- Oct 22, 1999
- 1,655
- 10
- 81
For the money, is there a better GAMING monitor this size out there than this BenQ?
http://www.newegg.com/Product/...anel-_-BenQ-_-24014173
http://www.newegg.com/Product/...anel-_-BenQ-_-24014173
24 "Gaming monitor
- Thread starter looper
- Start date
It should be average. It's using the "low end" TN Panel. But for a 24" 1920x1200 display the price is reasonable. It seems a lot of displays are sitting at the lower resolution 1920x1080 these days.
I have noticed that 24" panels fall into a few categories.
Inexpensive sub $300 "consumer" LCDs. They use the cheaper TN panels and run 1080p rather than the higher 1920x1200 resolutions.
moderately inexpensive consumer LCDs using TN panels with 1920x1200 for around the ~$400 mark.
Moderately priced "pro-sumer" LCDs using VA panels at 1920x1200 for ~$600.
Expensive IPS displays >$600.
All that said. For gaming and general PC use, those inexpensive $300-400 LCDs are decent. When looked at on their own, they look fantastic. But, if you put one, side by side, near a VA or IPS panel the differences are striking.
I recently purchased a HP 23" display for a second PC and to do multi monitor stuff on my primary PC. In the store the display looked great, as it did when I installed it at home. Then I plugged it in as the extended desktop to my primary PC that is also using a Dell 2407. The difference was stunning. Clarity, Color, Quality, viewing Angle, Brightness, Contrast... The more expensive Dell ($600 for the current version, 2408) just blows the HP display away. That's not to say that they HP is bad. On the contrary, it looks great and serves it's purpose well for $229. But, you will see a tremendous difference if you spend the extra cash and get a higher quality panel.
I have noticed that 24" panels fall into a few categories.
Inexpensive sub $300 "consumer" LCDs. They use the cheaper TN panels and run 1080p rather than the higher 1920x1200 resolutions.
moderately inexpensive consumer LCDs using TN panels with 1920x1200 for around the ~$400 mark.
Moderately priced "pro-sumer" LCDs using VA panels at 1920x1200 for ~$600.
Expensive IPS displays >$600.
All that said. For gaming and general PC use, those inexpensive $300-400 LCDs are decent. When looked at on their own, they look fantastic. But, if you put one, side by side, near a VA or IPS panel the differences are striking.
I recently purchased a HP 23" display for a second PC and to do multi monitor stuff on my primary PC. In the store the display looked great, as it did when I installed it at home. Then I plugged it in as the extended desktop to my primary PC that is also using a Dell 2407. The difference was stunning. Clarity, Color, Quality, viewing Angle, Brightness, Contrast... The more expensive Dell ($600 for the current version, 2408) just blows the HP display away. That's not to say that they HP is bad. On the contrary, it looks great and serves it's purpose well for $229. But, you will see a tremendous difference if you spend the extra cash and get a higher quality panel.
I believe this is one of the most recommended 24" monitors for gaming? It's still high up on the lcd monitor thread.
response rate is overrated how? If you're playing fps games you will be at a disadvantage without an excellent response time. The difference between you getting the head shot and the other person often comes down to milliseconds.
go look in the LCD thread that is stickied in the video card and graphics forum. or ask this question in there. there a lot more knowledgeable people in there.
I disagree. I am not a casual gamer, I play to win, and I've played counterstrike for years and have dabbled in the higher speed fps games, and I do not notice a difference between this mva panel and my 22" tn panel in those games with regard to response time or blurriness. I only notice a difference doing the "red box grey background" test in windows. I've never missed a headshot or felt that I was not updated quickly enough because my monitor was lagging, not ever.
That monitor is probably good for the price, there are others that will be similar performance in that price range. If you can spend more I'd recommend the dell 2408, you can get it on sale atm too, $100 off.
"response time" isn't nearly as important as it used to be. Early on, LCD's were up in the >20ms range so there was a lot of ghosting on fast paced games. AT the time 16ms or lower were suggested for gaming. Anything under 10ms isn't going to have any issues. Anything lower than that, the human eye can't really perceive so a 2 vs 6 ms difference is nothing.
At that point, my personal preference is to start looking at viewing angle, brightness and contrast. These will effect how well you can see movement and small changes in the action.
Edit: Just because I found it interesting... CRT monitors running 80hz are the equiv of an LCD with a 12.5ms refresh rate. So, even today's slowest LCDs are faster than the average gaming CRT.
