Curse

Ruhern · Mar 28, 2006, 01:09 AM // 01:09

Anyone know what specs I should be looking for in an LCD monitor for gaming? What I want to know mainly is:

What is the minimum requirement I should have for dot pitch? (i.e. .26mm, .24mm...)
What about refresh rate? (i.e. should I get 60Hz or should I get higher?)
What about response time? (i.e. 18ms? 12ms?)
What native resolution should I be looking for? (i.e. 1024x768)

I play Guild Wars but I also play first-person shooters. So I don't want to go too high on native resolution because I want to be able keep the game running smoothly without having to dumb down the details too much. And for refresh rate on my current CRT monitor I can get by with 60Hz and it looks great, but anything lower and it bothers my eyes. Also with my CRT monitor I have .22mm dpi (or is it .20mm? I forgot). In any case, it's an incredibly sharp monitor and I can notice the difference between it and a .26mm CRT monitor. The one thing I don't know about is response time because from what I understand that's for LCD monitors only.

Anyways, any information will help, even just your experience with LCD monitors. Thanks.

note: I plan on buying a 17" LCD monitor, because of price and the area I will be putting it into. Unless of course I can be convinced of going bigger for a good reason. Thanks!

Blade Rez · Mar 28, 2006, 02:23 AM // 02:23

Ok Pitch + refresh rate is just something that remains uniformly the same, Plus is not of neccesity in gaming. Things you focus on are refresh rate+resolution+DVI.
If you have the money get a 17in LCD monitor with DVI. Digital Video >>> Analog Video. Provides a crisper display. Response Time. 18ms is meh. 12ms is ok. 8ms is good. 2-4 ms is Excellent. However watch out since some companies do the gay 18ms up 18ms down or something around that which gives you 36ms(Doesn't exist but if it did, would be extremely bad). Response time determines how much ghosting happens. Lower the better. I currently run 12ms i think, and i'm good to go for GW. Resolution should be 1280x1024 PERIOD

EiS · Mar 28, 2006, 02:50 AM // 02:50

well the only thing you really need to look at on LCDs are the Response Time and Contrast Ratio

for gaming you want a Response Time of at least 16MS or lower

and contrast ratio i'm actully not sure but i think that has to do with how clear the picture actully is i usaully try to go for 600:1 or higher

Blade Rez · Mar 28, 2006, 03:08 AM // 03:08

Yeah forgot. Contrast Ration. 350:1 or higher is good. 600:1 monitors fetch 400$ price ranger, except for Hannspree. Hannspree is an unheard of company but has godlike monitors. www.tigerdirect.com special right now 190$ 19 in LCD. Just read the 153 reviews

Str0b0 · Mar 28, 2006, 04:43 AM // 04:43

You also want to have one with an angle of viewing as close to 180 degrees as possible. I highly recommend Sony's products both for their excellent color and for their extreme viewing angles. I have a 19" SOny LCD and I can move to like 178 degrees and still see the picture as sharp and as clear as if I was sitting right in front of it. You don't think it matters until you have an issue with it trust me. The first one I got was an offbrand. I forget the name of the damn thing but it wasn't even one I'd heard of before. Anyway it functioned but that's about all I can say for it. I am not a sedentary person, I move around my computer a lot when I'm on it and one time I was trying to reset my router with one hand and monitor a diagnostic program I was running on it. That's when I found out how important an extreme angle of viewing is on an LCD.

Lerxst_of_Syrinx · Mar 28, 2006, 06:50 AM // 06:50

I still don't see why everyone is so gah-gah over LCD monitors. I love to be able to switch resolutions based the different games I play. Being stuck at one resolution isn't my cup of tea.

I know some of you out there will say you can switch resolutions, but when you do, you can either have a black box around your game or run the game in the blurry non-native resolution. And then you have to limit some games (like GW) because your LCD will only go to 1280x1024 when you know your system could run it beautifully at 1600x1200.

With a CRT, I can run FEAR at 1280x1024 and make it run nicely, but I turn GW all the way up to 1600x1200. With a CRT I get the best pictures/performance for all of my games and don't have to be limited by a screen.

When LCD-type screens have the same abilities as CRTs, I will buy one.

Until then, CRT FTW!

B Ephekt · Mar 28, 2006, 08:15 AM // 08:15

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lerxst_of_Syrinx

I still don't see why everyone is so gah-gah over LCD monitors. I love to be able to switch resolutions based the different games I play. Being stuck at one resolution isn't my cup of tea.

Because with a decent system there's no need to switch to lower resolutions. Ever. I run all my games at 1920x1200; there is no reason to switch, unless it's an older game that needs a lower res.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lerxst_of_Syrinx

When LCD-type screens have the same abilities as CRTs, I will buy one.

