LCD monitors good enough for gaming yet?

[GuildBoss]

Is it time to rent the crane and remove my 80lb 21" Nokia in favor of one of them fancy LCD's? How is LCD with shooters these days?

[malphigian]

I've got a 16ms ViewSonic LCD, and have noticed no ghosting at all in Half Life 2, BF1942, WoW, KoTOR, etc. I can also never, ever go back to CRT, they look like a blurry mess to me now.

[tronnc]

I've got a 16ms ViewSonic LCD, and have noticed no ghosting at all in Half Life 2, BF1942, WoW, KoTOR, etc. I can also never, ever go back to CRT, they look like a blurry mess to me now.

Which model/size? Seriously im sort of in the market for a new monitor.

My old 19" Viewsonic Professional Series died :( about a month ago and im currently using my cheap 17" which is Ok but I do need to get a new monitor sometime.

[MikeTwain]

The large Dell LCD monitors (2001, 2005) are simply awesome for gaming. I got the 2005 for Christmas and I don't think I could ever go back to CRT now.

[RepoMan]

I have a 16ms Samsung 1280x1024 17-inch LCD (it only cost about $400 at CompUSA, which is all I had to spend) and I LOVE LOVE LOVE it. Don't remember the exact model number, unfortunately :-( -- I'll look it up when I get home. Half-Life 2 and Doom 3 were both dreamy. I have an SVGA projector which I used to use for gaming, but this LCD is so much sharper that not even the massiveness of the wall-screen can tempt me away from it. (especially with 4x AA!)

Cheers!
Rob

[DaveC]

I have 2 Benq 17" LCDs and I won't be going back to CRT. Ghosting isn't even an issue. They are great.

[Sockpuppet]

My ex got, if I recall correctly, a 17" NEC LCD with her Alienware. It worked beautifully for both City of Heroes and Far Cry. If I had the scratch, I'd replace my 19" Viewsonic with dual flat panels without a second thought.

[Lum]

I've got a decent, though generic, 19" LCD. Cant' rattle off the specs off the top of my head, but I can play any FPS title with no ghosting issues. At this point to get a substandard LCD monitor I suspect you'd have to work at it.

[Shadarr]

I got my girlfriend an LG (16ms). Works great and only slightly more expensive than a CRT.

[Doug Erickson]

I have a 16ms ag Neovo 18" and it rocks. No ghosting, great aspect ratio (700:1), and gorgeous color. CRTs are agony, now.

[JM]

I have a 15-month-old LG Flatron L1710B 17" 1280x LCD. It's great.

Only complaint is I'd rather have it as 1600x, but that's all. 16ms is fine for gaming, not a single problem for me.

[Aephir]

I use two Viewsonic VP912b monitors with a 12ms refresh. I could never go back to CRT.

[spacerat]

I love my Dell 2001FP to death...absolutely awesome for gaming.

20% off if you buy by tomorrow! I paid $800, and felt like I got my moneys worth...getting it a $640 really seems like a steal to me...

Not that $640 isnt a ton of money, but sure you get a lot of LCD goodness for that price...

[Xemu]

Just picked up a 2005FPW a few weeks back. So far it's incredible. WOW in 1680x1050 is a sight to behold. It feels much larger than my old 25" monitor too.

[MikeTwain]

Just picked up a 2005FPW a few weeks back. So far it's incredible. WOW in 1680x1050 is a sight to behold. It feels much larger than my old 25" monitor too.

Any chance of you writing a SS2 widescreen hack?

:wink:

[Jim Preston]

Just picked up a 2005FPW a few weeks back. So far it's incredible. WOW in 1680x1050 is a sight to behold. It feels much larger than my old 25" monitor too.

Agreed. I got the Dell Widescreen 2005FPW and it is fantastic. Both EQ2 and Half-Life 2 support 1600 x 900 and look simply amazing. No ghosting, no blurring, no headaches. Just awesome.

[Xemu]

I dimly recall there is a console command to set the resolution that might just work... but I doubt it. :)

[GuildBoss]

I use two Viewsonic VP912b monitors with a 12ms refresh. I could never go back to CRT.

That is the LCD (http://www.newegg.com/app/viewproductdesc.asp?description=24-116-338&DEPA=0) I was thinking about.

[John Reynolds]

Just got the Dell 2001FP yesterday, replacing my aging 21" CRT, and I love it. I'll never go back to a CRT.

Dell's also running free shipping on top of that 20% off.

