Flat Panel Monitors for Gaming

[Desslock]

One of the main reasons I haven't really considered a flat-panel display is because of the low resolutions typically available, as well as concerns over ghosting effects when rendering rapidly changing/moving graphics. I think the latter concern is considerably reduced now, although still evident, but I noticed that there's now some flat screens with 1600x1200 resolution.

Aside from price, is there anything about this Dell monitor? (http://accessories.us.dell.com/sna/PopupProductDetail.aspx?sku=320-4105&itemtype=SNA&c=ca&l=en&cs=cadhs1) It seems pretty snazzy.

[extarbags]

I prefer the Viewsonic VX2000 (http://www.megamax.com/product.asp?pf_id=VX2000). Cheaper, and even snazzier.

[Jason McCullough]

There's a few 16ms 17" ones (http://www6.tomshardware.com/display/20030221/index.html) out; I'm happy with my new NEC 1760V.

[wumpus]

Read this first:

http://www.dansdata.com/sm172t.htm

LCDs have improved substantially in the last three years, but it really depends how particular you are. Sounds like ghosting is the biggest issue for most people.

Oh yeah, and I forgot to mention: unless you run at the native panel resolution, the output will be a little blurred (image scaling to fit the LCD). Depending how high that resolution is, you may need an ultra-beefy video card and/or system. Most nicer panels are 1280x1024 or 1600x1200. Consider what kind of video card/system you would need to run those resolutions effectively.

[Jason McCullough]

There's a big difference between 25ms and 16ms monitors. At 25ms the ghost trail for dragging a white mouse pointer across a black desktop is quite noticable, but it's barely there at 16 ms.

[extarbags]

My big problem is that I can't find a 17 inch LCD monitor that will handle 1600x1200. 17" is a fine size, because it has pretty close to the same viewable size as my 19" CRT, but I don't want to lower my desktop resolution, and there's absolutely no way I can afford a larger LCD.

[Desslock]

There's a big difference between 25ms and 16ms monitors. At 25ms the ghost trail for dragging a white mouse pointer across a black desktop is quite noticable, but it's barely there at 16 ms.

where can you actually find that spec - I don't see anything in (ms)? Interesting info - thanks for the thoughts.

[wumpus]

Wave an ordinary black-edged Windows mouse pointer around on a white background on the 172T and it won't blur much at all. OK, maybe a weeny bit, but you'd have to be picky beyond human comprehension to be bothered by it.

Wave that same pointer around on a standard Windows blue backdrop, though, and suddenly it's got a noticeable trail. And it'll be a bit dim, too; that's because the background is blurring onto the pointer, as well as the pointer blurring onto the background.

Similarly, if you smoothly scroll medium-brightness text on a medium-brightness background (like blue HTML links on a grey background, for instance), the text will blur vertically so it looks as if it's boldface.

The reason for this is that whenever an LCD subpixel is called on to make a brightness change that's smaller than a full on-to-off or off-to-on transition, it'll take a lot longer to do it than it would for a full transition. The effect, on the 172T at least, is only noticeable between dark colours, when the pixels are close to fully powered on; a moving black thing on a grey background will blur, and vice versa, but you can wave pale grey things around on white backgrounds all you like and see no blur.

Focusing on fully white to fully black millisecond response times can be deceptive. I think it will depend, again, on how sensitive you personally are to this phenomenon.

[wumpus]

Hmm. Do any current panels use the "feed foward" transistor overdrive method?

http://www.extremetech.com/article2/0,3973,75440,00.asp

I can't find much at all on this topic.

[Jason McCullough]

If you can't find the spec, it's probably so high it'll make your eyes bleed.

[Moore]

the planar px171 or whatever is a nice, cheap 16ms lcd. 1280x1024, light, DVI, cost me like 400$ I think through dell w/ some coupons.

Nice match for lian li cases too, lightweight for lanning, good pivoting abilities for MAME shootemups. perfect monitor for me. (although I do run a 22 inch crt next to it for photoshop/painter/unrealed)

[Dan MacDonald]

The cadillac of Faltscreen (LCD) monitors for gaming is the AG Neovo S19, 15ms refresh, 170-180 degree viewable. 300:1 contrast and brigtness ratios. Scratchproof glass filter over top of the LCD. Beautiful thing to behold in action.

[Jason McCullough]

Oh, amusing LCD story:

The day after I got this LCD, I noticed that a red pixel about 3/4 of the way across the diagonal would get stuck on. Incredibly annoying, and it seemed to happen more and more often over the next few days, until it became permanent.

Desperately searching google, I came across the solution of pushing down on that spot. Lo and behold, it worked; I had to do it a few times when it kept coming back, but it's permanently fixed now.

Sufficiently advanced technology really is indistinguishable from magic.

[Desslock]

If you can't find the spec, it's probably so high it'll make your eyes bleed.

I actually can't find the spec on any of these - I'm just not sure where to look - response rate in milliseconds doesn't seem to be something typically listed by vendors, or even hardware reviewers who don't specifically mention games. they get very excited about the power consumption, however.


I prefer the Viewsonic VX2000. Cheaper, and even snazzier

Looks good -- the price I linked to was in Cdn$, however -- the U.S. price for the Dell 5200FP is $1100 (from Dell, cheaper from other retailers), so it's cheaper than the Viewsonic (especially since you can get a package deal). I wsih I could find a response rate for it. Here's a pretty crazy favourable review (http://www.cadalyst.com/reviews/hardware/0402lcd/dell.htm), although not from a gaming mag.

[Aleck]

Desslock,

Sparky pointed out to me when I was agonizing over the LCD issue a few months back that, with Dell, you've got 30 days to send it back for a full refund.

So, keeping that in mind, I watched Techbargains for about two weeks, waiting for a good deal on the 2000FP. I eventually got it for USD$750 plus tax with free shipping, bringing be up to about USD$800 total.

There is some minor ghosting. I tend to notice it most when playing HL or CS and getting 80+ FPS on my GF4ti4400. The ghosting isn't at all noticeable (to me) on BF1942 or any other game where I'm not getting crazy framerates. Furthermore, I'm using the regular VGA out. When using the fancy-schmancy DVI connector on my brother's Radeon 9700, I noticed far less ghosting.

Also, as an added bonus, the 2000FP features svideo and composite video connectors, which has allowed me to move my xbox out of the living room and into the den/office (unfortunately, Halo looks like crap because of the lack of AA, but Brute Force actually looks pretty good and PGR looks amazing [despite being a crappy racing game]). It also would allow me to hook up a second computer to the monitor (if I didn't already have a KVM switch, which, incidentally, might be making my ghosting worse than it already is).

Overall, I'm incredibly happy with the 2000FP. While it's not quite perfect, it's damn nice for the price. Just watch the bargains, since the list was $1049 + shipping +tax when I got it for $800.

asjunk

[Jason McCullough]

Caring about response time is a recent occurence; everyone just used to know that yes, you don't use them for games or movies, but they're great for text. If you can't find the response time (call the manufacturer if you're really desparate), then it's probably in the 40+ range; entirely unacceptable for games.

There's no reason to get an LCD that ghosts anymore, unless you just *have* to have something bigger than 19 inches.

[ARogan]

I recently picked up a Planar PL191M 19"

http://www.planar.com/monitors/PL191M.asp

It's got some great specs:
500:1
170 degree
25 ms response (15 rise, 10 fall)
15.4 lbs
dvi and vga (comes with all cables)
usb hub
speakers
pretty thin bezle
Picked one up from dell last week for $500 free shipping plus tax minus 2% ebates. Walkout was $530.

The good:
- price
- screen size. The 1280X1024 naitive resolution is perfect with the 19" viewable area. I can see a ton at once and everything is a good size.
- super bright (had to turn it down. burning my retinas out!). great contrast and colors. DVD's look great, very sharp with no blurring and excellent color saturation. Text is sharp and clear after doing the cleartype calibration.
http://www.microsoft.com/typography/cleartype/default.htm
- little heat
- only 15 lbs!
- both dvi and analog connections. 3 quick button presses and you can easily switch between the two. dvi does look sharper and I can tell the difference.

bad(or maybe unsure or not adjusted to):
- not all games support the naitive resolution like counter strike
- ghosting. Everybody has a different definition of this. I define it as a motion blur effect like you see in games when they do it on purpose as a graphic effect. It's there IMO. I can see it. I think everybody has a different tolerance or sensitivity to it. I guess mine is pretty high. Games tested from most ghosting to least:
Counter strike
enter the matrix
rainbow six 3
Postal 2
splinter cell
black hawk down
unreal tournament 2003
quake 3
It's weird but it's much more noticeable in some games than others. Like in q3 and ut2003 I can barely notice it. But in counter strike It's pretty noticeable. I've read tons of reviews and user opinions and people around the office and most reports I was getting is ghosting is minimum or non existent with maybe only 5% saying it was a real problem (great I'm in that 5% of the super picky). I played 45min yesterday and as far as I can tell the ghosting doesn't make me motion sick so that's good or affect my gameplay much. I was getting more and more use to the effect. Right now I'm undecided exactly how distracting I find the ghosting.
some people say it's more noticeable in older games and that is partially due to the colors used. This kind of makes sense because it's the time to change a pixel from white to black or black to white. When I increased the gamma, cs had a lot less noticeable ghosting. I think when you have a lot of straight lines with high contrast (like a dark square object against a bright background) and you pan you view around really fast you get the worst ghosting. This seems to happen more often in real world tactical shooters due to the levels and setting.
What sucks is a lot of manufacturers don't even report the reponse rate which is critical to a gamer.
- dell has a total satisfaction return policy for 30 days so I can return it if I want to for a full refund minus shipping.
- 16ms is suppose to be zero ghosting but the largest 16ms lcd right now is 17 inches. 25ms seems to be the fastest for 19" lcd in general.

Just a tip if you order from Dell small business instead of Home. In the fine print of Dell's Total Satisfaction return policy it states:
http://www.dell.com/us/en/gen/misc/policy_010_policy.htm#total_sat



New Hardware Products and Accessories: All new hardware, accessories, parts, and unopened software still in its sealed package, excluding the products listed below, may be returned within thirty days from the date on the packing slip or invoice. To return applications software or an operating system that has been installed by Dell, you must return the entire computer. A different return policy applies to nondefective products purchased through Dell's Software and Peripherals division by customers of our Small and Medium Business divisions. Those products may be returned within thirty days from the date on the packing slip or invoice, but a fifteen percent (15%) restocking fee will be deducted from any refund or credit. The "Total Satisfaction" Return Policy and Software and Peripherals division return policy are not available for Dell|EMC storage products, EMC-branded products, or enterprise software.


If you order from small business and it is from Software and Peripherals there is a 15% restocking fee even if it is within 30 days of invoice. BUT when I did the online form to request for a return in the reply email they said they will waive the 15% restocking fee and give me a FULL refund. I didn't even have to ask for it. I think that policy is just there to prevent return abuse.

In the end I've decided to return the monitor. Are there any 19" 16ms monitors in existence?

[Michael Fortson]

In the end I've decided to return the monitor. Are there any 19" 16ms monitors in existence?
This part number Dan mentioned sounded like a 19" to me:


The cadillac of Flatscreen (LCD) monitors for gaming is the AG Neovo S19, 15ms refresh, 170-180 degree viewable. 300:1 contrast and brigtness ratios. Scratchproof glass filter over top of the LCD. Beautiful thing to behold in action.

[ARogan]

Doh I missed that post.
That thing runs over $1000!!!!

There doesn't seem to be that much information or reviews on the AG Neovo S19.

also take a look at this in the specs:
http://www.shentech.com/agnes19bco19.html
Response Time
15ms / 10ms (Typical)

Ummm I think that is 25ms total. Reporting just the rise and not including the fall is very misleading.

[Dan MacDonald]

I saw the s19 showing a monsters Inc DVD as well as the PC splintercell demo. I dont know what their Clear Optic Filter thing is, but it is amazing. I didn't notice any ghosting and the image quality was amazing. You could see the individual pores and bumps on mikes (they eyeball) skin. I have never seen any monitor so clear, ive never seen a CRT come even close to that thing. They have one at my local CompUSA that I go and drool at every now and then, even though it just has that darn aquarium screensaver running on it. :)

I freaked out the sales guy by taking out one of my keys and running it pretty hard across the face of the monitor, it didn't even leave a scuff, nothing, nada. (good thing too, thinking in retrospect)

[DennyA]

Sounds like the S19's glass may play havoc with good old fashioned text display, though:

http://pcworld.shopping.yahoo.com/yahoo/article/0,aid,108452,00.asp

[wumpus]

Hmm. I just purchased a Samsung SyncMaster 191T (19" 1280x1024 LCD) for work. It's amazing how much prices have crashed on LCD monitors; based on some reviews I checked (http://www.envynews.com/review.php?ID=123), this monitor was going for nearly $1200 a year ago. So $660 seems like a relative bargain.

The good news: not a single bad pixel. Which is evidently common based on the comments at newegg. And typically ultra-crisp LCD display. Tiny 18mm bezel, so display area is maximized.

The bad news: OH MY GOD THE GHOSTING! Supposedly this is a "25ms" panel, but going directly from the CRT to the LCD is painful for the gaming I do. Off to work you go, accursed LCD panel!

It easy to fall in love with because it's so svelte. Since Tyjenks probably doesn't understand what that means, I'll translate: you got a purty mouth, LCD.

[wumpus]

This is my first time gaming on a large 19" LCD (http://www.pcworld.com/reviews/article/0,aid,108510,00.asp)-- I have another 15" Samsung 150MP w/tv-tuner I use for misc troubleshooting* and LAN parties. I was never too concerned with display fidelity in that context.

Now that I'm testing the larger LCD on my main machine, I find that overall it's acceptable-- once you get acclimated to the blurring effect. It is rather jarring coming directly from a CRT, but over time, your eyes sort of adjust and you stop seeing it as much. This is what I attribute Jason's posts to, by the way. ;)

Personally I would stick with CRTs for gaming for another year or so, until they legitimately get the LCD response times down to <10ms or so.

That's kind of a bummer, since LCDs are superior in a number of ways-- heat production, energy use, physical size, image geometry, fully digital DVI input, etc. They're certainly much sexier, particularly the larger 19"+ ones, and now-- bonus-- you don't have to hock a kidney to own one any more.

* It is very, very handy to have one of the LCD panels that accepts s-video, composite, and VGA. For Tivo stuff and home theater PC in particular. Or hook your Xbox up to it, or use the TV tuner to do picture in picture while you "work", etc etc. Most of these kinds of panels have remotes so they can be used as rudimentary standalone televisions as well. Anyway, very flexible and recommended.

[Jason McCullough]

I'm telling you, 16ms is sweet.

[Desslock]

Thanks for the comments -- I think I'm going to stick with a CRT for a while -- I suspect even minor ghosting on occasional apps would really bug me, and to the extent the larger LCDs have even higher response times, that takes the wind of my sails a bit.

Uh, does Dell only sell systems -with- monitors now? There no longer seems to be an option to take out the monitor, at least online.
\

[Leeland Krueger]

I have read the forum for some time, first time posting.

The main problem I had with an LCD is the contrast ratio. The best LCDs seem to be at the low end of contrast for CRTs. I tried Dungeonsiege on a flat panel and it lost tons of depth. I'll take an LCD for application/business work everyday of the week, but will pass for the time being for gaming.

[Desslock]

Hmm. I just purchased a Samsung SyncMaster 191T (19" 1280x1024 LCD) for work. ...The good news: not a single bad pixel. ...The bad news: OH MY GOD THE GHOSTING! Supposedly this is a "25ms" panel, but going directly from the CRT to the LCD is painful for the gaming I do.

The Dell 1900FP is the same monitor, by the way, for anyone curious. I've also found out that the 2000FP is 25ms.

Edit: Wumpus, were you using the DVI input?

[cliffski]

Flat panels are the business. When I moved to lionhead I started playing games on a v good flat panel and was suprised at how good they are, in fact I genuinely cant tell the difference in any games between CRT and LCD. I was so impressed I bought an IIyama 17" monitor for home and its absolutely fantastic.
It is worth making sure your video card has a digital out though, the qaulity is sometimes blurred when using a normal cable, requiring you to press an auto adjust button whenever you change resolutions. apparently this doesnt happen with a digital cable (like i have at work - w00t)

[wumpus]

Edit: Wumpus, were you using the DVI input?
I've tried both. Digital is superior for a couple reasons, but these days the analog->digital circuitry is so good that there's very little effective difference between VGA and DVI. Other than the lack of need to auto adjust in digital mode, as pointed out above.. if you can use DVI, you should. But you aren't missing a whole lot if you don't, either.

The interface unfortunately doesn't help at all with the blurring; it's a physical problem of response times in the LCD pixels.

[ARogan]

Now that I'm testing the larger LCD on my main machine, I find that overall it's acceptable-- once you get acclimated to the blurring effect. It is rather jarring coming directly from a CRT, but over time, your eyes sort of adjust and you stop seeing it as much. This is what I attribute Jason's posts to, by the way. ;)


I you have to adjust then you are compromising. At least that's the way I think of it. Unacceptable!

