Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question
Closed

Best gaming monitor !!!!

Last response: in Computer Peripherals
Share
October 3, 2010 10:07:31 PM

Hey


i am looking to upgrade my monitor and want the best for game and movie

i was looking at 3d but i don't know if it worth to try it and do i need to wear glasses for it ?

resolution : i hear that 1200 is better than 1080 in gaming 16:10 and in the other hand the 1080 is better in movies 16:9

size : 23 inch or 24 or 25 (27 would be very big since my last monitor is 19inch)


country : I'm out side USA (so some the monitors that u will say maybe i can't find it in where i live )

usage : movies... gaming ....etc



good monitor, worth the price, and best of the best

i appreciate you help ,thanks

More about : gaming monitor

a b 4 Gaming
October 4, 2010 7:53:27 PM

Im very happy with the Dell U2311H I just purchased. If you want a monitor for movies AND games you should look into 1080p monitors (unless the black borders don't bother you, then a 1900x1200 should be fine).

The dell U2311H is an 8-bit ips monitor. All TN panels are 6-bit, and use dithering to display the full 16.7 million colors that a 8-bit panel can produce without dithering.

IPS is notorious for having a better picture and color reproduction than TN panels. IPS is also notorious for being slower, but with this 8ms Dell model I don't notice much difference coming from a 5ms TN. I play FPS games too and its fine for me.

Google tftcentral for some good reviews, check out some of the new monitors. If you are going for a TN panel I recommend the Samsung PX2370 LED or the XL2370-1 LED. IPS picture is much prettier though not quite as fast.

The Dell U2711 is a really good monitor as well that I may of considered if I wanted to spend three times the price.

I am convinced that the Dell U2311 (23inch) is the best monitor money can buy for around $250 US if you buy it with a sale and/or coupon. The 24 inch U2411 is $500 and is wide gamut - which is a whole different topic
Score
0
October 5, 2010 12:32:26 AM

Adroid said:
Im very happy with the Dell U2311H I just purchased. If you want a monitor for movies AND games you should look into 1080p monitors (unless the black borders don't bother you, then a 1900x1200 should be fine).

The dell U2311H is an 8-bit ips monitor. All TN panels are 6-bit, and use dithering to display the full 16.7 million colors that a 8-bit panel can produce without dithering.

IPS is notorious for having a better picture and color reproduction than TN panels. IPS is also notorious for being slower, but with this 8ms Dell model I don't notice much difference coming from a 5ms TN. I play FPS games too and its fine for me.

Google tftcentral for some good reviews, check out some of the new monitors. If you are going for a TN panel I recommend the Samsung PX2370 LED or the XL2370-1 LED. IPS picture is much prettier though not quite as fast.

The Dell U2711 is a really good monitor as well that I may of considered if I wanted to spend three times the price.

I am convinced that the Dell U2311 (23inch) is the best monitor money can buy for around $250 US if you buy it with a sale and/or coupon. The 24 inch U2411 is $500 and is wide gamut - which is a whole different topic



thanks for replaying by saying dell u2411 you mean dell u2410 ??? because when i search at Google
i didn't find it so are u sure of that model number??

ips doesn't has fast response time like tn panel

px2370 black level is almost too bad and price for performance = high for monitor like PX2370
for XL2370 well its good monitor but it has problem with availability and its accurate colors after adjust
Score
0
Related resources
a b 4 Gaming
a c 195 C Monitor
October 5, 2010 2:19:49 AM

Adroid said the Dell U2311H monitor, but mentions the Dell U2410 at the end.

That was a typo.
Score
0
October 7, 2010 3:59:40 PM

The bigger the better, but you need to consider your video card before you go bigger screens in terms of gaming, because frame rates can drop if you play at higher resolution.
Score
0
a b 4 Gaming
October 7, 2010 6:39:47 PM

venjhammet said:
The bigger the better, but you need to consider your video card before you go bigger screens in terms of gaming, because frame rates can drop if you play at higher resolution.

