsX2, you are really wasting your time telling all this because i already know that an 8800 is better than x1950xtx. And do you really think ATI is going to release a card that will be worse than 8800, now think about it. And as far as prices go x1950xtx is cheaper:

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/B000IMN2QO/dealt...

Though not by much.

You know, there is alot of folks out there that stick to their brand, there are people buying AMD right now, so what are going to go out there and get on their case as well? All i'm saying is i dont go hard on people for brand loyalty and neither should you.
February 24, 2007 9:05:59 PM

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.asp?Item=N82E1682...

ASUS MW221U Black-Silver 22" 2ms (GTG) DVI Widescreen LCD Monitor 300 cd/m2 700:1

There may be a problem with some of the very first versions of this LCD monitor, but it is rated to 2ms. I haven't seen a good review of this LCD yet, but the more recent reviews on Newegg seem positive.

I have personal experience with the 22" 5ms Chimei from Newegg. I had a chance to hook it up to my pc with an X1900XT 512mb video card and play a few rounds of Unreal Tournament 2004. I am used to playing on a 21" P1100 CRT at 1200x1600. I still have my CRT and secretly hope it dies so I have an excuse to replace it.

The CRT shows no real ghosting, and I could tell the difference between the CRT and LCD in the game, but only with the fastest motions. UT2004 is very fast paced, so most other games won't be nearly as demanding. The LCD didn't affect my gameplay (I play quite a bit,) so I don't think ghosting on a 5ms LCD will bother most people. Really, the ghosting is so subtle you'll get used to it right away.

The 22" widescreens seem to be at a pretty good price point. The 24" screens are too expensive for the gain in screen area, in my opinion. And the 24" LCD's aren't as fast as the 22" 5ms screens.

Here are three good reasons to not get a CRT over and LCD:

1. Physical weight and volume of the CRT make it a pain to move anywhere. My 21" monitor weighs on the order of 80lbs, making a real hassle to bring to lan parties and move around the house.

2. The 22" LCD's will use around 25 watts while the CRT can use close to 100 watts. This makes the LCD cheaper to operate in the long run and probably more friendly to the environment.

3. The LCD won't be as blurry for reading small text. LCD's seem to be easier on my eyes.
February 24, 2007 9:22:46 PM

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.asp?Item=N82E1682...

ASUS MW221U Black-Silver 22" 2ms (GTG) DVI Widescreen LCD Monitor 300 cd/m2 700:1

There may be a problem with some of the very first versions of this LCD monitor, but it is rated to 2ms. I haven't seen a good review of this LCD yet, but the more recent reviews on Newegg seem positive.

I have personal experience with the 22" 5ms Chimei from Newegg. I had a chance to hook it up to my pc with an X1900XT 512mb video card and play a few rounds of Unreal Tournament 2004. I am used to playing on a 21" P1100 CRT at 1200x1600. I still have my CRT and secretly hope it dies so I have an excuse to replace it.

The CRT shows no real ghosting, and I could tell the difference between the CRT and LCD in the game, but only with the fastest motions. UT2004 is very fast paced, so most other games won't be nearly as demanding. The LCD didn't affect my gameplay (I play quite a bit,) so I don't think ghosting on a 5ms LCD will bother most people. Really, the ghosting is so subtle you'll get used to it right away.

The 22" widescreens seem to be at a pretty good price point. The 24" screens are too expensive for the gain in screen area, in my opinion. And the 24" LCD's aren't as fast as the 22" 5ms screens.

Here are three good reasons to not get a CRT over and LCD:

1. Physical weight and volume of the CRT make it a pain to move anywhere. My 21" monitor weighs on the order of 80lbs, making a real hassle to bring to lan parties and move around the house.

2. The 22" LCD's will use around 25 watts while the CRT can use close to 100 watts. This makes the LCD cheaper to operate in the long run and probably more friendly to the environment.

