The Official PC building thread -3rd Edition

umm milli = 1x10^-3, therefore its not 1/100....

 

I got this definition from the Collins Encyclopedia.
millisecond
Noun
one thousandth of a second, as in the Spanish, Mill Dollars which in English means Thousand dollars!

Russ

 

was talking about what rich found, what he quoted was that MS = 1x10^-2, but i was correcting it

 

hi

speaking of monitors i just bought a new 19" one from aria and i must say that is relly good for the price i paid witch was £88.64. compared to my old lcd that was a 15" and a dell this one rocks. As for samsung also think they do make some of the best TVs and LAPTOP screens.

the company i got mine from is hanion they give me a 3 year worrenty and at home servicing and support. As for the respones time i have noticed that this monitor is clearer and look at alot better than my old dell. My new one has the one of those glass type screen on a decent laptop, and i have red on the internet that the company who make my monitor buy the LCDs from samsung.

 

I think Dell and HP have the best monitors around. Those 30" S-PVA screens are quite tasty :]

 

Hey Russ, thanks for the help with the tiger article. So you're saying that other than the typo about 1/100 of a second vs 1/1000 of a second, the article was not as flawed as I thought. They ARE using a thick cell width, and they have figured out how to make that perform as well as those who thin out the cell width.

You're probably right. Then if that is the case, wouldn't it have been lovely if they had added, in the explanation, the reason that a thicker cell width is better - eg more reliable, etc etc. Ok, not the finest technical writing on the planet, but maybe now I'll try to read that REALLY technical stuff on the bottom, right after I try to read this paper somebody sent me by some weirdo named Einstein. LOL

Medical monitors in the $10,000 dollar range. Now that's a monitor, where can I get my hands on one of those - just kidding! I wonder if THEY use thick cell or thin cell, or am I just being thick-headed about this whole thing - right Shaff?

All seriousness aside, Sam has got me genuinely thinking about forking out $1150 for that beast he owns, Dell 30", so I can also, to quote Sam, "gorge on pixels" at 4 megs per frame!

(At least I won't gain any weight lol.) The only thing is that gpus aren't really powerful enough yet to handle that many pixels at sustainable 40fps with crysis maxed out - so Sam's solution is to run a 23" 1920x1200 image inside his screen, until technology catches up. So there is this debate - spend $500-600 on one of the best 1920x1200 24" (outside the medical field) and then later on spend the $1150, or just get the $1150 monitor right now. Heck, by next summer, the rumored 5870s will be out - one or two 5870x2's will probably be able to do the job!
-Rich

 

Ehh, I think 25FPS is playable in most games. But yeah, it's all up to you. Who said making decisions was easy?

 

Well, yeah, 25fps is okay, until all hell starts breaking loose - which is the kind of games I play! Hahahaha

Also for multiplayer - at 25fps average - I'll be stuck in the mud with my life flashing before my eyes when Shaff comes around the corner with his shottie!

Maybe you're talking MIMINUM fps. I think most have said that a sustainable average of 40, will probably drop down to 25 in the tough parts, which will be livable. So booze, what do you think about the 23" window in the middle idea, until techno catches up next year?

 

I think it's fine, because you're not JUST playing Crysis, and most other stuff runs fine at full resolution.

 

What? Grey to grey is quicker than black to white, you sure that article is right? The mistake you mentioned also makes me criticise it's validity. To be honest, this article doesn't fill me with confidence.

Abuzar: The 30" are S-IPS, not S-PVA, which is why the response times are higher.

As far as Crysis goes, the original game supports dual graphics, whereas Warhead does not (don't believe the benchmarks), so that's the most difficult game to run. Maxed out at 1920x1200 with AA, you can get a smooth frame rate, thats for the most part in the 30s, even in DX10 very high with no hacks. Warhead though, it's around 13-14. Despite the 'optimisations', do some research and it turns out the game is actually more demanding than the original, even before you consider that dual graphics doesn't work. They pulled a bit of a Supreme Commander Forged ALliance on that one. I play Crysis all high without AA (as it's rubbish in the original, better looking in Warhead) at full 2560x1600. I play Warhead at 1440x900 in a box, yeah that's right, an 18" box in a 30" monitor. The only way to max out the game without a GTX280. As it happens, the game is so poorly optimised my graphics card's fan remains at minimum speed when I put the game in a box. This only happens for old or simple capped games like Warcraft 3 and Audiosurf. Even UT2004 ups the fan speed a little bit.
Also, 25fps, believe it or not, IS playable for Crysis, but it's useless as an average, as the frame rate is very variable in the game. Get hurt, or see a grenade go off, and if you did have 30fps, you'd end up with about 14-17, which lags the game for that section. Maxing out Warhead with 2560x1600 4xAA results in a frame rate of 7, which drops to 4 if you move (a bug with the game in Vista seemingly, the frame rate quarters if you move at more than crouched-pace using Enthusiast settings, this goes for any resolution, AA off or on, hence why I use such a low res to "play" the game - honestly, it's hardly worth bothering. Far Cry 2 actually hextuples the frame rate of Crysis Warhead when you max it out, and still looks quite nice. Dead Space doesn't support AA (contrary to the options list) but usually runs 80-150fps maxed out. What a difference!

 

Yeah, S-IPS. I forgot lol.

 

havrdguy,

LOL!! I watched them do an Angioplasty on me on a 42" screen that looked like real life! You could count the hairs.... Well, you get the idea! LOL!!

On the other front, maybe this was something they got from someone who's native language isn't English, but you are correct on all counts, it could have been written in a more understandable way. They are also right about the blurring in something fast paced with a lot of movement, but it would take a bloody PP monitor to see it. You would only see that on the crappiest of no-name monitors. I've seen exactly one that poor in quality, and that belonged to a customer that brought it to me thinking that a better video card would solve it. I never saw another one like it and I think it was made by Hesu or something like that. Nothing was in English, so I suspect it was picked up overseas somewhere.

Regards,
Russ

 

sammorris,

That is correct! The reason if you think about it logically is that with G to G, the LCDs are already turned on. With black to white it goes from completely off to completely on. As the chart showed, the time in ms is pretty much meaningless! Just another number to make things look better on paper, when you don't see any real difference in the results! Advertising! Don't you just love it! ROFLMAO!!

Also, consider that we here are more technically minded, so we tend to be more critical of things than the average person would be. It's still a useful guide if for no other reason than someone coming away with a better understanding of LCD monitors.

Russ

 

YU HO Everybody ! How about a decent Web Cam, my granddaughter is wanting one

 

creaky thanks for that bit of info on a webcam.

....gm

 

Thanks I went ahead and ordered one

 

Now all I need to do is find a program that will record like a security camera

 

Hey Rick,
Take a look here and see what you think for that security software.

http://www.brickhousesecurity.com/network-camera-internet-video-monitoring-software.html

Best Regards,
Russ

 

Oh so that's what they're for! Haha, remember spotting the 56" monitors that ran 3840x2160 resolution. That's a fine resolution, that is. Last time I checked they ran about 20 thousand dollars.