I disagree. After owning a 25.5" and a 27" that didn't work for me, I am very happy with a 23". True don't buy a monitor with resolution that your computer can't handle (or better yet upgrade your computer too ;p), but depending on how close you sit to your monitor I think there is such a thing as "too big" for gaming monitors.

Honestly I loved the 27" for MMO, but if you are playing something fast paced with a huge screen close to your eyes, its gonna be hard to see everything at once. For instance if you are in a jungle scene playing a shooting game and there are guys shooting at you from opposite corners of the screen it may be hard to know where they both are coming from.

Don't get me wrong I would probably buy the perfect 27" screen if I had the money and the proper setup, but as far as usability goes I think over 24" is debatably too big for some gaming - at least for serious competitive gaming. If I was a pro gamer I probably wouldn't want something so big I couldn't view the whole screen at once. But, since I'm not... Yea go for the 27" + if you find one that doesn't hurt your eyes, just don't expect your games to improve as a result of it :p 
Score
0
a b C Monitor
October 8, 2010 3:13:51 PM

In any FPS you don't need to view the whole screen at once, nor can you do it. The focal point of a human eye is quite small. All you need to do is detect motion and looking at something is extremely quick.

What I like about big screens like 2560x1600 or 2560x1400 screens is the pixel count. It really helps in shooters if your shooting long range. Not only are the enemies appear bigger through a sniper scope or iron sight, their pixel count is higher. Even at extreme range, you don't have to sacrifice size or detail. Everything looks great and easy picking.

Though I have to say it really depends on the player more than the screen. If you have the reaction time, it doesn't matter how big or small the screen is.
Score
0
a b 4 Gaming
October 9, 2010 12:02:28 AM

rofl_my_waffle said:
In any FPS you don't need to view the whole screen at once, nor can you do it. The focal point of a human eye is quite small. All you need to do is detect motion and looking at something is extremely quick.

What I like about big screens like 2560x1600 or 2560x1400 screens is the pixel count. It really helps in shooters if your shooting long range. Not only are the enemies appear bigger through a sniper scope or iron sight, their pixel count is higher. Even at extreme range, you don't have to sacrifice size or detail. Everything looks great and easy picking.

Though I have to say it really depends on the player more than the screen. If you have the reaction time, it doesn't matter how big or small the screen is.

Ill give you a for instance of a disadvantage of having such a big screen. Games like Starcraft 2 have a set aspect ratio/view size.

In other words if you have a 20" monitor or a 27" monitor you will see the same amount of playing field in your view. If you have a bigger screen it will just be bigger.

That said.. Its harder to keep your eyes on the minimap and the main screen at the same time. If you are constantly watching the minimap in the corner in your peripheral, in my opinion it would be a little easier to do on a smaller screen.
Score
0
a b C Monitor
October 10, 2010 2:05:34 AM

As I said the focal point of the human eye is very small. Only a tiny portion is in focus and the rest is more or less the same. The extent of your focal point is probably a couple characters of text while the next line up and down is considerably more blurry but still readable if you want a headache trying to.
Everything else from there on is more or less the same; a blurry mess. But you can still make out colors, size, shape, and motion.

Like driving you don't need to focus on all the dozens of things happening on the road. You can make out objects coming down the road when you drive or the color of the lights without looking. You can notice things drop in and out of your mirrors. You don't need to stare at lines and drive within your lane.

Games are more or less the same. It isn't a text reading competition, its more about shapes and objects like driving. You can notice cars coming just as you would notice someone shooting at you. You will definitely notice your base being demolished while you look at a minimap, but why would you keep looking at your minimap when your base is being demolished. Moving your eyes from one point to another is seemless, you are probably doing it very smoothly as you read this. As long you don't need to turn your head very much, simply looking at something takes no time at all.

