Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

What specs should I look for in a gaming LCD

Last response: in Computer Peripherals
Share
December 7, 2006 10:35:14 PM

My CRT is small and Im thinking of getting a nice LCD for my gaming machine. Anyone have recommendations both company, refresh rate, resolutions and so fourth? I dont play FPS. Just Simulations, strategy, sometimes RPG, and maybe sometime next summer, World of Warcraft but I havent played a MMORPG since City of Heroes. I might get back into a MMORPG...after the wedding lol. Thank you....

More about : specs gaming lcd

December 9, 2006 1:13:29 AM

Low response time and high refresh rates.

Generally, anything under 8ms is good for games (response time). And anything over 70hz is good for refresh rates. Beware though, anything higher than a 1600x1200 can't do >60hz refresh rate on ANY LCD. It's just not possible (yet).

Widescreen might be a good idea... more and more games are supporting a 16:9 ration now. But that's a matter of taste. Personally I prefer 4:3 for games.
December 9, 2006 5:59:18 AM

it looks like although some lcds claim refresh rates higher than 60, they really CAN'T go any higher.
Related resources
December 10, 2006 3:10:04 AM

On my CRT, Im content on my 1064x768 setting. i was just curious if I should invest in a LCD. I was also thinking of hooking up 2 monitors since my video card supports it.
December 10, 2006 10:55:19 PM

I was looking in the circulars, whats your opinion on this LCD, Acer 19" LCD widescreen, 5ms response time, 7000:1 contrast and 1440x900 max resolution for $179
December 12, 2006 7:22:04 AM

VX922 - image delay (not related to ghosting) is another problem with all lcds and something you should check for. the viewsonic vx922 has only 2ms worth of image delay which is far better than other lcds behardware tested. i would recomment the vx922 over all lcds based on that alone. add to that it has just about the fastest average response (ghosting) time of any lcd and there you have a good gaming lcd.
December 13, 2006 10:12:18 PM

Hi. Very nice LCD and cheap. Thanx
December 14, 2006 8:20:05 AM

yeah, high refresh rates look way better on CRT's.
December 14, 2006 6:53:19 PM

Great refresh rates on LCD's are less than 5ms for gaming.
A CRT screen has a refresh rate of 0.01ms.

If want to spend good money you can get any LCD from 17" to 19" and a very good price from newegg, those sizes have the best refresh rates.
Samsung or Viewsonic aregood choices in both analog and digital.
December 14, 2006 7:05:52 PM

Do NOT go with Samsung! I have one and was very dissapointed. The ViewSonic VX922 is by far the best and performs wonderfully. The colors and viewing angle seem to have taken a slight hit, possibly from the fast response time, but if you are using this for games you cannot ignore the need for a fast response time and the color and viewing angle really isn't all that bad - it's just not the best. Read my review of the Samsung and ViewSonic a few posts down for a detailed experience with both. If you go with the wrong one you will be very dissapointed and out a couple hundred bucks - be careful of Samsung.
December 14, 2006 8:56:36 PM

I was looking at CRT prices....22" is like 300-600 bucks. I could get a 19" LCD for a little over 200. The viewsonic is good price I was looking at that one and the Samsung 19" widescreen LCD which with rebate is $186. My video card supports digital.

Im torn between the 2 Samsungs and the ViewSonix vx922. I was on cnet.com and the widescreen samsung got excellent reivews, yet foos says dont be fooled by going with Samsung. Lol puts me back in the spot i was in before......dont know which to get.

