**Baddass' Ultimate TFT FAQ and Reviews! (20" and Above Models)**
- Thread starter Baddass
- Start date
added the comments to the front page of the stickyall will be adequate really. The 8ms models are a little faster for gaming. I would stick with the VS or Hyundai models, and probably go with the Hyundai L72D+ tbh. There's a few people who have bought one and been happy with it. Nice screen at that price. If movies arent shown on the TFT, and you play a bit of gaming, all of these would be fine really, but the faster models would be better 
recommended refresh rate is 60hz for all TFT's, but the max they go at is 75hz, so try it on both, see if they look any different. You may find that fast FPS games blur a bit but that's just because of the TFT technology really, and chances are you're just getting used to it after the move from CRT
ghosting is referring to a blurring of the whole image. When you move, the image leaves a noticable ghost image behind it. Blurring is more that the sharper textures / defined objects etc get blurred with movement. If you find 72 is better then thats fine, TFT's can run at 60 - 75hz fine.
60hz is only recommended by the manuf as the panel itself operates at 60hz vertical frequency. If you select 75hz then you are allowing your gfx card to output more frames per second (might explain why the image looks better to you), but the interface chip is in charge of scaling the frequency down to 60hz anyway. If you had set the refresh at 60hz (with vsync on) then you are capping the frames per second at 60 which might look a little inferior to 75fps. It's a tricky area, but try them all and see which looks best
60hz is only recommended by the manuf as the panel itself operates at 60hz vertical frequency. If you select 75hz then you are allowing your gfx card to output more frames per second (might explain why the image looks better to you), but the interface chip is in charge of scaling the frequency down to 60hz anyway. If you had set the refresh at 60hz (with vsync on) then you are capping the frames per second at 60 which might look a little inferior to 75fps. It's a tricky area, but try them all and see which looks best
updated the thread to move out some of the older models (which are still hosted at www.tftcentral.co.uk). Updated some of the newer models, added some info to most, tidied it up and stuff
welcome to OcUK, Lithiumdust
Well the VP930 isn't really much of a change from the excellent VP191B, and that isn't a bad thing! The update in the spec is really only a few tweaks to the panel used which is provided by AU Optronics, and is done simply to make sure it stays up to date to compete with the PVA panel offered by Samsung. This is why the specs are the same. In terms if use, both the VP930 and 193P+ should be quite comparable. The 193P+ isn't getting an official release over here in the UK, so make sure that you can get it before you worry about the comparison.
The 2 you have selected are very good choices and should cover all the areas you are looking at. It would be hard to seperate them really, but the VP191B (well, the AUO P-MVA panel) is well established and there is not much info around about the 193P+. If it were me, i think i would stick with the proven Viewsonic model, as the Samsung is a little more unknown, and early reviews of the panel which was used in some models like the Fujitsu-Siemens P19-2, weren't as good.
hth
Well the VP930 isn't really much of a change from the excellent VP191B, and that isn't a bad thing! The update in the spec is really only a few tweaks to the panel used which is provided by AU Optronics, and is done simply to make sure it stays up to date to compete with the PVA panel offered by Samsung. This is why the specs are the same. In terms if use, both the VP930 and 193P+ should be quite comparable. The 193P+ isn't getting an official release over here in the UK, so make sure that you can get it before you worry about the comparison.
The 2 you have selected are very good choices and should cover all the areas you are looking at. It would be hard to seperate them really, but the VP191B (well, the AUO P-MVA panel) is well established and there is not much info around about the 193P+. If it were me, i think i would stick with the proven Viewsonic model, as the Samsung is a little more unknown, and early reviews of the panel which was used in some models like the Fujitsu-Siemens P19-2, weren't as good.
hth
welcome to OcUK TheStig
The Hyundai L72D+ and other monitors based on the 8ms Samsung TN Film panel are pretty much extensions of the Samsung 172X. They updated the panel a little, with improved responsiveness and slightly improved colour reproduction too. Tbh the 17" market is pretty stagnant now, have you considered getting as 19" screen? The extra size is really nice for improved immersion in games, and with models like the Samsung 913N available for £200 i dont see much reason myself in getting a 17" model now.
The Hyundai L72D+ and other monitors based on the 8ms Samsung TN Film panel are pretty much extensions of the Samsung 172X. They updated the panel a little, with improved responsiveness and slightly improved colour reproduction too. Tbh the 17" market is pretty stagnant now, have you considered getting as 19" screen? The extra size is really nice for improved immersion in games, and with models like the Samsung 913N available for £200 i dont see much reason myself in getting a 17" model now.
well the Samsung 913B has a very good VGA connection while still having DVI. That might be a good option and would be very similar in performance to the 172X etc. Interpolation is generally ok on most screens in gaming, but prob not advisable for Windows use really. The Hyundai L90D+ is also very good, again, the same panel as the 913B / 913N anyway
Lithiumdust - the 970P is good, but there is absolutely no guarantee that you won't get dead pixels on that model, just as you've had with the VP930. My recommendation is to stick with the VP930 if you're happy with it's performance in other areas (colour, responsiveness, movies). The 970P is, as you've said, comparable in responsiveness and most areas, but may suffer from more restrictive and noisy movie playback. That's about the only noticable difference in normal use between the two models
hudson - the VX922 and other top response time models like it are certainly about as responsive as you can get in the TFT market at the moment. There will still be some hard core gamers so used to CRT's that they dont like the feel of gaming on a TFT< but that's down to the individual really. There are some nice WS format screens in the 20" market which are emering now with some good gaming performance. There are a few nice all round screens which will offer much wider viewing angles, smoother movie playback, better colour depth and a better black level than the TN Film panels like the VX922 etc. The Belinea 102035W, Philips 200W6CS, NEC W20GX2 are all popular right now and feture P-MVA or IPS panels which are very good in all round performance. These are still excellent for gaming and have the other advantages just mentioned as well. As far as which is best,. it's hard to say. I'm hoping to have an update on www.tftcentral.co.uk very very soon summarising the WS options available at the moment, so might be worth you having a look at that once it's up to help you decide Dont be too worried about gaming on the WS models as a lot of modern games support WS format (see www.widescreengamingforum.com) and some TFT's allow you to play with borders down the sides to keep the aspect ratio without stretching the image.
hudson - the VX922 and other top response time models like it are certainly about as responsive as you can get in the TFT market at the moment. There will still be some hard core gamers so used to CRT's that they dont like the feel of gaming on a TFT< but that's down to the individual really. There are some nice WS format screens in the 20" market which are emering now with some good gaming performance. There are a few nice all round screens which will offer much wider viewing angles, smoother movie playback, better colour depth and a better black level than the TN Film panels like the VX922 etc. The Belinea 102035W, Philips 200W6CS, NEC W20GX2 are all popular right now and feture P-MVA or IPS panels which are very good in all round performance. These are still excellent for gaming and have the other advantages just mentioned as well. As far as which is best,. it's hard to say. I'm hoping to have an update on www.tftcentral.co.uk very very soon summarising the WS options available at the moment, so might be worth you having a look at that once it's up to help you decide
Dont be too worried about gaming on the WS models as a lot of modern games support WS format (see www.widescreengamingforum.com) and some TFT's allow you to play with borders down the sides to keep the aspect ratio without stretching the image.hudson said:
take a look here at the specs: http://www.tftcentral.co.uk/ tells you what they mean and what to look for. should help you decide what you want
shrek2 said:
the Dell 3007WFP and forthcoming 2407WFP are HDCP enabled. There is also the Samsung 242MP. Might be a few others as well, but these are the main popular ones. Tends to be the larger displays at the moment which are enabled
Tigjaw said:
Hi Tagjaw
Firstly, the UK version of the NEC 20WGX2 does not feature HDCP support I'm afraid, but the US version does. The 20WGX2 is widely regarded as one of the best, if not THE best, gaming monitor at the moment in the market. In actual practice, the response time is comparable to even the fastest TN Film 2ms rated models! Add to this the fact that the screen is bigger, WS format, offers much wider viewing angles (thanks to it's AS-IPS panel technology) and also features a nice dynamic contrast ratio technique to boost contrast during gaming. This is certainly a very nice screen for gaming. I'd recommend (if you dont know about them already), taking a read of this article which will explain the differences between panel technologies (IPS vs TN Film for instance). Def worth understanding.
So, yes. The NEC is a great screen. I had a chance to review the screen personally (link) which you might find useful
One thing I'll say though is don't be fooled by the quoted 16ms response time on the Dell. It's been discussed many times before, but Dell didn't specificy the G2G response time of the 2007WFP for some reason, and instead stuck with the traditional ISO measurement for the screen. In fact, the panel used in the 2007WFP is VERY similar to that used in the NEC model, and if NEC had opted for the same way of specifying response time, their model would also be 16ms rated. However, thanks to the use of overdrive technologies, they have boosted grey to grey transitions, and the G2G response time figure is more appropriate to quote. The NEC is therefore listed at 6ms G2G, and the panel used in the Dell ( LG.Philips S-IPS (LM201W01)) is actually rated at 8ms G2G as well. In practice, both models offer very comparable performance in responsiveness since the panels are very similar as discussed in my review above, and also discussed widely on the net and in other reviews like those at BeHardware for example. Don't be put off by the quoted figure, in practice, the Dell is a very good gaming screen too. It doesn't feature the dynamic contrast control, or the OptiClear coating (which some people really love), but it is a decent screen and very functional in other areas as well.
If you want to save money, the Dell is still a very good choice imo.
The difference between the Dell E207WFP and 2007WFP is that the E207 uses TN Film panel technology which is in many ways inferior to the S-IPS panel technology used in the more "premium" 2007WFP model. Again, check the link above to understand the differences in panel technology. Also, forget the quoted response times as explained above
hope that all helps