Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Should I get a 22" LCD? My 6600GT good enough?

Last response: in Graphics & Displays
Share
October 26, 2007 10:09:13 PM

R.I.P.--- Gamebro's Viewsonic 21" CRT.... Died of cancer on October 25th 2007.

I tried to resuscitate it, but all CPR techniques failed (banging the sides with my hands)..... The monitor has the problem of flickered on an off for years, but yesterday after a lot of static clicks and pops it finally reached the end.... The screen would not wake up properly after sleeping for a bit. When I woke it up, the game screen super expanded, then black..... dead.... All attempts to fix, failed...... For 5 years did this $300 monitor serve me well, and now I must bury it in my backyard.. Not to honor it, no..... Rather to avoid paying fees to drop it off at my junkyard =D
So now what? I wasn't planning on buying a new monitor for a few more years =\


LCD vs CTR? There is a serious lack of information on monitors here at Tom's hardware, the monitor forums (where this really belongs) gets like 1-2 responses a day..... (I moved this post from there, cause it had like 7 views in 4 hours). This GPU forum is actually more active in regards to monitors =\


Hours apon hours of research, and don't hardly understand a d@mn thing about the super confusing world of LCD monitors! A lot if die-hards say CTR is better for gaming, yet you can't find CTR's anymore on the mass market for a fair price, and 22" LCD's are dirt cheap. CTR's also consume a butt load more electricity then LCD's... Savings on electricity bills would probably pay off the LCD vs CRT in just 1 year!


I do all sorts of things on the computer, like word docs, art, web browsing, music work, but mainly a lot of hardcore gaming. I play a lot of runescape, Oblivion, (soon Crysis), BF2142 ect, and I'll play games 12 hours straight at times =D
I have never owned a LCD. So I am a complete noob in this field, and at the mercy of what others tell me.

Do I need a strong video card to use a 22" LCD? (my current card is a 6600GT, on a AMD 3200XP chip)

Is the LCD only good in native Resolution? How good are they if I want to browse windows in lower res (for larger icons and text)? I especially like to play in low res for runescape to get a larger game screen.

How likely am I to get dead pixels?

Does Crysis have good support for widescreen play? Is there anything I should know about using widescreens and games?


I am using a 6600GT as I said before, but I do plan to build a new PC in january, with probably a 8800GT. I wouldn't expect my 6600GT to do great things on a 22", but I'd hope it can at least run windows in the meantime...
I am pretty sure I am going to buy this 22" unless someone here talks me out of it----
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E168...

The reviews are solid! Dirt cheap 22" monitor. Only $224 after rebate. It can't be all that bad for general use and gaming can it?



I am currently running on a backup monitor.... A nec MultiSync XV17 (17" I believe).... It is probably older then I am, and weighs more then my burned up 21" w00t!
I'd share a picture of it, but it isn't halloween yet, and I don't want to scare anybody... Let's just say, it's a GHASTLY sight! =0

More about : lcd 6600gt good

October 26, 2007 10:22:17 PM

The 6600GT would work just fine for normal Windows browsing, but it will choke on some of those games depending resolution. You can run LCDs lower than their native resolution, but the results will be mixed.
October 26, 2007 11:43:19 PM

The LCDs are getting a lot better with time, there are a lot of articles that say LCDs are bad for gaming, but look at the date, most of them are 2 years old.

I don't wanna write about all the diferences, but the most important for me in gaming: time response (the reason of the annoying blur (ghost) effect).

Time response in LCDs is like refresh rate in CRTs. Refresh rate for CRTs is the frequency (1/time) that the monitor needs to show a new image (it needs to be refreshed). If you apply 1/frequency you have a nice comparation to LCDs.

For LCDs, time response is the time that need an individual pixel to change from black to white. The main diference is that every pixel is treated in an independent way. The pixels don't 'turn off' after a time (like in CRTs), so you don't need to change them all.

Some years ago the LCDs had a 25ms time response, and 1/25ms -> 40 hz. So 40 fps was the best if you saw it that way. The problem is that you see everything that moves with a blur effect (ghosting) and that suxed.

Now some LCDs have a 2ms time response (that's really 8ms when you measure it) but 8ms is still pretty good 1/8ms -> 125 hz. Thats pretty decent for gaming.

Just see some user previews of the monitor you want to buy! The specs lie a lot.
Related resources
October 26, 2007 11:59:34 PM

OK thank you fellows for the information. That is consistent with other things I've read.


So this monitor I am looking to buy (link in my first post), it is rated at 5ms, but nobody reports any ghosting, and it has 500+ reviews (80+%) positive! Think I'd be safe to buy it?

Will it make games look wierd, if they don't support widescreen though?
October 27, 2007 12:25:00 AM

I wouldn't worry about it so much and just get the monitor.

I did the same thing a few weeks ago and couldn't be happier. I went from a View Sonic P75f+ (17") to a Samsung 226BW with a Gainward Fx5900.

So far so good. I tested it with BF1942, Doom3 and UT2003/04. (Both UT's were the demo version) In the games video set up pick the best widescreen resolution you card will handle. Mine did pretty well. I didn't notice any hiccups due to the higher resolution. Seems to run fine. I'm wouldn't doubt I'm getting less FPS, but it looks good to me.

October 27, 2007 12:44:11 AM

For widescreen issues: http://www.widescreengamingforum.com/
there's a lot of info about forcing widescreen on games that don't have native widescreen support.

In the previous post I forgot something important, the native resolution, you shouldn't play anything in a different resolution if you want to see it nice. With your video card, it will be quite difficult to play decently with the native res of a 22" LCD monitor (mostly 1680x1050).
October 27, 2007 12:58:23 AM

Bookmarked that page! Thank you very much, I been looking for a site with good info!

So why exactly is it bad to turn down res? The game just gets super blurry or low quality looking or what?
Would it be a bad idea to browse windows in a lower res, or just games?

Sorry for all these questions I know they are noobish. I came to rely on my 22" monitor for the past 5 years so I am way out of the loop on this.


And like was quickly mentioned here earlier.... I noticed it too while searching for info on the net...... Most of the articles out there on LCD vs CRT are like years old lol! Very unreliable information to say the least!
a c 363 U Graphics card
a c 195 C Monitor
October 27, 2007 2:55:35 AM

LCDs have a defined number of pixels. In simple terms, lowering the resolution results in images and texts that will not look as sharp as in native resolution because lines and shapes must be "estimated" to determine how best to fit them on the screen.

While you can tell that the images and texts are "softer", they will not be grotesque. Games will still be playable and still look good. Texts may look slightly fuzzy but still very readable.

Some monitors have more features than others which can compensate for a "less powerful GPU":

1. 1:1 bit mapping / Aspect Ratio - It may be called different names by the manufacturer but it forces the monitor to use the exact number of pixels needed to display the resolution (as long as it is less than native). Since it only uses the exact number of pixels necessary images and texts will be as sharp as native resolution.

The result will be a black boarder around viewing area.

Here's an example:



Notice the viewing area is not as wide as the OSD menu.

2. Sharpness - Again not all monitors will have this feature and it is not as good as 1:1 bit mapping / Aspect Ratio. But it could be used to tweak images and texts to look better (somewhat).

October 27, 2007 3:19:14 AM

Another good fact, LCD screens are much better than CRTs for your eyes because they don't refresh like CRTs. So you can play your 12 hours marathons without red eyes xD. And they consume less power.
October 27, 2007 3:42:45 AM

Seikent said:
Another good fact, LCD screens are much better than CRTs for your eyes because they don't refresh like CRTs. So you can play your 12 hours marathons without red eyes xD. And they consume less power.



SOLD!!!!

I am buying this monitor now =-D

Yeah after many hours of play my eyes do bother me, and yes look red like I had been drinking all day (gaming binge w00t)

Thanks for the input fellows! Now let's hope I don't get any dead pixels!
October 27, 2007 4:30:43 AM

Dead pixels aren't very common anymore. Out of 3 19" monitors I've bought (2 of them for other people), I haven't seen any dead pixels. It might just be the brand though (Hanns G).
!