LCD Dilemma - 12ms vs 25ms???

[MarkFahey]

I am started to research the many LCD monitors out there to replace my aging iilama 21" desktop CRT. Sheeze... there are so many choices. I am looking for at least a 19" but preferably a 21" Most of the 19"er's will only do 1280x1024. I am used to my big real estate desktop at 1600x1200. I have looked at the new Sony HS-Series 19" Flat Panel LCD with the new XBRITE technology and SCREAMING 12ms response time at the local Best Buy here in Massachusetts and WOW did that puppy ever look sweet. I could swear I was looking at a CRT instead of an LCD with it standing next to the other LCD's on the shelf.

I am also looking at the Samsung SyncMasterTM 213T (21.3 inch monitor). Lots of real estate with 1600x1200 but only a 25ms response time.

Can anyone give any solid recommendations on other brands like NEC, etc?

I guess my main question is the response time difference between say 12 - 16ms to 25ms such a great difference? I am a gamer with the likes of Tom Clancy's Rainbow Six as well as a big flight simulator fanatic. Is the 25ms ceiling going to really affect my gaming as opposed to a 12 or 16ms display?


Many Thanks for the feedback in advance!


Mark

 

[monkeydust]

Get the Dell 2001FP 20.1" LCD or the 2005 model if you want widescreen. Great gaming LCD and great price. Only problem I have with mine is that is has the word "Dell" on it.

 

[bjc112]

While the HS94 is nice, and XBRITE is awesome, I agree that 1280x1024 will not seem like enough. The 213T is also a nice monitor.. Rotates 90degrees and it's a 21".. However, if you do ANY gaming I would opt to go for something different, the gaming that I did on it had me disappointed.

Shoot for at least 16ms if possible, 12 if the monitor has it. ( most 12ms seem to be 16 overall ) (grey-grey)

I myself jus purchased a 2005fp which is Widescreen (1680x1050 )

Beautiful monitor. Rotates 90 degress, height adjustable , Composite Video , S Video and 4 USB ports.

12ms
600:1

It can be had for as low as $500.

Opt for the 2001fp is you don't like the 16:10 aspect ratio.

2005fp

See what you think.

 

[sharkeeper]

Don't base your choice of purchase on manufacturer's published specification of pixel response time alone!

For example, I found the Samsung 213T rated at 25mS to be much worse than the Sony SDM-M81 that it replaced. The Sony was rated at 40mS!

Best thing to do is try it out.

I find a good test is go here. Accept any security messages you get. When the applet loads, maximise the window. It should look like this. Use your mouse to move the position of the globe. All those white pixels are indicating where satellites are in real time. If you orient the orbit lines parallel to the Y axis (up and down) and drag the mouse around you will perform a very good test on pixel update rate. Slower monitors will cause the satellites to disappear in the background as the scene is moved. Faster monitors will show them available at all times.

Cheers!

 

[Sleepyghost]

Hi Mark

I too am market for an LCD and posted on this forum with high hopes. Recommendations came, but because my requirements were tighter then yours I didn't find the info on "what & why". Maybe I didn't know how to ask. I will try to give you are more complete answer and recommendations on 19"ers. Sorry, don't know much about any bigger screens.

Here's my thread.. buried deep into the forums even though I tried a little CPR
http://forums.anandtech.com/me...4060&enterthread=y

Dell is a very common recommendation and for a reason. But there's so much more to see. Pretty much any modern 8ms or 12ms screen will show games without ghosting. There are CRT purists who will say otherwise, but majority people find gaming with modern LCDs no problem. Companies I like are Samsung, Benq, Viewsonic, Iiyama and Nec. I may have forgotten some. But there's more to displays then fast speed.

ABOUT PANEL TECHNIQUES
http://www.xbitlabs.com/articl...display/lcd-guide.html

In short:
MVA/PVA - Wide viewing angles, high contrast and good colors. A bit slow.
S-IPS - Wide viewing angles, natural colors, decent contrast, fast enough for games and DVDs
TN - Very fast, somewhat limited viewing angles, vibrant but not precise colors. Lacks the color range of other panel types so the range is produced by dithering. It is a problem for graphics artists, photo people and so forth but not for a gamer. TN is the most popular panel type now due to heavy marketing and gaming advantages. Companies compete in panel speeds.

