PC hardware: Flat-panel LCD no good for games??
Flat-panel LCD no good for games??
by jsolomonster - 7/20/06 11:19 AMAs I am in the process of purchasing a new computer, I expect to finally rid myself of the 35+lb. monstrocity that is my CRT monitor.
Now, I would hardly call myself a "gamer", but I do play occasionally and Wolfenstein: Enemy Territory is a personal favorite of mine (it's free!). I never had any problems playing on my PC at home (native resolution 800x600), so long as the internet connection was not sluggish. Out of curiosity, I installed the game at work one day, just to see what the game would look like on the NEC MultiSync LCD 1560M we have in the office (native resolution 1024x768). Much to my surprise, the gameplay was choppy and not very smooth at all. My question is this -- can I expect the game to look like this on *any* LCD monitor I purchase?
Not at all
by Tourareg126 - 7/20/06 11:56 AM In reply to: Flat-panel LCD no good for games?? by jsolomonsterBelieve it or not, LCD's are quite cheap these days. Having worked with alot of LCD's (both TV's and computer monitors) a good LCD will do just fine for gaming. Do your research, like with any major purchase, but what I can tell you is Hyandai and Samsung LCD's are the way to go for PC monitors. Things to look for are refresh rates, not just resolution. For gaming I would stick with 8ms, preferribly 4ms. Also, the way LCD's work the bigger you go, the slower they get. For example a 19in at 8ms will be faster then a 21in at 8ms. A decent 19in monitor will run you less then $500, if a good sale less then $400. Do some shopping, and wait for that good deal. Hope this helps.
Flat-panel LCD no good for games??
by chokai - 7/20/06 12:02 PM In reply to: Flat-panel LCD no good for games?? by jsolomonsterYou can not forget that your office computer is not built the same as your home PC. Video Card capabilities, processor, ram, office networks, and so many other things come into play that a screen with a supposed higher resolution may not be able to look as good as your home CRT.
With that said... yes, CRT's have a much faster "draw-time" as a whole. Its like a .02 millisecond delay on a CRT; whereas an LCD has a .12-.15 millisecond delay. In a first person shooter like Wolfenstein, that makes enough difference between life and death.
You can get a high quality LCD to perform like a CRT, but you are going to spend about $2,000. Have fun!
TFT are good for games for not too much
by konwiddak - 7/28/06 5:45 AM In reply to: Flat-panel LCD no good for games?? by chokaiNot anymore, i have two 19'' tft monitors one for £170 and the other for £130. The image is crisp clear and when i play games i get no ghosting as it is called. Besides you can purchase TFT monitors with 2ms responce times which is comparable to a CRT for under £200.
Both my monitors have an 8ms responce time and that seems fine for all games.
However most monitors run now in 1280*1024 naitive resolution and this has almost TRIPPLE the number of pixels than 800*600. Therefore your computer may not cope in this resolution and be jumpy. A tft running in a non naitive resolution will look awfull and i know many people who thought that TFT screens were rubbish because they ran them in non naitive resolution. The moment i showed naitive they were suddenly much more pleased with their purchase.
8ms
by djujecmaoseoionnn - 7/28/06 1:51 PM In reply to: TFT are good for games for not too much by konwiddakMy NEC 19 is also 8 ms and is flawless in all games connected to 7900 GT video at 1280 x 1024. Make sure to have some good processing power and mem. It all adds to a good game. Any piece of hardware that is not adequate can and will make the whole system seem inadequate even though it isnt. In a pc each piece of hardware has a job to do. If any are not up to the task the rest suffer from waiting on it. That sucks.
scan rates
by samgrove - 7/28/06 8:05 AM In reply to: Flat-panel LCD no good for games?? by chokaiMost CRT monitors scan vertically at a rate of 60 or 70 Hz.
This is a rate of about 14 milliseconds. while the phosphors have a very fast response time, the screen is refreshed at the scan rate.
Not the LCD
by sbradcpa - 7/20/06 12:11 PM In reply to: Flat-panel LCD no good for games?? by jsolomonsterI feel that the problem is not an issue with the LCD monitor, but with the computer. (Most likely the video card) If the computer has a low end video card, or it doesn't have an adequate processor or memory, you will get the jerky motion that you memtioned. Check the specs for the game to see what the manufacturer recommends.
Flat-panel LCDs are fine for games
by ramarc - 7/20/06 1:20 PM In reply to: Flat-panel LCD no good for games?? by jsolomonsterthe poor performance you experienced is due to the pc (cpu, ram, video card, etc.), not the display. also, almost any game can run more/less ok at 800x600, but 1024x768 is 60% more pixels so it takes more graphics horsepower.
the big drawback to lcds for gaming is appearance. lcd's look best at their native resolution (1280x1024 for a 17") and lower resolutions tend to look fuzzy or blotchy. also, lcds have far less contrast than a CRT which can cause dark scenes to look flat or muddy. slow pixel response can cause ghosting and narrow viewing angles can cause color shifts if you move your head.
with that said, i don't notice any of those problems and love my lcd for gaming. even though its 2 years old, it looks fine to me and i would never go back to a CRT.