3. The LCD won't be as blurry for reading small text. LCD's seem to be easier on my eyes.
February 24, 2007 9:27:57 PM

Yes, the x1950XTX can run any current game on max ingame settings in 1280x1024, so could my previous card, a 7900GT.

(by the way, the onlt reason I bought a 7900GT over an x1900XT at the time was because ATi cards perform badly in City of Heros, an OpenGL game that I was playing alot at the time, although I have left it now).

However, My 8800GTX was still a nice upgrade from my 7900GT, as it ment I could use driver level x16Q AA and x16AF in almost every game, which looks amazing.

My point is that there IS a use for more power.



Anyway, monitors.

I'm a big fan of CRTs, but they dont make'm like they used to. A good 21" CRT used to rock for 2048x1536 gaming @85Hz or more.

Now however, most CRTs are limited to 1600x1200@85Hz, or 2048x1536@60Hz (unusable imho).

Add to that the fact that CRTs age significantly after 2-3 years, loosing brightness and focus.

Add to that the fact that CRTs just dont come as big.

Add to that the fact that CRTs dont come with HDCP, essential for high-def viewing under vista, at least untill things are cracked (AnyDVD HD can already playback HD-DVD without HDCP compliant hardware... just waiting on Blu-Ray)


However,

Low end TFTs suck, and going for the headline "2ms response" is normally a bad thing.

2ms response panels usually have way too much overdrive, and often use 6bit panels, which are both horrible for quality.

Low end TFTs are often TN+Film panels, which again, suck. S-PVA is filtering down though, and these are not bad.

1280x1024 is a horrible resolution made up by someone with a marketing degree to "get both numbers over 1000". Its 5:4 not 4:3 ffs.

Go for a 20.1" 4:3 1600x1200 TFT like the HP LP2065, which uses an amazing S-IPS panel. Like most CRT lovers, I'd only ever seen crap TFTs before I bought this, and I love this thing! It is however missing HDCP, but AnyDVD HD can solve this. But then, seeing as you refuse to consider DX10, I don't see that HDCP/Vista should be an issue to you...

The Acer AL2623W is 26" (yes, usually you only get 24" or 30"), 1920x1200, 5ms response time and supports HDCP, its extremely competitively priced, cheaper than most 24" models, but still might be over your price range.

The beauty of 1920x1200 is that you can just run in 1600x1200 with black bars at the side in the few games that dont allow widescreen, whereas 1680x1050 means you have to have bars all around or horrible scaling.
February 24, 2007 9:38:20 PM

Quote:


Add to that the fact that CRTs dont come with HDCP, essential for high-def viewing under vista, at least untill things are cracked (AnyDVD HD can already playback HD-DVD without HDCP compliant hardware... just waiting on Blu-Ray)



Yes I read that! Thats good news. I will actually buy AnyDVD (rather than pirate it) just because i want to support what they are doing.

If you couldn't tell from my name DRM is the bane of my existence and I live only to eradicate it from this earth.
February 24, 2007 9:53:18 PM

Quote:
RobsX2, you are really wasting your time telling all this because i already know that an 8800 is better than x1950xtx.


And yet you insist on going with the X1950XTX even though an 8800GTS is both less expensive and beats the X1950XTX in performance hands down. Never mind the fact that the 8800GTS is DX10 ready and the X1950XTX isnt.


And you wonder why I call you a fanboy. :roll:


Quote:

And do you really think ATI is going to release a card that will be worse than 8800, now think about it.


Show me where I said it would be worse :roll:

Quote:

And as far as prices go x1950xtx is cheaper:

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/B000IMN2QO/dealt...

Though not by much.



Wrong again, The 8800GTS is just $344.99 after mail in rebate (making it cheaper) and is only $10.00 more than that X1950XTX that you linked before the rebate.

You have NO valid point here in the price comparison as anyone with half a brain can clearly see that the 8800GTS is the better choice between the two.


