What Monitor?????

what monitor should i get im on a 160 uk budget and this is the one i am currently looking at:

http://www.samsung.com/us/consumer/deta ... 2TWHSUV/ZA

or this

http://uk.lge.com/products/model/detail ... 261v.jhtml

is it worth the cash?

LOL i answered on S-uk forums mate.

go for a samsung they make quality monitors and take the 20" one will yea

http://www.digitalversus.com/duels.php? ... =3448&ph=6

i found that what should i go for as im gonna try and order today

Yea Samsung all the way. I have 2 of them on my computer and I am very happy with both.

lg is ordered hopefully it will arrive tomorrow at work

Good luck with it.

i should hopefully get it tomorrow ill let you know how it goes tho i will be comparing it to the 17" CRT im currently using

The best monitor ever made, the Sony Trinitron CPDG520 21" CRT, I have one, running 1024x768@150hz, they're no longer sold anymore so you might be abel to buy one off ebay. LCD's are capped at 60hz, so you can only see 60fps, some you can change to a max of 75hz, so still only 75 fps, at 150hz it is so smooth it is just perfect, you can still focus on everything while turning etc, get one. One of the reasons why pro gamers like fatal1ty still use one.

Don't bother with that old crap 120Hz LCD monitors are available. There has already been 120Hz LCD TV available for a while due to 24FPS into 120Hz is a nice round number unlike 24FPS into 60Hz.

Samsung is widely regarded as the best monitor brand. They consistently get top reviews and editors choice awards by both users and consumer/PC mags.

Deathwish wrote:The best monitor ever made, the Sony Trinitron CPDG520 21" CRT.

While that is a good monitor, I'd take my sony fw-900 24' crt over that anyday. Widescreen 24" 1280x800 @ 140hz ftw

These 7 year old crt's still sell used for 500.00 + on ebay all the time, they cost 2000.00 new when they were made and are truly considered the "best" crt monitor ever made.

Ya nothing really beats the fw900, though if youre truly crazed for refresh there are some euro crts that can handle 200hz. Im running an old 19" crt atm, 848x480 @150hz, and its worlds better than any of the modern lcds ive tested. Being locked at one resolution and 60hz refresh (not to mention ghosting due to response time) is just far too much of a negative to make up for an lcds positive aspects (not that they appear to have any, with regards to gaming anyway).

Lcds that claim 75hz refresh are just adding 15 frames of nothing (black screen) to the 60 frames of actual image to achieve that effect, btw.

As down falls such as ghosting are mainly seen in cheap monitors by poor brands. Research should be done on monitor it self that your going to buy as most know your standard cheepy LCD perform very badly. Main issue is that it still fairly new tech and some manufactures do not know how to properly get the most out of it (crt have been around a long time allot of tunning went on in that time). That why most recommended Samsung as a tft monitor because they have been throwing allot of money at r&d so the screens they make have little flaws in it with very high quality results. Actual Samsung comes with software the sharpens up the colour and contrast almost as good as the crt.

As for the refresh rate I really don't think having a high frequency will make at all the difference as long as the monitor is no less than what your eye can see. I Don't think you will see much LCD screens with more than 60hz even though it is possible to achieve its just that there is little or no benefit from it and costumers couldn't care less only reason why its not a issue compared to crt is that it uses analogue signal and you needed the ability to change the frequency to work smoothly with your system. Where as latest LCD monitors work in digital where refresh rate has not much of a effect on how it performs (you should use the dvi connection btw for the best picture).

Only thing you got to look for is low response time, a good contrast ratio, a good company behind the product and personal user reviews on the product also order from someone with return policy. Where I bought mine it comes with a policy that replaces it in 2 days if it found to have leakage or dead picels not that I needed.

I really don't see point getting a crt any more I guess if you are pro gamer (which none of us here in this game are) then maybe then to stratify the paranoia. Thought the performance difference between them is closing fast and is likely the lcd will surpass it or even it self be replaced by even better display may be OLED.

Been playing with my lcd for some time now and @1680x1050 the game looks stunning the look of the monitor on my desk look great can plug in my ps3 and watch HD video what's not to love about it.

woot it just arrived cant wait to get home n plug it in now

SND wrote: As for the refresh rate I really don't think having a high frequency will make at all the difference as long as the monitor is no less than what your eye can see. I Don't think you will see much LCD screens with more than 60hz even though it is possible to achieve its just that there is little or no benefit from it and costumers couldn't care less only reason why its not a issue compared to crt is that it uses analogue signal and you needed the ability to change the frequency to work smoothly with your system. Where as latest LCD monitors work in digital where refresh rate has not much of a effect on how it performs (you should use the dvi connection btw for the best picture).

