LCD - good enough for gaming?

Status
Not open for further replies.
A friend of mine just asked me to suggest a new monitor for a mid-range gaming rig, with no preference for CRT or LCD, but I immediately suggested CRT for it's better resolution and non-ghosting performance. However, given the vast number of LCDs now being sold and the smaller number of more specialised CRTs, I was wondering if people can share their experiences of today's "fast response" LCDs for gaming. Are they really fast enough to prevent the ghosting that plagues previous generations? Are LCD ready for serious gaming use?
 
Bouncing Zabaglione Bros. said:
A friend of mine just asked me to suggest a new monitor for a mid-range gaming rig, with no preference for CRT or LCD, but I immediately suggested CRT for it's better resolution and non-ghosting performance. However, given the vast number of LCDs now being sold and the smaller number of more specialised CRTs, I was wondering if people can share their experiences of today's "fast response" LCDs for gaming. Are they really fast enough to prevent the ghosting that plagues previous generations? Are LCD ready for serious gaming use?


yes LCDs are ready for gamers, no blacks are still not extremely black, but from my use i can hardly complain. Doom3 and Quake 4 and FEAR were plenty dark. Its getting down to nit-picking. LCDs havent had problems with ghosting in a long time, people confuse the term alot. Some still have problems with image streaking which is an entirely different issue.

Anyway, i'd suggest what i have been using for quite awhile now, and have had great success with. I have zero artifacts or visual problems caused by the display before you ask. Make sure he uses a DVI hook up. Note also that the following monitor is not the best for watching movies, but for gaming its top notch, especially for the price.

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.asp?Item=N82E16824179014
review:
http://www.mistix.co.uk/review.php?id=25&page=1
http://www.tomshardware.com/2005/02/15/8ms_19/page13.html

In the final analysis, what should you conclude from this article? One thing is for sure - the new generation of 8 ms panels has finally combined a quality static image with good responsiveness. The three models tested here are about even in terms of reactivity, color fidelity... and also, unfortunately, in terms of the quality of their DVD rendering. If you want to screen movies, you should fall back on the 12 ms models we've already tested. These monitors were already excellent for gaming. The 8ms ones are a notch above them in that area, but they're less flexible for a variety of uses.

If you're a hard-core gamer, you can choose one of these three models and you won't be disappointed. So far, these panels are the fastest ever tested at Tom's Hardware. As the BenQ monitor will not be sold in the US (according to BenQ's sales office) we make the L90D+ our reference monitor as far as reactivity is concerned. It also offers more advanced ergonomic features than its competitor, while other brands are still lagging behind in offering their 8 ms displays. Thus, the Hyundai L90D+ gets our Editor's Choice award
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Bouncing Zabaglione Bros. said:
A friend of mine just asked me to suggest a new monitor for a mid-range gaming rig, with no preference for CRT or LCD, but I immediately suggested CRT for it's better resolution and non-ghosting performance. However, given the vast number of LCDs now being sold and the smaller number of more specialised CRTs, I was wondering if people can share their experiences of today's "fast response" LCDs for gaming. Are they really fast enough to prevent the ghosting that plagues previous generations? Are LCD ready for serious gaming use?

If he's gonna use the monitor, then maybe it's better if he checks the options out and chooses accordingly. People can be more or less prone to flaws that LCDs have and flaws that CRTs have. Some people can't get over LCD's flaws and choose CRT, and some can't get over CRT's shortcomings and choose LCD.
I don't think it's a good idea to choose for him, unless he has no idea what to look for.
If he's clueless and knows nothing about all the above, then i guess the cheaper but still acceptable option will do for him. ;)

In my experience, my new 1368*768 LCD TV has a quoted 12ms response time (or 8ms, can't remember), which means very little since real performance has nothing to do with what the manufacturers put in the specs, but in all honesty, Half Life 2 looks bloody amazing on it and there is no ghosting to complain about. I'm sure some real geek would find the set has "horrible" ghosting but what can i say, i can't seem to find any, or enough to annoy me.
 
LCDs offer perfect image quality bar none.
I will never use a CRT again.

There is absolutely no reason not to use an LCD for gaming or watching movies.
 
Having seen Samsung 930BF in action in a 3D first person shooter I'd say no, not for this genre. Well not yet anyway. However if you play abit slower paced games and is not that keen eyed I'd say they're ok. Afterall they are alot nicer to your eyes.

EDIT: Maybe needs to be said that I prefer LCDs.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
started gaming on my laptop (ACER 1694wlmi X700 15'4" lcd) recently.... i was amazed how the LCD responded to games. just awesome. COD2, Battlefield2 etc...

last time i gamed in a LCD, it was 2years ago and it was a nightmare, so 2 years later i am surprised to know that LCD's (in laptops at least) have evolved to this point

(and surprisingly, my mobile X700 is faster than my ultra Oced-9800XT by a long shot)
 
It is unfortuanately a personal issue. For example I can clearly see ghosting on my 2005fpw that has a 16ms response time. But it is not super annoying like it was on a 20ms display. I can live with it and choose too rather than have my 21" CRT behemoth.

I believe the color fideltiy of the 8ms displays is worse though as well is this true?

Anyway the best solution is to see if you can get him to actually look at a display and see if he cares. I am very sensitive to ghosting, as in I detect it easily, but I am not nearly as sensitive to most of the AA, AF IQ issues touted here, that is the honest truth and I don't really know why.


I would say that for most folks though an LCD will be plenty good now for gaming and the 17-19" range have good choices available.
 
I swapped a few months ago from twin Sony F520 21" CRTs to a single Dell 2405FPW because I couldn't justify the space the CRTs took when we need more space for a baby due this April.