Quote:

You know, there is alot of folks out there that stick to their brand


Yup, and they are called FANBOYS.

Quote:
All i'm saying is i dont go hard on people for brand loyalty and neither should you.



There is nothing wrong with brand loyalty up to a certain point but when things are this Obvious when comparing an 8800GTS to a X1950XTX when you can get the 8800GTS for less $$$ and run circles around a X1950XTX and also be ready for DX10 it makes you a complete and total FANBOY to take the lesser GPU over the better one.

Look, if it makes you happy to call me a fan boy, go ahead. I've seen too many of these arguements already and they are counterproductive and only lead to insults and people getting upset. And now i'm getting upset, thats what i wanted to avoid, i didnt come here to hear you twisting my words and insulting me. On top of that you disrupting this thread and getting off topic, i'm sure people looking for a monitor dont want hear your rants on the vid card, if they wanted that they would have read reviews and looked at benchmarks. Furthermor, it doesnt make sense for me to get a nvidia card because i'm getting a mobo which supports only crossfire (bad axe 2), so even if i get an 8800, i'll never be able to get another one and eventually i want to have 2 cards.

And why do you care so much which card i'm getting anyway?
February 24, 2007 9:58:43 PM

Quote:
Yes, the x1950XTX can run any current game on max ingame settings in 1280x1024, so could my previous card, a 7900GT.



You Obviously have not played Oblivion, Call Of Juarez, Tombraider legends or R6 either then :roll: Play any of those games at MAX settings and the X1950XTX will be struggling pretty badly much less a 7900GT :roll:



And besides this still holds no water and has nothing to do with the fact that it should be a no brainer to get a 8800GTS over a X1950XTX when you consider all the points in my other post
:roll:

You've made your point and it's always been fairly obvious. If he wants to waste his money on an inferior card more power to him I guess.
February 24, 2007 10:13:48 PM

That is exactly what i'm saying, enough! There is nothing to be accomplished in this debate, is complete counterproductive.
February 24, 2007 10:18:03 PM

Quote:
RobsX2, you are really wasting your time telling all this because i already know that an 8800 is better than x1950xtx.


And yet you insist on going with the X1950XTX even though an 8800GTS is both less expensive and beats the X1950XTX in performance hands down. Never mind the fact that the 8800GTS is DX10 ready and the X1950XTX isnt.


And you wonder why I call you a fanboy. :roll:


Quote:

And do you really think ATI is going to release a card that will be worse than 8800, now think about it.


Show me where I said it would be worse :roll:

Quote:

And as far as prices go x1950xtx is cheaper:

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/B000IMN2QO/dealt...

Though not by much.



Wrong again, The 8800GTS is just $344.99 after mail in rebate (making it cheaper) and is only $10.00 more than that X1950XTX that you linked before the rebate.

You have NO valid point here in the price comparison as anyone with half a brain can clearly see that the 8800GTS is the better choice between the two.


Quote:

You know, there is alot of folks out there that stick to their brand


Yup, and they are called FANBOYS.

Quote:
All i'm saying is i dont go hard on people for brand loyalty and neither should you.



There is nothing wrong with brand loyalty up to a certain point but when things are this Obvious when comparing an 8800GTS to a X1950XTX when you can get the 8800GTS for less $$$ and run circles around a X1950XTX and also be ready for DX10 it makes you a complete and total FANBOY to take the lesser GPU over the better one.

Look, if it makes you happy to call me a fan boy, go ahead. I've seen too many of these arguements already and they are counterproductive and only lead to insults and people getting upset. And now i'm getting upset, thats what i wanted to avoid, i didnt come here to hear you twisting my words and insulting me. On top of that you disrupting this thread and getting off topic, i'm sure people looking for a monitor dont want hear your rants on the vid card, if they wanted that they would have read reviews and looked at benchmarks. Furthermor, it doesnt make sense for me to get a nvidia card because i'm getting a mobo which supports only crossfire (bad axe 2), so even if i get an 8800, i'll never be able to get another one and eventually i want to have 2 cards.