Back to the point about your focal point being very small. Since it is actually quite small. It would be more beneficial for things that are out of focus to be bigger. So you can recongnize them easier without even looking.

Also there is sound in starcraft. "Your units are under attack"

Its only a problem if you have a big screen with low resolution resulting in blurry image even if you are staring at it.
Score
0
October 10, 2010 2:27:55 AM

thanks every one for replay .........well I'm more interested in shooter games
and for 27 inch its very very big for me i own 19 inch lol imagine what i could do with 27 inch (not much :)  ) but i want something like 24 inch or more 1 inch or less than that , that's a good size for me also i want fast screen it could help me in multi player online
well i just want name of the model that u would recommend it for buying
i don't care if its samsung or acer or any thing off those brand i want the best of them
is it 1080 not gaming monitor because i saw people say 1200 is better ??
why is it better ?
1080 would help watch movies in 1080 but i don't know if it could help and be perfect at games ?
so what you think ?
my vega card is ati 4870 i don't care if i need to change my card to have better or good quality and for fps well if its good for these card so no need to change at these point
I'm looking for u replay and thanks again for replaying and helping me i appreciated a lot
Score
0
a b 4 Gaming
October 10, 2010 5:27:12 AM

Either buy the dell U2311 I recommended, or look for a Fast TN panel that isn't as pretty but will be cheaper and faster.
Some of the new LED panels are pretty nice. Samsung are pretty good... I think Dell has the best thing going right now for 250$ though.

As I mentioned before I play battlefield bad company 2 and left for dead 2 - both of which are completely playable on this monitor for me...
Score
0
a b C Monitor
October 10, 2010 1:20:51 PM

1920*1200 has more pixels. more desktop space is always better.

Also you can watch an HD movie on windowed mode. The extra pixels allow extra space for your task bar without compromising the video size.
Score
0
October 12, 2010 2:56:44 PM

thanks guys for replays that's great ,i appreciated

and i looked to dell U2311 its great monitor, who can compare ips panel to tn panel but its Response time 8 ms, i searched for some
like samsung px2370 but its has problem with black level , but some say its bad and some say its good , i also looked at p2370 its also good monitor and has accurate colors but no hdmi and i also looked at
acer g245h and it has good rating but i don't know about that one
Score
0
October 22, 2010 3:00:15 PM

any other suggestions ????
Score
0
a b 4 Gaming
October 23, 2010 12:44:39 AM

I returned a PX2370, and the U2311H looks worlds better. I quite frequently top the charts in bad company 2 multiplayer, I shoot people in the head.
I don't think 8ms is really that much of a difference coming from a 5ms TN panel. Its worth noting that for multiplayer FPS input lag can make a bit of a difference, and the U2311H has very low input lag.

The 8ms deals with ghosting, input lag deals with frame delay. I think its good to have both low, but I don't notice hardly any ghosting at all ~ just a really clean looking picture.
Score
0
October 25, 2010 11:34:29 PM

Adroid said:
I returned a PX2370, and the U2311H looks worlds better. I quite frequently top the charts in bad company 2 multiplayer, I shoot people in the head.
I don't think 8ms is really that much of a difference coming from a 5ms TN panel. Its worth noting that for multiplayer FPS input lag can make a bit of a difference, and the U2311H has very low input lag.

The 8ms deals with ghosting, input lag deals with frame delay. I think its good to have both low, but I don't notice hardly any ghosting at all ~ just a really clean looking picture.


px2370 is a mess
u2311h A little slow for FPS gaming and also no hdmi input :( 
Score
0
October 27, 2010 6:52:10 PM

How about the HP zr24w or the zr22w? I've seen some pretty good prices ($320 and $250) and recommendation for these. Does anyone know the input lag and response time on these nice IPS screens?
Score
0
October 27, 2010 8:25:55 PM

zefyr said:
How about the HP zr24w or the zr22w? I've seen some pretty good prices ($320 and $250) and recommendation for these. Does anyone know the input lag and response time on these nice IPS screens?


