Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Large Gaming Monitor

Last response: in Systems
Share
July 13, 2009 7:19:31 PM

Please help me decide on the best large gaming monitor to buy. I play online FPS games and those are typically most demanding so keep this in mind.

What I'm used to: 47" 1080p Philips LCD (being repurposed as living room TV)

What I want:
1920x1080 OR 1920x1200 (I think I prefer the 1080 wide aspect ratio though..)
24" MINIMUM , 27" is a good sweet spot, 32" would seem a bit big for my desk I'm afraid (but willing to try!)
general good quality display (though not the super-high quality that image professionals require)

Price range: please no more than $400

Early contenders:

32" Vizio 1080p = $387 (http://accessories.us.dell.com/sna/products/Video_Confe...) (using SlickDeals.com for pricing reductions)
Pros: Size, Aspect Ratio, Pretty piano black finish on edges, TV components like a tuner & remote
Cons: 6.5 ms response time is slow (too slow? comments plz), Vizio isn't a great brand in my book

Hanns·G HG-281DPB Black 27.5" 3ms = $339 (http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E168...)
Pros: 3ms response time, Newegg award winner, price has at one time been $299 for a special
Cons: wrong aspect ratio, 800:1 contrast ratio is low

ASUS VW246H Black 24" 2ms(GTG) = $219 (http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E168...)
Pros: Price, 2ms response time is FAST, nice image quality, good brand
Cons: I'm afraid this would feel too small for me.

More! If you know of any other deals I should be aware of, let me know!

More about : large gaming monitor

July 13, 2009 7:34:11 PM

You really should get a 1920x1200 monitor IMO, it's a step above 1080p HD.

I bought an Acer P243WAid 24" 1920x1200 monitor several months ago, and I freaking love it. Newegg has since deactivated the item, but it was an award winner with a 2ms response time, 3000:1 contrast ratio and... well you should just look it up and investigate it for yourself if interested. It ran me about $300 I think. It's really really bright at 100%, and the colors looked a little too green when I first got it, but 2 minutes of manual adjustment fixed all that. I had 0 dead/stuck pixels, and really can't think of anything to complain about.

If you're interested in something bigger than 24", be aware that it will either have a larger native resolution, or it will look "fuzzier" (like a TV compared to a computer monitor) due to the larger, less dense pixels.
July 13, 2009 7:39:09 PM

Hanns G 1920x1200 28" monitor. $340 with free shipping and good reviews all across the internet (for a TN panel, of course)

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E168...

And there is no reason to call its aspect ratio 'wrong', OP. Most games come with the resolution of 1920x1200 standard. Many computer people feel that monitors coming in 16x9 aspect ratio is 'wrong', so it all depends on perspective.
kufan64 said:
If you're interested in something bigger than 24", be aware that it will either have a larger native resolution, or it will look "fuzzier" (like a TV compared to a computer monitor) due to the larger, less dense pixels.

1920x1200 monitors come in 24-28" sizes. 30" monitors (like the Apple, HP and Samsung displays) have the higher 2560x1600 resolution. And no, the image will not look fuzzier, it will only have larger pixels (see: dot pitch). The pixel size scales up with the distance between pixels (pitch), and therefore will not affect the continuity of the image by increasing the area between pixels. Think about it: 19" 5*4 monitors have one of the highest dot pitches (.294) and they don't look fuzzy compared to 24" 16*10 displays (.269), so why would a 28" 1920x1200 display (.314) appear fuzzy?
Related resources
July 13, 2009 7:49:53 PM

kufan64 said:
You really should get a 1920x1200 monitor IMO, it's a step above 1080p HD.

I bought an Acer P243WAid 24" 1920x1200 monitor several months ago, and I freaking love it. ...

If you're interested in something bigger than 24", be aware that it will either have a larger native resolution, or it will look "fuzzier" (like a TV compared to a computer monitor) due to the larger, less dense pixels.


