Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

What Monitor is better for PC gaming AND for play xbox/ps3?

Last response: in Computer Peripherals
Share
September 26, 2009 4:52:11 PM

samsung syncmaster 2233SW

LG W2253V

Samsung Syncmaster P2350

ASUS VW246H

or Samsung Syncmaster 2433BW

I'm looking for a 22-24" monitor, I'd prefer a 24" running at 1920 x 1200, but I want to be sure it supports 1:1 pixel mapping so I wont get annoying black lines while gaming on a console, Though I'm leaning towards the ASUS monitor because of all the positive review I've heard about it.

Edit: on one site i saw this about the ASUS VW246H

Full HD 1080p for High-resolution Digital Content Display
‧ 16:10 wide screen with 1920×1200 resolution supports Full HD 1080p
‧ vision.
‧ Embedded HDMI simplifies cabling and provides the highest-quality video ‧ and audio experience.
‧ Pristine and stunning clarity of HD DVD and Blu-ray Discs.
‧ Great for both video games and HD DVD movies playback

Is it true it can display at 1920 x 1200?
September 29, 2009 11:17:30 AM

Samsung Syncmaster 2233SW are out of the question. 5ms GTG (grey to grey) is horrible for gaming, specially consoles.

LG W2253V comes with 2ms GTG, the website doesn't list the correct response time which is black to white. I can guess however that it will be like 5ms~... Doesn't state 1:1 pixel mapping. Usually the GPU takes care of that >.>

Samsung Syncmaster P2350 does not specify 1:1 Pixel mapping enabled. ALso using GTG response time, which is a NONO.

Asus VW246H uses Grey to Grey response time, once again a NO NO. Also it does not state 1:1 pixel mapping.


I would recommend the Acer H233H 1080P HD if your willing to do 1920x1080 resolution 16:9 wide screen.
* HDMI/DVI/VGA ports, and comes with all 3 cables (DVI/VGA/HDMI).
* 40,000:1 Contrast (ACM aka Dynamic)
* HDCP for HD DVD/Blueray playback. (I haven't ordered my bluray player, but the DVD playback is very good)
* 5ms response time (black to white not grey to grey)
* Great for games (I play Crysis/L4D/CoD4 on it)
* Supports 1:1 pixel mapping
Extra:
* Has 2 internal speakers, not really good but w.e their there.
* Touchsensor (no buttons just touch sensor menu)
* Black glossy paint
* TFT, reduced glare compared to Glossy.
* Cheap for the features it has

Costs about $200 USD
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E168...

If you absolutely must have 1920x1200 than:
Your out of luck, because there is few to no LCD's with 1920x1200 with the requirements you want.
m
0
l
September 30, 2009 10:48:32 PM

sick, that seems like a good monitor, but it has a 5ms response time, wouldnt that not be good for a console gaming, but to be honest I have an old 19" acer monitor and has a 5ms response Time and I dont notice it gaming with my xbox/ps3 and pc.
m
0
l
Related resources
October 1, 2009 3:25:20 AM

Yes 5ms is recommended. The minimum for gaming is 8ms, 5ms being recommended, and 3 ms (black to white NOT grey to grey) is excellent. But good luck finding a true 3ms response time (black to white...) GtG or grey to grey is a selling scam. Dont buy a monitor with GtG!
m
0
l
a c 195 C Monitor
a b Ô Samsung
October 2, 2009 1:46:19 AM

AsAnAtheist said:

.
.
.

I would recommend the Acer H233H 1080P HD if your willing to do 1920x1080 resolution 16:9 wide screen.
* HDMI/DVI/VGA ports, and comes with all 3 cables (DVI/VGA/HDMI).
* 40,000:1 Contrast (ACM aka Dynamic)
* HDCP for HD DVD/Blueray playback. (I haven't ordered my bluray player, but the DVD playback is very good)
* 5ms response time (black to white not grey to grey)
* Great for games (I play Crysis/L4D/CoD4 on it)
* Supports 1:1 pixel mapping
Extra:
* Has 2 internal speakers, not really good but w.e their there.
* Touchsensor (no buttons just touch sensor menu)
* Black glossy paint
* TFT, reduced glare compared to Glossy.
* Cheap for the features it has

.
.
.



You are providing misleading information.


- No one uses BTW anymore, all response times are now in terms of GTG. Companies have stopped using BTW since roughly 2003.

- TFT more or less means LCD panel in lamen's terms. It does not determine if a LCD screen has a matte or glossy finish.

- 2ms and 5ms are virtually the same for the majority of people. They are really marketing terms to represent the best possible response times under ideal conditions. Many time even monitors rated at 2ms response times can have response times of up to and exceeding 40ms depending on what is being displayed.

See following link for information about LCD technology:

http://www.tftcentral.co.uk/specs.htm
m
0
l
October 2, 2009 2:15:19 AM

Okay you are providing misleading information:

- Grey to Grey response times are much faster than white to black. GtG is not a good way to base your response time with, please do your research. Even if it says 2 ms GtG, it's just bull for marketing lower response times. It's kind of like cars, what's faster to get to 40-60 or 0-60 in mph?

