Is this a good lcd monitor?

[Nukky]

http://www.newegg.com/app/ViewProductDesc.asp?description=24-014-040&depa=1

I'm mostly going to use it for gaming.

 

[imported_itr]

Response Time: 25 ms

i suggest a lcd lower or equal to 16ms.

 

[Nukky]

So it's a no no?

 

[necine]

no, to the nizz-o

 

[orchiduk]

No, you want a 12ms or 8ms for gaming. With a 25ms you will get some "ghosting".

 

[REDtoLINE]

I would suggest using an LG...they are one of the best companies IMO...and i trust them very much...i have an LG moniter and an LG bigscreen, and both are amazing...

 

[Ken90630]

Yeah, a 25ms response time spec isn't really likely to give you great results with gaming.

Having said that, going by specs alone can be a bit dicey when it comes to response times. This is because not all manufacturers measure the same way. At the risk of sounding like a snobby name-dropper (which I don't mean to do), I happened to have a brief e-chat with Justin Jaffe, the senior editor over at CNET.com, about this subject about a year ago. He told me that with the many monitors they test, they often see 25ms monitors that actually perform better than some 16ms-spec'd monitors. So it really depends on the actual panel that's in the monitor and how the manufacturer measured it (which, of course, they usually don't go out of their way to tell you ).

Unless you can try them out in person in side-by-side comparisons, you should generally look for an LCD with a 16ms, 12ms or even lower response time for gaming and other full-motion video applications (e.g., DVDs) if you're shopping online. There's really no reason not to since there are quite a few of them available now. I think Samsung, Viewsonic, Sony, LG, Planar, and many others make decent 17" monitors for gaming these days. And some guys around here even swear by some of Dell's monitors. :Q

I'm not a gamer myself, but I'm sure some of the other guys/gals here on the forum can offer you some more specific advice based on their particular monitor and personal experiences.

 

[andy nowotny]

I do not like benq, anf 25ms

 

[oboyco]

http://www.chiefvalue.com/app/productde...01-172&ATT=Monitors&CMP=OTC-pr1c3watch

 

[boborich]

Originally posted by: oboyco
http://www.chiefvalue.com/app/productde...01-172&ATT=Monitors&CMP=OTC-pr1c3watch

Yeah, this one is better

 

[oboyco]

I was going to buy a new one a while back and researched the heck out of it. All the reviews and specs led me to believe this was the best for the money, and with the Samsung name and warranty. Read the reviews on Newegg (don't know why the price difference) for the same monitor, no dead pixels lately, which is always a concern. I personally haven't seen one in action.

I also read that Samsung had a no dead pixel warranty, but it turns out only for S. Korea I guess. lol

 

[0010010110]

Originally posted by: Ken90630
Yeah, a 25ms response time spec isn't really likely to give you great results with gaming.

Having said that, going by specs alone can be a bit dicey when it comes to response times. This is because not all manufacturers measure the same way. At the risk of sounding like a snobby name-dropper (which I don't mean to do), I happened to have a brief e-chat with Justin Jaffe, the senior editor over at CNET.com, about this subject about a year ago. He told me that with the many monitors they test, they often see 25ms monitors that actually perform better than some 16ms-spec'd monitors. So it really depends on the actual panel that's in the monitor and how the manufacturer measured it (which, of course, they usually don't go out of their way to tell you ).

Unless you can try them out in person in side-by-side comparisons, you should generally look for an LCD with a 16ms, 12ms or even lower response time for gaming and other full-motion video applications (e.g., DVDs) if you're shopping online. There's really no reason not to since there are quite a few of them available now. I think Samsung, Viewsonic, Sony, LG, Planar, and many others make decent 17" monitors for gaming these days. And some guys around here even swear by some of Dell's monitors. :Q

I'm not a gamer myself, but I'm sure some of the other guys/gals here on the forum can offer you some more specific advice based on their particular monitor and personal experiences.

Like my Samsung SyncMaster 173v rated at 25ms, yet I don't get any ghosting whatsoever while gaming. :thumbsup:

 

[oboyco]

BTW, it looks like the $50.00 mail in rebate expires 3/31/05

 

[ribbon13]

L90D+ is the goodness

 

[Ken90630]

Originally posted by: ribbon13
L90D+ is the goodness

With its .294 pixel pitch (which is terrible for a 19" LCD, BTW), that monitor's display is likely to look grainy. That monitor also has an equally poor dead pixel warranty: it says they will allow up to 8 (!) dead pixels. Good 3-year warranty, but I'd pass on that one if it were me. (No offense, Ribbon. )

 

[Ken90630]

Originally posted by: 0010010110

Originally posted by: Ken90630
Yeah, a 25ms response time spec isn't really likely to give you great results with gaming.

Having said that, going by specs alone can be a bit dicey when it comes to response times. This is because not all manufacturers measure the same way. At the risk of sounding like a snobby name-dropper (which I don't mean to do), I happened to have a brief e-chat with Justin Jaffe, the senior editor over at CNET.com, about this subject about a year ago. He told me that with the many monitors they test, they often see 25ms monitors that actually perform better than some 16ms-spec'd monitors. So it really depends on the actual panel that's in the monitor and how the manufacturer measured it (which, of course, they usually don't go out of their way to tell you ).

Unless you can try them out in person in side-by-side comparisons, you should generally look for an LCD with a 16ms, 12ms or even lower response time for gaming and other full-motion video applications (e.g., DVDs) if you're shopping online. There's really no reason not to since there are quite a few of them available now. I think Samsung, Viewsonic, Sony, LG, Planar, and many others make decent 17" monitors for gaming these days. And some guys around here even swear by some of Dell's monitors. :Q

I'm not a gamer myself, but I'm sure some of the other guys/gals here on the forum can offer you some more specific advice based on their particular monitor and personal experiences.

Like my Samsung SyncMaster 173v rated at 25ms, yet I don't get any ghosting whatsoever while gaming. :thumbsup:

Yeah, like I said, you can't go by paper specs alone. There are gonna be exceptions, and I suppose the specific games you play could affect things as well. Some are obviously gonna be more demanding than others in terms of video pixel response. And, of course, the vid card plays a role in the equation as well.

Plus, I've read different reviews of the same monitor whereby one reviewer will complain of ghosting, but the other reviewer says he "didn't notice any ghosting." So go figure. :laugh:

Samsungs seem to generate a good amount of anecdotal evidence about being good for gaming. It really comes down to the panel that's in these monitors, and that changes from model to model, so I'd expect some degree of fluctuation in terms of who's making the hottest gaming monitors at a given point in time. Although pretty soon there are gonna be enough LCD panels with super-fast response times that the issue will likely become moot (or close to it).

 

[bobcpg]

Originally posted by: ribbon13
L90D+ is the goodness

This link is cheaper, its newegg's sister site