Having said the above this thread may become more popular simply because people disagree. Flame away, I stick to my view. Please check the link to X-bit Labs article above. It is a superb read, very informative, professional and almost 30 pages long

I LIKE
I have been looking into 19" screens only, so I can't say anything about any bigger than that, sorry. But for 19" and gaming you could go for..
- Samsung 193P - 20ms PVA, not perfect for gaming (minor ghosting) but a very good screen & stand
- Viewsonic VP912B or VP912S - 12ms TN (apparently) with very good specs and stand.. read more below
- Nec 1970NX - new S-IPS, a good all-arounder, good stand
- Benq - any fast Benq screen gives TN gaming benefits (and problems) at low price

ON VP912B / VP912S
Actually I though Viewsonic VP912S would be perfect for me: good for graphics work and good for movies and web.. and exellent for games. VP912S is VP912B without reflective coating that bothered many. But for me color abilities of the screen were not enough. It produces vibrant beautiful colours but not "true". Will not be a problem for you. Also that XBRITE you so liked is the same thing VP912 has. On www.hardforum.com many agree that in this case Viewsonic and Sony are using the same panel.

That's it. All I have said is based on reviews, articles and user opinions. I have no first-hand experience. I hope this info helps and perhaps somebody will give you their own experiences for screens such as VP912. All the best of luck in your search!

-Sleepy


If you are interested in reading more on VP912, here's some links I dug up:

VP912S info at www.viewsoniceurope.com:
http://www.viewsoniceurope.com...cts/LCDProf/VP912s.htm

VP912B review at www.gamepc.com:
http://www.gamepc.com/labs/vie...p?id=vp912b&page=1

VP912B review at http://msnpcworld.com:
http://msn.pcworld.com/reviews...aid,118694,pg,1,00.asp

VP912B review at www.machworld.com:
http://www.macworld.com/2004/1...wsonic19inch/index.php

VP912B review at CNET
http://reviews-zdnet.com.com/ViewSonic_VP912b/4505-3174_16-31081769-2.html?tag=glance

HARDFORUM
910T and VP912B comparison
http://www.hardforum.com/showthread.php?t=846962

praise & backlight leaking
http://www.hardforum.com/showthread.php?t=849312

on Sony using the same panel
http://www.hardforum.com/showthread.php?t=846943

 

[bjc112]

Originally posted by: sharkeeper
Don't base your choice of purchase on manufacturer's published specification of pixel response time alone!

For example, I found the Samsung 213T rated at 25mS to be much worse than the Sony SDM-M81 that it replaced. The Sony was rated at 40mS!

Best thing to do is try it out.

I find a good test is go here. Accept any security messages you get. When the applet loads, maximise the window. It should look like this. Use your mouse to move the position of the globe. All those white pixels are indicating where satellites are in real time. If you orient the orbit lines parallel to the Y axis (up and down) and drag the mouse around you will perform a very good test on pixel update rate. Slower monitors will cause the satellites to disappear in the background as the scene is moved. Faster monitors will show them available at all times.

Cheers!

I definitely agree with that. Respone time isn't everything.

But if you are gaming the 213T is not the monitor for you.

 

[sharkeeper]

My wife uses a 213T and likes it.

She plays Q3 and is in a few clans. She has a 6800U and gets like 600fps with the settings she uses. (1024x768) She swears 1600x1200 is jerky yet it timedemos over 300 fps. Whatever. All she cares about is moving as fast as possible. She said a lot of the players run 640x480 with low quality because they are running 9800 pros! I'm not much of a gamer but I read hardware reviews and have a ton of money tied up in this stuff so I know that this is quite funny.

She has D3 and hates it, likes Painkiller and Far Cry but she likes Q3 because more of the players are the over 30's crowd. I guess so... isn't that game like 45 years old. (in dog years which computer years follow closely)

Cheers!

 

[Sleepyghost]

I still can't recommend any screens above 19" because I haven't done enough research on them, but here's a nice and very positive review from gamers point of view. It is a large Viewsonic screen, supposedly 16ms: VP201B

http://www.gamepc.com/labs/vie...p?id=vp201b&page=1

Probably very expensive too but that comes with the territory (of large LCDs).

 

[NiKeFiDO]

after much research i have decided when I get one I'm getting a samsung. Im going for 17"probably (19" is too big for me, no reason to have it, and 17" is cheaper.

One thing to know is that currently you wont get what you want in terms of color reproduction (picture quality) and response time. Most monitors with low response time are TN panels. They typically have "bad" (still looks good to me and many many people) but higher response times. MVA and PVA panels typically have good picture quality but poor response times (regardless of what the manufacturer says the "typical" response time is). IPS panels are typically the all-around best.

This is an email I got from the Editor of our very own anandtech.com displays and video section:
Q
"Hey, I have been reading the anandtech articles on various 17" LCDs. I was
wondering if you knew of any 17" LCD's that had a sub-25ms response time but
still had 8-bit color?"

A
"Any panel based on the LG.Philips S-IPS technology does, I believe.
Samsung's newer LCDs are based on 8-bit panels as well, but they are just
starting to show up here and there."

He said he would email me with more info but hasnt to I think ill re-email him.

ANyway, here is some more links to awesome information (dunno if someone already posted them or if your sick of reading stuff but here goes:

All around info on LCDs (awesome article)
http://www.xbitlabs.com/articl...display/lcd-guide.html

Anandtechs all-around info (also awesome):
http://www.anandtech.com/displays/showdoc.aspx?i=1855

Now go to tomshardwareguide.com and anandtech for reviews of various LCDs. They both have stuff specifically on 19" LCDs so you could check out what they have to say to guide you in the righ direction.
Remember though, searching through Specs isnt as important (well, kinda) as seeing the monitor in action for yourlsef because in the end, liking what you see is what matters the mose.

 

[bjc112]

Originally posted by: sharkeeper
My wife uses a 213T and likes it.

She plays Q3 and is in a few clans. She has a 6800U and gets like 600fps with the settings she uses. (1024x768) She swears 1600x1200 is jerky yet it timedemos over 300 fps. Whatever. All she cares about is moving as fast as possible. She said a lot of the players run 640x480 with low quality because they are running 9800 pros! I'm not much of a gamer but I read hardware reviews and have a ton of money tied up in this stuff so I know that this is quite funny.

She has D3 and hates it, likes Painkiller and Far Cry but she likes Q3 because more of the players are the over 30's crowd. I guess so... isn't that game like 45 years old. (in dog years which computer years follow closely)

Cheers!

Really? We play Q3 on the monitor here at work and it REALLY blurs.. ( V- Sync enabled )

Other than that, I think it is an awesome monitor.

 

[0roo0roo]

25ms is black to white time, color can take much longer. no point going 25ms these days

 

[dtboos]

I wouldn't buy an LCD with over 16ms or you can get ghosting ect.

So get the 12ms LCD over the 25ms one without question.

 

[Nessism]

Originally posted by: sharkeeper
Don't base your choice of purchase on manufacturer's published specification of pixel response time alone!

For example, I found the Samsung 213T rated at 25mS to be much worse than the Sony SDM-M81 that it replaced. The Sony was rated at 40mS!

Best thing to do is try it out.

I find a good test is go here. Accept any security messages you get. When the applet loads, maximise the window. It should look like this. Use your mouse to move the position of the globe. All those white pixels are indicating where satellites are in real time. If you orient the orbit lines parallel to the Y axis (up and down) and drag the mouse around you will perform a very good test on pixel update rate. Slower monitors will cause the satellites to disappear in the background as the scene is moved. Faster monitors will show them available at all times.

Cheers!

Wow, what a neat test!:beer:

With my Dell 1905, the white dots blur when moving the mouse around. Going to try a CRT next to compare.

EDIT: When performing the same test with a CRT, the white dot sattelites are crisply defined and do not blur when moving the mouse. Great test!

 

[Johnbear007]

I just bought a Viewsonic 19inc VX910 at bb for 399 after rebate. Pictuer is superb. No blurring on the test from this thread, no ghosting in games or in movies.

great monitor

and no dead pixels

 

[bay]

Yeah published specs mean dick as i figured out the hardway.
I have a sony 16ms vga lcd, bought a samsung 710T (12ms dvi) and the 710 just looked like shiat/ghosted like mad compared to my VGA only 16ms sony. So make sure to try out the panals for yourself. I have now dumped 100 bucks for the 15% restocking fee + shipping back to newegg

 

[GarfieldtheCat]

I've got a 213T for over a year, and I don't have a problem playing any games. I do notice a little ghosting playing CS and when I played Jedi Knight II, but it didn't really bother me.

I'm running a 6800GT (9800 before the 6800GT) on DVI for both cards, and wouldn't trade my monitor for anything. Well, maybe a widescreen 23-24" LCD

-Scott