Monitor help
•
3 Jul 2015, 18:18
•
Journals
Hello folks,
I need some advice on monitor buying. I was thinking if I should stick to 19" CRT @ r_mode 6 @ 114hz, or switch to used 2233rz 120HZ syncmaster lcd for 130euro? Or alternatively 2 monitor setup 1crt and 1lcd at 60hz for everything else? My gfx has dvi exit and I use dvi-vga converter for crt, heard it causes extra input lag?
edit: no money for new fancy 144hz lcds
I need some advice on monitor buying. I was thinking if I should stick to 19" CRT @ r_mode 6 @ 114hz, or switch to used 2233rz 120HZ syncmaster lcd for 130euro? Or alternatively 2 monitor setup 1crt and 1lcd at 60hz for everything else? My gfx has dvi exit and I use dvi-vga converter for crt, heard it causes extra input lag?
edit: no money for new fancy 144hz lcds
Asus PG278Q [1ms, 144Hz, TN, 2560 x 1440, 27', G-Sync,]
or
Asus VG248QE [1ms, 144Hz, TN, 1920 x 1080, 24']
Most important things for gamers are:
- 1ms time reaction (which is gray-to-gray!)
- customable display refresh rate up to 144hz (which you can setup to desired value like: 125hz in graphics driver).
Asus PG278Q with a G-Sync technology has no issue with vertical synchronization, so it won't be visible during gameplay as it is in Asus VG248QE which has this issue (but it's common in most those kind of monitors, even in benq or iiyama). This vertical delays in Asus VG248QE are not so annoying, the most important thing is to have 1ms time reaction and customable display refresh rate. Anyway You can always get rid of it by setting v-sync in the graphics driver or ET in-game by cvar: r_swapinterval "1" - which I do not recommend due to the fact it will increase the time reaction.
Second advantage of PG278Q is the screen size which is 27 inches, in VG248 is 24 inches. But I wouldn't consider this as a ultimate/critical advantage.
Both monitors has TN matrix type.
VG248QE model has decent price for this technologies. It cost around: 270-300eu.
Currently at the market the best choice is the Asus PG278Q. It cost around: 700eu.
Cheers.
Edit:
Monitors without 144hz (or at least 125hz) and more than 1ms, are worthless for fps games. Not worth of any price.
About the screen size, the 27" 1440p is a great sweet spot for monitors because of the distance we sit from them at the PC. It makes long range spotting much easier than on 1080p 22-24".
Monitors lower than 125Hz and higher than 1ms are NOT worthless choices.. not sure where you're getting this information but it looks like all assumptions. Also, TN panels look like garbage and have garbage viewing angles.
1ms gtg(gray-to-gray) has best results comparing even to 2ms(!!!) through 5ms. Your argument about "8ms which shouldn't be noticable" is totally wrong. I would rely on trustable manufacturer, as well as on value measured in gtg(gray-to-gray) not b/w(black-white-black).
Gray-to-Gray time is the time it takes for a pixel to change from one color value to another color value. It's an average value in several measurements. There is no industry standards defined, which means manufacturer can advertise any number they want. In such case price will tell you more.
Black-White-Black the time it takes a pixel to shift from black to white and back to black again is determined. There are two separate times within the b/w change that add up to the specified overall time: The "rise" time it takes from black to white and the "fall" time it takes back from white to black. Therefore, the response time specified represents the sum of rise and fall time. The b/w shift is defined in the standard ISO (1) 13406-2.
Anyway the gtg is more close to the reality than b/w.
To prove that it You were wrong check those examples:
The following images, from tftcentral, are photographs taken of a little image quickly moving horizontally across various computer monitors, to see the pixel responsiveness of each.
The left image - best-case scenario
The Right image - worst-case scenario.
The slower the monitor is in changing the state of the pixels, the more "ghosting" there is.
AOC i2353Ph - rated 5 ms
Asus ML239H - rated 5 ms
Dell U2311H - rated 8ms [wait a sec, that's "worse" than the AOC above]
NEC EA232WMI - rated 14ms [so obviously way worse than the AOC, right?]
