Which Widescreen in $300 Range?

[1Strive]

Samsung 205BW / 20" / 6ms / 700:1 / WSXGA+ 1680 x 1050 / DVI·D / Widescreen LCD Monitor

Acer AL2216WBD / 22" / Ultra-fast 5ms / WSXGA+ 1680 x 1050 / DVI · VGA /Widescreen LCD Monitor

WITCH ONE FOR GAMING?

THANKS,
1STRIVE

[trog100]

the acer is a bargain for a 22 inch screen.. both will play games.. all cheapish monitors will nowadays..

trog

ps.. i have the acer 20 inch equivalent.. not quite the bargain that 22 inch one is thow

[1Strive]

Originally Posted by trog100

the acer is a bargain for a 22 inch screen.. both will play games.. all cheapish monitors will nowadays..

trog

ps.. i have the acer 20 inch equivalent.. not quite the bargain that 22 inch one is thow

That was my thinking. I can see from the specs that it was 2 inches bigger and 1ms faster, I just didn't know if "Acer" was gona be the quality I demand.

Thanks,
1STRIVE

[bruins004]

I am not sure about the Acer, but the Samsung uses a 6-bit panel (16.2 million colors) instead of an 8-bit (which is 16.7 million colors).
I believe the Acer prob. uses the same panel, which means less colors. Not as nice of a picture as well.
If you are looking around $300 still take a look at the ViewSonic VX2025. This one uses an 8-bit panel.

[1Strive]

Originally Posted by bruins004

I am not sure about the Acer, but the Samsung uses a 6-bit panel (16.2 million colors) instead of an 8-bit (which is 16.7 million colors).
I believe the Acer prob. uses the same panel, which means less colors. Not as nice of a picture as well.
If you are looking around $300 still take a look at the ViewSonic VX2025. This one uses an 8-bit panel.

When looking for a Gaming Monitor I have never heard to check 6-bit or 8-bit. I can see that you are talking about Picture Quality. My guess is that would matter for like say Photoshop but not that much in gaming. This is just based on my reading over the last couple of years. I could be worng but I tend to look at.

MS
Max and supported Resolutions
and Size
as well as Contrast Ratio and Brightness and Look angle. I don't know about 8-bit or 6-bit.

Please post more info and at least one reference.

Thanks,
1STRIVE

[bruins004]

Ohh my bad..
Guess I wasnt paying attention to the use.
You are correct on that 1strive.
I just wanted to relay that though b/c the cheaper panels do bother SOME people, but not all.
Also, the type of panel is also relavent (but I don't know which one these use).
The S-IPS panel is one of the best, but the cheaper TFT panels tend to bc like laptops. You move your head and the colors get distorted pretty quick.
I was just over in HardForums and owners of this Acer seem to be very please with it.
Looks like a good buy to me.
Unfort. this wasnt out when I got my VX2025.

[devinXkillyou]

well, if you are set on widescreen, i would go with the Samsung.

[1Strive]

Originally Posted by devinXkillyou

well, if you are set on widescreen, i would go with the Samsung.

Thanks to bruins004 and Trog.

Please elaborate on your post devinXkillyou. I have no idea why you are recommending the Samsung. For all I know you could work for them or have stock in their company. (Or should I say your company.)

If you where like my best friend online and we had a history I would maby make a decision based on a post like the one above. But I would probally still ask for clarification.

Thanks,
1STRIVE

[Changis]

on the topic of lcd screens.. I found the cheapest 1680*1050 20" in norway is the LG L204WT @ ca 450 bucks.. (damn.. we are an expensive country )
specs:
20 inches
TCO 03
1680 x 1050 punkter
5 ms
2000 :1
D-Sub/VGA, DVI-D

the funny thing is more expensive versions only have tco99 and 8ms+ (and some only 1440 res max)
how much difference does TCO 03 bring? and 3ms faster?

[bruins004]

Hey Strike,
Maybe I can elaborate why one guy said Samsung.
Samsung has a good reputation with LCDs.
They are developed very well and have always been a top company in the LCD market.
However, this Acer is pretty good too and with gaming it usually just matters based on response time (mainly) and for some the resolution.
As long as the response time is below 16ms (12ms if you want to be picky), it should have no problems with games.
Both are good monitors from good companies.
The only question you have to ask yourself is if you want a 22" or 20" screen.