HP zr24w
1920 x 1200 resolution, 5 ms response time and 3000:1 dynamic contrast ratio.

the zr22w
a 1920 x 1080 pixel format, 8ms GTG response time

but idk what GTG mean
Score
0
a b 4 Gaming
a c 195 C Monitor
October 27, 2010 8:40:46 PM

GTG = Gray to Gray

The estimated time it takes to change from one shade of gray or color to another shade of gray or color. GTG is the current standard for response times and if "GTG" is not explicity stated; then it is assumed to be GTG.

BTW = Black To White

This is the older standard of measuring response times and it produces higher numbers because it measures the time it takes for a pixel to go from black (off) to white (on).

Ezio seems to be using BTW sporatically and it might vary from country to country where they advertise their specs.
Score
0
October 27, 2010 8:58:06 PM

jaguarskx said:
GTG = Gray to Gray

The estimated time it takes to change from one shade of gray or color to another shade of gray or color. GTG is the current standard for response times and if "GTG" is not explicity stated; then it is assumed to be GTG.

BTW = Black To White

This is the older standard of measuring response times and it produces higher numbers because it measures the time it takes for a pixel to go from black (off) to white (on).

Ezio seems to be using BTW sporatically and it might vary from country to country where they advertise their specs.


very informative thanks :D 

but i wanna understand something, are they use it to measure the new screens?? or are they using something els

and is gtg mean its can be less in the new measure if there is any ?

and what is the real measure to measure the screen response ?
Score
0
a b 4 Gaming
a c 195 C Monitor
October 28, 2010 1:55:31 PM

GTG and BTW are used to provide the best case scenario of response times for the LCD panel. As stated before BTW is an older standard of measurement. I'm sure if companies can dream up another standard to state even lower response time, I'm sure they will. It's all advertisement.

Real response times can be quite high. A monitor that this advertised as "2ms" can have real resposne times as high as 30ms or higher. The following is from a review of the Asus LS221H and the Flatron W2284F monitor which has an advertised response time of 2ms:


Asus LS221H:

http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/monitors/display/asus-...

Real response times for the Asus LS221H seems to range between near 0ms and 4ms, averaging 1.8ms.



LG Flatron W2284F:

http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/monitors/display/asus-...

Based on the graph, the real response time for the LG Flatron ranges between near 0ms to around 24ms, and averaging 5.4ms.


All monitors uses some thing called 'Overdrive' or 'Response Time Compensation' or whatever name they want to give it. It basically forces the LCD panel natural response time to be faster, the downside is that too much 'Overdrive' causes inaccurate colors, but more importantly for gamers can result in ghosting artifacts.

Most reviews do not cover 'real response times' because it requires high speed video equipment / light measuring equipment that are sensitive enough to measure changes in brightness in the nano-seconds, a smaller measure of time than millisecounds. Needless to say such equipment does not come cheap.
Score
0
October 30, 2010 10:02:37 PM

jaguarskx said:
GTG and BTW are used to provide the best case scenario of response times for the LCD panel. As stated before BTW is an older standard of measurement. I'm sure if companies can dream up another standard to state even lower response time, I'm sure they will. It's all advertisement.

Real response times can be quite high. A monitor that this advertised as "2ms" can have real resposne times as high as 30ms or higher. The following is from a review of the Asus LS221H and the Flatron W2284F monitor which has an advertised response time of 2ms:


Asus LS221H:

http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/monitors/display/asus-...

Real response times for the Asus LS221H seems to range between near 0ms and 4ms, averaging 1.8ms.



LG Flatron W2284F:

http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/monitors/display/asus-...

Based on the graph, the real response time for the LG Flatron ranges between near 0ms to around 24ms, and averaging 5.4ms.


