have had two 1900fps as well and love it! I play half life 2 on occasion with my Radeon 9800 and don't seem to notice the ghosting even if it's there.
RossMAN
Grand Nagus
- Feb 24, 2000
- 78,966
- 412
- 136
Originally posted by: jpeyton
Originally posted by: notfred
I don't have my camera with me at work, so all I can offer is a screenshot for the moment.
It's a pair of dell 1900FP LCDs.
So... much... space...
1900FPs are old school. 1905FPs are better, but I'm a fan of the faster 16/12ms panels out nowadays.
Yep and the 1901FP was just before the 1905FP.
My old faithful 1900FP has served me well but has been replaced by the 10x superior and 100x brighter 2005FPW.
hmmm, I guess I just got owned, huh...
err...maybe not....
it's funny that you associate LCDs with a work environment and CRTs with the destitute gamer/nef crowd. I'm exactly the opposite - with a few exceptions I see LCDs as just the "gotta have it" overpriced trend that the kiddies are taken with, like ram with blinking lights on it.
10-12 hours a day is about minimum for me. I've logged a few 26-28 hour stretches too, when it comes down to crunch time. Granted, I don't do much coding (the occasional mel script), and most of my text work is in indesign. Most of it is cad/graphics/3d stuff, and there's nothing more anoying (to me) than being constrained on screen space - I feel very "boxed in" on anything less than 1920x1440. Also see my comment on color. You'll pry my CRT from my cold dead hands before I'd ever do color work on one of today's LCDs. They've gotten better, but it's still pretty sad.
I don't game. at all. and I don't think I've ever been above 1 ppd here.
As for eye strain, the only time I've ever had an issue was when I broke my glasses and had to wear disposable contacts for a week. It helps that I have a graphics card capable of hardware AA lines (jaggies get pretty anoying in cad). I actually get more "eye strain" from LCDs just because they look so damn pixelated in comparison. If you did nothing but text/coding, or have bad eyes, I could see prefering an LCD.
desk space and aesthetics: I think 95% of LCDs just look cheesy. the novelty of "oooh, thin" wore off immediately after I actually looked at one. For me: big, beautiful CRT ranks much higher in aesthetics, probably because I associate them with being so much more serious/professional than LCDs. I did build myself a large, hardwood workdesk, but that was mainly because I didn't want some junky fiberboard contraption.
There's one thing I do really like about this LCD fad : huge, beautiful, high end CRTs got cheap. $500 gets you one hell of a CRT monitor these days. to get the same real estate/quality on an LCD, you have a small handful of choices costing $2-7K. not that I wouldn't love one of those big LCDs, CRTs are just a much better buy IMO. In an ideal world I'd have 1-2 of each.
I am, however, disappointed that nobody seems to be putting any effort into making CRTs even better.
Like I said, use what you like...but lets not go talking down to each other, mmkay?
I :heart: my 140lbs of ancient technology
Originally posted by: NiKeFiDO
Originally posted by: remagavon
I only get ghosting (2) 2001fps here when vsync is enabled, which I wouldn't use anyway because it limits me to 60fps. Besides that the dell lcds are fantastic for their price, I have one hooked up to a mac mini and it's fantastic.
i gotta start this bc i hope someone really knows.
isnt it a bad idea to use a FPS higher than the frequency LCDs are set at (usually 60Hz)? Dont you get tearing if you try to make an lcd have a fps over the refresh rate of the monitor?
ALso, arent FPS above 60fps gratuitous anyway? if its constant at 60fps if you have a good vid card it shouldnt really matter (this depends on your vid card obvioulsy, idk what you have).
Tearing is one unfortunate side effect of going to an LCD from a CRT for myself. I play counter strike competitively and need the higher framerate due to the smoothness that it brings. Yes, 60fps is fine for some people to play at but I myself need at least 85 (100 is even slightly better) in order for the game to feel fluid. Other types of games such as World of Warcraft or a flight simulator I'm perfectly fine with a lower framerate, however counter strike feels very 'laggy' to myself when I use vsync. This is in both source and 1.6 (which I no longer play).
FYI I have a 6800ultra and get anywhere from 80-120ish fps (occasional lower drops), unfortunately not constant because the engine is pretty intensive on today's hardware. Many, many people will argue and say that 'you don't notice anything over 30fps, or 60fps' and to be honest maybe some people truly don't, but I can tell the difference between 150 and 200 even, although anything above 100 is really quite smooth to my eyes. Of course because the refresh rate is only 60hz you aren't actually seeing a full 100fps or whatnot, but the tearing in one way or another makes it seem smoother (again this is really subjective). I do miss using vsync @ 85/100hz on a crt, but I really like the sharpness in text that LCDs provide. Hope this helps clear things up
arcenite
Lifer
- Dec 9, 2001
- 10,660
- 7
- 81
Originally posted by: remagavon
Originally posted by: NiKeFiDO
Originally posted by: remagavon
I only get ghosting (2) 2001fps here when vsync is enabled, which I wouldn't use anyway because it limits me to 60fps. Besides that the dell lcds are fantastic for their price, I have one hooked up to a mac mini and it's fantastic.
i gotta start this bc i hope someone really knows.
isnt it a bad idea to use a FPS higher than the frequency LCDs are set at (usually 60Hz)? Dont you get tearing if you try to make an lcd have a fps over the refresh rate of the monitor?
ALso, arent FPS above 60fps gratuitous anyway? if its constant at 60fps if you have a good vid card it shouldnt really matter (this depends on your vid card obvioulsy, idk what you have).
Tearing is one unfortunate side effect of going to an LCD from a CRT for myself. I play counter strike competitively and need the higher framerate due to the smoothness that it brings. Yes, 60fps is fine for some people to play at but I myself need at least 85 (100 is even slightly better) in order for the game to feel fluid. Other types of games such as World of Warcraft or a flight simulator I'm perfectly fine with a lower framerate, however counter strike feels very 'laggy' to myself when I use vsync. This is in both source and 1.6 (which I no longer play).
FYI I have a 6800ultra and get anywhere from 80-120ish fps (occasional lower drops), unfortunately not constant because the engine is pretty intensive on today's hardware. Many, many people will argue and say that 'you don't notice anything over 30fps, or 60fps' and to be honest maybe some people truly don't, but I can tell the difference between 150 and 200 even, although anything above 100 is really quite smooth to my eyes. Of course because the refresh rate is only 60hz you aren't actually seeing a full 100fps or whatnot, but the tearing in one way or another makes it seem smoother (again this is really subjective). I do miss using vsync @ 85/100hz on a crt, but I really like the sharpness in text that LCDs provide. Hope this helps clear things up
It's all preference I guess. I thought I was anal but with vsync on CS:S still looks fine to me.
OREOSpeedwagon
Diamond Member
- May 30, 2001
- 8,485
- 1
- 81
jcuadrado
Diamond Member
- Oct 26, 1999
- 3,300
- 0
- 76
Here's mine
Had a Hyundai L90+ already...but that damn 2005 FPW deal for under $400 got me...how could I not buy a widescreen for under 4 bills...I had to do it
Had a Hyundai L90+ already...but that damn 2005 FPW deal for under $400 got me...how could I not buy a widescreen for under 4 bills...I had to do it
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 21K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter