Best Gaming Monitor

[MillerTime8806]

I'm building a new computer and want a new LCD to go with it. I will use the computer for gaming (like crysis), as well as some movies. Any ideas as to a good LCD I should get? I'm looking for a monitor under $500. Thanks in advance.

 

[erik_tilton]

I like my Viewsonic vx2025wm very much, I got it for $400 a few months ago. Picture quality and details are very good at 1680 by 1050 resolution.

What bugs me about LCDs is that they are capped at 60 frames per second (hz) or 75 frames per second if you're lucky, but with Crysis you will never see anything above 30 frames per second anyway.

 

[MillerTime8806]

I'm looking for something with a native resolution of 1920 x 1200 (24" most likely). Thanks though.

 

[jaguarskx]

A 24" for less than $500 will get you a something that uses the cheap TN panel technology found in all consumer level 22" LCD monitors; the exception is the new Lenovo ThinkVision L220x which uses the better S-PVA panel tech and support 1920x1200.

You can buy a DoubleSight brandname 24" LCD that uses a S-PVA panel from Newegg.com for less than $500, but they are an unknown brand.

TN Panel Tech Pros:
1. Cheaper
2. Faster response time (5ms)

TN Panel Tech Cons:
1. Poor color accuracy; only 262k real colors; 16 million using dithering
2. Blacks aren't as black as other panel techs
3. Poor viewing angles

S-PVA/P-MVA Pros:
1. True 16.7 million colors for good color accuracy
2. Wide viewing angles
3. Good black levels

S-PVA/P-MVA Cons:
1. More expensive than TN panels; $600 starting price
2. Slightly slower response time (6ms)

 

[Phrozt]

I love reading your posts Jag.

I've been searching for about 2 hours on a response something like what you said.

With all that you've said, taking the following into account, what would you recommend:

- 1920x1200
- ability to manipulate base
- fast response time (for heavy FPS playing)
- good quality

Looking for recommendations for the following (I realize 1920x1200 is not something I'll find in 22"):

- Cheap 22"
- Good 22"
- Cheap 24"
- Good 24"

 

[jaguarskx]

Cheap 22":

ViewSonic Graphic Series VG2230wm = $290 Height & Tilt Adjustments

Good 22":

The Lenovo ThinkVision L220x which I mentioned before. 1920 x 1200 resolution, S-PVA panel, $500.

Only two stores are selling them, but it just been released.

Cheap 24":

Westinghouse L2410NM Glossy Black 24" = $400 Hey it's cheap.

Good 24":

BenQ FP241W Black 24" = $640 Connection options up the wazzu. Some units from Newegg.com still seem to still have firmware before January 2007 which means it cannot do 1:1 bit mapping (aka Aspect Ratio). Many people are disappointed by this fact.


Insane (like me) 24":

NEC Display Solutions LCD2490WUXi-BK = $1,200

- H-IPS panel tech - only 24" LCD monitor that uses such a panel in the consumer level market.
- Good for games, but excellent for graphic artists and photo editing, or if color accuracy is extremely important to you.


I got the "bigger brother", the 26" NEC LCD2690WUXi. I might buy the 2490WUXi, if I decide on a dual monitor setup.

 

[jaguarskx]

UPDATE

Lenovo ThinkVision L220x for $450 at BestBuyBusiness.com

Not necessarily the best for gaming since there haven't been a review yet, but if I were to buy a 22" LCD monitor, this is the one I would get.

 

[smartel7070]

I just got the Benq fp241vw changed from a Viewsonic VX2235 ..... the difference is amazing going from a 6bit panel to an 8bit one !!! I use it for games and watching movies. If you can afford one definately go for an 8 bit panel I say.

 

[Phrozt]

Also.. I have the Viewsonic VX922 (as you see in my sig).

The reason I got it was for the lightning fast response time. I play a LOT of games on it. Would this change any of your recommendations jag?


EDIT: and thanks for the response!