Heres an idea, 60hz + 300fps, your eye can only see 60 fps, 150hz + 300 fps, your eye can see 150fps, it is much more smoother especially when turning etc.

There is one Monitor folks should be gettin and is Awesome:

24inch HDMI 1080 Widescreen Gateway Monitor.

Lets face it: there is no reason to shoot for anything LESS!

What? 20 inch? Puhleeeez.

Check this thing out
Its frickin scary awesome
Put a HIDEF 1900/1400 pic on the desktop~!

Nice

Dont listen to REFRESH FREAKS!
They dont know what the fuck they are talking about.

LCDs do NOT refresh the entire screen like CRTS
They do not even refresh every pixel every time.

Those folks are BS!

3MS to 6 MS is good
Gray to Gray

Ohh i forgot. I have this Monitor.
Everyone has said " Damn, that is gorgeous!"
or "Damn that is a Valve game?!?!

Deathwish wrote:

SND wrote: As for the refresh rate I really don't think having a high frequency will make at all the difference as long as the monitor is no less than what your eye can see. I Don't think you will see much LCD screens with more than 60hz even though it is possible to achieve its just that there is little or no benefit from it and costumers couldn't care less only reason why its not a issue compared to crt is that it uses analogue signal and you needed the ability to change the frequency to work smoothly with your system. Where as latest LCD monitors work in digital where refresh rate has not much of a effect on how it performs (you should use the dvi connection btw for the best picture).

Heres an idea, 60hz + 300fps, your eye can only see 60 fps, 150hz + 300 fps, your eye can see 150fps, it is much more smoother especially when turning etc.

The human eye can not see 150fps that's my point why would a designer engineer make a LCD monitor that refresh more times than the eye can see it really would seem those extra refreshes become redundant being that you can not benefit from it, a complete waste money for manufacture process stand point but hey if peeps are willing to pay stupid money for it why not make and sell it.

The Argumentalizer wrote:Dont listen to REFRESH FREAKS!
They dont know what the fuck they are talking about.

LCDs do NOT refresh the entire screen like CRTS
They do not even refresh every pixel every time.

Those folks are BS!

All I can say about this is LMFAO and you have obviously never seen what the night and day difference looks like between the two. The fact you stated about lCD not refreshing every pixel everytime is in fact one of their biggest downfalls when it comes to gaming.

If you looked back at a picture I posted awhile back of my personal setup you saw a 24' samsung 1080 i monitor setting next to a Sony fw-900 24" crt. They both are connected to two different pc's and I can and have had dm running on both side by side for comparison, like I said the difference is night and day to my eyes and I will be using the crt. However the LCD is fine for what I'm doing now making this post, but Id never game on it.
If you really want to see something obvious, try running a game like Grid or some other racing game on that LCD, get your car up to top speed and start crying when you see your LCD tear all over the place.
Bottom line is LCD's are great for just about everything EXCEPT fast paced gaming.

I bet the CRT monitor counts for zero difference in play.

I bet you gain absolutely nothing with your CRT, although you think you do.

So, maybe that is important, that you THINK the CRT is giving you an extra kill or something.
I think my point still stands, CRTs and LCDs are COMPLETELY Different technologies and applying this REFRESH nonsense to LCDs is nonsense.

I have a Gateway 24 1080 and its gorgeous and plenty fast for gaming.

(Where does one even find a 24 inch CRT?)

yeah terrible same monitor as me w00t nice choice m8

Well, If you must have a CRT, you must. I am still going to endorse this Gateway. Its the nicest thing i have ever seen and the price was great.

I give it 5 stars

The Argumentalizer wrote:. I am still going to endorse this Gateway. Its the nicest thing i have ever seen

This phrase would be key and most likely explains your opinion on the matter.

Not trying to be rude or downplay the Gateway monitor, I'm sure it looks nice and performs well for a LCD, it is just not going to perform like a CRT when it comes to gaming.

I do not understand this "the eye can only see x FPS" what happens to the FPS over x do they just vanish?
The eye sees what it sees.

it means that if the eye could only see up to 70 fps you wouldnt see the difference in gameplay from 100 fps

keefy wrote:I do not understand this "the eye can only see x FPS" what happens to the FPS over x do they just vanish?
The eye sees what it sees.

It's complete bs and a common internet myth..

Why don't you save up for a Samsung 2233rz? If I had the dough I wouldn't hesitate!

http://hardforum.com/showthread.php?t=1387713

For the longest time I used a 19" CRT @ 75 Hz that had been slowly crapping out. Now I game on a BenQ G2400WD. I would've gone with another CRT except that I'm tired of lugging a decently large CRT to Quakecon every year.

