Using an LCD TV as a Computer Monitor/Television

[Phluxed]

I'm a student on a pretty tight budget. My 4 year old 19" monitor and 9 year old 21" television are both on the verge of their demise, and I'm hoping to replace both of them with a LCDTV. My original plans were a plasma TV, but burn-ins and resolutions are an issue. So before you chastize me, take that into consideration. I'm currently a resident of Canada and looking at doing this -

http://mdg.ca/en/products/tv_lcd37.asp

It would run me about $70 a month, which is affordable for me. I'm interested in hearing some input about using an LCD tv as a monitor. Yes, I'll be gaming on it, so I suppose I need to give my computer stats out. Athlon 64 3200+ (Nforce3 chipset), 1GB DDR400 Ram, 200GB HD, BFG Geforce 6600GT OC'd. After reading some previous posts on these forums I understand that running the game at the native resolution is the preferred method of gaming, and I understand that I'd probably struggle running games at that resolution. Is not running at native THAT big of a deal?

Does anyone have any experience using LCD tv's as monitors? I'd use DVI on the TV from my video card for the connection. So if you can't tell, I think I have an idea of whats going on, but at the same time I realize I could be making a huge mistake.. Any sort of input would be very much appreciated.

 

[Todd33]

My 37" LCD TV is also my monitor. It's 1920x1080, but also does 1280x720 well. Works for me, it's a better monitor than TV, I use the HDMI->DVI cable and just record TV onto the computer.

 

[Phluxed]

Originally posted by: Todd33
My 37" LCD TV is also my monitor. It's 1920x1080, but also does 1280x720 well. Works for me, it's a better monitor than TV, I use the HDMI->DVI cable and just record TV onto the computer.

Alright, that's good to hear. What cable did you use to plug the computer into the monitor?

 

[imported_ST]

A couple of things to warn you about. The LCDTV you showed is looks like an OEM BENQ 37" model. Although it has a native resolution of 1920x1080 pixels, it CANNOT take in 1080p input. I believe it will be pixel mapped to 1376x768 or something like that instead. There are only a few 37" LCD TV's on the market today that will do 1080p, thus 1:1 pixel mapping of 1920x1080 for computer monitor use: Westinghouse 37" and Sceptre 37".

Secondarily, my setup is below. It's fantastic as a computer and HDTV tuner. the only issues i have, is that text can be very small at 1920x1080 resolution, so you have to change icon and text display. if you change the native resolution, the internal scalars will usually account for the differences, but it isn't as purdy! ;

http://htpcnews.com/forums/uploads/post-6-1127598966.jpg

 

[Phluxed]

Originally posted by: ST
A couple of things to warn you about. The LCDTV you showed is looks like an OEM BENQ 37" model. Although it has a native resolution of 1920x1080 pixels, it CANNOT take in 1080p input. I believe it will be pixel mapped to 1376x768 or something like that instead. There are only a few 37" LCD TV's on the market today that will do 1080p, thus 1:1 pixel mapping of 1920x1080 for computer monitor use: Westinghouse 37" and Sceptre 37".

Secondarily, my setup is below. It's fantastic as a computer and HDTV tuner. the only issues i have, is that text can be very small at 1920x1080 resolution, so you have to change icon and text display. if you change the native resolution, the internal scalars will usually account for the differences, but it isn't as purdy! ;

http://htpcnews.com/forums/uploads/post-6-1127598966.jpg

I'm not especially strong when it comes to resolutions and monitors and such. What you said is a bit beyond me for the most part. Does it mean that the native computer monitor resolution would be 1376x768? I cannot afford those LCD TV's that you mentionned, as I stated in my first post, I'm on a budget and their in house financing is something that is attractive to someone in my position.

 

[imported_ST]

Correct, that LCDTV, although having a native 1920x1080 capable display, will only accept 1376x768 resolutions.

The monitors I listed actually are actually much cheaper than the $2.5k listed price of your unit. Westinghouse can be bought from Best Buy for $1899, while the Sceptre ~$1699 from Costco (if they have it in stock).

