Help-Best gaming monitor?

[KillrBuckeye]

Yeah, even the 1680x1050 native resolution of my 2005FPW pushes my 7800GT to the limit in newer games. With a 2405FPW or anything with a higher native resolution, you are always going to need to devote a lot of money to a high end video card (or two) to play the newest games. At 2560x1600, I doubt even a pair of X1900XT cards in Crossfire could provide decent framerates in the newest games with eye candy turned on. Remember that as resolution increases, the number of pixels to draw increases exponentially, e.g. 1280x1024 = 1.3 million pixels, 1680x1050 = 1.76 million pixels, 2560x1600 = 4.1 million pixels .

PS: You could always set up your video card to display a lower resolution and use only part of your LCD screen, but what would be the fun in that?

 

[FlakMonkey]

The Gateway FPD something or other...its a widescreen, let me see if i can find a link.


^click

 

[Janus67]

Yeah, even the 1680x1050 native resolution of my 2005FPW pushes my 7800GT to the limit in newer games. With a 2405FPW or anything with a higher native resolution, you are always going to need to devote a lot of money to a high end video card (or two) to play the newest games. At 2560x1600, I doubt even a pair of X1900XT cards in Crossfire could provide decent framerates in the newest games with eye candy turned on. Remember that as resolution increases, the number of pixels to draw increases exponentially, e.g. 1280x1024 = 1.3 million pixels, 1680x1050 = 1.76 million pixels, 2560x1600 = 4.1 million pixels .

PS: You could always set up your video card to display a lower resolution and use only part of your LCD screen, but what would be the fun in that?

thx for backin me up buckeye

GO BUCKS!

 

[TheGreySpectre]

The biggest and best would probably be the 3005 dell, followed by teh 2405 dell

 

[Zulu-1]

only n00bs use LCD's... pro's use CRT's.... and im not just being an idiot.. i really perfer CRT over LCD... despite the size... it just feels... right

 

[Richard]

If you're shopping for the "best" gaming monitor, then it has to be a CRT. Preferably a new 21" aperture grill (trinitron/diamondtron).

The ability to have extremely high refresh rates, low latency, great contrast ratio, true colors, and excellent scaling of resolutions; make CRT a no-brainer for gaming.

I strongly recommend against buying an LCD if you're an avid gamer.

The optimal setup is an LCD for desktop usage, and a CRT for gaming.

 

[Droban]

Well CRT is without a doubt the best response in gaming. But I deffinitely am pleased with my VP191b LCD, 8ms response time. It is not as fast as my old CRT...but it is bigger, not bulky, good for anything desktop, and mainly for games the color and contrast is so much more vibrant and bright.

BUT if you are going to be playing games pretty much all the time, space is not an issue, and don't move your rig around a lot...crt is still for gaming.

Also, my eyes adjusted to the speed of my LCD after a week or two. You must be able to run your games at the LCD's native resolution though...otherwise the scaling is generally going to degrade your gaming experience.

 

[KillrBuckeye]

thx for backin me up buckeye

GO BUCKS!

No problem. GO BUCKS! (It sucks that they lost yesterday, but good to get that loss out of the way before the tourney.)

 

[Slaps]

Ok I do have a decent monitor
Hyundia L90D+ 8ms 19" 1280x1024

Wow, if you are interested in selling your old monitor, PM me.

 

[Janus67]

Well CRT is without a doubt the best response in gaming. But I deffinitely am pleased with my VP191b LCD, 8ms response time. It is not as fast as my old CRT...but it is bigger, not bulky, good for anything desktop, and mainly for games the color and contrast is so much more vibrant and bright.

BUT if you are going to be playing games pretty much all the time, space is not an issue, and don't move your rig around a lot...crt is still for gaming.

Also, my eyes adjusted to the speed of my LCD after a week or two. You must be able to run your games at the LCD's native resolution though...otherwise the scaling is generally going to degrade your gaming experience.

well put.

 

[John G]

Another recommendation for CRT....

It's common to want to run different resolutions for different games and with different hardware. CRT, no big deal, just change resolution. LCD, you're stuck with native unless you want to accept the degradation in video quality.

Also, while people may feel their LCD's display games okay....it's still a question. Some games work out better than others. Some people have to let their eyes adjust and become accustomed to the slower response. With CRT, there is no question. It works. It keeps up. It looks right.

Vibrant colors and better picture on an LCD...? Must be comparing to a worn out, or poor quality, or poorly calibrated CRT. Take the large amount of people often spend on an LCD to get good gaming performance and you can buy a very, very nice CRT.

Now, if you're lugging your screen around to LAN parties frequently....LCD is nice on the lower back. But, this guy already has a decent LCD. Keep it for backup and portability...find a nice CRT for the hardcore home gaming.