Thanks for your input. However I think that the moving-my-head-to-look-around-at-different-parts-of-the-screen effect in FPS games is a more desired feature than having a fine pixel pitch. Remember, I'm used to gaming on a 47" screen (although it was wall mounted and a good extra foot-and-a-half away from my desk, where the new monitor will sit).

Just saw that Newegg has a 24" 1920x1080 Acer monitor at $200 (today only). Hmmm...
July 13, 2009 7:58:54 PM

I think the response time won't affect you to much in your MMO games, unless you are playing something that has lots of stuff streaking across the screen all the time. As for the "fuzziness" of using hdtv, I think if your tv has a native PC input that won't be an issue. Older Hdtv's that had no native PC input and couldn't calibrate the settings correctly had some issues with that, but that is pretty much a thing of the past. One way to tell would be to sit about as far away as you would be from your monitor and look at your current 1080p. If that looks fine to you, then you'll be happy with the picture of the smaller 32in, because it will have a denser screen.
July 13, 2009 9:39:28 PM

KyleSTL said:
Hanns G 1920x1200 28" monitor. $340 with free shipping and good reviews all across the internet (for a TN panel, of course)

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E168...

And there is no reason to call its aspect ratio 'wrong', OP. Most games come with the resolution of 1920x1200 standard. Many computer people feel that monitors coming in 16x9 aspect ratio is 'wrong', so it all depends on perspective.

1920x1200 monitors come in 24-28" sizes. 30" monitors (like the Apple, HP and Samsung displays) have the higher 2560x1600 resolution. And no, the image will not look fuzzier, it will only have larger pixels (see: dot pitch). The pixel size scales up with the distance between pixels (pitch), and therefore will not affect the continuity of the image by increasing the area between pixels. Think about it: 19" 5*4 monitors have one of the highest dot pitches (.294) and they don't look fuzzy compared to 24" 16*10 displays (.269), so why would a 28" 1920x1200 display (.314) appear fuzzy?


Thanks for the reply. When I said that the 1920x1200 aspect ratio was "wrong" I didn't mean it in a non-standards way. I meant it in a personal preference way. In fact, you're right in that 1920x1080 is/was less common for computers. In fact, I had to use a special script to get Battlefield 2 to run in 1080, and it makes the UI stretch wide (but thankfully the 3d graphics aren't stretched).

Do you have any opinions as to whether a response time of 6.5 ms (Vizio TV) is too slow for FPS games?
July 13, 2009 9:46:46 PM

Sorry about the MMO comment, I meant to say FPS. The response time is really only noticeable when lots of things are moving across the screen, or a fast camera pan. I would imagine your old 47in had similar or even slower response time, so if that did not bother you I can't see it affecting you now.
July 13, 2009 9:52:57 PM

The 47" almost certainly had a slower response time so it shouldn't bother you, but you might appreciate a fast response time once you see it in action. I play a bunch of shooters, and wanted something with a fast response time so I didn't get that "ghosting" or blur effect when things go nuts.
July 13, 2009 10:04:26 PM

With a 6ms you're fine... Lcd has pretty much got rid of ghosting.. Unless you buy a really really really crappy one. If it has a true <12 ms you'll be fine. It just used to be lcd would claim such, yet they had true ms times of 16+ were is the bad rep of ghosting came to play when lcd were introduced. Now days like I said, stick with a decent brand, read a few reviews, and you shouldn't have any worries..

I got a Asus 25.5 1900x1200, and absolutly love it. Really any bigger, might be a tad to be imo. So you might want to check them out.
July 14, 2009 12:46:55 AM

Katsushiro said:
Hanns·G HG-281DPB Black 27.5" 3ms = $339 (http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E168...)
Pros: 3ms response time, Newegg award winner, price has at one time been $299 for a special
Cons: wrong aspect ratio, 800:1 contrast ratio is low
I picked this same monitor on a whim based on the reviews on Newegg as well as other notable sites and will tell you that it is a premo nice monitor. My only real complaint is that it is a very bright panel, almost too bright. However, between the video card driver adjustments and the adjustments available on the monitor itself, the brightness is not really an issue; just be prepared to take some time to fine tune the contrast/gamma/brightness, etc to your liking. Other than that, it truly is a really nice monitor and it is really hard to beat for the price. The only other monitors I've seen about the same size with the same response time are more than $400, but I'm sure you already know that. I've got a 4870 1GB feeding this Hanns-G and also play a number of shooters and have no complaints about the response and quality of game play, I have yet to have any ghosting or tearing issues. Again, it's a great monitor for a great price and do recommend it.

