8ms LCD

[Waylay00]

if i run UT2004, its about 40-60FPS. just because the monitor can only display 83 FPS doesn't mean it's going to limit my video card from rendering the 100 FPS in original UT.

Well, yes, obviously you're video card is going to generate more than 83 fps, but the monitor can only display 83 fps of how many you are getting. Basically, the monitor caps out at 83fps, even if it was saying 500fps.

 

[mustangless]

915n 8ms from samsung

 

[Gerbil333]

Originally posted by: dionx
i run UT2004 at 1280x1024 at about normal settings. my general FPS using a Ti4200 is about 40-60 fps. so you are telling me by getting a 12ms panel, that i can get 83FPS now? your logic baffles me.

especially since 1000ms/12ms = 83, but that is unitless. FPS is FRAMES PER SECOND.

It's not unitless:

A response time of 12ms means each pixel can be redisplayed once every 12ms. Therefore, it's 1 frame per 12ms, or 1 frame/12ms. The conversion factor for 1000ms is obviously 1 second = 1000ms. If you've taken any very basic physics classes, this should make sense.

[see code box]


There you have it. Response time does in fact correlate to FPS. A lower response time will allow the LCD to display more frames per second. No, it won't make your video card render more frames; the LCD will be able to display UP TO (1000/response time in ms) frames per second. It's just like a CRT's refresh rate--at 60hz, the monitor can only draw 60 frames per second even if your video card renders 122 fps.

Back to the topic...

Personally, I'd wait for some other manufacturers like Samsung, LG, Benq, etc. to come out with their renditions of an 8ms monitor, then make my choice based on some reviews.

Sony makes good LCDs. Their SDM-S73 has the highest user rating at Newegg for LCDs <= $500. I have one and I like it. But, 16ms is still way too slow. I actually don't notice it as much in games as I do when scrolling down a website. To prove to myself that I wasn't imagining things, I hooked up my SDM-S73 and my Viewsonic G90fb to my 9800 Pro simultaneously. Here's the result:

Pic

You can clearly see how much the LCD lags, while the CRT produces a clean image. Therefore, I'm not going to buy an LCD for my main system until LCDs can perform better. I'll have to take a look at an 8ms LCD for myself, but I imagine they perform much better than my 16ms screen.

 

[Googer]

It is never quite as fast as it is advertised to be. The real world responce time is going to be more like 16-20ms.

 

[Googer]

By the way what is wrong with a good old crt? They have none of these issues.

 

[CaMSpoon]

I was actually looking at the viewsonic 20inch 1600x1200 16ms. Are you guys telling me this isnt a good one to pick up? Also what ms do CRTS have? Should i pick up that monitor or you guys dont think its good? Its gonna be used mostly for gaming.

 

[w00t]

i was thinking about going lcd but after seeing some more reviews and such i think i am gonna go back to crt.

 

[masshass81]

CRT repsonse is <1ms

 

[piroroadkill]

CRTs have obscenely low response times, they always have done, it's the way they're made.

You don't even measure the response time of a CRT, because it is not significant.

 

[rivethead]

"There are plenty of 12ms panels with a full 16.7m color rating. The Samsung 712N and 710T for example. "

Are you sure about this? Everything I've seen on the Samsungs says they support only 16.2 million colors which indicates to me they get their fast response times by "cheating" via using 6-bit processing and dithering.

So you get your 12ms response time but sacrifice 500,000 colors.

 

[grant2]

Uhh rivethead, 18-bit colour (6 bit / colour x 3 colours ) is 262,144 colours, not "16.2 M".

So it looks like you just misread past the decimal point.

 

[h3nG]

great image gerbil! i was actually thinking of doing one myself to show all those people who can't detect ghosting what it looks like. lol...(i am still dumbfounded by people who can't notice ghosting, it's just so obvious to me still on 12ms screens).

camspoon - if you plan on getting an lcd becauseyou think it'll outperform crts in games, dont do it. gaming on crts will always be better with the lagging lcd technology. you can look of lcds as something new and "cool". it's benefits are great and many. but aside from better text and crisp display, crts will always outperform crts in overall picture quality for gaming.

crts are liquid smooth...god do i miss that.

Originally posted by: grant2
Uhh rivethead, 18-bit colour (6 bit / colour x 3 colours ) is 262,144 colours, not "16.2 M".

So it looks like you just misread past the decimal point.

? says on samsung webpage - Colors Supported 16.2 Million

 

[CaMSpoon]

Oh no i never thought they were better i just cant stand having this MASSIVE 21inch CRT on my desk and gives out alot of heat. Thats the main reason i wanted to get lcd. I always knew about CRTS being alot better for gaming but i thought 16ms was really good. I guess i wont do it then. I wont hurt me that much since this monitor is at where i work and i can return it at anytime.