Someone hurry up and make me a 16ms 19" LCD!!!!!

[wumpus]

One extremely specific example of where an LCD gets weird.

View any thread on shacknews.com, like, say, this one:
http://www.shacknews.com/ja.zz?id=7926671

Now scroll it by dragging the scroll bar. During the scroll operation, all the darker text (older posts) basically disappears completely. I mean literally disappears! You can still see the yellow text of the poster's name but the dark-on-dark text is completely gone until you stop scrolling. It's weird, but clearly has to do with the LCD color transition time. The lighter the text (newer posts, yellow names) the more visible they are during a scroll.

And this is on a "25ms" display. Uh, yeah. I want whatever McCullough is smoking.

[Jason McCullough]

One extremely specific example of where an LCD gets weird.

View any thread on shacknews.com, like, say, this one:
http://www.shacknews.com/ja.zz?id=7926671

Now scroll it by dragging the scroll bar. During the scroll operation, all the darker text (older posts) basically disappears completely. I mean literally disappears! You can still see the yellow text of the poster's name but the dark-on-dark text is completely gone until you stop scrolling. It's weird, but clearly has to do with the LCD color transition time. The lighter the text (newer posts, yellow names) the more visible they are during a scroll.

And this is on a "25ms" display. Uh, yeah. I want whatever McCullough is smoking.

This piece of crap NEC 15" LCD I'm using here at work (god only knows what rise/fall) doesn't do this; works fine. Sounds like a javascript or browser error on your end to me.

[DennyA]

Must be the specific LCD you're looking at, Wumpus. The darker text doesn't disappear on either my notebook or the Dell 15" LCD that I use as a secondary display.

[Aleck]

I'll pipe in that my Dell 2000FP doesn't lose the text -- but a 4 year old Compaq LCD I've got does. Hmmm...

asjunk

[wumpus]

Hmm. I just purchased a Samsung SyncMaster 191T (19" 1280x1024 LCD) for work. ...The good news: not a single bad pixel. ...The bad news: OH MY GOD THE GHOSTING! Supposedly this is a "25ms" panel, but going directly from the CRT to the LCD is painful for the gaming I do.

The Dell 1900FP is the same monitor, by the way, for anyone curious. I've also found out that the 2000FP is 25ms.

Edit: Wumpus, were you using the DVI input?
It is this monitor on the VGA input.

[wumpus]

I think what we have here is some dissent on what "disappears completely" means. Technically the grey-on-black text is still there, but I consider it so blurry during scrolling as to be illegible. The difference between the behaviors of yellow-on-black, white-on-black, and grey-on-black is EXTREME.

[Jason McCullough]

Well duh, scrolling a white/black transition blurs it a bit - although it's not noticable at 16ms.

When was the last time you tried to read rapidly scrolling vertical text, anyway? As long as its readable enough to scroll to the target.....

[Chris Nahr]

The gray text (stupid colour scheme btw) is less readable than the white one on my old NEC MultiSync LCD 1810 but by no means illegible or "disappearing". It's either your eyes or your monitor.

[wumpus]

We're getting into semantics. Here's a simple question:

The lighter the text (newer posts, yellow names) the more visible they are during a scroll.
True or false? Also, grab the scrollbar with your mouse and slide it up and down at variable speeds. Don't just click the bar to super-slide it down one screen. I wasn't clear enough in my original post.

[Chris Nahr]

So are you now just making this much reduced claim, which is also true for CRTs by the way, or are you still claiming that gray text "basically disappears" as per your first post?

[wumpus]

This problem doesn't exist at all on a CRT. No question about that. The LCD just can't update the grey on black pixels fast enough to keep up. It's interesting that the bright yellow and bright white pixels have no problem keeping up though.

Symptomatic of the general problems you'll have gaming as well, where the screen is changing every frame, and a lot of the pixels are dark.

Also, there's some subjectivtity at work here. One man's "blurry" is another man's "super crisp", evidently. I find the problem fairly extreme, which is why I was sorely disappointed in gaming performance on this "25ms" panel.

I think they'll need to get that <10ms, personally.

[Jason McCullough]

So you're saying that you have no new information to contribute?

It's really only noticable on 16ms - which you should get - when transferring between extremes. It's linear with the color "distance" you have to move.

[wumpus]

The new information is an easily accessible webpage where you can quickly demonstrate this problem in extremely vivid relief:

http://www.dansdata.com/sm172t.htm

Wave an ordinary black-edged Windows mouse pointer around on a white background on the 172T and it won't blur much at all. OK, maybe a weeny bit, but you'd have to be picky beyond human comprehension to be bothered by it.

Wave that same pointer around on a standard Windows blue backdrop, though, and suddenly it's got a noticeable trail. And it'll be a bit dim, too; that's because the background is blurring onto the pointer, as well as the pointer blurring onto the background.

Similarly, if you smoothly scroll medium-brightness text on a medium-brightness background (like blue HTML links on a grey background, for instance), the text will blur vertically so it looks as if it's boldface.

The reason for this is that whenever an LCD subpixel is called on to make a brightness change that's smaller than a full on-to-off or off-to-on transition, it'll take a lot longer to do it than it would for a full transition. The effect, on the 172T at least, is only noticeable between dark colours, when the pixels are close to fully powered on; a moving black thing on a grey background will blur, and vice versa, but you can wave pale grey things around on white backgrounds all you like and see no blur.
No need to boot up a game to see this demonstrated: all you need is a web browser, that web page, and a mouse grabbing the scroll bar. This is a web page I visit every day, in fact.

It's even worse in actual games.

[Ibbz]

One thing i noticed about Dansdata... some of the articles he posts often have already appeared in Atomic {PC Tech Mag - The magazine that Dan writes for} several months before they appeared on his site. So the information on the site, may not be up to date.

[DennyA]

So, a few months have passed...

Anyone find a 16ms 19" LCD yet?

[Jason McCullough]

Toms has a review of a few up in his display section; apparently the 16ms is a bit misleading. The 20ms look better.

[Erik Andersson]

That review was about 17" LCDs. I would like a 19"+, <20ms, 1600*1200, <$1000...

[JP]

One massive problem with LCD monitors that affects gamers in particular, that I haven't really seen mentioned much, is the artifacting that occurs when an LCD monitor has to upsample a lower resolution display to its own native resolution. Most LCDs have a native resolution of something like 1024x768, 1280x960, etc - which means that, unlike CRTs, they cannot display anything that's not at that resolution with resampling - and the sampling they use is done on-the-fly, most often the Nearest Neighbor Algorithm (or something that looks even worse).

To see for yourself how terrible this looks, open up an image in Photoshop - a screenshot of your desktop, or a game, or a photograph - and select Image Size. Tell it to use Nearest Neighbor rather than the default BiCubic, and select a size that's not an even multiple of the image's original size. I have samples of what this looks like - here (http://webpages.charter.net/jpmindfile/chud/win2K_splash.png) for the original, here (http://webpages.charter.net/jpmindfile/chud/win2K_splash_1024nearest.png) for the upsampled image. You'd be surprised how often your machine goes into a lower resolution display mode. Boot up ANY machine with an LCD monitor, and you'll see that second image. Debate on the image quality of various 3D cards is splitting hairs compared to how terrible NN sampling looks on any display.

Again, this is generally just fine for non-gamers, whose desktops are always running at the LCD's native resolution. But if you have the intention of playing any game whose resolution can't be adjusted up to your LCD's native res - and this includes the vast majority of games made before 1999, even games as recent as Diablo 2 - you are probably wasting lots of money on an LCD monitor.

CRTs do have their disadvantages, of course - they're heavier, consume more power, and sometimes you have to fiddle with refresh rates to get optimal ergonomic conditions - but until the current problems with LCDs go away, they're just not a very smart move for people who play games.

[DennyA]

Well, that artificating thing is something I haven't seen in years -- it used to be a common problem with notebook LCDs. Nowadays, most LCDs seem to be doing a sort of anti-aliased stretching instead. It makes things a big fuzzy, but IMHO it's not bad.

And many LCDs have an option not to stretch the screen, as well. So if you decide to play Diablo on your 19" LCD and you don't stretch it, then you might end up with the equivalent of a 15" monitor. But hey, that just adds to the nostalgia.

I debated waiting to see if a next-generation of faster 19" monitors was on the way, but after dropping by Best Buy today to look at the Samsung 191T today, I figured out what to apply the Amazon gift certificates that were burning holes in my pocket towards. :-)

The clincher was trying a number of games on my cheap-and-cheesy, slow-refresh Dell 15" LCD. (I can't find a documented pixel refresh rate, but given that it's a 2001 design, I'm guessing it's 40 or 50 ms.) The ghosting thing just doesn't bother me. I played some shooters, some flight sims, and a DVD, and it just didn't bug me enough compared to the benefits of the increased clarity when doing productivity stuff. And the Samsung is 25ms, so it won't be terrible.

