A few questions

Nullvoid · 20 Jun 2007 at 21:09

Hey guys, I've been soldiering on with my old 17" crt but I've reached a point where enough is enough and I want some 20/22" (chosen for budget reasons, ie only wanting to spend circa £250) widescreen LCD loving

As a result I've been trying to find out what the best monitors around are and what are the ones to avoid, but I find myself bogged down with all the different panel technologies and response times and what at times seems like misinformation on the part of the manufacturers. I had almost set my heart on either a Samsung 206bw or 226bw until I found out about all the panel lottery business which has kind of put me off them (if I could be certain of not getting a C panel I would still be considering them). So where was I...ah yes, a few questions.

1. As the only other monitors based on 2ms TN panels (I've discounted the Asus MW201U and MW221U since they seem to be older and plagued with ghosting issues), are the LG L206WTQ, L226WTQ and L226WA models basically equivalent in performance to the above Samsungs?

2. If I went for a Dell 2007WFP and ended up with an S-PVA panel not the typical S-IPS, would it have the same input lag as found on the larger 21" S-PVA panels (such as the Samsung 215TW)?

3. What sort of graphics card would I be looking at as a bare minimum to game comfortably at 1680x1050 (since I've never used it before due to weak hardware, I guess I wouldn't be looking to have any FSAA)?

4. I know they have gotten great reviews on initial release, but are the somewhat older monitors based on P-MVA panels (Viewsonic vx2025wm and Belinea 102035W for example) still good by todays standards?

I'm sure I'll have more questions as I keep on reading and finding out more but any help with those above would be appreciated!

Crowze · 21 Jun 2007 at 11:51

1. Pretty much, yes.
2. What input lag would that be? I've not noticed any problems at all with my 215TW.
3. Probably an X1950 Pro or 7900GS as a minimum. You might get away with an 8600GT or X2600 when they're out, but they'll struggle in upcoming games.
4. No idea.

fobose · 21 Jun 2007 at 12:03

From what I remember the S-PVA panels on the Dell 2007WFP were only in the states I think as they had run out of S-IPS. I am pretty sure all of the new ones are S-IPS though.

I run a 7900GS on 1680x1050 and most games run fine albeit oblivion and stalker - however my CPU is rather slow

fish99 · 21 Jun 2007 at 12:21

Yeah haven't read about anyone in the UK getting the PVA panel.

As for video cards, it really depends what you mean by 'game comfortably' and which games you are talking about. With the system in my sig (X1800 XT 256 mb / A64 4000+ / 2 GB DDR400) I have to run very demanding games like Oblivion, Fear and Stalker in 1280*800 on my Dell 2007WFP to get a framerate I'm happy with on high graphics settings (with 0xAA 8xAF). So I wouldn't say an X1800 XT class of card can game comfortably in 1680*1050. I would think 8800GTS 640 mb is what you would need. You might just get away with the 320 mb version if you don't use AA.

Having said all that though, you don't sacrifice much in the way of picture quality by dropping down the res a little like I do. 1440*900 and 1280*800 both look fine for gaming when stretched to fill the screen. Of course they look a little softer than native res, but you really don't notice it when gaming.

Haven't used a VX225wm so can't say anything definitive but I'd be surprised if it was significantly worse than a Dell 2007WFP. The MVA panel may be a bit slower, the Dell is actually very quick despite Dell rating it at 16 ms (8ms GTG). I think Baddass said when he used both he found the 2007WFP slightly quicker than a 6 ms GTG TN panel in the SM205BW panel he was testing against. Certainly it's the quickest LCD I've ever used.

On the other hand though, MVA doesn't do the 'purple' effect at large viewing angles on dark colours, so that's a point in MVAs favour.

Nullvoid · 21 Jun 2007 at 23:40

Cheers lads, you've helped clear up quite a few things for me.