 

[Todd33]

Yes, text can be very hard to read at 1920x1080. I run my desktop at 1280x720. I have the same TV as ST, bought from Costco.

 

[Phluxed]

Originally posted by: ST
Correct, that LCDTV, although having a native 1920x1080 capable display, will only accept 1376x768 resolutions.

The monitors I listed actually are actually much cheaper than the $2.5k listed price of your unit. Westinghouse can be bought from Best Buy for $1899, while the Sceptre ~$1699 from Costco (if they have it in stock).

The site i linked to was in Canadian dollars. They are pretty close to even in price. However, http://www.bestbuy.ca/catalog/subclass.asp?logon=&langid=EN&catid=23244 does not have westinghouse listed. I would pay all that extra money to ship it from the United States into Canada. This MDG has in house financing which is a help to me seeing as I'm on a budget and can't afford to pay it off on my credit card.

 

[Boze]

Currently I use two Dell 2405FPWs as my main monitors, and I've been holding out in hopes Dell would get a hold of that 30" panel that Apple uses and turn it into an affordable display (3005FPW, I guess), but I'm starting to get a little disheartened that I haven't seen or heard anything about it, so I'm considering using an LCD television as well. You mention that the text gets a little small at 1900 x 1080 - isn't this just more of a byproduct of how far away you're sitting from the screen, moreso than the quality of the screen itself? Also, correct me if I'm wrong, but these are all rear projection LCD TVs, right? I mean, it stands to reason that if my Dell 2405FPW is 1920 x 1200 and the 30" Apple Cinema Display is 2560 x 1600, that a 37" LCD would have significantly more pixels.

So really it has more to do with your viewing distance, or is it the quality of the television itself?

 

[ArchAngel777]

Originally posted by: Phluxed
I'm a student on a pretty tight budget. My 4 year old 19" monitor and 9 year old 21" television are both on the verge of their demise, and I'm hoping to replace both of them with a LCDTV. My original plans were a plasma TV, but burn-ins and resolutions are an issue. So before you chastize me, take that into consideration. I'm currently a resident of Canada and looking at doing this -

http://mdg.ca/en/products/tv_lcd37.asp

It would run me about $70 a month, which is affordable for me. I'm interested in hearing some input about using an LCD tv as a monitor. Yes, I'll be gaming on it, so I suppose I need to give my computer stats out. Athlon 64 3200+ (Nforce3 chipset), 1GB DDR400 Ram, 200GB HD, BFG Geforce 6600GT OC'd. After reading some previous posts on these forums I understand that running the game at the native resolution is the preferred method of gaming, and I understand that I'd probably struggle running games at that resolution. Is not running at native THAT big of a deal?

Does anyone have any experience using LCD tv's as monitors? I'd use DVI on the TV from my video card for the connection. So if you can't tell, I think I have an idea of whats going on, but at the same time I realize I could be making a huge mistake.. Any sort of input would be very much appreciated.

I use a 30" Dell W3000 and it serves me really well. The native resolution is 1280 X 768, which is perfect for my nVidia video card. I browse the forums, play games, and do everything on the computer. I sit about 3 - 4 feet away from the display.

I can personally tell you that it is complete awesome. I have seen many mention how they would prefer a higher resolution, but I have never once though that. Don't get me wrong, I would take a "free" resolution increase if it were available (obviously it is not) but I have no issues with the resolution. Even so, I can turn on AA and AF to their maximum levels and have a pretty nice gaming setup. It looks great

The best advice (if you search the forum, you will find I have said this in every post) is to go to the Dell Kiosk (found in malls) and check it out for yourself, it should have the 26" and the 30" on display with some nVidia tech demos.

Another thing to keep in mind, if you go with a LCD-TV that was designed for TV use, you may run in to overscan issues. The Dell W3000 was designed to eliminate overscan when the DVI port was used, and it does.

Good luck!

 

[Phluxed]

Originally posted by: ArchAngel777
Another thing to keep in mind, if you go with a LCD-TV that was designed for TV use, you may run in to overscan issues. The Dell W3000 was designed to eliminate overscan when the DVI port was used, and it does.

Good luck!