[Jason McCullough]

That review was about 17" LCDs. I would like a 19"+, <20ms, 1600*1200, <$1000...

Oh, I don't think there actually are any. Note that a 17" LCD is directly comparable in viewable size to a 19" CRT, though.

[Desslock]

That review was about 17" LCDs. I would like a 19"+, <20ms, 1600*1200, <$1000...

Oh, I don't think there actually are any. Note that a 17" LCD is directly comparable in viewable size to a 19" CRT, though.

Yeah, the lowest response time for flatscreens bigger than 17" seems to be 25ms currently. I think the requirement to play in native resolution is actually still a pretty big deal - for me at least, the blurriness associated with other resolutions is very annoying. Since larger flatscreens have default 1600x1200 resolutions, you also need to have a powerful computer to run games at that resolution at high framerates.

[Jason McCullough]

For what it's worth, I couldn't be happier with my NEC 1760V. I'd recommend checking it out in-store.

[Aeek]

Resolution isn't that simple either. I am playing Morrowind with a 17"LCD and a TNT2/64 at 640*480 - except it seems to be game to videocard at 640*480; videocard to monitor at 1280x1024

[DennyA]

Okay, I've always run my CRT monitor at 1280x960 pixels, since that gives you a proper aspect ratio.

I just set it to 1280x1024 to start getting in the mindset of the LCD resolution, and my poor son on the wallpaper is now 6% shorter -- he's scrunched! The comparison to the same image on the 1024x768 display next to it shows a difference more dramatic than you'd think.

So, non-gaming question for those of you who run in 1280x1024 instead of God's Intended 1280x960: do apps like Photoshop compensate for the screwed up aspect ratio? Or do you just have to get used to everyone looking 6% fatter?

Maybe the Samsung won't blur too badly in 1280x960...

[Jason McCullough]

Text is annoyingly blurry at 960 on the NEC.

[JP]

So, non-gaming question for those of you who run in 1280x1024 instead of God's Intended 1280x960: do apps like Photoshop compensate for the screwed up aspect ratio? Or do you just have to get used to everyone looking 6% fatter?

The columns of 1024 vertical pixels still exist within the same space as the 960 ones. The aspect ratio doesn't change, unless your monitor physically changes its shape when you switch resolutions... in which case, which Decepticon does it transform into?

If your wallpaper is doing weird things when you switch resolutions, you must have "stretch" tiling enabled, and Windows is doing its usual crummy job of figuring out how to cram the image onto your desktop. Resize the image in Photoshop with "preserve aspect ratio" checked and it'll look fine at any rez.

[Chris Nahr]

I think the requirement to play in native resolution is actually still a pretty big deal - for me at least, the blurriness associated with other resolutions is very annoying. Since larger flatscreens have default 1600x1200 resolutions, you also need to have a powerful computer to run games at that resolution at high framerates.

On the other hand, the current standard game resolution of 800x600 would map nicely to 2x2 pixel blocks on a 1600x1200 screen. 1024x768 would look like crap, though.


I just set it to 1280x1024 to start getting in the mindset of the LCD resolution, and my poor son on the wallpaper is now 6% shorter -- he's scrunched! The comparison to the same image on the 1024x768 display next to it shows a difference more dramatic than you'd think.

Denny, those LCD manufacturers are smart. They actually make their screens a bit higher to make room for those extra pixel rows! :wink:

Pixels are square on an LCD monitor at the native resolution. If the native resolution doesn't have a 4:3 aspect ratio then the LCD screen will have a slightly different aspect ratio that fits the native resolution. So the geometry distortion you see on a 4:3 CRT screen when you use a non-4:3 resolution won't happen on an LCD screen with that native resolution.

(I just measured my 1280x1024 LCD, and the screen indeed has an aspect ratio of 5:4 instead of 4:3.)

[DennyA]

If your wallpaper is doing weird things when you switch resolutions, you must have "stretch" tiling enabled, and Windows is doing its usual crummy job of figuring out how to cram the image onto your desktop. Resize the image in Photoshop with "preserve aspect ratio" checked and it'll look fine at any rez.
JP,

No, the problem is that at 1280x1024, the aspect ratio is different than it is at 1024x768, 1280x960, 640x480, etc. It's 5:4 instead of 4:3. Because you're fitting the same number of vertical pixels into a smaller space, pictures appear "squashed" on a CRT when viewed on a 1280x1024 screen. They're putting 5:4 pixels in a 4:3 space.


Denny, those LCD manufacturers are smart. They actually make their screens a bit higher to make room for those extra pixel rows!
Ah, awesome. Now I really can't wait for the new toy. :) Thanks for the info, Christopher.

[JP]

Like I said, the change in vertical resolution is only an issue because "stretch" tiling is enabled. Stretch tiling tells Windows to disregard the original image's aspect ratio and just make it match that of the desktop resolution. Which, yes, will change depending on whether you're running 1280 or 1024.

If "center" or "tile" tiling is used, the image is pasted onto the desktop with its normal aspect ratio, without being resized, and it looks fine.

[DennyA]

Like I said, the change in vertical resolution is only an issue because "stretch" tiling is enabled. Stretch tiling tells Windows to disregard the original image's aspect ratio and just make it match that of the desktop resolution. Which, yes, will change depending on whether you're running 1280 or 1024.

If "center" or "tile" tiling is used, the image is pasted onto the desktop with its normal aspect ratio, without being resized, and it looks fine.
Nope, I don't think you're getting what I'm saying. :-) I have the image set to "Center," not Stretch or tile.

It's very simple: my CRT monitor's screen is 11.5 inches tall. If you're displaying an image at 100% magnfiication -- one pixel shown as 1 pixel -- that image is going to be displayed in a smaller vertical area if you have 1024 pixels top-to-bottom than if you have 960 pixels top-to-bottom.

In the case of my wallpaper image, it's roughly 7 3/4 inches tall in 1280x1024. It's about 8 1/4 inches tall in 1280x960. (And the latter is the one that looks right, since the digital camera shoots in 4:3 aspect.) The image width is the same in both modes. 1280x1024 compresses images vertically because it's a 5:4 ratio instead of the 4:3 ratio the images were shot in.

[JP]

The image width is the same in both modes.

How is that possible, if the horizontal resolution of one screen is 1024 and in the other it's 1280?

[Xaroc]

The image width is the same in both modes.

How is that possible, if the horizontal resolution of one screen is 1024 and in the other it's 1280?

The horizontal res is 1024 in one and 960 on the other the width is 1280 for both.

-- Xaroc

[DennyA]

How is that possible, if the horizontal resolution of one screen is 1024 and in the other it's 1280?
The horizontal resolution in both screens is 1280. The resolutions are 1280x1024 and 1280x960. It's the same horizontal resolution, different vertical resolutions.

[Xaroc]

How is that possible, if the horizontal resolution of one screen is 1024 and in the other it's 1280?
The horizontal resolution in both screens is 1280. The resolutions are 1280x1024 and 1280x960. It's the same horizontal resolution, different vertical resolutions.

Bah, I screwed up. What Denny said. :)

-- Xaroc

[Desslock]

I think the requirement to play in native resolution is actually still a pretty big deal - for me at least, the blurriness associated with other resolutions is very annoying. Since larger flatscreens have default 1600x1200 resolutions, you also need to have a powerful computer to run games at that resolution at high framerates.

On the other hand, the current standard game resolution of 800x600 would map nicely to 2x2 pixel blocks on a 1600x1200 screen. 1024x768 would look like crap, though.

Again, who in Hades plays games at 800x600 though? 1280 by 1024/960 or 1600x1200 or bust.

[awdougherty]

Again, who in Hades plays games at 800x600 though? 1280 by 1024/960 or 1600x1200 or bust.

I guess Lionheart fans. I really want to get a 17" flat panel for Christmas to get rid of my CRT's 48 foot deep footprint but it doesn't sound like they are ready for gamers. I don't play a lot of FPS, but I break them out here and there. I guess since I play a lot of RPGs maybe it won't be so bad.

[Jason Cross]

Re: image scaling...

It's my understanding that most modern LCDs perform radiometric scaling of images that are not at the panel's native resolution. This looks a better than the bicubic filtering of Photoshop and certainly is a far cry from the "nearest neighbor" stretching of several years back.

That said, displaying a slightly smaller resolution stretched up a little bit does get a bit fuzzy.

