Viewsonic VX924 -- 4 ms bogus spec?

[G4G3]

Hmm...I see THG's reviews used alot here, are they the 'Mother' of all tests and reviews in this field? ....Just wondering.
How about this review from hardwarezone on the same product?
Are they also the 'marketing team' or is their review kinda worthless?....just wondering.

 

[t0pher]

I have wondered the same thing. For example, I know that one site which I will not mention compares ALL monitors to Dell LCDs since they view them as the best. I personally think the Dell LCDs suck and almost threw up when I tried to game on them. Makes me wonder how much $$ Dell gives them.

 

[HeroOfPellinor]

Still running tests, but I'm busy. It is noticeably better than a VP171B 8ms, I'm just trying to guage how much proportionately. Comes spooky close to CRT is all I can say so far.

Tom's also said the Hyundai with the Hydis panel was godly and I used it and it was, by far, the worst LCD I've tested.

 

[sxr7171]

Originally posted by: bunnyfubbles
People get too one dimensional when it comes to LCDs I doubt tthere will be much of a difference between 4ms and 8ms panels. IMHO manufacturers need to focus on improving other aspects moreso than response time, and they only thing that is going to make sure thats what they focus on is demand from consumers. Right now it seems that consumers are concerned mostly with response time more than anything else such as resolution and contrast.

It's all because of stupid "hardcore gamers" who wouldn't know a good game if it bit them in the ass. These are the people who buy the same FPS with new graphics every year and they think that if they don't get 500fps or so, their experience of the game isn't good.

 

[sxr7171]

Originally posted by: HeroOfPellinor
Chuck, are you taking into account that this is rated not just at 4ms gray-to-gray but also 5ms typical?

And, yes, I have the 8ms VP171B and I couldn't really tell the difference between it and the 16ms VP171B even running them side by side.

Did you read what the had to say? Every once in a while somebody actually uses their education to apply their knowledge to a practical problem, but nobody cares because they'd rather read an easy to read ad copy instead.

The issue isn't anout 4ms or 5ms but that it literally takes 31ms to stabilize where it should be and in the meantime it is oscillating like a MF cause sparkles all over the place. The panel may as well be strobe light the way they designed it.

 

[sxr7171]

Originally posted by: Nickrand
I think chuck is right and to expect the average consumer to research and understand any of this is ridiculous. I bet the average LCD shopper doesn't even know what response is until some kid at best buy describes it to them - and you know the kid at best buy doesn't know the truth behind the numbers and how the test was conducted (90% of the time anyways).

Exactly, how much do you expect the average consumer to read about everything he/she buys? People don't have the time to do that. That doesn't mean that they deserve to be lied to and decieved.

To be able to advertise this 4ms spec, these monitors actually perform worse than a properly designed 12ms monitor. This leads the consumer to buy actually buy something worse than they could have otherwise bought.

 

[HeroOfPellinor]

Originally posted by: sxr7171

Originally posted by: HeroOfPellinor
Chuck, are you taking into account that this is rated not just at 4ms gray-to-gray but also 5ms typical?

And, yes, I have the 8ms VP171B and I couldn't really tell the difference between it and the 16ms VP171B even running them side by side.

Did you read what the had to say? Every once in a while somebody actually uses their education to apply their knowledge to a practical problem, but nobody cares because they'd rather read an easy to read ad copy instead.

The issue isn't anout 4ms or 5ms but that it literally takes 31ms to stabilize where it should be and in the meantime it is oscillating like a MF cause sparkles all over the place. The panel may as well be strobe light the way they designed it.

Every once in a while somebody actually uses a monitor before critiquing it, but nobody cares because they'd rather read a convoluted mess of techno-mumbo-jumbo that sounds vaguely authoritative.

 

[t0pher]

You know what is funny? I have not seen any of the monitors mentioned here which is why I am not justifying what should be better, as should nobody else. I am asking what looks better from those on this board who have actually seen, used, or own one or more of these models.

Toms slammed the VX924 because of the advertised spec of 4ms. But they also said:

"Video games were no problem either; the monitor was very reactive, especially during abrupt transitions. But the difference between this model and the VP191b/s wasn't dramatic."

Let me translate this: even though this is better for gaming than the VP191b it is not better by much.

Then they said:

"it's a visible improvement over standard 8 ms panels like the Hyundai L90D."

