LCD monitors

[rabbidrabbit]

Call me a dinosaur but I have never bought a LCD monitor.  I have been waiting for my old 21" CRT to die but it just won't.  What do I need to know about LCDs?  I'm restricted to one resolution right?  What really matters?  I'm looking for something nice above 21" so If you have any ideas feel free to toss them.

[Grayeagle]

Originally posted by rabbidrabbit
I'm restricted to one resolution right?  What really matters?  I'm looking for something nice above 21" so If you have any ideas feel free to toss them.

1) No restriction on resolution, but LCD's run better at their native res (or so I hear)

2) refresh rate and contrast ratio .. 4ms and 1000:1 is very good.
   8ms and 500:1 is not as good

3) Not many available at 21" that are fast enough for games .. yet.

I use a Hyundai B90A 19" LCD monitor, 1000:1 contrast, 4ms refresh.
It's my first LCD monitor, got it at fry's electronic's store for about half what the NEC monitor with the same specs cost.

I'm sold on 'em .. as long as the contrast ratio is high enough and refresh is fast enough .. they look great, lightweight, storage space behind 'em where the tube used to stick out.

-GE (1280x1024 native res for 19")

[Mickey1992]

I use a 19" Samsung and love it.  Bust Buy has an LG 19" 4ms 1000:1 on sale now for $250.

Stay away from Gateway, eMachines, and Westinghouse units that are 500:1 and 12ms refresh.  I have seen them in the stores and they are crap.

Another thing to consider is viewing angle.  The really cheap LCD monitors have a very narrow viewing angle.  If you are not right in front of the monitor and level height the image fades with little movement from on-center.

[WhiteHawk]

I bought a 19" Tyris LCD from newegg for under 200 bucks.  If there is gaming issues, I hant noticed.  I run Doom3 at 1200x1024 no prob.  Really good deal i thought.

[Furball]

i run it through an LCD TV... awesome.

[moneyguy]

so...is a monitor with a response rate of 4 better than one with 8? im confused. i though that the higher number was better.  

[lukster]

Originally posted by moneyguy
so...is a monitor with a response rate of 4 better than one with 8? im confused. i though that the higher number was better.  

I believe the response rate is usually given in milliseconds meaning the smaller the number the less time required to change the color of a pixel.

[moneyguy]

ahhhhhh....thanks a bunch  

[LePaul]

Yup, lower is better

However from the experiences my friends have had with theirs, the real issue is image ghosting.  Some have it, some dont.  

I'm still waiting for the prices to dip some more...or my 19" crt to die....whichever comes first

[lukster]

Originally posted by LePaul
Yup, lower is better

However from the experiences my friends have had with theirs, the real issue is image ghosting.  Some have it, some dont.  

I'm still waiting for the prices to dip some more...or my 19" crt to die....whichever comes first

Ghosting should be a function of response time. Perhaps not everyone measures response time the same or maybe not everyone is honest with their times.

[Nilsen]

I have two Nec Multisync 2090U monitors. 20" and a response time of 25 or 8 with overdrive. No ghosting whatsoever and great image quality. They are abit on the expencive side, but they are worth it. Size is good, and I doubt you need anything bigger because you cant really compare crt and lcd monitors on their size.

[deSelys]

I had an Acer 17" 25ms and it was great for gaming.

A lot of manufacturer give you a very low response time (like 4 ms) but they forget to add that this is the time needed for a pixel to go from completely dark to completely lit. The average response time is usually much higher as it is harder for the controller to apply the correct luminosity value to each pixel than to max out the whole screen.

Take the nice response time and contrast figures with a spoonful of salt. Use instead reviews from people who actually used those screens for gaming, you can find a lot on the Net.

[Maverick]

I have a Samsung 19" model 912 and have been using it for a year now. It has a great picture at my preferred resolution of 1024 x 728 (which is also the max for this unit) and has abslolutely no ghosting even in heavy vid card intensive games. Frankly you can continue to wait for improvements but you have to draw a line sometime or just figure on waiting forever as improvements are being made all the time. Kinda like doing any computer upgrade.

[Skuzzy]

Have to be careful about the opinions of gamers though.  A couple of the ones which are being spoken about very positiviely in this thread are ones I consider poor.

It all depends on the perspective and what someone is used to.  Ghosting is still an issue, but to eliminate it, the manufcaturers use faster crystals.  Downside is the lack of color saturation and/or inaccurate color representation.

Most people do not care about the accuracy of the color, but I do and this is where most LCD's fall short, for me.  Most people who came from a CRT had the color temperatures off the scale and they liked it.  I cannot stand looking at a monitor which is running over 9000K.  You cannot get accuratte color represnetation from that, which is why I said most people do not care about accurate color.

[GtoRA2]

I have had a Viewsonic VP201 s 20.1 LCD for just over two years now. 13 MS responce time, the contrast ratio is a tad low, but it looks much better to me then the 19 CRT at work.


I don't notice ghosting or anything in games. The only draw back is it's native res is 1600X1200 and some games don't run so hot on my older system at that rez.


You can find much nicer for much less then I paid now.