Refresh Rate?
by jsolomonster - 7/20/06 1:26 PM In reply to: Flat-panel LCDs are fine for games by ramarcThanks for the helpful feedback. Regarding refresh rates, am I to understand that the lower the number, the faster it will be? So for example, 4ms is better than 8ms? I would imagine this is what the issue was (though as you said, the video card on my office PC may have played a role as well).
Yes lower is better
by Tourareg126 - 7/20/06 2:31 PM In reply to: Refresh Rate? by jsolomonsterYou are correct in that the lower ms are better (the less time the LCD takes to change colors the better). Also, I would like to agree to the others in that the video card makes a BIG difference, also the entire computer's speed makes a difference (i.e. memory, hard drive speed, processor, FSB, etc.) But a good monitor does NOT have to cost $2000. A 4ms LCD is actually faster then the naked eye during most color transitions. A CRT's phosphorus gas is very very fast, but you don't need and LCD that performs at those specs, it's just overkill. Unless you are a gaming programmer using multi-thousand dollar software and NEED certain specs for that software, a 4-8ms LCD would be fine. Also, an office PC usually has some cheap built in Video Card or a 64-bit piece of junk becuase it's use is not intended for games. A good video card goes a long way.
response time, not refresh rate
by ramarc - 7/20/06 2:50 PM In reply to: Refresh Rate? by jsolomonsterlcd's typically have 60hz refresh rates (some accept 75hz also). they're not like CRTs which accept a wide range of refresh rates.
an lcd's performance is determined by its response time. look for something that claims 8ms or less. keep in mind that response time is a *claim* and not all 8ms panels perform the same. if possible, demo the monitor in person at its native resolution. also, be sure to read some reviews/comparisons to make sure you don't wind up with a clunker.
lastly, you may want to consider upgrading your video card. you definitely won't be happy gaming at 800x600 on your new 17" or 19" lcd, so make sure you've got something that can handle 1280x1024.
Dell Desktop
by jsolomonster - 7/20/06 3:38 PM In reply to: response time, not refresh rate by ramarcWell, I am looking to buy another Dell since this one did me good over the past six years. I am looking at either the Dimension E510 or an XPS system. Not sure which video cards they would come with, but I would welcome any suggestions about what to customize it with (I can do this thru the Dell website).
Go XPS
by mcallij - 7/20/06 6:29 PM In reply to: Dell Desktop by jsolomonsterIf you're not building your own, XPS is really the only choice from Dell. It's the only way you'll truly be able to upgrade a lot of components later. At least, that's been my personal experience. If you don't want absolute cutting edge, though, an E510 may be an OK choice.
XPS may be overkill if you're at most a medium gamer
by ackmondual - 7/28/06 4:44 PM In reply to: Go XPS by mcallijIf you don't....
-play that often
-play heavy FPS, racing, or other fast motion games
-watch alot of fast action DVDs
-are not a videophile, as in you probably wouldn't be able to notice slight ghosting, tell the diff betw 60 and 80 frames/s, or want FULL blast details and textures...
Your $$ may be wasting in getting such a high end but expensive system and LCD. Prices vary largely on promos and configs, but the current gen XPS (XPS5 IIRC) go start from $1600 - $2200 and up.
As an example, I (that was to say my dad really) purchased my Dell Dimension 8300 back in late '03. XPS was available then as its 1st gen. I was thinking about going for it, but decided that the 8300 with a ATI 128MB Radeon 9800 Pro would get the job done. I left or upgraded if <$30 upgrade for the hd at 120GB, RAM at 0.5GB, and DVD+ burner at 8x to cut costs. I ended up upgrading these myself for a fraction of the price. AFAIK, the XPS had faster buses, more expandability, better case, tech supp exclusively for XPS customers, and more, but i slept better at night knowing I didn't burden my dad with an extra $800 to boot. Of course it's key to note that I wasn't and still am NOT a hard core gamer. The most advanced PC game I've played are Doom 3 (which could look/run better w/any decent 256MB vid card, but as is, it's acceptable ratio of details and performance), Prince of Persia Sands of Time, and Halo. Doom 3 would be the highest PC reqs. I use emulators as well, but what i curr have is more than enough. Not playing games like the latest racing games or UT 2k5 (or was it 2k4?) really let me get away with a much cheaper system.
If you do go Dell, you may be just as well off with an e510, or whatever the next lower model line is, and just make sure that has a solid vid card, processor, and architecture specs (like front side bus, good expansions), and just upgrade everythign else on your own.
| Forum legend: | |
 |
Locked thread |
 |
Moderator |
 |
CNET staff |
 |
Samsung staff |
 |
Norton Authorized Support team |
 |
AVG staff |
 |
Windows Outreach team |
 |
Dell staff |
 |
Intel staff |
