LCD for gaming

[silvermoon]

Hello I am searching a lcd monitor mainly for games,15 inches.I had until now the following suggestions:
1)Samsung syncmaster 152T
2)Sony SDM x52
3)Viewsonic VX500+
4)Sharp LL-TI520-B

some people told me that I need a little/small respond time.What is that?I am new to computers,and somepeople when they see a girl asking them ,they laugh(too bad).Anyway can somebody help me?

 

[elzt]

Response time is something like how fast a pixel of LCD display can be turned on and off again. So naturally, the smaller the response time the better the LCD for gaming.

 

[flamethrower205]

There are several factors that make a good lcd- viewing angles (at what point contrast is 1/10 of what it is when viewed optimally), contrast, brightness, and response time. Response time is very important in games and multimedia in that if the lcd cannot switch fast enough to provide the necessary fps, it'll look blurry. Thus, the lower the response time the better, you can think of it as an inverse multiplicative relationship where xy=1000 milliseconds. Thus, 30ms response yields 33 1/3 fps, which at first appearance would seem fine. However, there is another added aspect to this- grey shift. The stated response times are for black to white, white to black only- ie applying maximum energy to change the crystal. However, in the case of intermediary colors, less energy is applied to attain the desired amount of light blockage, and it thus takes longer to shift. To give you an idea, and lcd with 25ms response time can have up to a 52ms response time one way when dealing with greys. Technologies that are especially prone to getting bad response times with gray shift are MVA and PVA. The new 16ms response time lcd's are ok though. In terms of the monitors you have monetioned- the 152T seems way too bright- 350cd/m^s is ridiculous. To give u an idea, the human eye is most comfortable at 40 cd/m^2, crt monitors have max of around 100 cd/m^2 (past that point energy consumption and what's emitted are too great). Thus, 350 will cause u some serious eyestrain. the X52 looks ok, though it too is really bright (300cd/m^2). Response time is ok, though could be better and viewing angles seem kinda inadequate. Same issues with the viewsonic. Finally, the sharp looks ok- 250 is still high but compared to the others..... Viewing angles r great- 170/170º! And response time is 25ms (you'll still get some blur though, be aware). Is there any chance you could go for a 17" LCD- when newer tech comes out it tends to focus on larger monitors first, the new 16ms 17" being a prime example of this.

Hilbert space is a big place.

 

[silvermoon]

Thank you,you were so helpfull So if i understood good enough sharp is the best solution?Anyway could you specify the top 3 lcd monitors(15) and top 3 for 17 inches,for gaming?I can efford up to 1000-1500Euros.Which lcd monitors(17 inches) use the newest technology you mentioned(16ms response time)...Thanx flamethrower

<P ID="edit"><FONT SIZE=-1><EM>Edited by silvermoon on 03/18/03 07:20 AM.</EM></FONT></P>

 

[edwardz]

Hi, I think the best display would be the NEC 1560NX or 1760NX. Both have the same panel(15" and 17"). You get a response time of 16ms. It is supposed to be hardly noticable. Colors are great also. The 17" would be around what you're ready to pay. There aren'T many displays with 16ms response time so this would be a safe bet.

<font color=green><b> I'm a CyberPhile</b> </font color=green>

 

[JDig]

gaming lcd

From my own experience (I bought one) I can recomment the Sony X52. Sony says it has a response time of 30ms but in operation it is much better than any 25ms panels I have seen (particularly Samsung units). This is down to the way the response time is measured as explained in other replies. I cannot notice ghosting in games; GTA3, RTCW, Mafia etc. In general use the monitor is excellent but does have one draw back; it's poor at displaying black (backlight clearly visible behind).

I've seen the Hitachi and I do think it's probably slightly better for games, though it too is poor at displaying black. The Sony is better for general windows use however.

In terms of brightness the Sony has a handy backlight control (in addition to the brightness control) so you can reduce brightness to a suitable level (I have brightness at 25% and the backlight at 80%). From experience this doesn't seem to be standard on all lcd screens. Not sure if the Hitachi has this or not.

Also you should also consider that although a 17" panel is larger text will be displayed at a much smaller size. Many people consider an 18" panel more suited to 1024x1280. A 15" seems better suited to its native resolution.

