LCD Monitors For Gaming AND Development

[GamingDaemon]

Hi,

I'm a devoted gamer for fun, and a developer for work. That means I need the 1600x1200 real estate for applications like Microsoft's Visual Studio, and a low response rate like 8ms for games.

But I can't find any reviews of LCD monitors newer than a year old.

Also, I may be a little confused by statements of some reviewers that say that a LCD monitor's 75MHz refresh rate means it cannot display anything more than 75 FPS. Is this true? If so, does that mean that my gaming rig which produces 100 FPS for a particular game only shows 75 of them in a given second? Am I missing 25% of the frames??

Please clear this up for me. And don't tell me to look on google or on other threads in AnandTech. I've tried. Everything is almost a year old.

TIA!

 

[dmw16]

I dont know about this response time thing. I am sure that there is some difference and maybe a little tearing - but I have gamed a lot on my basic Dell 17" LCD w/ (I think) a 17ms response time. Never had any issues that I have noticed in Doom3, CS:S:, HL2, etc.

 

[Oyeve]

Dude, humans can barely see 30fps. Dont sweat it. That said, get a dell 2005fpw or 2007fpw. Or better yet, a 2405fpw

 

[SuperFreaky]

Originally posted by: Oyeve
Dude, humans can barely see 30fps. Dont sweat it. That said, get a dell 2005fpw or 2007fpw. Or better yet, a 2405fpw

Never seen the 30fps vs 60fps demo huh?

 

[SuperFreaky]

Also, refresh rates don't exist on LCDs its all ms response time. For me anything sub 15ms response looks fine to me.

Get the 2405fpw if you can afford it and visit www.widescreengamingforum.com

 

[GamingDaemon]

Originally posted by: SuperFreaky

Originally posted by: Oyeve
Dude, humans can barely see 30fps. Dont sweat it. That said, get a dell 2005fpw or 2007fpw. Or better yet, a 2405fpw

Never seen the 30fps vs 60fps demo huh?

I haven't seen the demo, but I am assuming our brains can make sense out of more than 30fps or there wouldn't be such a big market for video cards etc. Given that, do I need to worry about more than 75fps? If my rig can do more than that, say 100fps, am I really missing frames?

 

[Davegod]

Originally posted by: GamingDaemon

Hi,

I'm a devoted gamer for fun, and a developer for work. That means I need the 1600x1200 real estate for applications like Microsoft's Visual Studio, and a low response rate like 8ms for games.

But I can't find any reviews of LCD monitors newer than a year old.

Also, I may be a little confused by statements of some reviewers that say that a LCD monitor's 75MHz refresh rate means it cannot display anything more than 75 FPS. Is this true? If so, does that mean that my gaming rig which produces 100 FPS for a particular game only shows 75 of them in a given second? Am I missing 25% of the frames??

Please clear this up for me. And don't tell me to look on google or on other threads in AnandTech. I've tried. Everything is almost a year old.

TIA!

Yes, you're missing 25% of the frames your videocard generates. Oh noes!!

However....

FPS isnt the same as Hz (nor MHz, but there's no monitor available retail with million times per second refresh), though I'm guessing you havent really understood the significance of "FPS" either.

"FPS" is the number of complete screen images (frames) your videocard fully computes every second. "FPS", or at least what it refers to - and/or what it is used as an indicator of, often has implications much wider than simply the frequency of the image being updated. For example, in a significant portion of games it affects things like the physics and responsiveness of input controls, because that's the way the programmer wrote how the game does calculations. Think of FPS as a two way thing.

"Hz" refers to the number of complete images your monitor can display in a second*. So yes you do only get 75 "frames" displayed, but this is not the same as only having the computing power to sustain 75 FPS. Think of Hz as a one way thing.


edit: neither our eyes nor our brain's interpretations work at an 'FPS', and even if it did there'd be a syncronisation consideration and hence higher FPS and Hz would STILL be better.

 

[GamingDaemon]

Davegod,

Yes, I meant to say Hz not MHz, my bad.

So given your explanations of FPS and Hz, if I have invested some good $$$ in a gaming system, what should I focus on when buying an LCD monitor (remembering that I also want 1600x1200 for regular software development too). In other words, am I resigned to having spent a lot of $$$ on a system to only be limited by my monitor?

Or, does it even really matter? Should I just look for a 1600x1200@75Hz LCD monitor with something less than 16ms response time to avoid ghosting?

Sooo confused...


Edit: And please explain your last edit a little more. Thanks...

 

[Gamer X]

The NEC 20WMGX2 is the best 20.1 LCD monitor available currently but it's pricey.

 

[Davegod]

Originally posted by: GamingDaemon
So given your explanations of FPS and Hz, if I have invested some good $$$ in a gaming system, what should I focus on when buying an LCD monitor (remembering that I also want 1600x1200 for regular software development too).

