Any gaming flatpanels worth waiting for in the near future?

[Haltingpoint]

My ancient Viewsonic p220f CRT (which puts all current monitors to shame despite being about 6 years old) seems to be dying on me slowly as it occasionally gets this wobbling on the edges that lasts for several days at a time and gives me eyestrain and headaches.

I'm on the verge of biting the bullet and getting a new flat panel but I have no idea what to look for and no idea whether there's anything worth waiting for.

Main requirement is that it looks awesome with FPS (LFD2 mostly, other random misc. games), and can be used for prolonged periods of time surfing the web with minimal eye strain. I also need something that has a high resolution and has a bigger vertical screen size than my current CRT (which, as a 22" monitor is 12" viewable top to bottom, not diagonal).

Price is not a factor in my purchase decision.

What should I be looking? Some of the 27" 120hz displays look nice, but I don't know if they're good for my requirements as I'm really not up to speed on the tech or brands.

Any specific recos would be much appreciated.

 

[ssddx]

i don't know of anything spectacular that you should be waiting for besides oleds (but that may be years!) so i'd suggest just looking at what is out on the market right now and making your decision.

since you obviously know the quality viewsonic can offer (i've had one!) perhaps you should give their professional line of lcds a look. my vp201b is over 5 years old and still going strong!

----
some general advice..

if you have a choice between LED and LCD buy LED if the display is better. the difference is in the backlighting. LCD uses CCFL. you will get deeper blacks and a more even brightness usually.

120hz is only good if you have a 120hz source. this is used primarily for 3d. if you have a 60hz source from your computer and a 120hz monitor the extra frames will just be black. if you don't plan on doing 3d then 120hz would be considered an "extra" not a requirement.

even within major brands there are a few flawed models. before making any purchase decisions just google "model abc review" or look for reviews on newegg.com or some other retailer website. even for products recommended here!

the MS response time ratings on monitors shouldn't be believed entirely. my old 16ms monitor performs equal to new supposedly 2-8ms monitors. the number given is usually the quickest the monitor can perform (not the average) meaning a slower monitor could actually (on average) be faster potentially. look for any reviews that specify there is ghosting on screen if you are unsure about a particular model.

-----

as secondhand advice i've seen on the forums.. i've heard that dell makes a large format display (LFD) with a resolution double a typical monitors. apparently it is one of the highest definition monitors currently available to the general consumer. keep in mind that i've heard it has backlight bleed around the edges.

 

[Haltingpoint]

This is very helpful--thanks for the suggestions.

Out of curiosity, do all those recommendations hold true for a FPS-geared gaming monitor? Or just a good monitor in general?

Regarding the 120hz situation, I've heard that if your PC hardware can push the FPS (and god knows my m17x can), then the 120hz makes it move like glass. I read one review where the reviewer was simply amazed at the difference in dragging windows around on the desktop. I've also read that having 120hz-capable hardware basically does an end-run around the whole Response Time issues as the nature of the technology eliminates that from the equation. Is there any truth to that?

 

[Haltingpoint]

Bump

 

[rofl_my_waffle]

You can either have picture quality or smooth movements (you cannot have both since there are different types of LCD panels)

120hz give the smoothest picture. The extra frames will never be black even on a 60hz source (each frame would only be shown twice). Any graphics card can output an unlimited amount of FPS to the monitor given that the monitor supports it and your hardware can keep up. 120hz provides a smoother image.

120hz is only available on TN panels at the moment. TN panels, because of how the liquid crystal is structured, can only output 256 thousand colors. Which is a fraction of what other LCD technologies can display at 16.7 million or more. At the same time because of lower available colors to switch through, response time is slightly lower. TN panels have considerable gamma shifts off center and considerable contrast lost when viewing off center. Viewing angle is so poor, the edges of the screen would always have discoloration even sitting dead infront of the screen.

IPS panels on the other hand is the best in terms of picture quality. Any IPS panels can display 16.7 million colors if not more, giving you the smoothest graidents available. IPS panels have little to no gamma shifts and very wide viewing angles with little contrast loss even viewing from the sides. Many IPS panels are wide gamut which provides much deeper and saturated colors to cover Adobe RGB colorspace. IPS panels are also available in large format displays with resolutions up to 2560x1600 (something not available on TN panels)

I think I know what article you have been reading. 120hz doesn't eliminate response time. What it does reduces artifacts from response time compensation. Response time compensation (RTC) is a method of overvolting LCD pixels to achieve a slightly faster grey to grey response time. However that method can create a dark blue trailing or leading image when applied excessively. Refreshing the screen helps eliminate that negative effect but the screen would still ghost.

 

[jaguarskx]

There is no breakthrough flat panel technology in the near future. The closet would be OLED. However, that is a long time away. Sony stopped research & development on OLED due to escalating costs. So there is one less company looking to develop this technology.

Best guess, OLED might be an affordable consumer solution in 4 - 7 years.

 

[jaguarskx]

LED does not provide better, more even backlight than traditional CCFL (florescent) backlight. And it does not necessary produce better blacks, that is still the function of the LCD panel itself.