- Pardon me, Matte TFT. Tft isn't an LCD, it's just a technology used for LCDs. Thanks for the correction.

- The difference between 2ms and 5 ms is notable. Yes LCD input lag creates this response time issue, specially with VGA's. However if you got two monitors, 2ms BtW and 5ms BtW, there is a difference specially in high speed games (shooters for example).
m
0
l
a c 195 C Monitor
a b Ô Samsung
October 2, 2009 4:55:18 AM

***Correction***: I meant to state BTB not BTW. BTB is Black-To-Black which is the old standard to measure the response time basically it measures the time it takes for a pixel to go from completely off (black) to completely on (white), then back to completely off.

The following rebuttal is for the benefit of everyone who wants to understand what asanatheist and myself are debating about.

1. I am saying BTB is no longer used. All manufacturers have been using GTG as a measure of response time whether they state it or not in the specs. BTB (which I agree is the better measure) has been phased out several years ago in favor of GTG because they (the brands) can advertise "lower numbers".

You should only say a monitor's response time is 5ms BTW if they actually state BTW. For independent verification go to www.hardforum.com and post a question regarding whether BTW is currently used by any company as a measure of response time. The "Display" section of that forum is far more active than this THG and there are many active posters there who are at least as knowledgeable of LCD technology as myself (I too am an active poster there).

2. As stated in layman's terms TFT = LCD (for all intent and purposes). It does not mean the coating is matte or glossy which is what you seem to be implying when you stated TFT is better than glossy. Current LCD panel technology are basically classified as TN, VA and IPS.

Again, here is a link regarding LCD (TFT) monitor specs:
http://www.tftcentral.co.uk/specs.htm

If you want to discuss the "technicalities" between TFT and LCD then you can start a separate thread about, but honestly the technicalities will simply add even more confusion to a "generic" technology that has most people baffled to begin with.

3. Input lag and response time are two different animals. Completely different.

Input lag = The amount of time it takes the monitor to "register" movements you make with your mouse, gamepad, keyboard. Basically it takes time for the CPU to process the input, then send those commands to the video card to reflect the movement to be transmitted to the LCD monitor. It takes a little bit of time for the video card to transfer the video signal to the monitor's electronics which in turn take a little bit of time to represent that data stream from the video card onto the LCD screen itself.

See below link regarding what input lag is; the article is called "Exploring Input Lag Inside and Out":
http://www.anandtech.com/video/showdoc.aspx?i=3601

Response Time = The time it takes to for colors to change from one color to another. Response times are not always "as stated" there are variations that arise due to what is being displayed on the screen. Therefore, LCD monitors can have higher response times than stated and average users cannot tell the difference for the most part. Response times are actually difficult to measure because external hardware is required to measure response times, meaning there is no software that can be installed on the computer that can do this it is simply impossible.

To the general posters and lurkers, I already explained concisely what BTB is at the very top of the post. GTG (grey to grey) response time is lower than BTB (which manufacturers love to use to advertise) because the pixel is already lit up to some degree, so all that really needs to be done is simply change the color and decrease/increase the color.

Therefore, if I advertise Monitor A as having BTB response times of 20ms and Monitor B as having GTG response times of 5ms which one would you buy? What if I told you Monitors A and B are exactly the same but with different advertised spec?
m
0
l
October 2, 2009 10:53:51 AM

Reading this post, and it seems I'm doing some horrid...
Learning... IT BURNS!
Nice post Jag.
m
0
l
October 2, 2009 5:52:24 PM

jaguarskx said:
***Correction***: I meant to state BTB not BTW. BTB is Black-To-Black which is the old standard to measure the response time basically it measures the time it takes for a pixel to go from completely off (black) to completely on (white), then back to completely off.

The following rebuttal is for the benefit of everyone who wants to understand what asanatheist and myself are debating about.

1. I am saying BTB is no longer used. All manufacturers have been using GTG as a measure of response time whether they state it or not in the specs. BTB (which I agree is the better measure) has been phased out several years ago in favor of GTG because they (the brands) can advertise "lower numbers".

You should only say a monitor's response time is 5ms BTW if they actually state BTW. For independent verification go to www.hardforum.com and post a question regarding whether BTW is currently used by any company as a measure of response time. The "Display" section of that forum is far more active than this THG and there are many active posters there who are at least as knowledgeable of LCD technology as myself (I too am an active poster there).

2. As stated in layman's terms TFT = LCD (for all intent and purposes). It does not mean the coating is matte or glossy which is what you seem to be implying when you stated TFT is better than glossy. Current LCD panel technology are basically classified as TN, VA and IPS.

Again, here is a link regarding LCD (TFT) monitor specs:
http://www.tftcentral.co.uk/specs.htm

If you want to discuss the "technicalities" between TFT and LCD then you can start a separate thread about, but honestly the technicalities will simply add even more confusion to a "generic" technology that has most people baffled to begin with.