Might I ask what overscan is and how much I could expect with using a TV as a monitor?

 

[ArchAngel777]

Originally posted by: Phluxed

Originally posted by: ArchAngel777
Another thing to keep in mind, if you go with a LCD-TV that was designed for TV use, you may run in to overscan issues. The Dell W3000 was designed to eliminate overscan when the DVI port was used, and it does.

Good luck!

Might I ask what overscan is and how much I could expect with using a TV as a monitor?

Every unit is different. The average overscan seems to be anywhere from five to fifteen percent overscan. It essentially means that it will crop off a good portion of your tool bar, if not all of it. You can modify this with a program called Power Strip, but it requires a lot of fussing around, in addition to you living with a lower resolution. For instance, instead of 1280 X 768, in order to elminate overscan on many displays, it requires you to create a custom resolution at something like 1180 X 700 or somewhere around that range.

Edit ** It would be real difficult for me to advise anything that I havn't used personally. Since I have only experience with Westinghouse, Toshiba and Dell, I can safely say that Dell is great for a monitor, while the Westinghouse was junk and the Toshiba was so-so. Everyone's mileage may vary... Anyway, I can say that the Dell's are great.

 

[Phluxed]

I'm still looking at the MDG one, the BenQ model. I wouldn't mind the fussing around as long as it is only one time. I currently have my old Tube TV hooked up to my machine, and I think I understand what overscan is now.

I think I have one final question, what is the importance of using the native resolution of an LCD monitor? Is it the issue of how sharp the text and everything can look? I run my laptop at 1600x1200 because I think that is the native resolution of the screen.

 

[imported_ST]

Originally posted by: Boze
Currently I use two Dell 2405FPWs as my main monitors, and I've been holding out in hopes Dell would get a hold of that 30" panel that Apple uses and turn it into an affordable display (3005FPW, I guess), but I'm starting to get a little disheartened that I haven't seen or heard anything about it, so I'm considering using an LCD television as well. You mention that the text gets a little small at 1900 x 1080 - isn't this just more of a byproduct of how far away you're sitting from the screen, moreso than the quality of the screen itself? Also, correct me if I'm wrong, but these are all rear projection LCD TVs, right? I mean, it stands to reason that if my Dell 2405FPW is 1920 x 1200 and the 30" Apple Cinema Display is 2560 x 1600, that a 37" LCD would have significantly more pixels.

So really it has more to do with your viewing distance, or is it the quality of the television itself?

Incorrect on several accounts. These 37" are LCD TV's, not RPTV's, utilizing Super MVA technology. Pixel count is based on resolution, thus 1920x1080 is its total. The pixel pitch on a 37" LCD would be larger but i haven't seen any screen door effects, moire or the like. It is really THAT good. The text being small is a function of the resolution, as well as the viewing distance. You typically want at least 2x the diagnoal length of the screen for the distance, so that compounds the problem.

 

[imported_ST]

Originally posted by: ArchAngel777
Edit ** It would be real difficult for me to advise anything that I havn't used personally. Since I have only experience with Westinghouse, Toshiba and Dell, I can safely say that Dell is great for a monitor, while the Westinghouse was junk and the Toshiba was so-so. Everyone's mileage may vary... Anyway, I can say that the Dell's are great.

I would caution your comments on the Westinghouse. This may have been applicable to the older models, but the new 37" 1920x1080p LCDTV IQ and resolution combined with its phenomenally low price is hard to beat. You don't realize what you're missing by being limited to such a low resolution on your Dell. Games get phenomenally sharper and more immersive. Photo's are so lifelike in appearance. Post processed DVD playback is unbelievable. I personally owned the Dell 2405FPW before my 37" and I would NEVER go back.


edit: oh these new geneartions of high res LCD TV's / Monitors have virtually no overscan issues as they were designed also with computer input (1080p) in mind.

 

[Acanthus]

Just make sure you can get a playable resolution for that card with the tv you select.

1920x1080 is not going to bode well on a 6600GT for games. Or hell even a 6800GT...

