What monitor?

yantorsen · 10 Aug 2007 at 18:29

Perfect_Chaos said:
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?

well it would look crap at that res because that res is 4:3 but the samsung monior is 16:9.

yantorsen · 10 Aug 2007 at 18:31

Perfect_Chaos said:
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.

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

wudnt be that much bigger it would be the same height just a lilttle bit wider.

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 ?

yantorsen · 11 Aug 2007 at 14:58

Perfect_Chaos said:
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 ?

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"

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

yantorsen · 12 Aug 2007 at 03:28

what makes you think a gtx won't cut it?

and if you really don;t think it will then the choice is obvious unless you're gonna buy another gtx?

Tripnologist · 12 Aug 2007 at 03:50

Perfect_Chaos said:
But to run a 24" at its native res a 8800 GTX wont do it...

Ermm, yes it would.

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.

V4NT0M · 12 Aug 2007 at 12:22

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.

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?

V4NT0M · 12 Aug 2007 at 12:47

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

I personally wouldn't do it, thats too big of a difference for me, the bigger the monitor is the more you're going to notice the stretching and misaligned pixels... 24" at 1024x768 will look pretty bad... On my 32" HDTV you can really see the difference between 1280x720 and 1360x768, I think you can just about get away with it on a 17" monitor but definitely not 24"

Probably best to take a look at a mate who has one, see what kind of picture they get.

fish99 · 12 Aug 2007 at 12:59

Got to agree about newer games, I think even a GTX would only just handle something like R6Vegas in 1920*1080 (no AA), so you can expect Bioshock to be the same, and I'm sure Crysis will be more demanding. Fear would be ok though (no AA) since it's liquid smooth on my GTS at 1680*1050.

However, these screens don't look as bad out of their native resolution as some people will have you believe. I've played plenty of games in 1280*800 on my Dell 2007WFP (native res 1680*1050) and it looked ok. It looks softer and not as sharp as native res of course, kinda like how a CRT would look sharpness-wise, but for games it's honestly not that bad.

Something else I wanted to add - lag and ghosting are different things. Ghosting is just like motion blur, lag is where the image is behind by several frames. If you are really desperate to minimize these things then you pretty much have to get a TN and put up with the poor viewing angles. Most people who buy a 2407 are happy with it's gaming performance, but there are people who can see the lag and ghosting on one. If you want the best of both worlds, something like NEC LCD20WGX2 gets close, or the Dell 2007WFP.

Nullvoid · 12 Aug 2007 at 12:59

People make a big fuss of using anything other than native res, but have a look here: http://www.prad.de/en/monitore/review/2007/review-hp-w2207-part11.html#Interpolation

It goes all the way down to 800x600 if you look on the next page. That's for a 22" monitor equipped with a TN panel.

Here's one for a 24" HP which will be much like you're looking to buy (near the bottom of the page): http://www.prad.de/en/monitore/review-hp-lp2465-part12.html

They only show 1024x768 but again, it's hardly a disastrous drop in image quality is it?

Oh and to answer your earlier question, I believe there are only a handful of monitors that actively try to tackle blurring:

The fp241wz & fp241vw from Benq both have 'PerfectMotion' technology and then there is the soon to be released Samsung 245t with 'Motion Picture Acceleration'.

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"?

toxic · 13 Aug 2007 at 08:45

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.

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.