19" Gaming LCD

[DasFox]

Well I have been spending sometime, actually a few months, mainly picking peoples brains. They tell me that 19" are the real gaming monitors and anything above that you can run into issues and that 20" and above are not really gaming monitors.

Now issues I don't want with a $1800 SLI box I built, I want reliability and a proven winner for this rig. I don't want to have ended up spending a lot for a box, to then get a big 24" thingie that ghosts, smears, blurs, etc.. all for the sake that everyone out there that is not a hardcore gamer, has fallen in love with BIG and doesn't realise the down side.

Here are my choices, from what I gather the 19" Viewsonics are tough to beat for gaming.

VX922, VX924, VP930B

I know most of all the hype, pixels, response, panels, etc... but anything to help learn why I want this model over that would be a help.

Theory is nice, but real gaming action, putting it to the test is really what counts and I'd like to hear from people that have experience with all three, to help me make my choice as to which one to buy?

THANKS

 

[Mr Demon]

well 1 monitor you may have missed is the Acer 1916W. The great thing about this monitor is that its wide screen and is not that expensive. As for anything above 19"... it is true that some of these monitors have been critised for being slow. Another very important factor is "native resolution" very fiew 20" monitors (if any) take the native resolution of 1600X1200 and you must also ask yourself this question, what resolution will you run your games? The Acer monitor takes a resolution of 1440X900, not the most common resolution in a game but I will tell you that playing counter strike source with this is unbelievable!!!

 

[DasFox]

Well I said 19" for these monitors and they all have the same native resolution if you are familar with them, actually the typical Rez for 19" is 1280 x 1024 so that is what I'll be running them at, just like most 19"

I don't mind spending upwards of around $600, or more if I really had to, but cheap is not what I'm looking for, with a SLI gaming rig that cost me some $$$ to build.

A GREAT gaming LCD is what I'm looking for.

THANKS

 

[darXoul]

There is one real gaming monitor above 19". It's Samsung 204b with a 20" 1600*1200 5 ms TN panel. netzwelt.de gave it 9-10 ratings in games, exactly like ViewSonic VX924. flatpanels.dk claims it's maybe not as fast as the quickest 19 inchers but nevertheless, an absolutely recommended gaming display.

It also has swivel, pivot and height adjustment, plus the higher resolution and 800:1 contrast. I would take it over 922/924 ViewSonics any day.

BTW, prad.de has just tested the VP930 (better late than never). They say it's a good allround monitor but they claim it does ghost a bit in fast games and while a good display for the occasional gamer, it's only an average choice for a hardcore gamer. Interesting since hardware.fr says that 8 ms P-MVA panel and 6 ms S-PVA panels are the only two VA panels really suitable even for heavy gaming, albeit not as fast as TN.

Edit: an important question - do you care about viewing angles? If not, I guess there is no real reason to buy a VP930b instead of a quick TN display and risk noticing blurring and ghosting all over the place.

 

[DasFox]

darXoul there seems to be quite a few monitors in the 20" range and up that are sporting specs towards gaming. Going bigger is not a issue for me, it's the change of resolution, that from what I have been told can be a problem in gaming with ghosting, etc., the typical LCD game problems and running at 1280 x 1024 is the safest bet for high end gaming performance.

This is really where I am stuck at the moment with this idea.

Heck the Acer AL2416WD 24in Wide-Screen sports in at 6ms, now for 24" that sounds pretty gamey to me, hehe, but again size for me is not the issue as it seems for games too, it's the resolution they're saying you have to be careful with.

THANKS

 

[darXoul]

Resolution doesn't affect performance in terms of ghosting or blurring. In fact, there are several benefits from going 1600*1200: a more natural 4:3 aspect ratio and smaller pixels (0.255 vs. 0.294 mm) which make the image less grainy and the infamous screen door effect less likely to appear.

The only thing to be considered is that 16*12 needs some really strong hardware (speak video card) in order to run games in high settings (AA/AF, etc.).

There was just one issue about large monitors - the dreaded input lag. The knowledge in this field is very limited though - some people complain about it, others claim they don't even notice it. It only seems to affect large VA panels though (seen reports on Samsung 214t and 244t, Dell 2405fpw, ViewSonic VP2030b so far). It doesn't seem to occur on S-IPS and TN+film panels.


EDIT: this Acer you mentioned actually has a 6 ms S-PVA panel which, according to hardware.fr, is the first VA panel from Samsung really suitable for heavy gaming. Unfortunately, this monitor lacks two important things I wanted: DVI and height adjustment.

 

[erifneerg]

how about some cheap (<$300) Gaming LCD ?

 

[DasFox]

darXoul, I keep hearing other stories people saying that 19" monitors ARE the GAMING monitors, so from people telling me this, that is running games at 1280x1024 on 19" are the best in performance and staying away from problems, ghosting, etc...

