1. Welcome to TechPowerUp Forums, Guest! Please check out our forum guidelines for info related to our community.

Looking for a High-End PC LCD monitor for gaming 24 INCH

Discussion in 'General Hardware' started by RuskiSnajper, Jan 8, 2011.

  1. RuskiSnajper

    RuskiSnajper

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2009
    Messages:
    1,607 (0.81/day)
    Thanks Received:
    231
    Location:
    slovenia , europe
    Preferably 1900x1200 , i don't want weird resolutions , or "TV standards" , im doing nothing with multimedia.

    I don't need TV card since those monitors are crap for gaming , i mean , it's not really gaming , it's just fast response , i don't want the screen to look lagy WHATEVER im doing.

    Logically , a good screen like this would also have good movies and other fast moving pics so... i don't know why companies brake down products to categories , it just doesn't work that way , they don't really make a good gaming monitor , like seeing on samsung right now , it's poor , i can't find a thing suitable , they have NOTHING at 2ms , but those are professional , ... im confused.

    60FPS totally falls of , don't want that at all , i seen T260HD first hand , balanced , but not gaming since you need to have VSYNC to get rid of the lines because of 60 FPS of course , I need 75FPS(hz) or above , 2ms also , 4 ms would still be fine though if not possible.

    ASUS VW266H looks kind of cool , but it's a stupid design , it's tilted and i don't like that, reverw says it can't be untilted.


    I also don't want large pixels , i want good pixel density. ... i don't care about photo editing so those features.


    Im just not in this monitor area so much , found something , but this will take a week to review , some month to fully research the current market , i never bought a monitor my self , since this one was referred to me from a friend , when i didn't knew much, like 5 years ago.

    I see that samsung changed a bit with it's strategy , it just has wild mix of useless junk i see , for 10 minutes i looked the official site , some Economical Green Super LCD has 2ms , and some "speciality" or proofessional had 4ms , that just doesn't make sense at all.

    Thanks guys , around 300 EUR is the limit. Anyways LED doesn't seem bad , but isn't that expensive still?

    The focus goes to the actual panel , the core of the screen , smaller the pixels , the better!
    Last edited: Jan 8, 2011
  2. FreedomEclipse

    FreedomEclipse ~Technological Technocrat~

    Joined:
    Apr 20, 2007
    Messages:
    13,472 (5.06/day)
    Thanks Received:
    2,210
    shouldnt of you posted this in the trade/FS/giveaway section?
  3. Bo$$

    Bo$$ Lab Extraordinaire

    Joined:
    May 7, 2009
    Messages:
    5,294 (2.77/day)
    Thanks Received:
    859
    Location:
    London, UK
    he wants recomendations rather than a direct sale i think
  4. Wile E

    Wile E Power User

    Joined:
    Oct 1, 2006
    Messages:
    24,324 (8.50/day)
    Thanks Received:
    3,777
    1.) No LCD monitor actually does 75Hz. it accepts 75Hxz input, but displays 60hz. It actually causes worse performance than to just run it at 60Hz. If you are worried about 60Hz because you have a CRT, don't. It's not the same. There is no flicker.

    2.) Manufacturer response ratings don't mean shit. they are all lies, period.

    3.) 24" 1920 x 1200 is much better looking.

    4.)LED doesn't mean shit. It isn't magically better than CCFL backlighting. There are different types of LED lighting. RGB and White (W-LED or WLED). White is actually inferior to many CCFL panels. RGB is better, but much more expensive.

    The most important thing is the panel type. IPS has vastly superior image quality, but is more expensive than the standard Tn-Film monitor.

    http://www.tftcentral.co.uk/ Check them out for some ideas, and read their articles on panel types and backlighting, etc. http://www.tftcentral.co.uk/articles.htm
  5. Mussels

    Mussels Moderprator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Oct 6, 2004
    Messages:
    42,020 (11.71/day)
    Thanks Received:
    9,406
    i agree with wile E except that in my experience, LED screens do tend to look much clearer with better contrast.

    that said, its newer screens vs older ones - so the panels are newer as well.
  6. Wile E

    Wile E Power User

    Joined:
    Oct 1, 2006
    Messages:
    24,324 (8.50/day)
    Thanks Received:
    3,777
    More contrast =/= better if that comes at the expense of accuracy. Calibrate the displays using a colorimeter, and then verify with said colorimeter.
  7. Mussels