Hope that helps

 

[gideonli]

Hi cris
I was very impressed from your high knowledge level in LCD and would appreciate your advice on the followings:
I need a screen resolution of 1600*1200 in my work: Office( Excel, word PowerPoint) and photo editing.
I have to choose between two screens: iiyama 4831 & iiyama 5131 both with the same resolution 1600*1200 but with 0.2415 pixel pitch brightness = 200,contrast = 300 19” IPS technology and 0.255, 250, 600, 20.1” MVA respectively.
I would kindly ask you the followings:
1.To compare the viewable clarity and sharpness of text and pictures in the above two screens considering the bigger pixel pitch 0.255 over 0.2415, 11% greater area but better contrast in 5131.
2.Will the not yet matured, MVA technology in the 5131 give the excellent clarity and sharpness of text and pictures I experience in the 4831 IPS technology?
Thanks for your cooperation
Gideon liberman

 

[flamethrower205]

Ok, taking a look at the specs, I'll give you my opinion, but please realize that I have not seen these personally, so before ordering a monitor, it's advised to see it in real life (specs are nice, but manufacturers can....tweak them to make a monitor seem better). With that said, IPS gives a richer black, but then the contrast isn't very high, while 600:1 on the 5131DT is very high for an LCD. In terms of clarity, both will be very sharp, though true, the 19" will be even better. For your purposes, response time doesn't seem like it will be an issue, so MVA would be ok, especially since it's great for wide viewing angles. Overall, I'd go for the 20.1" as it's more screen area and much higher contrast. Perhaps someone here has seen these monitors and can comment?

Hilbert space is a big place.

 

[Dyltone]

I was concerned about gaming performance when I was first shopping for my LCD. I went back and forth, 16ms or 25ms. The 16's were all too small (I had a 21" CRT and didn't want to loose that much size) and the 25's had this horrible blurring or ghosting. I found a deal on the Dell 20.1" LCD for $768 plus tax and free shipping and couldn't pass it up. I bit the bullet and hoped for a good showing.

We I'm pleased to announce that EVERYONE in this forum is TOO DAMN PICKY! I was told to NEVER use analog because the text would be unreadable. I was told that I HAVE to use the native (resolution) mode for the monitor or it will look jaggy. I was told that I was DEFINATELY going to get ghosting while playing FPS (first person shooter) games.

Well... I have hooked the monitor up to both analog and digital and I can't see ANY difference at all, not even a little. I keep my resolution at 1280 x 1024 because 1600 x 1200 is a little to big (err small) for my taste, but I can go all the way down to 800 x 600 with a very very good picture! Not that anyone would want to do that, but come on people. And finally, on to the most important point, Gaming. I play at 800 x 600 or 1024 x 768 depending on the game and I can move the mouse as fast a possible, to the point where you can see anything on the screen and there is no 'ghosting' or lag or anything. This LCD is at least the same performance as my CRT!

You people are the same people that bitch about SVideo is better than Composite Video and Component Video is better than both of them. I have a very high end TV and Tuner and there is NO NOTICABLE DIFFERENCE between any of them! Get a Life!

The bottom line:
Buy the monitor, you won't be disapointed and don't let these people take the fun out of your new purchase!

My .02

 

[flamethrower205]

Everyone's got their opinions, but the majority of people here will agree that scaled resolutions on lcd look bad and that there is noticeable ghosting on a 25ms lcd, especially one w/ MVA or PVA. I also think people have a right to be picky when they spend 1K on an lcd, and also, quite frankly you don't have to be picky to notice degraded image quality on scaled resolutions- perhaps you don't deal with anything precise and thus don't notice the scaling. Also, how good is your eyesight and how far away do you sit from the lcd?

Hilbert space is a big place.

 

[Dyltone]

Do you need a straw?

It might help you suck the fun out of buying a cool new toy a little faster!

I sit the same distance away from my monitor as anyone else would. I have perfect 20/20 vision and my text is just a clear and crisp as anyone elses! If your implying that Precise means using my monitor for CAD or Photo touchups, well i'm not. I'm using it for all the same things everyone else does, web surfing, games, and office stuff.

There is NO difference bewteen 1600 x 1200 and 1024 x 768 or even 1280 x 1024 that is caused by the LCD. If you take a CRT and put it at those resolutions, you will see the same exact changes in scaling and font cripsness!

You're either being too critical or other LCD monitors just don't perform as well as mine does.

 

[flamethrower205]

Ok, you see now it's apparent your just giving me bullsh!t because the image definetly does not look the same scaled on a CRT or LCD. Do you have any idea even what you're talking about? It seems you'r either biased beyond beleif or have never seen an lcd screen in your life.

Hilbert space is a big place.