Slashdot Mirror
Samsung's 17" LCD Gaming Monitor Rated
An anonymous reader writes "A year ago gaming on LCD monitors was laughed at, now days it's becoming much more practical thanks to more responsive LCDs like Samsung's SyncMaster 172X, reviewed over at OverClocker's Club. The 172X is a 17" monitor, with a very important feature for us gamers and hardcore computer geeks, a 12ms response time. A 12ms response time literally means zero ghosting in games and in fast action movies."
A 12ms response time is nice and everything, but how do I explain to my wife why I need one, in english.
And I haven't had a problem with it. Granted, I'm not a "pro" gamer, and I don't really like FPS games, but gaming on an LCD monitor is more than OK for me. I haven't really noticed any "ghosting" as such, except on games set on dark areas (Half Life and Halo were noticeable in a couple of areas, and that's it). I realise that, in effect, I am playing the game at more or less 25fps (my calculations might be off, I apologise in advance), but the motion blur - if that is the correct term - actually makes games more enjoyable. Also, for strategy / games, playing on my 191T is an absolute dream...
Mother is the best bet and don't let Satan draw you too fast.
A 12ms means that you should be able to handle a 83.3ish refresh without any ghosting (1000 / 12). Not too shabby. Oh course, this is an average, but if you run it at 60hz it should probably be fine under worst case. Of course games are then limited to 60fps, which is fine for me, but some people claim to be able to feel the difference.
i'd rather have a gigantic 200lb 20" weighing down my desk, if i switch its only a gigantic paperweight
A year ago gaming on LCD monitors was laughed at...
It was laughed at by some perhaps, but a year ago LCD monitors were quite capable of handling games. I got my 19in. 25ms LCD monitor about a year ago, and there were already many people using them for gaming at the time. I have yet to see any problems whatsoever with any games that I have played on that monitor.
No doubt, a 12ms will be even better, but many current monitors are probably good enough for most gamers.
The article says the dot pitch is 0.294mm, and specifically knocks the 172X for it. However, Samsung's US product page claims 0.264mm.
Either the article is wrong, or Samsung updated their specs!
Literally no ghosting... until a 9ms LCD monitor comes out and 12ms is "so slowwww"
In other news; it has been discovered that dangerously high levels of Fenol (a chemical related to alcohol used on circuit boards in both CRT's and LCD's) are given off in the first two weeks of use of new monitors and increases your chances of getting cancer quite a bit.
Seeing as reviewers must see a lot of these (new) monitors, this is becoming an occupational hazard...
Nah, just kidding. You're right.
I recently bought one of these. I was in the market for a new monitor, and let me tell you, everything you hear about this monitor is true. You get what you pay for. And for the price newegg charges you are getting the best lcd monitor I have ever seen. When the price drops to the 300 area I'll probably buy another one and do dual screen with them. Check my slashjournal for the epic tale of my monitor purchase.
The GeekNights podcast is going strong. Listen!
So they spend four pages talking about what's in the box (including a picture of the brown cardboard box??) and restating the published specs. Then there are two short paragraphs saying, "wow, looks great, no ghosting, 12ms!!!". I need to get myself a damn review website.
Fine, mod me down, I just felt like complaining.
It's the speed of a pixel going from off to on and back. BLACK AND WHITE. It doesn't actually measure the response for a specific color at the sub pixel level. For gaming there is ONE lcd panel that has consitantly done better than all others, and that's the HyDIS panels manufactured by Hyundai. It's very very hard to find an LCD monitor still made with one. The ONLY currently available LCD panel I know of with the HyDIS panel is the Hitachi CML174B featured here with the specs here. If you buy into the LG screen 16ms or 12ms aussie myth, hey, it's your money. Enjoy the ghosting.
For every annoying gentoo user, are three even more annoying anti-gentoo crybabies. Take Yosh from #Gimp for example.
which is released from pretty much any electronic goods.
-Yarn - Rio Karma: Excellent
Does anyone know of a good graphics card for two LCDs? I really want to stick with the DVI outputs because the 2001FPs from Dell look so much better on their DVI inputs.
Thanks!
1. 2.
http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/tfacts115.html
According to the CDC, phenol is a manufactured substance that is used to manufacture nylon, as an antiseptic, or in mouthwash & throat lozenges.
The effects of breathing airborne phenol (Which I assume is what would be coming out of the monitor) are unknown; additionally the CDC lists it as unclassifiable regarding carcinogenity. As such, I wouldn't recommend monitor testers run out looking for a new job, considering that you're likely to run into more heavy doses of carcinogens going to work.