 

[jaguarskx]

A lot of gamers tend to stick to monitors with fast response times. These monitors tends to use TN panels which are fast and inexpensive, but the have relatively poor color accuracy and viewing angles, and their black levels are not as good as other panel techs. For a FPS gamer, these things should not make too much of a difference since your main concern is what's behind the next corner.

However, doing other things like photoshop or watching movies can bring out the worst in LCD monitors using TN panels. Regarding response time, there is no standard used to measure this characteristic. Always take it with a grain of salt 'cause it'll be different from brand to brand. Also, just because one person sees "ghosting effects" on a monitor with 6ms or less response time doesn't mean other people will not.

I'm a stickler for image quality and color accuracy even though I'm not a graphic artist so I skip past any monitor using TN panel tech without a second thought. I like playing some FPS games, but I don't consider myself a fanatic gamer. I kinda prefer strategy games.

 

[sarafan]

Have you had any experience playing console games on that NEC monitor jaguarskx, particularly PS3 and 360 games? I currently use my spare 2407 for gaming, using the component inputs, but from what i gather the NEC only has DVI inputs? Caveats aside, those colors do look awesome

 

[jaguarskx]

I'm not a fan of console games.

However, I have read several user reviews about connect the PS3 and Xbox to the the NEC LCD 2690WUXi. Basically there are no issues whatsoever, unlike the Planar PX2611w which uses the same H-IPS panel made by LG/Philips.

The PX2611w has banding issues when playing games at 1080i, but there are no issues watching HD movies at full screen. The NEC has an internal video signal processor (for lack of a better term) which does not display any banding whatsoever when playing games or watching HD movies.

I gleaned some of that info from the following Hardforum thread (60 pages of posts!!):

http://www.hardforum.com/showthread.php?t=1095840

 

[sarafan]

pretty cool, with the dual DVI inputs there should not be any issue using it for the PS3. thanks jaguar! last question though, i noticed on the necdisplay website that there's a 24" model with something called spectra view that tacks on an extra $200 to the normal price of the 2490 models. is there anything special to this, or would the normal LCD2490WUXi model ($1099) suffice? again i'm primarily interested in gaming. oh and i guess one more question, are there any revisions or new models coming out this year/early next that one should wait for? or are these current models going to stick around for a time? anyway, thanks for the info, as well as that link you provided it was very helpful

 

[jaguarskx]

SpectraView is a hardware colorimeter used to calibrate the monitor to make the colors more accurate. I opted to just get the standard 2690WUXi w/o SpectraView 'cause I figured I might be able to borrow a different colorimeter from a friend who works in the IT dept of an advertising company. Still waiting to get it.

From what I've read the with factory presets the 2490WUXi and 2690WUXi are merely "okay". Using a colorimeter vastly improves color accuracy. Visually looking at my NEC, the colors looks pretty decent, but I know it can look better.

FYI:

Based on what I've read people recommend the 2490WUXi over the 2690WUXi because of fewer flaws. Such as few issues with backlight bleeding, better default color accuracy (but not perfect), reports of some minor, but visible image artifacts when doing highly detailed graphics editing. That would be something a professional graphic artist would see more easily than the average person who would not know what to look for.

Since gaming is your primary concern I don't think getting the SpectraView version is worth the extra $$$. I use the 2690WUXi most for general purpose usage and some gaming.

I think NEC will be releasing newer versions of the 2490 and 2690 in the "near" future which uses LEDs instead of florescent lamps for the backlighting.

From some preliminary research I read about LED backlighting they are supposed to be able to produce up to ~140% wide color gamut. The average person, that will mean nothing except that colors might look a bit "weird" because until just recently most people were used to 76% color games LCD and CRT monitors. The 2490 and 2690 has 92% wide color gamut. Professional graphic artists cares about very wide color gamut because they produce truer colors especially on printed material.