Changis,
The LG is a very good screen from a company growing in the LCD market.
However, people seem to be a little dissapointed with this screen.
Those people are mainly ones who buy it for movies and photoshop stuff.
The reason is bc that panel is said the be an 8 bit panel (16.7 million colors) when in fact it is a 6 bit panel w/ dithering (still 16.7 million colors). The difference is that it still looks less impressive than a true 8 bit panel and the colors are still slightly off.
But that is a good panel for gaming.
Unfort. in the U.S. that panel is more than $300 (I believe it is around $400-450, not sure though).

Good luck all

[Changis]

well good to know we aren't as expensive as I thought.. even if it cost 300, i would still have to pay 75 bucks in customs/tax not to mention shipping

but the closest i could find to the Acer is the ViewSonic VX2235wm (don't know if that's better) it costs 600 bucks...

well aside from 6/8bit, what is it one should look for in a monitor being used for gaming/photoshop and being a little picky on image quality?
will you notice any difference with a 1ms faster screen?
how many ms before you notice anything?
what does the TCO certification mean for the performance of the monitor?
do you really need to play games in 1680 as apposed to 1440 or even 1024/720p resolutions?

sorry for all the questions but I believe I'm not the only one pondering atleast one of these questions

[devinXkillyou]

ur right 1strive, i probably should have elaborated more; thanks bruins004, you basically said what i meant by that.

[trog100]

take a look around at what anything over a 20 inch widescreen costs.. then start nitpicking over whats the best.. one thing i have learnt is buying for real and forum nitpicking over details as to whats the best are too seperate things..

i have a friend who is very good at asking me why i didnt buy the xxxx whatever.. the main difference tween me and him is i buy for real and own the goods and have the use of em.. he just dreams about what he might or would buy but in truth he never buys bugger all and has the use of nothing.. he he

trog

[Dippyskoodlez]

I just got the 20" samsung 204B that is 5ms+1600x1200 for $350 @ best buy open box... for gaming I would suggest a regular 4:3 still... plus the 1600x1200 is beautiful.

(4:3 for games simply because its a little more game engine friendly still. But I also enjoy playing older games, i'm not a CS wh0re)

[i_am_mustang_man]

the 4:3 ratio is what i prefer too, and if you want that same one dippy got, it's 285 after rebate at newegg

[Dippyskoodlez]

Originally Posted by i_am_mustang_man

the 4:3 ratio is what i prefer too, and if you want that same one dippy got, it's 285 after rebate at newegg

yeah- even if games support wide still, its usually just an annoying stretching.

the 204B is a beautiful lcd too

[trog100]

some games dont suport the real 16 x 9 resolutions.. but i dont find running 4 x 3 resolution that bad.. u get shorter stocky bad guys instead of tall thin ones.. he he

but i like the widescreen for browsing and such which is what i do most of the time... the extra width seems more usefull than extra height.. scrolling up and down is a lot easier than side to side..

but price wise a normal 19 inch has lot going for it.. u do get more screen real estate for your money..

trog

[Dippyskoodlez]

Originally Posted by trog100

some games dont suport the real 16 x 9 resolutions.. but i dont find running 4 x 3 resolution that bad.. u get shorter stocky bad guys instead of tall thin ones.. he he

but i like the widescreen for browsing and such which is what i do most of the time... the extra width seems more usefull than extra height.. scrolling up and down is a lot easier than side to side..

but price wise a normal 19 inch has lot going for it.. u do get more screen real estate for your money..

trog

Side scrolling isnt important if you have a mouse with a side scrolling wheel

However, utilizing the 1600x1200 rather than the wise screens 1440x1000, you get more real horizontal space anyways. its just formatted a bit different.

