Best gaming LCD?

Subz

Subz

Newbie
Joined
Sep 23, 2003
Messages
658
Reaction score
0
pls no CRT talk. thats the way of dinosaur.(they cause more heat, lot more power usage, less color, less contrast, less sharpness, more eyestrain)

So which is the best for games? I'd like soemthing from 20"-23" viewable. For now im leaning towards the hp L2335. But im no expert at LCD. so tell me which is the best.

hp l2335 = http://josh.paulsons.net/l2335-06.jpg

http://paulsons.net/img_0053.jpg

is the apple ones good?
 
You CANNOT use an LCD for highend gaming IMO. The screen does not react fast enough. MANY people complain about motion blur when gaming on big LCD's.
I have seen several articles to back this up. Also they are still having dead pixel issues as well. Please do some serious research before going foward. I hate to see you drop
that much money and get hosed.... look at plasma displays if you are in that highend market.
 
ewilison102,

you know nothing about new LCD's or monitors from what i heard you say. Dont post in this thread again. Thx.

(p.s., plasma display? I dont want a TV..i want a monitor...oh and plasma suck for gaming = burn in)
 
Well, this certainly got nasty fast. I've got a Mitsubishi LCD that I've had for over a year and it works fine for me.
 
Do u guys mean a TFT ? isn't LCD something different ?
 
Dell makes a REALLY good one, it's 21 inch but it's like $900.
 
i think ill ask in another forum :|
 
Samsung has a very nice LCD out there. Link lol
It's better than this HP LCD at least.

I'd also recommend this screen 300 (cd/m2) brightness will work very well. Plus it says it is a 12ms responce time. I really think Samsung is on top of the LCD market. IMO

The apple screens are very awesome screens but they do have a slight motion blur in games.

Subz said:
thats the way of dinosaur.
Click to expand...
Not really, there shall be a place for CRTs for many more years.
Subz said:
they cause more heat, lot more power usage,less color
Click to expand...
Mostly true though 12-16ms LCDs have lower color so they can have a faster response time.
Subz said:
less contrast, less sharpness, more eyestrain
Click to expand...
They only have better contrast for brightness, not darkness.
Sharpness depends on the CRT.
Eyestrain only if you set the refresh rate to a lower level (<75Hz) or are one of those rare people who are sensitive to CRTs.
 
I know someone who's sensitive to LCD screens. Can't use them for more than half an hour apparently.

I guess they'll be using CRTs for a while to come.
 
That was a pretty ugly thing to say to me dude, I have several articles I can show you to back me and help you make the right choice, but now I don't care how you waste your mommy and daddy's money you rude little snot.
 
sorry ROFL! its just that i got finished reading a review saying how the L2335 is on par if not better than most CRT's and a pdf on how the new generation lcd's have better quality then any crt (from major sites).....then hear you say how lcd suck.

i made it clear in my first post i want no lcd vs. crt.
 
OK dude, look no harm done, I looked at the PDF for that HP L2335 , it's pretty rightous! The response time, brightness, contrast are all well over the acceptable limits. My last concern is about native resolution vs. what you want to use.
I read somewhere about trouble converting resolutions and REAL high refesh rates.
If you can try and use it at the native setting looks like thats the way to go.
I guess I should try and keep up with LCD's a little more, a lot has happened in 24 months since I last looked. my bad. I cant read everything , not enough hours.
 
i still understand why you say crt are good. their quality level is on par with high end LCD and cost 1/2 to 1/3rd the price for a same sized.

its just that i really like 0% eyestrain and 16x9. im a wide-screen freak. i dont even watch tv if its in 4x3 anymore.

i guess it boils down to personal opinion. But anways yah i guess i've made up my mind i'll go with the 23" hp or the 20" apple . both 16x9
 
just thinking of watching dvds on my computer using that thing makes me drool. although the $1600 tag brings me back to reality, it damn sure is easy on the eyes.
game on.
 
I agree - there are no tft's that are great for gaming. The best you'll get is one that's adequate (and even then considerably worse than a cheap CRT)

The ideal situation is to have a decent tft for movies and browsing and a CRT for games.

My TFT (Hyundai Q17+) is considered to be one of the best LCD's for gaming (with a 12ms repsonse time) At 640 dollars it blody well should be. However, compared to my old, cheap, crt it sucks at games, espeically FPS (It is far better at everything else, though) Unfortunately, i'm into games, and there's no way i'm gonna play HL2 on a LCD - it's a waste of a good cpu/mobo/gfx card.

The moral of the story - a 200 dollar crt owns a 640 dollar lcd in gaming, by a long way.
 
The dell 2100 FP is the best one afaik. But it's very expensive, and it does not use up less power then a CRT does. But it is widely considered to be the best TFT screen atm.
 
Why the HP? and Why not the samsung 24" ? It's a brighter display. We didn't notice a difference in motion blur between the screens.
We have both at our Compusa store on display and everyone at our store likes the Samsung display better. ;)

Samsung
HP
 
Don't forget, with 12ms screens, the colour bittage is down from 8 bit to 6 bit, thats how it goes faster- less colour
 
Asus said:
Why the HP? and Why not the samsung 24" ? It's a brighter display. We didn't notice a difference in motion blur between the screens.
We have both at our Compusa store on display and everyone at our store likes the Samsung display better. ;)

Samsung
HP
Click to expand...


well. The samsung is $600 more. Secondly its responce time is 25 . i want 16.

Oh and im not even gonna bother responding to those who said lcd are not good for games. i can give you tons of threads in hardOCP forums and major reviews proving you wrong.
 
Well, major reviews are one person's view vs many others in this thread who have also tried LCDs for gaming. It's personal opinion, but you have to have tried it to have it. ;)

Ah, I thought you were talking about the HP I linked to, which is 100$ more than the Samsung.
 
Its well known that you shouldn't really use the response time as a clear and final judge. There are several cases where LCDs with 25ms response time do better vs 16ms ones. The response time has become more or less a marketing issue now. You can read about it here http://graphics.tomshardware.com/display/20020709/index.html

I too have been doing research on a good LCD for gamining. You have to accept that CRT is likely better but the other benefits of a LCD really decide it for me (space + heat). That said I haven't or can't still settle on one, I hope people more knowing continue to post with info....
 
either way, i just want a 16x9 monitor and the best color/contrast/sharpness. So far i see no CRT offering those assets.
 
I'm personally going for the Samsung Syncmaster 172X. Every other brand of monitor with a 12ms model is very hard to get ahold of here in New Zealand, although the 172X seems to be the best of the bunch.

I'd say this would be pretty obvious, but make sure you get one that's DVI capable. The VGA port is on its way out, along with the fact DVI offers better image quality by keeping the signal all digital, as opposed to it being converted along the way.
 
oD1Nz said:
I'm personally going for the Samsung Syncmaster 172X. Every other brand of monitor with a 12ms model is very hard to get ahold of here in New Zealand, although the 172X seems to be the best of the bunch.

I'd say this would be pretty obvious, but make sure you get one that's DVI capable. The VGA port is on its way out, along with the fact DVI offers better image quality by keeping the signal all digital, as opposed to it being converted along the way.
Click to expand...

I highly recommend against this - my Hyundai has the same screen (12ms response time) and it isn't very good for gaming.
 
I heard the 710T is basically the same thing as the 172x, but about 100$ cheaper....
 
Warbie said:
I highly recommend against this - my Hyundai has the same screen (12ms response time) and it isn't very good for gaming.
Click to expand...

Meh, I'm still going for it. Different people like different things. I for one, am sick of the eye strain.

I heard the 710T is basically the same thing as the 172x, but about 100$ cheaper....
Click to expand...

The 710T doesn't have the DVI port.
 
Asus said:
Why the HP? and Why not the samsung 24" ? It's a brighter display. We didn't notice a difference in motion blur between the screens.
We have both at our Compusa store on display and everyone at our store likes the Samsung display better. ;)
Click to expand...

dang.
In my Compusa we have neither 23"Hp nor the 23"Samsung
Larget PC LCD we have is the 21" Samsung that you can rotate and then of course 23" Apple.

Can't wait to see 30" Apple :naughty:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

B
Valve offers more core virtual reality technologies to device manufacturers
Replies
0
Views
23K
Barnz
B
Omnomnick
Dota 2 Weekly Patch - 24/05/13: Items, Couriers & China
Replies
2
Views
9K
Omnomnick
Omnomnick
-smash-
Valve and The Road to GDC 2015
Replies
10
Views
44K
Engineer123
E
Sulkdodds
Never Been Kissed
Replies
28
Views
2K
Asus
Asus
Lucid
Chuck - The Best Show You Never Watched
2
Replies
55
Views
5K
PvtRyan
PvtRyan
Back
Top