 

[ArchAngel777]

Originally posted by: ST

Originally posted by: ArchAngel777
Edit ** It would be real difficult for me to advise anything that I havn't used personally. Since I have only experience with Westinghouse, Toshiba and Dell, I can safely say that Dell is great for a monitor, while the Westinghouse was junk and the Toshiba was so-so. Everyone's mileage may vary... Anyway, I can say that the Dell's are great.

I would caution your comments on the Westinghouse. This may have been applicable to the older models, but the new 37" 1920x1080p LCDTV IQ and resolution combined with its phenomenally low price is hard to beat. You don't realize what you're missing by being limited to such a low resolution on your Dell. Games get phenomenally sharper and more immersive. Photo's are so lifelike in appearance. Post processed DVD playback is unbelievable. I personally owned the Dell 2405FPW before my 37" and I would NEVER go back.


edit: oh these new geneartions of high res LCD TV's / Monitors have virtually no overscan issues as they were designed also with computer input (1080p) in mind.

1. Everyone always tries to tell me what I am missing. I have to laugh at that, because being that my job is consulting, I get to work on a variety of problems, ranging from network servers, to some employees laptop not playing the game he wants to play... You know? Anyway, I have used much higher resolutions than 1280 X 768 in my lifetime. I am not impressed with ultra high resolution and I am more than happy to run 1280 X 768 without feeling I am jipped out of anything. The nice thing about 1280 X 768 is that I do not need to purchase a $500 video card every 6 months to be able to keep up with games. If your 1080P displays are scaled down to 768P, you are going to have a fairly crappy picture. Anyway, I just do find it comical how everyone tells me what I am missing. I confess that I am not missing anything that I deem important or significant. Of course that is an opinion, just like yours... But instead of telling me what I am missing, why don't I tell you what you are missing? Such as screen size... But I don't go around the forum telling people that they are missing so much by not having 30" of screen.

2. Overscan is *still* an issue... Go read over at the AVS Forums, it still exists for many reasons. Overscan is something that is done on purpose and if you want to know more, check out the AVS Forums, they will explain it better than I can.

Whenever I comment on a display object I always recomend that the user takes a look at it himself, and then decides. I did just that, which is why I laugh at people when they try and tell me that I made a mistake, or am missing out, or something. It is almost as if people think I didn't research this at all, that I just spend $1200 blindly... But, alas, that isn't the case and much work went into the purchase. I am extremely satisfied with my purchase and I would not take my 19" that could do 1600 X 1200 @ 75Hz for anything

The same people that say "Your missing a lot of detail running at that low resolution" I can say "Your missing a lot of detail running that small of a screen size" Both are true statements, but many use it to the extreme to create a hyperbole.

We are talking about a very controversial subject in which peoples opinions should be taken with a grain of salt, unless you are using your own opinion for your own purchase. This isn't a night and day question.

 

[imported_ST]

Originally posted by: ArchAngel777
1. Everyone always tries to tell me what I am missing. I have to laugh at that, because being that my job is consulting, I get to work on a variety of problems, ranging from network servers, to some employees laptop not playing the game he wants to play... You know? Anyway, I have used much higher resolutions than 1280 X 768 in my lifetime. I am not impressed with ultra high resolution and I am more than happy to run 1280 X 768 without feeling I am jipped out of anything. The nice thing about 1280 X 768 is that I do not need to purchase a $500 video card every 6 months to be able to keep up with games. If your 1080P displays are scaled down to 768P, you are going to have a fairly crappy picture. Anyway, I just do find it comical how everyone tells me what I am missing. I confess that I am not missing anything that I deem important or significant. Of course that is an opinion, just like yours... But instead of telling me what I am missing, why don't I tell you what you are missing? Such as screen size... But I don't go around the forum telling people that they are missing so much by not having 30" of screen.

2. Overscan is *still* an issue... Go read over at the AVS Forums, it still exists for many reasons. Overscan is something that is done on purpose and if you want to know more, check out the AVS Forums, they will explain it better than I can.

Whenever I comment on a display object I always recomend that the user takes a look at it himself, and then decides. I did just that, which is why I laugh at people when they try and tell me that I made a mistake, or am missing out, or something. It is almost as if people think I didn't research this at all, that I just spend $1200 blindly... But, alas, that isn't the case and much work went into the purchase. I am extremely satisfied with my purchase and I would not take my 19" that could do 1600 X 1200 @ 75Hz for anything

The same people that say "Your missing a lot of detail running at that low resolution" I can say "Your missing a lot of detail running that small of a screen size" Both are true statements, but many use it to the extreme to create a hyperbole.

We are talking about a very controversial subject in which peoples opinions should be taken with a grain of salt, unless you are using your own opinion for your own purchase. This isn't a night and day question.

Let's quantify what you are missing:

1920 x 1080 = 2073600 pixels
1280 x 768 = 983040 pixel

- 1090560 additional pixels, which help to minimize screen door effects, gives better sharper images, etc.

1920 x 1080 / 1280 x 768 = 50%

- 50% more horizontal / vertical res will show an larger more enhanced FOH, be able to fit large images on a single non-scrolled screen, etc.

I don't know what application you are using, but your reasons (or rather excuses) for not having higher resolutions is sketchy at best. Not being able to purchase video cards? I guess you didn't do that with your present 7800GTX, eh (btw such a waste of a good card)? But sure, you'll miss out on the latest and greatest fps shooters , but games like AOE3 and WoW run at 1920x1080p with a 6600gt just fine (AMHIK!). 768p? Lol, is that your new invented ATSC standard or something? My display does 720p just fine, as well as 1080i AND 1080p! Internal scalars have gone a long ways now you know, just ask the AVS forums (for which I've been an avid member!). As for me "missing out", you might want to take a look at my sig, as I have a 37" LCD TV...

 

[ArchAngel777]

Originally posted by: ST

Originally posted by: ArchAngel777
1. Everyone always tries to tell me what I am missing. I have to laugh at that, because being that my job is consulting, I get to work on a variety of problems, ranging from network servers, to some employees laptop not playing the game he wants to play... You know? Anyway, I have used much higher resolutions than 1280 X 768 in my lifetime. I am not impressed with ultra high resolution and I am more than happy to run 1280 X 768 without feeling I am jipped out of anything. The nice thing about 1280 X 768 is that I do not need to purchase a $500 video card every 6 months to be able to keep up with games. If your 1080P displays are scaled down to 768P, you are going to have a fairly crappy picture. Anyway, I just do find it comical how everyone tells me what I am missing. I confess that I am not missing anything that I deem important or significant. Of course that is an opinion, just like yours... But instead of telling me what I am missing, why don't I tell you what you are missing? Such as screen size... But I don't go around the forum telling people that they are missing so much by not having 30" of screen.

2. Overscan is *still* an issue... Go read over at the AVS Forums, it still exists for many reasons. Overscan is something that is done on purpose and if you want to know more, check out the AVS Forums, they will explain it better than I can.

Whenever I comment on a display object I always recomend that the user takes a look at it himself, and then decides. I did just that, which is why I laugh at people when they try and tell me that I made a mistake, or am missing out, or something. It is almost as if people think I didn't research this at all, that I just spend $1200 blindly... But, alas, that isn't the case and much work went into the purchase. I am extremely satisfied with my purchase and I would not take my 19" that could do 1600 X 1200 @ 75Hz for anything

The same people that say "Your missing a lot of detail running at that low resolution" I can say "Your missing a lot of detail running that small of a screen size" Both are true statements, but many use it to the extreme to create a hyperbole.

We are talking about a very controversial subject in which peoples opinions should be taken with a grain of salt, unless you are using your own opinion for your own purchase. This isn't a night and day question.

Let's quantify what you are missing:

1920 x 1080 = 2073600 pixels
1280 x 768 = 983040 pixel

- 1090560 additional pixels, which help to minimize screen door effects, gives better sharper images, etc.

1920 x 1080 / 1280 x 768 = 50%

- 50% more horizontal / vertical res will show an larger more enhanced FOH, be able to fit large images on a single non-scrolled screen, etc.

I don't know what application you are using, but your reasons (or rather excuses) for not having higher resolutions is sketchy at best. Not being able to purchase video cards? I guess you didn't do that with your present 7800GTX, eh (btw such a waste of a good card)? But sure, you'll miss out on the latest and greatest fps shooters , but games like AOE3 and WoW run at 1920x1080p with a 6600gt just fine (AMHIK!). 768p? Lol, is that your new invented ATSC standard or something? My display does 720p just fine, as well as 1080i AND 1080p! Internal scalars have gone a long ways now you know, just ask the AVS forums (for which I've been an avid member!). As for me "missing out", you might want to take a look at my sig, as I have a 37" LCD TV...

A see a lot of attacking going on here... 768P isn't a standard I made up, it was used to describe 1280 X 768 in short form. I think you knew that, but then again, you are probably just trolling or baiting at this point.

All you are really attempting to do is somehow make out that your opinion somehow should change the view of my own display... Yes, that makes me laugh a lot. Its like, I am happy with my display and you are trying to tell me that I should not be, because something better exists out there. That is foolish reasoning and will lead to uneccessary spending. You have shown me through math that you have twice the pixels that I do and that sounds good on paper, but I still don't see a 100% difference, or rather, even a 5% difference.

You want to say that my GTX is going to waste, again, what a nearly ignorant comment, especially considering the new game, F.E.A.R, that came out. It is GPU limited and runs best around 1024 X 768 and 1280 X 960 resolutions. More games I expect will tax the system harder within the next year and that is precisly the reason that I decided to get my display. Because I know that the GTX will not handle 1600 X 1200 for the next year to come as smooth as I would like...

A few comments, which make be out of order.

1. WoW does not run fine at that resolution with that Video Card, unless your version of fine is single digit frame rate drops or turning off all the visual treaks it has to offer... Raiding ZG last week with fraps @ 1280 X 768 was dropping into the low 20's for frames... But, I guess the 6600 GT which is 4 - 6 times slower can render that "fine"... Riiiiight... Again, it all depends on your definition of fine. If you are happy with your 6600 GT @ 1900 X 1080 resolution, then I won't be trying to change your mind on the matter, in fact I will respect that. I just know that single digit frame rates never have appealed to me.

2. The 7800 GTX was the result of a 3 year old computer that need to be replaced. So, naturally, I build a machine that is going to last me another 2-3 years... I guess that concept if foreign to you.

Few other comments, but I am not going to clog this members thread up anymore... Basically the only thing you have tried to do was change my opinion of my own display by attempting to downplay it with your own opinion... That is pretty shady and i am not sure on your reasons for crapping on other peoples products... For instance, you tried to take a shot at my 7800 GTX by calling it a waste... Basically, your entire post was a craptastic responce on my system and how it isn't up to your level... Not sure why I would even need to defend such a notion, since I am happy with it. But, go on, continue your your attempt to change my mind.

 

[imported_ST]

Originally posted by: ArchAngel777

A see a lot of attacking going on here... 768P isn't a standard I made up, it was used to describe 1280 X 768 in short form. I think you knew that, but then again, you are probably just trolling or baiting at this point.

All you are really attempting to do is somehow make out that your opinion somehow should change the view of my own display... Yes, that makes me laugh a lot. Its like, I am happy with my display and you are trying to tell me that I should not be, because something better exists out there. That is foolish reasoning and will lead to uneccessary spending. You have shown me through math that you have twice the pixels that I do and that sounds good on paper, but I still don't see a 100% difference, or rather, even a 5% difference.

You want to say that my GTX is going to waste, again, what a nearly ignorant comment, especially considering the new game, F.E.A.R, that came out. It is GPU limited and runs best around 1024 X 768 and 1280 X 960 resolutions. More games I expect will tax the system harder within the next year and that is precisly the reason that I decided to get my display. Because I know that the GTX will not handle 1600 X 1200 for the next year to come as smooth as I would like...

A few comments, which make be out of order.

1. WoW does not run fine at that resolution with that Video Card, unless your version of fine is single digit frame rate drops or turning off all the visual treaks it has to offer... Raiding ZG last week with fraps @ 1280 X 768 was dropping into the low 20's for frames... But, I guess the 6600 GT which is 4 - 6 times slower can render that "fine"... Riiiiight... Again, it all depends on your definition of fine. If you are happy with your 6600 GT @ 1900 X 1080 resolution, then I won't be trying to change your mind on the matter, in fact I will respect that. I just know that single digit frame rates never have appealed to me.

2. The 7800 GTX was the result of a 3 year old computer that need to be replaced. So, naturally, I build a machine that is going to last me another 2-3 years... I guess that concept if foreign to you.

Few other comments, but I am not going to clog this members thread up anymore... Basically the only thing you have tried to do was change my opinion of my own display by attempting to downplay it with your own opinion... That is pretty shady and i am not sure on your reasons for crapping on other peoples products... For instance, you tried to take a shot at my 7800 GTX by calling it a waste... Basically, your entire post was a craptastic responce on my system and how it isn't up to your level... Not sure why I would even need to defend such a notion, since I am happy with it. But, go on, continue your your attempt to change my mind.

I'm sorry, I thought that as a consultant you would understand the nuances of LCD TV's, ATSC signaling, and resolution enhancements since you quibble on so much. You play what you like with what you have, that's fine but for you to first insinuate "there is no difference" and make remarks because of your profession or what not, with contradictory and misinformative data does irk me. I only state the facts and people can view / interpret whatever / however they want. I'll close it up with a couple more facts for you in rebutall to your to last parting shots:

1 - 6600GT runs just fine at 1920x1080. I did not max out all the settings at this res, but still enable all the goodies like high textures, etc. At 1920x1080, you will be able to your whole CTRAID on, all your interface gui buttons you ever want, your guild, public, and raid chat in public boxes all at the same time while raiding Ragnaros, Blackwing Lair, or the like as I do. And yes, even Hakkar (what a wimp now in the new patch) looks great and is quite playable (30-35fps). Of course, people know that WoW is not graphic intensive as other games (per design).

2 - Again, you may want to look at my sig for my system specs, as it comprises of a 7800GTX also. Time and time again, benchmarks and reviews has shown that there is negligible differences between 6800u/7800gt/7800gtx until you start running at higher resolutions. As forum that stresses value, i dont think its in the best interest of people to waste additional $$ that is not well spent, but hey your life...have fun.

 

[ArchAngel777]

Originally posted by: ST

Originally posted by: ArchAngel777

A see a lot of attacking going on here... 768P isn't a standard I made up, it was used to describe 1280 X 768 in short form. I think you knew that, but then again, you are probably just trolling or baiting at this point.

All you are really attempting to do is somehow make out that your opinion somehow should change the view of my own display... Yes, that makes me laugh a lot. Its like, I am happy with my display and you are trying to tell me that I should not be, because something better exists out there. That is foolish reasoning and will lead to uneccessary spending. You have shown me through math that you have twice the pixels that I do and that sounds good on paper, but I still don't see a 100% difference, or rather, even a 5% difference.

You want to say that my GTX is going to waste, again, what a nearly ignorant comment, especially considering the new game, F.E.A.R, that came out. It is GPU limited and runs best around 1024 X 768 and 1280 X 960 resolutions. More games I expect will tax the system harder within the next year and that is precisly the reason that I decided to get my display. Because I know that the GTX will not handle 1600 X 1200 for the next year to come as smooth as I would like...

A few comments, which make be out of order.

1. WoW does not run fine at that resolution with that Video Card, unless your version of fine is single digit frame rate drops or turning off all the visual treaks it has to offer... Raiding ZG last week with fraps @ 1280 X 768 was dropping into the low 20's for frames... But, I guess the 6600 GT which is 4 - 6 times slower can render that "fine"... Riiiiight... Again, it all depends on your definition of fine. If you are happy with your 6600 GT @ 1900 X 1080 resolution, then I won't be trying to change your mind on the matter, in fact I will respect that. I just know that single digit frame rates never have appealed to me.

2. The 7800 GTX was the result of a 3 year old computer that need to be replaced. So, naturally, I build a machine that is going to last me another 2-3 years... I guess that concept if foreign to you.