BenQ XL2410T - rated 2ms [note the heavy dark shadow is over-aggressive overshoot]
Samsung 2233RZ - rated 3ms
That's why I would strongly recommend you as low as possible gtg value advertised by reliable manufacturer to avoid any understatements.
2. Scaling.
I won't discuss about the scaling. It's up to the customer to decide how big screen player wants. And also fact I do not make a recommendation for person who playing FPS which obviously will sit in front of his/her monitor. I strongly belive that FullHD resolution is enough for ET.
3. TN vs IPS.
Currently on the market there is no IPS monitors game-based for gamers which has 1gtg ms response time.
IPS are mostly used by graphic designer due to closest-to-reality true colors as close as it is possible, and also wider viewing-angle - which is important if you are watching movie with 3-5 people, but not for single gameplay especially if you are sitting in front of your screen.
TN matrix has lower quality of colors - that's true. But as I mention in a previous comment that the most important specifications for gamers are response time and refresh rate...
So, what would you reccommend me, sticking to 19" CRT I already have or switching to 2233rz? I see no real advantages of LCD other than much easier long range shots.
1. 144hz>120hz:
With 144hz, as I mention before, You can set customable 125hz in windows driver, which should be equal to com_maxfps (mostly 125fps). It will let you synchronise single frame per second with refresh rate display. If you are not using com_maxfps 125 during the game then forget about this point.
2. Resolution:
Higher resolution up to 1920x1080 will make you notice single detail during gameplay. Easier to shot at longer distances. Samsung 2233rz has lower (1680 x 1050) maximum resolution.
3. Response Time:
Asus VG248QE - 1gtg
Samsung 2233RZ - 3gtg
4. Other:
- Scaling:
As additional advantage Asus is a little big bigger with 24" comparing to samsung 22", and for this price I would try it.
- Price:
The original price is very familiar. I think Asus might be cheaper. But this argument seems to be pointless since you can obtain the samsung monitor from second hand person.
...And last:
I wouldn't recommend you to stick to old 19'crt due to 2 major facts:
1. High-resolution & good refresh rate:
CRT: If bigger resolution then lower refresh rate you will be able to get. Makes it worhtless IMHO.
LCD: It doesn't really matter what available resolution you use to keep the same refresh rate - accessible by manufacturer - of course.
2. Aspect ratio:
If you have LCD monitor with aspect ratio 16:9 (or 16:10 as samsung is a little bit higher) with the proper settings you will be able to see more screen on the sides in-game (fov - field of view; in-game cvar: cg_fov). CRT has 4:3 or 5:4 (depends on type). And 16:9 wider screen has advantage over 4:3 crt, because you can always set it on 16:9 to 4:3, but not vice-versa with such a huge lost.
Other not so important arguments:
- it's bigger (heavier) than most lcd, so less handy.
- low scaling (19 inches).
- Takes much more electricity than LCD.
Wish you good choice & take care.
Edit:
Too bad it's not possible to setup in-game cvar cl_maxpackets to 125 due to competition config restriction.
125max fps = 125hz = 125 max packets. At least we got cl_packetdup. See the point?
I think a monitor with 100Hz is enough for ET.
Also I'm pretty sure FOV doesn't change with resolution in ET. The FOV you set is what you see no matter your res.
You couldn't use 125 maxpackets even if you set it to 125 because it isn't possible in ET. 100 is the hard cap of the cvar. There's also no point in using 125 fps any longer..
If you don't belive me, then check by yourself how You will jump on softwarely simulated pmove_fixed 1 and how hardwarely without pmove_fixed on 125 com_maxfpses - bani didn't fix that with his own CVARs (b_fixedphysics, b_fixedphysicsFPS).
So there is a reason why it is so important to have 125 fpses, not 100, not 70 or 80, but that specified value which makes you jump higher.
2. Yes monitor with 100Hz is fair enough. There is a little difference slightly noticable by eye. But according to arguments in 1st point of mine, it is still very important to have it on 125. There is a reason why they made a 144hz monitors.
