What monitor?

Perfect_Chaos · 6 Aug 2007 at 06:32

Ok i think im gonna go for a lcd, it seems the next gen monitors such as oled are not going to be released for ages, and hopefuly the ones out now are lag free in the way of ghosting.

Will be using it for fast paced games, surfing.. basically everything

Will either go for a 20" or 22", currently have a what seems to be in between 19-20" CRT.

Posted before but didnt know what to get, if better ones are around the corner with no ghosting visible then is it worth waiting?.

Also heard that a 22" has the same native resolution as a 20", does that make it look worse?.

also if i got one of these does it mean i would have to run it at native res if i dont would things look bad?, because the native res of my monitor is 1600 x 1200 i believe.. and i usually run at 1024 x 768 which looks fine to me on my crt. My sister got a 19" Acer a couple of years ago and when she used it at a lower resolution, stuff looked kinda pixellated and not right so she went back to a 17" and it was fine, is this normal on a lcd? i found it odd. Because i play some games in the internet browser now and again also, and if the monitor needs to be run at high res to look good then i wont be able to play flash videos/browser games as it will look like crap.

I dont know if i can get a good one for about £200.

Suggestions please, and hopefuly someone can answer those questions for me

it would make me feel better.

thanks. :rolleyes:

Samsung SM-245B 24" Widescreen <- whats that like for games?. Seems good, how would it compare to 22" 2ms screens though?.

Perfect_Chaos · 6 Aug 2007 at 08:03

thanks.. but i still havent had my main questions answered

what would that samsung 24" be like with 5ms response?

and just because i have a monitor thats big, does it mean i have to run at its native res? how would it look at lower resolutions?.

or should i go with a 22" with 2ms?

Perfect_Chaos · 6 Aug 2007 at 08:38

Mercutio said:
A lot of screens support 1:1 pixel mapping (if you run a lower res than the screen it will draw a box around it or stretch it, stretching usually doesnt look so good).
If your screen does support it the 8800 (and a lot of other nvidia cards) can do 1:1 pixelmapping at the card end. The card adds a black box around the image.
Most modern screens (so long as you dont buy some unknown rubbish) are generally very good for gaming. It might be me but after about the first half day of owning my first tft the ghosting was never noticable. Of the 3 screens i've either owned or currently owned (2005fpw 1705fp and the old school hitachi CML17??? - I forget the full model number) none have issues with ghosting that i've noticed.

So what do CRT's do differently over the LCD's when you change resolution?, if i go lower or higher i dont seem to notice it get blocky or anything. I also dont get a black border around the screen. :confused:

As for response time, im not sure whether to go with that 5ms samsung, it would be quite a lot bigger than i have now.. as long as its not too big, and i can run at lower resolutions than its native res without looking poor then i might go for it. Anyone that has one currently and plays fast games with no ghosting?, or would you recommend i go the 2ms route?.

cheers

Perfect_Chaos · 6 Aug 2007 at 09:43

Mercutio said:
its not a major issue but it can make a very well rendered image look kinda jaggy n a bit poor.

so all lcd's are like this?

in that case it means i wouldnt be able to get a 22 or 24 incher, as id have to use the native res all the time not for it to look rubbish..

Perfect_Chaos · 6 Aug 2007 at 12:51

any more advice please?

Perfect_Chaos · 7 Aug 2007 at 05:46

Zefan said:
Flash games running in your browser don't affect your resolution at all, they should look fine.

As far as I know all 22" panels use an inferior TN Film which can result in worse picture quality and decreased viewing angles. This, combined with the fact that there's no resolution gained from 20" to 22", I recommend you go for a 20" panel.

How about the samsung 24"? how would that look at say 1024 x 768 res? thats about the lowest id have it for desktop/game use.

would the 5ms affect gaming in any way over 2ms?

i have over 300 quid ready now, so i can buy one when im ready.. i just dont want to be disappointed if it looks bad at lower res.

if 1 x 1 pixel mapping makes a border around the monitor, couldnt i just stretch it in the monitor settings to fill the screen up? or doesnt it work that way?

