LCD - please help me choose one

V

Vercogen

Expert Member
Joined
Mar 16, 2006
Messages
1,342
Reaction score
41
look which one has a better reponse time, compare that to the prices, and then make your choice.
 
Not sure what the prices are for those monitors are, but I have a 20" Apple Cinema Display and must recommend it to anyone looking for a good LCD
 
Before listening to jstike (even though the monitor he suggests is pretty awsome), it may not be for gaming, and might have a slow response time.

Its also really pricey. I have never known MAC to be anything special in gaming, so I would take a very careful look at its reponse times.
 
w1z4rd said:
look which one has a better reponse time, compare that to the prices, and then make your choice.
Click to expand...

The LG has a 2ms and the acer 4ms

It is so close that's why i'm bothered about the other specs as well.;)
 
Best to listen to w1z4d here. Last game I played was was in the mid 90's
 
The one with the faster response time is better for gaming...
Although with any response time equal to or lower than 8ms, you'll hardly notice the difference ;)
 
Peppercorns said:
The one with the faster response time is better for gaming...
Although with any response time equal to or lower than 8ms, you'll hardly notice the difference ;)
Click to expand...

Agreed!
If anyone can notice any difference between 8ms, 5ms, 4ms or 2ms, then I strongly suggest they investigate a career that utilises super-human-seeing-abilities.
Quite honestly IMO, save yourself some cash and get a quality 8ms screen.
IMO it's money down the toilet shelling out for ultra-fast response times.
 
I say anything lower than 16ms is good. Hmmm...someone who is not looking at getting a widescreen LCD, rare lol...seems everyone wants a widescreen these days

One thing you might want to note is the Acer has crystalbrite...if you gonna be doing office work i would recommend against it!
 
The LG 19" Ultra Slim. Model nr: L1970HR:
i have one at work it's a great lcd (never choose acer to many come backs)
 
Bottom Line:
With a super-fast pixel-response rating and a stylish design, the 19-inch LG L1970HR display works better for gaming than for lengthy Word docs.
Pros:
Lightning-fast pixel response. Bright, vivid colors. Great gaming performance.
Cons:
Weak grayscale performance. Has trouble displaying small text.

Source: PCmag.com
 
#1: response times nowadays are virtually meaningless. 99% of them are not correct (PR bullsheeeet) and they hardly ever tell you WHAT they are measuring...ie. GTG, average, best etc.
#2: better indications are brightness and contrast ratio, and better yet the panel type (PVA, IPS, S/M-PVA, S-IPS etc.)
#3: reviews are very useful, in particular the subjective parts, ie. how the LCD is in actual use as opposed to what the useless printed spec sheet it comes with tells you
#4: if you can, go to a shop/distributor/friend which has them and try them out...nothing worse than buying blind (literally!)
#5: DVI, DVI and DVI. I still don't see much point getting a digital display such as an LCD and using an analog signal. Even if you don't have DVI output now, rather have that option for futureproofing. That said though I see both your choices have them.

Oh, and if you use it purely for gaming and thus want that uber-low response time you can get a BenQ FP93GX monitor for around R2.8k which is also a 2ms rated monitor with good gaming reviews; as well as the Samsung 940BF which is very nice indeed IMO. Otherwise, I would opt for the LG for sure.

Oh an one last comment to bear in mind - I always try suggest going either for 17" or 20", not 19". The reason: 19" and 17" have the same native res....pixels are just larger in the 19". Once you jump to 20" (wide or not) it's another ballgame. Only around 7% more physical size, but around 35% more pixels! Makes a beeeg difference.

X
 
If you can swing a 21" then that is great too. Since there are so many more pixels, something like a 20.1" and 21" are very similar....you'll never tell a difference in pixel size (unlike 17" vs. 19" where it is noticeable). 22" is ok, but a bit of a stretch IMO....the next step up would be 23" or 24" which are generally always wide, where the res jumps up another notch to 1920x1200.

X
 
I see ur point about 17" and 19", and I've heard it before quite a few times,
..but from another point of view, If having to choose between a 17" and 19", I'll always get a 19", why? because I enjoy a bigger screen. (same no. of pixels or not, I don't care)
and anyway, the price difference btwn a 19" and a 20" is much bigger than between a 17" and 19".
So until I have saved up enough moola for a 20" or bigger, I'd rather have a 19", wouldn't you!?
Wow, I think I'm repeating myself! ;)
 
Hmmm....just a question,

Would there actually be a difference if you connected your LCD to your PC through DVI or analog? :confused:

Reason being, my LCD came with a DVI and an Analog port, but only came with the analog connecting wire. So i wanted to know if it would be worth going out and getting a DVI one, or if that would just be wasting my time.
 
I've just bought the Samsung 940BF, really good monitor (2ms). I have tried both thte DVI and analog, the diffrence in playing games and playing movies is minimal. However when i have visual studio open and spend hours debugging code, it does put a lot less strain on your eyes. The small letters are a bit clearer and sharper with the DVI connection.

As I said it's not a HUGE diffrence, but to put a bit less strain on your eyes is worth the R100 you'll spend on the cable.


Also remember to run in the recommended resolution.

I'm used to 1024x768, but this monitor is rated 1280x1024 ... the diffrence in quality is HUGE!!! ... 1024x768, very blurry text, 1280x1024 crystal clear!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top
Sign up to the MyBroadband newsletter
X