[steve]

Just picked up a 2005FPW a few weeks back. So far it's incredible. WOW in 1680x1050 is a sight to behold. It feels much larger than my old 25" monitor too.
You should see it at 1920x1200, heh.

[Silverlight]

I ran an LCD (19 inch, 25ms) and CRT (19 inch as well) dual-monitor config for a while. The LCD is a 19-inch 25ms, the monitor's a ViewSonic P95f+. There's no comparison at all. Compared to an LCD, CRTs are a blurry disgusting mess. The LCD is so much better that I actually turned off the dual-monitor config because I couldn't stand to look at the CRT any more. The next time I try a dual monitor config it will be LCD-only.

The only two problems with the LCD are (1) it only runs at 1280x1024, which is lower than I was accustomed to at the time and (2) if I turn on smooth scrolling in IE I get weird purple fringes. (Solution: turn off smooth scrolling.)

[Marcin]

I use two Viewsonic VP912b monitors with a 12ms refresh. I could never go back to CRT.

That is the LCD (http://www.newegg.com/app/viewproductdesc.asp?description=24-116-338&DEPA=0) I was thinking about.

There's a Phillips (http://www.newegg.com/app/viewproductdesc.asp?description=24-133-147&DEPA=0) 19" 12ms for a 100 bucks less right in the sidebar of that one. Any ideas why it would be that much cheaper? Same resolution, too.

[GuildBoss]

Hold the phone.... BenQ FP931 (http://www.newegg.com/app/ViewProductDesc.asp?description=24-014-063&depa=1) at $349 looks/sounds nice too.

[GuildBoss]

I use two Viewsonic VP912b monitors with a 12ms refresh. I could never go back to CRT.

That is the LCD (http://www.newegg.com/app/viewproductdesc.asp?description=24-116-338&DEPA=0) I was thinking about.

There's a Phillips (http://www.newegg.com/app/viewproductdesc.asp?description=24-133-147&DEPA=0) 19" 12ms for a 100 bucks less right in the sidebar of that one. Any ideas why it would be that much cheaper? Same resolution, too.

No DVI input, maybe. Everybody seems to think DVI is important but I haven't done enough digging to figure out why.

[MikeTwain]

No DVI input, maybe. Everybody seems to think DVI is important but I haven't done enough digging to figure out why.

There's theoretically an improvement in picture quality since you don't do a digital to analog conversion followed by an analog to digital conversion. A quick net search seems to indicate that people generally can't tell the difference though.

[mono]

Add me to the "can't tell the difference between DVI and Analog", but I'm constantly informed that DVI is superior.

Had the Dell 2001FP for 8 months. That aquisition was the end of my CRT days.

[ARogan]

Dell 2001FP for about 9 months.
Hey it was good enough to make it into counter strike source office.

It's great for games. No more CRT's!!!!

[flyinj]

Stay away... FAR away from 12ms response time monitors.

To have a 12ms display, you need a certain type of matrix in the monitor. Unfortunately, the matrix that all manufacturers have to use is COMPLETE crap.

How do I know this?

Well, as a gamer, I've held off on using LCDs due to ghosting issues. My Viewsonic 19" started to have stuttering image while in 85hz mode a few weeks ago, so I started doing research-

My roommate has a top of the line (from last year) Dell 19" LCD. I plugged that into my PC and played with it for a bit. The ghosting was pretty bad... I wouldn't play games with that much ghosting. I believe the response time was 20-25ms.

Next, I talked to two tech junky friends of mine who, being gamers, insisted that 12ms monitors had no ghosting at all. They suggested the Samsung 712N 17" 12ms response monitor. I looked all over the web for reviews, and all of them were overwhelmingly positive.

I go to best buy, plunk down my $400 for the monitor, then go on vacation for a week and a half. I get home, plug it in, and my god.

If my head is positioned so I'm looking directly at the monitor, the top and bottom 1 inch of the monitor is noticably darker than the middle. If I move my head up, the bottom gets even darker and the top gets brighter. Ditto for moving my head down. There was not one single place I could put my head without one part of the monitor getting darker.

Keep in mind, this monitor is advertised as having a *140* degree vertical viewing angle. In reality, it had a -1 degree viewing angle, as NO where on the vertical could you get a clean, non-darkened image.