Crowze - I'm just going on a few different reviews I've read. They were on not only the Samsung 215tw but also Gateway and HP models based on the same panel, and all concluded there was noticeable input lag (maybe it's not noticeable unless you're trying to play cs1.6/q3 on a competive level or similar...*shrug*).

fobose - You've managed to ease my one misgiving with the 2007wfp thanks...oh wait did I say one misgiving, I guess there is also the pretty damn high price to justify

fish99 - Hmm I didn't think to come up with any specifics for gaming but I guess I was pretty unclear in that first post. Since I'll be getting a 20/22" monitor, I'm looking to ramp the image quality settings as high as I can, although I most likely won't have any antialiasing enabled. Your idea about using a lower res seems like a good idea though. For the majority of games, do you think I'd be able to get away with a 512mb x1950pro? I was also considering a 512mb x1950xt which I've seen in a couple of places for a smidgen under £150 (in part because even a 512mb x1900xt bests the 320mb 8800gts in quite a few games at 1600x1200 according to this review.

edit - I should mention I have a c2d e6300 and 2gb of ddr2-667.

fish99 · 22 Jun 2007 at 00:24

Nullvoid said:
fish99 - Hmm I didn't think to come up with any specifics for gaming but I guess I was pretty unclear in that first post. Since I'll be getting a 20/22" monitor, I'm looking to ramp the image quality settings as high as I can, although I most likely won't have any antialiasing enabled. Your idea about using a lower res seems like a good idea though. For the majority of games, do you think I'd be able to get away with a 512mb x1950pro? I was also considering a 512mb x1950xt which I've seen in a couple of places for a smidgen under £150 (in part because even a 512mb x1900xt bests the 320mb 8800gts in quite a few games at 1600x1200 according to this review.

edit - I should mention I have a c2d e6300 and 2gb of ddr2-667.

You do have a much better CPU than me, but I think when you get up to resolutions like 1680*1050 it's really straining the cards fill rate and pixel shader performance so the video card is the bottleneck. I wouldn't buy the X1950 Pro unless you are happy to drop down resolution in demanding games. Even at 1280*800 I'm still not happy with how Oblivion runs on my system, and X1950 Pro is if anything a touch slower than my X1800 XT.

Based on those benchmarks you posted, nvidia cards/drivers might have some issue with Company of Heroes since in all the other games in the review the 8800 GTS beats the X1950 XTX. TBH I wouldn't buy a X1950 XT for £150 with the 8800 GTS 320mb at £180 with comfortably more performance and DX10 support.

Here's a review of a 320 mb GTS which shows it besting a X1950 XTX at high resolutions -

http://www.*****.net/content/item.php?item=8824&page=1

Might be worth asking on the graphics card forum, see what the consensus of opinion is.

Nullvoid · 22 Jun 2007 at 14:45

Ah but that 8800gts is the 640mb version

I was looking at the performance-mainstream figures (512mb x1900xt vs 8800gts 320mb). You're right though, maybe it's a bad way to spend my pennies since the 8800 seems to have a major advantage in all the more modern games.

Oh and I'd like to see whatever article you linked me to but the forum appears to have taken issues with the url

Clarkey · 22 Jun 2007 at 14:59

x1950 will be fine. For christs sake I have a 6600go and it plays with decent framerate at 1680 in games like LFS, CoD2, CSS.

fish99 · 22 Jun 2007 at 15:27

Nullvoid said:
Ah but that 8800gts is the 640mb version I was looking at the performance-mainstream figures (512mb x1900xt vs 8800gts 320mb). You're right though, maybe it's a bad way to spend my pennies since the 8800 seems to have a major advantage in all the more modern games.

Oh and I'd like to see whatever article you linked me to but the forum appears to have taken issues with the url

Ah, replace the stars with h e x u s (without the spaces). Those benchies I linked to include the 640 mb and 320 mb version, and there's hardly any difference at 1600*1200 even with AA/AF.

Clarkey said:
x1950 will be fine. For christs sake I have a 6600go and it plays with decent framerate at 1680 in games like LFS, CoD2, CSS.

LFS and CS:S are not at all demanding, plus you'll be running COD2 in DX8 mode probably on medium settings where it's also not at all demanding. Seriously, something like Oblivion at 1680*1050 on high settings (which the OP said he wanted to use) will not be smooth on an X1950 XT or Pro. If you've never played Oblivion it's hard to comprehend how much more demanding it is than something like CS:S/LFS/COD2. Stalker is even more demanding, and you can only expect future games to be even more demanding still. If you're buying a card now you want it to be able to run the likes of Crysis/Alan Wake/UT3 etc when they come out.

Have a look, here's Oblivion framerates-

http://www.tomshardware.co.uk/graphics/charts.html?modelx=33&model1=725&model2=724&chart=297

13.2 fps for the X1950 Pro and 17 fps for the X1950 XT at 1600*1200 with no AA. Not exactly smooth.