So when I decided to go with an LCD, it had to have low input lag. I went with the G2400WD, with an average lag about 8 ms. Going from 75 Hz on my CRT to 60 Hz was kind of a rough adjustment at first, but was still very playable. (Yes, refresh rate does matter on LCDs - on a 60 Hz panel, each pixel can physically change color only 60 times every second, and never more. Except for some ancient models, CRTs aren't limited to 60 Hz, nor do CRTs have any human-observable input lag.)

For kicks, when I bought a HDTV, I hooked my PC up to it and tried to play HL2DM on it... Pixel response was good, but the input lag was AWFUL, averaging about 35ish ms, I just could not play on it. That might be alright for slower-paced games or movies, but totally unacceptable for DM.

L2k wrote:

keefy wrote:I do not understand this "the eye can only see x FPS" what happens to the FPS over x do they just vanish?
The eye sees what it sees.

It's complete bs and a common internet myth..

http://www.100fps.com/how_many_frames_c ... ns_see.htm

How many frames per second is Real Life?

my eyes see 10,000,000 fps... don't believe me? prove me wrong!

Holy shit at Keef's sig.

yeah keefy is that from pro the other night?

Fun Fact: 3 out of 4 CAL 1v1 Champions used a CRT!

Ko-Tao wrote:Fun Fact: 3 out of 4 CAL 1v1 Champions used a CRT!

What did A Seagull use?

Jelly Fox wrote:

Ko-Tao wrote:Fun Fact: 3 out of 4 CAL 1v1 Champions used a CRT!

What did A Seagull use?

Discarded feathers

Jelly Fox wrote:

Ko-Tao wrote:Fun Fact: 3 out of 4 CAL 1v1 Champions used a CRT!

What did A Seagull use?

CRT

Jelly Fox wrote:my eyes see 10,000,000 fps... don't believe me? prove me wrong!

Your eyes don't view frames. They work continuously.

L2k wrote:

Deathwish wrote:The best monitor ever made, the Sony Trinitron CPDG520 21" CRT.

While that is a good monitor, I'd take my sony fw-900 24' crt over that anyday. Widescreen 24" 1280x800 @ 140hz ftw

These 7 year old crt's still sell used for 500.00 + on ebay all the time, they cost 2000.00 new when they were made and are truly considered the "best" crt monitor ever made.

found it for 2 bills on craigslist.

I don't know im still not convinced even tho it can't be proven but my head telling me there got to be a limit to how many fps you need displaced to get a smooth moving image for you mind to track. Like in web design in flash we are told that 24-30 fps is all you need for a smooth animation heck most console games render at that level and they look damn smooth and yes I know a pc renders out at 30 it looks laggy. What I am saying is you don't need a monitor at a high refresh rate for smooth images I doubt it makes that big of a difference.

Also most new LCD monitors have got a heck better than they where at 2007 which I think that Samsung model l2k noted as a example.

You can be good on a lcd I know a allot a good players that use them im just not totally convinced CRT holds that much of a advantage over LCD.

The Argumentalizer wrote:

Jelly Fox wrote:my eyes see 10,000,000 fps... don't believe me? prove me wrong!

Your eyes don't view frames. They work continuously.

They're my eyes, I'll decide what they do and don't

Jelly Fox wrote:

The Argumentalizer wrote:

Jelly Fox wrote:my eyes see 10,000,000 fps... don't believe me? prove me wrong!

Your eyes don't view frames. They work continuously.

They're my eyes, I'll decide what they do and don't

Well, actually, since you're the one making the claim I believe the proof of burden lies with you

But I'd say you're correct, technically speaking. The question, rather, would be if your eyes can transmit any signals distinguishable from, say, 10,000 fps for your brain to process.

I remember reading somewhere that the human nervous system is quite slow in the transmitting of signals ( compared to electrical signals ) .

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/HB ... ecell.html

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/HB ... ll.html#c2

this applies to the optic nerve as well

here is 2 shots of the setup with the new monitor

SND wrote:I don't know im still not convinced even tho it can't be proven but my head telling me there got to be a limit to how many fps you need displaced to get a smooth moving image for you mind to track. Like in web design in flash we are told that 24-30 fps is all you need for a smooth animation heck most console games render at that level and they look damn smooth and yes I know a pc renders out at 30 it looks laggy.

I think the fact that people typically sit so much closer to their computer monitors than their TVs explains it. Peoples' peripheral vision is far more sensitive to motion than the area surrounding their direct line of sight. If you sit close enough to your TV that the image starts intruding into your peripheral vision, 30 Hz doesn't seem quite so smooth anymore.

SND wrote:You can be good on a lcd I know a allot a good players that use them im just not totally convinced CRT holds that much of a advantage over LCD.

The big CRT advantage is 0 input lag. Most LCDs have bad lag, where all CRTs have none. Good response times aren't really useful if the whole display is several frames behind the video signal.