I was totally disgusted with it. I mean, the image was TERRIBLE. I brought it back to best buy to get my money back but, what's this? It was *15* days since I bought it, so no return for me! I explained my problems, and showed them the problems with the floor model, but they insisted that somehow the floor model and the one I got was somehow defective and that I should take another one.

So, I bring the new one home, and it has the exact same problem. I bring it back to bestbuy, and now the new guy I'm talking about says that's the way all LCD displays look. I tell him, no, trust me, I work in an office that has about 15 different types of LCD displays all over the place, LCDs do NOT look like this. I also explained that the box said it had a 140 degree vertical viewing angle, and this was obviously a lie. He kept insisting that all LCDs look like this. I pointed to another LCD monitor on display and said "that one doesn't do it" and he responded saying it did.

After me trying to convince this guy that I REALLY didn't want this monitor, that it was useless to me for work doing any sort of modeling or texturing on due to it's inconsistant image quality, and useless to play games on for the same reason... he wouldn't let me get my money back. I eventually got frustrated and took my monitor home. Now I'm stuck with this $400 lemon that I can't even use due to it's ridiculously crappy vertical viewing angle.

[Dhruin]

Stay away... FAR away from 12ms response time monitors.

To have a 12ms display, you need a certain type of matrix in the monitor. Unfortunately, the matrix that all manufacturers have to use is COMPLETE crap.

I can't agree with this. I sell LCD monitors and we have no trouble with the 12ms models we keep. I have a couple on display and would have noticed this problem - perhaps it's limited to particular brands/models.

[Creole Ned]

Great. Now I want an LCD. I hate you guys (except for flyinj whose horror story serves as the requisite LCD cautionary tale).

[Aephir]

If my head is positioned so I'm looking directly at the monitor, the top and bottom 1 inch of the monitor is noticably darker than the middle. If I move my head up, the bottom gets even darker and the top gets brighter. Ditto for moving my head down. There was not one single place I could put my head without one part of the monitor getting darker.

I just reproduced this test using the VP912b and I don't see any of the issues that you are referring too.

[Calistas]

19 inch HP at around 14 or 16ms refresh.. I forget.

Damn it's nice.

Nice nice nice. And huge too, just like my
Nose.

Peter

[eliandi]

I still use a crt because the LCD's make me dizzy in fast moving games. CRTs never give me the sick feeling.

[tronnc]

I still use a crt because the LCD's make me dizzy in fast moving games. CRTs never give me the sick feeling.

Sure you just haven't been using some of the crappier/older LCDs that don't refresh quickly enough. From what I understand, (at least what people are saying in this thread) is that they are good enough now for games.

[ARogan]

I bought a Samsung 712N over thanksgiving. Granted I haven't used it a whole lot (it's sitting on a Mac right now) but it didn't look that bad to me. I tried a little cs source on it and it played pretty well. I don't think it looks as good as the Dell. Now I need to go home and see if I notice the vertical angle issue. Then again maybe my eyes aren't that good or sensitive.

[flyinj]

Stay away... FAR away from 12ms response time monitors.

To have a 12ms display, you need a certain type of matrix in the monitor. Unfortunately, the matrix that all manufacturers have to use is COMPLETE crap.

I can't agree with this. I sell LCD monitors and we have no trouble with the 12ms models we keep. I have a couple on display and would have noticed this problem - perhaps it's limited to particular brands/models.

This is on the 712N Samsung 17". I've also noticed the exact same problem on a 25ms response time 15" Samsung that we have at work.

I posted about this problem on several hardware forums, and I've gotten two different responses that say the only type of matrix that is capable of performing 12ms operations is the type that samsung uses in several of it's monitors... including the one we have at work and the 712N I have at home.

If you sell the Samsung 712N, take a closer look at it. They also sell these at bestbuy, but it's really hard to tell that the monitor is messed up because the VGA feed they put into the display models is so screwed up to start with (being split between 10 different monitors, the signal is completely blurry and discolored from going through so much wire and switchers).

[krayzkrok]

The jury's still out on LCD monitors for me. One the one hand I have a 1600x1200 LCD in my laptop which is simply better than anything else I've ever seen... in its native resolution, but a) I can't find a desktop LCD that even comes close and, b) even this LCD looks average in non-native resolutions - certainly not a patch on my CRT.