I was wondering how Civilization4/Sims2 Pets, rollercoaster tycoon 3 and Simcity4000 look on a LCD. I look at the LCDs at bestbuy and Im like..mmmmmm lcd monitor. But which one lol
December 15, 2006 6:51:24 PM

I'm stuck as well, currently using superb LG L1710B but feel like I've outgrown resolution of 1280 x 1040. Getting fed up with constantly having to scroll left-right, up-down. Was shocked to learn there are hardly any LCD's of 1600 x 1200 that support gaming. I would prefer to see Samsung 204B in action (demoed), rather than read about it, before passing judgement. Don't mind going widescreen (1680 x 1050), but concerned about how my older games would take to a resolution that is not 4:3.
December 15, 2006 6:58:07 PM

Yeah I know about the older games not taking LCD. Im curious if Sicity4000 falls under tha category that widescreen will mess it up. I was thinking of getting the widescreen samsung for $190 Im stopping at Bestbuy today, they have the Samsungs on display. What got me to think about LCd was seeing Civilization 4 on LCD and it looked great.

I also was eyeing the Viewsonic 922, but the Samsung thats not widescreen has same specs but much higher contrast ratio and is 20 bucks cheaper than the viewsonic so my head is spinning on deciding.
December 15, 2006 7:03:46 PM

I've read good reviews about the Samsung 204B (1600 x 1200), except for the one on here! Might give them a ring next week to try and find out the truth.

Apparently for games that don't support 4:3 ratio, on widescreen they play ok, just that black bands appear on the screen to the left and right, reflecting the fact that they (the games) do not support widescreen.
December 15, 2006 7:15:40 PM

Im pretty much use to it. heres the link below showing the 2 samsungs i was llooking at. Then theres the viewsonic thats creeping into my head lol


http://www.newegg.com/ProductSort/Category.asp?Category...
Monitors, LCD Monitors, Computer Monitors, LCD Flat Screen Monitors, Widescreen Monitors at Newegg.com
December 15, 2006 7:26:25 PM

there are a lot of monitors there to choose from and all a lot cheaper than here in the uk.
December 15, 2006 8:03:17 PM

Forget what others say, I have a Samsung Syncmaster 931BW. It's a 19" widescreen with 2000:1 contrast ratio and a 2ms response time. When compared to my older Mag lcd, it was sooo much brighter and more colorful. Go in to BestBuy and check them out. It's the only place I could find one, and luckily got it on black friday for only $140(including tax).

For everyone that has been making recommendations; either give the model with contrast, response, and size or dont bother. Telling someone to get a lcd because of response time only, is retarded. You never know if they might mistakingly get one, but also has a contrast ratio of 500:1. So yeah.

And mikeny, are you sure that screen you were looking at was 7000:1? That is impossibly high for lcd. The highest I've seen was 2000:1, and that's on my own lcd. There are however, lcd hdtv's which support either dvi or hdmi support for use with a computer, but I'm not sure about their response times. All I know is that from what we have (at CompUSA), the best screens are Samsung and Sharp. Both have a native 4000:1 contrast ratio and the larger sizes support even 10000:1. But like I said, just check what your buying, and make sure it has all that you want from it.


And to the moderators, why not sticky a thread regarding specs to look for in lcd purchasing? A LOT of threads are about this subject.
December 16, 2006 1:41:14 AM

So what do you think Scarlet, Im in a bottleneck of what to get. What do you think of the Samsung 931c (2ms, 2000:1, 1280x1084) vs. Viewsonic vx922 (650:1, 1280x1084, 2ms). I saw the Samsung 941bw (1440x900, 4ms, 500:1) all 19"

I saw the widescreen 941bw at bestbuy today and it looked kind of small and I wasny amazed.
December 16, 2006 2:30:51 AM

Quote:
"... And mikeny, are you sure that screen you were looking at was 7000:1? That is impossibly high for lcd. The highest I've seen was 2000:1..."


Contrast Ratio claims of "2000:1" and the like are just BALLOON JUICE. "Creative marketing" [read, DECEPTION] as non-informed buyers perceive that the higher the CR, the better. (Actually, IF it were true, it WOULD be better.)

[The way they get to claim "whatever" in CR goes something like this...
1. The EFFECTIVE CR would be "usable brightness/darkest dark" on the same image. In most cases, that would be only about 120nits/0.6nits, or 200:1, so nothing to brag about.

