Results 1 to 8 of 8
Thread: $450-$500 + Eq2
12-29-04, 10:43 PM #1
- Join Date
- Dec 2004
$450-$500 + Eq2
So, I have always used my 19" CRT monitor, and everything is fine. That being said, unless I surgically move my eyes to the back of my head, I will be blind in a year or two.
My monitor and computer are all on a desk, so I cannot really move much, like moving my mouse + KB back a few feet etc. Being that I just built a whole new computer, I figured I should upgrade the monitor as well.
I really only use my computer for EQ2, and some business stuff (mostly EQ2). I figured a nice new LCD monitor was the way to go, as it will give me an additional 12-18" of distance between me and the monitor. I am sure there is a medical reason, but being 18" away compared to being almost 36" away just makes my eyes feel a ton better.
After reading posts here I gather the best thing to look for was the refresh time, pixel pitch and contrast. I planned on getting the samsung 172 X silver, with a 12ms RT, 0.264 PP and a contrast of 500:1.
For the price range of about $450-$500, anyone have one that is better, or is this a sound choice for the application it is being used for? The guy here in town says it is one of the best choices out there, but it is the most expensive monitor in his store, so I assume that probably makes his opinion slightly biased.
Also, as I click on more links, there are some that have better specs then this for like $350, but they lack DVI input. As I have never used DVI or LCD displays, I am not sure I would notice the difference. But the consenses seems to be use DVI, otherwise it is a waste to spend so much, so I would like the DVI option on the monitor.
Thanks in advance,
Last edited by Mark617; 12-29-04 at 10:55 PM.
12-30-04, 01:42 PM #2
- Join Date
- Oct 2004
- Saskatoon, SK
You probably dont need one that expensive. 12ms is really good, if you just play EQ and some business stuff, maybe something like 16ms or a little higher would be a better choice if you wanna save some money. What size are you looking at? By 172 in the model I assume its 17, and I'm alos going to assume you are in the US. If so, you could probably even get a 19" monitor for that price. Though your response time (milleseconds, you have 12 selected) will be slightly higher. But if you arent doing FPS games all the time you shouldnt have to worry about it as much.
Sorry, thats about all I got
12-30-04, 01:51 PM #3
- Join Date
- Dec 2004
Yes I am in the US, and yes it is a 17" monitor.
I would love to go with a bigger monitor, ie 19", but since I have never used an LCD monitor, I am a bit of a skeptic when it comes to RT and ghosting etc.
I am not a fan of FPS games /ducks, and since EQ2 is the only game I really play, then I would gladly take a 16ms RT if that will work well with that type of online RPG game.
I just don't want to invest all this money simply to have it ghost on me, so basically I am doing some R&D trying to find out what would give me the most / best bang for the buck.
12-30-04, 02:07 PM #4Originally Posted by Mark617
Anyway, I've really only seen EQ2 played on a 19" LCD that had a 25ms response time and I noticed very very little ghosting. However if you're used to the clear and crisp picture of a CRT monitor... stick w/ CRT. If you REALLY want to spend less money (I still personally think $500 for a 17" LCD is bullcrap when you can get a 19" Sony Diamondtron NF for ~$200), buy a new desk.
Anyway, but ultimately what I would suggest is buying a desk w/ more space... if you have enough space for it of course. I have a fairly big desk, a queen bed, a workbench, a bookshelf, and a dresser and my room is fairly cramped... mostly just because of the queen bed.
Just my two cents. =D
01-01-05, 01:02 AM #5
- Join Date
- Dec 2004
Having never used an LCD before I am just so worried about buying one and seeing little fragments of people everywhere after turning sharply, but the more I read, the more it seems that if I am only going to play EQ2, I should not have much to worry about. That being said, I would gladly move my desk to accomdate moving my CRT back some, but then I would probably have to walk over my bed to get to my other wall. My room is 'fairly' big, but it's a box, instead of a rectangle, so I can't really move anything out from the walls anymore then they already are.
The following monitor had good reviews, and only a few mentioned ghosting when playing games like Nascar Thunder and other FPS, but since that isn't my bag, I was wondering what you thought about this one.
Important specs are as follows : BenQ 19" LCD
Pixel Pitch : 0.294 (seems to be average on 19's, not as good as the .264 on the 17" Samsung)
Contrast Ratio 450:1
Response Time : 16MS
View Angle 130* / 130* (not as good as the 160 / 160 on the 17" Samsung)
It has DVI-D connection, which has been hard to find for the price.
All those basically seem good, my main points of buying were a fast response time, and a DVI-D option, plus BenQ seems to be a fairly good Manufacturer, look good to you guys??
Only thing that scares me a little is the price of $359. As the old adage says "you get what you pay for" but that isn't always true with computers
Last edited by Mark617; 01-01-05 at 01:07 AM.
01-01-05, 12:02 PM #6
I just ordered one of those BenQ's, can't wait for it to come in.
"Pixel Pitch : 0.294 (seems to be average on 19's, not as good as the .264 on the 17" Samsung)"
All the 19's have that dot pitch and the 17's have .264. Both have the same native resolution(number of pixels), so the dots have to be bigger to fill the bigger space.
Back to the BenQ, they've been a big favorite of gamers, regardless of budget. Also everything I've read about this model sounds great. I play FPS a bit but lately have been playing online poker a lot. Long sessions seem to give me a headache with my CRT, a Viewsonic G90f, Desk space wasn't a big issue as my desk has a designated area for monitor. I've been wanting an LCD for quite a while, but the price/performance ratio hasn't been right for me until now. I think this one will serve your needs nicely, for now a quite a while later.
01-03-05, 03:51 PM #7
A 16ms (a true 16ms) will do more then plenty for you. Got a NEC 17" one about 1.5 years ago now and it works great. No ghosting playing FPS, RTS, EQ2, you name it. Faster can't hurt but I wouldn't get anything slower then a 16ms LCD.
Also since you said your eyes where hurting after a while, LCD's help it out considerably. Since there is no refresh rate on the LCD since lights turn on/off, it really cuts down on the strain. I'm glad I get to work with a LCD at home and work makes it much easier to work or play on the computers for extended periods of time.-=The Gamer=-
MSI Z68A-GD65 (G3) | i5 2500k @ 4.5Ghz | 1.3875V | 28C Idle / 65C Load (LinX)
8Gig G.Skill Ripjaw PC3-12800 9-9-9-24 @ 1600Mhz w/ 1.5V | TR Ultra eXtreme 120 w/ 2 Fans
Asus DCUII R9 290 1075/1300 w/ 1.05V GPU | 36C Idle / 75C Load | 128/256GB Crucial M4 SSD's / 512GB Samsung 840 Pro
BitFenix Shinobi Window Case | SilverStone DA750 | Dell 2405FPW 24" Screen | Oculus Rift DK2 - Incoming
Synology DS1511+ | Dual Core 1.8Ghz CPU | 30C Idle / 38C Load
3 Gig PC2-6400 | 4x Samsung F4 2TB Raid5 | 1x Samsung F4 2TB
01-03-05, 07:56 PM #8
- Join Date
- Dec 2004
How do you determine the true RT in ms??
At newegg the monitors have the speed listed on some as 16ms (typical). Is this the true RT? I guess I assume it is not, being that I associate typical w/average, which means sometimes slightly faster somtimes slightly slower?
If the above statement is correct and it says typical, and the RT is therefore 'sometimes' slower, should I look for one that is listed as either 16ms (no typical rating) or something that is, lets say, 12ms (typical)??