And why do you care so much which card i'm getting anyway?

You know, pointing out an actual reason for going with an ATI card in the first place might have worked better. Though if you're going to upgrade in a year what card you get now won't matter since the cards have to be the same.
February 24, 2007 10:24:54 PM

You know, you should just stop worrying about what card he's getting. He didn't come here to discuss cards, he wants info on monitors.

You're just trying to pick a fight, plain and simple.

Go away if you don't want to help with the monitor questions. He doesn't want to hear what you have to say, and I doubt that anyone else following this thread does either. You posts are out of line and out of place.
February 24, 2007 10:41:08 PM

You are right, leonardotmnt, i should have said earlier that i'm getting a mobo which supports only xfire. However, i was trying to loook up monitors and participate in the thread and do things around the house at the same time so i forgot to mention that. i thought i had my signature up in this forum but i only realized 20 min that i didnt because i was busy with the abovementioned things. Since i'm only getting one card now i could get any, and you are right about that, but i just choose ati.

I'm sorry this turned out this way, i was trying to avoid an arguement but i kept getting sucked back into it when i should have stayed away. I'm apologize to everyone who had to listen to this and if anyone still wants to stick to the topic, i'm up for it.
February 24, 2007 10:53:59 PM

Quote:
Yes, the x1950XTX can run any current game on max ingame settings in 1280x1024, so could my previous card, a 7900GT.



You Obviously have not played Oblivion, Call Of Juarez, Tombraider legends or R6 either then :roll: Play any of those games at MAX settings and the X1950XTX will be struggling pretty badly much less a 7900GT :roll:



And besides this still holds no water and has nothing to do with the fact that it should be a no brainer to get a 8800GTS over a X1950XTX when you consider all the points in my other post :roll:

Ah, but my 7900GT used to run at 750/1400, not 450/1320, and played Oblivion fine in 1280x1024, albeit without FSAA (but the game itself doesnt allow that with HDR, driver level is the onlt way to do it, and that doesnt work on the 7900).

I admit I havent played TR:Legends. I hate Tomb Raider, always have. I have proper porn instead.

If you'd read the rest of my post, I support the 8800 idea totally. I also talked about monitors for redboy :p 

I thought the R600 wasnt going to work in Xfire on Intel 975x?
February 24, 2007 11:15:29 PM

Hey, no problem redboy. Just don't let the trolls like RobsX2 get to you.

My personal preference for monitors are CRT's. Image quality is of utmost concern for me since I like to dabble in 3D modelling and in-depth Photoshop work on occasion. CRT's up to this point have served me better than LCD's for this kind of work.

1) The pixel spacing on CRT's is a lot closer together (dot pitch) so it gives me sharper images.

2) Color rendering. I don't know the right word for this...bah, can't think right now. :/  Anyway, the 'faithfulness' of the color reproduction seems to be better for me on CRT's.

I believe Hz is vital in gaming (CRT or LCD), the faster it can refresh the screen, the more fluidly the frames can be displayed.

I do game a lot too, and still like CRT's for it. I just have to find a better one than I have now. Currently looking at a CTX 17" (space is a premium), CTX I've been told by people around work here is a good brand.

One thing that caught my eye is what darkstar782 said about lcd panels used in the construction of displays. Take a look into those he mentioned. If they're as good as he says, they sound like a good deal. :) 
February 24, 2007 11:50:08 PM

Thanks for the suggestions, guys! So much info in the past few posts gives me a lot to think about. Early in the thread i was leaning towards CRT, but now i'm considering LCD again. I didnt know that CRT dont support HDCP and loose brightness and focus after 3 years and the fact that they are limited 1600x1200@85Hz or 2048x1536@60Hz.