All monitors uses some thing called 'Overdrive' or 'Response Time Compensation' or whatever name they want to give it. It basically forces the LCD panel natural response time to be faster, the downside is that too much 'Overdrive' causes inaccurate colors, but more importantly for gamers can result in ghosting artifacts.

Most reviews do not cover 'real response times' because it requires high speed video equipment / light measuring equipment that are sensitive enough to measure changes in brightness in the nano-seconds, a smaller measure of time than millisecounds. Needless to say such equipment does not come cheap.



thanks for these information its really helped me out to understand these
but i'm quite new to these monitor world

but is that mean that acer LS221h very very fast ? because its real response time is 4ms and averaging 1.8 ms
how much response time should monitor has to be fast enough ?
and why the factory can't make fast monitor with no over drive issue ?
another question if these the real response time why is other review i see they say these monitor is fast while it has 24 ms in real response time ? is these review i read is wrong or what i know u said it coast expansive equipment but they should really not be that naive to believe the factory or the companies
Score
0
a b 4 Gaming
a c 195 C Monitor
November 1, 2010 5:44:49 AM

1. Yes, the Asus LS221H is considered fast due to the measured actual response time.

2. For all, except truly hardcore gamers, monitors rated with 5ms response time should be fast enough. Then again, there's a difference between advertised best possible situation response times and actual response times.

3. It is the limitation of LCD technology. Liquid Crystal Displays needs time for the crystals to change shape to let the three primary colors of light to shine through. OverDrive is needs to decrease time required by increasing the voltage, but there are side effects.

4. There is a difference between lowest, average and peak response times. If a monitor only peak to 24ms a couple of times per minute, you are unlikely to notice.


Click following link if you want more info about LCD tech...

http://www.tftcentral.co.uk/specs.htm



Score
0
November 5, 2010 5:24:58 PM

jaguarskx said:
1. Yes, the Asus LS221H is considered fast due to the measured actual response time.

2. For all, except truly hardcore gamers, monitors rated with 5ms response time should be fast enough. Then again, there's a difference between advertised best possible situation response times and actual response times.

3. It is the limitation of LCD technology. Liquid Crystal Displays needs time for the crystals to change shape to let the three primary colors of light to shine through. OverDrive is needs to decrease time required by increasing the voltage, but there are side effects.

4. There is a difference between lowest, average and peak response times. If a monitor only peak to 24ms a couple of times per minute, you are unlikely to notice.


Click following link if you want more info about LCD tech...

http://www.tftcentral.co.uk/specs.htm


thanks a lot buddy u helped me a lot

but do u think that dell U2311H would be slow when it comes to first shooter game online ?
because its 8ms
Score
0
a b 4 Gaming
a c 195 C Monitor
November 5, 2010 9:01:04 PM

You will likely see more ghosting than 2ms or 5ms monitors. The question is can you live with it? It's hard to judge how much and when you are going to see it. After all "2ms, 5ms and 8ms" are just advertised numbers.

Personally speaking, that is something I probably can live with. My monitors are 6ms (NEC LCD2690WUXi) and 5ms (Planar PX2611w); both use H-IPS panels.

For online FPS, the biggest concern would be the ping time. If that's slow then you could end up dead w/o even knowing it.
Score
0
a b 4 Gaming
a c 195 C Monitor
November 5, 2010 9:04:45 PM

Since Adroid has the Dell U2311h, then I would be best to shoot him a PM to find out his opinion.

Based on all his post (this and other threads) he is very happy with it.
Score
0
a b 4 Gaming
November 5, 2010 11:19:18 PM

sky12 said:
thanks a lot buddy u helped me a lot

but do u think that dell U2311H would be slow when it comes to first shooter game online ?
because its 8ms


Sky12, I play mostly bad company 2 in the FPS genre, and its rocks on this monitor. You may notice a tiny bit of ghosting, but I hardly notice anything at all coming from a 5 ms TN panel.