2. The MAXIMUM STATIC CR would be "brightest possible bright/darkest dark" on the same image. That could be 300nits/0.6 nits = 500. But it would be soooo bright, you'd have to put on sunglasses to view it for very long.

3. DYNAMIC CR is more deceptive.... "brightest bright on ANY image/darkest dark on any image".... not both on the same image. Duh!

4. Then, to bump the CR further, they claim... "if we could cut the backlight power by 50%, we could claim DOUBLE the CR"... and if we could cut it by ANOTHER 50%, we could claim QUADRUPLE the CR"....

The whole business of pumping up the CR numbers is really quite skanky.]

In reality.... ambient light GREATLY affects the CR you will actually see. Unless you run your monitor in a darkened closet, you're unlikely to experience even 500:1 CR.
December 16, 2006 7:29:00 PM

so what would be a good gaming LCD? Any of the ones i mentiomed above?
December 16, 2006 7:47:22 PM

Quote:
so what would be a good gaming LCD? Any of the ones i mentiomed above?


Probably one with the best reputation for lacking motion blur... like maybe a Viewsonic VX922, or maybe one of the Samsung "BF", "BX", or 931C. And as long as you're not yet decided, let me suggest you check out the NEC 90GX2 (4ms claimed) with the glossy, Brite screen. Unless you've already decided you don't like that, it's maybe worth it for you to check it out. It gets CRAZY-high marks from buyers at Newegg. Also, there's a new model coming very soon, "90GX2 Pro" with a claimed 2ms response.

One time at Best Buy I saw a couple of Samsungs side-by-side, and a pointer was set up to "highlight the greater contrast of the one with 2000:1, Dynamic"... I think it was a 931BF. When I looked closely, I could say, "yes, the black area which was pointed out was *slightly* darker". Otherwise, I'd have never noticed.

I don't think CR should be a genuine concern in gamer models.
December 17, 2006 1:21:51 AM

SO basically I cant go wrong with any of them? I saw the NEC one you mentioned on newegg, it does look great but its over $300. I saw the Samsung BW at bestbuy and the stand looked a little low and the screen looked smaller than the 19" that it is. I'll go back and see it again. They were suppose to have the other samsung I was looking at but it wasnt there, maybe hidden somewhere lol.

I compared the brightness of the 931c and BW..the BW is brighter and its brighter than the vx922. the again the vx922 and 931 are 2ms.

Yeah Im still undecided.
December 17, 2006 2:16:47 AM

Well I can tell you this for certain considering I own botht eh Samsung 204B and the ViewSonic VX922. The Samsung has better colors and a better viewing angle. How much better? Not enough to convince me to use it as my gaming LCD. For gaming there is no question in my mind that the VX922 is better in that the blur is less. Granted I am playign FPS games where it is more important, but here is one other thing to consider ... when I used the 204B not only did it blur, but I was forced to enable V-Sync otherwise it was completely unplayable due to the screen literally repainting in front of my eyes. This is pretty worrisome in my opinion. To be fair I have not tried the other Samsung models but with the 204 I can say this with certainty. The ViewSonic on the other hand plays wonderfully and has little blur and I can run it with or without V-Sync enabled. The V-Sync thing is important, because with it turned on you are limited to a frames per second based on your refresh rate (at 1280X1024 that is only 60). Without V-Sync it allows your hardware to set the frames per second (on my machine this is around 120-130 - big difference from the 60). The difference there is just the smoothness of the game. But again, this is much more of an issue with shooters than it is for like Civ4. Personally I would be more concerned with the performance over the small difference in the CR (but again that preference is certainly biased by the types of games I play).
December 17, 2006 2:55:04 AM

What would equal performance? (what should I look for)
December 17, 2006 4:10:09 AM

No. What i mean, foos said his personal preference is because he plays FPS. I was wondering what I should look for. He mentioned "Personally I would be more concerned with the performance over the small difference in the CR (but again that preference is certainly biased by the types of games I play)" Like I said before, i dont play FPS so what I should look for is brightness and speed? I saw the samsung 941bw on cnet with great reviews. I read the customer revies on the viewsonic. Some people told me to get the samsung 931c but I was leaning towards the 941bw. If I pick the 941 bw (300 for brightness), but with 4ms speed will this be the deciding factor (4ms)?