3. Input lag and response time are two different animals. Completely different.

Input lag = The amount of time it takes the monitor to "register" movements you make with your mouse, gamepad, keyboard. Basically it takes time for the CPU to process the input, then send those commands to the video card to reflect the movement to be transmitted to the LCD monitor. It takes a little bit of time for the video card to transfer the video signal to the monitor's electronics which in turn take a little bit of time to represent that data stream from the video card onto the LCD screen itself.

See below link regarding what input lag is; the article is called "Exploring Input Lag Inside and Out":
http://www.anandtech.com/video/showdoc.aspx?i=3601

Response Time = The time it takes to for colors to change from one color to another. Response times are not always "as stated" there are variations that arise due to what is being displayed on the screen. Therefore, LCD monitors can have higher response times than stated and average users cannot tell the difference for the most part. Response times are actually difficult to measure because external hardware is required to measure response times, meaning there is no software that can be installed on the computer that can do this it is simply impossible.

To the general posters and lurkers, I already explained concisely what BTB is at the very top of the post. GTG (grey to grey) response time is lower than BTB (which manufacturers love to use to advertise) because the pixel is already lit up to some degree, so all that really needs to be done is simply change the color and decrease/increase the color.

Therefore, if I advertise Monitor A as having BTB response times of 20ms and Monitor B as having GTG response times of 5ms which one would you buy? What if I told you Monitors A and B are exactly the same but with different advertised spec?


20 ms for BTB is kinda bad you may get notable ghosting... I think we can get it lower now a days to 12 ms to 15 ms, sometimes faster however those monitors cost a good bit... Between a 5ms GtG and a 20 ms BTB, than yes I would choose the GtG because usually a 5 ms GtG is often 15 ms BTB.

Sorry about the naming, I didn't mean Input lag (that was a big mess up) I mean lag coming from Video card to display via the cable. This lag often attributes to response times. Type of connection, and quality of cable come into this scenario. While the lag for th response time is MINIMAL, it does attribute some to it. (Hardly notable unless your comparing a old VGA to a new DVI-I.



m
0
l
October 3, 2009 4:09:22 AM

I have a 22' Samsung SyncMaster T220 and its excellent for gaming. I've seen excellent reviews and bad reviews, it just depends on who is doing the review. The colors are sharp and vivid. The monitor is bright. This monitor is much better than my old CRT which I gave to Goodwill.
m
0
l
October 3, 2009 4:19:34 AM

well i donno which one to get the asus one i posted up or the acer one asanatheist posted up... cuz they are the same price.
m
0
l
October 3, 2009 5:29:23 PM

I looked at the acer & it seems nice. I always prefer to look at the monitors in person at a store this way you'll get a better feel as to which monitor is better. I would not use any built in speakers on the monitor because they don't sound as good. I use the M-AUDIO Studio speakers. http://www.m-audio.com/products/en_us/StudiophileAV40.h... These speakers sound the best and if you tweak and if you adjust you're sound card you will have optimal sound.
m
0
l
a c 195 C Monitor
a b Ô Samsung
October 3, 2009 6:55:48 PM

AsAnAtheist said:
20 ms for BTB is kinda bad you may get notable ghosting... I think we can get it lower now a days to 12 ms to 15 ms, sometimes faster however those monitors cost a good bit... Between a 5ms GtG and a 20 ms BTB, than yes I would choose the GtG because usually a 5 ms GtG is often 15 ms BTB.



You seem to have missed the point. In my example, I stated Monitors A (5ms GTG) and Monitors B (20ms BTB) are the exact same monitor. You would seem to chose to pick Monitor A solely on the basis that it is quoting "5ms" regardless of the standard used to measure response times.


I recommend you stop using the term BTB since it is no longer a standard used by brands when advertising LCD monitor (or HDTVs).

m
0
l
October 3, 2009 7:12:38 PM

jaguarskx said:
You seem to have missed the point. In my example, I stated Monitors A (5ms GTG) and Monitors B (20ms BTB) are the exact same monitor. You would seem to chose to pick Monitor A solely on the basis that it is quoting "5ms" regardless of the standard used to measure response times.


I recommend you stop using the term BTB since it is no longer a standard used by brands when advertising LCD monitor (or HDTVs).


You seem to know a lot about monitors and I would never say that you're wrong.
m
0
l
October 3, 2009 10:24:05 PM

so basically my buy decision comes down to if either 5ms is better or 2ms gtg is.
m
0
l
October 3, 2009 10:40:21 PM

impaledmango said:
so basically my buy decision comes down to if either 5ms is better or 2ms gtg is.


My Samsung SyncMaster T220 is 2ms and it is great for gaming. If you choose to get a 5ms monitor there is no guarantee that it will be that much better than a 2ms, I believe it depends on the manufacturer and the particular model of the monitor.
m
0
l
!