Everything is much prettier, I will never consider buying another TN panel personally. And it may be slower than that 120hz asus TN junk but I can guarantee you it looks much better, and I get headshots all day long so its plenty fast for me.
Score
0
November 20, 2010 8:47:07 AM

I like the idea of 2560x1600, so I've been considering a Dell 30". Is there any reason I should avoid that monitor due to longer refresh times?

Also I do a lot of web development and music, so would it be a better idea to have a couple 24" panels?
Score
0

Best solution

a b 4 Gaming
November 22, 2010 12:40:27 AM

klezmer41 said:
I like the idea of 2560x1600, so I've been considering a Dell 30". Is there any reason I should avoid that monitor due to longer refresh times?

Also I do a lot of web development and music, so would it be a better idea to have a couple 24" panels?


Well first and foremost, what are you using this screen for? Do you play games on it? Or do you just do the web development and music?

Its really a matter of preference.

Two 24" screens would give alot more visible area. I personally think if you are flipping between web pages and working on multiple documents, the two screens may be the way to go. On the other hand, a 30" screen should be plenty big to have two documents side by side (for that matter a 24" would hold two documents side to side).

For me personally since I sit close to my computer and because I play games, a 30" screen would probably be TOO big. Running a game on a 30" screen would be beautiful, but if it was a competative online game I think it may actually hinder your performance, because there is no way you could view the whole screen at once time.

On the other hand, if you plan to watch movies and view the screen from across the room, the 30" would probably be great.

So to sum it up, I would either buy the two 24" panels if I was sitting reasonably close to the monitors and wanted as much screen real estate as possible and I have multiple programs and documents open and wanted to be able to view them all at once just looking from one side to the other, or I would buy the 30" screen if I only needed 2-3 documents open at a time, and also wanted to be able to view the screen from further across the room for various media etc (and besides the obvious liked the idea of one big beautiful screen).

If you are playing games on these screens you should take into special account the input lag and response time, and include that as a factor in your decision.

I am a single monitor guy myself, and I also think that for my desk setup anything over 24" is pushing it... Almost too big for my needs ^^
I may consider the 27", but even that would be overkill for my desktop, and a 30" I think would definitely be too big, I would have to buy a new desk to go with it.
Share
November 25, 2010 6:04:17 PM

Iv been looking aroud for a good 22-24 inch gaming monitor as well and I also play bad company 2.

I came across Samsing p2250 and p2270 and the specs look really good..also SAMSUNG BX2331 seems good..I dont know which of the three is best though.
Score
0
a b 4 Gaming
a b C Monitor
November 28, 2010 4:56:35 AM

klezmer41 said:
I like the idea of 2560x1600, so I've been considering a Dell 30". Is there any reason I should avoid that monitor due to longer refresh times?

Also I do a lot of web development and music, so would it be a better idea to have a couple 24" panels?


As the owner of a Dell U3011 30", I haven't noticed any problems with refresh times or lag. It's an absolutely gorgeous panel, with tons of room for multiple documents side by side when not gaming. As for the comparison between a single 30 vs 2 24s? I prefer the single 30 - it takes up quite a bit less desk space, and I like the enormous single useable area. If you have a lot of desk space though, a pair of 24s will give you a bit more area for multitasking.

Oh, and 2560x1600 is absurd. I absolutely love it. It does strain the graphics cards a bit though...
Score
0
Anonymous
a b 4 Gaming
a b C Monitor
November 16, 2011 9:25:16 PM

I have a 30" dell (well 2 in fact lol) and I play a lot of SC2 and I do think I am at a slight disadvantage and would play better if i had a 24" or maybe even 21"
Score
0
a c 378 4 Gaming
a b C Monitor
November 16, 2011 9:43:54 PM

This topic has been closed by Area51reopened
Score
0
a c 378 4 Gaming
a b C Monitor
November 16, 2011 9:46:23 PM

Best answer selected by area51reopened.
Score
0
!