Viewsonic 19" 16ms LCD Model VX910 $599.99 AR 8/8/04 - 8/14/04

[shamgar03]

Hey I just ordered the dell 1901FP is that going to kill me on response time compared to this monitor?

 

[Oxides]

I have the sony and viewsonic in front of me now. The graphics smear on the viewsonic when playing high-fps shooters (due to the slower response time). The sony is very reflective, like an ancient crt. This is is very noticeable with black/dark display areas. The viewsonic has poor ventilation in the back compared to the sony, but it's base is a lot sturdier.

According to powerstrip, the viewsonic is 77hz at 1280x1024, 85hz at 640x480.

Just because this is my first LCD monitor, that doesnt make my observations wrong. As to the games remark, you are an ass-hat.

 

[Maverick]

I see no noticeable graphics smear so I think that part is fairly subjective.

Reflective screens suck for dark scenes...check out the latest Anandtech review of an LCD to get an idea of how bad this can be.

 

[RadicalSurf]

Oxides-
You are all over the map here. I have lost all hope. I don't feel the need to waste any more time or energy debating. I know that I am correct and you are wrong.

Have fun playing EverCrack with your new 'high ventilation' reflective ('like an ancient crt') sony display.

 

[shamgar03]

Hey, can you even use both of those rebates? They both require you to send in the original UPC code don't they? You can still get it for 615$ from datavision by using the 100$ rebate.
699.00 - 100.00 + 20$ shipping = 620$

 

[Oxides]

The $50 viewsonic rebate says "copy of the original upc barcode and serial # barcode cut from the box". I would think the 2 rebates stack.

 

[RadicalSurf]

From:
http://forums.anandtech.com - Sony XBrite 19" Thread

Originally posted by: Oxides
I bought this one and the viewsonic vx910 from this thread http://forums.anandtech.com/messageview.cfm?catid=40&threadid=1369206&enterthread=y. Sadly i'm going to have to return this one. It has a better warranty, faster response time, and free included dvi cable. But, the reflectiveness and disabling of contrast/brightness control when using dvi kill this for me. I have a decently bright room, 2 overhead flourescent bulbs ( one daylight which is bright white and one orangeish), and the reflection is monsterous on dark parts of the image. I can see myself at the keyboard while i play. Off, the screen looks like an old glass crt before anti-glare coatings came out.

Also the CD rom included doesnt have drivers for it. It points to the sony page, and the sony page doesnt list this monitor. The only place on the sony site this monitor is listed is in their store. I'm guessing it is too new.

Edited: 08/10/2004 at 05:37 PM by Oxides

Exactly! The Sony Xbrite technology sucks. You should have read some reviews before running out to impulse buy that new Sony.

I applaud you Oxides. In the end you finally ended up taking my advise. Now just think of all the time and running around trying to return that Sony you could have saved if you would have listened to me in the first place. . .

Enjoy your ViewSonic. Good choice.

 

[EektheCat]

Originally posted by: Oxides
Did you read my original post? I told you I played games and saw smearing, which is directly related to response time. If you are so smart, why can'nt i set the refresh to 85 while using a dvi cable then?

arg! when will people finally understand that refresh rate really doesn't matter anymore with LCDs?

 

[Yobbo]

Whoever says that CRT is much better for gaming over an LCD is just plain wrong. I had a 21" Sony Trinitron before I upgraded to my current 2001fp (need it for smaller space, not enough room in college).

Anyway, I've been playing Doom3, CS, and lots of other games through DVI and I have yet to see any smearing or anything I don't like. The colors are brighter and it is much sharper than the CRT, I'm happy with the upgrade.

 

[welst10]

I would choose the Acer 19" LCD deal over this anyday

 

[sethk]

A few points:

- People react differently to smearing. Even on my 12ms LCD it bothers me while doing somethings, others are perfectly happy with their 40ms or 25ms monitors. It is at least partially a psycho-perceptual thing, so no one should take it personally. I still play games on my 19" CRT. Dual monitors are nice to have

- 1600x1200 is actually very nice and readable on a 19" LCD, certainly better than on a 19" CRT. I suggest still using large fonts in windows, but it's much less eye-strain causing than on a CRT.

- 1280x1024 is still a nice resolution to have, however I have problems with games that wont support that resolution because of it's non-sqaure / non-4:3 ratio. Usually the closest option is 1280x960 if you're lucky or 1152x864 but those cause resizing too. 800x600 is an exact 4:1 resize for a 1600x1200 for when your pc can't run games at 1600. In the end there's always compromises with a fixed resolution panel display.

- Refresh rate is a completely different concept on LCDs. Low refresh rates are fatiguing because CRTs scan one row at a time drawing the screen pixel by pixel. At any given instant the gun is only illuminating a single pixel. The phosphors light up for a time giving the illusion of a solid display. LCDs have the entire display up at once. There is no fatigue at any refresh rate. Don't pick a refresh rate other than the recommended one (i.e. dont pick the maximum supported rate, if its different than the recommended refresh rate), it causes worse smearing problems sometimes (very noticable for me). 60hz on a LCD is perfectly fine, and less fatiguing than even 100hz on a CRT! Definitely do not pick one LCD over another because of maximum supported refresh rates, you are carrying CRT concepts into the LCD world where they do not belong. Look instead at the response rate, rated in ms (25,16,12ms) etc. The lower the better. Hz make no difference.

Good luck to all you monitor buyers!

 

[shamgar03]

alot of games support 1280 x 1024 though don't they?

 

[zlooop]

Radical Surf,

Dude leave it. This is a HOTDEALs forum, not a defend my product because it is better than your product forum. All youve done is say how the Viewsonic is superior to every other LCD people have mentioned. You have flamed people for no reason. Keep your comments on topic and dont flame people. Youve only been a member for about 10 days. If people suggest another deal, then thats ok. Dont think your manlihood is being insulted if people dont like your hotdeal. Take your anger and put it towards good use, preferably in finding better hot deals for the rest of the forums.

 

[linderboy]

Anyone have a link to the $50 rebate?

Also - sorry for the newb question, but does the 1280x1024 max mean you can't run games at 1600x1200? Or is that just for the windows desktop?

 

[DPO]

Hey guys...im shopping for a Monitor (LCD) and have question about the link here for the Viewsonic...The Specs for it at that link dont show a 16ms Response time, it says 25ms....in this thread it was mentioned numerous times that is 16ms. Does anyone know what it actually is? Am i the only one that noticed this??

 

[meefmah]

Originally posted by: RadicalSurf
Now lets check out the side-by-side features of both:
? Pixel Pitch .294mm for the Sony, .264 mm on the ViewSonic
- The ViewSonic has a much finer pixel pitch meaning you have a lower likelihood of seeing those annoying fine black lines in between pixels.

I know that the OD link says .264mm pixel pitch, but the Viewsonic comparison chart says .294mm.

It's not so much the space between the pixels as it is the corners of those pixels.
When I'm reading fonts smaller than 10point, some of the characters don't have a fully-formed look.
The fact that I'm used to a CRT is probably the reason it bothers me. CRT's have a more rounded element.


Anyway, I'd be more inclined to accept the manufacturer's specs over a vendor.