|
Apr 27, 2006, 07:45 PM
|
#1 |
 
|
Dell 20.1"+ LCDs
I noticied that a lot of them have high response times ranging from 12ms-16ms. I know that for 19" should have about 8 or less to be good for gaming. Does the same apply to bigger monitors?
__________________
RIG #1 - See System Specs. RIG #2  AMD X2 3600+ (AM2), Biostar TF550, 2 x 1GB Buffalo Firestix, XFX 9800GTX+, WD 250 GB HD, NZXT Nemesis Elite Case, Lite-On Combo Drive and Lite-On DVD RW Drive, Antec TruePower 550W, 20.1" Dell w/ 17" Sony LCD |
|
|
|
Apr 27, 2006, 08:23 PM
|
#2 |
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Ohio
Posts: 1,784 (0.60/day)
Thanks: 33
Thanked 22 Times in 21 Posts
 |
Yeah, pretty much for any monitor you don't want much higher than 8ms. The dells are 12-16ms, but many people that play games use them just fine it seems. It doesn't make sense to me, but I've never played any games on one. If you are looking into getting a new monitor you can get more bang for you buck by not buying Dell unless you want widescreen.
|
|
|
|
|
Apr 27, 2006, 11:34 PM
|
#3 |
 
|
the quoted responce time dosnt mean much.. the monitor u mention will play games perfectly well.. widescreen is nice.. i have an acer 20 ich same size as the dell u mention..
pretty much every modern lcd is fast enough for gaming.. the cheaper ones are actually faster then some of the dearer ones.. the more expensive ones have better colours and a much wider viewing angle.. but they have to play some clever tricks to try and keep the responce times up.. all down to the different panel technology used.. cheap monitors are the best for gaming.. u sit in front and dont need the wider viewing angles and the colours and contrast is plenty good enough unless u are a pro grfx artist.. its a horses for courses thing.. trog |
|
|
|
|
Apr 28, 2006, 07:44 AM
|
#4 |
 Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 6 (0.00/day)
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
|
Don't let response times fool you. I have a 16ms 24" Dell and gaming is awesome.
|
|
|
|
|
May 1, 2006, 12:35 AM
|
#5 |
 Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: indiana
Posts: 64 (0.02/day)
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
|
16ms or below is great for gaming but the use of widescreen is horrible for gaming. (horizontal sensitivity is different from vertical sensitivity.)
|
|
|
|
|
May 1, 2006, 12:41 AM
|
#6 | |
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Maine
Posts: 1,268 (0.47/day)
Thanks: 13
Thanked 15 Times in 13 Posts
|
Quote:
Exactly, mostly ment for television, and mostly music, and just media sorts.... Not the best for gaming
__________________
|
|
|
|
|
|
May 1, 2006, 01:36 AM
|
#7 |
|
McLovin
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: My house.
Posts: 6,280 (2.35/day)
Thanks: 105
Thanked 340 Times in 246 Posts
  |
unless of course you have controls for horizontal sensitivity, where all it takes is a little tweaking, and then you're all set.
__________________
“Just because you're hung like a moose doesn't mean you should do porn.”
|
|
|
|
|
May 1, 2006, 01:41 AM
|
#8 |
|
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: indiana
Posts: 64 (0.02/day)
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
|
yes that is true but a pain...
|
|
|
|
|
May 1, 2006, 06:21 PM
|
#9 |
|
|
my widesceen works okay without tweaking.. i love it.. sooo owning both aspect ratios i would have to disagree.. widescreen is magic for gaming..
trog |
|
|
|
|
May 2, 2006, 03:24 AM
|
#10 |
|
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: indiana
Posts: 64 (0.02/day)
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
|
i bought a 32inch viewsonic last month and with the widescreen there is definitely a difference in horizontal sens to vertical sens. anyone saying there isnt (without tweaking the h sens to match the v sens or vice versus) i would have to say doesnt game to often. only games that might not be affected that bad..... might be rts's, rpg's and racing games. any fps game it will affect.
|
|
|
|
|
May 2, 2006, 04:15 AM
|
#11 |
|
|
perhaps its the 32 inch sze that show things up more i say i have both a 17 inch 3 x 4 and 20 inch widsceeen i game an awfull lot and have done so for a few years i see no sign of a problem with the wider screen..
i have played all the latest shooters and am currently playing oblivion.. not a problem.. trog ps.. in fact u have me curouse now.. my widesceen looks and works pretty much like my normal aspect ration screen does.. just wider.. what sort of a problem do u guys think i should be seeing.. ???? |
|
|
|
|
May 2, 2006, 04:38 AM
|
#12 | |
|
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 6 (0.00/day)
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
|
Quote:
|
|
|
|
|
|
May 2, 2006, 07:13 AM
|
#13 |
|
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: indiana
Posts: 64 (0.02/day)
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
|
ahh its all good. to each his own.
|
|
|
|
|
May 2, 2006, 05:47 PM
|
#14 |
|
|
i am still interested in any perceived problems with gaming and wide screen.. apart from the fact some games dont suport the aspect ratio.. i dont perceive any major ones..
the lack of 16 .9 suport with older games dosnt have too bad a result.. u end up with shorter stocky charactors as opposed to tall thin ones.. far less of a problem than i would have imagined to be honest.. the main niggle i would have is just there is less usable resolutions with 16 x 9 than 4 x 3.. thow with games useing the wrong ones dosnt seem to matter that much.. its more a general windows thing i find.. but overall i just like the extra width.. there is less actual screen area visible on a 20 inch wide than a normaL 19 4 X 3 but to me it just seems more usefull having the extra width than the extra height.. widescreen at the moment just costs more.. but they should come down in price as they become more mainstream.. size wise a 20 wide is exactly like a normal 17 inch just with two extra inches either side.. height wise a 17 normal and 20 wide are pretty much the same.. anything bigger to me at least is just out of my price range.. plus at normal PC viewing distances i recon a monitor can be toooo big.. this might be just the way i rationalize not being able to afford a bigger one thow.. he he he trog |
|
|
|
 |
| Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests) | |
| Thread Tools | |
|
|
System Specs
