Hi, everyone!

I've been away for quite some time, but I guess things haven't changed much here. I need help on LCD purchase ASAP, and the minor forums are probably very little active as they always were. So please help me in this thread

Last month I got Sapphire X1650 Pro AGP to replace my 4 years old Radeon 9000 (non-Pro). Originally I was planning to get 7600GT, but the price was too high, and then I was fooled by ATI's naming scheme. I thought Pro is slightly slower version of XT, as it used to be in the R300 days. Was it a very poor purchase, considering the spec and price of the alternative choices:

XFX 7600GS AGP - $178 (400 core/533 memory)
Sapphire X1650 Pro AGP - $200 (600 core/1400 memory)
XFX 7600GT AGP $235 (580 core/1500 memory)

Its better to ask about stuff before you buy
you didnt say what type of lcd you are getting or what you do with it!
........o i c now

........Since you dont need to upgrade a monitor oftern i would off got something with a better res 1680ª1050 is soso but as price goes it looks ok. good responce time . dot pitch good, yea why not.
Screen Size: 20"
Screen Resolution: 1680x1050
Response Time: 2ms
Brightness: 300cd/m2
Contrast: 700:1
Pixel Pitch: 0.258mm
Colour support: 24-bit (16.7 million colours)
View Angle: 170° (Horizontal - Max) x 150° (Vertical - Max)
Tilt (Forward/Backward): -5 to +20°
Speakers: 2 x 1W Internal
Interface: DVI, VGA D-Sub (HD-15)
HDCP Compatible: Yes
Audio Line In Ports: 1 x 3.5mm Mini-Jack
Headphone Ports: 1 x 3.5mm Mini-Jack
Factory Presets: 5
Power Consumption: <65W (Max) / <2W (Saving)
In The Box: VGA cable, DVI cable, audio cable, power cord, user manual CD, quick start guide, warranty card
Security Locking Mechanics - Kensington Lock
Dimensions: 47.6cm (W) x 22.8cm (D) x 37.8cm (H)
Weight 5.7kg

Now the card for it is important. it would of been better to get something with at least 512 MEGS RAM since you only upgrade every 4 years
XFX 7600GT AGP @ the least

I'm a bit concerned about the color range of ASUS MW201U, otherwise the specs look fine. I guess the monitor uses TN panel. The question is whether they use 6 bit or 8 bit panel.

Since I won't mount it on the wall, I don't care much about vertical viewing angle, and decent horizontal viewing angle will be enough.

The MW201U uses a TN panel. Currently all TN panels are 6-bit.

8-bit TN panels have recently been developed by Samsung, but there are no 8-bit TN LCD monitors in the market yet.

Does the low end 17" Samsung monitors like 740N use 6 bit TN panel, too?

And how does this monitor's color accuracy compare with 20" Samsung models? I can live without 100% perfection (as I don't have other choice) if it's good enough for practical use.

The Samsung 740N uses a TN panel as well.

In my opinion TN panel tech sucks whether 6-bit or 8-bit. I prefer to buy LCDs that uses P-MVA. S-PVA, or S-IPS panels.

The only way to tell if a panel is good enough for you is to actually see it in action. Generally speaking from a technical standpoint, TN panel are inherently bad at everything except in price and response time when compared to higher end panel tech.

The ASUS MW201U is now out of stock, so I have to buy a few days later. There is also a possiblity of choosing between BenQ FP202W and ASUS MW201U.

If I have to chose between ASUS MW201U and BenQ FP202W, is BenQ better option?

The Asus uses a 6-bit TN panel and has a listed response time of 2ms.

The BenQ uses an 8-bit P-MVA or S-PVA panel and has a listed response time of 8ms.

Each panel has it's own merits and flaws so it depends on what's more important to you:

6-bit Panel:

Fast response times, less likely to see ghosting effects.
Poor color accuracy.
Can only make up to 16.2 million colors by dithering; "guessing".
Poor viewing angles.
Higher likelihood of seeing visual artifacts when watching video.


8-bit Panel:

Slower response times, more likely to see ghosting effects.
Can really produce 16.7M colors for very good color accuracy.
Great viewing angles.
Lower likelihood of seeing visual artifacts when watching video.

Why doesn't anyone state the obvious? Get a good CRT mate! They are miles ahead of any TFT out there. I had to go down the LCD route myself and I am appalled by their performance compared to CRTs.

High end CRTs are almost extinct nowadays. I was interested in CRTs few years ago when 19" displays capable of displaying 1600 x 1200 @ 85 Hz were available, but not anymore.

Still, a mid range CRT (a Viewsonic for example) is better than an LCD and they are available in some markets. Unfortunately I could not find one, so I bought a TFT this week. Those high end Sonys, Eizos and Mitsubishis though were trully astonishing... too bad production has seized.

Ive got 2 old high end crts - 19" and run at 2048x1536 with a pixel pitch 0.22 for my gaming machines at home. I have yet to see a LCD panel that will give me that sort of image quality. Im glad I got them when I did, they might be dinosaurs that take up prime desk space, they might be big ugly beige boxes, they may weigh more than a small car, but they are amazing for gaming image quality. Dont need anything like that resolution in windows though .

If one of my screens were to die irrepairably I would probably be hunting ebay for a second hand one. Just couldnt go down to LCD resolutions and pixel pitch.

Does this make me a bit of a "beta man" claiming old obsolete technology is somehow better than the modern up to date stuff that replaces it?

Ive got 2 old high end crts - 19" and run at 2048x1536 with a pixel pitch 0.22 for my gaming machines at home. I have yet to see a LCD panel that will give me that sort of image quality. Im glad I got them when I did, they might be dinosaurs that take up prime desk space, they might be big ugly beige boxes, they may weigh more than a small car, but they are amazing for gaming image quality. Dont need anything like that resolution in windows though .

If one of my screens were to die irrepairably I would probably be hunting ebay for a second hand one. Just couldnt go down to LCD resolutions and pixel pitch.

Does this make me a bit of a "beta man" claiming old obsolete technology is somehow better than the modern up to date stuff that replaces it?

No, you are absolutely right! CRT technology is head and shoulders above LCD when it comes to resolutions, refresh rates, colour depth, sharpness and latency times. The only reasons that LCDs have replaced CRTs is profit margines, fashion, space and to a much lesser extent low radiation. Much like replacing a fast, noisy, amazing sports car with a practical, friendly, non polluting and ultimately dull electric bucket. Sometimes I hate evolution!

http://www.tftcentral.co.uk says BenQ FP202W uses TN panel :?

But the IGN review says they use 8 bit panel.