• Welcome to Overclockers Forums! Join us to reply in threads, receive reduced ads, and to customize your site experience!

samsung lcd?

Overclockers is supported by our readers. When you click a link to make a purchase, we may earn a commission. Learn More.

geestring

Member
Joined
Jan 29, 2004
Location
Toronto
throw some good models out for me thats good for gaming.... at least its ok to play games on... I either want a really good 17" or a decent 19"
 
check out Acer LCD . This 17" LCD monitor is only $228 and has a 5 star(highest) rating from 41 reviews. surely that many people can't be wrong! This is what I'm buying in a week or so.
 
Hyundai ImageQuest L90D+! 19", 700:1 contrast, and 8ms Reponse time, 350$... cant beat that (it is actually usign a samsung panel but i cant remember what model it is)
 
now its between 172X and 173P.... how can the 172X the cheaper one, have a much lower response time than 173P?
 
its both but mine didn't come with a DVI cable for some reason. Not expensive for the cables though.

-1cem4n
 
"It does matter, but not as much as some would say, at least on modern units. The ones who talk about it are usually comparing to CRT refresh rates, which isn't apples to apples.

A 16ms response time corresponds to a 60hz refresh rate on a CRT, which most would say is the bare minimum acceptable value a CRT should run at. Most like to see at least 75hz (13ms) for gaming. But, LCD's don't refresh. Once a pixel is set, it stays that way until it's told to change. This is different from a CRT where a pixel has to get set every scan, or it blacks out. The time it takes to black out is the maximum refresh period you can run before the screen starts visibly flickering.

Since the screen isn't being refreshed on an LCD, there is no flicker of a screen returning to black then being refreshed. But, there can be a delay for a pixel that does need to change from one screen to the next. If that delay is too long, it won't be changed by the time the next pixel is changing, so you get a blurring effect while everything catches up. Years ago, this was horrendous. You could almost time it with a wristwatch. This is no longer the case.

Your TV runs at a 30hz (33ms) refresh rate. You don't see any flickering because the phosphors on the CRT are more persistent than they are with a typical computer CRT. But, even with this slow refresh and increased persistence, you don't see any flickering or blurring. The human eye isn't fast enough. It has it's own response times. You'll notice with pictures of TV screens, you'll see a bar across the screen in the picture. This is because the camera is fast enough that it sees the part of the picture that hasn't been drawn yet, and is returning to black. So, things are happening. You just can't see them.

So, there are some realities you can use to decide whether 25ms is a bad refresh or not. There are those who'll tell you it's too slow, and those (like me) who'll say you can't see it anyway at that speed. Once you get to a certain point, your own physiology makes any improvement a waste. Keep in mind the better specs cost more, and will cause opinions to shuffle in their direction regardless of reality. For another example of that sort of thing, look objectively and dispassionately at RAID on the desktop. "


Thats a post I found somewhere on the net.

So is respone time REALLY important like it was when first lcd's came out?
Does 25ms really mean horrible ghosting?

because there are cheapo 12ms lcds, and expensive 25ms lcd's out.

discuss.
 
Geestring, you make some very good points. Viewsonic has some models they rate at 8ms that are indeed slower than a 12 ms by another manufacturer. If you are a gamer who uses flight sims, beware because you will need a REAL 8ms in order to avoid blurring. My 12ms Samsung, while it's a decent lcd, can't handle fast motion. For this reason I will stick with my crt on my main rig. Good luck.
 
and the 173P that reviewers say is one of the best quality 17" lcd is 25ms.... but they say ghosting is hardly an issue...
 
geestring said:
and the 173P that reviewers say is one of the best quality 17" lcd is 25ms.... but they say ghosting is hardly an issue...
If there is a particular game you play then I suggest you go to a gameroom on the net where it's played and ask the people there if they use that type of lcd and how it works for them.
 
I've had zero ghosting problems when gaming with my Samsung 710N 17" with 12ms response time. It's a great monitor, but don't have digital output and I want a bigger one now. I'm in the market for a new 19" so it looks like my g/f will get the old 17 incher. I've been leaning towards the Acer AL1914smd-8 8ms for $339 at newegg (or Acer AL1914smd 12ms for $50 less if I decide to go cheaper).
 
batboy said:
I've had zero ghosting problems when gaming with my Samsung 710N 17" with 12ms response time. It's a great monitor, but don't have digital output and I want a bigger one now. I'm in the market for a new 19" so it looks like my g/f will get the old 17 incher. I've been leaning towards the Acer AL1914smd-8 8ms for $339 at newegg (or Acer AL1914smd 12ms for $50 less if I decide to go cheaper).
Do you know if those Acer panels are 6-bit or 8-bit?
 
Good question Gnufsh. I tried doing a little research and it appears the 12ms Acer AL1914smd is 8-bit, at least the manufacturer claims 16.7 million colors are supported. Usually if they claim 16.2 (with dithering), then it's 6-bit.

I haven't found any info about the 8ms Acer AL1914smd-8 yet.

Since the other 19" 8ms panel competitors like Samsung 930B and Hyunda L90D+ are 6-bit (since it's hard to make a fast 8ms 19" 8-bit panel right now), then logic suggests that it "might" be 6-bit too or else it would cost more.

If anyone has a link that reveals more info on the subject, please post it.
 
Back