You know, I've run games before at 800x600 on my laptop's display (native 1024x768) with the stretching feature turned on in the display driver. The result? Free anti-aliasing! Sure, some things look blurry, but it's only a 15" display.
Ghosting? Come on... That's motion blur!
Get with the times!
I've seen LCDs with even higher response rates that lack ghosting.
You don't need a 12ms LCD to avoid ghosting.
Looks nice indeed, but LCD technology is still too expensive in my opinion. It's hard to justify $539 for 17-inches of screen estate, when I can get excellent 19-inch CRT's for a hair under $200. Mind you, I know that the way these monitors are measured, the actual screen estate you get on the CRT isn't much more at all, but you're still paying an extra $239 to pretty much save space and look nice.
When I can get a nicely-sized, gaming-capable LCD for under $300, then I might bite. It'd certainly be nice to own an LCD for their portability compared to CRT's. For now though, I think I'll stick with the "old and clunky" CRT technology.
SAMSUNG SYNCMASTER 172X LCD at TweakNews.net, seems to he a more thorough review. Sounds like a great monitor, though too much for my wallet. $400 seems to be a viable price point for me.
I do have a few complaints. When watching movies or playing games where there is a lot of dark scenes, there just isnt the contrast to make it look good. Even at 600:1, CRTs destroy LCDs. And my Ti4200 card dosent have the muscle to run the panel at full rez DVI. It goes up to 1280x1024 and then chokes on 1600x1200. So until i get a new card ill be running it analog.
The response time is ~25ms i believe, but im usually working with static images so the little bit of ghosting whilst gaming dosent bother me. Its, for me, all about the screen size to footprint ratio, and CRTs cant touch that at all.
I want 2D games back.
I thought the hercules Prophetview Pro DVI was the only LCD to use this screen. I've been trying to get one of those forever. I lost an auction on ebay for a used one with 3 dead pixels at 500 bucks!. The specs and the performance and reviews of the CML174B put it identical with the Prophetview Pro DVI. THANK YOU SO MUCH. Now I can quit lusting after the best gaming LCD ever made, and actually buy one NEW.
4: ???
5: Profit!
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Half the problem I have with LCDs is that so many idiots (users and also manufacurer's defaults) crank the brightness and contrast up to 100% and the think "OMG thi5 rOxOrs", because it's like reading black print on a lightbulb. But those settings suck for anything other than text.
I've spent the last few days analyzing 16-bit grayscale micrographs of neurons for my thesis. Even after correcting the settings on the LCDs (Dells with DVI) in the computer lab, they're still next to useless for visualizing fine structure. Very faint and very saturated images appear all white or all black.
Now, at my workstation the 22" pure flat, 1600x1200-100Hz, well calibrated monitor... images jump to life. It's amazing: Compression artifacts and banding in JPEGs stand out like a sore thumb, it's almost too good of a monitor. I'm about to hack off the fingers of the meat-head who keeps leaving fingerprints on the screen.
I'm not sure LCDs will ever reach that level of precision, and since the 22" CRT I use is still not much more than a 17" LCD, I don't know if LCDs will be cost competative if and when they get there.
Viva la Electron Beam!!!
"Cheeze it!" - Bender
I'll invest in an lcd when I can get a 19" with 12ms that goes into 1600x1200 and costs less than 500.
Well, all of the above, but in consideration that the 22" widescreen 3840x2400 IBM LCD displays are nice, but $4000 or more, and aren't likly to become much cheaper. Plus, they only do a ghastly 42Hz at max resolution with FOUR DVI inputs in parallel. At 1920x1200, they can do 60Hz MAX. Not much of an improvement over 1600x1200-100hz.
"Cheeze it!" - Bender
Since last summer. Had to try three times to get one with no dead pixels, but after that things went smoothly. It's rated for 17ms IIRC, and I've only noticed ghosting when things are moving across the screen in instants(ex. Stepmania songs moving at +400bpm) and it truthfully doesn't matter a bit when that happens - unless you have great vision you won't see much of a difference.
My only problems with it have been:
1. Dust collects in that bezelling that the reviewer likes, and it's hard to get out.
2. It's all too easy to scratch or smudge. Oh well...
The 5 (or so) year old SGI 1600sw doesn't seem to have any ghosting artifacts with games or movies, why can't so many more recently produced displays do the same?
Comment removed based on user account deletion