Wait a minute? This is the 8ms Hydis panel that everyone raved about last month, right?

What does all this mean? Quantitatively, this monitor sucks. But noone should base a decision to buy a monitor on quantitative results. Monitors are visual and visual experiences are subjective.

Now I am looking for a good gaming monitor (and yes, I know good games - in fact, I have been gaming while most of the people on this board were still discovering themselves in the bathtub.) I don't watch movies or TV on my PC, so I do not need a more well-rounded monitor that trades FPS performance for Video image quality like the 191b has been cited. I am also particularly sensitive to motion blur (what amateurs call "ghosting") as evident in the fact that the Dell monitors everyone raves about for FPS performance made me physically ill while playing them the blur was so bad.

So...

I have and will continue to ask for subjective opinions on this monitor from people who have seen it and used it. Slam Viewsonic all you want for the advertised spec, but anyone who has not seen this monitor should not sing its praises based on the specs or slam it for looking bad.

 

[klah]

Originally posted by: G4G3
Hmm...I see THG's reviews used alot here, are they the 'Mother' of all tests and reviews in this field? ....Just wondering.

They are one of only two sites(AFAIK) that actually take measurements of response times.

 

[sxr7171]

Originally posted by: HeroOfPellinor

Originally posted by: sxr7171

Originally posted by: HeroOfPellinor
Chuck, are you taking into account that this is rated not just at 4ms gray-to-gray but also 5ms typical?

And, yes, I have the 8ms VP171B and I couldn't really tell the difference between it and the 16ms VP171B even running them side by side.

Did you read what the had to say? Every once in a while somebody actually uses their education to apply their knowledge to a practical problem, but nobody cares because they'd rather read an easy to read ad copy instead.

The issue isn't anout 4ms or 5ms but that it literally takes 31ms to stabilize where it should be and in the meantime it is oscillating like a MF cause sparkles all over the place. The panel may as well be strobe light the way they designed it.

Every once in a while somebody actually uses a monitor before critiquing it, but nobody cares because they'd rather read a convoluted mess of techno-mumbo-jumbo that sounds vaguely authoritative.

The topic is about false advertising and basically unless you're running some game at 250fps you can't really notice if there is an improvement with this monitor. His writing about the false advertising makes complete sense. While the monitor may be good enough for playing video games at 120fps or what not (or whatever you used it for), it simply cannot live up to it's claim of 250fps (4ms) without being woefully inaccurate based on the measurements. What difference does it make if they claim 5ms typical? It still can't stabilize in 5ms as you would probably find if you tried actually testing the 5ms claim instead quoting their BS spec to us in an attempt to justify it.

I don't even care about FPS games and 250fps myself, but stupid marketing claims like this are what I do care about as does the OP. Stupid people will go and and buy this monitor because of the advertised 4ms response time both believing it's usefullness while never having an application requiring that sort of response time not realizing that they are giving up something that is more important and useful (like accuracy) for something they don't use.

As for saying the OP is spouting mumbo-jumbo, I can say that he has demonstrated far more intelligent thinking and analysis than you could ever hope to in this thread. Your 5ms justification tells me a lot about your analytical abilities.

 

[HeroOfPellinor]

http://graphics.tomshardware.com/display/20040923/lcd_monitors-08.html

Originally posted by: sxr7171

Originally posted by: HeroOfPellinor

Originally posted by: sxr7171

Originally posted by: HeroOfPellinor
Chuck, are you taking into account that this is rated not just at 4ms gray-to-gray but also 5ms typical?

And, yes, I have the 8ms VP171B and I couldn't really tell the difference between it and the 16ms VP171B even running them side by side.

Did you read what the had to say? Every once in a while somebody actually uses their education to apply their knowledge to a practical problem, but nobody cares because they'd rather read an easy to read ad copy instead.

The issue isn't anout 4ms or 5ms but that it literally takes 31ms to stabilize where it should be and in the meantime it is oscillating like a MF cause sparkles all over the place. The panel may as well be strobe light the way they designed it.

Every once in a while somebody actually uses a monitor before critiquing it, but nobody cares because they'd rather read a convoluted mess of techno-mumbo-jumbo that sounds vaguely authoritative.