This is what really gives me caution - non-native resolutions! I have to work in 1600x1200 these days - 1280x1024 gives me the shits because I'm used to having more desktop real estate. But I can't play all the latest games, even with a GeForce 6800 GT, at that resolution and have the frame rate where I like it. And at non-native resolutions, I really can't stand LCD monitors - they are far inferior to good quality CRTs. I also dont' really like the blacks in LCDs either - they're not "black" enough. It doesn't help that the two different Benq 17" LCDs we use at worse dither all the colours at non-native resolutions for some bizarre reason - it looks like crap. My laptop LCD doesn't do this though - must be specific to those monitor. But it's not selling them to me!

There's a big difference between bad and good LCD monitors, same as there is between bad and good CRT monitors. So I'll keep looking until I find one I'm happy with, but until then my 4 year old HP CRT can rest easy - it might not be quite as sharp as an LCD in native resolution (though I can only tell the difference by putting them side-by-side) but it wipes the floor in other areas that matter (different resolutions, contrast, viewing angle).

But it's only a matter of time, and money.

[Silverlight]

b) even this LCD looks average in non-native resolutions - certainly not a patch on my CRT.

I don't understand the source of your expectation. It's physically impossible for an LCD to correctly do a non-native resolution unless (A) it doesn't use the whole screen space, i.e. movie letterboxing or (B) the non-native resolution is an even divisor of the native one. I thought this was common knowledge by now.

[Hump]

what kind of contrast ratio should one look for? How big of a difference visually is a , lets say, a 500:1 as opposed to a 1000:1

I dont see huge price differences due to it either. Just curious.

[foogla]

I don't get threads like these. Go out and look at the monitors and compare for yourself, nothing anybody writes will come close to it.

That said, my Eizo 557 is mahvelous, just mahvelous.

[GuildBoss]

I don't get threads like these. Go out and look at the monitors and compare for yourself, nothing anybody writes will come close to it.

Are you kidding?! I never buy anything anymore before checking out written reviews on multiple websites. I can always go and kick the tires later but at least with consumer reviews I can shorten my list of which items to kick when I get to that stage.

Besides, have you ever seen the floor models (LCD's) at Best Buy/CompUSA/etc? They're old, dirty, out of calibration, and on poor connections... :roll:

[DTG]

...This is what really gives me caution - non-native resolutions! ...

Same here. It's why I haven't switched. I wouldn't want a monitor smaller than 19". I'm used to 1024x768 for games on a 19" monitor - it looks good, and runs great on virtually any video card. I don't want to have to invest in a $400 card in order to get acceptable (to me) framerates at the high resolultions that the larger monitors use.

[Chris Nahr]

I'm happy with my Sony SDM-HX93 19" LCD monitor. It's no longer state of the LCD art but it's good enough for gaming, and I can't stand CRTs for desktop display anyway.

The only problem is the not-very-black blackness; I always have to crank up brightness and/or contrast in a game with dark alleys, sewers, deadly shadows of death, etc.

But that's not bad enough to make me go back to a CRT...

[triggercut]

I just bought the Sony HS94P over Christmas. 19" of gaming goodness, far, far better than my old CRT.

-12ms response time with none of the stuff flyinJ reported. I think his post could be better worded "stay away from this specific monitor" instead of "stay away from 12ms response time monitors". No ghosting, artifacting, or any thing in any way appearing wonky.

-great brightness and color

-about a half centimeter of "gray" for black at the top and bottom edges, but other than on games that have dark black there, it's unnoticeable. That's due to the insanely bright backlight of Sony's Xbrite technology. It is absolutely the brightest monitor I've ever used--in fact, it took two days of slight headaches to get used to it, since I was used to peering at my old screen, where "white" was a light eggshell, and all CRT colors were sort of drab. Now that I'm used to this screen, I realize that I was suffering from eyestrain on the old model; I can work on spreadsheets for work all day and not have my eyes start to go bad on me.

-Best yet: thanks to the slim design, I'm able to sit the monitor far back in my computer hutch/corner desk thingie. With me sitting further from the monitor, I'm now able to play some fps games that used to make me excessively motion-sick.

[Xaroc]

I just picked up one of those Dell 2001FPs and it is great. I can play most things in 1600x1200 with it but if you have to scale down to 1280x960 it still looks fabulous. I think it is because the aspect ratio is still the same. I even played around at 1024x768 for a few minutes and it didn't look bad.

-- Xaroc

[John Reynolds]

The only problem is the not-very-black blackness; I always have to crank up brightness and/or contrast in a game with dark alleys, sewers, deadly shadows of death, etc.

This was another reason why I reinstalled Thief 3, and I have to say it looks fine on my new 2001FP.

[foogla]

I don't get threads like these. Go out and look at the monitors and compare for yourself, nothing anybody writes will come close to it.

Are you kidding?! I never buy anything anymore before checking out written reviews on multiple websites. I can always go and kick the tires later but at least with consumer reviews I can shorten my list of which items to kick when I get to that stage.

Besides, have you ever seen the floor models (LCD's) at Best Buy/CompUSA/etc? They're old, dirty, out of calibration, and on poor connections... :roll:

Yeah, what about friends, colegues etc? I go to LAN parties regularly, best way to shop for hardware.

[z0diac]

I have a Dell 2001FP and I love it. One nice thing about LCDs if you have an open window nearby on a sunny day, you won't get the crazy glare you would from a CRT monitor.

Another benefit is rotating the monitor to display vertically for reading .cbr files in CDisplay.

[VegasRobb]

Happy with my Dell LCD. Battlefield: Vietnam, Planetside, Vietcong, no problems.

Dell just sent out coupons for a 19" LCD for $317 shipped, not sure if they're still valid though.

[Toddy]

Hold the phone.... BenQ FP931 (http://www.newegg.com/app/ViewProductDesc.asp?description=24-014-063&depa=1) at $349 looks/sounds nice too.

Bought one about a month ago. Like it a lot -- no ghosting, fantastic detail and color, DVI input -- and based solely on research, I think this is the best deal going for an 19" LCD monitor right now.

But I'm not happy with the black level in shadowy games like Thief: DS. Contrast in 450:1, which is better than the vaunted Dell FP2001 (400:1), but black is sorta grey no matter how I screw with the monitor settings or my 6800GT's driver settings. In DS, I either have to deal with pure black/grey, meaning shadowy figures lose all detail and appear as silhouettes. For detail in these scenes, I need to crank the contrast until everything is fairly washed out. Blacks just aren't rich enough, killing a lot of the atmosphere in a game like DS.

That said, I love the monitor in every other game I've tried, and I am really fussy, so maybe the DS stuff won't bother others. Even Doom 3 looked fantastic, and as you all know, that's one dark game. So maybe it's mostly an issue with the crappy Thief engine...although watching dark videos like Battlestar Galactica episodes was a bit frustrating, too. And it is so much easier on the eyes than a CRT, at least for me.

So I'd recommend the Benq FP931, highly, unless you're hardcore into stealth games. Even then, it's liveable. Although you might not want to live with this, so YMMV.

[GuildBoss]

So I'd recommend the Benq FP931, highly, unless you're hardcore into stealth games. Even then, it's liveable. Although you might not want to live with this, so YMMV.

Thanks for the in-depth review.

The bad news: The Thief games are some of my all-time favorite gaming experiences. :(

The good news: I've finished them. :)

But seriously, I don't think it would bother much anyway...well, at least not for long. I tend to be bothered about such things for about 5-10 minutes and then just get so engrossed in the game that it all gets forgotten.

I'm definitely thinking about getting the BenQ. Three and half clams ain't bad at all, and if I hate it I won't feel so badly about just giving it to my wife and going back to my 80lb Nokia.

[krayzkrok]

b) even this LCD looks average in non-native resolutions - certainly not a patch on my CRT.

I don't understand the source of your expectation. It's physically impossible for an LCD to correctly do a non-native resolution unless (A) it doesn't use the whole screen space, i.e. movie letterboxing or (B) the non-native resolution is an even divisor of the native one. I thought this was common knowledge by now.

Well of course, but that doesn't mean it looks any better. What I'm saying is I'd rather have a good CRT monitor that looks very good in any resolution I want to use (and I use quite a few), rather than an LCD that only really looks exceptional in a single resolution.

Presumably the only way LCD technology will match CRT technology at a range of resolutions is when the native resolution is so incredibly high that interpolation is minimised at lower resolutions.

[GuildBoss]

b) even this LCD looks average in non-native resolutions - certainly not a patch on my CRT.

I don't understand the source of your expectation. It's physically impossible for an LCD to correctly do a non-native resolution unless (A) it doesn't use the whole screen space, i.e. movie letterboxing or (B) the non-native resolution is an even divisor of the native one. I thought this was common knowledge by now.

Well of course, but that doesn't mean it looks any better. What I'm saying is I'd rather have a good CRT monitor that looks very good in any resolution I want to use (and I use quite a few), rather than an LCD that only really looks exceptional in a single resolution.

