Best aspect for a new monitor

[Franklinwallbrown]

I'm thinking of buying a new monitor and I wanted to know what the best thing was to look for when talking about good, crisp picture. And if you want other factors that are important. BTW I looked for threads on monitors, but I couldn't find any one this topic that I found helpful.

[keakar]

5ms response time - 2ms is un noticable yet very much higher priced, 8ms and over you notice slight ghosting or blurr in fast moving action games.

1000:1 compression - again over 1000 and pay through the nose but picture is sharper, anything under and picture is slightly dull edges around objects but not that noticable.

size anything from 19"-22" is close in price so your best value for dollar spent is the 22" size or if thats too big for you then the 19" might give you the best priced value. the 24" are way way way higher priced than the 22" so i dont recommend it, if your spending that much maybe look at something bigger for about the same money.

[Franklinwallbrown]

Good companies that will never let you down? What would you recommend for HD DVD/Blu Ray watching? I'd like a screen that was almost a TV screen (probably 22").

I was looking at http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16824160014
This one doesn't look bad http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16824112007
Wow, 4000:1 http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16824116096

What is dynamic contrast?

[keakar]

Good companies that will never let you down? What would you recommend for HD DVD/Blu Ray watching? I'd like a screen that was almost a TV screen (probably 22").

I was looking at http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16824160014
This one doesn't look bad http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16824112007
Wow, 4000:1 http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16824116096

What is dynamic contrast?

well your in luck because i just finished 2 months of searching for the best 22" monitor i could find that had the best picture and quality, yet still be a good deal price wise and this was THE best i found so i bought it and its even better than i expected, i like it so much would even tell my mom to buy one. :p

here it is: Samsung SyncMaster 2220WM 22" Widescreen LCD Monitor with Built-in Speakers 5ms - Black

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B000VYBMH0?ie=UTF8&seller=A38BV4SQGUKF49&sn=huilulu2

i purchased 1 from this seller and it came in 2 days in perfect condition with no dead pixels, what more can you ask?

[Wile E]

5ms response time - 2ms is un noticable yet very much higher priced, 8ms and over you notice slight ghosting or blurr in fast moving action games.

1000:1 compression - again over 1000 and pay through the nose but picture is sharper, anything under and picture is slightly dull edges around objects but not that noticable.

size anything from 19"-22" is close in price so your best value for dollar spent is the 22" size or if thats too big for you then the 19" might give you the best priced value. the 24" are way way way higher priced than the 22" so i dont recommend it, if your spending that much maybe look at something bigger for about the same money.Again I'm gonna chime in here and say: Ignore Manufacturer specs for contrast and response time. There is no standard method for testing them. An 8ms panel from a reputable manufacturer won't ghost either. By the same token, a 5ms panel from a shoddy manufacturer might ghost more than the previously mentioned 8ms panel.

Same can be said of contrast ratings. And contrast has nothing to do with sharpness. It mostly has to do with black levels. And how they contrast to other colors.

As far as 24" panels being more expensive, it's because their resolution is higher than 22" panels. Most 22" panels are 1680x1050, whereas 24" is 1920x1200.

As far as 22" monitors, a 20" with the same specs will look better, due to having a smaller pixel pitch.

The biggest things to look for are color reproduction and viewing angles. These are the tell-tale signs of panel type.


@Franklin - What's the most money you can spend? And are mail-in rebates ok?

[Graogrim]

I personally own an LG 19" widescreen monitor. It's ok, but not spectacular. My biggest beef with it is that it achieves some of its effective color depth by using a subpixel dithering pattern which I can actually see under some circumstances, usually while gaming.

A friend has a Samsung, also widescreen, which offers an excellent picture and which I'd sooner recommend. I don't recall his particular model but it offers 2ns response time (despite which it's still possible to see a little flickering latency in certain types of moving highlights, but then I've never ever even once seen an LCD that was immune to this phenomenon).

I also know someone who has, of all things, an Acer branded widescreen monitor. It runs natively at 1680x1050 and while its response time is merely adequate, the color it offers is very impressive. Worth a look, though I'd sooner recommend Samsung.

All in all the common thread seems to be that widescreen (16:10) is the aspect ratio of the future.

[Wile E]

I personally own an LG 19" widescreen monitor. It's ok, but not spectacular. My biggest beef with it is that it achieves some of its effective color depth by using a subpixel dithering pattern which I can actually see under some circumstances, usually while gaming.

A friend has a Samsung, also widescreen, which offers an excellent picture and which I'd sooner recommend. I don't recall his particular model but it offers 2ns response time (despite which it's still possible to see a little flickering latency in certain types of moving highlights, but then I've never ever even once seen an LCD that was immune to this phenomenon).

