Hey guys, sorry if this is the wrong category for this, but I don't know where to post this topic. Anyways I've been using a Viewsonic G773-2 CRT up until now and I was looking to switch to an LCD one. Now I did a bit of looking around both online and in local stores, and I've narrowed the list down to these: - Viewsonic VX922 (2ms) - LG 1952T/TX (does anyone know the difference between the T & TX?) (8ms) - Samsung 931BF/940BF (2ms) I chose the Viewsonic because the CRT I have has always been good and because the review said it was great for games. The LG has a high contrast ratio (1600:1) and I hear good stuff about it. And the Samsung I saw in store and looked very nice, and it claims to have a 2000:1 contrast ratio as well. Oh and does anyone know what the difference between the 231BF and the 240BF is? What I use my computer for most is tied between games and video, then internet/school work, then photo editing. Based on all these things, which one should I get? The Viewsonic and Samsung are both $299 and the LG is $279 so price isn't really an issue either. Any help would be appreciated!
Go Widescreen instead or, you'll hate yourself later! http://reviews.cnet.com/Dell_2005FPW/4505-3174_7-31232082.html
I say Viewsonic but I am biased (I only recommend Viewsonic). Samsung and LG are low end manufacturers (or value if you want). I like the tag for that Viewsonic LCD too (just about sums it up). "It's not just an Xtreme LCD. It's a ViewSonic."
Just remember, there are only a handful of LCD factories in the world. Like automotive batteries and laundry detergents, many are made under the same roof and distributed to end manufacturers who then finish the product with their name on it. ********* Don’t get caught up in logos and pay way too much!********** Compare specs (contrast, response time, etc.), then look at the different ports available on the unit and finally, a bezel design that suits your tastes and needs. For instance, does it tilt, rotate and elevate to your comfort level. Does it have additional USB ports for easy remote access for cameras and such? What inputs are available? VGA, DVI, S-VIDEO, COMPONENT….or, do you or will you need these now or in the future. Can the naked eye really see a difference between a 12ms or 8ms response time, much less 2ms? Yes, for heavy gaming, IMO 12ms is the benchmark for performance. Anything lower sounds good for bragging (mine’s quicker than yours) but, is usually wasted money. Make a smart choice and go Widescreen. Good Luck!
I already considered all those things. Based on everything I was looking for, those 3 are the ones I was choosing between. And it's not just about the difference in ms, it's just that those seem good for gaming based on reviews I've read. Also, no thanks to widescreen. Not every game supports widescreen, and doing so would only make my games run slower as I'd have to use a higher resolution. Besides, I've yet to read about any widescreen monitor that outperforms a normal screen when it comes to performance about games anyways.
No, I’d have to disagree. Do the math and you’ll see that a true comparison of resolution between a 4:3 and a 16:9 results in the widescreen having less, not more, pixels displayed. For example: a 20” WS resolution of 1680 x 1050=1.764 million pixels but, a 20” 4:3 resolution of 1600 x 1200 = 1.92 million pixels. If a game doesn’t support WS, it’s most likely outdated and not worth playing anyway. Gaming aside, you’ll find that your production level dealing with photo editing, internet/schoolwork, etc., will be greatly increased with the ease you’ll find in working on a WS. If the Brand and Specifications are the same on both the 4:3 and the 16:9, then of course, you wouldn’t be able to find a review stating better performance. It’s not about performance; it’s about new technology versus old. Why buy a cassette tape when a CD is available? Brand loyalty can be a good thing, or not. A very common scenario is to have a good product and rep. sold off to another which then uses that name and rep. to market junk. And LG is one of the larger manufacturers of LCDs that are also sold under various other brand names. Sorry, I wasn’t trying to Dis the choices you’ve narrowed down to. Just suggesting you look at the same model in a WS version.
I realize you weren't trying to insult the choices I made, I wasn't offended, but I'm just not interested in widescreen. While I realize it might be easier for stuff like work and movies, when it comes to games it might not be supported, or the performance wouldn't be that great. Half my computer use is games so I can't just taking gaming aside.
Cool, I understand. It's a long term item purchase and about 70% of my clients say, “Man, I wish I would have gotten a WS!” Wow, 2000:1. I’ve never tried Gaming on that! Would the difference be dramatically noticeable in the game? Or would it be on things like photos, HD broadcast, etc.?
Well it DOES look very nice. The only thing I'd want more out of a monitor would be a glossy screen, like NEC, Sony, etc. I don't understand why the Samsung doesn't have one either, since Samsung builds some nice Apple ones I've seen that are glossy. Anyways, I've got a friend who has a widescreen and I don't like how some of his games are played with black bars on the side. It's like letterbox... on the side. =\
@HeyYoWL...We have an HD Display forum which is something of a misnomer; it was only recently changed to that from the "displays" forum. There is a great deal of information there but you might also want to talk to "Ced" who lurks about there; his usename is "Diabolos" and you'll see many posts and replies from him. I certainly mean no offense to anyone who has answered here but Ced is so knowledgable in this field that most guys can learn a lot from him one way or another. Just my two cents...Gerry1