I like the model suggested by darkstar and backed up by kitchenshark though i dont know what S-IPS panel means, i'm not really that monitor savyy so you must excuse me. it doesnt have HDCP, i guess the only downside.The reason I dont consider DX10 and Vista only because they are just so new and they still have a lot of bugs to work out. i do however plan to switch to Vista and get a DX10 card when majority of the flaws associated with both are workedf out. So tell me darkstar, you have an 8800, do you think this monitor is limiting the cards potential? Also is it Vista-certified?
February 25, 2007 12:20:15 AM

Wikipedia and google are your friends :) 

Looks like S-IPS is a technology of the panel itself. I guess kind of like a microprocessor architecture. Looks like its strengths are color reproduction and a weakness is contrast. Here's the excerpt:

Quote:
[edit] IPS
IPS (In-Plane Switching) was developed by Hitachi in 1996 to improve on the poor viewing angles and color reproduction of TN panels. Most also support true 8-bit color. These improvements came at a loss of response time, which was initially on the order of 50ms. IPS panels were also extremely expensive.

IPS has since been superseded by S-IPS (Super-IPS, Hitachi in 1998), which has all the benefits of IPS technology with the addition of improved pixel refresh timing. Though color reproduction approaches that of CRTs, the contrast ratio remains relatively weak. S-IPS technology is widely used in panel sizes of 20" and above and LG.Philips remain one of the main manufacturers of S-IPS based panels.

AS-IPS - Advanced Super IPS, also developed by Hitachi in 2002, improves substantially on the contrast ratio of traditional S-IPS panels to the point where they are second only to some S-PVAs. AS-IPS is also a term used for NEC displays (e.g. NEC LCD20WGX2) based on S-IPS technology, in this case, developed by LG.Philips.
A-TW-IPS - Advanced True White IPS, developed by LG.Philips LCD for NEC, is a custom S-IPS panel with a TW (True White) color filter to make white look more natural and to increase color gamut. This is used in professional/photography LCDs.


EDIT:
Whole article:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S-IPS
February 25, 2007 12:48:24 AM

of course, how could i forget wikipedia, thanks!

i took another look at the other monitor suggested by darkstar, the 26" Acer widescreen, may be thats what i should be getting? Nice resolution support too. Though i couldnt find that exact model in the U.S. i found these 2 at newegg, very similar to that one:

26" widescreen
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.asp?Item=N82E1682...

24" Widescreen
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.asp?Item=N82E1682...

I like the 24" better for 2 reasons, it costs $600, $150 less than 26" and it is black/silver as opposed to silver 26". I'm getting everything in black (case, keyboard, mouse) so it would be nice if monitor would be black too, or at least black/silver

So what do you guys think? Good choice or bad?
February 25, 2007 12:58:06 AM

S-IPS gives very good colour rendition as has been mentioned. As for contrast, while people seem to want 1200:1 ratios etc (which just hurts your eyes imho) I have got mine set at 83% for an accurate colour gamut. On the other hand, S-IPS panels have a purpleish tint (only really noticeable on a black screen) when viewed from a wide angle, making them unsuitable for TVs. (you generally look straight on at a monitor anyway however).

You are correct that LCDs historically have a larger dot pitch than CRTs, however thats only true of the low end ones now imho.

Mine is 20.1" 1600x1200, while a 21" CRT will often have around the same viewable area, and run in the same resolution, meaning the dot pitch is about the same. (the CRT will probably fare SLIGHTLY better, as it will have a slightly smaller viewable). 24" 1920x1200 widescreen TFTs are very close to the 20.1" 1600x1200 dot pitch, as they are about the same hight, just with 20% extra width.

For CAD work, TFTs have much better screen geometry, every pixel is exactly the same size and there is no image distortion.

You CAN get CRTs that will do higher than 1600x1200 with a decent refresh rate, but as time goes on they are harder and harder to obtain, and cost more and more.

