Intel P4 vs AMD

Not strictly true. Whilst the screen can be easily automatically adjusted so the picture fills the screen, the image quality will be far better at 1680x1050 than any of the other resolutions due to the fixed pixel size. Unfortunately you can't get away from the laws of physics, no matter how optimised something is.

 

theonejrs

I have two dual LCD monitor setups, one for my main PC and one for my wife's. My test bench has just one LCD monitor with my 2.26 Intel setup. I love the duals because of the options it gives you, moving different jobs to individual screens, mail on one, browsing on the other or just opening dual browsers, one on each. I'm sure you get the picture. If you do decide to send back the 20.1 I would suggest trying a dual LCD setup and also recommend using Ultramon along with it. I've given away my 17" Sony CRT .25 long ago, (original price $800,) about the same time XP came out and haven't looked back since.

Good luck with your purchase and with whatever your final decision will be once you test your new setup. <G>

 

Which doesn't change anything that I previously posted because it still results in a degraded picture quality outside of its native reslolution. Those extra pixels at lower resoltions don't disappear so something has to be done with them and the result is that some pixels for certain resolutions are used more than once which results in the use of redundant pixels, which further results in color bleeding. You will also note the poor refresh rates that you posted. Here are the refresh rates for my monitor.

 

I can't quite match those but to my knowledge:

2048x1536, 1920x1440, 1920x1200, 1920x1080, 1856x1392, 1800x1440, 1792x1344: 60Hz
1600x1200, 1680x1050: 75Hz
1280x1024, 1280x960, 1280x768, 1152x864: 85Hz
1024x768, 800x600, 640x480, 512x384, 320x240: 100Hz (I think, I don't often use these)

 

my refresh rate with my 20.1 inch LCD is 75Hz max.

 

I'm using 1600X1200 at 85 Hz refresh because that's all that my card will allow. Anyting under 75Hz is asking for eye fatique. a refresh rate of 65hz is unacceptable but 60 Hz is just horrid and unthinkable.

 

And yet we watch TV at 25Hz (well you at 30HZ).
Strange.

 

sammorris

Video frame rates and refresh rates aren't quite the same thing. Older TV's had a refresh rate of about 50 Hz but most modern TV's have refresh of about 100 Hz. With refresh rates you are looking at the same still picture being redrawn as many times per second at your refresh rate but with Video you are looking at 25 or 30 frames per second with every frame being different.

 

Sophocles i can uncheck the box that says "hide modes that this montior cannot display" and get a higher refresh rate but thats probably not a good idea is it

 

sammoris

Here's an explanation for TV's I copied from a site that explains how it works.

It's a little date but it makes the point.


aabbccdd

You don't want to do that unless you're prepared to buy a new monitor and the figures listed are usually what your card can't reproduce.

 

Sammorris,

While we do watch TV at 30Hz, it's interlaced to give an apparent 60Hz. On glass tubes and almost all Projection units, phosphor persistance smooths out most of the rough spots. when I was in England a few years ago, one of the things I noticed with their TVs was that it had an annoying little flicker that you could see when you turned your head to one side. I assume that this is caused by the 50Hz current and the 50Hz (25Hz x 2) interlaced picture.

I have found only one LCD widescreen monitor with a recomended resolution of 1280x1024.
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.asp?Item=N82E16824008036
It's maximum resolution is 1680x1050 but the recomended resolution is 1280x1024. The contrast ratio is 600 to 1. Should I consider this one instead of the Sceptre?

Happy Computering,

theonejrs

 

theonejrs


TV refreshes are much better than 60 Hz now, most new quality TV's use digital technology which increases the refresh to 100 Mhz or more than three times per frame and interlacing is replaced by progressive scan which results in less flicker than interlacing does. Movies amkers only film at 24 frames per second which means that they have to become telecined in order for them to play back at 30 frames per second on NTSC TV's. But unlike single frame refresh rates video frames change the view 30 times per second.

If you want to know more about video then go to this thread and read as much as you can handle.

http://forums.afterdawn.com/thread_view.cfm/97052

 

Hmmm, I might pass for a bit, I struggle to keep up with these two threads being a very busy person...

I know that refresh and frame rate are different things, and the key issue is latency. They're all reasons for sticking to my CRT for the moment, plus of course the 1920x1440 or 2048x1536. The latter only appears when you uncheck "hide modes this screen cannot display". It works, but then my last monitor that could do that failed rather abruptly, so one wonders whether I should stick to 1920x1440.

 

My 17" Princetons are recommended at 1280x1024 but I have them set at 1024x768 @ 75Hertz. The color and clarity are just fine. You guys must have some terrific eyes viewing your screens at 1920x1440 or 1600 x 1200 <G>

An example of aabbccdd's sig gif of Lima:

 

Sophocles,

Thanks for the info. What drives me crazy in all of this is the poor support from most of the video card manufacturers. Max resolution does not mean support for a particular monitor. I've e-mailed XFX and ATi to see if any of their cards support 1680x1050 as both sites are very poor on information in this area. Don't these people understand how important this information is to the end user? Especially when it comes to widescreen monitors! In all the video cards I've looked at so far I have yet to see one that has a 1680x1050 setting! Since I'm stuck with 8x AGP on this computer, I don't want to be stuck with something that won't do what I need.

The Princeton monitor looks to be a decent compromise but my experience with the brand has been that the quality is poor. I've thrown away more Princetons and Acers than any other brands.

Back in the 50s, I had a Transvision "Kit" TV that my father built. It used to tear and roll all the time I redesigned the sweep and sync circuts to make the picture more stable. My father had a fit when he came home and I had the chassis out and was working on it. I designed a second oscillator for the horizontal and vertical circuts that tuned one oscillator to the beat frequency of the other which made the whole thing more stable. No more back and forth to adjust the picture every 5 minutes. I would have persued electronics as a career except I had an accident that blasted me through a window. My damp sweater snagged on the high voltage clip for the picture tube and literally threw me out the window (closed). Fortunately I was on the ground floor at the time. Amazingly, I didn't even get cut by all the broken glass, but I sure was gun-shy working on TVs after that! Even though I'm capable, I still don't like to work on them!

Happy Computering,

theonejrs

 

ScubaBud
May I ask what good the capture does? You're showing us the digital image you can capture, we still have to look at it on our monitors. To note differences in monitor viewing quality, a person would have to be in the same room with the different models being compared. Seeing photos of or from different models doesn't work. To date I know of nothing that beats a top of the line CRT. I'm not saying one can't get a good picture with LCD or Plasma, just that the better CRTs are the best of the best.

 

A screen capture is indeed pointless, well noted, you beat me to that!

 

Color was brought up as a condition of different display resolutions was it not? Why not compare those with the current pix in aabbccdd's sig.

What I really should have said is any excuse to see Lima is a good excuse!!! <G>

 

other than "Adriana" is great to look at lol

one thing for sure the LCDs are alot easier on your eyes than a CRT ,the LCDs have a much warmer picture

 

I know that a few use ACAD here and that could be a good consideration for CRT vs LCD but todays LCD's fair pretty well as long as one stays away from some of the higher pp's listed and that the LCD's have a low response time important for gamers:

Pixel Pitch of most LCD's by size:
.255 = 20.1”
.258 = 20” or 23”
.271 = 21.3 or 24”
.279 = 14”
.294 = 19”
.297 = 15”
.264 = 17” and a very few 19"