Gaming LCD ?

[Kaleena]

Hello there,
I need some help picking up an LCD screen.
Basically, a CRT would suit me perfectly (response time, resolution scaling, refresh rate) but it's so damn large and heavy it just won't do, at least for now since I'll be moving fairly often over the next few months. Once I've got a more stable home I'll probably try to get a cheap CRT.

But right now, I'd like to replace my crappy LCD 19". It must be 4 years old, at the time I bought it it was dirt cheap (the price of a 17"). The announced response time was 16 ms, the colours are ridiculously bad and it features fairly poorly in games. Even at native resolution it suffers from a weird aliasing problem (never seen it on any other LCD as of now), even with 16xCSAA or whatever.

So what I'm looking for is a very reactive LCD with at least decent colours. Wide or non-wide doesn't matter that much for me though I'm more used to 4/3 display. I don't want it to be bigger than 20" either : my rig is decent (e8400, 8800GTS 512 mb o/c) but I'd like to keep my resolution at 1280x1024 or 1680x1050 in the worst case. Definitely not anything larger.

To be really honnest, a good 17" lcd at 1280x1024 would suit me just fine but I doubt they are worth it anymore. Are they?
I've been looking for tests, reviews etc on google but I can't find any recent one with the latest screens released (so many of them).

Any ideas?

BTW : I live in Europe (France)

 

[Kaleena]

I just found out today that two LCDs with 120hz refresh rate DO exist : Samsung 2233RZ and ViewSonic VX2265wm. I haven't found an actual review so I'm not too sure how they really perform in games.

They are not cheap but it's interesting. This could mean great LCDs will appear in the future. I'd still like to know what people recommend at the moment.

 

[dragonfliet]

The new 120Hz LCDs are pretty neat, but they are JUST announced, so don't expect a review quite yet. I imagine that the gist of the reviews will be that they're good LCDs that simply aren't worth the price. The real draw with 120Hz monitors is that they can do 3D with Nvidia's new 3D package, but if that's not your bag, then you're better off sticking with the current crop of monitors. Go to a store, see what looks good and then go with something along that line from online is my advice.

~Jason

 

[Noobnugget]

What's really the point of 120hz? LCD's don't flicker like CRT's could at lower refresh rates, which is the main reason people used rates above 60hz before.

Anyway, as for the first post. If you want a pretty good lcd for gaming and not one above 20 inches, the LG W1952TQ isn't bad. While even 2ms can't quite match a crt, it's still not too bad and would kick the crap out of that 16ms lcd. Colors also seem good enough considering it's your standard TN panel, which is pretty much all you'll get unless you spend an arm and a leg and go up to (typically) 24+ inches.

 

[Kaleena]

Anyway, as for the first post. If you want a pretty good lcd for gaming and not one above 20 inches, the LG W1952TQ isn't bad. While even 2ms can't quite match a crt, it's still not too bad and would kick the crap out of that 16ms lcd. Colors also seem good enough considering it's your standard TN panel, which is pretty much all you'll get unless you spend an arm and a leg and go up to (typically) 24+ inches.

Ty, I checked it out and it also seems quite cheap. I might get it.

As for the v-sync mouse lag, I can tell that it depends not only on the hardware but also the games. For me, all Unreal Engine 3 games suffer from mouse lag whenever v-sync is on, but not when the game framerate is capped using the 'smooth framerate' setting. I also remember having the issue on Max Payne (1 and 2), Doom 3 and Prey. Most other games are fine with v-sync, though I wouldn't use v-sync on shooters with an LCD at 60 or 75hz. Most of the time the mouse lag is caused by the triple buffering, or when the hardware can't keep a really steady framerate.

Still, higher refresh rate makes the games look smoother and more responsive.

 

[Darkdrium]

I've been using a VX2035wm (Viewsonic, american model number), not many options regarding inputs (DVI-D HDCP, VGA and stereo), but if you have a console or HD HDCP device, plug it in with HDMI to DVI and it will work on that screen. But then you'd have to find a way with adaptors (possibly) for sound, either to a sound system or to the integrated speakers. As I said, not many options.

 

[H3D_Sniper]

It stops your framerate from being capped at 60fps. I can definitely tell the difference between 60 and 85fps, and since modern hardware can maintain high framerates in older games, it's nice to be able to experience that slightly smoother gameplay.

I've got a 22" LG W2252TQ and it works wonderfully. I'm running a GTX280 and have my FPS uncapped in UT3 and run approx. 90fps.

The fast response time and high contrast makes UT3 look awesome.

I would suggest either an LG or Samsung. Here's the monitor I'm using -> LG W2252TQ

 

[H3D_Sniper]

I realized that after I posted it....

 

[Crowze]

I briefly had one of the newer LG screens (an L226something) and it had terrible backlight bleed - while I gather it was just a bad batch, it's still something to look out for. I'm now using a slightly older Samsung 215TW, which being an S-PVA panel has a slightly longer response time than the regular TN panels, but on the flip side the colour reproduction and viewing angles are brilliant. If you can, try a PVA panel and compare it to the generally cheaper TN ones, and weigh up the difference in response and colour.

 

[DannyMeister]

I didn't make the LCD switch until last year, because I love the higher refresh rate of CRT's and the fact that they don't have a viewing angle problem. I ended up getting the Samsung SyncMaster 204b and I'm pretty impressed. Yes, I only get 60 fps, but that doesn't cause the eye-strain that 60hz on a CRT did. I also don't get any of the ghosting effects that I have observed on older and low end CRT's.

 

[SkaarjMaster]

I'm sticking with my 19" CRT for now and it will probably be a year or two or three before I switch (as long as it stays running of course........oops now I cursed it). Anyway, I'm not jumping in that FPS/v-sync debate right now. Just wanted to point out that 1280x1024 is not exactly 4:3 but that would be 1280x960 (my preferred gaming resolution). Although, some games don't even have this as a choice, so sometimes you have to set it at 1280x1024. I was actually running UT2004 (and other games) at 1280x1024 for a few months before someone pointed this out to me.

 

[Kaleena]

Yes, 1280x1024 is 5/4 and I don't like to play with a 4/3 res (such as 1024x748 or 1280x960) on my LCD because of this. I don't want any kind of stretching D: Still I find the extra height of 5/4 comfortable as well sometimes (especially when reading or watching pics).

I'm still not too sure about what kind of new screen I'll get. Maybe I'll stick to this crap or get a cheap CRT while LCDs seem to head the right way with refresh rate and colours.

 

[B]

Hehe, me too. Back when I knew very little about displays, I was using 1280x1024 until it struck me that the 'NVIDIA: The way it's meant to be played' logo wasn't actually round...

It's surprising how many people use 1280x1024 on a 4:3 display - I don't really blame them because everyone seems to treat it as being a 4:3 resolution. For example, when you first install WinXP (before you install your graphics drivers), and you are using a 4:3 CRT, the display properties tab gives you: 800x600, 1024x768, 1280x1024 and 1600x1200, as if they are all 4:3.

Because it really doesn't matter much. And alot of people simply don't know. Only if you're very picky about it you will notice it.

 

[Hunter]

The only game I know of that actually warns you is Dark Messiah, which has 'LCD' in brackets beside 1280x1024.

source based games (HL2, CS:S, L4D) show 1280x1024 it at 5:4 LCD.

 

[Noobnugget]

Yes, 1280x1024 is 5/4 and I don't like to play with a 4/3 res (such as 1024x748 or 1280x960) on my LCD because of this. I don't want any kind of stretching D: Still I find the extra height of 5/4 comfortable as well sometimes (especially when reading or watching pics).

After changing to another res from 1280x1024 i don't really like that extra height at all anymore myself. Mainly because the rather narrow (horizontal) field of view that 5:4 brings really stands out to me now. And it looks kinda bad when looking at it from another aspect ratio, or even when comparing it with 4:3.

 

[unbecoming]

hanns-g be good for 3 of us

Paid $ 800 for my 28" Hanns-G HG281D a couple years ago.It was a steal at the time cuz all others that matched it 's specs were hundreds of $ more.

Since then 3 of my friends have seen my LCD and purchased their own.So far we are all pleased.The price on 22" - 28" LCDs have dropped dramatically over the last couple of years.

Look for one with many types of connection options and a low response time and u should be good.Go for 1920x1200 will not be achieved without lower refresh.1280x1024 will get u 75hz on most LCD's.

Good luck.

 

[NitrousUser]

I've got a 22" LG W2252TQ and it works wonderfully. I'm running a GTX280 and have my FPS uncapped in UT3 and run approx. 90fps.

The fast response time and high contrast makes UT3 look awesome.

I would suggest either an LG or Samsung. Here's the monitor I'm using -> LG W2252TQ

hey, we have the same monitor, that makes us like monitor brothers!