I love CRTs myself, but the lack of investment in the technology these past years has lead to stagnation. Before this monitor, I had a Mitsubishi Diamond Pro 920 (19" CRT) that I had had for about 6 years... I loved that screen...

When I came to replace it though, I just couldnt find a worthy CRT.

Now, the HP LP2065 I mentioned is NOT HDCP capeable.

You can run Vista, and play any games you want, without HDCP.

ALL HDCP affects is HD content that is DRMed. At the moment this boils down to HD-DVD and Blu-Ray. If you DONT have a HDCP capeable screen/GPU, then you either have to use a program to get rid of HDCP (AnyDVD HD is working for HD-DVD already) or you run the risk of having your HD content played back in what is basically Standard definition.

If you have no plans to add a HD-DVD player or Blu-Ray drive to your PC, this wont matter to you anyway. Any HD content you Download, not that you would do an evil thing like that I'm sure, will be free of DRM anyway.

This is a very good article on how the various TFT technologies work, and the differences therein. Of course its from 2004, so the response times and other figures they talk about have improved since.

EDIT: Dot pitch on the HP LP2065 (and therefore all 20.1" 16x12 LCDs) is 0.255 mm. This is not *quite* to the level of a high end CRT, but damn close. CRTs in my experience mostly vary from .26mm to .22mm
February 25, 2007 1:15:37 AM

Here is a nice review over at Hardforum on a slightly older (non-HDCP) version of that 24".

Looks like the one to get to me, its P-MVA, but thats fine for games really, I just like S-IPS for non-gaming reasons.

The x1950XTX wont be maxing everything out at 1920x1200 though, not AA and everything. Looks to me like you want either two of them, one being a crossfire master, and they are getting rare, or an 8800GTX :p 

Still, the monitor will last you well into your R600 days.

There is a 24" version of the HP but its not all that cheap, and doesnt have HDCP. Just trying to give you options :) 
February 25, 2007 1:26:18 AM

Thanks for the link, darkstar. i'll look it over and if its recomended over there i'll priobably get the newer version from newegg. Even though it cost $600, and i'll be going over my budget of $500 by $100, its ok,ther monitor looks like a great piece of work. Basically i'm buying this monitor for the next several years thats why i asked whether i can use high-end vid cards to their fullest with a monitor. I ont be crossfiring that 1950 anyway, cause i dont want to drop another $350 on another card at the moment, i'll wait for thr R600 days :)  and do it then.
February 25, 2007 1:30:29 AM

Yeah a good monitor will last you though a number of graphics cards. I dont understand the people who drop $500 on an 8800GTX and then use a $150 19" 1280x1024 monitor with it :D 

I kinda feel that my 8800GTX is wasted on 1600x1200....

EDIT: The review mentions "Burn In". This is NOT a significant issue on TFTs like it is on RPTVs and really old CRTs.

What does happen is that if a static image is left on the screen for like 36 hrs straight the pixels will "settle". It is not permenant however, having a moving image on the screen for a few mins will clear it up, even dragging a window around the desktop madly will fix it, not that I have ever had this issue myself as my monitor switches off after 1 hr.

Also, the backlights in TFTs tend to have a lifespan of around 50000 Hours. However, if it were lit constantly, thats about 5.7 years. In reality, you are likely to turn it off (or let it shut off) at least 8 hours a day, and it is possible to replace the CCFL backlight tubes for ~$150 including labour, less if you do it yourself.

CRTs on the other hand would suffer other non-reversable aging affects after 5.7 years of uptime....
February 25, 2007 1:39:20 AM

By the way, how is Acer for quality in general, i havent heard anyone mention them until you did, what is the opinion of their monitors?
February 25, 2007 9:00:35 AM

Quote:

I kinda feel that my 8800GTX is wasted on 1600x1200....



I dont see how you could possibly say that unless you don't play Oblivion, R6, or Tomb Raider legends.

I find that a single 8800GTX is pretty much perfect for the res I play at of 1680X1050.