3. Fov doesn't change with resolution (techincally), but some resolution has different aspect ratio which changes the FOV in fact :). Simple example: If You had 4:3 monitor before and You used to play on resolution: 1024x768, then You bought new monitor with 16:9 and started to play on 1920x1080. On your new monitor 16:9 You will see more wider than on your old one 4:3 (difference: 1.9 - 1.3 = 0.4 of additional screen) . Keeping the same value of cg_fov will stretch objects on the screen. Corrections are necessary.
4. It is possible in ET to set cl_maxpackets to 125, the only reason why you cannot its because of config restriction (nobody knows why it is there restriction to 100)
PS. Oh I know why there is restrictions in cl_maxpacets. In Q3 there are plenty of ppl experimenting with different snaps/cl_maxpactets/rate/ and other network commands make it difficult to hit. So it was in ET. Admins of ladders wanted to force some network cvars to some equal values - to make it fair. They wanted to avoid attempts of cl_maxpackets 30, which makes player really difficult to hit. They agreed to point that 100 for cl_maxpackets would be common value.
1b. Lower fps = lower recoil on certain weapons. Not sure if the drop from 125 to 100 makes a difference though.
2. The reason why they make 144Hz monitors is because of frame rate multipliers and 144 being divisible by those certain numbers and it's used for things like 3D at specific FPS.
3. I understood what you're saying but I'm saying that I'm pretty sure even changing the aspect isn't going to change the actual visible FOV. I've noticed on widescreen aspects that the compass is not perfectly round, so yes it's being stretched. In the case it's stretching the game elements that should mean that what we actually see is also the samea but stretched out, right?
4. I must have been thinking of regular quake3 limit, not ET? And q3 is 100 and ET 125..
I know there has been alot of discussion on maxpackets and whether or not it makes you unhit.. alot of people say it does and alot say it doesn't.. and I know why they forced those, and I played with people who were using toggling scripts before... to this day there are still huge faggots like tomun trying to make themselves unhittable by running certain programs. He claims things like "being on IRC" or "being on ventrilo" are the cause but I know the real way to replicate his lag.
4:3 Monitors - 1.3(3):
800 x 600
1024 x 768
1152 x 864
1600 x 1200
5:4 Monitors - 1.25:
1280 x 1024
1600 x 1280
16:9 Monitors - 1.7(7):
40 x 360
720 x 405
864 x 486
960 x 540 qHD
1024 x 576
1280 x 720 HD
1366 x 768 (used by 26.33% of steam users)
1600 x 900 HD+
1920 x 1080 Full HD (used by 34.54% of steam users; Maximum obtainable resolution by ASUS VG248QE)
2048 x 1152
2560 x 1440 QHD (Maximum obtainable resolution by ASUS PG278Q)
2880 x 1620
3200 x 1800
3840 x 2160 4K UHDTV
4096 x 2304
5120 x 2880 5K
7680 x 4320 8K UHDTV
15360 x 8640 16K
*Since 2009 it has become the most common aspect ratio for televisions and computer monitors, and is also the international standard format of HDTV, Full HD, non-HD digital television and analog widescreen television.
16:10 Monitors - 1.6:
1280 x 800 (WXGA)
1440 x 900 (WXGA+)
1680 x 1050 (WSXGA+; Maximum obtainable resolution by Samsung 2233RZ 120hz)
1920 x 1200 (WUXGA)
2560 x 1600 (WQXGA)
* this aspect ratio were used in 2003-2008 as most popular before 16:9 overtook it. Mainly it was good for editing documents/spreadsheet and using design or engineering device, because they are mostly designed for taller, rather than wider screens. Also used by tablets because it was perfect for reading a books, and most papers have 1.414:1 aspect ratio.
In your opinion the most important factor is the response time is what you mean.
The pros vs cons of TN vs IPS/PLS make me feel that there's no point subjecting yourself to a TN panel since the ms doesn't mean that much.
On still images of course there wouldn't be any difference. But those response time are VERY, VERY IMPORTANT in dynamic images, FPS games - where everything goes fast. Guess why those monitors are game based? :) LOL
EDIT:
More dynamic content, more delays will occur.