I also know someone who has, of all things, an Acer branded widescreen monitor. It runs natively at 1680x1050 and while its response time is merely adequate, the color it offers is very impressive. Worth a look, though I'd sooner recommend Samsung.

All in all the common thread seems to be that widescreen (16:10) is the aspect ratio of the future.The flickering you see is usually caused by the overdrive used to lower response times. If you have the option of turning it off, it may eliminate the problem.

[xubidoo]

id also go with Samsung ,been very happy with mine ,of the 3 TFT monitors ive owned ,the Samsung is the only 1 that has not ghosted or blurred at all.

Samsung ws 226bw 2ms 22" - Current

Hanns-G ws 191D 5ms 19" - 1 yr ago (blurred/ghosted slightly on very fast games)

Samsung 913n 8ms 19" - 2 yrs ago (bad ghosting on virtually every game )

Samsung appear to have come a long way since my last screen and now i highly rec them.

[Irish_PXzyan]

Acer are a good brand man! My brother just bought a 19" widescreen off them with 2ms and 2000:1 contrast ratio. Its alot wider than my Synchmaster 19" square!
Before summer I will try and buy a 24" widescreen monitor :D I would go for a 24"! but if you dont need it..then 22 is perfect!

[Graogrim]

The catch with going with larger LCD monitors is that their native resolutions are higher. That's both good because more is better, and bad because you'll be taxing your GPU to a greater extent to run at that ideal resolution, resulting in lower framerates.

Considering the OP is running an AGP based 6600 that's going to be a major consideration.

[Franklinwallbrown]

First, I am going to be coming into some money (and building a new computer), but I don't want to spend a whole lot. I think that around $300 would be my limit, and yes, rebates are fine. I use them all the time.

Second, I have heard a great deal about Samsung computer monitors & when I go to Wal-Mart (because I live in the boons) I look at the Samsung HDTVs and they are amazing for HDs, although my GFs sister has an HD & the picture is crappy. I wonder why?

Thirdly, I want amazing picture quality with less emphasis on the size of the screen. I do however think that 22" would about the size I'm looking for, but I wouldn't mind a 24". I think 24" would be the biggest I would go. Do you think an ATI HD 3870 would run a 24" monitor well? Would it run games & movies (HD DVDs & Blu Ray)on a 24" well?

[Graogrim]

I have a 3850 and it runs well on my 19" monitor. A 22 incher is only one step up in terms of resolution, and judging from the benchmarks I've seen I think a 3870 would do fine. However, if you're going to be spending the money for a 3870, you might as well take a look at an 8800GT while you're at it.

[Franklinwallbrown]

Why?

[keakar]

I have a 3850 and it runs well on my 19" monitor. A 22 incher is only one step up in terms of resolution, and judging from the benchmarks I've seen I think a 3870 would do fine. However, if you're going to be spending the money for a 3870, you might as well take a look at an 8800GT while you're at it.
Why?

for just a little more money you get a lot better performance. ati fanboys try and say its not true but it does give you more than your moneys worth in better performance to spend a little more and get the 8800GT

[Franklinwallbrown]

Can you OC it more? & is Nvidia a part of Intel?

The 3870 is ($229) 775mhz and 320 stream processors. The 8800gt (comparable price, $249) is 600mhz and 112 stream processors. Now I don't know exactly what that means, but it would seem that the faster GPU and more stream processors would be better. I have heard that the geforces OC better. Would you guys suggest the 1gb 8800gt for $300 if I were to get it (the 3870 only goes to 512)?

[Graogrim]

While I'm sure they all have working relationships with each other, Nvidia and Intel are separate companies.

And I've yet to hear of an OC'd 3870 beating an OC'd 8800GT. Oh, and if you do look at the 8800GT, go with the 512MB version. There's something odd about the 256MB version's performance, and while I'd expect it to be resolved in a future driver revision, why take the chance.

[Wile E]

Can you OC it more? & is Nvidia a part of Intel?

8800GT's OC pretty well. I have the Palit 1GB model, and can score over 16,000 in 3dmark06 on a single card. I had the 2900XT before this, which is more or less equal to the 3870, and the 8800GT shames it, in both games and benches.

The reason I asked how much you can afford is because Westinghouse has a 24" monitor with a PVA panel (way better for image quality compared to the others mentioned here) for $350 after a mail in rebate. I suggest it if you can stretch a few extra dollars.

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16824255001

It's what I have my eye on.

[Franklinwallbrown]

Wow, s-video. It must be good (I think). How is the companies reputation?

[Wile E]

Wow, s-video. It must be good (I think). How is the companies reputation?
Westinghouse is a good brand. They actually make many products on the market for other manufacturers. They other company just stamps their name on it. I suggest using the vga or HDMI input on that monitor.