You will be waiting forever then. SED will probably have what you want though.

OP - look into the Dell LCDs, they're pretty good quality wise and they're very cheap. They have decent 17", 19", 20" (wide screen and 4:3) and a nice wide screen 24" LCD.

Lerxst_of_Syrinx · Mar 28, 2006, 08:45 AM // 08:45

Quote:

Originally Posted by B Ephekt

Because with a decent system there's no need to switch to lower resolutions. Ever. I run all my games at 1920x1200; there is no reason to switch, unless it's an older game that needs a lower res.

I have a "decent" system -- an Athlon64 3500+ with a 6800 Ultra -- and I can't play EVERY game at 1600x1200 nevermind 1920x1200.

Unless you can afford an Athlon64 FX-60 with 2x7900GTX in SLI you can run every game at 1920x1200...when you go there that no longer qualifies as "decent" -- that now qualifies as "top-of-the-line".

Old Dood · Mar 28, 2006, 03:17 PM // 15:17

Look at the Dell UltraSharp Monitors 20" and Up. They are the best deal for the money today.

wsmcasey · Mar 28, 2006, 04:09 PM // 16:09

My last 2 monitors over the past 5 years have been ViewSonics and I never had any issues. I currently use a Hewlett Packard 21inch wide screen.

B Ephekt · Mar 28, 2006, 09:36 PM // 21:36

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lerxst_of_Syrinx

I have a "decent" system -- an Athlon64 3500+ with a 6800 Ultra -- and I can't play EVERY game at 1600x1200 nevermind 1920x1200.

Unless you can afford an Athlon64 FX-60 with 2x7900GTX in SLI you can run every game at 1920x1200...when you go there that no longer qualifies as "decent" -- that now qualifies as "top-of-the-line".

Um, I can run every game I own at 1920x1200 on a 4400+ (CPU has VERY little to do with resolution capabilities after a certain point, fyi) and 1900XT (unlocked and overclocked to an XTX)...

Another thing about high resolutions is that you don't need as much AA, just throw on AF so you get nice looking textures and drop the AA down a bit. Perfect.

I didn't intend to argue over capabilities either, but a 6800 is a 3 year old card; of course you can't run every game at high resolution... come on.

Edit: Most games would run perfectly fine at 1920x1200 with just a 7800GT(X) too. I know this for a fact, because I just recently sold my GTX for this 1900.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Old Dood

Look at the Dell UltraSharp Monitors 20" and Up. They are the best deal for the money today.

Yeah, that's what I meant to suggest, although they have some nice 17" and 19" panels too. I own a 2005 and a 2405 and they're both great; I wouldn't trade them for ANY CRT on the market. Plus, imo, wide screen is far superior to 4:3 now-a-days.

Teklord · Mar 28, 2006, 10:36 PM // 22:36

All in my opinion.

The two most important factors for a gaming LCD screen are Contrast Ratio and Response Time. Contrast Ratio is the higher the better, I'm currently running 900:1. Response time is the lower the better; I've currently got an 8ms screen. I couldn't find a faster one with good contrast ratio.

Refresh rate is not relevant for LCD screens.

Resolution. If you can't run all of the games at good quality detail at an LCDs native resolution, then don't buy an LCD. I run at 1600 x 1200, this includes Fear. Course I would probably be considered 'higher end' with an AMD 4000+ and X1800XL.

LCDs are physically smaller and extremely light compared to the CRT of comparable screen size. I used to own a 19" CRT Flat Viewsonic, the thing weighed a ton! Not good if you ever wanna pack up and go to another location for say... a LAN party.

Widescreen can be nice. However keep in mind you do lose some vertical resolution even though you gain in horizontal. Also there are many games that simply do not support widescreen resolutions. A farily recent (and with absolutely beautiful graphics) example would be X3: Reunion. Other games like Guild Wars scale perfectly no matter what resolution / aspect ratio you run.

Bigger viewing space (19" vs. 17") is always nicer, if you can afford to go for it then do it. I'm currently running a 21". Brand is user preference, all brands suffer from the occasional lemon. Just be sure to pick a customer friendly brand in the event you get a lemon so that it is easy and quick to replace.

wsmcasey · Mar 28, 2006, 10:46 PM // 22:46

1024x768 on my 21inch makes my characters look fat and bloated. 1280x720 looks best for me. I can run guild wars at a higher res, but don't really see a need for it.