LEDs should also cut power consumption (a minor thing) and run cooler than florescent lamps. But more importantly they should also provide better blacks or real black. The LEDs are grouped together in local grids so that sections of the LED backlight could actually turn off, thus providing real black when necessary. Your typical LCD monitor can't do that 'cause the florescent lamps stretches the entire length from left to right.

As you can guess LED backlighting will be very expensive and will remain very expensive for some time until the production process can be streamlined. Samsung released a 20" LCD using blacklighting during the summer, the selling price was $3,000.

If you are in the market for a LCD HDTV (who isn't since SDTV signals will terminate on Feb 2009), then you may want to consider Samsung's LED backlit LCD HDTVs. I've seen one at a local Best Buy; it looked really, really good. Better than most other LCD HDTVs and also more expensive. See the link below:

Samsung - 40" 1080p Flat-Panel LCD HDTV - LN-T4081F

 

[sarafan]

thanks, if i decide to get the 2490 (i've no real interest in the 26"), i'd probably go ahead and get the colorimeter as well as it sounds like it may be worth it. and at that price whats an extra $200 anyways

 

[Grunge]

Very interesting thread, much of it I did not know. I am in the market for a new LCD monitor. I mostly play fps games, but am now looking for a 1920 x 1200 monitor with a size of 24" . After reading the article I have narrowed my search down to three monitors. These all have a nice balance between response time and what I think is good quality.

Not sure of the panel used on the first two.
Samsung 245BW
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16824001234

NEC Display Solutions ASLCD24WMCX-BK
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16824002359


BenQ FP241W
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16824014124

This one as was listed earlier is one I know is of good quality, but is naturally more expensive. If this is the flat out best of the three I will suck it up and buy it. But if the NEC or Samsung is of somewhat equal quality panel wise, I will consider those seeing as they are slightly lower in price.


Which one is the best? If anyone has any other options feel free to share.

I did look at the Lenovo, but since the gaming capabilities seem unknown I sort of shunned that one out of my list.

Thanks,

Grunge

 

[sarafan]

of the three you listed, i would most likely choose either the NEC or BenQ. It seems the samsung suffers from a dearth of inputs (just dvi and vga), and as a gamer you would probably find component inputs quite useful. between the nec and benq, i'm not sure. had i not already bought a dell 2407, i would have gone with the benq if only for the HDMI input. this is the first i've heard of the NEC, and since it also has HDMI input i really couldn't say which is better. i would definitely defer to jaguars opinion on that.

 

[Grunge]

Thanks for the response. I knew of the samsungs lack of inputs, but was still deciding if the lower cost was worth it. You are right, besides u never know when you may need a spare hdmi nowadays especially. Jaguar, if you happen to be reading this, what is your opinion?

 

[jaguarskx]

The NEC seems interesting. The specs tags it as a TN panel, yet it has 178°(H) / 178°(V) viewing angles. Even NEC's website lists those angles. I'm guessing NEC may have put some type of coating on the screen for wider viewing angles, but I really doubt it is really 178°(H) / 178°(V).

I would go for the BenQ because I know for a fact it uses a S-PVA panel. The only downside is that many customers over at Newegg has complained that their BenQ FP241W does not support 1:1 pixel mapping. If the monitor's firmware is January 2007 then it will have this ability.

1:1 pixel mapping basically tell the monitor to display the exact number of pixels you set a game's resolution at. Playing in 1680x 1050 on a 24" screen will mean black borders around the playing area. It is used to maintain the best image quality at lower than native resolution if your video card is too weak.

 

[Grunge]

Ok, it looks as if its the BenQ then. I appreciate your help! The 1:1 pixel mapping shouldnt make too much of a difference to me, I have a strong system. If there is an instance where the 1:1 pixel mapping is needed then I suppose I will just get over it.

Thanks,

Grunge

 

[jerseygamer]

The Samsung 226bw is a great deal for gaming. You are going to get alot better picture quality and performance out of a CRT though along with a 10x longer life.