I keep hearing two sides to the story. Yes I built a high-end SLI box and yes I want to see it in all it's glory, so really I'm not stressing or worried and I have been checking around and reading for the past two months, but LCDs I have to admit I'm weak in and all the hype with them, etc..

Personally I don't really know what's what when it comes to one side saying 19" 1280x1024 is the way and the other side saying to bring out the SLI performance you have to go 1600x and above.

A quote from someone on this:

If you are running 1600x1200 or less you wont see much performance, if any, increase at this time. The better performance increases arent realized till after you go above 1600x1200. Example:1920x1050 or 1920x1200 or higher.

Now according to this person you need to go above 1600x, and do you really?

Now everyone on both sides, yes, will say there is the performance increase, BUT the problem is, at this point in time with the reliability, going with the higher resolutions and being able to stay away from problems, with ghosting and all the likes that can happen in a higher rez.

So really at this point in time I'm ----------> LOST LMAO

THANKS

 

[darXoul]

Once again - ghosting has nothing to do with resolution. The only thing (apart from input lag) that people can complain about playing on 20+" displays is that their rigs can't handle the high res, and thus, gameplay gets choppy.

It's your choice though. Even though text in 1600*1200 is pretty small on a 20 incher, I can tell you that I'm definitely getting a 20+" monitor. 19" is not for me, I'm just too picky about those large pixels, switching straight from CRT (and having seen quite a few LCDs by now).

 

[DasFox]

darXoul ok well please click my Das' Rig link and tell me if my specs are up to snuff for the higher resolutions, with my video cards?

This is the thing that scares me, that quote I just mentioned:

If you are running 1600x1200 or less you wont see much performance, if any, increase at this time. The better performance increases arent realized till after you go above 1600x1200. Example:1920x1050 or 1920x1200 or higher.

I mean now according to this 1600x1200 isn't worth it and 1900 is the way to go, is that true?

THANKS

P.S. Forgot to mention a lot of these bigger monitors are widescreen and a lot of games don't support this and have to be hacked, that was my other worry:

So then I noticed this for that issue:

http://www.widescreengamingforum.com/

 

[OvErHeAtInG]

Well any resolution is worth it. I think what darXoul was saying, and what that quote you were saying, is that why did you buy 2 7800GT's if you're only going to play at 1280*1024? like darxoul said, 1600*1200 does look better. And you have a rig capable of playing that way. The choice is really clear to me, the only thing holding you back would be budget - which clearly isn't an issue.

And yes regarding widescreen - I'm using an 18" LCD and my next panel will definitely be WS, not only for gaming but I also watch movies on this. Bear in mind you're not locked in to a particular resolution on any LCD - for example, on a Dell 2405FPW you can play at 1600*1200 with little black bars at the side.

Edit: Or, buy a decent 19" and sell the other 7800GT. Because you're really not going to be putting it to much use (until more intensive games come out, perhaps).

 

[DasFox]

OvErHeAtInG, sorry I never meant to imply using a SLI system on any particular resoultion, other then I really don't know which, really is the best way to go to bring out the real performance of this, is all.

I've been hearing so many stories from both sides on this issue, not really here at AnandTech, but other places. Then is it true what was mentioned in that quote that 1600x1200 won't make much difference and I should really be looking at getting something in 1900x1200?

If so, then for the money what's a decent LCD sporting the 1900x1200 rez?

THANKS

 

[leegroves86]

My 2 cents:
I have the samsung 940B 19' LCD. It is an awesome monitor, especially for gaming! I forget all the specs but its an 8ms monitor with DVI and VGA. I use it to play everything from WoW to Battlefield 2 and UT04 and I have never seen any "ghosting" Nothing but superb! Highly reccomended!

 

[Sonikku]

Originally posted by: DasFox
Well I have been spending sometime, actually a few months, mainly picking peoples brains. They tell me that 19" are the real gaming monitors and anything above that you can run into issues and that 20" and above are not really gaming monitors.

My Sony FW900 is 24", although I can assure you it most certainly is a gaming monitor.

 

[xtknight]

Resolution doesn't directly affect the blurring but dot pitch does. Bigger crystals can transition faster. In terms of dot pitch, 19"@1280x1024 > 17"@1280x1024 > 20"@1600x1200 so 19"s would be the best choice for speed (biggest dot pitch), but at such small size differences there probably isn't much difference in blurring. Big LCD TVs have the best response times.

I have the VP930b. In one particular transition (below 0-64 r/g/b; rather rare and unbothersome for me) it is quite slow but other than that it's very fast. The VX922/VX924 are fast across the whole spectrum period. Probably not a whole lot of difference in viewing angle. Possibly in color accuracy (VP930b having the upper hand).

Edit: eek. Correction: VX924 may not be so great. THG rated it with a horrible response graph but X-Bit says it's fine? I don't know what to think. Check it out in a store I guess (check out VX922 too; it's faster).

 

[SpeedZealot369]

Whats so good about cs: source?

 

[DasFox]

Well in my gut I'm convinced that I want to go with something in the 23" range sporting 1920X1200 range.

These two at the moment for me have my attention:

Benq FP231W:
http://www.benq.us/Products/LCD/index.cfm?product=435

Acer AL2416WD
http://us.acer.com/acerpanam/page4.do?d...US&LanguageISOCtxParam=en&crc=61218241

THANKS

P.S. The Acer sports --> 6ms

 

[themusgrat]

The reason that resolution affects gaming is that if the cards have to put 1920x1200 pixels up on the screen, you will get lower frame rates. Many gamers like 1280x1024 because it gives a lot of pixels with minimum lag. With SLI, I think you could go for 1600x1200, but with 1920x1200, it won't be long (in terms of new games) before you are forced to turn down resolution or eye candy. Another reason to get 1600x1200 is that 1280x1024 is stretched to fit. If you look at a circle on it, it won't be perfectly round. With 1600x1200, nothing is stretched, and it is a good all around monitor. BTW, even with my 16ms monitor, ghosting is only noticeable if I really, REALLY look for it on BF2.

EDIT: Both of those monitors look great, but if pricing was equal, I'd do the Acer.

 

[kmmatney]

I thought the Dell 2005FPW was considered a gaming monitor.... In any case, a 19" monitor is really not good enough (resolution wise) for your system. You need higher resolution to justify having the SLI - the Acer 24" LCD looks quite good.

BenQ and Acer are now related companies, but the Acer branded LCD you point to has a newer panel, and is lower cost.

 

[DasFox]

themusgrat, well I hear what you are saying, but others are saying 1600X1200 isn't going to bring out any difference and that I should be looking at 1900.

I'm really lame when it comes to trying to figure out a nice LCD, they really are my weakness. Your thoughts on future games does make me wonder, how long will it be before I can't play with MAX eye candy and have to turn it down, now that would suck, but I hope that will be at least a year down the road.

This lag you talk about, well how much are we really talking? I mean on a AMD X2 3800+ running 2 7800 GTs I'd hope it wouldn't even be noticeable that anyone would want to even consider using a smaller resolution.

So many pros and cons when it comes to this subject.

Personally at the moment I have my eye on the Acer AL2416WD and I'm not to sure about the BenQ, but the HP L2335 looks tempting too. Someone over at NewEgg commented, saying it uses the same panels as the Apple 23" Cinema.

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.asp?Item=N82E16824176018

And then that Apple 23" Cinema has me thinking real hard too.

THANKS

 

[WhoBeDaPlaya]

BenQ FP91+
/thread

 

[DasFox]

I like what I read that AnandTech in a review said about 24" LCDs:

Four years from now, any current CPU/GPU combination is going to be outdated, but you can still continue to run a 24" LCD happily until it finally breaks down. Money well spent, if you ask me.

 

[kmmatney]

Originally posted by: DasFox
I like what I read that AnandTech in a review said about 24" LCDs:

Four years from now, any current CPU/GPU combination is going to be outdated, but you can still continue to run a 24" LCD happily until it finally breaks down. Money well spent, if you ask me.

Better to spend more on a quality LCD. You'll probably be upgrading your video cards within 2 years but the LCD should last a long time. I'm on my third video card and second cpu since getting my 19" LCD monitor. By the time I get my next video card, I'll be wishing I had a bigger monitor.

 

[themusgrat]

If the HP really uses the same panel as the Apple, go for it. And 1920x1200 does sound good, and I think that with your setup, you will be good for a good long while (2-3 years), in any case. By lag, I just mean that the cards might not give a good 50 fps on every game @ that res, though maybe they will. The quote from AT is good, something to remember.

 

[DasFox]

Look at this I found:

AnandTech HP L2335 Review:
http://www.anandtech.com/displays/showdoc.aspx?i=2467&p=1

AnandTech Acer AL2416Wd Review:
http://www.anandtech.com/guides/showdoc.aspx?i=2659&p=7

Also with the Acer, over at NewEgg:

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.asp?Item=N82E16824009061

Not one person gave it a bad comment, to me that looked pretty impressive even if it was only 18 reviews at this point in time.

And Alienware sells them too:

http://www.alienware.com/GearShop_Pages...op_Detail.aspx?ItemId=14215&CatId=1008

I use to really respect Alienware, yes they have become really commerical, but it makes me wonder of all the LCDs out there, they sell this one.

This Acer I think might be the ticket.