Perfect_Chaos · 7 Aug 2007 at 08:28

Only other thing i can do really is spend the £350-400 i have now on a mobo/ram/cpu upgrade and wait a while (again) for a monitor. Then again theres Penryn and Phenom around the corner :confused:

Perfect_Chaos · 7 Aug 2007 at 11:47

^^ any advice?. I want to order today

Perfect_Chaos · 8 Aug 2007 at 05:50

C64 said:
If your expecting to get anything anywhere near the quality of your crt
think again can i ask what's up with your crt ? i still love em
all the hype about tft using less power well it's usually around 50w less
which is no big deal if you ask me.
If i had to buy a tft now i would get the LG L226WTQ 22"
which can be had for around £180 and far better value than the samsung imo.
The screens just aren't good enough yet so better to buy a cheaper
but equally as good as the samsung model.

I actually like my CRT, it is old.. lumpy as hell though, i just measured it and its almost 23" long lol

Suppose ill keep it till it conks out then, tbh im getting tired of waiting for these new technologies that are supposed to rival CRT but be very thin like a lcd. Looks like SED has been cancelled, and OLED.. seems as if nothing is happening there either

why cant they just hurry up?

Perfect_Chaos · 10 Aug 2007 at 12:05

will there ever be a slim monitor that can match a crt anytime soon?

Perfect_Chaos · 11 Aug 2007 at 03:28

if i bought a 24" or a 20" and i lowered the res to say 1024 x 768 as its lowest with 1 x 1 pixel mapping.. how small would the screen be with the black borders? is it enough to put people off?

because i dont want to get a 24" if i have to play in its highest res constantly for it to look good, that would mean i'd need SLI every time a new card comes out.. no way im doing that.

Anyone here that has a 22 or 24 incher that plays at lower res's than its native res and it doesnt look good ?

Perfect_Chaos · 12 Aug 2007 at 00:58

yantorsen said:
you wouldn't need SLi at all. one 8800gtx or even a GTS would be fine.

and the 20" is the same res as a 22"

I know 20" and 22" are the same res

But to run a 24" at its native res a 8800 GTX wont do it, maybe a select few games. I dont want a slideshow.

basically stuck between choosing a 20 or 24" now

Perfect_Chaos · 12 Aug 2007 at 06:50

Tripnologist said:
Ermm, yes it would.

On some games, you must be joking if you think it will in newer games.. anything like fear and there is no point

id rather play at 1024 x 768 and get constant smoothness than being laggy.

Ever heard of minimum FPS? well, that turns to crap when you go so high with the resolution.. no thanks

Perfect_Chaos · 12 Aug 2007 at 11:49

Are there any 20 or 24" coming soon with new technologies to eliminate blurring?

if not, i might just go for the dell 24" soon.. Just hoping its not too big for me over my CRT.

Perfect_Chaos · 12 Aug 2007 at 12:36

Skyfall said:
Never had a problem with blurring on LCDs, started with a 8ms though so anything below that is a bonus. 1:1 pixel mapping is something people seem to be really excited about, but I never really saw the point, I paid for a xx inch monitor to use those inches, not to only use some of it.

Sometimes things can look very choppy in non native resolutions but a lot of stuff looks fine, before when I only had a 9600xt and 1280x1024 monitor had to run CS:S in 1024x768 and it was fine stretched.

But its definitely noticeable, and if possible you will want a system that will run the games well in native res.

so going with a 24" and lowering the res to 1024x768 or a bit higher would be a big no no?

Perfect_Chaos · 12 Aug 2007 at 14:07

how bad does it actually look running at lower resolutions?, anybody have comparison shots i can see of a 24"? now im wondering either 20" or 24" still

Perfect_Chaos · 13 Aug 2007 at 06:51

^^ any 1?

20 or 24"?

Perfect_Chaos · 13 Aug 2007 at 09:40

toxic said:
If you are struggling at 1900 res with any game on a 24"....the monitor has 1:1 pixel scaling then I would run at 1680x1050 with 1:1 which would keep your high picture definition without losing any quality but would give you black edge arround the border of the screen...its effectively putting a 20" monitor picture size on a 24" screen..its doesnt look to bad.
Also...playing agmes at non natuve resolution is fine really! Not too much difference...sometimes it doesnt look just as sharp...but thats about it.

if its as you say, i wouldnt hesitate to buy the dell 24", but a couple have said here that it would look like crap? :confused:

im not really sure because i havent seen one that big display a game at that res. Wouldnt have thought it would be much worse, if only a little.. over CRT to be honest.

I'll have quite a bit more money in a couple of weeks, so ill be able to buy one then.