Teklord · Mar 28, 2006, 11:13 PM // 23:13

1024 x 768 is not a widescreen resolution. So assuming you are running WS (according to a previous post you are) and assuming at said resolution that you do not see black bars on the sides of your monitor then yes, your characters would look bloated and streched as the system tries to apply a 4:3 resolution on a 16:9 monitor. 1280 x 720 on the other hand is a widescreen resolution, and thus everything will look normal. Other such resolutions include 1440 x 900 (what I run on my WS notebook) and 1920 x 1200. There are likely higher ones possible but no screen to support them.

Those last two WS resolutions are actually 16:10 BTW.

Addition: 1280 x 720 (aka 720p) would look really nice on an HDTV, as would a similar 1920 x 1080 (aka 1080i). Although I personally find the small text at 1080i too hard to read.

Ruhern · Mar 29, 2006, 05:43 AM // 05:43

Thanks for all the feedback. So many different opinions on what is best, but contrast ratio and response time seem to be the things to look for. The main reason I'm looking into an LCD is space. I have a 17" CRT but because it is so big and the area I have to put it on my desk is limited because of a wall, I end up being too close to the monitor and at times it makes me feel like I'm sitting at the front row in a movie theater.

One more question though: as far as the quality of the picture, are LCD's comparable to my CRT with a .22mm dpi? That is a deciding factor for me. Any info would be great, thanks.

Ryphen · Mar 29, 2006, 06:42 AM // 06:42

I have a 22" NEC CRT and there's no way I could go to LCD. I do alot of design and rendering and CRTs kick the s**t out of LCDs any day in sharpness.

Lerxst_of_Syrinx · Mar 29, 2006, 06:51 AM // 06:51

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ruhern

One more question though: as far as the quality of the picture, are LCD's comparable to my CRT with a .22mm dpi? That is a deciding factor for me. Any info would be great, thanks.

If you do any real graphics artwork or photo retouching, an LCD is not the way to go. LCDs are limited in the amount or colors they can produce whereas a CRT can produce an infinite amount of color.

As far as picture quality on an LCD - as long as you stay at the native resolution of the LCD, picture quality is excellent.

Also, the best way to choose a monitor or LCD is to see it in person first (then order it online!)

Old Dood · Mar 29, 2006, 11:50 AM // 11:50

LCDs also have a hard time drawing real BLACKS. They can come out grey.

CRTs are still the best pictures. Even with HDTV. I have a Sony HS510 CRT 34" CRT. It is sharper then expensive Flat TVs. Plasmas,LCDs,DLPs,etc...

wsmcasey · Mar 30, 2006, 06:25 PM // 18:25

Quote:

Originally Posted by Teklord

1024 x 768 is not a widescreen resolution. So assuming you are running WS (according to a previous post you are) and assuming at said resolution that you do not see black bars on the sides of your monitor then yes, your characters would look bloated and streched as the system tries to apply a 4:3 resolution on a 16:9 monitor. 1280 x 720 on the other hand is a widescreen resolution, and thus everything will look normal. Other such resolutions include 1440 x 900 (what I run on my WS notebook) and 1920 x 1200. There are likely higher ones possible but no screen to support them.

Those last two WS resolutions are actually 16:10 BTW.

Addition: 1280 x 720 (aka 720p) would look really nice on an HDTV, as would a similar 1920 x 1080 (aka 1080i). Although I personally find the small text at 1080i too hard to read.

Sorry, I meant to include my comment along with a previous post regarding scaling on a wide screen with guild wars.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Teklord

Widescreen can be nice. However keep in mind you do lose some vertical resolution even though you gain in horizontal. Also there are many games that simply do not support widescreen resolutions. A farily recent (and with absolutely beautiful graphics) example would be X3: Reunion. Other games like Guild Wars scale perfectly no matter what resolution / aspect ratio you run.

Not a true statement, hence my comment about characters looking fat and bloated at 1024 x 768 on a widescreen.

Teklord · Mar 30, 2006, 06:36 PM // 18:36

Fair enough.

Guild Wars does an awesome job displaying 4:3 resolutions on 4:3 screens, and displaying 16:9 / 16:10 resolutions on widescreen displays.

Also with LCD blacks. I'm sure using a photo-sensitive device that the blacks on my notebook and desktop LCD monitor are pure black. But they are a very far cry from being grey. When I play games, if the gun is meant to be black compared to everything else on the screen it sure looks black to me. I enjoy the screen size of my 21" LCD, and I'd never go back to the 'huge' and 'heavy' CRT version I'd have to get to enjoy the same screen size. Especially these days when LCD lag is virtually non-existant.

"Then to Tyolus: say to the people of the low plains, seek not the wickedness amongst your neighbors lest it find purchase in your own house."

(shoot.. can't change font size. Oh well worth a shot.)