    Mussels Moderprator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Oct 6, 2004
    Messages:
    42,020 (11.71/day)
    Thanks Received:
    9,406
    i'm a gamer, not a color fetisihist. when the LED screens look better in dark scenes in gaming (and by better, i mean not pale washed out crap) then the LED ones win.

    as i said however - that may be due to the screens being newer in general, and not just the LED lighting.
  8. Wile E

    Wile E Power User

    Joined:
    Oct 1, 2006
    Messages:
    24,324 (8.50/day)
    Thanks Received:
    3,777
    No, it's a function of the CCFL screen not being calibrated. Calibrate them both to the same specs, then get back to me.
  9. Mussels

    Mussels Moderprator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Oct 6, 2004
    Messages:
    42,020 (11.71/day)
    Thanks Received:
    9,406
    sure, send me the calibration equipment. and a few screens.
  10. Wile E

    Wile E Power User

    Joined:
    Oct 1, 2006
    Messages:
    24,324 (8.50/day)
    Thanks Received:
    3,777
    Colorimeters are pretty cheap these days. Mine was $60. Even cheaper used.
  11. FordGT90Concept

    FordGT90Concept "I go fast!1!11!1!"

    Joined:
    Oct 13, 2008
    Messages:
    13,354 (6.30/day)
    Thanks Received:
    3,367
    Location:
    IA, USA
    There really aren't very many choices for 1920x1200 (I know, it's depressing) and the smaller the screen, the more clear the display:
    Computer Hardware,Monitors,LCD Monitors,1920 x 120...

    Of those, I would probably go with the Asus unless you want the height/pivot/swivel capabilities of the HP.
    Crunching for Team TPU
  12. RuskiSnajper

    RuskiSnajper

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2009
    Messages:
    1,607 (0.81/day)
    Thanks Received:
    231
    Location:
    slovenia , europe
    Thanks , 24'' with 1920x1200 logically yes , they need to fit smaller pixels in.

    Okay , i don't really need 26 , so that's that.

    I heard that they measure a different type of response time , or with different methods , but it's been said that samsung and sony are usually more accurate then others.

    I also did a lot of research on pixels and resolutions a year ago , and i didn't knew before that pixels actually vary by size , it's the pixel size that makes up the quality. And that's the main price concern.
    Last edited: Jan 8, 2011
  13. Wile E

    Wile E Power User

    Joined:
    Oct 1, 2006
    Messages:
    24,324 (8.50/day)
    Thanks Received:
    3,777
  14. RuskiSnajper

    RuskiSnajper

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2009
    Messages:
    1,607 (0.81/day)
    Thanks Received:
    231
    Location:
    slovenia , europe
    So whatever i buy , i should be better than this what i have now right !

    Does MS response time really matter much , because i think it does , I HAVE NO issues of any lag of any kind , no ghosting no anything at all. Suggested by a friend and ive been happy with this monitor , and it was like 350 EUR at the time , manufactured in MARCH 2006 and i bought it like in June 2006.


    Full Spec:
    (the picture is wrong, this one has neck on center of the leg and it has no tilting at all)

    http://www.netmercato.com/it/flat panel displays/Samsung/LS19HADKSE|EDC


    ANY , ANY monitor will be better than this one, but i just don't want to sacrifice the feel that i like , i don't need exelence in graphics , i want smooth and fast response without lagy screen and seeing ghosting , i know what it is , i saw one of LG monitors , when a lot of black background was present , there was a lot of weird stripes of weird trails on the edges.

    I checked long ago and i think this monitor that i currently have, has smaller pixels than T260HD that's bro bought like a few months ago.

    75HZ is max , games are smooth as ice , T260HD has 60hz max , can't get those lines out of my eyes! Vsych doesn't fix fully , i just makes games lag but maybe much less annoying to the eyes.

    The size of the LCD doesn't really matter to me , i don't watch a lot of movies anyways , (oh those times when i had zillionbytes of stuff on ... are over for me) 24inch is fine and that's a plus too , rather use 1920x1200 on a smaller area.

    1920x1200 is also a must , i hate wide screens which are TOO wide like having bottom and top cut off , that's stupid TV standard , that doesn't belong here.


    EDIT: Looking at the TFTcentral , is the site out of date , since there are all olders monitors and stuff like 8ms and less has TN Film , and IPS is like 25ms , wow , IPS useless ? Today's times ?
    Last edited: Jan 8, 2011
  15. Wile E

    Wile E Power User

    Joined:
    Oct 1, 2006
    Messages:
    24,324 (8.50/day)
    Thanks Received:
    3,777
    ms matters just a little. Anything under 5ms is pretty much a lie tho. Most modern Tn-Film and IPS monitors are not that bad. If you are really sensitive to lag, look for a nice 120Hz monitor. They usually fair better.

    And again, 75hz does not matter. Monitors that accept 75hz, still output at 60hz, and using 75hz actually CAUSES more lag, because more processing must be done for it to display properly.

    The 1920x1200 market is dying quickly. So you may have to spend more to get what you want.
  16. RuskiSnajper

    RuskiSnajper

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2009
    Messages:
    1,607 (0.81/day)
    Thanks Received:
    231
    Location:
    slovenia , europe
    The 1920x1200 market is dying quickly



    why?


    I don't need a larger screen , i have no place to put it and i don't even like anything above 26, PC , not a TV , this is close watching , like 1 m or so.

    You know what , it's all because of the stupid HDTV and Digital TV scam , this 1080p crap is a marketing ploy , this crap is only for consumers who think it's actually better , ofcourse , it all makes sense. TV standard is just eating everything , in the last years digitalization and everything has bring more noobs into the IT space , PC gamers didn't move to consoles , those are what noobs think , i will remember 2006 - [and how long it lasts] as the earths "great digital noob influx" , everybody's having a iPhone and a youtube channel posting some crap think he's some kind of PRO guy , they all fall for the marketing traps, 1080p series of standards have been made to tick the consumer into thinking it's new and better and HD ,... yeah it's better than CRTs , size of the tv and resolution never matters , it's all about the pixel size , performance , and colors. Most spects are dependant from these. How many times is pixel disameter even reported in specs sheet or manual ? .. small font if any.


    Also i found out , the reported resolutions that people talk about , is wrong contexts , someone said that he would like to see 3400x1600 on a 24'' monitor , ... that's wrong ,


    I don't know , is there any absolute measure of 1:1 accurate measurment how large actually OBJECTS inside the screen are , whole windows , that's the big question , this is a so confused market.

    When they make a 24'' inch monitor with 1920x1200 resolution while 26'' inch monitors also have the same , what do you get , well , that's the question , will objects look natively smaller in the 24'' monitor ? I have no answer for this , did no tests, this is not a simple thing, needs time to research.

    But what they do is interesting , need to get pixels smaller , and more denser , (closer together) , and that makes

    The resolution you end up , is the same , because of the same amount of pixels , the picture's smaller , but also more detailed = better looking.

    The most werid thing is , one thing that doesn't make sense to my explanations is the "absolute object size limit" * , a hole in my part of the big puzzle . It's "at which point will the objcets that windows makes stop shrinking with pixels size going down and being packed closer togeter" , because now , the resolution is taken out of context, it doesn't mean how large is the screen , it doesn't mean how much detail it is , and it doesn't mean how much is that transferred to SIZE(inch) or DETAIL(pixel density)

    I got so much in my head i would make total explanation with pics but that takes time (i think i understand pixel and resolution stuff , im just not a pro for the other stuff like WileE talked about, to actually find to buy something right for me.


    The pixel can get as small as you make them and there something like this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ferro_Liquid_Display

    Im going to use Pixel Density as the indicator of this interconnected trio "Larger the pixel density , more tightly closer together pixels need to be placed which means they also need to be smaller to fit them to certain pixel density".