Few other comments, but I am not going to clog this members thread up anymore... Basically the only thing you have tried to do was change my opinion of my own display by attempting to downplay it with your own opinion... That is pretty shady and i am not sure on your reasons for crapping on other peoples products... For instance, you tried to take a shot at my 7800 GTX by calling it a waste... Basically, your entire post was a craptastic responce on my system and how it isn't up to your level... Not sure why I would even need to defend such a notion, since I am happy with it. But, go on, continue your your attempt to change my mind.

I'm sorry, I thought that as a consultant you would understand the nuances of LCD TV's, ATSC signaling, and resolution enhancements since you quibble on so much. You play what you like with what you have, that's fine but for you to first insinuate "there is no difference" and make remarks because of your profession or what not, with contradictory and misinformative data does irk me. I only state the facts and people can view / interpret whatever / however they want. I'll close it up with a couple more facts for you in rebutall to your to last parting shots:

1 - 6600GT runs just fine at 1920x1080. I did not max out all the settings at this res, but still enable all the goodies like high textures, etc. At 1920x1080, you will be able to your whole CTRAID on, all your interface gui buttons you ever want, your guild, public, and raid chat in public boxes all at the same time while raiding Ragnaros, Blackwing Lair, or the like as I do. And yes, even Hakkar (what a wimp now in the new patch) looks great and is quite playable (30-35fps). Of course, people know that WoW is not graphic intensive as other games (per design).

2 - Again, you may want to look at my sig for my system specs, as it comprises of a 7800GTX also. Time and time again, benchmarks and reviews has shown that there is negligible differences between 6800u/7800gt/7800gtx until you start running at higher resolutions. As forum that stresses value, i dont think its in the best interest of people to waste additional $$ that is not well spent, but hey your life...have fun.

You are trying to troll and bait, especially with your first paragraph and the last sentance... No sense in giving you what you want.

 

[imported_ST]

Originally posted by: ArchAngel777
You are trying to troll and bait, especially with your first paragraph and the last sentance... No sense in giving you what you want.

Haven't you strayed far enough from Tom's forums?

 

[ArchAngel777]

Originally posted by: ST

Originally posted by: ArchAngel777
You are trying to troll and bait, especially with your first paragraph and the last sentance... No sense in giving you what you want.

Haven't you strayed far enough from Tom's forums?

Again, another troll/baiting post.

Anyone who reads this will understand that I directed the user to look for HIMSELF, to determine what he himself will prefer and what he deems important. The user already said he didn't have the money for the displays that many of you listed, yet you (ST) continue to make him paranoid with a purchase.

I am the one that pointed the user to get an opinion for himself, to see for himself... Yet, you are only concerned with beating him over with figures he probably does not care about. If he looks at a display and likes it, and it happens to be 1366 X 768, why do you feel the need to crap on that? In essence you are just trying to force your opinion on what he should get. This isn't going to be your display, you won't see it, touch it or use it. Yet you never directed him to take a look for himself... How responsible is THAT? Not at all... Yet, you accuse me of trying to spend his money.

You havn't been objective at all, you have simply stated your opinion as the law and then attacked anyone who doesn't share the same opinion. If you also notice, I never said high resolution didn't matter, I said it didn't matter TO ME, which was the qualifier... Do you not understand what a qualifier is?

 

[xtknight]

Not sure how overscan would be introduced in to a DVI connection. The GPU's output is digital (not like it goes through another DAC->ADC) and goes straight to the DVI port and straight to your LCD TV's digital input and is displayed as a perfect matrix of pixels. I say definitely connect it via DVI.

 

[SynthDude2001]

Originally posted by: ST
2 - Again, you may want to look at my sig for my system specs, as it comprises of a 7800GTX also. Time and time again, benchmarks and reviews has shown that there is negligible differences between 6800u/7800gt/7800gtx until you start running at higher resolutions. As forum that stresses value, i dont think its in the best interest of people to waste additional $$ that is not well spent, but hey your life...have fun.

Could not the same thing be said for spending a lot of money on a 1080p display when a particular user doesn't need or want one...?