Which of these 2 is the better monitor for gaming? PLEASE, REPLY.

Which of these 2 monitors is the better one for gaming?

NOTE: I did a search on Tom's Hardware site and found at least 5 recommendations for the following monitor (#1 below) for gaming. I don't know why it is so highly recommended. Will someone please explain why it is preferred for gaming systems compared to the other monitor (#2 below) which I am considering? The 2nd one seems to have more features and is relatively close in specs to the 1st one.

(#1)
ASUS VW224U Black 22" 2ms(GTG) Widescreen LCD Monitor w/ HDCP Support 300 cd/m2 1000:1 (ASCR 5000:1)

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Prod [...] ck%2022%22

#2)
Acer H233Hbmid 23" LCD Monitor - 5ms, 1920x1080, 40000:1, Full 1080p Capability, HDMI

http://www.tigerdirect.com/applica [...] dy=REVIEWS

Message edited by Kreelor on 03-16-2009 at 08:18:38 PM

Add a reply

Register or log in to remove.

For gaming, there are some other external things to consider:
What games and what Graphics card will you be using? A larger monitor will need a more powerful GPU to render all the extra pixels over the smaller screen. If your GPU will be able to handle it, or if your games aren't that demanding then either monitor would be good choices.

Now the most important spec on a monitor for gaming is its response time, 5ms is good, 2ms is better. Your first monitor has a better response time and is cheaper, which are both good. That Acer has 1080P resolution, which is large so if all you have is an HD 4850, your games will be slow and frustrating on that monitor if you play at full resolution. You can of course turn the resolution down when your gaming, but then the image isn't as clear and won't look as good.

Personally I would go for the first monitor you chose, it looks like you will get more for your money there out of your system, but it really depends a lot on your other hardware, your GPU might be wasted if you have a GTX 285 and just buy a 1680x1050 monitor.

Message quoted 1 times

------------------------------ Asus P6T & i7 920 @ 3.6ghz
GTX 260 Core 216
6gb 1443MHZ 7-7-7-18 1T OCZ Platinum
CM RC-690, CM V8 HSF
Reply to xthekidx

http://accessories.us.dell.com/sna [...] u=320-7438

Better then both of those for $20 more. And Dell usually does free shipping.

Pixel response time is important, but the difference between 5ms and 2ms is something a human being will not notice. What's usually the killer in gaming monitors is input lag, and poor picture quality.

Dell lcd panels are made by Samsung and from what i've seen Samsung displays are above average in display quality. Dell has superior electronics in their monitors though. They usually have 1:1 pixel mapping, or at the very least better scaling.

As for a 4850 struggling with 1920x1080...you have got to be joking. I have a older card then that, G92 8800gts, that plays perfectly fine at 1920x1200 which is an even higher resolution. Games include Half-Life 2, Dead Space, WoW, and Left 4 Dead. All at the absolute maximum settings. Seeing as how the 4850 is a better card then the 8800gts i'd say it have no trouble at 1080P.

Message quoted 1 times
Message edited by Lucuis on 03-16-2009 at 11:48:15 PM

------------------------------

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3261/2577559697_bdb9aec12f_o.png

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3098/2577559521_edb3ac038e_o.png

http://valid.canardpc.com/cache/banner/679275.png

Reply to Lucuis

Lucuis wrote :

http://accessories.us.dell.com/sna [...] u=320-7438

Better then both of those for $20 more. And Dell usually does free shipping.

Pixel response time is important, but the difference between 5ms and 2ms is something a human being will not notice. What's usually the killer in gaming monitors is input lag, and poor picture quality.

Thank you!

Maybe I'm just missing something, since I'm far from technologically-saavy. I'm confused about "input lag." From where does the "input" come from? The video card? Internet speed?

Also, my (#2) choice has this to say about their monitor:

"What’s even better is the full HD 1080p resolution you’ll get to enjoy on this monitor. Add in an incredible 40,000:1 contrast ratio, 300nits brightness, DVI and HDMI interfaces, etc..."

It seems to me that 40,000:1 contrast ratio would provide a nicer image for both gaming and watching movies (compared to the 1,000:1 on the monitor you recommend). Am I wrong about this? They both are 5ms monitors, and HD, as well. I paid only $1.98 shipping cost to TigerDirect. Plus, I paid only $219.99 -- $40.00 less than the Dell.

Anyway, as I stated already to "xthekidx", I had to order a monitor right away. I didn't receive any replies soon enough. I'm still glad you wrote and gave me the info. I chose the Acer monitor because it will "work" for gaming AND also it will give me HD and a higher contrast ratio. I hope I won't be disappointed! Heh heh.

