Gaming with a LCD screen ?

[Sonikku]

Originally posted by: Elfear

Originally posted by: Sonikku
can play WoW at 1920x1200 with good framerates. I can only play BF2 at about 1280x960 with good framerates. However, I can at least play Half Life 2 in 1600x1200 with good framerates. I'm just glad I'm not limited to a LCD screen. They're limited to one resolution and that's that. Everything else must be scaled to it's native resolution, often with ugly results in fast paced games. I also don't care for dead pixels. Seeing as how most developers do not consider dead pixels to be a flaw, they will not return an LCD screen unless it has so many dead pixels, often 5 or more. Ghosting is another issue that is difficult to pinpoint. I've seen LCD's with slightly higher response times that have less ghosting then other screens with lower response times. I don't know what the hell was with that. In any case, for serious gaming I'm glad to have my 24" Sony FW900. It can display any resolution from 640x480 at 200htz to 2304x1440 at 80htz natively with no scaling. All for $300. But that's just my take. I understand if having a slimmer monitor is a much higher priority then picture quality/no ghosting/versatile resolutions ect. I just don't fall into that category.

Actually the newer LCD's scale pretty well. I know some look like dump but don't make a blanket statement about all LCD's since it's simply not true.

lol, if that's the only counter-arguement you can make against my post I guess I should consider myself lucky to be using a Sony FW900. I understand that LCD's are sucking less all the time, however even if your screen can scale 1920x1200 or beyond you're still not seeing that many pixels. Also, note that I used the word "often" and not "always".

 

[phantom404]

I have the New Sony 19 inch LCD wih X-Brite Technology and a 14ms response time and i can honestly say that picture quality is that if not better of a CRT. THe only minor drawbacks are the price which i think they have dropped since i got mine and the other draw back would be the glare you get off of it if a light hits it just write

 

[Elfear]

Originally posted by: Sonikku

Originally posted by: Elfear

Originally posted by: Sonikku
can play WoW at 1920x1200 with good framerates. I can only play BF2 at about 1280x960 with good framerates. However, I can at least play Half Life 2 in 1600x1200 with good framerates. I'm just glad I'm not limited to a LCD screen. They're limited to one resolution and that's that. Everything else must be scaled to it's native resolution, often with ugly results in fast paced games.

Actually the newer LCD's scale pretty well. I know some look like dump but don't make a blanket statement about all LCD's since it's simply not true.

lol, if that's the only counter-arguement you can make against my post I guess I should consider myself lucky to be using a Sony FW900. I understand that LCD's are sucking less all the time, however even if your screen can scale 1920x1200 or beyond you're still not seeing that many pixels. Also, note that I used the word "often" and not "always".

Fixed.

If you look at my original post you'll see that I only qouted the above statement. I was only replying to that portion of your post, hence the reason I only qouted that portion of your post. That's the beauty of free will, I can pick and choose which parts of a persons post I reply to.

I've played games at a few different resolutions (1024x768, 1280x1024, and 1680x1050) and it looks great with every one.

OP- I know it doesn't meet your criteria of 8ms or better, but the 2005fpw is a very good panel and myself and many others notice no motion blur whatsoever. See if you can find one in a local store or maybe a buddy with one to see for yourself if you like it or not.

 

[niggles]

Originally posted by: stengah
Thanks for the feedback guys 🙂

In fact I'm really concerned about ghosting because I play fast paced games, Q3 for exemple, you can't go faster ...
I've tested a 25ms response LCD and I could definitly see the "motion blur" ...

However it seems there is no ghosting at ALL on the new 4/3 ms LCDs, like the Viewsonic VX924, but the colors were terrible...

Isn't there something in between ? I don't really care for the price, because I plan to keep this screen for several years... I'm looking for quality 🙂

so, fast responce (8ms at least) AND quality, does it exist ? I'm not looking for ultra sharp image but ... it was simply horrible on the VX924...

Thx 😛

common wisdom is that you need at least 16ms response times for gaming. As you may or may not have already read there are very few Manufacturers that give you the real response times. Some go as far as to only measure the response times in black and white mode. Some of them seem like they simply pulled the latency out of their asses. Best thing to do is look to reviews from reputable sites (such as this one, see my ealier links in this thread) and view their testing response times rather than the marketing response times. There generally seems to be a trade off between colour and response times, but you can get something that covers both at reasonable rates. Looks like if money is no object you want the HP L2335