This effect is lessened as the pixel density of the LCD goes up. If you've got a 19" LCD with a resolution of 1280x1024 and you're stretching a 1024x768 image to fill it, it'll look a bit fuzzy. If you stretch up the same image on a 20" LCD with a res of 1600x1200, the fuzzy artifacting is less apparent. The "fuzz" is still made of the same number of pixels, they're just smaller so it's less noticeable.

In theory, once LCDs or OLEDs achieve really high density, like 200 pixels per inch or more, then scaling images won't look the least bit fuzzy, and in fact you'll even see the jagged edges of a lower-res image the way you do when you print an image at 300dpi on an inkjet printer or something.

[DennyA]

Okay, I have good news for those considering buying an LCD display. You should soon see 10ns 21" LCDs selling for under $300. Why? Because I got my 19" LCD today.

After doing a lot of research, I ended up with the Samsung 191T that Wumpus complained about early in the topic.

Setting it up, of course, was the perfect excuse to load up a variety of games. And you know what? I saw ghosting in two games: the XIII demo, and Counter-Strike. Nothing evident in BF1942, IL-2:FB, Rise of Nations, MS Flight Sim, and a variety of recent demos.

I only noticed the ghosting in XIII when I was actually looking for it. And it didn't affect my l33t FPS skillz.

In the end, I can see how those who are sensitive to motion or who are 3D quality fanatics would want to wait for faster LCDs. But I found all the games I tried were eminently playable, and they looked fantastic. And any minor ghosting, etc. is a sacrifice I'm very willing to make in exchange for the amazing text quality on this monitor. It's fantastic for work.

[ARogan]

http://www.tomshardware.com/display/20030902/index.html

They actually test the monitors with games.
The results are rather poor.
Looks like I'll be waiting even longer for the magical <=16ms 19" lcd. Maybe I should just buy a nice 19" CRT.....

[awdougherty]

what about 17" lcd's? Any good recommendations for a quasi gaming LCD? I would be using a DVI hook-up, but I heard some will let you connect a single LCD to 2 computers by going DVI with one and VGA with the other. That would be great.

[Ben Sones]

I have yet to see any LCD monitor that gives acceptable results with games. They will get there eventually, but for now it's a technology best suited to Office apps.

[awdougherty]

SyncMaster 172T - that's the one I was looking at. I don't really play any FPS's. I play a lot of RPGs and Combat Mission, I may delve into Half Life 2 a little along with the Thief and Deus Ex sequels, but I really rarely play them. Oh well, I'll have to see what's available around Christmas.

[Mark Asher]

Ok, I read through this thread and I'm still benighted. With an LCD display I will get some blurring and ghosting? Is that what I'm hearing? There's a 17" flat panel on sale at Best Buy for $299 I think. It's some off-brand, but it has that 25MS response time or whatever. I know that isn't Jason's 16MS time, but it still looks nice.

Otherwise, they have a Viewsonic 19" flat-scrren CRT with that "ultra-brite" technology button for $229. Which one do you think I should get?

[Desslock]

Don't get a monitor with a response time higher than 16 ms.

[ARogan]

Summary:

Do not get an LCD with TOTAL (rise and fall) response time of greater than 16ms especially if you are a hard core gamer and play a lot of fps.
Currently the largest 16ms LCD you can get is 17".

Here are the ones I know of:
http://www.planar.com/monitors/PX171M.asp
http://www.gamepc.com/labs/view_content.asp?id=planar17&page=1
New:
http://www.planar.com/monitors/PQ170.asp
Hitachi CML174:
http://www.anandtech.com/showdoc.html?i=1785

There are other ones.

[Timemaster Tim]

Now what if I am more of a strat gamer. Will 25ms be fine if there isn't a lot of rapid changes on the screen?

[runesword forger]

For what it's worth, I play games on the 1800FP Dell, an 18.1 inch flat screen at 25ms. It doesn't have any ghosting issues on games like Warcraft 3 or a host of others -- but I don't play FPS's.

I went to a wireless keyboard + mouse, flat screen setup about a year ago. I'll never go back.

[Toddy]

Is this a hard number? Just wondering, because I spent a half-hour yesterday playing Aquanox on a Philips 17 flat-panel (which I think is a 25 ms model, judging by what I've seen online), and noticed no ghosting or any other issues. I was blown away by the quality of the image and the color, which was much, much better than the Samsung 19 CRT sitting right beside it. I was going to stick with CRT when I get my new system, but now I don't know. I was really impressed with this monitor. I think I'll take some shooters into the store and see if I can check them out.

[Aleck]

For what it's worth, I play games on the 1800FP Dell, an 18.1 inch flat screen at 25ms. It doesn't have any ghosting issues on games like Warcraft 3 or a host of others -- but I don't play FPS's.

I went to a wireless keyboard + mouse, flat screen setup about a year ago. I'll never go back.

I play on a 2000FP, and, well, don't really notice any ghosting at all. The Dell 2000FP is also 25ms, and it seems to run things beautifully. I credit Sparky -- she convinced me that a Dell was a good idea because I could send it back. :)

Also, for what it's worth, I do play FPSes, particularly BF1942 and DoD. My machine is an Athlon 2400, and I'm using a GF4 TI4400. I did notice when I switched to the FP that my frames per second is less (I think a 25ms monitor is only capable of 40fps, right?), but for me that means the entire gaming experience tends to be smoother, since the FPS is almost always maxed out.

If you watch a site like Techbargains, you can get a decent Dell Flat Panel for at least as cheap as the crap at Best Buy; just wait for a decent sale.

DOWN WITH BEST BUY!

Aleck

[ARogan]

Is this a dream come true?

Dell UltraSharpTM 2001FP 20" Flat Panel

http://www1.us.dell.com/content/learnmore/learnmore.aspx?c=us&cs=19&l=en&s=dhs&~id=monitors&~line=desktops&~lt=popup&~series=dimen&~subcat=fp

http://www1.us.dell.com/content/topics/global.aspx/corp/pressoffice/en/2003/2003_10_28_rr_000?c=us&l=en&s=corp


The new Dell UltraSharp 2001FP is a 20-inch LCD display and Dell's first flat panel monitor to feature 16 millisecond response times, which allow for distortion-free images during 3-D gaming DVD playback. This response time can greatly reduce the ghosting and smearing that can accompany rapidly-moving images, which means Dimension XPS customers can now enjoy the benefits of a flat panel monitor without compromising gaming performance.


They say it is only sold with their pc's right now but will soon be offered alone.

[Supertanker]

20.1 in 2001FP Dell Ultrasharp™ Digital Flat Panel Display [add $870 or $27/month]

That's actually less than I expected. Picking "No Monitor" subtracts $120, so figure the standalone price will be about $1000? Maybe a little more as the market will bear.

[Doctor Hillbilly]

I have the Hitachi CML174 (in fashionable "B" configuration) and it works great with games. I don't FPS much as much as I used to, but I have noticed no ghosting at all when playing single/multiplayer Call of Duty, etc.

It has two burnt pixels which drive me insane, but that's my only real complaint. Controls are a bit of a bother, but nothing serious. It's not a real bright monitor, as Tom's Hardware (or some equivalent site) pointed out. It basically ships at 100% brightness and you're never going to turn it down b/c the screen would be invisible. So keep that in mind too.

[John Reynolds]

Is this a dream come true?

Dell UltraSharpTM 2001FP 20" Flat Panel

http://www1.us.dell.com/content/learnmore/learnmore.aspx?c=us&cs=19&l=en&s=dhs&~id=monitors&~line=desktops&~lt=popup&~series=dimen&~subcat=fp

http://www1.us.dell.com/content/topics/global.aspx/corp/pressoffice/en/2003/2003_10_28_rr_000?c=us&l=en&s=corp


They say it is only sold with their pc's right now but will soon be offered alone.

What's its native resolution?

[DennyA]

What's its native resolution?
Clicking the very links you quoted in your question :twisted: shows the native resolution is 1600x1200.

Not sure I'd actually want a res that high in a gaming monitor...

[ARogan]

Yeah I would really prefer a 19" with 16ms response. That drops the resolution down to a reasonable 1280X1024. Plus I can't go spending 1K on a monitor.

So close.....I guess I'll keep waiting. First they were too small now they are too big. I guess I'm just never satisfied.

[Desslock]

What's its native resolution?
Clicking the very links you quoted in your question :twisted: shows the native resolution is 1600x1200.

Not sure I'd actually want a res that high in a gaming monitor...


1600x1200 is perfect. Finally, it looks like an LCD screen has arrived that interests me.

[John Reynolds]

What's its native resolution?
Clicking the very links you quoted in your question :twisted: shows the native resolution is 1600x1200.

Hey, I'm a lazy bastard.


Not sure I'd actually want a res that high in a gaming monitor...

Agreed. My current fav is 1280x960, though I know I'm not going to find that on any LCD as a native res.