[Graogrim]

The 3870 is ($229) 775mhz and 320 stream processors. The 8800gt (comparable price, $249) is 600mhz and 112 stream processors. Now I don't know exactly what that means, but it would seem that the faster GPU and more stream processors would be better. I have heard that the geforces OC better. Would you guys suggest the 1gb 8800gt for $300 if I were to get it (the 3870 only goes to 512)?
That doesn't really paint the whole picture of video card performance. For example, the stream processors on the 8800GT are clocked at 1.5GHz--much higher than the 777MHz of the 3870. But there are other factors as well. The 8800GT has massively greater raw fillrate than the 3870: 33.6 gigatexels bone stock versus 12.4 gigatexels on the 3870.

All of this means that the final equation is more complicated than just a couple of stats. In comparative benchmarks the 8800GT turns in better numbers with pretty fair consistency, especially when the resolution and AA are ramped up.

[Wile E]

That doesn't really paint the whole picture of video card performance. For example, the stream processors on the 8800GT are clocked at 1.5GHz--much higher than the 777MHz of the 3870. But there are other factors as well. The 8800GT has massively greater raw fillrate than the 3870: 33.6 gigatexels bone stock versus 12.4 gigatexels on the 3870.

All of this means that the final equation is more complicated than just a couple of stats. In comparative benchmarks the 8800GT turns in better numbers with pretty fair consistency, especially when the resolution and AA are ramped up.Yep. I agree comletely with that statement, especially the AA perfromance. I have both a Powercolor 2900XT and a Palit 8800GT (1GB), and the Palit walks away from my 2900, with all else being equal.

[wiak]

anything with 8ms or less response time, atleast 700:1 contrast, brightness 300 cd/2. 1680x1050 resolution
22" if you are on the low $$$ side, or a more expenisve 24" with a PVA or IPS panel for better colors and contrast and higher resolution aka 1920x1200 (even higher than 1080p as on blu-ray and hd dvd lol) on the expenisve side
if you ask me avoid those with speakers, inbult speakers sucks ass anyway hehe, BenQ FP22WH 22" might be good dosnt cost much and can be used with PS3 atc, it has VGA, DVI and HDMI (with HDCP)

[Franklinwallbrown]

So the 1gb is well worth the $300?

[Wile E]

So the 1gb is well worth the $300?If you get a 1920x1200 monitor, and plan to play games as demanding as Crysis, then yes.

[Franklinwallbrown]

What's good about VGA and HDMI?

[Wile E]

What's good about VGA and HDMI?They have more bandwidth than component, composite and s-video. You absolutely want to use one or the other on a computer. the other 3 won't give you the resolution or picture quality.

[Franklinwallbrown]

Oh! Okay. Which is better, VGA or HDMI?

[Wile E]

Oh! Okay. Which is better, VGA or HDMI?

HDMI is slightly better in most cases. In some cases you'd be hard pressed to tell the difference at all.

[Franklinwallbrown]

Well, if you get a DVI to HDMI adapter, would it be the same as just using VGA or is there a difference?

[Wile E]

Well, if you get a DVI to HDMI adapter, would it be the same as just using VGA or is there a difference?DVI and HDMI are digital, VGA is analog. Digital usually gives a sharper picture.

[Franklinwallbrown]

So, if I went from DVI to HDMI then there is no difference?

[Wile E]

So, if I went from DVI to HDMI then there is no difference?Nope, DVI and HDMI are basically the same. HDMI just has a different connector, and the ability to carry audio as well.

[Franklinwallbrown]

Eww! So, the 24" screen will be huge on my desk! What am I gonna do? What if I said I wanted a 22" with the same picture quality?

[Wile E]

Eww! So, the 24" screen will be huge on my desk! What am I gonna do? What if I said I wanted a 22" with the same picture quality?
Much harder to come by. If not 24", I would actually go 20". 20" and 22" are the same resolution. Meaning the 22" either has slightly larger pixels, or a larger gap between pixels, making the picture more grainy than the 20".

[Franklinwallbrown]

Hmm...then 20" then.

[Graogrim]

That'd be what, 1680x1050? That's a good resolution. High enough to be sharp and pretty, low enough not to suck all the performance out of gaming.

[Franklinwallbrown]

If you go a higher resolution, do you see more of your games or just bigger picture?

[Wile E]

Hmm...then 20" then.
Hmmm, the choices on Newegg have dwindled. Ok to look elsewhere?

[Wile E]

If you go a higher resolution, do you see more of your games or just bigger picture?Depends on the game. Some offer a larger field of view, while other just give you more detail.

[Franklinwallbrown]

Hmm...interesting. I hope my questions aren't getting on your nerves. I ask many questions.

[Wile E]

Hmm...interesting. I hope my questions aren't getting on your nerves. I ask many questions.
lol. no, you're fine. Everybody has to ask lots of questions about something they don't understand at some point in their life.

[Franklinwallbrown]

Good! I love to learn!