* Good resolution, which you already know about. Bear in mind however that this will be the "native" resolution for the monitor, and if you run games at a lower resolution they will not look as good as if the monitor had that resolution as native - if you dont have a powerful PC it can be better for gaming visual quality to have a cheaper monitor!.

* decent response times (8ns, less for preference). Peoiple debate what is acceptable for gaming and there's no agreement in sight, I guess some people notice it more than others.

Otherwise check the LCD buyer's guide. The tech hasnt changed since then really. There's a dozen new names for some things, especially "X-Brite". but they're the same thing, just companies trying to differentiate their brands in the mind of the consumer.

In other words, am I resigned to having spent a lot of $$$ on a system to only be limited by my monitor?

No, the point I was trying to make was that while high FPS does matter, high Hz does not, not at all, and Hz has no impact on the FPS. Hz matters to some people on CRT monitors, because the way they work a low refresh rate causes some people to notice the flicker and this causes headaches, but this does not apply to TFT's because they work completely differently.

Or, does it even really matter? Should I just look for a 1600x1200@75Hz LCD monitor with something less than 16ms response time to avoid ghosting?

exactly

Edit: And please explain your last edit a little more. Thanks...

All i'm saying is that eye's and brains work in a different way to computer components

 

[GamingDaemon]

Davegod,

Ok thank you!!

One last question. The NEC 20WMGX2 monitor that Gamer X mentions looks really good. It has a 6ms repsonse time, almost the resolution I am looking for (1680x1050...I could live with that), but it only has a maximum vertical refresh of 60Hz. So given what you have said, I can only expect a maximum of 60fps. So, I should keep looking right? I think that would bother me, even if it was only in my mind, lol.

 

[Ubuy]

The NEC 20WMGX2 is a good monitor, as for reviews it is true there are limited reviews from many non-biased parties on monitors. Although I do not game much do to time constraints I do allot of graphics. I personally use the Viewsonic VG2021m. I can say that consciously we have no true grasp of refresh but sub-consciously the FPS and refresh are gathered.
Our site will also commence a feedback forum just for consumers and techs alike to gather feedback based upon consumers, techs and gamers who are currently using a particular Make and model as we would also appreciate the feedback.

 

[Howard]

Originally posted by: GamingDaemon
Davegod,

Ok thank you!!

One last question. The NEC 20WMGX2 monitor that Gamer X mentions looks really good. It has a 6ms repsonse time, almost the resolution I am looking for (1680x1050...I could live with that), but it only has a maximum vertical refresh of 60Hz

Why does it matter?

 

[Suspicious-Teach8788]

Ok, can we solve the whole retardedness about REFRESH RATES once and for all?

YES they matter for CRTs, and DO NOT WORRY about 60 or 75 for LCDs. It's FINE. It doesnt work the same way as it did for CRTs.

Seocnd of all, if you want GAMING and DEVEOPMENT, I recommend a Viewsonic VP930b for 19" and if you want 20", get the VP2030b. Everyone who's recommending Dell Monitors, may you burn in hell. Those are the worst monitors ever. I have a 2405, I've seen 2005s and 2007s, and they all SUCK.

 

[Howard]

Originally posted by: DLeRium
Everyone who's recommending Dell monitors, may you burn in hell. Those are the worst monitors ever. I have a 2405, I've seen 2005s and 2007s, and they all SUCK.

Right.

 

[GamingDaemon]

Originally posted by: DLeRium
Ok, can we solve the whole retardedness about REFRESH RATES once and for all?

YES they matter for CRTs, and DO NOT WORRY about 60 or 75 for LCDs. It's FINE. It doesnt work the same way as it did for CRTs.

Seocnd of all, if you want GAMING and DEVEOPMENT, I recommend a Viewsonic VP930b for 19" and if you want 20", get the VP2030b. Everyone who's recommending Dell Monitors, may you burn in hell. Those are the worst monitors ever. I have a 2405, I've seen 2005s and 2007s, and they all SUCK.

Perfect, thank you. My anal-retentive, obsessive compulsive desires have been laid to rest thanks to your, if I may use a euphemism, no-nonsense approach to answering my questions. I will look into the Viewsonic VP930b and the VP2030b. Whew!

Many thanks to Davegod as well for quieting my over-active, analytic spinning on Hz and FPS.

Finally, it's quiet inside my head.

 

[Shadow Conception]

The human eye cutoff is 65FPS, as far as I know.

 

[evilsaint]

Originally posted by: Shadow Conception
The human eye cutoff is 65FPS, as far as I know.

Do a few searches in the Video forum, find the program that plays the same pre-rendered scene at the number of FPS that you plug in, and switch back and forth between 65FPS and 165FPS. Tell us what you think the cut off of the human eye is after watching that