What's the BEST LCD Monitor I can get for ~$650?

deadken

Diamond Member
Aug 8, 2004
3,196
4
81
Hi, I game alot and am seriously considering upgrading my monitor. I should be getting an "extra" $630 at the end of the month. I was considering upgrading my rig (been considering a 64-bit upgrade), but it is still working just fine:
System Specs:
Abit NF7 Mobo
M2400+ CPU (@11X200)
3x512MB Corsair 2,2,2,5 Ram
Antec Case w/Antec True 480 PS
GeForce 6800GT (@Ultra speeds)
Creative Labs Audigy 2 ZS Platinum
Logitech Z-680's

I mostly game and surf, but occasionally watch a DVD (Analog audio inputs for everything but DVD's, Digital Coax for DVD's). I honestly game about 15 hours a week (at least). What would be the best monitor for my use? I know that the lower the response time the less 'ghosting' I should get, what is 'acceptable'? How good/bad is the image quality for gaming (I understand that there aren't really White or Black on a LCD screen). I have even considered splurging on a Sony 23" LCD TV/Monitor ($999) but I think that is a bit over the top. I doubt it would be an acceptable Monitor for gaming, I am not sure that it would fit my desk right, and I would rather not spend more then $650.

I have considered finding a 19" LCD for around $300 and then spending the 'other' $350 on a 64-bit upgrade. I doubt that any $300 19" LCD monitor would suffice my needs though.

Please let me know what you guys think.

Thanks, Ken
 

DidlySquat

Banned
Jun 30, 2005
903
0
0
I believe you can get the Dell 2405 fpw for $800 and that will pwn any other monitor you can get for $650 so it's worth the extra
 

darXoul

Senior member
Jan 15, 2004
702
0
0
Since you are primarily a gamer and response time is very important in this case (although I don't know whether you play fast games like Q3/4, CS or BF2), I would recommend a P-MVA 8 ms monitor or S-PVA 6 ms.


Let's think...

SIZE

Widescreen 23/24" - some good monitors in this area but pretty expensive, plus your rig wouldn't really handle such resolutions if you like to play with AA/AF on...

Widescreen 19-21" - IMHO, way too small vertically. Don't bother.

20"-21" - clearly the best choice in terms of response is the P-MVA 8 ms monitor ViewSonic VP2030b. Native resolution 1600*1200 though so a bit too heavy on your rig. The display is within your price limit, however. Another option is the Samsung 204b with TN panel - this one will be very fast (5 ms) but IMO, TN panel monitors are not worth it, even for heavy gaming due to crappy viewing angles and dithered color (6 bit per pixel). Black levels are a bit disappointing, too.

19" - 1280*1024 resolution so you'll probably want one of those. ViewSonic VX922/924 are very fast (2/3 ms gtg) monitors with minimized ghosting for an LCD but they are based on TN panels, plus no height adjustments. If you can live with limited viewing angles and not accurate color gradients, they will be the best option for you. Otherwise, stay away from them and grab a 6 ms S-PVA or 8 ms P-MVA display. Two good options here: ViewSonic VP930b (8 ms P-MVA, good color, viewing angles, black levels, however some backlight bleeding problems reported by numerous users) / Samsung 970p (6 ms S-PVA, even better color and angles, great contrast). I'd probably recommend the Samsung. It's fast enough even for heavy gaming and a good allrounder. P-MVA produces a bit less noise in movies though.

A piece of advice: since you have a CRT now, don't buy an LCD display before you see how games run on them. It's simply different technology and IMHO, if someone expects CRT-like performance from an LCD, a disappointment is inevitable.


BTW, on this forum, almost everyone will recommend the Dell 2405FPW. Beware. This monitor's native res is 1920*1200 so you'll need a beastly rig to run it in games in high settings (4*AA, 8-16*AF, details high or max). Plus, despite countless positive opinions around the web (especially here), you might want to read some reviews first. For instance, prad.de claims this monitor is not a good choice for hardcore gamers due to noticeable ghosting. hardware.fr goes even further and claims this display's afterglow is "unbearable" in fast games like Quake, Far Cry or Battlefield. YMMV.
 

deadken

Diamond Member
Aug 8, 2004
3,196
4
81
WOW! That's a lot of info! I thank you very much for all of the help. I will follow up with some research on the monitors you mentioned. I have read with special interest your statement "if someone expects CRT-like performance from an LCD, a disappointment is inevitable". I certainly was hoping that LCD's had improved enough to be close. I certainly was 'assuming' that.

I would love to follow your suggestion about trying one first, but here is my next dilemma: The only LCD I can readily get my hands on is my Daughters 17" Proview (PL713s). I believe that it is rated for a 16ms response time, so I never thought about even trying it (although I swear I remember reading 12ms on the box). Would trying this LCD out in place of my CRT give me a 'reasonable' idea of what I can expect from a LCD? Or is the quality gap between what I am looking for and what this one is too big to even get an idea of what to expect? I should also mention that it 'only' has an Analog input, would the difference in picture between the Analog input on this 17" that I have and the DVI I assume the next LCD I get make a huge difference in the image quality?

Again I thank you for your time and I hope to get a bit more educated before I buy anything.

BTW: I should mention that I play BF2 almost exclusively right now. When the time comes, I most certainly will replace it with another FPS.
 

imported_Rampage

Senior member
Jun 6, 2005
935
0
0
Originally posted by: deadken
WOW! That's a lot of info! I thank you very much for all of the help. I will follow up with some research on the monitors you mentioned. I have read with special interest your statement "if someone expects CRT-like performance from an LCD, a disappointment is inevitable". I certainly was hoping that LCD's had improved enough to be close. I certainly was 'assuming' that.

I use a dell 2005fpw and will be moving to a 2405fpw when another sale comes around. I certainly think my LCD is as good as my CRT. In fact, theres no way in hell I could be pushed into going back to a CRT..

DVI+Cleartype+Widescreen FTW
I'll never not have all 3 of those again. I'm not sure what makes the 2005 "too small vertically". Thats pretty objective. Its a widescreen, you could compare a 24inch square display to a 24inch widescreen and its going to be "too small vertically" too..
*boggle*

I'd take a 20inch widescreen over a 20inch 4:3 display any day. Heck I'd take a 17inch widescreen over a 17inch 4:3.

As long as you have the 16:10 aspect ratio of a widescreen, you are going to get THIS. About halfway down the thread..
of course you can do that on a regular CRT but then you get horizontal black bars (or distort the correct aspect ratio of the game by stretching the vertical out as well.. making it appear like you are further behind than the game world intends you to perceieve, making it hard to jump ect correctly, it will also get you banned for cheating on VAC and punkbuster to do that).
 

darXoul

Senior member
Jan 15, 2004
702
0
0
deadken, IMHO, it would be best to try to see the performance on a good, up-to-date LCD with 16 ms or faster panel, preferably 8 ms or less 'gtg'. I just meant that every single LCD, even the fastest one, shows a bit of a motion blur which doesn't occur on a CRT.

I'm not saying LCDs are crap because many of them are fantastic monitors with awesome colors, good viewing angles, plus they are lighter, easier to move, etc. etc.

However, fast gaming is a domain where CRTs simply prevail no matter which LCD you choose. That's why it's crucial to try a liquid crystal monitor before you get rid of your good, old cathode ray tube :) I know people who simply cannot stand the issues of LCDs so they stick with their CRTs until SED displays are available and have matured.

Rampage, I simply say that a 20" widescreen monitor is vertically smaller than a 19" (18" viewable) CRT, not even mentioning a 19" full viewable LCD. That's it. Widescreen makes sense to me if it's 23-24 inches. In fact, many people don't even realize how "vertically narrow" and actually small e.g. a 19" widescreen display is. The 16:10 aspect ratio simply makes the diagonal quite an inadequate measurement when comparing to a 4:3 or 5:4 monitor.

As for the link to Half-Life 2 screenshot, sure, it's great. I totally understand the people who say they would never go back to a 4:3 ratio display. However, games with good widescreen support out of the box (add horizontal FoV) are rare. Usually, it takes some work to force games to use the 16:10 aspect, plus the results are often unacceptable (either stretched and distorted picture and/or problems with 2d elements like crosshairs or icons, or simply chopped off bottom and top instead of added FoV). Widescreen support at the moment is pretty weak.
 

DoobieOnline

Golden Member
Jan 12, 2001
1,397
0
0
Check out the Samsung 214T. It's 21.3", 1600x1200 native resolution, 8ms response time, and it can be found for $688 shipped at pagecomputers.com. It has quite a few input options as well. I ordered mine from MultiWave and it will be here this week. :D
 

xtknight

Elite Member
Oct 15, 2004
12,974
0
71
Ironically the cheaper LCDs would be better for your needs because they use the fastest types of panels ("TN"). They do have a couple drawbacks, one of which is that they won't display as many colors accurately. That certainly doesn't mean they aren't vibrant, it just means that it cannot display them accurately. In reality they will only be about ~5 components of color off so hardly anything noticeable, UNLESS you edit photos (or have a good eye for these things). Personally I never found it an issue while gaming. Looking at photos, yes, there may be an issue there. The other problem with the faster panels is the viewing angle. If you view it at too extreme an angle it usually distorts the color. Is this a problem for gaming? Probably not, unless you're sitting at angle all the time. Is it a problem for LCD TVs? Definitely, and LCD TVs are at the bottom of my list for TV technologies.

An interesting thing is some people get eye strain from CRTs and some get eye strain from LCDs. If you get eye strain from a CRT, it's possible an LCD will be better for you. On the other hand, the LCD may hurt your eyes as well. Just something to keep in mind. Personally I found LCDs a lot easier to look at for extended periods of gaming. I certainly wasn't disappointed when I could finally game that long. ;)

If you want the fastest go with a Samsung SyncMaster 930BF. It tops out at 10 ms. total (rise+fall). (CRTs are 1 ms. for rise+decay.) It's the fastest 19" LCD available (faster than any 17" as well). Unfortunately it's been said that has some other side effect of motion, so be sure to check it out if you're planning on the 930BF. If you want to be safe, go with the ViewSonic VX924. The VX922 is most likely fine as well. Both top out around ~12 ms I believe.

Another thing to keep in mind is this "ghosting" issue. For all practical purposes you can not go off someone else's opinion of it. If they say there's "no" ghosting, well first of all they'd be lying, because there's always going to be a little. If they say it's god-awful, you might not even notice it. Try it for yourself in-store and see. And all LCDs are definitely not equal. Your daughter's LCD is not nearly as fast as the 930BF. So, check the specific model out for yourself somewhere.

Right now I own a "P-MVA" LCD (VP930b), and to be fully honest with you, I feel my older Samsung 710T "TN" LCD displayed the darker colors a lot better. The VP930b seems to have a problem with the darker range for some reason, a problem that my TN didn't have. Also, I notice noise in some of the colors on the P-MVA LCD. The moral of the story is, at least for me, the VAs don't always display the colors better than the TNs. Maybe this problem doesn't happen with the S-PVAs and only the P-MVAs. It's been said the P-MVAs have less noise, which I find quite shocking.

I just meant that every single LCD, even the fastest one, shows a bit of a motion blur which doesn't occur on a CRT.

Actually, on a white on black screen, the fastest LCDs leave less of a trail than CRTs. But on colorful transitions, CRTs do beat LCDs in terms of speed. There's snapshots available in the BeHardware reviews. I've also observed this myself with Samsung 710T vs. eMachines CRT. I was quite surprised. It's not true that CRTs are flawlessly fast. LCD technology may pass CRT some day in terms of speed. I don't know when, but it sure would be a wake-up call. ;)
 

darXoul

Senior member
Jan 15, 2004
702
0
0
xtnight, did you read the review of overdriven monitors on xbitlabs? They kind of bashed the 930BF for horrible and clearly visible image artifacts. I'd grab the VX924 any day.

As for the viewing angles, I think they are a pain in the butt even when gaming. The vertical angle on TNs is so poor that on a large display (19-20" full viewable is quite big) you'll see the gradients shift and differ in the top-bottom direction just when changing your position in front of the monitor by a few inches. I don't like it, I find it distracting. Even though I play fast games, I just can't stand TNs. YMMV :)
 

xtknight

Elite Member
Oct 15, 2004
12,974
0
71
Originally posted by: darXoul
xtnight, did you read the review of overdriven monitors on xbitlabs? They kind of bashed the 930BF for horrible and clearly visible image artifacts. I'd grab the VX924 any day.

Yup, I did. Someone on here had a thread and said they had no idea what X-Bit was talking about, so I don't know. I do definitely recommend he check it out for himself first for these "effects". (Don't buy the 930BF unless you can get a look at how motion on it is.) If you want to be safe, grab the VX924 or VX922. They are all about the same speed. I just can't imagine Samsung would sell such a defective monitor if X-Bit says it's as bad as it really is. I tend to recommend the Samsungs because my ViewSonic has enough ideosynchracies itself. :) (It's a good thing you reminded me of that though. I modified my previous post.)

As for the viewing angles, I think they are a pain in the butt even when gaming. The vertical angle on TNs is so poor that on a large display (19-20" full viewable is quite big) you'll see the gradients shift and differ in the top-bottom direction just when changing your position in front of the monitor by a few inches. I don't like it, I find it distracting. Even though I play fast games, I just can't stand TNs. YMMV :)

Well, that's possible. On my 17" TN I didn't notice a thing (I was too immersed in burning up Nazis in Wolfenstein). I do notice even with my VP930b that the horizontal parts are ~10% washed out from the rest of the screen. It could just be the backlight bleeding of this particular model. darXoul, I take it you were disappointed with LCDs?

The number one thing to do (with "cutting-edge" LCDs) is check it out for yourself (in a store or otherwise), especially if gaming is an importance. (Preferably you could go to a colorful Flash movie-esque website to get an idea of blurring.) You never know what other problems may arise from lowering response time. That way, if you're disappointed, you don't have to pay a restocking fee to return it.

Edit: edited way too many times I might as well had made a new post. Sorry about that.
 

TSS

Senior member
Nov 14, 2005
227
0
0
for 630 bucks, i would save it and buy a better vidcard. either 2x 7800GT, 1900xt or wait for the G71.

remember the bigger the monitor the higher the res you want to get, unless your crazy and try to run 640x480 on a 24" dell. that 6800GT will most likely start to choke at 1920x1080 4aa 8af, maybe even at just 1920x1080.

i'd say, with a 19" CRT your set for the moment... might wanna keep it and wait for SED or something to come out :p currently im playing UT2004 1280x960, on a 19"crt, and the jaggys are bad enough to sometimes conceal a enemy at a big distance (running a TI4600 never even turned on AA with this thing.) so it really depends on your personal preference.
 

darXoul

Senior member
Jan 15, 2004
702
0
0
Originally posted by: xtknight
darXoul, I take it you were disappointed with LCDs?

Well, yes and no. It's true that there is no LCD available right now which would satisfy me 100% but I'm a very demanding user, I guess :) I know that unless you expect CRT-like movement sharpness, you can be quite happy with many LCDs currently offered. I'm kind of still on my quest for the LCD Holy Grail... It's not easy to find a good monitor for my needs, and from what I see, good 20"+ CRTs are extinct by now. At the moment, the Samsung 244t seems like the closest product to what I actually want. Too bad the black version doesn't seem to be available in Europe...
 

broly8877

Senior member
Aug 17, 2004
461
0
0
Gateway FPD2185W - 21" Widescreen 1680x1050
Component, Composite, Svideo, VGA, DVI input


Fantastic LCD.
 

DidlySquat

Banned
Jun 30, 2005
903
0
0
I agree CRTs have some inherent advantages over all LCDs like the black levels, contrast, color depth, viewing angle and response time. So even with a very good LCD like the dell 2405 I can see the advantage of CRTs in these aspects. But LCDs are brighter and use digital inputs, not to mention more conveinet to work with because of their much lighter weight and less space consumption. LCDs are also better for text which is what people do most, and a large widescreen LCD can give you a lot of desktop real estate even if you use lower resolutions for gaming.
 

deadken

Diamond Member
Aug 8, 2004
3,196
4
81
WOW! I am sure glad that I asked! I have gained a ton of insight and now know what to look at when I look at a LCD. I certainly will visit my local Brick-and-Mortar store to see what the LCD's are like with gaming before I make any purchase.

The killer is that of course, I don't NEED this monitor (how often do we really need a PC upgrade?), but it is a case where I could spend a large chunk of cash and be totally unimpressed with it. It isn't the sort of thing that I could hand down to one of the kids and not have it get ruined (they are still 10 and 12 Y.O.).

As for the comment made by TSS, I have to admit that I am not totally against getting a new video card, but I have to say that I haven't seen a better card for the AGP Slot then the 6800GT (@Ultra). I TOTALLY mean this as on paper, I don't get to see much REALLY nice hardware in person. It seems to me that I can't get any better with my Video Card without switching to a 64-bit platform. As I have said, I am not against that, but I certainly don't think that I could replace my main hardware and ALSO get a new Video Card within the budget that I mentioned. I will certainly have to look into what I could get in terms of new PC hardware for the budget mentioned ($650). Obviously, I can't use 2X 7800GT's with my current hardware and I doubt that I could get 2X 7800GT's for $650 anyway.

-Thanks to all that have replied, I will continue looking and learning. Please keep the suggestions coming.
 

deadken

Diamond Member
Aug 8, 2004
3,196
4
81
Originally posted by: Markbnj
DVI+Cleartype+Widescreen FTW

I second that.
Please explain these 'designations'.

I understand that DVI is inherently better then digital on an LCD. Why go from Digital to Analog back to Digital when you can keep the signal Digital straight through? But, will you see a difference? I mean the average user, or in my case a gamer?

I think that Cleartype is a program that lets you set your LCD to display text better. I could be totally wrong, so please tell me what it is.

I know that the Widescreen format is supposed to be more like what the human eye actually see, but what is the FTW part?

Thanks for any and all help.

-Ken
 

Zebo

Elite Member
Jul 29, 2001
39,398
19
81
I am a gamer, and am considering giving up my NEC 19" CRT
Boy are in for a disappointment assuming you have a 930SB.

Best idea because it's closest to a Good CRT and far superior in convergence (text)

19" - 1280*1024 resolution so you'll probably want one of those. ViewSonic VX922/924 are very fast (2/3 ms gtg) monitors with minimized ghosting for an LCD but they are based on TN panels, plus no height adjustments. If you can live with limited viewing angles and not accurate color gradients, they will be the best option for you. Otherwise, stay away from them and grab a 6 ms S-PVA or 8 ms P-MVA display. Two good options here: ViewSonic VP930b (8 ms P-MVA, good color, viewing angles, black levels, however some backlight bleeding problems reported by numerous users) / Samsung 970p (6 ms S-PVA, even better color and angles, great contrast). I'd probably recommend the Samsung. It's fast enough even for heavy gaming and a good allrounder. P-MVA produces a bit less noise in movies though.
 

hans007

Lifer
Feb 1, 2000
20,212
18
81
if your 19" cft is say an nec fp950 you might be disappointed.

that said widescreen is often lower resolution and that is why i think it is a bit too much cash usually.

most people i knew who had a high end 19" (such as the fp950) were running 1600x1200. and a 20" widescreen is only 1680x1050 (which is i might add only about 35% more space than a 17" 4:3 lcd pixel wise)

there are a lot of 19" lcds in the $300 ish range that would surprise you . anything 12ms or less is probably fine, as a lot of the new 4ms, or 6ms, or 8ms panels are a lot more marketing fluff thana nything. read some of the lcd articles on tomshardware.com (i'd say they do the best job at lcd reviews) and you can see how the measurement standards are all screwed up.

probably the worse violator of it is viewsonic anyway.

if i were you i'd pick up a $350 benq 8ms or 12ms panel. and get maybe the asrock agp/pci-e board with some sort of amd64 based chip such as a 3200+ . probably the best bang for your buck (since you already have a 6800ultra agp it looks like) . the athlon 64 based cpu's can add quite a bit of framerate to an existing video card compared to an athlon xp based chip (i'm talking xp3200+ vs athlon64 3200+ terms).
 

n7

Elite Member
Jan 4, 2004
21,281
4
81
Yeah i know it's just refresh of the 1970GX.

I owned the 1970GX for about a month, & oh man, i loved it.

I so wish some manufacturer would make a 20"+ display with Opticlear or that type of finish, since frankly, i find it looked better than my 8-bit 20" Samsung.
 

Wellsoul2

Member
May 12, 2005
85
0
0
I dunno..if this is your first LCD I'd say buy the best cheap 19in one.

See if you like it and save the cash to upgrade your other hardware.

You can buy a 19in LCD >$300 (Get DVI one)

Probably the difference between a 4ms and 12ms panel won't alarm you.

I dunno..I am not a big cash spender and think going with a pretty good
19in LCD for a cheap price gives you most of the benefits.
(And you can sell it for less of a loss if you want more)
 

CP5670

Diamond Member
Jun 24, 2004
5,639
738
126
Originally posted by: n7
Yeah i know it's just refresh of the 1970GX.

I owned the 1970GX for about a month, & oh man, i loved it.

I so wish some manufacturer would make a 20"+ display with Opticlear or that type of finish, since frankly, i find it looked better than my 8-bit 20" Samsung.

They recently listed this on their website, but I don't know what the resolution is. I would also really like to see a better LCD with this coating. I need an LCD soon for another computer and was dead set on getting one of these glossy coating monitors, but it seems that the only ones available are mediocre panels otherwise (6-bit, low contrast, 12x10, etc.).

[edit] looks like it's 1680x1050. The contrast ratio is also much better than the other monitors. It will probably be too expensive for me though. :(