[jeep]

Desslock I just got a Sony Vaio PCG-GRT160 laptop. It has a 17" screen. I got it for work but was surprised to find out it runs SWG with a sharper picture than any of my Hitachi or Sony CRTs and no ghosting like I get with the Viewsonic and IBM ones. The screen is glossy instead of vinyl-like. Resolution 1280x1024, which is fine for 17".

I know you aren't shopping for a laptop but I would recommend finding out who makes the monitor for this laptop and see if their products are used in regular flat LCD monitors. That's how I started buying IBM TFTs at work (because their laptop screens are the same manufacturer, and excellent, but not for gaming) and I'd definitely look into that.

The other suggestion I'd make is to look at Apple's cinema displays. The price has come way down and the quality is such that it's a worthwhile investment, it'll outlast all your PCs and probably your television as well. There is no problem running those off vga or a gameport.

I also have a Viewsonic VP181 which handles 1600x1200 fine and I'm using it to play FFXI right now. I don't have any ghosting problems with it, but it seems to dim if I have a light on behind me instead of above or behind the monitor. I think it has something to do with the screen's surface. The glossy surface of the laptop monitor is worse, in that you can't really sit with your back to a window or lamp at all.

But the picture is so damn sharp it was worth moving my furniture around.

/jeep/

[DennyA]

My current fav is 1280x960, though I know I'm not going to find that on any LCD as a native res.
I used to run 1280x960 on my CRT as well, due to the aspect ratio screwiness you get with 1280x1024 on a glass monitor.

The good news is that the physical aspect ratio of the LCD monitors is different. I run my LCD at 1280x1024, but everything looks correct -- it's not "squished" like it would be on a CRT.

[dannimal]

I have a Dell Triniton 19" glass CRT monitor and I don't notice anything about aspect-ratio screwiness. That is just as likely to be because I'm an ignorant goof when it comes to being picky about monitors, but I've loved the picture on this thing since I got it 3 years ago.

[DennyA]

It's pretty subtle. It's most evident if you view a digital photo -- look at it in 1280x1024, then in 1280x960. In 1280x1024, everything's slightly squashed. Or draw a circle in MS Paint in 1280x1024, save the file, and then view it in 1024x768 -- it'll be an oval.

[John Reynolds]

Speak of the devil. Anand has a review of Dell's LCD here: http://www.anandtech.com/showdoc.html?i=1918

[runesword forger]

By the way, I checked a review to see my Dell 1800FP's specs when we were discussing this thread a while back. At the end of a very positive review, I saw this:


One of our new extreme forum members suggested we use the web based ClearType tuner rather than enabling ClearType in Windows XP. The text looks great now! Why use the web based tuner? Well, there are two types of LCD displays, RGB and BGR. Although rare, the DELL 1800FP actually uses the BGR color striping order. While Microsoft claims SP1 added support for these types of displays, the updated web based tuner does a much better job and allows you to fine tune the display even further. I highly recommend anyone with an LCD display to run through it. The results are amazing.


I have no idea about BGR or whether newer Dell's also have it. But I did use the web based ClearType tuner... and there was a huge jump in text quality. My only negative on this monitor was the text, which was a tad bit "fuzzy" to my eyes. Just crisp as can be now.

[DennyA]

You guys can thank me on the Dell. All it took was me buying a 191t for something cooler to come out.

[Supertanker]

Anand says the new Dell is $899, so my previous guess of $1000+ was off a bit.

[Woolen Horde]

By the way, I checked a review to see my Dell 1800FP's specs when we were discussing this thread a while back. At the end of a very positive review, I saw this:


One of our new extreme forum members suggested we use the web based ClearType tuner rather than enabling ClearType in Windows XP. The text looks great now! Why use the web based tuner? Well, there are two types of LCD displays, RGB and BGR. Although rare, the DELL 1800FP actually uses the BGR color striping order. While Microsoft claims SP1 added support for these types of displays, the updated web based tuner does a much better job and allows you to fine tune the display even further. I highly recommend anyone with an LCD display to run through it. The results are amazing.


I have no idea about BGR or whether newer Dell's also have it. But I did use the web based ClearType tuner... and there was a huge jump in text quality. My only negative on this monitor was the text, which was a tad bit "fuzzy" to my eyes. Just crisp as can be now.

The web-based tuner is far better than the one built into WinXp. For one, you can actually tune your cleartype settings. The default tuner is just on/off.

I'm not regretting my 191t one bit. It does the job and more.

[Kevin J Baird]

My only question about LCD monitors is how long do they last? Older LCD technology would rot the back panels after a few years. (The liquid would eventually leak through.) And the mechanical nature of an LCD opening and closing makes me wonder how perfected these things are. I've seen a few older IBM Thinkpads last for about five years, but I put some serious hours on my monitors, and was just curious if anyone knows if LCD screens are rated for a number of use hours? I'm thinking of getting one as a secondary screen for split desktops and the like. (Have the game opened on one screen, the walkthrough on the other...)

Thanks
Kevin

[DennyA]

I don't know the answer, but five years is fine with me. I'm sure I'll be ready for an excuse to upgrade by then.

I'd think the lights would be a bigger issue than the liquid seeping with age.

[Chris Nahr]

My only question about LCD monitors is how long do they last?

Five years. http://www.quartertothree.com/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=6518

[ARogan]

http://accessories.us.dell.com/sna/productdetail.aspx?sku=320-1578&c=us&l=en&cs=04&category_id=4009&page=external

Dell 2001FP is onsale right now for $750
Someone go buy it and post back here.

[ARogan]

Here is another one:
viewsonic vp201s

http://www.viewsonic.com/products/lcd_vp201s.htm

I noticed in the latest Maximum PC there is a viewsonic LCD ad targeting gamers specifically with "16ms response time" in red bold letters. Hopefully there will be many more options soon so prices will come down.

[ARogan]

I finally broke down and bought a dell 2001FP.
$750 direct from dell. Free shipping. Arrived in 24hrs.

This is my initial report with only a few hours of testing. All tests were performed using DVI.
- no dead/stuck pixels. no "screen door" effect that I can tell. back light is nice and even.
- after turning on clear type the text looks great at 1600X1200. Since I sit pretty far back from the monitor I just increase the font size in windows, eudora, IE, etc and everything is fine. I can still read normal size text at 1600X1200 even from several feet back but I just prefer larger fonts. The monitor is just that sharp.
- contrast seems fine. default settings don't burn your retina's out.
- pivot landscape/portrait
- lots of inputs: analog vga, dvi, s-video, composite, usb2.0 hub (2 ports on the bottom and 2 on the left side which are very accessible. xbox looks pretty good on it.
- controls are well layed out. One single button cycles through the 4 inputs.
- good monitor placement adjustments: height, rotate, pivot, angle
- very thin bezel.
- 18 lbs (including stand), much cooler than that old adi 19" crt.

Games:
- UT2004 @ 1024X768X32. It looks very very good. When playing normal it looks just great with no ghosting. If you pan back and forth really fast (which you normally wouldn't do constantly) you will notice a slight blur effect. It's hard to describe. It's not exactly ghosting but it looks different from a crt.
- Far Cry @ 1024X768X32: Very similar to ut2004 and just looks great. Very playable.
- Counter Strike Condition zero @ 1024X768X32: Again much much better than the planar pl191m. It has this weird jerking motion. Almost like poor framerate yet I was pegged at 60 fps (vsync on).
At 1600X1200 it ran smooth. I had to uncheck mouse smoothing at that res otherwise it felt a bit laggy. After that it played great. The only problem is your crosshair is a bit small at 1600X1200. It's weird this jerking motion was only apparent in CS and not in the other 2 games at the same interpolated 1024X768. I still need to try the other stretch setting (aspect). They are 1:1, fill, and aspect.

It's not the perfect monitor (I don't think one exists yet). Gaming on a LCD I think just takes a bit of adjusting. Having said that this monitor blows away the planar for gaming. It's a BIG BIG improvement.

I consider myself pretty picky about these things. Based on this initial experience so far I think this monitor is a keeper!

[Erik Andersson]

I recently bought a Samsung 193P and I've noticed that older games are much worse than newer when it comes to ghosting. UT2004 and Deus Ex 2 are essentially perfect, even if you turn very quickly, but the original Unreal is almost unplayable. This monitor (and many other I think) has problems with some gray/black patterns, and this becomes obvious on the castle and rock textures in Unreal. The original Deus Ex is better, but there is still some ghosting.

For some reason the Dell monitor costs $1614 in Sweden, if it had costed $750 I would probably have bought it instead.

[ARogan]

I figured out what was causing the jerky motion at 1024X768 CS. Make sure you uncheck scale image to panel size in the monitor tab for the ati catalyst drivers. This basically means your video card driver will do the scaling instead of your monitor hardware when checked. Uncheck it and the monitor scales the image nice and smooth! I really didn't see a "performance" difference between fill and aspect.

[ARogan]

Hmmm....Did some more testing. It seems like a refresh rate of 75hz causes the jerky motion issue in games. I'm not sure why since I thought refresh doesn't have much meaning with LCD monitors. What happened before is 1024X768 supports 60-75hz while 1600X1200 only supports 60hz. Counter strike at 1024 starts with 75hz but if you make any video changes like gamma and apply it restarts CS but at 60hz (which is very smooth). Anyway, Is there a way to make CS always use 60hz in opengl without 3rd party tools? Refresh Override (available with CRT) is not an option under ati display tab when you have a LCD hooked up.

[sluggo]

I finally broke down and bought a dell 2001FP.
$750 direct from dell. Free shipping. Arrived in 24hrs.

Is that offer still up? I went to Dell's site, and I'm getting a price of $900, discounted from $1000.

[stusser]

It's $800 (http://accessories.us.dell.com/sna/ProductDetail.aspx?c=us&l=en&cs=04&sku=320-1578&category_id=4009) plus tax now. Wait, it'll come back down to $750. I love my 2001fp... absolutely gorgeous.

[ARogan]

The $750 price has already hit 3 or 4 times now. Just wait. It will happen probably within 2 months or earlier. Also, dell outlet refurb have been as low as $700.

Btw I sovled my CS issue. I just uninstalled and reinstalled the latest Catalyst 4.3 drivers and now CS starts at 1024X768 @ 60 hz instead of 75.

I really have grown to love my 2001fp over the past few days. If you are a hard core gamer then this is the ONLY LCD choice right now.

[ARogan]

Check out the magazine Maximum PC (my favorite mag btw) this month's issue (may 2004). Starting on page 54 they do a nice article on LCD for Gamers. They test 8 monitors and only 3 pass and it was obvious they liked the Dell 2001FP the most:



Here's the ass-kicking external LCD to go with your ass-kicking Dell XPS notebook. All judges passed the massive, initmidating 2001FP with flying colors(literally)....


They go on about how good the interpolation is too.

Next month they plan to do a full review on the 3 monitors that passed.

The other monitors that passed:
Samsung 172X
Planar PL1700 (which barely passed)

What's interesting is they failed the viewsonic vp201s which I think uses the same panel as the dell 2001fp. They did say it was great at 1600X1200 but sucked at interpolation at lower resolutions. I guess the monitor manufacturer picks the chips that does the interpolation and not the panel makers.

[Qenan]

Sorry to be a moron about this, but: if I buy something like the Dell, can I play old games that only use a fraction of 1600x1200? Like Master of Magic? i.e., can I get it to just put a giant black band around the image in the center of the screen? Or does it do something awful like interpolate the pixels?

thanks in advance...

[ARogan]

When not running in naitive resolution (1600X1200) you have 3 options on the monitor:

1:1 - you will get a black border. lower the res the bigger the border
fill - always fill the entire screen using interpolation ignoring aspect ratio. picture could get distorted.
aspect - fill as much of the screen as possible using interpolation but maintain aspect ratio.

There is also a "zoom" setting you can play around with.

Having said that the Dell does a great job of interpolation. I play all my games at 1024X768 and it looks just fine.

I just gave away my old 19" CRT to a friend (would have taken way too long to make space for it in the closet) if that says anything how much I like this monitor.

[XPav]

Sorry to be a moron about this, but: if I buy something like the Dell, can I play old games that only use a fraction of 1600x1200? Like Master of Magic? i.e., can I get it to just put a giant black band around the image in the center of the screen? Or does it do something awful like interpolate the pixels?
Most monitors let you choose what you want to do for "off" resolutions. Interpolate or do the black bar thing.

Old games at low resolutions interpolate just fine -- its high res stuff really close to native resolution that looks like ass.

[ARogan]

Ok I just tried UT2004 at 320X240 and 640X480. It's one of the few games that supports a crazy number of resolutions.

320X240 - very ass like but then again I think anything at this resolution would look like ass on any monitor

640X480 - Surprisingly playable. It really didn't look too bad. Maybe just one cheek.

[chet]

Okay, ignorning everyone's advice, after working on my new pc problems i kinda had an accident with the junky monitor it was connected to.

So after writing down notes from here, i went out tonight to purchase an LCD monitor. I have never been scared of buying no-name monitors, my 19inch hansol has worked flawlessly for years and looks as good as the girlie's sony monitor.

So I ended up with a Flatron LG 17" L1720P. While there are no english reviews available, the wacky language reviews seem to like it.

It has a 16ms refresh rate, decent contrast, digital connectors, thin black bevel, USB ports, no speakers. Pretty much what i was looking for, a $30 rebate I will probably never see, and it cost $491.

Wow.

This is one of those, what in the hell was I waiting for things. The image is clear, almost too clear. There is no ghosting at all. I played farcry and BFV no ghosting, no problems. Much easier on the eyes.

I bought it local because the newegg policy of up to 8 bad pixels scared me off, i was assured again and again, one bad pixel and I can return it for a replacement.

Chet

[JeffL]

It's time to take the plunge. As we've had to take out a lot of furniture from our house as we prep it to sell (to make it look less cluttered, etc.) my massive computer desk in the bedroom has been replaced with a tiny little desk (just until we move to our new home, wherever that may be.) And my 21 inch CRT takes up the entire desk. So my beautiful wife said "You remember that cool flat panel monitor you reviewed for CGW? I think we need one of those right now - it would look a lot nicer on here for people looking at the house."

After 24 years of marriage I know to jump on such opportunities immediately! ;) So - is the concensus here still the Dell 2001FP? I don't see any response time specs on the web site - does anyone have those specs?

[stusser]

The 2001fp has a 16ms response rate. It's God's monitor.

It's currently $840 though; I'd wait a week or two for the $750 deal to come back if I were you.

[Aleck]

In case you can't wait a week or two for the $750 deal to return, there's currently a $787 + tax deal (see www.techbargains.com/j/292.htm and use coupon code G53VQ6JVS$2PL4). Shipping is free.

[steve]

The 2001fp has a 16ms response rate. It's God's monitor.
Samsung has just announced two 12ms LCDs, so God's getting an upgrade.

[stusser]

God's a cheap bastard, the samsungs won't be $750 at 20"!

[Case]

Had a meeting with BenQ the other day. They're prepping a 23" wide screen (1920x1200) with a 16ms response time and a 17" 1280x1024 panel with a 12ms response time.

[stusser]

With a 16ms response time you can get 62 non-tearing frames per second onscreen. That's enough to be totally smooth to the human eye. Faster is always better, sure, but the 16ms panels are the first to be good enough for gaming and multimedia.

[DennyA]

Wow. Any hint of a price on that 23" job?

[Case]

Wow. Any hint of a price on that 23" job?

Not yet, but likely well north of two grand.

[Erik Andersson]

With a 16ms response time you can get 62 non-tearing frames per second onscreen. That's enough to be totally smooth to the human eye. Faster is always better, sure, but the 16ms panels are the first to be good enough for gaming and multimedia.
In theory this may be true, but in the real world it doesn't work that way. The problem is perhaps mostly that the 16ms number doesn't measure all kinds of transitions, so many of them will be a lot slower than that. My Samsung 193P was said to be better at gaming than the Dell monitor (even though it had a 20ms response time), but in order not to notice the ghosting in the original Unreal you would have to be blind. I rarely see any ghosting at all in newer games though, it's possible that more detailed textures help. In any case there are certain patterns that will "ghost" in newer games even though most of the image is fine.

[Phil_Stein]

I just yesterday received my Planar WS 231 - 23". Response time is claimed at <16ms.

Seems good so far - I've been mostly doing text work since I got it - just a little bit of game stuff. The one thing I've noticed looking at a game (Railroad Tycoon 3 - I was mucking with it some yesterday), is that there's a bit of static-y 'noise' that occasionally flickers onto the screen while playing the game that I haven't seen when not playing a game.

I'll have a more complete judgement later. I will say that the jump from a 21" CRT (probably 19.5" true monitor size) to 23.1" LCD is very noticeable size-wise.

[Woolen Horde]

Buy.com has a killer deal on the Samsung 191t, which is what I use. I love it. Only game I notice ghosting problems is America's Army. $667 for a killer 19-inch LCD.

http://www.buy.com/retail/product.asp?sku=10324629&adid=17073&sssdmh=dm5.95387&dcaid=17073

[DennyA]

Yeah, I have the 191T as well, and have no complaints.