The primary reasons to buy LED backlit LCD monitors are:
1. Thin and lighter monitor.
2. Power Savings.

The primary drawbacks of buying LED backlit LCD monitors are:
1. 68% color gamut as opposed to 72% normal color gamut. This means some people may notice colors has a slight bluish tint.
2. Only available in TN panel monitors.

 

[rofl_my_waffle]

edge lit LED is pretty much as uniform as CCFL.

Backlit LED is less uniform than edge lit or CCFL but thats mostly available as RGB LED for really really expensive graphics works monitors. For those kind of monitors they can calibrate the brightness of each LED with some pretty expensive equiptment.

White LED is available on e-IPS, TN, and cheap VA panels. The LEDs themselves are more expensive than CCFL but they make the monitor thinner and lighter so they can be made with less material and less sturdy material to cut cost a lot more than using CCFL.

Sony said OLED is a dead end for large displays however Samsung has picked up the research for cellphones. People find paying $200 for a 4" cellphone screen isn't that expensive. Not as bad as several thousand dollars for a monitor sized screen.

 

[Haltingpoint]

So in reading all of this, its sounding like there isn't a flat panel on the market that provides better quality in terms of smoothness and display quality than my current Viewsonic CRT from 6 years ago? That seems almost laughable, but maybe I'm missing something here.

I'm wondering if I'd be better off trying to repair my monitor or get a replacement of the same kind (if I can find one) because all of these options sound like I"m downgrading in one way or another.

What would you guys get for gaming if budget wasn't a factor?

 

[gamerboy249]

I suggest you to have a look at this link which has a bunch of information about the Gaming LED 3D Monitors releasing in the next 1-2 months -

http://www.tftcentral.co.uk/news_archive/22.htm#dell_p2411h

 

[ssddx]

OP,

quite the contrary, there are many many good choices when it comes to lcd monitors. what you need to figure out is what resolution/size you want your monitor to be. this will limit your choices down to fewer models that you can compare. have you done any brand/model research yet? try checking out what we already mentioned.

the model most similar to mine in their current line up would be the viewsonic pro series vp2365wb 23" lcd. the 14ms response time does not mean it will ghost (mine is 16ms).

 

[rofl_my_waffle]

There are tons of LCD monitors better than CRT. You just have to pay the price.

 

[Haltingpoint]

So I'm pretty certain I want at least a 27". I've done plenty of research on what is out there currently but as I said it seems you can get quality or speed right now, not both.

How can you not have issues with a response time that high? That seems impossible...

Again, price is not an issue. It just needs great color and display quality and the ability to handle fps with no issues or artifacts.

 

[billyg45]

Review of Acer HN274H.
http://3dvision-blog.com/review-of-the-27-acer-hn274h-3d-vision-ready-lcd-monitor/

 

[ssddx]

How can you not have issues with a response time that high? That seems impossible...

if you do the math it makes sense.

1second/60frames per second= one frame every .016 seconds
16milliseconds response time/1000 (conversion rate)= .016 seconds

therefore a 16ms monitor has a response time that can handle the incoming signal. also keep in mind that the response times noted on products are typically the *minimum* and maximum values may be much much much higher.
----

if you are planning on running a 60hz signal 16ms should be the highest minimum speed response time monitor you should buy.

if you are planning on running a 120hz signal 8ms should be the highest minimum speed response time monitor you should buy.

at least in theory. remember what i said about the response time not always being one single static number. it can vary.

 

[louno]

I am looking for a new monitor aswell and am having a hard time finding one that suits my need ( and budget ). Ideally, i'd like a lightweight, slim monitor because it is mounted on my desk with a dual monitor arm which has a limited weight support. I am a graphic designer so initially i didnt think led could be acceptable ( because most led have less nice color than TN lcd and there arent many led IPS ) Anyway, i came across this : http://www.tcmagazine.com/tcm/news/hardware/34650/lg-readies-e2370v-23-inch-ipsled-gaming-monitor
23 inch, Led, Ips , sold as a "gaming" monitor , so i assume the response time would be decent, for ~400$ , supposed to come out soon. Only thing that I dont know is if it has vesa mount holes in the back, its really hard to find led monitors with vesa support which is a real shame, anyhow, I hope it does !

 

[ssddx]

louno,

if you are doing graphic design then you might want to stick to traditional lcd displays. viewsonic vp (professional) series monitors should all be vesa-mount and offer outstanding color, clarity, and boast an impressive viewing angle. the response times might seem higher than a gaming monitor but are more than enough for no-ghost gaming. i used a vp201b for years, some of that being graphic design.

 

[jaguarskx]

Anyway, i came across this : http://www.tcmagazine.com/tcm/news/hardware/34650/lg-readies-e2370v-23-inch-ipsled-gaming-monitor 23 inch, Led, Ips , sold as a "gaming" monitor , so i assume the response time would be decent, for ~400$ , supposed to come out soon.

Well, it's only coming out in Japan for the moment and "$400" is the amount of Yens converted to US $$$. Don't forget to that it costs money to ship products from overseas and the ever popular import tax.