EverCrest Message Forums
You are not logged in. Login or Register.
Author
Topic: Haelp! Need a New Monitor
Bloodsage
Heart Attack
posted 04-09-2005 01:22:28 PM
I need to buy a new monitor, and I'm sort of considering TFT for the first time. But the only large ones I see hae 2ms response times. How bad is that? Do I need to stick with 8ms?

How does "native resolution" affect things? Am I stuck exclusively at that resolution, or what?

To reign is worth ambition, though in Hell:
Better to reign in Hell than serve in Heaven.

--Satan, quoted by John Milton

Snugglits
I LIKE TO ABUSE THE ALERT MOD BUTTON AND I ENJOY THE FLAVOR OF SWEET SWEET COCK.
posted 04-09-2005 01:23:37 PM
2ms? Holy shit!

And lower response time is better, duh.

Snugglits fucked around with this message on 04-09-2005 at 01:24 PM.

[b].sig removed by Mr. Parcelan[/b]
Bloodsage
Heart Attack
posted 04-09-2005 01:25:00 PM
quote:
Quoth Snugglits:
2ms? Holy shit!

Oops--I hate typing on my wife's laptop.

Should've been 25ms.

To reign is worth ambition, though in Hell:
Better to reign in Hell than serve in Heaven.

--Satan, quoted by John Milton

Sentow, Maybe
Pancake
posted 04-09-2005 01:26:27 PM
Just out of curiousity, why is this a flame thread?
Once more into the breach, my friends, once more. We'll close the wall with our dead. In peace, nothing so becomes a man as modesty and humility, but when the blast of war blows in our ears, then imitate the action of the tiger, summon up the blood, disguise fair nature with rage and lend the eye a terrible aspect.
Snugglits
I LIKE TO ABUSE THE ALERT MOD BUTTON AND I ENJOY THE FLAVOR OF SWEET SWEET COCK.
posted 04-09-2005 01:27:01 PM
quote:
Bloodsage thought about the meaning of life:
Oops--I hate typing on my wife's laptop.

Should've been 25ms.


oic

Anyway, 12/16 is considered the border of where most people will get an LCD for gaming. I have a 16ms and it does just fine. Realize that if you don't play first person shooters you'll never notice it anyway. Some people will say things like "it has to be 12ms for me..." so it does vary a little from person to person.

[b].sig removed by Mr. Parcelan[/b]
Bloodsage
Heart Attack
posted 04-09-2005 01:29:23 PM
quote:
Channeling the spirit of Sherlock Holmes, Sentow, Maybe absently fondled Watson and proclaimed:
Just out of curiousity, why is this a flame thread?

I like to keep my options open.

To reign is worth ambition, though in Hell:
Better to reign in Hell than serve in Heaven.

--Satan, quoted by John Milton

NullDevice
Internet Tough Guy
posted 04-09-2005 01:34:00 PM
Native resolution is what the screens "sweet spot" is. That's going to give you the best image clarity and desktop size. The monitor might be capable of more and is usually capable of less, but the quality of the image may be lacking.

In general, you get a monitor that would match the resolution you would use. At this point most 17" LCDs hold a 1280x1024 native resolution (which is usually a step above what the 'native resolution' would be for a CRT unless you're buying a good quality unit) so unless you need 1600x1200, you should be set.

diadem
eet bugz
posted 04-09-2005 01:53:13 PM
you know you wanna (25ms responce time though)

diadem fucked around with this message on 04-09-2005 at 01:55 PM.

play da best song in da world or me eet your soul
Chugga
Pancake
posted 04-09-2005 02:12:27 PM
The higher the responce time, the more ghosting you'll see since the monitor cannot respond in time. 12-16 and you'll see no ghosting, but really you'll want to see an in store demo of the monitor to check it's picture quality. Some LCD's can promote 16ms responce time at 1280x1024, but have terrible image quality. So just go for something with a 12-16ms responce time, and make sure you're happy with the image quality. Samsung has some nice ones, as well as BenQ and to some extent LG. Dell's newest models are also really good.
Noxhil2
Pancake
posted 04-09-2005 02:13:11 PM
What do you mean by "large"? A 17" LCD is going to be about the same screen size as a 19" CRT.

I bought this four months ago, and I think it is an excellent monitor. (for the price at the time)

Unless you are playing first person shooters, 25ms will *probably* be ok, but I'd still recommend going down to 16ms just in case. With LCDs, the spec numbers only tell you so much, your best bet is to hopefully see the LCD you plan on buying in action, because I've seen ones with bad specs that looked great, and ones with excellent specs that looked terrible.

Bloodsage
Heart Attack
posted 04-09-2005 02:29:31 PM
I may have to settle for 19" then. since the only 21" LCDs I see have 25ms response times.

At least they're cheap, in case I decide I can't hang.

To reign is worth ambition, though in Hell:
Better to reign in Hell than serve in Heaven.