Presumably the only way LCD technology will match CRT technology at a range of resolutions is when the native resolution is so incredibly high that interpolation is minimised at lower resolutions.

I still play most shooters in 800x600 unless I can eek out 1024x768. :cry:

[Bob Cherub]

This may seem like a weird question, but is it even possible to play old "DOS" games using a LCD monitor with resolutions like 320x200 or 320x400? Will it even work? Will it look like crap?

[Silverlight]

This may seem like a weird question, but is it even possible to play old "DOS" games using a LCD monitor with resolutions like 320x200 or 320x400? Will it even work? Will it look like crap?
It won't look terrible, but it won't look particularly crisp either.

[awdougherty]

It seems like the larger Dells get quite a bit of praise here. Does that mean there smaller 17" and 19" models would probably be just as good? I would prefer a screen roughly the same size as my current 19" CRT, it would be mostly for gaming with some video editing on the side. I would prefer the native resolution of 1280 x 1024. Seems the prices at dell aren't too bad.

[Creole Ned]

I decided to pick up a Benq 931 but at the store, I ended up with a 937. I was going to point out they were selling me the wrong monitor but it was late, I may have said 937 when I meant 931 and the 937 only costs a small amount more and boasts slightly better specs (better contrast and it's 12ms instead of 16ms).

The only problem is it sucks. Or I do. I'm not sure which.

Last night I literally spent hours trying to calibrate it so the display looked good for text/web pages and gaming. I've yet to find a setting that I'm happy with. Out of the box, the display was horribly washed out, very much unusable. This did not seem like an auspicious start.

I tried a program called QuickGamma, whose instructions tell you to start by turning the contrast to maximum, unless it appears "unnaturally harsh", in which case turn it down "a bit". I turned it down to about 90% and started from there. Setting the color mode to sRGB, adjusting the brightness at this point and following with the gamma settings did not produce anything close to an acceptable display. The Adobe Gamma app was much the same, giving me images to match that I could not even come remotely close to matching, no matter how much I fiddled with the settings.

Basically, I end up with a display that is too bright and washed out or too dim and washed out. Yes, the text is incredibly sharp, the actual clarity of the image is pretty much just what I hoped for, but the luminosity is completely off. The problem is I don't know if I'm just not adjusting things properly or if there may be an actual problem with the display. I wished I had insisted on the 931 because at least then I could blame Brett. ;)

Any advice is appreciated. Like I said, the tools for adjusting the display got me so far from an acceptable point of reference that I wonder if there might be an actual issue with the monitor itself, but my experience with LCD's is so limited I'm quite ready to admit I could simply be doing something wrong. I've tried both the DVI and VGA cables and the display is pretty much the same with both.

[Enidigm]

I have the analog 912n Samsung, which i have found to be pretty nice all around. Its going DVI->D-sub converter->moniter, so maybe that helps a tad. I was asked by the family what i wanted for a gift on xmas, and not really wanting anything, just said offhand the 17" 700 series Samsung LCDs as they were on sale, but since my brother in law works at a comp store they upgraded it to this version.

LCDs seem to glow and release light compared to CRTs which seem to be more like windows, its the best way i can describe it. Otherwise i feel like i can see many more details than before.

Ghosting is an issue, but i can live with it. It really only makes the game unplayable if your rapidly panning 90-180 degrees regularly in some FPS, like Quake. Works fine with Pacific Fighters and Rome.

Cleartype is ESSENTIAL imo, although it makes text seem to slightly glow. I might not consider an LCD without XP.

At an advertised 800:1 contrast ratio, i have no probem with any contrast levels. Samsung always seems to make good moniters, imo, but ymmv of course. Viewing angle also seems to be as advertised, and is better than the old CRT.

There is wide discrepency between advertised and observed contrast ratios: look at this anandtech article here: http://www.anandtech.com/displays/showdoc.aspx?i=2289&p=14

Also there is a new Dell LCD which supposedly uses the high end Samsung panel like on the 193 model - the Dell 1905FP.

[Creole Ned]

Heh, I hooked my old Viewsonic P95f (19" aperture grille) back up and was amazed at how different the display looks. Text is fuzzy and the entire display is rather dark, even with brightness/contrast cranked. I suspect that part of my problem is just adjusting to the differences between an LCD and CRT, as TheSelfishGene points to. I agree completely on ClearType, it improves text significantly, although again there is an adjustment period. In the games I've tried, there's been no ghosting at all.

