LCD for gamers

PretzelB · Post by **PretzelB** » Fri May 07, 2004 6:51 am

Just looking for feedback from gamers on some good LCDs. From what I've read Hitachi and Dell have some good models with low response time (15 ms). The only problem is that I have yet to see a Hitachi in a store like Best Buy so I have no idea how good they look. I don't like the idea of buying an LCD without seeing it first. I'd really like to hear from a gamer who has had more than 1 LCD so they can provide actual comparison information.

greeef · Post by **greeef** » Sat May 08, 2004 5:26 am

check the lcd reviews at http://tech-pc.co.uk

They're all gamers

PretzelB · Post by **PretzelB** » Sat May 08, 2004 2:45 pm

They also liked the Hitachi monitors. Maybe I should just ask for feed back on that one although I really would like to see one in person before buying one.

Leto · Post by **Leto** » Sat May 08, 2004 3:46 pm

Just a q, is contrast ratio a measurement of how black blackness is on the screen?

Could someone explain this to me, cause one of the things I really care for is getting good black. And why is getting real black so hard?

And how will DVI input help me..?

kloppe · Post by **kloppe** » Sun May 09, 2004 2:19 am

Leto wrote:Just a q, is contrast ratio a measurement of how black blackness is on the screen?

Could someone explain this to me, cause one of the things I really care for is getting good black. And why is getting real black so hard?

And how will DVI input help me..?

Dan of Dan's Data explains contrast ratio pretty well here:

No cheap LCD monitor so far can manage really black blacks, compared with a CRT monitor. Because the LCD design is based around the LCD array blocking light from its white backlight, and because it can never block quite all of it when all or part of an image is meant to be black, LCDs tend to look like a CRT monitor with its brightness set a bit too high. The ratio between the lightest white and the darkest black a monitor can display is called the "contrast ratio". The contrast ratio for a CRT can be enormous, because it can display a proper black by simply not lighting up any phosphors; when the black level is zero, the ratio between it and any white level is infinite. LCDs generally have a contrast ratio of a few hundred to one.

Accurate contrast ratio numbers are hard to come by, because there's no standardised way to test it. So there's not a lot of point even looking this specification up. But, as I said, the FP581 and the 151MP both look very good, and the 560V isn't much worse. They'll all glow a bit in a dark room even when they're meant to be displaying a black screen, but none of them have the awful greyed-out look of old-style LCDs.

Goat_guy · Post by **Goat_guy** » Sun May 09, 2004 7:58 am

I love my Hitachi 16ms monitor.

A VGA connection is an analogue connection. Your video card creates a digital signal, and a CRT monitor displays a digital image (010100101010). It has to be converted to analogue, then back to digital. There is a very small inherent amount of interference. DVI (Digital Video Interface) is digital the whole way through. No conversion, no possible distortion.

As for a monitor, my Hitachi 17" CML174SXWB (http://www.newegg.com/app/ViewProductDe ... 035&depa=1) gives very sharp color with NO ghosting or streaking on DVI (few LCD's have DVI input). A geat monitor, I did my research and its worth every penny).

Brian

Post by **NeilBlanchard** » Sun May 09, 2004 9:54 am

Hello Brian:

Goat_guy wrote:I love my Hitachi 16ms monitor.

A VGA connection is an analogue connection. Your video card creates a digital signal, and a CRT monitor displays a digital image (010100101010). It has to be converted to analogue, then back to digital. There is a very small inherent amount of interference. DVI (Digital Video Interface) is digital the whole way through. No conversion, no possible distortion.

You mean LCD, right?

I own two VeiwSonic VP171b and they are used on a Matrox Millennium P650's two DVI outputs -- very crisp. I'm not a gamer, but they are also rated at 16ms, and they are also quite bright and have very good black, as well.

Leto · Post by **Leto** » Sun May 09, 2004 10:04 am

Thanks alot!

What contrast ratio do ya'll prefer?

Goat_guy · Post by **Goat_guy** » Sun May 09, 2004 1:50 pm

Leto wrote:Thanks alot!

What contrast ratio do ya'll prefer?

Mine is 350......400 would be good;-)

hawkeye1 · Post by **hawkeye1** » Mon May 10, 2004 1:34 am

The last MaximumPC had a review of LCDs for gamers...give that a check. Dell and Samsung got good reviews from what I remember.

tridion · Post by **tridion** » Mon May 10, 2004 3:37 am

I have an LG 1710B and its great for gaming - even fast paced FPS. A friend has a Samsung and its nowhere near as good.

The most important thing to remember with LCD monitors is that they have a native resolution where things will look great. But any smaller resolutions have to be streched to fit the screen and so wont look quite as good.

In the case of 17" monitors, the screen is 1280x1024. So for optimum results you would want to play games in that resolution. So you need a graphics card which is up to pumping out the graphics at that res. In this case I would recommend at least a Radeon 9600 256mb (not 128mb) or equivalent.

Also, some people forget to change the DPI setting of their graphics card. In my case I changed it from 96dpi to 120dpi (as recommended by many others) and it makes a difference.

SometimesWarrior · Post by **SometimesWarrior** » Mon May 10, 2004 4:04 am

I've read reviews on Tom's Hardware and Digit-Life that show the digital inputs of many LCD monitors are actually inferior to the analog inputs for color reproduction. There was one in particular that I can recall from Digit-Life that said dark hues, for example your cowardly opponents camping in shadows, completely blend together when using the digital connection of the monitor, no matter what color correction settings are used. The analog connection, however, makes dark colors distinguishable. Knowing this, I am often frustrated by LCD monitor reviews where the reviewer blindly (pardon the pun) assumes that only the digital connection is worth testing.

Tech-Report has a round-up of gaming LCD's, and Tom's Hardware has several.

tridion · Post by **tridion** » Mon May 10, 2004 4:27 am

You could also try out retailer websites that allow customers to leave reviews of products they have brought.

Like ebuyer and amazon.

I bought my LG 1710B due to the overwhelmingly positive reviews of existing customers on both of those sites and I wasnt disappointed. The LG is a 16ms response time and 450:1 contrast ratio. Its great for gaming.

We have Dell LCDs at work and in my opinion they are pretty average. A friend has a Samsung which is good but not as good as the LG (and he agrees). Also, I have a friend who runs his own business and uses CTX LCD displays - ok for business use but not adequate for gaming. I also spent a lot of time in high street shops comparing LCDs (asked them to run games on them and play DVDs). The LG for me came out on top.

But if you can, go to the high street shops and check them out for yourself - it can come down to personal preference at the end of the day.

BUT avoid reviews on Cnet - not just for monitors but anything else for that matter. They are so biased towards companies that they get advertising revenue from its ridiculous.

Leto · Post by **Leto** » Mon May 10, 2004 10:10 am

Seems like Contrast ratio doesnt really tell you anything about blackness afterall. But there is no ISO standard for blackness in candela pr square meter, there should be in my opinion

fractal · Post by **fractal** » Mon May 10, 2004 12:38 pm

I have a princeton vl1716 I bought at costco for under 400 bucks. It is connected with the DVI cable to a gf4ti4200. I use the system a lot for DAOC and WoW. The difference between this LCD and the 17 inch tube are incredible. Everything is so crisp now. No pincushioning due to analog interface. No flicker. No issues with off angle viewing either. It also draws a fraction of the power. I would never go back.

shathal · Post by **shathal** » Mon May 10, 2004 3:09 pm

Is there a 19" brother of the LG 1710B? And - if so - is it as highly rated as it's "smaller" brother?

I'm somewhat used to 19" now and don't want to go back

. Plus, 1600x1200 is rather nice...

thatguyX · Post by **thatguyX** » Mon May 10, 2004 6:47 pm

if it's any help, i'm planning on buying the Samsun 710T. It's a 17" lcd with 12ms response time. It will hopefulyl be realeased this summer. It's similar to the 172x, but this has a few different features. check it out at their website.

tridion · Post by **tridion** » Tue May 11, 2004 12:04 am

shathal wrote:Is there a 19" brother of the LG 1710B? And - if so - is it as highly rated as it's "smaller" brother?

I'm somewhat used to 19" now and don't want to go back . Plus, 1600x1200 is rather nice...

Not sure, but there is definitely an 18" which is just as highly regarded.

juansolo · Post by **juansolo** » Tue May 11, 2004 10:18 am

I've got the 17" Hitachi and it's a belter for gaming. For the best results use the DVI input if you can, force v-sync for everything and run at it's native resolution wherever possible.

tksuther · Post by **tksuther** » Tue May 11, 2004 10:33 am

PretzelB wrote:Just looking for feedback from gamers on some good LCDs. From what I've read Hitachi and Dell have some good models with low response time (15 ms). The only problem is that I have yet to see a Hitachi in a store like Best Buy so I have no idea how good they look. I don't like the idea of buying an LCD without seeing it first. I'd really like to hear from a gamer who has had more than 1 LCD so they can provide actual comparison information.

I have a NEC 1760NX - it's awesome. No ghosting, great colors and resolution. It doesn't require a second mortgage to buy it either.

Leto · Post by **Leto** » Wed May 12, 2004 11:45 am

Next time I'm buying a screen, it's gonna be 22" + at least, bigger the better!!! Crossroom browsing, movie watching, gaming BF 1942 from a distance AND be able to see your enemies are my main reasons for this desire.

ChucuSCAD · Post by **ChucuSCAD** » Sun May 16, 2004 9:44 pm

Depending on your location you should be able to hit up some of the small retailers to take a look at the monitors. Back when I lived in Atlanta I could roll around to dozens of real computer shops and see everything available. Should be able to do the same for monitors depending on your location. Otherwise trust in the reviews, however the dells are nice.

chucuscad

EasyRaider · Post by **EasyRaider** » Tue May 18, 2004 1:41 pm

tridion wrote: In the case of 17" monitors, the screen is 1280x1024. So for optimum results you would want to play games in that resolution. So you need a graphics card which is up to pumping out the graphics at that res. In this case I would recommend at least a Radeon 9600 256mb (not 128mb) or equivalent.

Sorry, that's a bad recommendation. First, you don't need 256 MB to run at 1280*1024. That only takes 15 MB for the frame buffer (32 bit color and Z, double buffering). With 128 MB memory, you still have plenty of room for textures and other data. Second, I believe 9600 cards with 128 MB usually have faster memory than 256 MB versions. Faster memory will give you a real performance advantage (at least when overclocking), while more memory usually will go wasted.

256 MB 9600 cards are just a marketing gimmick. I would never consider more than 128 MB memory before reaching 9800 Pro level.

As for my own recommendation to play at 1280*1024, that would be a 9800 Pro. Nothing less will cut it with the high fill rate requirements of games like Far Cry and Half-Life 2 (unless you are happy with choppy frame rates).

(edit)
On another note, I don't like the 1280*1024 resolution, because it's 5:4 aspect ratio. It's nice for viewing text, but for games or video, I would greatly prefer standard 4:3, or even 3:2.

Leto · Post by **Leto** » Sun May 23, 2004 10:41 am

Does anyone know if Oled's can make true black? Seems like they should be capable of it considering they only emit light if told to...

thatguyX · Post by **thatguyX** » Sun May 23, 2004 3:27 pm

update: well i got my samsung 710T. I haven't noticed ANY ghosting or anything, i've ran Farcry, Halo, Warcraft, Dvd's. No ghosting what so ever. The monitor has 12ms response time, dual dvi input, 600:1 contrast ratio, and some other features. It's great. I've hooked up a dual display right now with my NEC FE991sb. The side by side comparison shows that the 710T is clearer, crisper and brighter. I'm very happy with this monitor I'm planning on selling my NEC 19" CRT, and buying a Samsung 710N. The 710 N is basically the same exact version of the 710T, but with only analog input. I'm just hoping that side by side the comparison of the 710T and 710N wont be too different. Dual 12ms lcds. I'm happy and I totally recommend it.

nutball · Post by **nutball** » Sun May 23, 2004 10:33 pm

Leto wrote:Does anyone know if Oled's can make true black? Seems like they should be capable of it considering they only emit light if told to...

They certainly do seem to be the Great White Hope of the future for flat-panels, for precisely the reason you mention.

Another technology I've seen mentioned is standard LCD panel with the the global backlight replaced by an array of white LEDs, something like 1 LED per 3x3 block of pixels. Because the LEDs can be varied in brightness independently, and even switched off depending on the display content, this is apparently a way to massively increase the contrast of existing TFT technology without too much ruckus.

Leto · Post by **Leto** » Mon May 24, 2004 2:31 am

nutball that sounds like a brilliant idea to lower the power draw and increase the contrast qualities of TFT displays!

LCD for gamers

LCD for gamers

you mean LCD, right?

Re: LCD for gamers