 

[darkage]

I've been looking for a monitor now for a few days .... has anyone heard anything about this one here ? ...

BenQ G2400W
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16824014158

I'm interested in the high resolution gaming and HDMI port and stated 5ms response ... main use, is high res gaming ...

 

[ginbong46]

is the 2232BW samsung considered a good gaming monitor?

 

[russell wyllie]

I bought the LG 22" 226WTQ-FS Widescreen monitor, with 2ms delay and 60 Hz refresh rate. It is horrible- ugly and blocky at low resolutions, and jitters when watching DVD movies or digital television. LG website advertise it as perfect for movies without blurring or distortion. What a collosal bunch of liars they are!

Your graphics card might be able to produce 100 fps, but LCD monitors only go as high as 75Hz (usually at very low resolution of 960x600 and below). This means you will only see up to 75 frames per second, regardless of the graphics card's ability. My 7950gx2 runs F.E.A.R at 250 fps at peak, and never below 97fps,so a CRT for me is the only option.

Most LCD monitors only use 60Hz (60 frames per second ) in resolutions higher than 960x600, so beware- a CRT monitor is the professional gaming/multimedia monitor you want (Sony 21" Trinitron Monitor with 2048x1680 at 85Hz is great!)

Unfortunately, the market is tied up with LCD's, even though they are far cheaper, they are crap in my opinion, unless you get a 42" LCD television capable of supporting PC's at 100Hz. But there is a snag with the technology in the 42" LCD t.v's- the picture is made stable by adding a black screen in between frames, so you get a consistant brain-fooling, where you think you've seen a smooth picture, but in fact whatever you see will be a series of picture-black-picture-black-picture (60 frames of picture and 40 frames of black screen), not like the CRT's smooth 100 fps of picture. LCD colours are also often less accurate than a CRT.

Get a Sony or Viewsonic widescreen CRT at 21", and be grateful that I let you know what a swindle the LCD industry really is...
CRT's are becoming obsolete, so you may not find a widescreen very easily- but it's worth shopping for one...

 

[russell wyllie]

I'm building a new computer and want a new LCD to go with it. I will use the computer for gaming (like crysis), as well as some movies. Any ideas as to a good LCD I should get? I'm looking for a monitor under $500. Thanks in advance.

I bought the LG 22" 226WTQ-FS Widescreen monitor, with 2ms delay and 60 Hz refresh rate. It is horrible- ugly and blocky at low resolutions, and jitters when watching DVD movies or digital television. LG website advertise it as perfect for movies without blurring or distortion. What a collosal bunch of liars they are!

Your graphics card might be able to produce 100 fps, but LCD monitors only go as high as 75Hz (usually at very low resolution of 960x600 and below). This means you will only see up to 75 frames per second, regardless of the graphics card's ability. My 7950gx2 runs F.E.A.R at 250 fps at peak, and never below 97fps,so a CRT for me is the only option.

Most LCD monitors only use 60Hz (60 frames per second ) in resolutions higher than 960x600, so beware- a CRT monitor is the professional gaming/multimedia monitor you want (Sony 21" Trinitron Monitor with 2048x1680 at 85Hz is great!)

Unfortunately, the market is tied up with LCD's, even though they are far cheaper, they are crap in my opinion, unless you get a 42" LCD television capable of supporting PC's at 100Hz. But there is a snag with the technology in the 42" LCD t.v's- the picture is made stable by adding a black screen in between frames, so you get a consistant brain-fooling, where you think you've seen a smooth picture, but in fact whatever you see will be a series of picture-black-picture-black-picture (60 frames of picture and 40 frames of black screen), not like the CRT's smooth 100 fps of picture. LCD colours are also often less accurate than a CRT.

Get a Sony or Viewsonic widescreen CRT at 21", and be grateful that I let you know what a swindle the LCD industry really is...
CRT's are becoming obsolete, so you may not find a widescreen very easily- but it's worth shopping for one...