Im spinning my head wondering which one to choose with the VS vx922 looming in my head also.
December 17, 2006 7:16:41 AM

correction - VX922 has 2ms
December 17, 2006 12:33:57 PM

Quote:
No. What i mean, foos said his personal preference is because he plays FPS. I was wondering what I should look for. He mentioned "Personally I would be more concerned with the performance over the small difference in the CR (but again that preference is certainly biased by the types of games I play)" Like I said before, i dont play FPS so what I should look for is brightness and speed? I saw the samsung 941bw on cnet with great reviews. I read the customer revies on the viewsonic. Some people told me to get the samsung 931c but I was leaning towards the 941bw. If I pick the 941 bw (300 for brightness), but with 4ms speed will this be the deciding factor (4ms)?

Im spinning my head wondering which one to choose with the VS vx922 looming in my head also.


Can't you get over to a Best Buy and check them out before you buy? All of these 19"ers are apparently well liked by gamers according to their Newegg reviews. I suspect any of them would be a good choice.
December 17, 2006 3:08:18 PM

Bestbuy only had the 941bw on display. They dont have the viewsonix model and the other samsung 931c. The 931c is listed as there in the showroom so Im going to go back today and see the 941bw and see if I can find the 931c. Im checking to see if the viewsonic is in a showroom near me.

Shoud I stick with just these or is there another I should look at?[/u][/i]
December 17, 2006 3:40:27 PM

The Viewsonic, the Samsungs and the NEC 90GX2 all get high marks from gamer buyers on Newegg. Other than the Brite screen of the NEC, the're probably all mostly similar. Any other top choices would also most be similar. (If you're hoping someone will reveal some other model which is super-duper in the same price range, you're not going to find it. The all have the same resolution, similar response times, similar contrast, similar brightness, similar TN panels. How different could another be?)
December 18, 2006 12:22:52 AM

Heres the comparison of 19" lcd monitors from newegg.

http://www.newegg.com/Product/ProductCompare.asp?Catego...

In this newegg comparison I took all the 19" lcd, 4ms and lower latency monitors I could find and compared them. I took out the ones with names I've never heard of and the ones with speakers in the monitor. This is what I got from that.

Now I'm also a gamer(fps's) in the market for a new 19" lcd monitor and based on this comparison I would go with either the Samsung 940bf or the 931C. My question is what is 2000;1 dynamic mean(Samsung 931C has this) and how does it relate to the 700;1(non-dynamic?). Also is having 300 cd/m2 compared to 250 cd/m2 that noticeable.
December 18, 2006 12:34:16 AM

Ok, I was just curious if I cant go wrong with any of these choices. Usually when I am set to buy, something better comes along which was the reason why i was basically like ok are these, the only ones for gamers and if there were any others before I make my choice. For non-FPS games, 2ms and 4ms response times really are they same and no noticeable difference?

I was going to pick the Samsung 940bw because of the 300cd brightness, its widescreen and cant beat the $179 price

I was looking at the 931c because of the 2ms repsonse time, 2000:1 contrast but its brightness is 250cd

The viewsonic vx922 is 2ms and 270cd brightness and its popularity

Now one more entered my head, the Samsung 940bf...2ms, 300cd brightness and 700:1 ratio.

I noticed some say 2ms or 2ms grey to grey...Is there a difference or doesnt matter? Now I think my mind is changing towards the 940bf. Any objections?
December 18, 2006 12:38:22 AM

Quote:
Ok, I was just curious if Ic ant go wrong with any of these choices. Usually when I am set to buy, something better comes along which was the reason why i was basically like ok are these, the only ones for gamers and if there were any others before I make my choice. For non-FPS games, 2ms and 4ms response times really are they same and no noticeable difference?

