19" LCDs slow?

[kaishaku72]

Are 19" LCDs inherently slower than a 17" with the same panel?

This is the impression I get from the catching up I've been doing.

If this was true, is it still true?

Finally, why?

 

[xtknight]

Other way around. The crystals can change faster when larger. I thought you'd come to the opposite conclusion because there aren't an abundance of 17" 8ms. panels while there are like hundreds for 19". There are 42" LCD TVs that can keep up a consistent 16ms. (rise and fall) or lower, I believe. Good luck finding that on a small panel that doesn't use the artifact-inducing overvoltage hacks.

 

[kaishaku72]

I didn't come to a conclusion, I got the impression from numerous hardware sites.

 

[kaishaku72]

Also, IMHO, a hack is NOT "a technique which, in its current implementation, yields
unwanted side-effects"... To me, a developer, a hack is all about the implementation.

That said, I won't be calling increasing voltage (or whatever), as a method of
increasing the response of something which responds to such, a hack.

If I have to argue my impression 19" LCDs are/were? considered slower I will.

I don't want this to be about overdrive, especially since you and I have PM history.

 

[kaishaku72]

http://graphics.tomshardware.com/display/20050215/index.html

http://graphics.tomshardware.com/display/20050110/index.html

Maybe it was simply the manufacturers choosing to release 17" models first
as well as concentrating on them technically. Maybe that's already changed...

http://graphics.tomshardware.com/display/20050720/lcd_review-14.html

http://graphics.tomshardware.com/display/20050720/lcd_review-17.html#conclusion

There were other sites giving the same impression, behardware and prad,
but I just perused THG to get the above quickly... I need to go out for a bit.

 

[xtknight]

I'd at least call it a workaround because it has undesirable effects.

But yeah I was just curious how you got that impression was all, because 8ms. 17" LCDs came later than the 19" ones. Then again we don't know what "8ms." means.

THG is where I got the info of bigger crystals changing faster. Their response graphs agreed. It was in some LCD TV article. I'll try to find it if you want.

Oh OK you got it from this?:

First, 19" LCDs are fundamentally slow

Honestly not sure at all what they're talking about, unless they're comparing that to a 42".

Here's one example of the contrary:
http://graphics.tomshardware.com/display/20050523/lcd_tv-22.html
The 32" beats the fast 17" most of the time.
A better example: http://graphics.tomshardware.com/display/20050523/lcd_tv-13.html
Better yet: http://graphics.tomshardware.com/display/20050523/lcd_tv-16.html

I'm pretty sure I recall a 32" or 42" beat a fast 17" across the board before though. I don't think the 32"s above were touted as being extremely fast like the 17" FP71E+, so I suppose they could get it lower.

 

[xtknight]

Thoughts?

 

[kaishaku72]

Above.

 

[xtknight]

Well rereading your OP, you say 'same panel'. Do you mean a panel with the same properties (like both being 8-bit,S-PVA)? Also I assume you mean same resolution because this can have impact if what I read about the bigger crystals on THG was correct. I guess on an inherent level it's really hard to say but I keep quite a good eye out for LCDs and I definitely see lower response times on the 19"s than the 17"s, possibly suggesting they are easier to make lower. Or, it could too be suggesting demand for 17"s has gone down the toilet. The new BenQ "2ms." is a 19" and I haven't heard any mention of 17"s below "8ms." to be honest. I'm also really curious about this (and everything LCD-related). Sorry if I sounded a little rude in my first response but I was just saying one would be hard-pressed to find a 19" to keep up at 16ms. without using Overdrive.