[trog100]

i am talking real space not just bunging lots of smaller objects on the screen u cant read..

my 20 inch monitor has a native 1680 x 1050 resolution.. i would be happy with a 1400 x 900 resolution for normal usage.. the fonts in everything are too small at the native resolution with a 20 inch monitor.. u can adjust em but its fiddly and dosnt work with everything..

my x850 card used to let me use 1400 x 900 but for some reason known only to ATI my 1900xtx card wont let me have it.. it just dosnt show up as an option..

as for playing games.. its exactly the same as it used to be.. u play em at whatever resolution your grfx card can handle.. mine certainly cant handle 1680 x 1050 with the more demanding games.. i play quake 4 at 1024 x 768 for example..

my 20 inch is just like my 17 inch height wise but with an extra two inches of visible screen stuck on each side..

u have to try em to see whether or not u like em.. i like em.. thow i could manage quite well with 19 inch normal and they do come cheaper.. i would like a 24 inch wide but they really are silly prices..

trog

[Dippyskoodlez]

Originally Posted by trog100

i am talking real space not just bunging lots of smaller objects on the screen u cant read..

my 20 inch monitor has a native 1680 x 1050 resolution.. i would be happy with a 1400 x 900 resolution for normal usage.. the fonts in everything are too small at the native resolution with a 20 inch monitor.. u can adjust em but its fiddly and dosnt work with everything..

my x850 card used to let me use 1400 x 900 but for some reason known only to ATI my 1900xtx card wont let me have it.. it just dosnt show up as an option..

as for playing games.. its exactly the same as it used to be.. u play em at whatever resolution your grfx card can handle.. mine certainly cant handle 1680 x 1050 with the more demanding games.. i play quake 4 at 1024 x 768 for example..

my 20 inch is just like my 17 inch height wise but with an extra two inches of visible screen stuck on each side..

u have to try em to see whether or not u like em.. i like em.. thow i could manage quite well with 19 inch normal and they do come cheaper.. i would like a 24 inch wide but they really are silly prices..

trog

if the fonts too small, get some glasses you geezer!

[trog100]

cheaky git.. but when i used a crt monitor i had a set of resolutions to use based on readability.. 17 inch was 800 x 600.. 19 inch was 1024 x 768.. 21 inch 1200 x 800..

running a resolution of 1200 x 800 on a 17 inch monitor no glasses in the world would help u dude..

course a downside with the new breed of lcd monitor is u cant run much lower than native cos the interpolation just buggers things up with any kind of font..

and fuck u too sprog.. he he he

trog

[Dippyskoodlez]

Originally Posted by trog100

cheaky git.. but when i used a crt monitor i had a set of resolutions to use based on readability.. 17 inch was 800 x 600.. 19 inch was 1024 x 768.. 21 inch 1200 x 800..

running a resolution of 1200 x 800 on a 17 inch monitor no glasses in the world would help u dude..

course a downside with the new breed of lcd monitor is u cant run much lower than native cos the interpolation just buggers things up with any kind of font..

and fuck u too sprog.. he he he

trog

You must just have some really poor vision... I used to run 1380x1024 (yeah oddball res on an old ass packard bell monitor) on a 17" CRT lol.. has 1600x1200 on a 17: for a while aswell..

[Changis]

why do you have so high res?I have a perfect 20/20 vision (doctor said it was even better than most with 20/20, since I could read the bottom row of those eye test thingies from the other side of the room (aprox 7-10 meters)) and I use 1280 on my 21" crt and if it gets much smaller, I'll probably need glasses after a while just for making my eyes work harder to read the text. (not that it's a problem to read, I don't see the point.. are your desktops that cluttered with icons and stuff?)
maybe it is easier on smaller screens to make out, but if you use say a 28" tv @ 1024 or even a 42" plasma in 1080p you'd either have to change font size, or go up to the screen to see if you wrote/read correctly.

What I mean is set your desktop res to a comfortable resolution and save the high resolutions for gaming, don't wear out your eyes more than you have to.



btw, hope you guys with 1600+ res can read this

[W2hCYK]

this is the best monitor ive ever seen! i have a sceptre 19" right now, and I'm going to get this for my bday in november, fantastic quality for cheap. high quality stand and 5ms.. WOAH contrast rate of 800:1!! great monitor, $279 - $20 = $259

[Dippyskoodlez]

Originally Posted by Changis

btw, hope you guys with 1600+ res can read this [/SIZE]

I'm nearsighted so my close up vision is perfectly fine.. and dont have my contacts in.. and I can read all that text perfectly fine..