Jump to content

OT - Advice for LCD Purchase


Recommended Posts

Folks:

 

I mostly play FPS and Flight Sims.

 

I am looking for a 19" LCD to replace my (aging) CRT.

 

Any suggestions?

 

What about the Dell Ultrasharp 1905FP??

 

Thanks....

 

P.S. My hardcore FPS gaming buddies are begging me to stay away from LCD's. They say to stick with CRT's.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Samsung SyncMaster 701T

 

Recently, I got a Samsung SyncMaster 701T (AFAIK, it's 701 in Europe, and 710 elsewhere - the suffix should be the same though)... I think there's like five or so 701/710 submodels, and the T is in the middle of the range, with a 14 ms refreshrate... The price was ~450€, and I'm very happy with it.

С уважением,

 

Tompax (>o<-<

Link to post
Share on other sites

I have a 12ms Sceptre x9 Gamer LCD and it cost me 430.00US with 19' viewable. This monitor has been great for all my games with no ghosting. I got it on newegg.com

 

Hope this helps.

 

Atomic

=RvE=Atomic

 

Alienware Area-51, Intel Core2 Quad CPU Q9400 @ 3.2GHz, 8gig Corsair XMS2 DDR2 Ram, EVGA SC GTX 570, Western Digital 1.0TB 64mb cache HD. Windows 7 Ultimate 64, Saitek X52 & Saitek Pro Peddals, TrackIR 4 Pro with Track Clip Pro.

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

Link to post
Share on other sites

I was thinking about one of the dell widescreen LCDs; any experience

anyone?

 

One thing that I hope someone can clarify: I've read that LCDs work best

at their native resolution. I currently run at 1024x768. 1600x1200 would be

far too slow. How tolerant are these monitors of being run at less that

full res?

 

Mike

Link to post
Share on other sites
I was thinking about one of the dell widescreen LCDs; any experience

anyone?

 

One thing that I hope someone can clarify: I've read that LCDs work best

at their native resolution. I currently run at 1024x768. 1600x1200 would be

far too slow. How tolerant are these monitors of being run at less that

full res?

 

Mike

 

Well, they can interpolate lower resolution, thus reducing the sharpness greatly, sometimes with distortions (lines being either broader than supposed or even absent).

 

Most recent graphics drivers support choosing the method how lower resolutions are handled. So there is another option.

 

Instead of interpolating (which the monitor can do itself), you can also choose to display the lower resolution without interpolation. That means you would get black borders around the displayed image.

 

1024x768 on a 1600x1200 without interpolation would lead to 221 pixels border at top and bottom each and 288 pixels left and right each. But if the monitor is big enough, that can be acceptable. The image quality is much better this way.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...