    And here's something , exactly what im talking about http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dot_pitch#Common_dot_pitches_in_monitors
    Last edited: Jan 8, 2011
  17. Wile E

    Wile E Power User

    Joined:
    Oct 1, 2006
    Messages:
    24,324 (8.50/day)
    Thanks Received:
    3,777
    It's dying because people are seeing 1080p HD written everywhere, and automatically assume it's the best. That and I'm pretty sure the 1080p monitors are cheaper to make.
  18. digibucc

    digibucc

    Joined:
    May 21, 2009
    Messages:
    4,882 (2.57/day)
    Thanks Received:
    1,476
    yeah they are getting smaller, not larger. I got 1080p for videos but i sure do miss the vertical res when im coding, etc.
  19. Mussels

    Mussels Moderprator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Oct 6, 2004
    Messages:
    42,020 (11.71/day)
    Thanks Received:
    9,406
    1080p has advantages over 1200p.

    this thread is full of the forums 1200p die hards and thats what the OP asked for specifically, so i feel no need to list their flaws here.

    suffice to say: 1200p is dying because of those flaws. the 16:10 aspect ratio is dying.
  20. Frick

    Frick Fishfaced Nincompoop

    Joined:
    Feb 27, 2006
    Messages:
    10,436 (3.39/day)
    Thanks Received:
    2,118
    Um, can you at least post links to where we can read about it?
  21. IggSter

    IggSter

    Joined:
    Aug 24, 2007
    Messages:
    443 (0.17/day)
    Thanks Received:
    127
    Location:
    BY-S36

    The only reason 1200 is failing over 1080 is market size.

    1200 = PC standard (that only applys to a small percentage of enthusiast users)
    1080 = TV/Motion picture standard

    1200 will always be better on a PC and yet provided wasted space in a TV environment.

    So manufacturers (rather than having the expense of tooling up for 2 production lines) have gone down the 1080 route.

    In the future I fully expect that 1200 monitors will still be available but will be very expensive in comparison to 1080.

    With regard to LED/Tube lighting:

    I have 3 monitors 2 x 24" (one 1200 PVA/CCFL, one 1080 TA/LED) and 1 x 30 Dell IPS/CCFL.

    The LED (1080 TA panel) screen has only one benefit - low power. The colours are washed out, the whites are too white and have a blueish tinge and the contrast is just wrong (not even across the screen etc) - full stop (horrible screen imho)

    The CCFL (1200 PVA) screen is just wonderful - nothing more to be said really.

    The 30" screen sits somewhere between the other two with regard to the quality (nearer the 1200 standard)

    My choice if I was going to buy a 24" 1200 screen today:

    Dell UltraSharp U2410
    RuskiSnajper says thanks.
  22. RuskiSnajper

    RuskiSnajper

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2009
    Messages:
    1,607 (0.81/day)
    Thanks Received:
    231
    Location:
    slovenia , europe
    That's exactly what i was writing above , i deleted like 3 rants i made (edited the post above for some time , before i seen your reply ) , ive also seen some web froums , THE stupid TVs are taking over wiht this DTV scam and this 1080p marketing ploy , this is all a bunch of BS.

    1080 is nothing special , it's cheaper as i was just going to mention it , i don't know i write too much , i was going to write this but i was going to make a better example so deleted it.

    anyways recovered the text :
    For example , Resolution can be 9860x6920 , the one and only APPLE OMG9000 iZuper LCD PCX 150" , one would think that's PC LCD for your desk , come on , you won't get that into the house , that resolution doesn't mean anything at all , ... because it's probably a very large screen , infact , ive made my example 150'' haha , resolution seems high , the numbers only , people see it and think it's super cool , while the pixel density lower , which would mean cheaper to make them and they're selling for premium.



    disagreed , Wide format , i like 16:10 more than 10:9.

    Don't be a prick , you know 1080 sucks , it's only for TVs and not for PCs , PC monitors always displayed better than 1080, it just wasn't marketed.

    And 1080p standard is not a PC standard , any PC LCD with TV cards has these market FULL HD stickers on , yes , because it supports , but the whole monitor is a lot better than 1080p (example samsung T260HD)

    Look the standards table http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Display_resolution , it's just a name , just like federal reserve and federal express , they're as much as private as my "federal dog".

    P means nothing , progressive scan was always in PC LCDs ,

    And for the record , 1080p is just a name for 1920x1080 which is 16:9 which is the stupid TV wide format i don't like , because it looks like the bottom and top of the screen were cut out , it's just TOO wide.

    Be glad that we have """""" 1200p"""""" die hards , 16:10 FTW! (1200p doesn't exist , it's a PC standard and it's a simple resolution of 1920x1200 )

    1080p is made for TVs, it has the predetermined pixel density , predetermined SIGNAL quality (video quality) that matches it , some HDTVs might look better because they have larger pixel density than normal , if they're smaller they're look better , but larger HDTVs with large pixel density are very expensive of course , just like any LCD would.