Good luck with whatever you choose!
July 14, 2009 9:23:16 PM

I think I'll go with the Hanns-G 27.5. This decision made after coming this || close to buying the Vizio last night until my internet went out. I was one page away from finalizing the deal, and now its expired...

But I'm not too choked up about it because I think I would be happier with the Hanns-G in the long run anyways.

Now to just begin the long wait for it to go on sale again...
July 14, 2009 9:49:28 PM

If you have access to a Costco membership, http://www.costco.com/Browse/Product.aspx?Prodid=112369...

I bought it from them because they will return/exchange it for any reason (ex. only 1 dead pixel, newegg requires 8 to return i think). BTW I was amazed by this monitor, the only con was I had to get a new desk to fit it :p 
July 14, 2009 10:05:35 PM

tonyn84 said:
If you have access to a Costco membership, http://www.costco.com/Browse/Product.aspx?Prodid=112369...

I bought it from them because they will return/exchange it for any reason (ex. only 1 dead pixel, newegg requires 8 to return i think). BTW I was amazed by this monitor, the only con was I had to get a new desk to fit it :p 


Newegg requires 8 dead pixels in order to be eligible to RMA? lol.... If the item is damaged in any way it can be sent back for an RMA or FULL refund (30 day).


July 15, 2009 1:27:43 AM

My buddy games on an LG 47" and I think it looks pretty darn good. I am currently looking at a 37" Vizio 370m for about $530 at Walmart, it has a 5ms response and and seems to look pretty good. The size works for me cause of games like America's Army 3 and Ghost Recon Advanced Warfighter. I can see people in the distance so much better than smaller monitors that it's not even funny.
July 15, 2009 1:58:58 AM

I don't game on TV's unless i am playing PS3. As far as detail is concerned, you wont be able to have the same eye-candy you see on a gaming LCD compared to LCD TV. Yea the TV will have all objects much bigger but in contrast it suffers from high detail (unless you have a 240Hrtz LCD TV). So its up to the consumer's need's... A big LCD TV will suffer from picture quality but it will be easier too look at. A smaller LCD monitor will have better picture quality but it is more of a strain on the eye.

At least this is how its been for me. Every now n then I will hook up my pc to my brothers 55" Samsung 1080p LCD but only if we are playing like a 2 player game, not for everyday use. This is solely my opinion......
July 17, 2009 6:50:12 PM

Why would a 60 hz lcd monitor show more detail than a 120 hz (or 60 hz for that matter) lcd tv? I know smaller screens look sharper just cause of the pixel size, but what does hz have to do with it?
July 17, 2009 7:25:59 PM

The video is alot more crisp n clear if you compare a 60 hrtz LCD to a 120 hrtz, on top of that your frames go up so in contrast you get more detail...

Same if you compare 120 hrtz to the new 240 hrtz.

Kinda like comparing a regular DVD to a blue-ray....
July 17, 2009 7:32:45 PM

Computer monitors and LCD TV's work in similar ways but they are different. You won't see for example a 24" Samsung 1080p monitor with 240 hrtz, for now it just aint worh it since smaller screens have a smaller pixel size.....The bigger the screen, the more need for hrtz....

Samsung is devolping a 15" monitor with 240 hrtz but that to me is a waste of money.... specially being a 15"
July 17, 2009 7:39:37 PM

OvrClkr, I don't understand exactly what you're saying.

I have two identical monitors, one at 60hertz, the other at 75 hertz. Which one looks better?

I think you're trying to handle too many variables (screen size, hertz, contrast etc.)at the same time.

