Any FPS Gamer switch to LCD?
Jul 18, 2006 at 7:36 PM Post #17 of 52
Quote:

Originally Posted by RedLeader
That makes no sense, after 30fps the human eye cannot detect the difference. Perhaps you're noticing that in intense action your pc now slows down because of the increased resolution.


dude 30fps in a PC game is like flipping one of those cartoon books to see the stickfigure move. you may be thinking of how film works, im not sure myself but if you freeze any single frame of film (during motion) the image is blurry, by putting them all together at 30fps you dont detect it and everything looks fluid and sharp. i may be wrong about that though.

generally the 1600x1200 LCD do 60fps, 1280x1024 will do 75fps(even scaled on a 16x12 native display)
 
Jul 18, 2006 at 7:37 PM Post #18 of 52
Quote:

Originally Posted by euclid
im looking into a 42" ED or 50" HD plasma TV which will double as my primary PC gaming monitor. i will have to sit back about 7-8'


I wouldn't recommend a plasma TV as a PC monitor. Most HD plasma TVs in that size range run a native resolution of 1024x768 (4:3) or 1024x1024 (1:1 format) stretched out to fit a 16:9 screen. Your PC will not be able to adapt and everything will be stretched. My friend tried that route and had a bitch of a time trying to get things to work out before returning his plasma for an LCD.

I use my Westinghouse LVM-42w2 (42" LCD, 1920*1080 resolution) as my monitor and it works great for everything, including gaming. Seating position is ~5-6' away for computer work.
 
Jul 18, 2006 at 7:42 PM Post #19 of 52
Quote:

Originally Posted by marvin
I wouldn't recommend a plasma TV as a PC monitor. Most HD plasma TVs in that size range run a native resolution of 1024x768 (4:3) or 1024x1024 (1:1 format) stretched out to fit a 16:9 screen. Your PC will not be able to adapt and everything will be stretched. My friend tried that route and had a bitch of a time trying to get things to work out before returning his plasma for an LCD.

I use my Westinghouse LVM-42w2 (42" LCD, 1920*1080 resolution) as my monitor and it works great. Seating position is ~5-6' away for computer work.


only the 42" HD plasma run rectangular pixels at a 4:3 pixel count. the 50" HD are 1366x768 which are square pixels and true 16:9 ratio. likewise the 37" and 42" ED sets run square pixels at 853 x 480 which is 16:9.

i would love a 42" HD plasma at 1366x768, viewing distance would be like 5 feet. right now my driving force for HD is to be able to play PC games on a 50" plasma widescreen at 7ft with over 720p resolution in true 1:1 sync with the display. XBOX360 eat your heart out. if it wasnt for the PC gaming aspect i would be very satisfied with an ED set for the next couple years.

i have no intention of using the plasma as a general PC monitor, if i did i would definatley be looking into a 50" 1080p DLP though.
but i want to avoid 1080p for gaming use b/c its really useless to ask my video card to render that high, FPS would take too much of a hit IMHO i would have to cripple the graphics, and i dont want to have to scale a 1080p set to lower non-native. its also counter productive for me to get an LCDTV, i am trying to fix complaints i have with my current LCDs, otherwise a 37", 42", or 45" LCD at 1366x768 would be a good choice too.

for anyone that doesnt see PQ problems with current LCD or DLP i honestly congratulate you. its is a much easier and less expensive road, and the only road to 1080p at this point(short of the pioneer elite 50" plasma at $10k)
 
Jul 18, 2006 at 9:27 PM Post #21 of 52
My eyes can certainly detect frame rates above 30 fps.

I switched from a CRT to an Apple 23" Cinema Display a while ago. I swapped for graphics purposes (mostly) but it does gaming VERY well with no blur. In particular, I've seen no other monitor that does color like the Apple does color.
 
Jul 18, 2006 at 11:21 PM Post #22 of 52
Quote:

Originally Posted by Mercuttio
My eyes can certainly detect frame rates above 30 fps.

I switched from a CRT to an Apple 23" Cinema Display a while ago. I swapped for graphics purposes (mostly) but it does gaming VERY well with no blur. In particular, I've seen no other monitor that does color like the Apple does color.



Dell and Apple uses the same monitor from Philips, so they basically share the same (internal parts/ performance) characteristics.
 
Jul 18, 2006 at 11:30 PM Post #23 of 52
Quote:

Originally Posted by rx7_fan
Dell and Apple uses the same monitor from Philips, so they basically share the same (internal parts/ performance) characteristics.


Is it a DiamondTron tube? I have a Compaq (yes, ugh) monitor that I picked up for very cheap, it's a 21" viewable CRT with good refresh rates, I think I can get 144hz at 1024x768 with the right video card. It uses a DiamondTron (aperture grill vs. shadow mask) tube and it looks awesome with games.
 
Jul 18, 2006 at 11:35 PM Post #24 of 52
Quote:

Originally Posted by rx7_fan
Dell and Apple uses the same monitor from Philips, so they basically share the same (internal parts/ performance) characteristics.


the S-IPS panel is from LG/Phillips and is the same in LG L2000C. plus a monitor badged as an NEC too, colors are indeed amazing.
 
Jul 18, 2006 at 11:52 PM Post #25 of 52
Quote:

Originally Posted by rx7_fan
I use dell 24" widescreen, it's gives a lot of workspace and hardly takes up any room on your desk at all. (see below). I played quake 4 and HL:2 & CS:Source and I didn't experience any lagging.

IMG_2850.jpg




Nice Swans
 
Jul 19, 2006 at 12:05 AM Post #26 of 52
I have a Samsung 940B and it's served me fine for FPS gaming (CS1.6, CS:S, Far Cry, HL2, Q4). It took a little bit of getting used to after using a CRT for so long, but I have no problems at all with it. The extra sharpness actually helps greatly in games like CS1.6 where at long distances an enemy's head is only a few pixels, but they're much easier to visually lock onto with the LCD. I can see ghosting if I make a high contrast object move across the screen (e.g. strafing while watching a light object on a dark background), but in general gameplay I don't notice any.
 
Jul 19, 2006 at 12:09 AM Post #27 of 52
Quote:

Originally Posted by Fitz
I have a Samsung 940B and it's served me fine for FPS gaming (CS1.6, CS:S, Far Cry, HL2, Q4). It took a little bit of getting used to after using a CRT for so long, but I have no problems at all with it. The extra sharpness actually helps greatly in games like CS1.6 where at long distances an enemy's head is only a few pixels, but they're much easier to visually lock onto with the LCD. I can see ghosting if I make a high contrast object move across the screen (e.g. strafing while watching a light object on a dark background), but in general gameplay I don't notice any.


LCD's definately are more crisp and that is a bonus for gaming. My Samsung LCD has good color brightness too. However, its the refresh rate thats lacking, and when you have a high refresh and turn vertical sync on, the graphics look a lot smoother and its easier to see when you are moving around.
 
Jul 19, 2006 at 12:44 AM Post #28 of 52
Quote:

Originally Posted by rx7_fan
Dell and Apple uses the same monitor from Philips, so they basically share the same (internal parts/ performance) characteristics.


Is it? I've seen that monitor from Dell, and the colors didn't seem as vivid... placebo?
 
Jul 19, 2006 at 1:17 AM Post #30 of 52
Most of the Dell monitors I have seen and use do not have a high enough refresh rate for FPS (75 hz/12 ms isn't really enough).

My 19" LG LCD with DVI/180 hz/8 ms seems to serve me more than adequately, however.

-Matt
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 2 (members: 0, guests: 2)
Back
Top