LCD recommendation

[jasonpurchase]

Hello

thinking about getting an 17" or 18" lcd, choices are

NEC 1760NX.

planar px171m

Hitachi CML174SXW

dell 1800fp

what's your recommendation?

and does refresh rate matter on lcds, i've seen some with 60 at max resolution and others with 75. Does it really matter

thanks

 

[Nebor]

All great monitors, all pretty much the same except the dell. I have the NEC, I like it a lot. I think about getting a second one, but I'd rather have a GFX5900...

 

[BaboonGuy]

if you're a gamer, like a real hardcore gamer then yes refresh rates matter. you want something like 17ms refresh i think, the NEC has that and is the favored 17 LCD by gamers i think...

the 1800fp has 25 ms (again iirc).. if you're gonna get an lcd that's 25 ms, i'd go for a 1901fp or a 191T (19" lcds)

 

[saltedeggman]

Originally posted by: BaboonGuy
if you're a gamer, like a real hardcore gamer then yes refresh rates matter. you want something like 17ms refresh i think, the NEC has that and is the favored 17 LCD by gamers i think...

the 1800fp has 25 ms (again iirc).. if you're gonna get an lcd that's 25 ms, i'd go for a 1901fp or a 191T (19" lcds)

you meant 16ms response time right?

 

[Nebor]

Originally posted by: BaboonGuy
if you're a gamer, like a real hardcore gamer then yes refresh rates matter. you want something like 17ms refresh i think, the NEC has that and is the favored 17 LCD by gamers i think...

the 1800fp has 25 ms (again iirc).. if you're gonna get an lcd that's 25 ms, i'd go for a 1901fp or a 191T (19" lcds)

He means 16ms RESPONSE TIME. That's the time it takes for a pixel to turn from black to white. With higher response times, you'll get a trail of pixels that haven't finished changing from black to white, and thus you'll have a black\gray trail behind the moving object. That's what they call "ghosting." All the LCDs you mentioned have 16ms response times, except the Dell, but all reports indicate it has no ghosting anyways.

As far as actual refresh rates, I don't think it matters... Mine can go up to 75hz, but I don't know what that means since LCDs don't really "refresh" top to bottom like a CRT. NO one here on this forum could explain to me what changing the refresh did on an LCD, and I made several posts, and even my own topic about it.

EDIT: I bumped a couple of my old threads for you.

 

[saltedeggman]

and I am using the sony 17" LCD (sdmx73 black)

paper specs looks good, 16ms 500:1 contrast, 300 brightness, this is one kickass monitor

edit: also get dvi, because it by far better than anolog, i have a 15" philips that is anolog (well sepcs are not the same), but dvi makes everything sharper

 

[Nebor]

Newer LCDs offer almost no difference between DVI and analog, or so I've heard. Apparently the technology has pretty much evened them out now.

 

[KristopherKubicki]

Nebor, I think you have heard wrong. Image quality is severely affected by the DVI connection and its not worth using an analog signal.

The Dell 1800FP is a fine monitor, response times are not everything. Particularly, let us keep in mind that gray to gray response times, an unpublished spec, are far more important than black to white. 16ms response times are OK, but youre only going to notice the difference between monitor A and monitor B if you play pong or something like that. 16ms response time is another one of those wonderful marketing specs.

However, the CML174 is still a good monitor. I am hesitant about the 18 bit panel, but for the price its definately a decent unit. The CML174 is usually the cheapest of the 16ms 17" LCDs, i would go to monitorsdirect.com if you were going to get one.

Cheers,

Kristopher

 

[BoomAM]

Originally posted by: jasonpurchase
and does refresh rate matter on lcds, i've seen some with 60 at max resolution and others with 75. Does it really matter

Does really matter at all

Get the Hitachi

Originally posted by: KristopherKubicki
However, the CML174 is still a good monitor. I am hesitant about the 18 bit panel, but for the price its definately a decent unit. The CML174 is usually the cheapest of the 16ms 17" LCDs, i would go to monitorsdirect.com if you were going to get one.

The CML174s are more than just good monitors, they are excellent. And the "18bit" issue that you, and some people mention, would not have been known at all if it wasnt for TH using some fancy testing gear. Which points towards the fact that; IT ISNT NOTICABLE, AT ALL.

 

[jasonpurchase]

what is this 18bit issue? can someone explain, and what a good lcd should have ? 20 bit?

I really like the NEC one, how does it compare to the dell 1800fp

 

[KristopherKubicki]

BoomAM;

I am not really sure where you got that impression from. I was aware of the color issue when I reviewed the monitor earlier this year, and during several posts i have made since then. Its fairly easy to see when the specs are written right on the panel.

http://www.auo.com/e_products_monitor_m170en05.shtml

As for people not noticing it, I am not sure where you read that either. True, the monitor provides 16.2M colors using "dithering" pixels, basically using 4 pixels to almost reproduce the color of 1. however this does not give you a clear image at all. I also do not know where THG mentioned some fancy testing gear. We used a colorvision spyder, which noticed the color problems immediately, as well as plain color charts that anyone can get for free.

Jason: Readup on it here:
http://www.anandtech.com/showdoc.html?i=1855&p=3

Cheers,

Kristopher

 

[jasonpurchase]

Thanks for the info

so does the dell 1800fp has the same problem i mean the 18bit thing, or does it have better image quality? am i right to assume that almost all 16 ms lcds have this problem so it better to get one that has higher response time?

thanks

 

[Nebor]

I think you'll be perfectly happy with any of the monitors mentioned here. Except maybe the Sony, but I'm just not a Sony fan.

 

[Maggotry]

Maybe I'm inferring too much, but are folks saying that with a 16ms response time, then LCD's are just as good as CRT's for gaming purposes? If not, then what kind of response time would be required? I'd like to get an LCD for a number of reasons, but the gaming experience has to be just as good or better than a CRT or else I'll just have to wait until LCD's advance more.

 

[wetcat007]

I got the Nec 1760NX-1 and will vouch for it, get it from dell.com for $423 it is right now check the hot deals section, I got one but it had a lit pixel, did an exchange easily no shipping costs for another one with dell, quick and easy, second one had all pixels working 100%!

For 16ms lcd's sure u can see blurring if ur despertly looking for it, however 16ms=62.5fps and the refresh is 60hz on digital. If you get the Nec one beware that it doesnt include a digital monitor cable so you'll have to go and buy your own.

 

[KristopherKubicki]

Jason; no the 1800FP runs off a normal 16.7M color panel, not an 18 bit one. Sorry for the confusion. Not all 16ms LCDs have this problem, only the ones made by AUO right now.

Maggotry; 16ms LCDs are not effective CRT replacements. While black to white response time might be around 16ms, its the gray to gray response time that kills LCDs. More often than not this can be over 100ms, (think 10fps). Not worth it for the time being.

Kristopher

 

[Nebor]

I think Kris' standards are SO much higher than the rest of ours that his advice is inapplicable. Mere mortals can't see what he's talking about.

 

[KristopherKubicki]

What?

 

[Excelsior]

Originally posted by: Nebor
I think Kris' standards are SO much higher than the rest of ours that his advice is inapplicable. Mere mortals can't see what he's talking about.

Dude, no. Kris is cool and he is helping everyone out. Back off.

 

[Nebor]

You have a lab full of professional testing equipment... and while technically some screens are better than other, practically we can't tell the difference. I mean, you have the fancy numbers and all that... but what does it really mean? Means nothing to my eyes. I experience no more ghosting on my lcd than I did w/ my Hitachi CRT. And the colours are more vibrant, to me. I'm sure with your ultra-monitor scope 2000, you could disprove me, but that's my point. Most of us don't have ultra-monitor scopes. And we don't steal so called "free" color charts.

I'm not attacking Kris, I'm just saying that his standards aren't applicable to the masses. A proffesional sound engineer wouldn't use an Audigy 2, but most of us think they rock.

 

[KristopherKubicki]

Nebor,

Most people would say your argument is true concerning video cards :-X Anyways, what is this about stealing color charts though? I dont understand what you mean?

Kristopher

 

[Nebor]

Originally posted by: KristopherKubicki
Nebor,
Most people would say your argument is true concerning video cards :-X Anyways, what is this about stealing color charts though? I dont understand what you mean?
Kristopher

It was a joke, in one of your other LCD posts, you were talking about how you could tell the difference with colour charts which are free to anyone. :-D

And that argument is true concerning video cards. 9800 Pro = 5900. People are just freaks, that's all.

 

[KristopherKubicki]

Yeah,

http://www.monitorsdirect.com/toolkit/index.shtml - Not the best, but if you tweak it a little you can make it do the exact same stuff as Vincent's benchmark on THG.

Kristopher

 

[AgaBoogaBoo]

Nebor, but you also have to consider that when people spend a large amount of money, they would rather spend a little more for the right deicision even if its only slightly better because these LCD monitors are not the cheapest.

 

[WobbleWobble]

I just took the LCD plunge and got the Samsung 173T. It's great! The monitor base could be a bit more sturdy though...