I was going to pick the Samsung 940bw because of the 300cd brightness, its widescreen and cant beat the $179 price

I was looking at the 931c bececause of the 2ms repsonse time, 2000:1 contrast but its brightness is 250cd

The viewsonic vx922 is 2ms and 270cd brightness


You probably shouldn't be concerned about "more brightness", either. You're going to have to turn it down to about 120 nits to use it anyway.... unless the ambient light is very bright, you'll be viewing it from a farther than normal distance, or you plan to wear sun glasses.
December 18, 2006 12:56:55 AM

Thank you hose for answering my questions.

So we agree that the 2000;1 ratio on the 931C is totally bogus. The only real difference between these two monitors is the cd/m2, and the product number.

Now thinking logically the better monitor should in theory be the one with the higher product number correcT? so I've come to the conclusion that the 940bf>931C

Also I've started going through the reviews of some monitors and i came to this review(newegg) and he said this "I find the 931c surpasses the vx924 in response time, color saturation and contrast levels. It bests the al1916fbd for color saturation and contrast, but seems similar in response time. It equals the vx922 in response time, but colors and contrast are better. However, the 931c does fall behind in viewing angle to the vx924, vx922 and al1916fbd, as well as the 740b from Samsung"

This should help mikeny a little.

And this is what i was looking for.

"If your still stuck in the 4:3 world then there are better monitors than this. Samsung for some reason rates this at 2MS, I havent been able to get below 8MS when viewing non-motion frames, like a slide show of static images, and no better than 13MS for moving video. Even when I switch the [RTA] Response Time Accelerator, on or off I see very little change in the response times. The contrast ratio is rated at 2000:1 dynamic contrast ratio. Which is not even close to the 550:1 that I am seeing. You have to understand when figuring the contrast ratio, you can do it (2) ways. Samsung chose to measure the brightness in full screen black and then to full screen white, which represents in my testing 1860:1, which is close to the 2000:1 they are stating, but that's not how you would measure the real time contrast ratio. The only true way is to have the same amount of blacks and whites on the screen at the same time, then you take your measurement, which evaluates to 550:1 in my testing...
The recommend Samsung SyncMaster 940B, at least everything stated there is 100% factually!"
December 18, 2006 12:59:20 AM

I think you got me to switch seeing your comparison lol. I think its also between the 931c and 940bf.
December 18, 2006 1:04:22 AM

With all the recent responses and the comparisions you did, and your most recent reply about helping me a little...with the 2 reviews, your saying the 940bf would be the one to pick?
December 18, 2006 1:08:06 AM

definitely

Also thought I should point this out since it was in my first comparison.

http://www.newegg.com/Product/ProductCompare.asp?Catego...

The acer monitor was in my comparison at first but was taken out because;
1. It was out of stock.
2. There were a lot of complaints about it being built cheaply, dead pixels, and a few people even had their monitors go dead after a couple months.

So the winner is the 940bf
December 18, 2006 1:11:56 AM

Quote:
" ...So we agree that the 2000;1 ratio on the 931C is totally bogus. The only real difference between these two monitors is the cd/m2, and the product number.

Now thinking logically the better monitor should in theory be the one with the higher product number correcT? so I've come to the conclusion that the 940bf>931C ..."


I think the 931C is newer than the 940's... the 931C claims to be better at colors, too. The relative value of the model numbers I think often means little. (The 940s are newer than the 960s... and the 940s get better reviews.)
December 18, 2006 1:17:20 AM

Quote:
" ...So we agree that the 2000;1 ratio on the 931C is totally bogus. The only real difference between these two monitors is the cd/m2, and the product number.

Now thinking logically the better monitor should in theory be the one with the higher product number correcT? so I've come to the conclusion that the 940bf>931C ..."


I think the 931C is newer than the 940's... the 931C claims to be better at colors, too. The relative value of the numbers I think often means little. (The 940s get better Newegg reviews than the 960... which is older.)

Like i said "in theory"...