Thanks again. I'm "closing" this Topic, for now.

Message quoted 1 times

Reply to Kreelor

xthekidx wrote :

For gaming, there are some other external things to consider:
What games and what Graphics card will you be using? A larger monitor will need a more powerful GPU to render all the extra pixels over the smaller screen. If your GPU will be able to handle it, or if your games aren't that demanding then either monitor would be good choices.

Now the most important spec on a monitor for gaming is its response time, 5ms is good, 2ms is better. Your first monitor has a better response time and is cheaper, which are both good. That Acer has 1080P resolution, which is large so if all you have is an HD 4850, your games will be slow and frustrating on that monitor if you play at full resolution. You can of course turn the resolution down when your gaming, but then the image isn't as clear and won't look as good.

Personally I would go for the first monitor you chose, it looks like you will get more for your money there out of your system, but it really depends a lot on your other hardware, your GPU might be wasted if you have a GTX 285 and just buy a 1680x1050 monitor.

Thank you!

I haven't yet looked up what is an "HD 4850" and a "GTX 285." So, I'm not sure what you mean by that. Sorry. I'll look those up later today.

I understand that for gaming, the 2ms vs the 5ms is the better choice. And, of course the price-tag wouldn't have hurt as badly!

My (#2) choice has this to say about their monitor:

"What’s even better is the full HD 1080p resolution you’ll get to enjoy on this monitor. Add in an incredible 40,000:1 contrast ratio, 300nits brightness, DVI and HDMI interfaces, etc..."

It seems to me that 40,000:1 contrast ratio would provide a nicer image for both gaming and watching movies, than the 1,000:1 (or, 5000:1 ASCR -- whatever that means?) contrast ratio on my option (#1).

I had to order a monitor right away. My current 32-year-old composite monitor barely allows me to read even text anymore!

I didn't receive any replies soon enough. I appreciate your advice and the information you gave to me. I chose the Acer monitor because it will "work" for gaming AND also it will give me HD and a higher contrast ratio. (As I said, my current monitor is dead).

I hope I won't be disappointed! Heh heh. I'm hoping it will be a better "all-around" monitor as well as a fairly decent one for playing online games.

Thanks again, xthekidx. I'm "closing" this Topic, for now.

Message edited by Kreelor on 03-17-2009 at 03:11:03 PM

Reply to Kreelor

Kreelor wrote :

Thank you!

Maybe I'm just missing something, since I'm far from technologically-saavy. I'm confused about "input lag." From where does the "input" come from? The video card? Internet speed?

Also, my (#2) choice has this to say about their monitor:

"What’s even better is the full HD 1080p resolution you’ll get to enjoy on this monitor. Add in an incredible 40,000:1 contrast ratio, 300nits brightness, DVI and HDMI interfaces, etc..."

It seems to me that 40,000:1 contrast ratio would provide a nicer image for both gaming and watching movies (compared to the 1,000:1 on the monitor you recommend). Am I wrong about this? They both are 5ms monitors, and HD, as well. I paid only $1.98 shipping cost to TigerDirect. Plus, I paid only $219.99 -- $40.00 less than the Dell.

Anyway, as I stated already to "xthekidx", I had to order a monitor right away. I didn't receive any replies soon enough. I'm still glad you wrote and gave me the info. I chose the Acer monitor because it will "work" for gaming AND also it will give me HD and a higher contrast ratio. I hope I won't be disappointed! Heh heh.

Thanks again. I'm "closing" this Topic, for now.

They actually have the same 1000:1 Typical contrast ratio. The Dynamic contrast is a marketing gimmick. With dynamic contrast on, the backlight will "intelligently" adjust based on the image on the screen to attempt to provide the best picture. I found itto be distracting to have the backlight constantly flickering. And yes it does almost flicker. The base or "typical" contrast ratio is what is important.

As for input lag, it shouldn't be an issue for any TN panel. But what it is, is the amount of time it takes for the monitor to display the image outputted from your computer. In a PvP scenario what could happen is someone on a monitor with next to no input lag could actually see you before you see them by as much as 50ms due solely to input lag.

Glad how could be of assistance.

------------------------------

Reply to Lucuis

Forum Homebuilt Systems : New System Build - Which of these 2 is the better monitor for gaming? PLEASE, REPLY.

Please mind

Focus On

Which of these 2 is the better monitor for gaming? PLEASE, REPLY.

Forum Homebuilt Systems : New System Build - Which of these 2 is the better monitor for gaming? PLEASE, REPLY.

Please mind