Which Monitor
•
21 Dec 2006, 14:06
•
Journals
Ok thanks for the advice all on the mouse / pc etc, next question. Which monitor to purchase.
Asus PG191 19" LCD Monitor 2ms response rate
http://www.overclockers.co.uk/showproduct.php?prodid=MO-002-AS
Viewsonic VX922 19" LCD Monitor - 2ms response rate
http://www.overclockers.co.uk/showproduct.php?prodid=MO-046-VS
Both seem to be quite nice however the ASUS tends to have a few more features.
Which would you recommend or should i be looking at a different LCD altogether.
No space for CRT otherwise i would get one. Advice on gaming LCD's please.
Thanks,
Asus PG191 19" LCD Monitor 2ms response rate
http://www.overclockers.co.uk/showproduct.php?prodid=MO-002-AS
Viewsonic VX922 19" LCD Monitor - 2ms response rate
http://www.overclockers.co.uk/showproduct.php?prodid=MO-046-VS
Both seem to be quite nice however the ASUS tends to have a few more features.
Which would you recommend or should i be looking at a different LCD altogether.
No space for CRT otherwise i would get one. Advice on gaming LCD's please.
Thanks,
2nd one looks nice
Ty.
btw i pwn you with 20ms - which means that buying this won't help much (and i'm leet:?).
And we had 3 day long debate about LCD vs CRT and you were holding to CRT like to your favorite teddy bear ;)
i lold irl :D
but thx for the compliment
http://www.prad.de/guide/screen1555.html
anyway go to http://www.prad.de - the one and only page if u wanna buy a CRT/LCD
Note that this screen is limited to 18 bit color tough (like almost all the fastest screens), so if that bugs you take another monitor instead.
No one there talks about TFT@DVI, couse than refresh rate in Hz becomes useless. DVI doesn't use analog signal. So modern 2ms TFT with real response of 5ms should equal to 200Hz CRT. [i'm sry if that's incorrect, it might be ;]
Start bashing urself with your LCD if you have VGA connected
Edit: http://www.pctechguide.com/42CRTMonitors_Digital_CRTs.htm i'm fucking confused now
Now the difference between CRT and TFT is how they paint that picture.
With a CRT an electron cannon is used that goes over the screen. This electron cannon paints a frame every 10 msec. In between there is no picture painted and the screen is effectivelly black (there is a residual glow from the electrons tough). This is why with 60 HZ people tend to get headaches from the TV; there is a constant flashing from color -> black -> color -> black. With 100 HZ the screen gets repainted fast enough to not notice. This is also why you see an akward effect when a CRT is on TV.
Now a TFT paints the screen differently. A TFT doesn't paint; it crystalizes. A TFT is nothing more than a light-bulb shining trough a whole lot of crystals. These crystals are letting trough a specific color. Every 10 msec there is the potential for the crystals to change. Changing a crystal takes time, this is called latency. If changing a crystal takes too long, it becomes visible to the user. This is also why the latency time given by manufacturers is nonsense. The amount a crystal has to change has an impact on the actual latency.
So in recap:
A CRT can put out 200 NEW frames per second at 200 HZ. A CRT puts out 200 frames per second at 200 HZ. It takes virtually no time to paint a new frame (Technically this is not true, it takes time for the electron cannon to paint from top to bottom of the screen, but this is taken into account when specifying the HZ).
A TFT can put out 60 NEW frames per second at 60 HZ. A TFT puts out infinite frames per second at any HZ. It takes time to paint a new frame (latency), but a TFT does not wait on the completion of a frame before moving on to the next.
Note: a higher HZ and a low crystal change time makes ghosting even worse! The crystals need to change already before they are actually done with their last change, giving a very blurry picture.
But since LCD can change all dots at the same time that makes it fast. The thing that bugs me is if LCD gets direct response from video card via DVI when frame changes which would mean that there's no bottleneck in transmiting data, but only in response time of actual matrix.
As i understand word "digital" and DVI connection there should not be any Hz settings since that is used for card's digital to analog convertion of signal which is made for CRT. DVI should take actual pixle data to LCD since it's made to work like that - it gets info which dot should glow in which color. But than again there's some bandwidth issue with DVI and that's why those 60Hz and that makes you right in 60fps for every lcd. That's stupid tbh dunno when this standard was designed, but they should clearly reserve more bandwidth in that case, so LCD could run at it's maximum possible (matrix) speed.
So if i understand you correctly LCD is able to put out only 60fps but with not flickering and less and less ghosting which is the result of faster matrix?
:?