The topic is about false advertising and basically unless you're running some game at 250fps you can't really notice if there is an improvement with this monitor. His writing about the false advertising makes complete sense. While the monitor may be good enough for playing video games at 120fps or what not (or whatever you used it for), it simply cannot live up to it's claim of 250fps (4ms) without being woefully inaccurate based on the measurements. What difference does it make if they claim 5ms typical? It still can't stabilize in 5ms as you would probably find if you tried actually testing the 5ms claim instead quoting their BS spec to us in an attempt to justify it.

I don't even care about FPS games and 250fps myself, but stupid marketing claims like this are what I do care about as does the OP. Stupid people will go and and buy this monitor because of the advertised 4ms response time both believing it's usefullness while never having an application requiring that sort of response time not realizing that they are giving up something that is more important and useful (like accuracy) for something they don't use.

As for saying the OP is spouting mumbo-jumbo, I can say that he has demonstrated far more intelligent thinking and analysis than you could ever hope to in this thread. Your 5ms justification tells me a lot about your analytical abilities.

Maybe we can get Mr Wizard to do a review of Tom's benchmarking device. Because they still swear the Hydis panel is a great gamer and I, and most other people who bought it, know that it sucks. So their testing method obviously needs some critical analysis.

 

[xtknight]

That's odd. I got a SyncMaster 710T based off THG's excellent rating and I love it.

 

[G4G3]

Originally posted by: klah

Originally posted by: G4G3
Hmm...I see THG's reviews used alot here, are they the 'Mother' of all tests and reviews in this field? ....Just wondering.

They are one of only two sites(AFAIK) that actually take measurements of response times.

If that is so, how come Hardwarezone's tests did not slam this mon, but instead, gave it a 4.5 rating out of 5??

Who should we trust??

I guess the answer or 'the truth' really lies on the beholder's eyes?

To save your confusions, I'd suggest anyone who fancies to buy any monitor to bring your own favourite game and dvd movie to the local store and try them out there. If it looks and plays good then buy it!

Believe in yourself, not what others says..

 

[sxr7171]

Originally posted by: HeroOfPellinor
http://graphics.tomshardware.com/display/20040923/lcd_monitors-08.html

Originally posted by: sxr7171

Originally posted by: HeroOfPellinor

Originally posted by: sxr7171

Originally posted by: HeroOfPellinor
Chuck, are you taking into account that this is rated not just at 4ms gray-to-gray but also 5ms typical?

And, yes, I have the 8ms VP171B and I couldn't really tell the difference between it and the 16ms VP171B even running them side by side.

Did you read what the had to say? Every once in a while somebody actually uses their education to apply their knowledge to a practical problem, but nobody cares because they'd rather read an easy to read ad copy instead.

The issue isn't anout 4ms or 5ms but that it literally takes 31ms to stabilize where it should be and in the meantime it is oscillating like a MF cause sparkles all over the place. The panel may as well be strobe light the way they designed it.

Every once in a while somebody actually uses a monitor before critiquing it, but nobody cares because they'd rather read a convoluted mess of techno-mumbo-jumbo that sounds vaguely authoritative.

The topic is about false advertising and basically unless you're running some game at 250fps you can't really notice if there is an improvement with this monitor. His writing about the false advertising makes complete sense. While the monitor may be good enough for playing video games at 120fps or what not (or whatever you used it for), it simply cannot live up to it's claim of 250fps (4ms) without being woefully inaccurate based on the measurements. What difference does it make if they claim 5ms typical? It still can't stabilize in 5ms as you would probably find if you tried actually testing the 5ms claim instead quoting their BS spec to us in an attempt to justify it.

I don't even care about FPS games and 250fps myself, but stupid marketing claims like this are what I do care about as does the OP. Stupid people will go and and buy this monitor because of the advertised 4ms response time both believing it's usefullness while never having an application requiring that sort of response time not realizing that they are giving up something that is more important and useful (like accuracy) for something they don't use.

As for saying the OP is spouting mumbo-jumbo, I can say that he has demonstrated far more intelligent thinking and analysis than you could ever hope to in this thread. Your 5ms justification tells me a lot about your analytical abilities.

Maybe we can get Mr Wizard to do a review of Tom's benchmarking device. Because they still swear the Hydis panel is a great gamer and I, and most other people who bought it, know that it sucks. So their testing method obviously needs some critical analysis.

Ok, fair enough.

 

[klah]

ttt

 

[Oxides]

"Not all 4ms LCD Monitors are Alike"
http://www.viewsonic.com/newsletter0601/didyouknow_ent.htm

Just got this link in email spam from viewsonic.

 

[G4G3]

I finally decided to buy this mon and is amazed by its looks and colors...wow!

Just 1 question.... what refresh rates should I use to get maximum efficiency?

Default is 60hz, but I can set it to as high as 70 or 75. Any higher then the screen starts skipping crazy.

Which should I use??

Thks!

 

[SWIN]

For those that are interested in how a overdrive circuit looks like, and what panel the VX924 uses can look at:http://www.pcpop.com/display/05/3/65925/2.shtml

And for those that objekts to the time VX924 takes to show the exakt colour, mabe if you pause UT2K4, and wait for 30 ms, you will be able to enjoy the right colours

Is it really right, that by looking at that "line" in THWG, and only by that, can you make an exakt judgement of the subjective quality and speed of a TFT monitor?

 

[macdeffy]

I recieved this monitor just today.

Not sure what defines as ghosting, have not used a LCD till now, but its most definitely doing something that is not right.

Lots of warbly effects around middle of screen. ON EVERYTHING, not just gaming, but moving windows around produces this effect as well. It does it at least every 5 to 10 secs on major screen activity. And 1280 at 60 hz hurts my eyes. but 60hz has always done that, I was expecting at least 75hz, the 60hz would be a no no at that res to me regardless of response, as it always makes me sick.

HL2 is the most noticeable. Runs at 30 fps on this monitor , whereas its constant 60 on crt (can anyone explain this behavior, as settings have not changed) and the text is extremely blocky at 1280 but at 1024 or 1154, it is ok. And the textures just don't look right. Models seem to flit around screen.

Farcry and doom, bf2 are not nearly as bad actually, but still it does not seem very smooth. About 2 minutes of anything hurts my eyes compared to my 19inch CRT.

But then again, this monitor failed my inspection before even running any games. It is not that vibrant, colors have a faded look. I know this monitor wasn't intended for photo editing etc, but i've seen cheaper LCD monitors with better color output.

It seems to me, my money will be better spent on a quality CRT for gaming.

-------------------------------------------------

new note, using the analog connector instead of the dvi connector, improves the ghosting, however, the text is super faded........................

 

[XNice]

newegg has a refurbished one for $320....

 

[crazyjeeper]

Originally posted by: macdeffy
I recieved this monitor just today.

Not sure what defines as ghosting, have not used a LCD till now, but its most definitely doing something that is not right.

Lots of warbly effects around middle of screen. ON EVERYTHING, not just gaming, but moving windows around produces this effect as well. It does it at least every 5 to 10 secs on major screen activity. And 1280 at 60 hz hurts my eyes. but 60hz has always done that, I was expecting at least 75hz, the 60hz would be a no no at that res to me regardless of response, as it always makes me sick.

HL2 is the most noticeable. Runs at 30 fps on this monitor , whereas its constant 60 on crt (can anyone explain this behavior, as settings have not changed) and the text is extremely blocky at 1280 but at 1024 or 1154, it is ok. And the textures just don't look right. Models seem to flit around screen.

Farcry and doom, bf2 are not nearly as bad actually, but still it does not seem very smooth. About 2 minutes of anything hurts my eyes compared to my 19inch CRT.

But then again, this monitor failed my inspection before even running any games. It is not that vibrant, colors have a faded look. I know this monitor wasn't intended for photo editing etc, but i've seen cheaper LCD monitors with better color output.

It seems to me, my money will be better spent on a quality CRT for gaming.

-------------------------------------------------

new note, using the analog connector instead of the dvi connector, improves the ghosting, however, the text is super faded........................

Mine is great. Nothing like you're explaining. Maybe you've got some settings bunked up or something.
Course, you could have gotten a bad one...

 

[xtknight]

The sparkly effects are from Viewsonic's Amplified Impulse (Overdrive). Overdrive surges the voltage to make the crystals change faster. The problem is, all crystals don't change at the same speed, so some are still showing an old "sparkle" color (as THG calls it). More info here:

http://graphics.tomshardware.com/display/20050526/viewsonic-08.html