 

[KillrBuckeye]

Vibrant colors and better picture on an LCD...? Must be comparing to a worn out, or poor quality, or poorly calibrated CRT.

I know what he's saying. LCD monitors are usually brighter than CRT monitors and the images seem to be more crisp, both of which contribute to the perception of vibrant colors and better picture. I agree with this assessment. Note that this has nothing to do with the color resolution, which is obviously better on CRTs. Honestly though, I don't notice any loss of color resolution going from my 19" Diamondtron to a Dell 2005FPW. I think one has to be extremely picky to notice something like this, like a graphic designer.

 

[John G]

Yeah, I'm not trying to say LCD's can't have vibrant colors...many do. Just that CRT is capable of going some extra distance at the extremes. Both have acceptable performance in that respect for most applications. LCD just doesn't hold an advantage there.

I think part of the problem now-a-days is that CRT's have largely been relegated down to being a budget solution only in most cases. For example, it appears that Dell has pretty much phased out their high end Trinitron CRT's. They still have the cheap pieces of junk for the low end...to satisfy price points that LCD's don't reach down to. It makes me want to puke. So, it's getting kind of hard to find new CRT's that were actually designed with high quality as a priority.

 

[Zulu-1]

Yeah, I'm not trying to say LCD's can't have vibrant colors...many do. Just that CRT is capable of going some extra distance at the extremes. Both have acceptable performance in that respect for most applications. LCD just doesn't hold an advantage there.

I think part of the problem now-a-days is that CRT's have largely been relegated down to being a budget solution only in most cases. For example, it appears that Dell has pretty much phased out their high end Trinitron CRT's. The still have the cheap pieces of junk for the low end...to satisfy price points that LCD's down reach down to. It makes me want to puke. So, it's getting kind of hard to find new CRT's that were actually designed with high quality as a priority.

well put... im still using an old NEC multisync... it looks gorgeous.. better than any LCD ive seen...

 

[Droban]

I'd also like to say that my eyes don't get tired anymore from PC use now that I have an LCD. I ran my old monitor at 100hz refresh rate, and I still would eventually get eye strain/headache. I can deal with 85, but 100 was optimal for me on CRT. This can be different for your eyes though of course. And different eyes will have different perception on which is best.

If you can test out using a CRT vs. an LCD...preferable good ones...you will get a better answer than anyone on these forums can, because only YOU have YOUR eyes.

I think everything said is deffinitely important to consider though.

 

[Janus67]

I forgot to mention the time it took to get used to my monitor... about a week. After that I haven't had any eye strain problems unless I was being stupid with being infront of my monitor for hours on end with a poorly lit environment etc, but that happens no matter what (TV/CRT/LCD/etc).

I like having desk space, especially when moving from college dorms to an apartment with a decent desk, it isn't deep enough for a huge CRT though. Next year I plan on building an L-Desk, but will maybe get another LCD this summer or something to fill it out.

 

[SlackerTK421]

Go LCD.. I have a 27" Westinghouse that weighs as much as a 19" CRT rofl.

I recommend the:

Brand SAMSUNG
Model 204B-Black
Cabinet Color Black
Display
Panel a-si TFT/TN LCD
Screen Size 20.1"
Display Type UXGA
Maximum Resolution 1600x1200
Recommended Resolution 1600x1200
Viewing Angle 160°(H) / 160°(V)
Pixel Pitch 0.255mm
Display Colours 16.7 Million
Brightness 300 cd/m2
Contrast Ratio 800:1
Response Time 5ms
Horizontal Fresh Rate 31-81 kHz
Vertical Fresh Rate 50-75 Hz

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.asp?Item=N82E16824001226

 

[shard]

Hmm, my eyes never get tired, even when running at 65hz

 

[SuperFarStucker]

I don't think it makes much of a difference either way. I have a CRT because I think they are 'better' for FPS type games but I've played extensively on both in BF2 and COD2 and it makes little to no difference (for me, I'm just average though...). The color range looks 'fuller' but the white temperature is hopelessly off on my monitor (common with older CRTs) and the convergence is slightly off on the screen edges (not noticeable without a convergence test). so it isn't very enjoyable to use for text processing. If you can only get one monitor get a LCD, otherwise get both

 

[MrGreen]

What do people think about the 23" apple Cinema Display?

Erm, lovely panel, but not height adujtable, and very slightly overpriced.
I am an apple fanboy (getting my 17 inch Mactel soon enough.) But the Dell 2405FPW Kicks its hieny.

If you want ultra performance go for a PERFESSIONAL CRT, the only con is the size

I still prefer LCDs but im far from rich, so anything near 200 pounds is out of my reach.