We rounded up the best LCD monitors available in retail channels this year - and let us just say we were not disappointed. But what ultimately determines whether a display stands out or not depends on whether you are an office user, gamer or graphic designer.

I bought the Hyundai Q90U monitor for gaming. No matter what any reviewers say, if you want perfect visual fluidity, DO NOT BUY AN LCD MONITOR. Even the fastest gaming LCD monitors are appalling at displaying fluid and clear images in comparison to CRT monitors. With disgracefully slow response times of the order of milliseconds for a "fast" LCD monitor, a CRT's effective equivalent of the order of microseconds has a clearly noticeable difference. For example, I tested on Half Life 2 with both LCD and CRT monitors hooked up to a beast of a system. The system was massively powerful so that it could offer frame rates (with vertical synch on) that match the refresh rate of the monitor (so 60Hz for LCD, 85Hz for CRT) with no effort. This means that in each case the displayed image is as fluid as possible, with no visual tearing, or jerking from missed frames – i.e. visual speed perfection. The “fastest” gaming LCD monitors killed any sense of visual quality and immersivity because they generate a relatively enormous blurring. Spinning around, the scenery in the distance becomes all blurred until you stop rotating. However on the CRT, it’s crystal clear and totally changes the perception of the game – it’s like looking through a window into real life (as far as speed/image fluidity is concerned). CRT monitors may be bulky and heavy and “old” technology, but if you want visual perfection in a game, DO NOT BUY AN LCD MONITOR (well…until its response time is just a few microseconds). Do not listen to any reviewers either that claim LCD monitors are good for games. Relatively speaking, they are not. Wait for the magic response time of the order of microseconds before even looking at LCD monitors for gaming. (A microsecond is 0.001 of a millisecond). Have you ever wondered why reviewers never compare LCD monitors to CRT ones where response time (or equivalent) is concerned?

i have always agreed with that. still, i really respect viewsonic for once again pushing the latency envelope here. it doesent look like any body else is (especially sony - omg what has happened to sony). they have my vote when i buy an lcd.

its funny how lcd manufacturers have painted themselves into a corner with bogus latency figures. if you can advertise a 45ms sony as 16ms how do you market a true <10ms panel like the vx922. i predict outrageous numbers from manufacturers in the future ....like negative latencies (yes these panels can go back in time). how about 260 degree viewing angles? (these panels "shoot out" the sides). care for 200,000,000:1 contrast ratios?

After reading the reveiw on the 930P, i was somewhat surprized.

Pleasently i was happy to find out that my current monitor, 193P plus, still compares very well with this.

193P+ Pro's
ergonomics/build (well constructed base and functionalty)
Connectivity (
smaller dimentions
Spatial Uniformity

930P Pro's
6ms Responce vs 8ms
energy consumption
Black Spot (but i'l bet not by much)

not sure about
Latency
Contrast stibilty


If you can find a 193P+ for less then the new 930P, i would seriosly concider it depending on your situtation.

couldn't find the toms review on the 193P+, so here is one here...

http://live.gadgetlife.org/reviews [...] 93p-plus/4

That's your opinion and that's ok. Iv'e been playing on a Dell 2405FPW for months now. There is no way I am going back to a CRT and in any case, soon no one will even make them anymore...

I await the arrival of the 30 inch Dell3007WFP I just ordered. Gonna be fun...

That's your opinion and that's ok. Iv'e been playing on a Dell 2405FPW for months now. There is no way I am going back to a CRT and in any case, soon no one will even make them anymore...

I await the arrival of the 30 inch Dell3007WFP I just ordered. Gonna be fun...



Hi. It's not really an opinion - more of a statement of fact based on direct observation. If you want response 'perfection', CRT is the only technology that can provide at the moment. Reviewers rarely compare the two, however, in this discipline...

Of course a CRT is going to be better overall... especially a really well made large format professional CRT.

However, things are changing with the CRT market, and in the very near future we're going to start seeing CRTs go away.

For example: Sony has historically produced some of the BEST high resolution CRTs for TV sets, and they just stopped making them.