But if you're one of those people who notices ghosting, its 25ms refresh would be more obvious than the 16ms on the Dell.

[JeffL]

Well, crud - I won't be able to buy for another week or so, and the price on the Dell 2001FP is back up to $1000+. Any tricks for finding a lower price (other than waiting and hoping it goes back on sale at some time in the future?)

[stusser]

Actually you can get it for $787.46+tax with free shipping using the G53VQ6JVS$2PL4 coupon right now. That's only $40 more than the cheapest it's ever been. Go crazy.

Coupon expires 4/28 at 11pm cdt btw. Go crazy quickly.

[Brian Koontz]

I know the 20" Dell gets pimped here all the time, but for gamers on a budget I'm liking the 712N Samsung (17"). 12ms response, 600:1 contrast (average is 450:1), 300 brightness (~250 average). Price is $380 after rebate right now at Best Buy. They have a 19" model too (912N), but I can't remember the specs or price. Also comes with a 3 Year P&L Warranty.

[Lunch of Kong]

The Dell 2001FP is $749 again. Use coupon code QBT2C0XBX35R2N, expires 7/21

http://www1.us.dell.com/content/topics/promo.aspx/q2wk11_20_affiliate?c=us&cs=04&l=en&s=bsd

[DennyA]

2001FP is now $674! Offer expires at 11 central tonight:

These codes expire TODAY, 9/29/04 at 11PM CT. Offer cannot be combined with other discounts or coupons.

Start at Dell Small Business LCD flat panel monitors.

Pick the one you want and use the corresponding coupon code:
Dell UltraSharp 2001FP 20.1" LCD monitor with 16ms total average response time, 250 cd/m2 brightness, 400:1 contrast, 176/176 degree viewing angles, landscape/portrait capabilities, DVI, VGA, as well as S-Video & Composite inputs, so you can plug a regular VCR into it and watch TV, all for $899 $674 after $225 off coupon code. Use code: BVNRRP6FNDWPM$

Dell UltraSharp 1901FP 19" LCD monitor with 250 cd/m2 brightness, 600:1 contrast, 170/170 degree viewing angles, landscape/portrait capabilities, DVI, VGA, for $629 $499 after $130 off coupon code. Use code: 1PK14?PWQRGQM5

[Toddy]

Just plugged this in, for fun, and was suprised to see Dell asking for $52 tax and $33 shipping. Tax? On an Internet purchase? No thanks.

[Lunch of Kong]

Those figures seem wrong, Todd. Tax and shipping should change according to your location. If that was actually Ontario tax, it would be 15% of the purchase price (both Ontario tax *and* Canadian GST), not the 8.25% that we pay in Round Rock, TX.

Did you enter your city, zip code, and country?

[Toddy]

Nope, Wong. NY. Had the right zip, etc., and entered it twice. So, Dell charges state tax based on the buyer's location? Isn't that pretty odd? I've never paid tax for an online purchase like this.

[DennyA]

If a company has a physical presence in your state, it has to charge sales tax. That may be an office with one dude in it, but it counts.

Sales tax is supposed to be collected on all Internet sales. If it's not charged by the seller, you're legally supposed to report the purchase on your taxes and pay it then. Few people do that, but that's what's supposed to happen.

I think Dell just charges tax everywhere. Most large companies do, nowadays.

[Albert Woo]

So how do we feel about BenQ monitors? Does anyone here have one their 19" LCDs? I'm assuming they're not as good as the Dell models, but they're a lot easier on the wallet.

[sluggo]

I missed the $674 deal last week, but the 2001FP is now $720, still way under the usual $900.

[Winterrain]

Just a word: 16ms response time for switching from black to white doesn´t mean a refresh rate of 62.5 Hz. It means a black pixel changes to white in 16ms.

[Case]

Just a word: 16ms response time for switching from black to white doesn´t mean a refresh rate of 62.5 Hz. It means a black pixel changes to white in 16ms.

This is actually a key point, though the terrain is shifting. Samsung now has technology that will perform gray-to-gray shifts in 12ms or less. Dunno if it's percolated to their desktop monitors. Also, the chipset in the display has some impact, too. I've seen a number of LCD displays that show no ghosting at high frame rates.

[Enidigm]

DVI input vs. VGA (or D-sub) inputs?

I'm thinking LCD perhaps this year, and some of the new Samsung's are pulling 12ms, but the ones with DVI input are measurably more expensive than the ones without. Plus there's supposed to be some "Black Friday" sale on 17 "d-sub Samsungs at i think Best Buy.

[John Reynolds]

http://accessories.us.dell.com/sna/ProductDetail.aspx?c=us&cs=04&l=en&sku=320-1578

$600 USD for the 2001 FP.

[Erik]

$569 (shipped!) for the Dell 2001FP. Good til 11:59 CST tonight.

Click here. (http://click.linksynergy.com/fs-bin/click?id=9eASk0x48lo&subid=1&offerid=34197.1&type=10&tmpid=442&RD_PARM1=http%253A%252F%252Faccessories.us.dell.co m%252Fsna%252Fproductdetail.aspx%253Fc%253Dus%2526 l%253Den%2526s%253Ddhs%2526cs%253D19%2526sku%253D3 20-1578&u1=993)

It'll ring up as $639, but, at the checkout screen, enter coupon code

?MKPMRX7CLCRW6

for an extra 70 bucks off.

They finally reeled me in. I'm sure it'll be 250 bucks tomorrow.

[MikeTwain]

You won't be sorry...I have the 2005 and it's awesome.

[John Reynolds]

$569 (shipped!) for the Dell 2001FP. Good til 11:59 CST tonight.

It'll ring up as $639, but, at the checkout screen, enter coupon code

?MKPMRX7CLCRW6

for an extra 70 bucks off.

They finally reeled me in. I'm sure it'll be 250 bucks tomorrow.

I bought the 2001FP on the 21st and had this coupon pointed out to me the next day, right after the LCD had shipped and I could no longer cancel the order. :?

[Joel]

They finally reeled me in. I'm sure it'll be 250 bucks tomorrow.

They got me, too. I figured that capacitors randomly dicharging in my gaming monitor was a bad sign. It also has this really annoying habit of growing slowly more and more fuzzy, which due to my relatively poor eyesight makes me think I am just tired or in need of carrots, when it will all of the sudden pop back into focus with a snap.

Thank goodness this new one will just go black when it's ready to die.

[Kool Moe Dee]

Yeah, I can also chime in and recommend the 2001fp. I have two (!) on my desk at work and I lust after them for home use.

[Toddy]

Incidentally, how is the black level on the Dell? I bought a Benq FP931 right before Xmas due to great reviews, a 16ms response time, DVI, and a fantastic price ($341), and am not that thrilled with the blacks. The monitor has a contrast ratio of only 450:1, so I assume that's the issue. Knew this before buying, but thought it would be liveable. Which it is, as I love the monitor for all surfing, work tasks, and 80% of games. However, I'm a Thief nut, replay one or more of the games in the series every year, and am really disappointed with their look on this monitor.

Anyhow, black level or not, I wouldn't pay $600 US for a monitor. I'd have probably just gone with a really good CRT for $300-400 if I'd been aware of the black-level issues. Or not. I find this LCD so much easier on the eyes than a CRT, and it seems goofy to sacrifice my eyes so black in games is really black. As it is, I've kept my old CRT for use with my second system, so I'll likely just upgrade the video card (GF3 Ti500 in it now) and use it for games that present serious problems.

[Toddy]

Hmm. Now I see that the Dell has a contrast ratio of just 400:1. So now I'm stumped. Do all LCD monitors have an issue with displaying true black? I knew it wasn't going to be as rich as with CRT displays, but I'd no idea it was this rough in shadow-heavy games.

[Enidigm]

For what its worth i have the Samsung 912n received as a present - its a version without DVI, but has an 800:1 contrast. I find it to be pretty much superior in most ways to my old Diamondtron Samsung moniter, especially in viewing area as far as color richness and depth are concerned. However at 25ms there is definately some ghosting in games, which can be helped somewhat by making sure the refresh rate is at the maximum value. The effect is alot like crossing your eyes whenever you move your head - everything gets momentarily blurry.

I'm not really happy about the analog vs. digital, but there's that thing about gift horses. Using analog, i can definately tell some blurriness around text in most every resolution. Some text in games is almost unreadable.

The sorry thing about LCDs today is that there really isn't a perfect moniter available for less than 700+$US. Most of the cheaper 17" moniters use 6-bit displays and simulate color depth - but they also have fast response times, as 6-bit displays are generally faster. Better 8-bit moniters have great displays but speed comes at a high premium. Finding a 19" with <16ms, 8-bit display and DVI seems to knock out 90% of the market.