That said, I love my LCD

SND wrote:

Deathwish wrote:

SND wrote: As for the refresh rate I really don't think having a high frequency will make at all the difference as long as the monitor is no less than what your eye can see. I Don't think you will see much LCD screens with more than 60hz even though it is possible to achieve its just that there is little or no benefit from it and costumers couldn't care less only reason why its not a issue compared to crt is that it uses analogue signal and you needed the ability to change the frequency to work smoothly with your system. Where as latest LCD monitors work in digital where refresh rate has not much of a effect on how it performs (you should use the dvi connection btw for the best picture).

Heres an idea, 60hz + 300fps, your eye can only see 60 fps, 150hz + 300 fps, your eye can see 150fps, it is much more smoother especially when turning etc.

The human eye can not see 150fps that's my point why would a designer engineer make a LCD monitor that refresh more times than the eye can see it really would seem those extra refreshes become redundant being that you can not benefit from it, a complete waste money for manufacture process stand point but hey if peeps are willing to pay stupid money for it why not make and sell it.

Well I must be a super human being then because I can tell the difference, my eyes are apparently far superior than anyone elses along with those others who use CRT's that can support very high refresh rates like fatal1ty etc.

The Resident wrote:The big CRT advantage is 0 input lag. Most LCDs have bad lag, where all CRTs have none. Good response times aren't really useful if the whole display is several frames behind the video signal

Depends on what you mean by "bad lag", but most TN panels (that's most cheaper LCD's) aren't that bad. My Samsung T220 lies about 10-15 ms behind and I believe this is a pretty common value for modern TN-panels.

Also, a good response time would matter anyway, since they both add up to the overall experience.

Overall, I think you guys are simplifying the matter at hand. A refresh rate of 120Hz on a LCD almost never means that the whole screen has done a total refresh in 1/120th of a second. On the contrary, there are residual artifacts that will contribute to a different experience. E.g., it takes some additional time for a pixel to switch off, giving you what is perceived as trailing when images move across the screen.

What I'm trying to say is, a particular refresh rate of a monitor doesn't mean that you will see a new and perfect image each cycle. So in the real world we will need a higher refresh rate than what a theoretical would suggest is needed for a smooth experience. It's almost always more complex than you first think.

That being said, people apparently are seeing a huge difference between 60Hz and 120Hz LCD's. To the point where they are prepared to abandon their old high-end CRT's.

well I have read a bunch of shifty things about 120 hz lcd's and from what I can gather it seems the manufacturers are trying to pull some tricks to achieve what they claim to be 120 hz. That being said I personally have not tested a 120 hz lcd and therefore can't say for sure, but for now I will continue to enjoy my 140hz crt till that time comes.

I did a bit of research since I love to learn how bits of tech worked and from what I gather 120Hz LCD monitor would be better and also I believe some of us have missed interpret in what way it is smoother than 60Hz. Also they should be able to achieve higher frequency because much larger HD tv run around as large as 200Hz and usually the tech from there trickles down to the monitors they make. Also keep in mind LCD and CRT and completely different animals on how frequency effects them in different ways.

Here an article I picked up
http://www.hdtvtest.co.uk/news/100120-h ... 042354.htm
mainly to do with HD tvs but it explains it with flash animations also keep in mind these larger LCD they are talking about so response time will be big. For a LCD it is good to go for 2-5ms since that removes some of the ghosting they talked about also I believe this removes tearing effect since tearing is to do with data being buffered on the monitor.

On 120hz I say they still tinkering with it most manufactures that have made them have not got it working perfectly but http://reviews.cnet.com/lcd-monitors/sa ... =mncol;txt this seem very good 120hz monitor to get if you had the cash.

I guess if your really fussy about motion then CRT might be worth getting or keeping. But for everyday use and practicability LCD wins reasons why CRT incorporates a shadow mask which restricts the maximum possible resolution to less than attainable on the equivalent-sized LCD panel. A critical issue for High Definition work. Also LCD more stable and accurate display because of fix pixel image production where as CRT are a vacuum technology precision is less obtainable. CRT build pictures by scanning which are know for flicker. LCD no shiny glass for reflections and better colour and contrast definition. It does not take up a ton of space on the desk and looks good as well.

So I am happy with my LCD it working charm and have seen nothing wrong with it.

SND wrote:On 120hz I say they still tinkering with it most manufactures that have made them have not got it working perfectly but http://reviews.cnet.com/lcd-monitors/sa ... =mncol;txt this seem very good 120hz monitor to get if you had the cash.

Yeah, the 2233rz is the one I mentioned in a previous post. Would get it if it wasn't for a bunch of other things I'm planning on getting first.