It's clear that a CRT based monitor or TV (especially when you are dealing with HD content) is going to be much more functionally (visually) useful than a flat panel screen... However, market conditions are killing off CRT production as falt panels become less expensive to make and the convience factor increases (I got rid of my Sony 21inch CRT that I'd had for 7 years because it weighed 71lbs and I've been on the hotel circuit for the last 3 months...) [PS The VP930b is a very good replacement...]

I myself am running out to get one of the last Sony XBR960 super fine pitch widescreen TV's because in the United States HDTV is not the primary broadcast signal... and LCD / Plasma units are fixed format and poor at signal upcoverstion compared to CRT based technology. The down side is that the unit is 200lbs, but the up side is that it reproduces the various broadcast transmission in a single package. ...and you don't get that with the LCD technologies.

A CRT is really the Rolls Royce solution, and the LCD's are finally coming up to the level of Benz (prior to their QC problems). -grin-

Sorry buddy I guess I should expand a little. I agree you are correct that what you saw is based on direct observation. When I was talking about your opinion I was refering to the fact that you are saying no one should buy an LCD for gaming. I agree with you that the CRT is "better" for gaming from a response rate point of view. All I am saying is that IMHO the LCD's are not the horrible disaster you make them out to be. As I said, my 24 inch LCD is actually very nice for playing, I was blown away the first time I powered it up. My new 30 inch will run at 2560 x 1600 resolution on two 7900's in SLI mode. I expect it to look fantastic. Will their be some ghosting? I imagine so, but I really don't see it running now at 1920 x 1200, but keep in mind I am 48 years old. I am sorry to say...
You stated "Spinning around, the scenery in the distance becomes all blurred until you stop rotating." Well I don't do that too often while gaming but I'll give it a try. I still have my 20 inch Sony monitor so I'll do a comparison to see.

But as my wife says, "size does matter"...

Take Care...

What about the Samsung 940BF?

I'm about to buy myself a new screen (now have a NEC Multisync FE950+ CRT, hogging 1/3 of my desktop...)
and it has to be good for gaming, especially FPS and fast running games like GTA, and imo the Viewsonic
screens just looks terrible, but hey, that's just me.

After reading this article the only 2 screens I'm really interested in is the
Viewsonic VX922 and the Samsung 940BF,
so I really hope you test this one to.



Hey, don't complain on my spelling, I'm Swedish

Your spelling is fine.

I looked at a bunch of these better monitors several months ago. There are some tradeoffs that you run into.

One of the things that was important to me was the quality and ease of use of the monitor. The Viewsonic VP930b has a fantastic stand that moves up/down, swings left and right, tilts in and out, and rotates 90 from portrait to landscape. In addition, its got one DVI and two VGA connectors...

...al of this means that if you are a serious user of computer technology that wants the most versatility... then you really should consider the VP930b.

I like the Samsung 940...but I wasn't as impressed with VX922.

So you would prefer the samsung 940BF to VX922?

I haven't really ever seen any of theese screens perform IRL
so maybe I'm just fine with a 8ms like the VP930b, I'll have to
check that out.

Thanks for the aswer

Hi again. No, I'm not saying noone should buy an LCD monitor for gaming...at all. I'm saying that LCD monitors are atrocious technology if you want perfect visual fluidity in games (mainly fast games). If that's not what you desire, i.e. if you're not a particular gamer, then LCD's are great.

What video card does THG use to test the monitors with? I'm convinced that LCDs are more finicky to video cards than CRTs.

When I mated a Samsung 960BF with a 7800GT, I saw a lot of smearing and some image tearing while playing BF2 or FEAR, when I switched the card to an X1600XT these problems disappeared (in BF2 - haven't touched FEAR). The 7800GT was an excellent choice for my CRT and great for gaming, but somehow I found it didn't work so well with the LCD.

Has anyone else noticed something like this happening with their setups?

I think that unless you want a gamer only LCD screen, the VP930b or the 940BF might be better solutions.

Isn't the 940BF also marketed as a "gamers screen"?
+ that it's also 2ms.

After have looked closer at the VP930b I must say I really love it, BUT..
what about smearing, I bet it'll look blurry in say GTA SA when you drive a car really fast, or NFS MW.

I find the TFT market to be a complete jungle, and at least where I live
you cannot return an used (opened box