DescentBB

I'm using 2 19\" samsung SyncMaster 931bf monitors right now, with 2000:1 contrast at 2ms.

Native resolution is 1280 x 1024, which is fine for me, tho I dont mind going to a different resolution.

They work great, but I'm thinking it's time for an upgrade to a bigger monitor. I used to use 2 21\" Sony CRTs before moving to these two LCDs.



What's a good gaming monitor out there? What's the best size for the cost?

Thanks!
RM

I would stick with those two you already have till there is a real reason to upgrade. At the very least LCD technology is past the point of diminishing returns. Any major new advancements that you will be able to really see and say its worth upgrading for in a display will come from different technologies such as SED/PHOLED/etc.

Otherwise if you insist on burning some cash on it, grab a 25\" or higher minimum 1920x1200 display (watch out for the so called \"Full HD\" 1920x1080 displays though, they are yet another extension of the diagonal measuring system scam). If its just to get something that will look good for a future blu-ray player built into the PC, then skip the computer monitors entirely and get yourself a LCD TV at least 40 inches and make sure it supports the full 1920x1080 blu-ray spec and can disable overscan.

Well, I'm primarily interested in a bigger monitor, but dont have the cash for 2 (and I cant go back to just using one monitor), so I'd probably keep one of these to go with a 24\"+, even tho they'd be different sizes.

I dont really have the cash to burn, but have a couple hundred to put toward it...

It's not a necessity, as both existing monitors are working now.

I have noticed that some of the bigger monitors are at 5ms instead of the 2ms that I have. I dont want to downgrade for a bigger monitor.

So at this point I guess I'm just shopping.

The 5 MS and 2 MS ratings are almost guaranteed to be marketing exaggeration. Quite often they rate a monitor by how fast it goes from one shade of gray to another shade of gray. However the measurement that actually matters to our eyes is to go from gray to white(or black) and then back to gray, where even the best possible overdriven monitors will barely manage coming close to 16 MS.

The entire LCD industry these days is full of standard marketing nonsense. The dynamic contrast ratios, the maximum brightness levels, the response times, the viewing angles, all are misleading at best.

Dynamic contrast by and large looks horrible and it is highly recommended you disable it. The stock (non-dynamic) contrast is measured at the monitors maximum brightness which on most LCD monitors is about double the actual brightness people can use without feeling considerable eyestrain. The viewing angles are measured till the monitor has a 10 to 1 contrast ratio (again at maximum brightness), when the human eye would consider it unwatchable at or below about 200 to 1. So the actual viewing angle that a human looking at the screen would tolerate is usually about 25% of the advertised viewing angle.

If you could buy any 25\" or 24\" monitor, which one would it be?

The one that is 16:10 (eg. 1920x1200), not 16:9 (1920x1080)

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.a ... 6824001281

Ironically the one called a \"HDTV\" monitor is the one that is most like a computer monitor and supports a 16:10 aspect.

ill stick with my IBM C220 CAD monitor

Saw an ad for a used one of these for $50.
SyncMaster 2443BWX

Should be a nice upgrade from my current 19\" (I'd have to run the 24\" as my main monitor, and one of my 19\"s as my second side monitor (dont have 2 video cards, or I'd go for the 3 monitor setup, which I would like to have someday).

How's that look?

Grendel wrote:The one that is 16:10 (eg. 1920x1200), not 16:9 (1920x1080)

Well, BestBuy doesnt have anything that's larger than 24" anymore, and costco has a 25" and a 27", but they are 16:9

So I guess my only option is to buy online now.

Stupid question: the 16:9 ratio means wider than taller for smaller viewing area than 16:10, right?

Costco's 27" Samsung is 16:9, but is $349, which is only $20 more than Newegg's 25.5" T260HD.
That's still not the way to go, tho, right?

BTW, thanks for the input here. Without Krom/Gren's advice I would have bought the 27" at Costco (a BIG improvement over my current 19").

The wider the aspect ratio, the smaller the screen area is per diagonal measure. So 16:9 screens inflate the diagonal measure. The result is a 20\" 16:10 screen could actually be smaller than a 19\" 5:4 screen, and 16:9 screens are even worse.

I also recommend sticking to 16:10 screens at the very least because the 1200 lines vertical resolution actually is pretty useful and important in computer monitors when you are surfing the web or doing anything else other than watching a DVD. 16:9 screens are getting to be too short which can be irritating, especially if you are looking at a high resolution picture that was taken in portrait mode.

The industry needs a bit of a regulatory shake up to force manufacturers to sell screens by total surface area instead of diagonal measure which is only valid when all screens are the same aspect.

Is there any difference between this monitor



and the monitor that you linked?


http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.a ... 6824001281


The \"Touch Of Color\" monitor is only a computer monitor, while the other is a monitor and TV...seems the monitor would cost less since it has fewer features...unless it's better at being a monitor than the HDTV?

They are the same monitors. The \"TOC\" in the Newegg is short for \"Touch of Color\", Amazon is just more expensive than Newegg in this case.