Hose do you agree with the conclusion i came up with?
December 18, 2006 1:23:05 AM

Quote:
" ...So we agree that the 2000;1 ratio on the 931C is totally bogus. The only real difference between these two monitors is the cd/m2, and the product number.

Now thinking logically the better monitor should in theory be the one with the higher product number correcT? so I've come to the conclusion that the 940bf>931C ..."


I think the 931C is newer than the 940's... the 931C claims to be better at colors, too. The relative value of the numbers I think often means little. (The 940s get better Newegg reviews than the 960... which is older.)

Like i said "in theory"...

Hose do you agree with the conclusion i came up with?

I'm not clear as to which conclusion you are referring to...
December 18, 2006 3:00:38 AM

I was reading all the reviews. On the 931c a few were complaining about saturation of colors and some ghosting. The ghosting is on FPS's so I shouldnt worry about ghosting since I dont play FPS. The low amount of 5eggs worries me. The 940bf is catching my eye yet Im still staring at the 931c, vx922 (viewsonic). If the 90gx2 was under $300 maybe I would look at it but with shipping its a little expensive but i find Im still looking at it because all of the reviews are 5eggs (100%). The 40bf with over 80% 5eggs looks appealing. Im skeptical with 55% for 5eggs on the 931c.
December 18, 2006 3:04:38 AM

Look, all you should be concerned about is 1) size 2) response time 3)contrast. Pick the size first (keeping in mind, it will look best in its NATIVE resolution) and then find one with a low reponse (like mine has one of 2ms), and then look out of those you find, which has a higher contrast ratio. Despite what others will tell you, here's a clip from wikipedia on contrast ratio:

"A notable recent development in the LCD technology is the so called "dynamic contrast". When there is a need to display a dark image, the display would underpower the backlight lamp (or decrease the aperture of the projector's lens using a shutter), but will proportionately amplify the transmission through the LCD panel. This gives the benefit of realizing the potential static contrast ratio of the LCD panel in dark scenes, when the image is watched in a dark room. The drawback is that if a dark scene does contain small areas of superbright light, they may be sacrificed and blown out.

The trick for the display is to determine how much of the highlights may be unnoticeably blown out in a given image under the given ambient lighting conditions.

Brightness, as it is most often used in marketing literature, refers to the emitted luminous intensity on screen measured in candela per square metre (cd/m^2). The higher the number, the brighter the screen.

With display systems that support 8-bit color channels, contrast ratio is the ratio of the screen's whitest white (output level 255) to its blackest black (output level 0)[3]."

So now think of how many games you play (or might) that place you in a dark area, i.e. a dungeon, dark room, cave, etc AND you are also carrying a light, flame, etc OR there are torches on the wall, something your wielding/shooting is going to be bright, etc. Basically, if you screen in mostly displaying something dark, and one portion is bright(or meant to be), then a lower contrast ratio will display it only somewhat bright and not what it's meant to be. Also consider the opposite; you in an outside area with the sun sitting sky high, but your trees in the area are showing shadows and not coming out as dark as they should. That's also low contrast at work.

If all that makes no sense, then think of it like this: Imagine (or draw out) a long rectangle. Now divide it into 10 squares. On one end is white, and the other end black. Everyother square is a shade in between (greys). So you have white, a shade darker, another shade darker, another shade darker, etc until you reach black. This is going to be your low contrast ratio. Now take your 10 squares and multiply it out by 100. With a larger range of brights and darks to use, your screen is now capable of showing both dark darks, as well as superbrights (i.e. the sun) at the same time. Higher contrast ratios do matter.
December 18, 2006 8:35:03 AM

so what would be an example of a 'good' contrast ratio and what would be an example of a 'bad' contrast ratio?
December 18, 2006 11:07:19 AM

So theres a trade off. The 931c is less brighter but has a higher contrast (2000:1). The 940bf is brighter but has lower contrast (700:1). Some of my games do have lighting for instance Caesar IV, Roller Coaster Tycoon 3, and 18wheels of steel: Haulin. Both have 2ms response time. To make matters worse, the 90gx2 (NEC) is creaping up into me saying "Buy me".
December 18, 2006 11:46:29 AM

Quote:
so what would be an example of a 'good' contrast ratio and what would be an example of a 'bad' contrast ratio?


