Looking for a new monitor

[Mr. Adventure]

I'd like to get a new monitor for my PC for regular use but also one that would be good for gaming. I'm looking for a 24" or so widescreen monitor.

I have two questions:

1) Any recommendations?

2) Where to shop. I checked out Best Buy and a couple of office supply chains and didn't care for the selection. There used to be more places but a lot of the old chains like CompUSA, Circuit City and so on are gone. I was wondering if anyone had some suggestions of other brick-and-mortar possibilities.

 

[Geckothan]

Sony GDM-FW900: the monitor for real men who don't care about silly ecohippy energy saving, weight or space. Playing games at a proper resolution with no input lag and a proper refresh rate is nice.

 

[Rincewiend]

Well, i'm quite happy with my Iyama E2208HDS, which is 22"...
They also have one at 24"; E2407HDSD...
They are widescreen...

 

[Trubinator]

Samsung makes great monitors. Go for a widescreen one for sure, and I'd stick with LCD because CRT is kinda ridiculous. I recommend window shopping for a model that looks good to your eyes and then ordering the exact one online at a reputable Web site like www.newegg.com

 

[little_chris]

Dell Ultrasharp U2410. http://accessories.us.dell.com/sna/...etail.aspx?c=us&l=en&s=dhs&cs=19&sku=320-8277

IPS panel so good colours, viewing angles and response time.

 

[Geckothan]

because CRT is kinda ridiculous

Not if you want blacks that are actually black and accurate colours without levels of lag that are unacceptable for playing FPS. I don't know what current LCDs are like, but when I was shopping around for one a year ago to replace my dying Diamondtron, there was a choice of either unacceptable levels of lag with decent picture quality or acceptable but still undesirable levels lag with awful picture quality. All of the ones that had acceptable levels of lag were massive downgrades from my dying CRT in terms of colour reproduction and contrast, so I decided to buy another one, and got a near-mint used GDM-FW900 for half what I would've had to pay for an LCD with similar picture quality and 2/3 of what I would've had to pay for an LCD with acceptable performance.

 

[Trubinator]

because CRT is kinda ridiculous

Not if you want blacks that are actually black and accurate colours without levels of lag that are unacceptable for playing FPS. I don't know what current LCDs are like, but when I was shopping around for one a year ago to replace my dying Diamondtron, there was a choice of either unacceptable levels of lag with decent picture quality or acceptable but still undesirable levels lag with awful picture quality. All of the ones that had acceptable levels of lag were massive downgrades from my dying CRT in terms of colour reproduction and contrast, so I decided to buy another one, and got a near-mint used GDM-FW900 for half what I would've had to pay for an LCD with similar picture quality and 2/3 of what I would've had to pay for an LCD with acceptable performance.

Yeah, and horses are definitely far superior to cars as a mode of transportation. Sheesh.

 

[BigFoot]

Honestly, you can't go wrong with a Samsung.

 

[Jadzia]

because CRT is kinda ridiculous

Not if you want blacks that are actually black and accurate colours without levels of lag that are unacceptable for playing FPS...

Yeah, and horses are definitely far superior to cars as a mode of transportation. Sheesh.

Horses can wade through deep rivers, and jump fences. If rivers and fences are what you have to move through, then a horse would be a better choice

lcd may be newer, but it was never sold to us as an absolutely-superior-in-every-way replacement. It should be seen simply as a valid alternative to crt, with it's own set of merits and practicalities. The initial popularity of lcd was due to it compactness and light weight. But for most people nowadays, the logic of lcd is to blindly follow the social trend of it being the thing to buy; seldom a thought out choice.

 

[Jadzia]

I don't know what current LCDs are like, but when I was shopping around for one a year ago to replace my dying Diamondtron, there was a choice of either:

1. unacceptable levels of lag with decent picture quality or
2. acceptable but still undesirable levels lag with awful picture quality.

Returning to this thread, I don't know if this below is common knowledge to readers, and I've just been out of the loop, but I've discovered there are three kinds of lcd...

One is based on so called "TN" technology, which has very low colour depth (6-bit!!) but uses a combination of dithering and rapid colour switching to give the impression of more colours. The advantage is that they update very quickly, so there's not much lag. This is number 2 Geckothan listed above. These monitors are normally quite cheap for their size, and are better suited to games, where lag is important, precise colours are not.

The main alternative is called "S-IPS" technology, which has full colour depth (24-bit) but is sluggish to update. This works great for still images or where excellent colour representation is important. eg, photo editing, and playing movies. This is the number 1 Geckothan listed. These are relatively more expensive for their size.

There is a half way version called "PVA-S", which has improved colour representation over TN, but lag is noticeable enough with them to be a problem with reflexive games.

 

[BigFoot]

^ I just wanted to add that most LCD monitors today are based on TN panels which aren't that bad actually. Now when I was buying a screen five years ago, they were crap which is why I got a PVA screen at the time. But about a year ago I decided to get a bigger screen (22") I got a TN panel and it looks just fine once calibrated. Now I'm not saying it would be useful for someone that does a lot of photo editing or anything else to do with graphics. But if you just need a screen for surfing the web and playing games and stuff like that, TN panels work just fine. It does depend a lot on the quality of the panel though. The picture on my home 22" Samsung is WAY better than then picture on my work 22" Philips (also TN panel).