I'm actually confused now lol.
July 17, 2009 8:12:17 PM

Well you wont see a difference if we compare 60 hertz to 75 hertz, the addition of 15 herts is not noticiable and you have to take in consideration what kind of monitor and brand you are comparing.

Normally you see a difference when you compare 60 to 120 or 120 to 240 hertz. The best way to see this in real life is to go to Best-Buy for example and test both Samsungs, the 46" 1080p 120 hertz LCD panel vs. the new 1080p+ "Blue Phase" technology 240 hertz LCD panel .. You wont believe the difference. It's like comparing a normal lcd monitor to a high-end LED monitor. Yea in th end its all eye-candy but for some its worth the price.
July 17, 2009 8:18:38 PM

But you're comparing two different TV's. Do you see what I'm saying? There's too many variables there that could influence the difference in picture quality aside from just the hertz.
July 17, 2009 8:40:23 PM

I understand that I am just trying to explain the diff between 120 and 240 hertz And the reason why I do not use LCD TV's when I game on my pc. Just a personal preference...

If this does not answer your qustion then I am the one that is confused.....
July 17, 2009 9:32:04 PM

Refresh rate has nothing to do with clarity. Also, no consumer panel on the planet actually displays 240 hz. It is actually displaying 120hz, and computing frames at 240hz and showing every other one. OvrClkr, I don't believe you know what you're talking about.
July 17, 2009 9:52:48 PM

Um... I guess you can google Samsung 240 Hertz LCD panel and you will see what I am talking about.... then compare both screens and look for density, clarity and refresh rate...then again you will see what I am talking about.... need more?

And finally compare a 60 to 120 and then and 120 to a 240 hertz and you should get the picture.....
July 17, 2009 11:23:10 PM

OvrClkr said:
Um... I guess you can google Samsung 240 Hertz LCD panel and you will see what I am talking about.... then compare both screens and look for density, clarity and refresh rate...then again you will see what I am talking about.... need more?

And finally compare a 60 to 120 and then and 120 to a 240 hertz and you should get the picture.....


Not wanting to start a war, but i think you may some of your info confused. Hz is is "times a second" so basically a 60hz panel can show a different frame 60 times a second and a 120hz panel can display... you guessed it,, 120 a second. the higher hz panels aren't made to increase picture clarity and detail like you are suggesting, it is for motion fluidity. More times a second does not make the pixels show something differently, it just makes them able to show the same thing more often. The thing that can make it look a little less detailed maybe, is the fact that it's so big that you can see the pixels if you sit too close to it as opposed to a 22" screen.
One case in point, my buddies 47" tv is a 60hz panel with a 5ms response time. Mine is the same brand and basically the same series, just a different model. Mine is a 120 hz panel and I think a 4 ms response (it may be 5, i can't remember). There is not a difference in picture clarity when they are sitting next to each other, but there is a difference in motion smoothness while watching movies that are 24 fps or watching a football game while the camera pans across the field really fast following the ball.
Yes, you can look at a brand's website and they are going to tell you that their 240 hz panel is gonna be sharp and clear, that's advertising dude. According to them, everything about their particular product is "sharper are clearer' than the competition's The biggest thing that is going to affect clarity and crispness these days is advances in other technologies. IE; backlighting, dot pitch, contrast ratio, stuff like that, which has nothing to do with hz.

Now the new LED LCD tvs, there is something that you can really notice as far as color and contrast, but the pixels still show the same textures
July 18, 2009 1:42:33 AM

There are tons of factors involved in different tvs and monitors, and a simple breakdown of refresh rate really tells you nothing. Everyone has their own preferences, and I don't want to talk anyone out of theirs. BUT I do want people who are considering larger monitors to also consider hdtv as an alternative. There are many benefits to having your tv as your main monitor, and if you need to you can still have a smaller secondary monitor at your desktop for when the tv is being used by someone else. I personally use a lcd hdtv as my monitor and love it. I also have a 24inch monitor on my desktop that I rarely use except when the tv is not available or I need to keep on eye on two things at once. As I said, its personal taste, but it is completely untrue to say the picture quality on a good hd lcd tv is lower than what you'll get on a smaller monitor.
!