1600x1200 on a 19" high-end monitor good for entry-level CAD?

[MrCoyote]

I'm currently looking for a good 19" professional monitor and was wandering if any of you use this resolution on your 19". I really only have about $500 to spend on a monitor and was looking at some "professional" lines of monitors. I am deciding between NEC FP955, iiYama i91a, Viewsonic P95f. Each of these has at least 85hz refresh at this resolution. I'm planning on getting a Geforce 2 Ultra or Geforce 3. I know these cards are not made for CAD, but this system is going to be for gaming too. As I said, I'm only getting started with CAD and rendering and don't need a $800 video card or monitor. Also, because 21" monitors usually run $400 more than 19", I can't justify the price difference for only 2" of extra space.

None of the big super stores carry these "professional" lines in-store. And they won't let you fiddle with the resolution on the monitors on display, to see what the low-end looks like at 1600.

 

[goul]

You can get a Samsung 950P for $237 shipped (after Pricematch and $40 off $200)

PC worlds Best buy....

 

[Workin']

We have a whole fleet of CAD operators at the AEC firm where I work. They all have 19" Dell Trinitron monitors and Matrox G400MAX video cards. Most of them run 1280x1024x16 @ 85Hz using MicroStation.

 

[GustySoul]

Hey MrCoyote,

I'm running at 1600 x1200 @ 85Hz on a NEC FP950 (More or less the exact same specs as the FP955 you mentioned, though I think the 955 has a thing or two extra, a USB hub or something of the like). I've never used CAD, but spend lots of time doing windows and openGL programming as well as occasional circuit diagrams for projects and for general entertainment stuff (movies).

My experience with this monitor has been Excellent. 1600x1200 @ 85 is quite beautiful and easy on the eyes. The FP950 goes up to 1920 x 1440 max (though refresh is probably too low at those resolutions) and I believe that the FP955 is the same.

You definitely need to get a nice 19incher if you want to run 16x12 at 85, many of the more value concious 19inchers will only support 75Hz at 16x12. May I also recommend that you ensure that the monitor you purchase uses either the pure flat FD Trinitron (Sony) or pure flat Diamondtron (Mitsubishi) tubes - they are both aperture grills wich tend to work best for graphics (and CAD I assume).

I haven't seen the FP955 anywhere, but I know that you can get the FP950 for a great deal right now. NECX Direct (Gatway) has the monitor for $435 + Free Shipping. Go to some of the coupon sites for an instant $35 dollars off at NECX, additionally, there is a $30 NEC rebate which in totoal makes for about $370, not too bad for a great monitor.

obispo21

 

[DietDrThunder]

The refresh rate for your eyes is around 70Hz. No matter what monitor I buy, running it at 85Hz usually causes a slight flicker, which causes eye strain. I don't do CAD but I do simular work. I run Designers Workbench to draw symbols and make cockpit displays for F-16 Fighters. I've never really seen the need to run at 85Hz. I had a 19" Samsung 950p on my old computer and it was great. I've got a 21" IBM monitor on my new system now and I wish I had my Samsung back. I also run it at 75Hz.

 

[GustySoul]

Hey Cepak,

When you say 70Hz is the refresh rate for your eyes does that mean that that is all we can see? I've always wondered about this, and which refresh rate would be best. I usally run at 85Hz now. I've tried 60Hz, where the picture actually seems to conciously look better to me (that is a 60Hz image looks much more still and stable to me while a 70+Hz image looks just slightly jumpy or blury). On the other hand I have also noticed that a 60Hz image is harder for me to look at for an extended period of time due to eye strain, whereas at 85 I am comfortable.

Is 70-75Hz the refresh rate of choice then? I've noticed that many online retailers usually describe "flicker-free" as 75Hz or above.

obispo21

 

[DietDrThunder]

Around 70Hz is about all we can see. 60Hz is definately too slow and will cause you to have headaches at night. At 75Hz the screen is being refreshed at a slightly higher rate than your eyes can detect. This is what I normally run it at unless I get a really bad monitor. In that case cranking it a bit higher sometimes helps, but usually not.

 

[Workin']

<< Around 70Hz is about all we can see. >>

Not to get too far off the topic of the thread, the human eye has an INFINITE refresh rate. Refresh rate implies a digital or digital-like system, i.e., a system with discrete steps. Human vision is most definitely analog, which implies a system with continuously variable, non-stepwise function. Now, a digital system can approximate an analog system by fooling you into thinking you are seeing an analog event, because given a short enough interval between such events your brain integrates the discontinuous steps into what appears to be a continuous event.

Since &quot;reality&quot; is presented to you with an infinite &quot;refresh rate&quot;, why would you think that when it comes to your computer a lower refresh rate is better than a higher one?

 

[vash]

I play with games on my 19&quot; all the time, I went with a Hitachi CM 753 because I run 1600x1200@85Hz. Anything less than 85Hz is hurting my eyes, so I want to make sure I am looking at the cleanest picture I can rest my eyes on.

When you pick a monitor, make sure to pick one with the lowest dot pitch. Mine came in at .22 and there are a few out there that have the same (a few have lower).

vash

 

[Hawk]

I have the samsung 950p, it can only do 1600x1200 @ 75 Hz, and that's what I run it at. I like it, and costs about half your budget. Of course you could always get a KDS Avitron or something too.

 

[LuciferHaze]

Absolutely! My 21&quot; ViewSonic P810 onlt does 1600x1200 at 70 hertz. But, 1600x1200 is more than enough.