I played and completed and moved on from Oblivion before I got my 8800GTX. Dont like Tomb Raider of any form, its like really crap porn. I assume you mean Rainbow Six? I havent played that either :/ 

I'm mainly trying to justify a 1920x1200 monitor upgrade to myself to be honest. Hes getting one and I feel 8800GTX is perfrct for this.

Still, I can't see myself persuading him so I gave up.
February 25, 2007 11:38:42 AM

Quote:
come summer R600 will wipe the floor with 8800, because thats just how it goes. You know as well as i do that technology goes in cycles: AMD was on top a year ago, now its Intel, ATI was on top until Nvidia released 8800, now they are the king, when ATI will releases R600 they will be king


This has absolutely nothing to do with a debate about currently purchasing a graphics card. What is relevant is that you are choosing to pay the same amount of money for a card that is less future proof and definitively outperformed by another card on the market. Clearly an illogical choice, which would suggest that you are enthusiastic enough about ATI to waste money on an inferior product just because it has their label on it: possibly classifying you as a fanatic, or fanboi if you happen to be talking on an internet forum.

Now as for LCD vs. CRT. I have a 19" Viewsonic VX922 and a 20" Viewsonic CRT. The VX922 weighs about 30 pounds less than the CRT. The VX922 displays an image comparable to the CRT, although not quite as crisp. The CRT can display true black, which the LCD cannot. The LCD has a slightly noticable glow to its edges when displaying a dark screen. The LCD is far easier on the eyes than the CRT. This is a scientific fact related to the way light is projected onto the different types of screens and then to your eyes, not a matter of opinion. I play CSS competitively and can guarantee my LCD does not deteriorate my play, and probably allows me to play for longer than I would if I used a CRT.

I certainly would not go so far as to say CRTs still decimate LCDs for gaming. That's simply not true. They have a small edge, which I believe to be negated by the practicality of LCDs and their availability in much larger sizes.

Based on all of that, I would highly recommend an LCD. The only time you might regret it as a gamer is when you play very dark games like F.E.A.R.
February 25, 2007 1:26:03 PM

Quote:

I kinda feel that my 8800GTX is wasted on 1600x1200....



I dont see how you could possibly say that unless you don't play Oblivion, R6, or Tomb Raider legends.

I find that a single 8800GTX is pretty much perfect for the res I play at of 1680X1050.

I think the new rule should be that after you try to change someone's mind 10 times to no avail that you stop. How's that sound? If he wants to buy a card that isn't as good for more money it's his prerogative. I can see if the decision for was for a friend or family member maybe since you want the best for them but really, his decision doesn't affect you. Explaining your point once or twice may be fine if he doesn't know what he's doing but he clearly does now. Besides, think of all the people out there spending money on Dell's and components that are more expensive than better alternatives. Think of how many people you can reach if you devote your time to them instead :wink: Not everyone plays those games you mentioned btw...
February 25, 2007 2:14:11 PM

Quote:
Not everyone plays those games you mentioned btw...


Thats besides the point.

1. The 8800GTS wins in the price dept.
2. The 8800GTS wins in the perf dept.
3. The 8800GTS wins in the image quality dept.
4. The 8800GTS is ready when DX10 gets rolling.


I couldnt care less with what GPU the little fanboy goes with but comments like this are what got him in trouble to begin with.

Quote:

As far as the vid card goes, i really dont want to get that nvidia crap




And then going even further on trying to justify his inferior purchase based on brand name makes him a FANBOY

So he's a fanboy. So are a million other people, it happens. If you really knew anything about fanboys you'd know that you're not going to convince him otherwise so drop it.

In monitor news I was thinking about getting a Chimei 221-D. Does anyone have any experience with them? Also in a few places I've read people have said that 6-bit doesn't really matter all that much in games and that many people won't notice anyway. How much worse is 6-bit for games and movies?
!