Support NeoGAF

[Diablos]

That's nice, but uh, 1920x1200?
My 9800 Pro would run games at like 5fps :lol

 

[Shogmaster]

That's nice, but uh, 1920x1200?
My 9800 Pro would run games at like 5fps :lol

You can run the games @ 960x600 and avoid the dreaded interpolation.

 

[xsarien]

That's nice, but uh, 1920x1200?
My 9800 Pro would run games at like 5fps :lol

I should point out that the most recent PC game I own is Syberia. Any other games that I have that do any kind of *real* 3D stuff shouldn't tax the system too hard.

I'm among the disenchanted, nigh-disenfranchised PC adventure gamers that got pushed aside for shooter fans. I can easily calculate that about 99% of my gaming takes place either on my consoles. That's been the case since, well, the Dreamcast.

 

[Diablos]

You can run the games @ 960x600 and avoid the dreaded interpolation.

Lots of games only seem to offer 640x480, 800x600, 1024x768, 1152x864, and 1280x1024...

 

[Shogmaster]

Lots of games only seem to offer 640x480, 800x600, 1024x768, 1152x864, and 1280x1024...

You can usually go in and manually adjust the res in most recent games. My friend had to that for Doom 3, which didn't offer 1280x720 right off the bat.

 

[Dujour]

No great games to play on it yet, though.

 

[thomaser]

I just ordered one of these for my bedroom. A Philips 17PF9946/12:

 

[Fowler]

Alright, some advice needed. I'm looking at getting a small LCD TV (or monitor with TV inputs) for my old consoles -- everything from SNES to PSone to Dreamcast. Nothing fancy and nothing outstanding, just something small to keep them all hooked up to. What sort of response time is fine for console gaming though? Is 16ms alright?

 

[Diablos]

You prolly want at least 12.

 

[Shogmaster]

Alright, some advice needed. I'm looking at getting a small LCD TV (or monitor with TV inputs) for my old consoles -- everything from SNES to PSone to Dreamcast. Nothing fancy and nothing outstanding, just something small to keep them all hooked up to. What sort of response time is fine for console gaming though? Is 16ms alright?

16ms is all you need since no console game went above 60fps. 16ms allows for 62.5 fps before ghosting sets in.

 

[Diablos]

16ms is all you need since no console game went above 60fps. 16ms allows for 62.5 fps before ghosting sets in.

And where did you get this fact from?

I still see a little bit of shadowing when I play UT2004 or HL2, and my fps is 30-40. Using a screen that's 12ms.

 

[Shogmaster]

And where did you get this fact from?

Ummm... math? Divide 1 (second) by .016 (milliseconds) and see what you get.

I still see a little bit of shadowing when I play UT2004 or HL2, and my fps is 30-40. Using a screen that's 12ms.

That shadowing is probably not ghosting but rather, some other artifact, unless you are seeing ghosting when the game is hitting above 83fps (limit of 12ms LCDs) in few parts.

 

[Diablos]

Ummm... math? Divide 1 (second) by .016 (milliseconds) and see what you get.



That shadowing is probably not ghosting but rather, some other artifact, unless you are seeing ghosting when the game is hitting above 83fps (limit of 12ms LCDs) in few parts.

Noo... it's whenever I turn, strafe, look up, or look down - it happens. And this is with stat fps on in UT; not even close to 83fps. There's still some image tearing. It's nothing to cry about, but to say LCD's don't do any ghosting under 83fps on a 12ms display isn't exactly true, IMO.

 

[Shogmaster]

Noo... it's whenever I turn, strafe, look up, or look down - it happens. And this is with stat fps on in UT; not even close to 83fps. There's still some image tearing. It's nothing to cry about, but to say LCD's don't do any ghosting under 83fps on a 12ms display isn't exactly true, IMO.

I wonder if this has anything to do with when they list pixel delay ratings, they do say "typical" most of the time. I'm thinking that even within a single model of a LCD, the pixel delay performance is all over the place.

 

[Error Macro]

The 8ms monitor I'm getting, in reality, has closer to a 27ms average response time. Manufacturers rate the response times with 100 percent contrast, on a black to white transition, to get the absolute best possible time. In practice, this never happens.

12ms panels average above 30ms, approx. 35ms. 16ms panels are in the low to mid 40's on average. It just keeps getting worse from there on up, obviously.

 

[Diablos]

Deceptive marketing...

 

[Shogmaster]

Bastards.....

 

[Diablos]

The 8ms monitor I'm getting, in reality, has closer to a 27ms average response time. Manufacturers rate the response times with 100 percent contrast, on a black to white transition, to get the absolute best possible time. In practice, this never happens.

12ms panels average above 30ms, approx. 35ms. 16ms panels are in the low to mid 40's on average. It just keeps getting worse from there on up, obviously.

Where'd you learn this from Ermac?

 

[Error Macro]

From reading many, many, reviews of LCD panels.

The best reviews, as far as in-depth technical analysis goes, are from TomsHardware.com. It's too bad they have never reviewed a model I had been interested in, until the new Hyundai.

 

[AntoneM]

I learned about that from Xbit Labs, here's the article.

http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/other/display/lcd-guide.html

 

[Error Macro]

Ah yes, I forgot about that article. It's a great read. It should be required reading for anyone looking to buy an LCD monitor. Well, actually I think everyone should just read it.

 

[cs060mk2]

I have a 23 inch Sony. It feels just right although I would not mind a bigger monitor or a dual or tripple 23 setup when I work.

 

[Error Macro]

I have a 23 inch Sony. It feels just right although I would not mind a bigger monitor or a dual or tripple 23 setup when I work.

Hmm... I've seen that picture before. Did you post that on the [H]ard Forums?