Actually there probably is neither good nor bad... just marketing hype.

"CR = "Ratio of light/dark on the same screen".

For most situations, the brightness needs to be turned down from the factory-set maximum. The comfortable amount of luminescence is approximately 120 nits. (1 nit = 1 candela/meter^2). The average "darkest black" most monitors can produce these days is approximately 0.6 nits. (On some models, it's .8 or .9) 120/.6 = 200 CR. Nothing impressive about THAT!

So, the makers try to be "creative" about these numbers [read LIE]. So what if the monitor has a brighness of 500? You won't normally use more than about 120 and you have to turn the brightness down to about 25%. (If the room is brightly lit or if viewed from a farther distance than normal, you can use a higher brigtness setting comfortably.)

Therefore, what we REALLY need for CR is (a) makers to engineer their LCDs so that their monitor's darkest black is actually darker than it is presently, and (b) to post in their specs the "actual luminescence of the darkest black when viewed with normal usable brightness"..... I haven't seen that one, have you?

Think about this... if the makers got their darkest black down to 0.1 nits, and we can "use" 120 nits of brightness, that's 120/.1 = 1200!

The place to find out the ACTUAL CR on a specific monitor is to check out x-bit labs or other reviewers who do things like measure colors with a colorimeter and measure luminescence electronically. When you do that, you often find the *maximum* CR is around 400-450 and the usuable CR is 200-250. (Another way, though subjective, is to read the Newegg reviewers' comments and notice which ones claim "really dark blacks"... that's the only important measure of CR.... and at least those models have a chance of having lower black luminescence.)

I happen to like Samsung. But their claim of "200:1 CR" is virtually meaningless... and this type of marketing is being used on most newer models. On an older model, a claimed CR of 700:1, is likely to be closer to the truth because when those models came to market the makers weren't making such exaggerated claims.

Just as claimed "response times" are mostly balloon juice, so are the claimed CRs.

(And BTW... the makers also screw with the specs on "viewing angles", too!! :D  )
December 18, 2006 12:15:13 PM

look this is all getting too complicated and really quite unnecessary. Just decide what resolution monitor you want then read a few reviews about them. If the reviews say monitor is ok then go for it. If the reviews say it is crap then don't. Simple as that. If you get a chance to see the monitor demonstrated then that is even better. Or even an option to return the monitor for a different one if you are not happy with it.
December 18, 2006 12:18:56 PM

Quote:
look this is all getting too complicated and really quite unnecessary. Just decide what resolution monitor you want then read a few reviews about them. If the reviews say monitor is ok then go for it. If the reviews say it is crap then don't. Simple as that. If you get a chance to see the monitor demonstrated then that is even better.


Of course it's complicated and confusing.... that's what the marketers want... (they learned it from the Gummint)
December 18, 2006 12:21:53 PM

All this technobabble is doing is confusing matters and not really helping at all. All that is required is to read a few reviews about each of the monitors and make up own mind. We are not all super-geeks on here.
December 18, 2006 12:31:58 PM

Quote:
All this technobabble is doing is confusing matters and not really helping at all. All that is required is to read a few reviews about each of the monitors and make up own mind. We are not all super-geeks on here.


Of course viewing before purchase would be best, but many models are not available to most people. I live in a medium sized metro area with all the big retailers, but we're very limited on the quality monitors.... we've got SCADS of the cheap-o ones though.
December 18, 2006 1:38:05 PM

This is true. I checked on BB's website and it showing that all 3 monitors are at the location near me so i will probably check them out tonite. I was thinking of not getting the nec gx2 because if I have to turn down the brightness it might be easier to get one thats not as bright. I guess the one thats in the middle would be the 931c or the 941bf. Any objections if I pick the 940bf?
!