I loved the Sonys (I still have them in storage), but I don't regret the change. I am not disturbed by any ghosting and I can run my games at the monitor's native resolution. I am missing 1300 pixels of horizontal resolution on the desktop in 2D, but that is compensated by the lack of a wide bar in the middle and use of desktop grids and multiple desktops.
 
Unless you're a videophile get the LCD.
Since I am, I won't use an LCD before two things happen.
Scaling gets better and they're LED backlit.
 
You know the 2005fpw I got has a really uniform backlight. I turned out the lights on a black screen to see and it looked almost perfect. I am very impressed with the display overall to be honest. I am not sure if they have improved them or what, b/c previous reviews did show uneven backlighting.
 
This is supposed to be a midrange rig, so I'm not going to persuade him to spend a vast amount of cash on the high end LCDs.

I've been looking around and reading the reviews, and LCDs all seem to have a big issue with one thing or another, and even the better models don't seem to get a concensus from the reviewers.

Unfortunately my friend has left the choice completely up to me, and claims not to have a preference. I know that if I was buying a new monitor for myself, I don't think I could live with LCD, or pay the high price to get one I would find acceptable. CRTs still look attractive for the price, and they don't have many of the LCD issues, but the choice is so much smaller now. Even big monitor companies like LG that have CRTs on their worldwide website don't seem to be selling them any more in the UK.
 
It's my impression that ghosting is mostly a "solved problem" for decent, recent model lcd's. The remaining issues are image quality (namely, black level and color fidelity) and, much more importantly for a gamer, fixed resolution.

One thing I don't want to give up is ability to switch resolutions without scaling problems.

But lcd's have come a long way.
 
It is unfortuanately a personal issue. For example I can clearly see ghosting on my 2005fpw that has a 16ms response time. But it is not super annoying like it was on a 20ms display. I can live with it and choose too rather than have my 21" CRT behemoth.

True.
 
Here are some tests you can do at the store if they have LCD panels hooked up to computers- whether or not the results concern you or not is entirely up to your own tastes:

•Open an explorer window- hopefully, the choice of desktop image is such that the explorer window stands out color-wise

•Now use the mouse cursor to drag the title bar of the window in tight circles and slow to medium pans across the width of the screen

•Follow the movement of the window with your eyes

•Do you see a subtle trail that follows behind the sharp border of the window as it moves? You may also see a shift in color along the moving border, as well.

•Now follow the movement of the text in the title bar as you move the window- does the text stay sharp, focused, and legible or does it collapse into a blur once you exceed a certain speed of motion? This is essentially testing the ability to maintain screen detail under motion.

•An alternative to the moving explorer window is if there happens to be a screensaver mode with long sweeping and predictable motion. Watch the detail of things in motion- especially the leading and trailing edges of the object.

If you do the same tests on a CRT nearby, you will strain to see any trail in the wake of moving window border, and text will remain rock solid clear under motion, within the realm of what is capable by the Windows screen rendering mechanism. You will (or should?) find that any LCD panel you try will fall down on these tests. It doesn't matter if it is 21, 16, or a blistering 8 ms panel. The LCD panel will show the artifact and the CRT will not. The very notion that the "8 ms" rating of the LCD panel should theoretically make it twice as fast as a typical CRT, yet cannot skirt the artifact test should tell you (or at least suggest?) how very little the transient response ratings are worth when they are spec'd for LCD's. They may be useful when judging amongst LCD panels, but are utterly meaningless when compared to "typical 16+ ms" CRT devices. When they say "16-20 ms" for a CRT, they mean it actually performs in that range. When they say "16 ms" for LCD panels, it is the best value from a specific shade to another shade, and all other shade transitions get considerably worse as you move away from that "best shade" figure. Worst case values for LCD's could fall as far out as 30-40 ms, even though it is rated at "16".

Now, my saying this is not to tell you to buy one or the other- just to give you another tool to play with in your own personal shopping evaluations of in-store demos. As prefaced at the beginning, the effects you see may or may not be important to you. Maybe you don't see the artifact behavior as having any relevant impact to the way you plan to use your display. Maybe it will irk you on principle that displays that perform like this can be brazenly spec'd as "8 ms", for the sake of all that is good in this world. Maybe it will be an interesting thing to make note of, but generally inconsequential in the big scope of things. Maybe you find that this "test" is rather contrived compared to actual useage patterns, but do note that, deductively, the artifact behavior will present itself under any other motion conditions that you will encounter in normal use that happen to be very similar to the test conditions, not just the test condition itself. It will affect everyone differently based on what is important to them.

I only bring this issue up, simply to bring attention to its existence. If an LCD panel will suit your needs, then it suits your needs, and I say more power to you. ;)
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I'm currently using a 19" LCD, Hyundai L90D+, and I think it's far far better than my old LG 19" L900FP CRT Monitor. Colors, crispness, everything. Blacks are blacks, and whites are whites.
 
here is my experience

http://www.elitebastards.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=12188

that was first bit, but to confirm now

Blacks on that monitor are great, colors are great (now :mrgreen: ) and no ghosting for any game.

Quake 4 on it is great, as are other games. It is brilliant, but I had a hard time to configure the colors and brightness levels at first.

Its Samsung 193p+ - the 8ms successor to 193p & it's a PVA panel not TN (better color range, and larger view angles, here is another pretty good review).
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Thanks for all the help guys. The suggestions, experiences and links have proved most useful, and I've learned a lot. I'll have a chat with my friend to lay out the state of play and suggest he goes and have a look at some LCDs to see if he prefers one of those.

Given he wants to keep the budget down and won't like dead pixels or interpolation (a mid-range gaming machine may not be able to keep up with a fixed resolution), I'll be recommending a good flatscreen CRT (there are still some about) for less money without any of these issues for him to deal with (or call me about!).
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top