 

[Mr. B]

Sony GDM-FW900: the monitor for real men who don't care about silly ecohippy energy saving, weight or space. Playing games at a proper resolution with no input lag and a proper refresh rate is nice.

Amen! I'd have two of these puppies were it not for the cost and all the space you need. The FW900 is still the best monitor of all time.

 

[Kelthaz]

I bought the cheapest 22" LCD monitor I could find. It was $199 Canadian compared with $299 for the next step up. I've never noticed any lag problems or poor blacks. Either I got a far better monitor than I realized or the problems with LCDs are a little bit exaggerated.

 

[Geckothan]

I bought the cheapest 22" LCD monitor I could find. It was $199 Canadian compared with $299 for the next step up. I've never noticed any lag problems or poor blacks. Either I got a far better monitor than I realized or the problems with LCDs are a little bit exaggerated.

All of my friends use LCDs and say the same thing, but when I use them I notice the contrast and the lag straight away. Maybe I have a good eye for contrast or I'm simply accustomed to the "CRT feel/look". When I plugged my Sony in for the first time, warmed it up and threw on some HDR photos, I was completely dazzled by the colours, deep blacks and contrast on the details. No LCD I've seen has given me that feeling. Then again considering what these monitors used to retail for when they were new, that level of quality is to be expected.

 

[BigFoot]

One of the problems with LCDs is that they need to be seriously calibrated when taken out of the box. When I got my current LCD the picture was absolute crap. Once calibrated properly it looked much much better. Now don't get me wrong, I'm not saying the contrast and colour quality are as good as CRTs, but like I said in my previous post, it's good enough for 99% of us.

 

[Trubinator]

Black levels do fall behind a little bit, even with Samsung's dynamic contrast feature. I think the LED monitors/TVs fix this issue though. Not sure why anyone with a decent LCD would experience lag, but ok.

 

[Geckothan]

Not sure why anyone with a decent LCD would experience lag, but ok.

Hook up a CRT and an LCD to the same system, clone the desktop on to both screens, run a stopwatch and take some photos. Notice how the timer on the LCD is behind by quite a bit? There's your lag. It might not be noticable for slow games/daily use, but it's noticable in games that actually require skill and fast reactions.

Cheaper TN panels are actually better in this regard, but you sacrifice picture quality to get down to single digits of lag. No matter what, you're going to sacrifice something when you buy an LCD. Either it's performance (high-end IPS panels) or picture quality (low-to-mid-range TN panels) that has to go.

With a CRT, you don't have to sacrifice anything except maybe some desk space (unless you have a crappy/tiny desk, this is a non-issue) and some power consumption (unless you turn it off every time you're not looking at it, which is actually incredibly bad for it; tubes and powersupplies don't like being turned on and off repeatedly).

Anyway I'm done bashing LCDs and praising CRTs for now. I'm sure you get the picture (ouch).

 

[Iasius]

I don't know what current LCDs are like, but when I was shopping around for one a year ago to replace my dying Diamondtron, there was a choice of either:

1. unacceptable levels of lag with decent picture quality or
2. acceptable but still undesirable levels lag with awful picture quality.

Returning to this thread, I don't know if this below is common knowledge to readers, and I've just been out of the loop, but I've discovered there are three kinds of lcd...

One is based on so called "TN" technology, which has very low colour depth (6-bit!!) but uses a combination of dithering and rapid colour switching to give the impression of more colours. The advantage is that they update very quickly, so there's not much lag. This is number 2 Geckothan listed above. These monitors are normally quite cheap for their size, and are better suited to games, where lag is important, precise colours are not.

The main alternative is called "S-IPS" technology, which has full colour depth (24-bit) but is sluggish to update. This works great for still images or where excellent colour representation is important. eg, photo editing, and playing movies. This is the number 1 Geckothan listed. These are relatively more expensive for their size.

There is a half way version called "PVA-S", which has improved colour representation over TN, but lag is noticeable enough with them to be a problem with reflexive games.

The color depth you quoted is a bit misleading. TN panels have 6 bit per color, ie 18-bit color depth compared to S-IPS 24-bit.

I have a 19" PVA panel, a 22" TN panel and a 25.5" TN panel* and I have to say, the TN panels look better. Then again, the 19" PVA is quite a few years older. Things have changed quite a bit since then.


* I also still have a 19" iiyama VM 451, but that won't fit on my desktop so it's not in use.
But yeah, when it comes to black levels, LCDs (that I can afford) can't compare to CRTs.

 

[Reverend]

Speaking as someone who does do a lot of graphics work, I've never had a problem with my Dell 20" LCD. Perilously dodgy/loose power connection sure, but everything else is within acceptable limits. Unless of course you're a complete media freak.

 

[Jadzia]

The color depth you quoted is a bit misleading. TN panels have 6 bit per color, ie 18-bit color depth compared to S-IPS 24-bit.

okay. I was thinking 6 bit was pretty low when I read it -- I was imagining 2 bits per colours = four levels per colour = 64 colours per pixel ... Not impossible though.

In the 16-bit days, similar tricks were employed to take a 32 colour pallette and mimic true colour graphics using selective dithering and rapid colour switching. It's not a new technique.