Intel P4 vs AMD

Sophocles is that Veiw Sonic a LCD or CRT, iam running the VP201b LCD at 1600x1200 16ms and its a beautiful picture, games great also

 

theonejrs
here is a shot of my 8agp BFG 6800 ultra


i'm not to push this card i belieave for the value there are better cards. I just think some of the results on tom's hardware are off in real world settings

 

oh by the way my monitor is a old multisync lcd 1700v by nEC

 

I'm not after benchmarks for speed, but for image quality. I'm a little dubious about that. I've always assumed it true, not sure why but I have, and hence mostly had ATi cards, with the exception of the MX440. My G90f+/B is relatively small to be doing 2048x1536 and can look a bit blurred on the windows desktop at such a res, but generally during games etc. the picture is awesome.

 

aabbccdd

It's a CRT. Just copy the model number and google it. "Viewsonic P225f"

LCD's have improved but for picture editing quality, resolution, and latency CRT's still win. I've been preying for a 32 inch screen low latency LCD for some time but it hasn't arrived yet. It may be too late since LED monitors are showing great promise.

 

Yes I think CRT are the past and that LCD are now......Less space

 

tocool4u

Agreed but until the future gets its act together, the best quality still comes from a CRT. I just can't wait for a 32 inch flat screen monitor, I'd turn my little private room into a mini super theater. LOL

 

Well you can have a 32" flat screen monitor, trouble is it'll be 1366x768 and 16ms...

 

I'm hoping that in time that will change for the good. LED technology screens show promise for brightness and color and with no latency problems.

 

Trouble is, it's more expensive... again.

 

Sophocles,

Faster speeds are coming to LCDs. Right now there are several 4ms ones out there. Come Monday the 13th. I'm ordering the Sceptre Naga III which is a 20.1 widescreen that's 8ms. At first I was concerned about the "recomended" resolution, 1680x1050 as my video card won't do that. After contacting Sceptre, they assured me that it works just fine at 1280x1024 as well as 1024x768. They sent me this:Resolutions
Ultra High WSXGA+ 1680x1050/60Hz,
1280x720/60Hz, 1024x768/75Hz

By the way, the page color is the same for both AD and Hounds. I even tried 4 different monitors and it looks the same for both on each of them.

Happy Computering,

theonejrs

 

and Veiw Sonic has some LCDs that are down to 3ms

http://viewsonic.com/

 

aabbccdd,

I went to the Viewsonic site but the latest press release was for the introduction of 4ms monitors. Where did you get your information about 3ms? See this link: http://www.viewsonic.com/companyinfo/pressrelease_detail.cfm?key_press_release=774

theonejrs

 

actually there have one thats 2ms

http://www.viewsonic.com/products/desktopdisplays/lcddisplays/xseries/vx922/

 

I have seen somewhere that Viewsonic do 3ms monitors, that's a bit of an enigma really.

Theonejrs, the problem with LCD monitors is that they're pretty much resolution specific. You'd get a good picture on a 1280x1024 LCD at 1280x1024, but a very poor picture at ANY other resolution. Every single LCD screen I've ever used tells me this, and I've used a few, Sharp, Relisys, Acer, Benq, Hp etc. etc.
Your 20.1" 8ms, whilst impressive on paper will not give you anywhere near optimal image quality at 1280x1024. Whilst it will display the mode OK (and 8ms helps there) the contrast, image definition and colour is usually quite poor at that res on any 1050 widescreen monitor, THG tested about half a dozen a month or so back, and found that to be a common flaw.

 

they have 2ms monitors too
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produ...TR12=&ATTR13=&ATTR14=&ATTR15=&ATTR16=&ATTR17=

 

My friend just purchased that 2ms viewsonic and the resolution (we watched the latest Star Wars on his system after I put it together for him) and looked better than HD.

 

I'm a little leary of any low latency claims that are made regarding LCD/TFT monitors because in real world test they never meet the manufacturers claims. Tomshardware has demonstrated time and again that Latency claims varies depending on how monitors are tested. Another point that sammorris brought up is also the issue of resolution variation on LCD's. Like it or not that's going to continue to be a problem because the Pixels of LCD monitors are fixed onto the actual screen where as CRT screens are coated with non color specific phosphors.

On CRT's three color guns either fire through a little holes or a grid (shadow mask or Grill aperture} which separates the light into groups of beams that then strike the phosphorous coating on the screen which are then seen as pixels. This allows for great flexiblility when it comes to screen relolution and since we are dealing with the speed of light there are no issues with latency whatsoever. But because LCD pixels are fixed onto the screen, variations in resolution become difficult to account for. The choices are to either leave some pixels non illuminated to obtain a specific pixel count for a specific resolution which makes them effectively dead pixels for that resolution or what is actually being done, to have uneeded pixels illuminated which reduces the sharpness and resolution at any setting other than default. And latency will always be a problem because the pixels on LCD's are a kind of liguid substrate which requires a period of time for both illumination and decay.

I'm betting that LCD screens will fail to become fully mainstreamed and might very well be a deadend technology. LED flat screens although still using fixed pixels have a much better chance of succeeding. The will still be illuminated at the screen but since there are no liquid pixels involved latency will be improved and because they are LED's the contrast and luminance should be greatly improved but in the end if you buy a flat screen monitor that's rated for 1280 by 1024, then be prepared to use only that resolution.

 

Which is precisely why you should never buy a big LCD without a graphics card to match. If you buy a 1600x1200 20" LCD and want to play doom 3 with only an X600XT, it'll look very poor indeed at 1024x768, which is what you'll be limited to. Of course, big GPUs and big screens usually go hand in hand, but not always. 17/19" TFT PC deals with integrated graphics are the worst.

 

Sammorris, Sophocles and All,

The Sceptre Naga III has 3 Ultra High WSXGA (widescreen) settings. The afore mentioned 1680x1050/60Hz, 1280x720/60Hz and 1024x768/75Hz. According to Sceptre, their display is optomized for wide screen at all 3 of these settings and will show full screen coverage in any of them. LCD monitors I've seen in the past are like most laptops. Lower the screen resolution and they shrink the picture size on the screen, leaving blank space top, bottom and sides. Sort of like watching a widscreen DVD on a CRT.

The advertised latency and real world latency depend on the testing methods. Most are tested grey to grey, which is somewhat meaningless in a color world as the white to black latency is double that of the grey to grey. In other words if a LCD monitor is rated at 4ms grey to grey, then in truth it is really an 8ms display white to black! The contrast ratio has a lot to do with this as well because the higher the contrast ratio, the better the "percieved" performance is. The Naga III is rated at 800 to 1 so it's "percieved" performance should be better than say a 500 to 1. As I've stated in previous posts, I've seen the Naga III demoed and all 3 widescreen settings look great.

Being that I am ordering it from Newegg, If I don't like it, I can send it back!

Happy Computering,

theonejrs