I have to admit, even with the problems I described in my previous post, I doubt I'd go back to a CRT for a main display. I spend about equal time between looking at text and playing games on this PC and there's no comparison in terms of clarity of image.

Back to fiddling with the controls...

[XPav]

Comparing new LCDs to old CRTs isn't always the best test. My old 17" Vivitron was so worn out I had to turn the lights off to even read the screen.

[Creole Ned]

My Viewsonic is only about a year and a half old but point taken. I'm not going to compare my ailing, twice-repaired 17" Acer to an LCD and try to lead the revolution away from CRTs. :)

[Silverlight]

Any advice is appreciated. Like I said, the tools for adjusting the display got me so far from an acceptable point of reference that I wonder if there might be an actual issue with the monitor itself, but my experience with LCD's is so limited I'm quite ready to admit I could simply be doing something wrong. I've tried both the DVI and VGA cables and the display is pretty much the same with both.
I had a similar experience with my LCD. When I first got it, the default settings were so bright that bright colors would literally wash out to white from maxing out the individual pixels.

I was fortunate enough to have a decently working CRT next to me, so I was able to fiddle with the controls for a while and work out how it needed to be set. IIRC one of the truly essential realizations was that maxed-out contrast wasn't necessarily my friend, and what I really needed to do was turn down contrast and brightness until brighter colors weren't getting blown to hell. Then I was able to adjust it until it was very good on both color and brightness. The actual settings I ended up with were about 80% on the contrast setting and 65% on the brightness setting.

[Dante Rising]

LCD screens have come a long way, but I have yet to see one that can match the Mitsubishi Diamond Pro 930SB. It is the ultimate 19" CRT.

[Toddy]

I decided to pick up a Benq 931 but at the store, I ended up with a 937. I was going to point out they were selling me the wrong monitor but it was late, I may have said 937 when I meant 931 and the 937 only costs a small amount more and boasts slightly better specs (better contrast and it's 12ms instead of 16ms).

The only problem is it sucks. Or I do. I'm not sure which.

Last night I literally spent hours trying to calibrate it so the display looked good for text/web pages and gaming. I've yet to find a setting that I'm happy with. Out of the box, the display was horribly washed out, very much unusable. This did not seem like an auspicious start.

I tried a program called QuickGamma, whose instructions tell you to start by turning the contrast to maximum, unless it appears "unnaturally harsh", in which case turn it down "a bit". I turned it down to about 90% and started from there. Setting the color mode to sRGB, adjusting the brightness at this point and following with the gamma settings did not produce anything close to an acceptable display. The Adobe Gamma app was much the same, giving me images to match that I could not even come remotely close to matching, no matter how much I fiddled with the settings.

Basically, I end up with a display that is too bright and washed out or too dim and washed out. Yes, the text is incredibly sharp, the actual clarity of the image is pretty much just what I hoped for, but the luminosity is completely off. The problem is I don't know if I'm just not adjusting things properly or if there may be an actual problem with the display. I wished I had insisted on the 931 because at least then I could blame Brett. ;)


Heh. But sorry you're having problems. All I can say is that my FP 931 looked great right out of the box, if too bright. I run it at about 50 Contrast and anywhere from 35 to 60 Brightness depending on what I'm doing. Custom color at 52-50-50 (just like a touch more red as I think it makes for more realistic skin tones). Looks great and I find that I can stare at this thing for hours and hours without getting any eyestrain. My eyes just seemed worn out by my old CRT. I'm really noticing an amazing difference -- vision seems sharper, eyes aren't as dry, etc.

I'd take the monitor back and try another one. Can't say that I've experienced anything like you have with my 931, and I'm crazy picky about video and sound quality.

[KiloOhm]

The large Dell LCD monitors (2001, 2005) are simply awesome for gaming. I got the 2005 for Christmas and I don't think I could ever go back to CRT now.

One other nice feature of the Dell's is they support S-Video in. I now play Halo 2 and WoW on the same monitor, awesome. (just plug the audio into your line in for your PC).

[Creole Ned]

Thanks to Silverlight and Brett for the tips. Using Brett's settings as a starting point and adjusting from there, I've been able to get a pretty good balance of brightness/contrast. The actual positioning of the monitor can make a surprising difference, too.

[Joel]

I picked up a 2001FP about a week and a half ago and just love it. I'll be buying another as soon as they go on sale.