--Satan, quoted by John Milton

Snugglits
I LIKE TO ABUSE THE ALERT MOD BUTTON AND I ENJOY THE FLAVOR OF SWEET SWEET COCK.
posted 04-09-2005 02:33:26 PM
Yeah, don't expect to run it at anything besides native resolutions or divisibles of native resolution (1600x1200 can run 800x600, too, for example).
[b].sig removed by Mr. Parcelan[/b]
Tatsukaze
wants Kloie's mom OH SO BAD
posted 04-09-2005 02:36:51 PM
Dell 2001FP, one of the best 21" monitors out there, 12ms response time i believe, no smearing whatsoever.

http://dell.gottadeal.com/ for a 20% coupon, expires in a week. Total comes to $599 minus shipping/tax.

Tatsukaze fucked around with this message on 04-09-2005 at 02:38 PM.

Maradon!
posted 04-09-2005 02:38:54 PM
R-E-S-P-O-N-S-E

And LCD screen eat babies, k.

Niklas
hay guys whats going on in this title?
posted 04-09-2005 02:42:16 PM
Get the Hyundai L90D+ as featured inthis article. I have it and it kicks ass.
Alidane
Urinary Tract Infection
posted 04-09-2005 03:40:50 PM
quote:
When the babel fish was in place, it was apparent Snugglits said:
Yeah, don't expect to run it at anything besides native resolutions or divisibles of native resolution (1600x1200 can run 800x600, too, for example).

You *can* run it at lower non-divisible resolutions (my 1280x1024 LCD does all the normal 4:3 resolutions as well) but they suffer from nasty jaggies and blurriness all fucking over.
Snugglits
I LIKE TO ABUSE THE ALERT MOD BUTTON AND I ENJOY THE FLAVOR OF SWEET SWEET COCK.
posted 04-09-2005 04:50:32 PM
quote:
Alidane painfully thought these words up:
You *can* run it at lower non-divisible resolutions (my 1280x1024 LCD does all the normal 4:3 resolutions as well) but they suffer from nasty jaggies and blurriness all fucking over.

Well, yeah. Of course it's going to look messed up. It's got a fixed number of pixels. It's impossible for them to change geometry or number. The only way for the pixels to take on another resolution is by color division. So while it can be done it's obviously not advisable.

[b].sig removed by Mr. Parcelan[/b]
Palador ChibiDragon
Dismembered
posted 04-09-2005 04:57:34 PM
quote:
diadem's fortune cookie read:
you know you wanna (25ms responce time though)

How many people do I have to kill to get one of those?

I believe in the existance of magic, not because I have seen proof of its existance, but because I refuse to live in a world where it does not exist.
Azizza
VANDERSHANKED
posted 04-09-2005 05:51:02 PM
There can be only one.. ummm.. well three I guess.
"Pacifism is a privilege of the protected"
diadem
eet bugz
posted 04-10-2005 12:26:40 AM
quote:
There was much rejoicing when Niklas said this:
Get the Hyundai L90D+ as featured inthis article. I have it and it kicks ass.

humm.. at least they can make something well (I kid i kid)

play da best song in da world or me eet your soul
Snugglits
I LIKE TO ABUSE THE ALERT MOD BUTTON AND I ENJOY THE FLAVOR OF SWEET SWEET COCK.
posted 04-10-2005 12:35:26 AM
quote:
Everyone wondered WTF when Azizza wrote:
There can be only one.. ummm.. well three I guess.

applefag

[b].sig removed by Mr. Parcelan[/b]
Maradon!
posted 04-10-2005 04:52:14 PM
quote:
x--AzizzaO-('-'Q) :
There can be only one.. ummm.. well three I guess.

Oh hey, and the 20" is only ~$240 more than an identical 21" that you can get from Samsung!

INCREDIBLE!

Bloodsage
Heart Attack
posted 04-11-2005 11:50:54 AM
So exactly how bad would a slower response time be? All the faster ones I faind have horrible pixel size (usually .294), whereas I see nice Viewsonics with 25ms response, but much better pixel size.

I know I wouldn't buy a CRT with such large dot pitch.

To reign is worth ambition, though in Hell:
Better to reign in Hell than serve in Heaven.

--Satan, quoted by John Milton

Blindy.
Suicide (Also: Gay.)
posted 04-11-2005 12:00:38 PM
Look at it this way.

If you have a 25ms response time, that means each pixel can only handle 40 changes per second. While this might not be a big deal in watching a DVD movie or using the internet, when your video card is pumping out 60 fps in WOW and your pixels only manage to update for 2 out of every 3 of these frames, you can see ghosting.

So divide it into frame rates and think about what you would be comfortable with.

25 ms = 40 FPS
20 ms = 50 FPS
15 ms = 67 FPS
10 ms = 100 FPS

Ect.

I went with some 14 ms ones, which puts me confortably at 72 fps or so, and matches the refresh rate of 75 hz pretty well.

Snugglits
I LIKE TO ABUSE THE ALERT MOD BUTTON AND I ENJOY THE FLAVOR OF SWEET SWEET COCK.
posted 04-11-2005 12:16:10 PM
You're not going to know unless you see it in action anyway. Some LCDs look better at 16ms than others. They're not all operating precisely at 16ms. Also, you should note that response time is a measurement of white-to-black, and models will vary greatly in typical color transition times.
[b].sig removed by Mr. Parcelan[/b]
All times are US/Eastern
Hop To: