DescentBB

hey all

I'm looking into buying an LCD, roughly 17". Does anyone know of one that's good for gaming? (Good refresh rate, etc.)? I plan to buy it before August 1...

Some of the newer samsung ones that anandtech reviewed did nicely in their 'tests', but as much progress as they have made in LCDs they are still dominated by CRTs games.

CRT is an order of magnitude better for gaming. I know LCD/Flat Panel monitors have come a long way, but I saw how d3 looks on a high end flat panel and I was NOT impressed. Trails and fuzzyness of fast moving objects really detracted from the quality IMO.

Given that, be sure and try the monitor before you buy so that you can make an informed decision.

Redbones LCD was NOT highend

Samsung is a very good brand.

I know CRT's are better for gaming. No need to repeat that any more -- I have my own reasons for wanting an LCD, and a CRT simply isn't going to work.

So, I picked up a 19" Samsung SyncMaster 192N on clearence yesterday (I still have 14 days to return it) and it really sucks for gaming. Blurs like crazy in D3. That's too bad -- a 19" LCD for $450 was a pretty nice deal. Does anyone have some specific model numbers (etc) for me?

When I return this, I'm taking my old laptop and firing up D1 to test -- but it'd be nice to have it narrowed down first. What model Samsung should I look at?

Try the Samsung 172X. 12ms, works very well for me. Had a 191T before and it sucked (gaming wise).

What Gren said

However, be aware that the color depth of the 172X does not even begin to approach the capabilities of ANY CRT - even a poor one.

I have used the 172X recently, and the 2D desktop is noticeably not as vibrant due to the aforementioned color depth issue.

Works great in games though.

Disclaimer: I'm a samsung retailer.

Ouch, looks like 25ms is about the best response rate on 19s. That 17" Samsung looks really nice with its 12ms.

Looks like a faster 19" LCD (16ms) is the Sharp LL-191A, which retails for $700, it looks like. Anandtech did a review, and though they liked it, had a couple of complaints (one being price, other being no DVI).

Seems like at least right now 17" would be best for gaming (at least in specs -- have to read reviews to see if any of the 19s did better than that Samsung).

Heh, I use a old 25ms 17" Samsung 171S and I don't notice any ghosting most of the time (though due to analog input, there's plenty of noise in dark areas) - so there's plenty of subjectivity in the deal.

The worst I can see in my monitor is going from bright red straight to bright green. Otherwise ghosting is undetectable.

Who Said it was 'boners LCD? Just for the record, I don't base my tech-related actions or opinions on him in any way shape or form. Give me a break.

I saw D3 on 2 flat-panel type monitors, an Apple 23" Cinema Display (and it doesn't get more 'high-end' @ 2k pr unit IMO) and a Samsung 17" Syncmaster something. I just wasn't impressed.

The ($500.00?) Samsung was noticably better than the ($2000.00) Apple, So I guess there's a trade off between size and performance involved. IMO it still doesn't deliver the kind of responsiveness and picture I want for gaming. But they're getting closer.

OTOH, If someone gave me the Apple, I'd take it and be glad to have it

really, unless you buy a really Crappy LCD, ghosting is not really an issue these days. Clarity, contrast and hotspots are. ...well.. by hotspots I mean angle of view. Higher end LCD's don't have too much of an issue with this either with 90 degree viewing angles or so.

Duper wrote:really, unless you buy a really Crappy LCD, ghosting is not really an issue these days.

That's not entirely true. High end Samsung LCDs (like the 191T I had) are amazing monitors in almost every way, except they have really bad ghosting.

ahh,, I've noticed that Samsung has some really goofy models like that. I occationally go into CompUSA (an overpriced puter store chain here in the states) and take a look at monitors and the like just to get an idea of what thier image is really going to be like.

A lot of LCD/TFT monitors have nice pix except that they are ...um.. grainy .. for lack of a better word. Harsh edges and the like. Font ghosts drive me nuts. That's one reason I havne't gone to a LCD ... that and I broke.



HERE Lothar. These aren't too bad. A buddy of mine has a 17" Naga and the image is pretty nice. However, Stress's Dell monitors are just plain awesome. I hate to admit that anything Dell is good, but either he got REALLY luck or thier design engineers contracted with the "wrong" company.

Duper wrote:A lot of LCD/TFT monitors have nice pix except that they are ...um.. grainy .. for lack of a better word. Harsh edges and the like. Font ghosts drive me nuts. That's one reason I havne't gone to a LCD ... that and I broke.

Sounds like they use VGA connections. If you go LCD make sure it has a DVI connector (your GF/X card has to have one too tho ) -- best picture I ever got. And w/ XP enable ClearType..

I think the Naga uses DVI. The dude i spoke of earlier's has both and there was no difference bwtween the connectors for quality. They were both good. *shrug*

I've got a 9800 Pro, a Viewsonic VA720, and a VE700 Both are 17" VGA only, very sharp and clear... I use the VA720 for gaming because it's brighter and looks a little sharper... No problems at all kicking what little ass I can in UT2004. Ghosting is minimal. They both get kinda warm, but I guess they're supposed to do that... Probably designed that way to improve response times (LCDs respond faster when warm).

Also interesting to note is the VA720's extremely fast response to resolution changes. Woah. I can actually see my POST screen for a second or so And both auto adjust very nicely; much better than I could ever hope to do. Of course, these points are irrelevant with DVI.


On the color range of an LCD, I find that toying around with the contrast/brightness and color settings too much can compress the range of colors displayed. Setting the contrast on an LCD all the way up is suicidal. Find a gradient pattern or something and set the contrast to the halfway mark, then as you move it up, see if the brightest parts of the gradients actually gets brighter or just "moves back" to take some of the near-white colors away from you.


"A lot of LCD/TFT monitors have nice pix except that they are ...um.. grainy .. for lack of a better word. Harsh edges and the like. Font ghosts drive me nuts."

If you came to these conclusions based on what you see in a computer store, you're very likely quite wrong. Many (if not most) computer stores use cheap VGA replicators to get the same signal going to as many displays as they can so they don't need any additional computers out there. It is sinful to judge the quality of an LCD in such cases. But it could be the quality of the video card's output, too; crap cards have crap filtering, and yeah. blah. It's nearing 4 am now.

Maybe I'm off base here but with t.v. out on the vid cards, what are the chances of hooking up to a plasma screen t.v.? Dumb question? Hey, if you don't ask you don't learn.

Lothar, I just bought a Samsung SyncMaster 712N. 12ms refresh. No ghosting in D3. You should give it a try.

woodchip wrote:.... what are the chances of hooking up to a plasma screen t.v....

Plasma TV's(EDTV/HDTV) usually have 1 analog input, 1 DVI input, and 1 S-Video.. so I would tell you YES

The thing is what resolution the Mfg will support from those inputs would be the question on Purchase!!

We used to do it to demo divx movies on the plasma for Windows Media Center

I have had a Samsung 191T (black) for about a year now and it performs flawlessly. Nicest monitor I've ever owned. I just finished playing Far Cry on it, first with a ti4200 and now with my brand spankin' new 6800 GT and had no ghosting what so ever, using the game default settings with the 4200 and everything maxed using the 6800 GT. Far Cry looks un-freaking-believably awesome.

pATCheS wrote: If you came to these conclusions based on what you see in a computer store, you're very likely quite wrong. Many (if not most) computer stores use cheap VGA replicators to get the same signal going to as many displays as they can so they don't need any additional computers out there. It is sinful to judge the quality of an LCD in such cases. But it could be the quality of the video card's output, too; crap cards have crap filtering, and yeah. blah. It's nearing 4 am now.

Nope, I didn't. I've seen lotsa LCD monitors in homes and such. They have thier flaws and adavantages. I would love to get one in fact, I'm just too broke right now to skip on down to the nearest website and buy one.

NEC has a nice one.

This Samsung looks to be on top though.

Stay away from the that shop: "Dead Pixels Policy: Replacement or Refund for 8 or more DEAD PIXELS ONLY!"

Look for shops w/ zero dead pixel policy.

Wow ... check the stats out on this one. I've liked Sony's stuff ... just not thier price.
A 19" with a 12ms responce. nice.

See it Here

Ok, that one is top.
Very nice brightness!

Damn, still $1000 for 20"...3 months, I'll be getting one...maybe 2! (I have other purchases that are more urgent, like new car) Maybe by then, the response on them will drop.

has anyone used a Samsung Syncmaster 770 TFT?

i've got a bunch of 570s at work. they are nice.

do they refresh fast enough for Descent?

Considering they were purchased 3 nearly three years ago, I dun think so.

60 hz max refreshrate IIRC.

Before anybody else calls you out on it, it's not the refresh rate that matters so much for LCDs. He's asking about the response time. You can have an 85hz refresh rate on an LCD but only be able to change colors 40hz or so.

I doubt it.

I have the Samsung SyncMaster 174v, 15pin connector. took me 2 monitors w/dead pixels to get #3 w/o.
Use a kvm switch as well switching vid feeds from Mac to Win and back.
Fus