Advice On >19" Gaming Monitor

Vigil · 26 Feb 2006 at 13:50

Hi, I'd like some opinions please :-)

My gaming monitor is currently a cream 19" CRT. I'd like to replace it with a bigger, black, CRT rather than a TFT, so I can take advantage of different resolutions, but it would appear that nobody sells these any more.

So, it looks like I'll have to go for a 19"+ TFT. The thing that puts me off big TFTs is their optimum resolution - I ran FEAR's demo at 1600x1200 and my 6800GT gave a mere 12FPS. I don't want to have to upgrade my video card as well if I can help it. I hear bad things about running TFTs at resolutions lower than their optimum.

I would look at the Dell 2005FPW, 2001FP, or even 2405FPW, but it seems they all have resolutions that just aren't good for games like FEAR.

Further, is it really better getting a widescreen monitor, given that the height of the image is less than the equivalent 4:3 monitor? Is that sacrifice really worth it? I only play FPS games.

Please also see my post about discolouration on the so-called 'gaming' Viewsonics.

fish99 · 26 Feb 2006 at 14:15

1600*1200 is gonna be a struggle in quite a few games I fear. Maybe go with a 19" TFT and 1280*1024 instead. 19" TFT still feel significantly bigger than 19" CRTs, not only are they an inch bigger, they're also 5:4 ratio which makes them extra tall and makes them feel bigger. Also the 19" sector is still technically ahead of the larger screens.

I think you should be looking at MVA panels, stuff like the VP930, especially given your dislike for TN screens as stated in your other thread.

VeNT · 26 Feb 2006 at 14:23

19'' TFT will be bigger as its the VIEWABLE rather than the tube size, but a 19 TFT will not do 1600 in most cases

fish99 · 26 Feb 2006 at 14:40

Vigil said:
Please also see my post about discolouration on the so-called 'gaming' Viewsonics.

Just wanted to add something. It's the response times only that makes those monitors 'gaming' monitors. They are definitely inferior in colour reproduction (they're not even 16.7M 24-bit colour, but 18 bit with dithering to make up to 16.2M colours), in black depth and badly inferior in viewing angles. It's nothing to do with Viewsonic though, it's just how that particular screen technology works (TN Film). They are the quickest LCD screens around though, which is why gamers crave them.

I bought a fast TN screen myself and ended up sending it back due to poor black depth and viewing angles. Both those things can be improve on with an MVA panel, but they're quite a bit slower. I ended up buying another CRT.

Vigil · 26 Feb 2006 at 14:48

The thing with buying a 1280x1024 is the future-proofing, but I suppose by the time a card comes out that can play games at best quality with a higher resolution, better monitors would be cheaper.

So what about widescreen - is a 20" widescreen better for FPS's than a 19" 4:3? Do you feel immersed in the game more, or does it keep niggling you that your monitor isn't as tall as a 19" 4:3?

fish99 · 26 Feb 2006 at 19:01

I can't answer that since I've never used a widescreen monitor, but hopefully someone here can. I know I wouldn't swap my widescreen TV for a 4:3 one though since most of my DVDs are widescreen.

I guess it depends whether the games you play are likely to support widescreen resolutions. I still play a lot of old games (as well as new ones of course), so if I had to buy a TFT right now, I'd probably still go with a regular 4:3 one, but that's just me. If you play mostly new games, I'd say there's no reason not to go widescreen.

Certainly some nice new widescreen TFTs available now, ones that are quick enough for gaming, plus have good viewing angles since they're not TN, like the Viewsonic VX2025, Philips 200W6CS, NEC LCD20WGX2, Belinea 102035W etc...

There should be plenty more info on all those on this forum if you do a quick forum search.

Mundu · 26 Feb 2006 at 19:37

You might want to look for a second hand 930DB as NEC have very good customer service and are still repairing/ replacing these even if you've bought them second hand.

techmonkey · 27 Feb 2006 at 09:42

I'd advise checking out the 19" Samsung 930BF that you can get here at OcUK.

It's pretty good, 1280/1024, 4ms responce time and has a maximum refresh of 75Hz. Good enough for all your gaming needs really.

fish99 · 27 Feb 2006 at 11:09

...or not, since he owned a VX924 which is very similar to the 930BF and didn't like the viewing angles.

InQ · 27 Feb 2006 at 12:09

The new NEC 20" widescreen looks spot on going off the thread here on o/c.
You can resize a lower resolution to play full screen or 1:1...so playuing at 1280x1024 will be just that without an stretching etc. Obviously you'd have black borders but it is 'future proofing' you a bit more as a lot of future games will be supporting widescreen i bet.

Jaap74 · 27 Feb 2006 at 12:44

I am taking delivery of the BenQ 20" Widescreen tomorrow, no selling outside MM please

Vigil · 27 Feb 2006 at 22:53

Hmm, no thanks mate. It would have to be a bit more than 19/20" and black, and since I'm now considering the 24" widescreen Dell... :-)

Thanks anyway.

Jimbo Mahoney · 28 Feb 2006 at 12:38

If you can get one, a 22" Mitsubishi 230SB would be damn sweet (it's what I'm running).

If I were you, I'd get the best 22" CRT you can (2nd hand they are stupidly cheap with everyone jumping on the TFT bandwagon), and spray it black? I did that with an old Sony 17" and it made such a difference to the (perceived) contrast of the display.

Another option could be the Lacie Electron Blue CRT range. Pricey mind....

There is no way I could go to a fixed resolution system (ie TFT). Not to mention the 'blacks' (ahem, greys).

/dons flame suit

igors · 28 Feb 2006 at 12:51

Vigil said:
The thing that puts me off big TFTs is their optimum resolution - I ran FEAR's demo at 1600x1200 and my 6800GT gave a mere 12FPS. I don't want to have to upgrade my video card as well if I can help it. I hear bad things about running TFTs at resolutions lower than their optimum.

LCD Monitor is a long term purchasing option and you will probably change your GPU card during the next major refresh cycle. In other words, GPU will always follow the LCD nicely in any sense. OK, with your current set-up you *may* not utilise all monitor potential but in near future you will and that's for sure. Also, if monitor resolution scaling is done properly, that could be another plus for you.

Vigil said:
Further, is it really better getting a widescreen monitor, given that the height of the image is less than the equivalent 4:3 monitor? Is that sacrifice really worth it? I only play FPS games.

Much better

igors · 28 Feb 2006 at 12:54

Jimbo Mahoney said:
If I were you, I'd get the best 22" CRT you can (2nd hand they are stupidly cheap with everyone jumping on the TFT bandwagon), and spray it black? I did that with an old Sony 17" and it made such a difference to the (perceived) contrast of the display

???

Jimbo Mahoney said:
Not to mention the 'blacks' (ahem, greys).

... and why do you think that ?

fish99 · 28 Feb 2006 at 13:23

He is technically right, the best measured black depth I've seen on a TFT is the Samsung 913P+, which was 0.26 cd/m2, whereas I've seen the Mitsubishi 930SB CRT measured at 0.07 cd/m2, nearly 4 times darker. Those are both on optimal settings too (i.e. tuned to look their best, not to give a particularly dark black). MVA panels are typically around 0.35 cd/m2 and TNs usually in the 0.40-0.50 cd/m2 range.

You only really notice it in a dark room though, cause in a well lit room, the glass front on a CRT reflects light and spoils the black depth. So in a lit room, TFTs rule for black depth (as long as they don't have glass fronts). In a dark room, CRTs rule for black depth.

igors · 28 Feb 2006 at 15:07

fish99 said:
He is technically right, the best measured black depth I've seen on a TFT is the Samsung 913P+, which was 0.26 cd/m2, whereas I've seen the Mitsubishi 930SB CRT measured at 0.07 cd/m2, nearly 4 times darker. Those are both on optimal settings too (i.e. tuned to look their best, not to give a particularly dark black). MVA panels are typically around 0.35 cd/m2 and TNs usually in the 0.40-0.50 cd/m2 range.

That was the answer I was looking for fish99! Thank you very much, indeed. I'm not particular fan of the cynical answers without any structure or, even more importantly, sense of the helpful information.

Now, you see ... my previous monitor was NEC-Mitsubishi 940SB CRT

and I was extremely pleased with it, and maybe it's still the best CRT monitor around ... if you can find it anywhere

However, we may have one interesting point here: "measured and perceptive values for colour reproduction, black levels and brightness" and you wonder why I'm telling this ? Simply because somehow, NEC monitor is more black, more bright and more vivid in every sense than my old CRT. When looking back at my previous CRT monitor, I'm simply realising how superb colours on the LCD are. Sadly, but true, my old CRT looks washed out and simply "flat". Amazing. Maybe NEC OptiClear coating is doing the job, not sure (unfortunately I can't rip it off)

or new LG.Philips 1600:1 control circuit ... not sure really.

Are we deceived ? ... and how much the measured values are prudent when choosing the display which will satisfy our perceptive vision.

Vigil · 1 Mar 2006 at 10:45

Hmm. So are you saying that TFTs are not good for playing Doom 3 in a dark room?

Trying to find a decent big CRT is really hard.

Mundu · 1 Mar 2006 at 12:40

Is there a 940sb monitor orare you talking about the 930?

fish99 · 1 Mar 2006 at 12:45

igors said:
That was the answer I was looking for fish99! Thank you very much, indeed. I'm not particular fan of the cynical answers without any structure or, even more importantly, sense of the helpful information.

Now, you see ... my previous monitor was NEC-Mitsubishi 940SB CRT and I was extremely pleased with it, and maybe it's still the best CRT monitor around ... if you can find it anywhere

However, we may have one interesting point here: "measured and perceptive values for colour reproduction, black levels and brightness" and you wonder why I'm telling this ? Simply because somehow, NEC monitor is more black, more bright and more vivid in every sense than my old CRT. When looking back at my previous CRT monitor, I'm simply realising how superb colours on the LCD are. Sadly, but true, my old CRT looks washed out and simply "flat". Amazing. Maybe NEC OptiClear coating is doing the job, not sure (unfortunately I can't rip it off) or new LG.Philips 1600:1 control circuit ... not sure really.

Are we deceived ? ... and how much the measured values are prudent when choosing the display which will satisfy our perceptive vision.

To be fair, I did say CRTs produce deeper blacks only in a dark room, and I do mean pitch black, at night with the lights out. In daylight, or even in the evening with the lights on or dimmed, the glass front on a CRT relfects too much light and ruins the black level. Also not all CRTs can produce a deep black.

Have you tried your CRT and LCD side by side, in a pitch dark room at night? I'm not doubting what you say though, afterall I've never used that NEC LCD. I would say it's probably the screen coating doing a similar thing to Sonys X-Black.

As for brightness and vibrancy, certainly LCDs are brighter. It's hard to seperate brightness and colour vibrancy though. Turn the brightness down on an LCD and the colours are less vibrant. So the colours looks more vibrant because the screens are brighter. It's also worth pointing out that even a modest 250 cd/m2 LCD screen is way too bright to be used on full brightness for an extended period at typical monitor distances (18-24 inches). Your 450 cd/m2 NEC must be incredibly bright at full settings, way too bright to use I would think, unless you sit a long way from it. I'm sure if you had to do 5 hours programming on it, looking at a mostly white screen, you'd have to turn the brightness way down to stop it hurting your eyes.

On my SM913B LCD I had to set gamma in the monitors OSD from 1 down to 3, and turn brightness down to about 40%, to make it useable, otherwise it hurt my eyes. My current CRT is a similar brightness to the LCD with those settings.

You've got to wonder why they make these screens so bright when everyone just turns the brightness down. If they just put a dimmer backlight in them, you'd get the same result, except that the black level of the monitor would be much better. I guess they want high brightness because it's a spec they can use to market the screens.