    Fact is and Fact remains , 1080p is inferior to most of any PC monitor was able to deliver. Because 1080p is not a quality standard , it's a resolution standard and that doesn't mean anything alone.

    The larger the HDTV , the larger the optimal viewing distance is , because of larger pixels. makes total sense.


    And from wikipedia , yeah i know , but i agree.

    Televisions are of the following resolutions:

    * Standard-definition television (SDTV):
    o 480i (NTSC uses an analog system of 486i split into two interlaced fields of 243 lines)
    o 576i (PAL, 720×576 split into two interlaced fields of 288 lines)


    * Enhanced-definition television (EDTV):
    o 480p (720×480 progressive scan)
    o 576p (720×576 progressive scan)


    * High-definition television (HDTV):
    o 720p (1280×720 progressive scan)
    o 1080i (1920×1080 split into two interlaced fields of 540 lines)
    o 1080p (1920×1080 progressive scan)

    Computer monitors have higher resolutions than most televisions.



    The word Resolution , is taken out of context most of the time , it's mixing with TV standard , with small resolution (divided down to smaller numbers ) ... there's also some kind of "big" resolution that's like 24543x18598 ... which i don't recall at the moment. ...


    Brought me down to my LCD , 2006 , an old 1280x1024 , but still rocking hard, the example is , this monitor can perfectly and well enough display "1080p" (see the word confusion the marketing made , i mean "1080p video signal" , not the actual 1080p resolution standard) , natively , it will just be scaled down to fit into my monitor , but as far as QUALITY goes , this monitor (syncmaster940bf) is able to display much better quality , than whatever you get on TV. Resolution does NOT matter.



    Digital TV is used just to lock out programs and broke them down to packages , all of the stuff "no noise" , "faster switching" , "clearer picture" is all FAKE , my local ISP did this , and nothing's true.

    Analog was even better , when there was interrupt , you atleast got to hear and see the static low signal but your mind "filled" the "pixels" and "sound" so you would still understand and see what happened with more than half accuracy , but with DTV , you have total freeze and CUT.


    And you can play whatever video on whatever , you just wouldn't see the difference , you'll be limited by the screen capability.


    ANd wikipedia is not always true , sometimes the pupular stuff is wrong but the less popular stuff is actually written by PROs , i see some funny things like:

    People think 1080p is something SUPER HD BIG OMG , ... come on , just come on. ofcourse a freaking 40 GB Bluray can hold a 1080p movie , give me a break.

    haha lmao , ... what do i smell ... another marketing trick , burn the content as data for cry sakes. You can get ANYTHING on a Bluray , even DVD , ANYTHING , you're just limited by it's size. And if the video file takes 100 GB , you'll just have to split the video , ... WinRar :)

    There's too much of these examples to mention them all.


    EDIT:

    And this http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/mpmyth.htm
    Last edited: Jan 8, 2011
  23. Kwod New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 16, 2008
    Messages:
    548 (0.26/day)
    Thanks Received:
    45
    Location:
    Australia
    You guys need to get something into your heads, and that's HDTV's can utterly shat over the best PC LCD, mainly because of vastly superior panels and black levels, but image quality is also improved with SIZE, so despite owning a 26in 1920x1200 8 bit LCD, my 37in 1080p Samsung HDTV slays it for everything except sharp text, but that's monumentally overrated, as the most important aspects are visibility and readability.

    It's a shame many of the 26in 1080p HDTV's seem to have disappeared, as they'd make great PC monitors, though u need a game mode for gaming and some don't have them.
  24. Mussels

    Mussels Moderprator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Oct 6, 2004
    Messages:
    42,020 (11.71/day)
    Thanks Received:
    9,406
    thats simply not true.

    for one, TV screens can have IPS panels which only the most expensive TV's have (most use M/PVA panels)

    also, quality goes up with a bigger screen? since when is bigger pixels, better?
  25. Kwod New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 16, 2008
    Messages:
    548 (0.26/day)
    Thanks Received:
    45
    Location:
    Australia
    IPS panels have shit blacks, and most of the best HDTV's are M/PVA's....also, even at 1440x900, some of my games look better on my 37 than they do on my 26 due to superior panel and SIZE aka visible resolution.

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guest)

Share This Page