I agree. For the price, I'm sure it's a fine display and you will likely not have any problems with it. But, in my experience the difference between a TN and VA panel is striking. The extra cost is worth the money, but the lower cost BenQ will do the job.
I'm not talking about noticing the difference. The fact remains there IS a difference between two people clicking at the same time with different monitors. The person with the faster monitor will get the head shot over the person with the slow one. Serious fps gamers want all the advantages they can get and I doubt any pros use lcds with lag over 5ms.
I've been in the top NA horde guild in WoW (sold acct for 750), top 10 diablo 2 ladder, nearly undefeated ladder record in Supcom (25-2ish, lost my 7th game to rank 33 and first game very stupidly) including beating some of the top 100 and top 20 players in custom games, and although I never played in leagues in CS I played my share of makeshift scrims and lans and I was damn good at it. I'm not a two-bit nub, and I'm not someone who spouts computer hardware bullshit I hear just because I heard it. If you want to buy a monitor with low refresh rate because you heard it makes you a better gamer or gives you an edge in your ability to react quickly than I doubt I'll talk you out of it. But its simply not correct. My friend recently returned his Acer G24 and got a dell 2408 and is amazed at the picture quality difference. Atm means at the moment.
Sorry, I don't buy it. And I doubt any pro's use TN panels either. The speed is simply how fast the pixel can go from a grey state, to a white state and back to a grey state. Not how fast the screen or pixel is painted. The result of a >16ms panel is that it gets ghosting, not that it doesn't paint fast enough. Given the human eye can't even see a discern a difference once it's under 16ms there is going to be no possible way it makes a difference at 6ms vs 2ms.
At this point contrast and brightness are going to be more important. I see it when my friend plays his with his Clan in CoD5. His Dell can see the subtle differences in color and movement behind vegetation. If contrast and color were less he would have a much harder time seeing the movement.
Care to share any links explaining how low ms panels display information at the same time as their slower counterparts? I've seen reviews where they test multiple lcd monitors vs CRT and the low ms LCD monitors were very close to the CRT but the higher ms LCD monitors were a few frames behind. That WILL give you a disadvantage.
well that's some serious fps experience. wow, d2 and supcom? whatever that is.
go look up what hardware pro cs players use. I promise you will not find a monitor over 5ms and most likely a lot of them still use CRT.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Input_lag
here, read up on input lag and tell me that it doesn't exist.
here, read up on input lag and tell me that it doesn't exist.
input lag does exist, to believe it does not is crazy. That said i own the BenQ E2200HD(2ms) and its great for gaming, i play alot of FPS and lost years of my life to UT when it first came out, and while the BenQ has nothing on my old sony CRT other than power useage and size/weight it is one of the better gaming LCD's i have personally used and seen. Dont expect great color definition but as with all TN panels you give up pretty much everything for fast response time and low input lag. my .02
Coreyb, you remind me of myself when I was a boy and I saw a commercial for dinky cars that changed colours whether they were hot or cold. I was so damn excited about them it was all I talked about, until I got two of them and realized that they change colors quite slowly and are prone to sticking to one colour after a while. On the commercial they changed color back and forth instantly with water and it was amazing. I got screwed man, I got fuckin screwed and I was like 6 years old. Your much older and your getting screwed now too, and me and griffin are trying to tell you whats up. I hope you'll at least test a mva panel before you decide that TN is the greatest thing to happen to gaming since vga.
Btw, you'd be hard pressed to find any pro gamers who use a crt. I'm sure plenty use TN and MVA panels but don't try to sell anyone on the CRT thing or we'll scream witch and burn your old technology at the stake.
Btw, you'd be hard pressed to find any pro gamers who use a crt. I'm sure plenty use TN and MVA panels but don't try to sell anyone on the CRT thing or we'll scream witch and burn your old technology at the stake.
Mem
Lifer
- Apr 23, 2000
- 21,476
- 13
- 81
Depends what you want in a LCD as a gamer,my Asus VW246H is a very good gaming panel for a TN panel ,good as BENQ TN panels IMHO,however there are some very good VA panels for gaming if you want to spend more money with superior viewing angles /colour etc.. ie NEC MultiSync 24WMGX³ (I'm aware its not available in every country).
The article is talking, mostly, about lag due to playing in non-native resolutions. ie running 800x600 on a 1200x1024 LCD. It even makes a distinction between lag time and response time.
the msgs wouldnt post and now i see they're 3x posted.... and i cant delete the excess ones.... i can edit tho... so this is it
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 23K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter