Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Hardware and Software => Topic started by: Nutzoid on December 16, 2009, 12:42:29 PM
-
Hey fellas, as I mentioned in another thread some time back, my old monitor took a dive on me. If I remember right, it was a Samsung 931b that I used for about two to three years. I'm currently looking at an Acer D240H as a replacement. My system is OLD. Example, for an upgrade I went to an XFX GeForce 6200 video card, 1gig Ram and a new sound card, an X-Fi Xtreme Gamer. My question is, the choice of monitor, good or bad, and will it require any additional updates? Think this is a good monitor or should I look elsewhere?
Nutz
-
Chances are, with a PC that old, your FRs would drop if you got a 24 inch monitor substantially. I STRONGLY suggest getting a new comp if you would like to upgrade your monitor size. In the meanwhile, I would look at ASUS monitors, they offer almost the exact same specs, in some areas even better, all for about $100 less.
http://shop.ebay.com/i.html?_trkparms=65%253A1%257C66%253A2%257C39%253A1&_nkw=ASUS+VW246H&_dmpt=Computer_Monitors&_sticky=1&_trksid=p3286.c0.m14&_sop=15&_sc=1
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16824236049
here's the same version of above that has a webcam
http://shop.ebay.com/i.html?_nkw=ASUS+VK246H&_sacat=0&_trksid=p3286.m270.l1313&_sop=15&_dmpt=Computer_Monitors&_odkw=ASUS+VW246H&_osacat=0
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16824236048
-
Keep in mind that the monitor size itself has nothing to do with computer performance.. it is the monitor's resolution that is the key factor here.
Basically, the higher the resolution, the more video processing is required. Traditional CRT monitors (tube-type) typically ran at 640X480, 800X600, 1024X768 or 1200X1024 resolutions, and were compatible with different (standard) settings... for example, a CRT that could handle 1200X1024 could also properly display a resolution of 640X480.
With LCD monitors it's a little different. Their resolutions are typically higher.. and being that most are widescreen format, that is just that many more pixels to process. The 24" I use is set to 1680X1050 but some monitors even go much, much higher. Also LCD monitors can ONLY display at that resolution (called their 'native' resolution). If you set your computer to a lower resolution one of two things will happen... It will either only display that many pixels, resulting in a black border around the screen (and a smaller picture)... or it will digitally enlarge the selected pixels to fill the entire screen.. much like 'upconverting' a DVD to a hi-definition screen... which can cause horrible picture quality and 'blocky' looking lines and corners... Some monitors do a better job at this than others, but the general result is no where near as good a picture as just running at the native resolution.
Assuming you were running your old Samsung 931b at its native resolution of 1280X1024... you can theoretically find any monitor of any size with a native resolution of the same and you will see identical performance, but you may have problems finding this as virtually all of the new monitors use a much much higher resolution. Maybe you can find a used or refurbished solution until you can get around to updating your system?
-
You do not have to run "native resolution" on a monitor. Who keeps perpetuating that myth? If the video card cannot run the "native resolution" of the monitor, the monitor will scale the the lower resolution and use interpolation to make the necessary adjustments based on the settings of the video card. Obviously some lower resolutions work better than others.
-
You do not have to run "native resolution" on a monitor. Who keeps perpetuating that myth? If the video card cannot run the "native resolution" of the monitor, the monitor will scale the the lower resolution and use interpolation to make the necessary adjustments based on the settings of the video card. Obviously some lower resolutions work better than others.
x2
-
Running at non-native resolution demolishes image quality in 99% of cases. The problem is not so visible with games but with text processing it will be a nightmare. Generally the interpolation will make the image really soft in the corners, even blurry.
So while possible I wouldn't recommend it if it can be avoided.
In the OP's case though it may be his only available option short of purchasing a new small CRT or second hand large CRT.
-
Sorry but I disagree sir.
I do think that you need to stick to wide-screen format (if you buy a wide-screen)
But I'm running my 23" Samsung considerably below native with no issues whatsoever.
Native on mine is 1920 x 1280, I'm running desktop at 1280x720, and matching it in AH.
(no I'm not running the Hi-res in AH even though my system can handle it)
Everything is clear, crisp and there is no discernible difference between the 2.
Interesting enough I just took a screenshot of my desktop, with this page up, a text file open, etc.
Considerably more fuzzy in the screenshot than it is live. Text is fine on the desktop, but in the screenshot of that same text it was fuzzy.
Go ahead, buy the monitor, hook it up, don't be afraid to try running it at a lower res than native.
Your mileage may vary, but I'm guessing it will still be many times better than it was before.
Ohh and I paid 200$ for this 23" Samsung at Sam's Club in October, and they still have it at that price.
Great price for a nice monitor in my opinion.
-
They say a picture speaks more than a thousand words so:
(http://img690.imageshack.us/img690/2991/img1737.png)
Screenshot using my SLR and native resolution
(http://img14.imageshack.us/img14/4369/img1738.png)
Screenshot using same SLR/Distance using non-native widescreen resolution.
No difference? Oh puhleeze.
I have seen literally hundreds of TFT/LCD screens in use and none of them provided a sharp image out of native resolution. We have 7 in our house alone.
Now, while the lower picture is readable and some might argue still clear, it's miles away from being pixel perfect like the native resolution image is.
-
Uhm??? Guys???
It depends upon whether the monitor is set to interpolate lower resolutions, or display lower resolutions using only a portion of the screen. (And older LCD's likely don't offer any control over this behavior, while the newer ones I've bought do - and I've seen some that default to interpolation and some that default to partial screen)
If it interpolates, it sucks scummy pond water at any but native resolution. If not, it's like buying a smaller monitor in whatever dimension(s) are displayed at less than full screen (i.e. the "black borders".)
So you're both right... partly.
<S>
-
Well, I got my monitor today :x but I can't set the AH resolution above 1440X900 and things look a little fuzzy, do you guys know how to fix this?
-
1) Post the specific details regarding this configuration, so we don't have to try to guess which mismash of the bits and peices you've related munging together into semiworking systems in other threads you're trying to refer to now.
2) set your resolution to the native resolution of the monitor (which probably isn't 1440x900) or set the monitor to scale down lower resolutions (an option which might or might not be there, and might be called a lot of different things if it is) and then run at lower than the native resolution of the monitor.
<S>
-
You might have to putz with the referesh rates when adjusting resolution...and do be cautious...if you set your desktop resolution to an acceptable level with the proper corresponding refresh rate...what you see in AH when you set the resolution to the same level, should be clear.
-
Well, I got my monitor today :x but I can't set the AH resolution above 1440X900 and things look a little fuzzy, do you guys know how to fix this?
Check for updates for video card drivers.... What video card do you have?
It still might be a limitation of the video card itself if it's older...
-
Check for updates for video card drivers.... What video card do you have?
It still might be a limitation of the video card itself if it's older...
It's a 7300GT, I was suspecting that may be the problem, Once I get my good system back up and running with the 8 series card I'll see if that was the case.
-
Uhm??? Guys???
It depends upon whether the monitor is set to interpolate lower resolutions, or display lower resolutions using only a portion of the screen. (And older LCD's likely don't offer any control over this behavior, while the newer ones I've bought do - and I've seen some that default to interpolation and some that default to partial screen)
If it interpolates, it sucks scummy pond water at any but native resolution. If not, it's like buying a smaller monitor in whatever dimension(s) are displayed at less than full screen (i.e. the "black borders".)
So you're both right... partly.
<S>
Just curious...
You mention the black border alternative... What's the point of getting a 24" monitor if only 19" of the screen is going to be used?
-
Two reasons:
1) Availability. Have you tried to find a quality 1280x1024 monitor lately? Or one that's larger than about 21 inches? Sometimes the "ideal" choice just isn't available, or cost effective.
2) Flexibility. Not everyone does only a single task on a computer. If the choice is a 24" 1920 x 1080 monitor that might well be ideal for other things, and that scales to a crystal clear lower resolution that doesn't take up the whole screen instead going with a 21" 1280x1024 because you absolutely have to run an application that only works well at 4/3 - well why not?
<S>
-
Two reasons:
1) Availability. Have you tried to find a quality 1280x1024 monitor lately? Or one that's larger than about 21 inches? Sometimes the "ideal" choice just isn't available, or cost effective.
2) Flexibility. Not everyone does only a single task on a computer. If the choice is a 24" 1920 x 1080 monitor that might well be ideal for other things, and that scales to a crystal clear lower resolution that doesn't take up the whole screen instead going with a 21" 1280x1024 because you absolutely have to run an application that only works well at 4/3 - well why not?
<S>
Actually they can be found they're just not labeled as consumer monitors but advertisement screens. They're meant to display ads in shop windows. Low resolution but large screen. There may be a pitfall of response speed though, I reckon advertisements do not require 2ms refresh speed.
-
Well guys, I want to thank each and everyone of you for the wealth of info provided! I knew all I had to do was ask. :salute
As it turns out, I decided to go with a monitor from Tiger, a Sceptre X245W-1080P with 1920x1080, 40,000:1 Dynamic, 1000:1 Native 16:9 2ms and so on. Supposed to be delivered today or tomorrow.
Hope it's a good'un! Again thanks all!
Nutz
-
Just curious sir, im in the market for a new monitor myself. How did your new one work out for you?
<S>
Mbailey
-
Just curious sir, I'm in the market for a new monitor myself. How did your new one work out for you?
<S>
Mbailey
It was delivered on the 24Th, while I was out of town for the holidays. Just got in this morning and I'm at work right now. Soon as I get home though........
I'll post something later and let you know. :)
-
Truly amazing! The difference is like night and day! So much of a change, it's gonna take some getting used to! I logged on to the game tonight, and thought I had some sort of eye surgery, lol. The detail I could make out was unbelievable, and that was without HI Res and using VGA connectors. The next purchase will be a DVI cable and then we'll see if it all comes together like I hope it will! :x
Nutz
-
Running at non-native resolution demolishes image quality in 99% of cases. The problem is not so visible with games but with text processing it will be a nightmare. Generally the interpolation will make the image really soft in the corners, even blurry.
So while possible I wouldn't recommend it if it can be avoided.
In the OP's case though it may be his only available option short of purchasing a new small CRT or second hand large CRT.
What this guy said.
-
Good to hear sir!!
Gents,
I too have a low end computer ( intel graphics chip ) Suprisingly it plays the game very well as i have the memory maxed out, no sutters solid 45FR, no super eyecandy though, but can play with sliders allthe way to the left ( distance sliders that is.) Im currently on a 17" monitor i believe max is 1024X768. Do you think i could get away with a 22" monitor?
Any suggestions would help
Thank you
Mbailey
-
Good to hear sir!!
Gents,
I too have a low end computer ( intel graphics chip ) Suprisingly it plays the game very well as i have the memory maxed out, no sutters solid 45FR, no super eyecandy though, but can play with sliders allthe way to the left ( distance sliders that is.) Im currently on a 17" monitor i believe max is 1024X768. Do you think i could get away with a 22" monitor?
Any suggestions would help
Thank you
Mbailey
As a rule of thumb the higher you set the resolution the more power it takes to run the graphics. Memory is also one factor so you might get drastic drops in performance if you go over 1024x768. You'll know only after you try and if it won't run then a cheap graphics card will fix it.