LCD Monitors, Are they good enough for Games (EQ)?

[Quiksilver Roxdasox]

I just got a new Sony HX73 LCD. Yes I know it is overpriced/not best on the market ETC but it was a gift. I am wondering about peoples opinions on these newer LCDs (this one is rated at 16ms response time) and their performance in EQ, Movies and FPS (where I am told they have the most problems though it seems fine in RTCW, it runs like shit in Halo).

Any input would be appreciated, thanks.

[ArchieTriton]

I have a Sony CPD-L181A, 18 inch, that is probably 2 years old now. Worked great with EverQuest as long as I ran it in the right resolutions.

[Vorph]

16ms screens like the Sonys and Hitachis are fine for games and movies now. Just make sure you use the DVI input and stick with 1280x1024 always.

It's not quite the same as a good crt, but the advantages of the lcd screens far outweigh the slight drawbacks (namely, dead pixel warranties, which are still a joke--one dead pixel in the middle of the screen that's locked on green will make a screen unbearable for anyone who isn't legally blind, but no one will let you RMA it for less than 8 pixels).

[Elaen--Emarr]

what are the advantages of an LCD screen?

[Furor Planedefiler]

a good LCD monitor that will work at 1600x1200 that doesn't cost 2k, LEMME KNOW. I simply refuse to get an LCD monitor because everything I've seen that isn't in some ridiculous price range will max out at 1280x1024, and for me, that just won't fly.

[Objector]

There is a great review of LCD's on Tomshardware.com about refresh time and how 16ms isn't really 16ms since they don't realy time it from full off to full on..as well as the fact that most LCD's have a slower color change time (red to blue) then on/off which is what the response time is.

Peace,
Objector

[Aluadan]

2001FP

Was on sale for around $750 sometime before christmas but still only $1,000 if you have money to toss away.

[Murr]

I got a NEC LCD1760NX-1 for Christmas (one of the 16ms ones) and it works great so far. DVI input really helps, too. Like the other 17", though, it maxes out at 1280, which is fine for me, but not for a lot of people.

[nadime]

I really like the new Dell 2000 series. I have a 2000FP, but the new 2001FP is unbelievable. 20 inches, 1600x1200 is its optimal resolution.

Refresh rate is nearly irrelevant when using digital input/output. I think they run around $800 now, check them out.

[Glaive]

I have the same monitor as Murr Durr and I agree, very nice performance.

[Regime]

I have a Samsung syncmaster 191t and it is really nice for mmorpgs.( heck even fps like bf1942, call of duty) I have had no complaints. If you ever find that CRTS are too dark or have bad vision like I do this bad boy is a dream come true.


peace

[Vorph]

I've never understood why you could get a 15" laptop screen nearly 2 years ago with fixed resolution of 1600x1200... but even today it's impossible to get a screen other than that 20.1" one and another 21.3" one (Sony, Dell, etc. don't make LCD screens, they buy the screen from someone else and put it in a case of their design) which do 1600x1200.

Just doesn't make any sense.

[Dexz]

Refresh Rates mean a hell of alot to many people. Especially those of us that play FPS games. Do some research before your open your pie hole and sound like an idiot. Now for people doing the day to day MS Word grind and tossing a few PP presentation together a 16ms or a 26ms refresh time will go unnoticed, take that 26ms refresh time and combine that with latency, reaction time and hardware lag and you have a hug diffrence in a FPS.

[Ritkhan]

NO! Recently i purchased one of the top 17" LCDs for games as suggested by many people on many forums. The Viewsonic VP171B. 16ms 500:1 Contrast, DVI, all the jazz.

These are my complaints

1) twice as expensive as a really good 19" CRT

2) ONLY ONE RESOLUTION! You cannot run this thing at anything but 1280x1024. I like variety and the option to switch to whatever rez i like for different things. Surfing, games etc. If you put the LCD to any rez outside it's native rez it will look like dog shit. Blurry, etc. This to me is a huge downside. Outweighs most advantages of the LCD.

3)Brightness. Whites are unbearable. It's like looking into the sun. I turned the brightness down to 0 and it's still too bright. I turned it down even further with the ATI control panel but then everything is too dark, but the white is still too bright. Just shitty

4) Colors suck in some games. Need for speed UG looks amazing, but Call of Duty looks like shit.

5) Reading off the screen gives me more of a headache then reading off my 19" CRT.

6) Poor FPS on games that would be better run at 1024x768.

Sure there are advantages over a CRT, but along with the disadvantages it becomes a wash. So then what is the point of spending extra money?

All in all i don't think LCDs are there yet. Maybe in another 2 years or so. Sure, the size is nice and they look phat. But other then that, it's just feels like a gimmick right now. I'm sure they're useful to some Japanese that has to live in a 100sqft apartment, but not to me, not at this time.

The only time i will buy an LCD is when it gives me the exact same quality as a CRT in a small package. Then it will be worth more money then a CRT. Currently i dont see how they are worth it.

[Taehoon]

LCD's are nice for 2d Window's desktop web-browsing and Office applications. For anything else, the price/performance ratio just isn't there yet, compared to a CRT of the same display size.

Another year and you'll start to see real consumer prices. Two years and CRT's will start to become a thing of the past.

Please just don't waste your money on undeserving technology. Help set a standard that technology must offer something before we purchase it.