Best LCD monitor for gaming?

I did do a search but didn't come up with any posts or information on here that helped me out so I am asking this question.

My wife plays Medal of Honor Allied Assault and Call of Duty alot. We have a CRT monitor but that is going to be for my computer. She insists on getting an LCD monitor but it needs to be good for gaming.

What would you people recommend? I figure it has to be between 12ms and 16ms response time for pixels. Maybe a 500-1 contrast?

Does anyone here have an LCD and use it for gaming? I'd like the least amount of ghosting as possible. Here are two LCD's that I am looking at. If these are not a good, please recommend a good one for me. Thanks.

LCD #1

- or -

LCD #2

Thanks.....

 

Hi Lighthammer,

From what I read CRTs are still better for gaming, but some of the newer model LCDs are very close to giving adequate results (how much do you want to pay?).

If you are going to choose between those two, put the model number and "review" into a Google search and check their reviews.

If games were a big part of my selection process, I would stick with a CRT and not risk paying extra for something that may not do the job.

Check www.tomshardware.com

Matt

 

matt,
I second that!

 

Thanks. I checked out Tom's Hardware and AnandTech for specs. You are right that CRT monitors are the best still but the LCD's can fare pretty well if your pixel response is low. I'll buy my LCD today and let you guys know how it runs on games.

Thanks for the input. Later.

-Lighthammer

 

If you go LCD you need to go DVI in with a DVI out video card.

 

Really?

I have read that and done that and my LCD has both vga and dvi, and so does my card, so I was able to chech that statement. I ran both ways and captured the screen close up with my 3.1MP digital camera, and I can't tell which is which and no one else can either!

 

I doubt seriously a still shot would show a diffrence but analog to digital should be a no brainer.

 

No brainer? Test. test, test!!

The difference is supposed to be in image sharpness, and I used text around a picture, and enlarged the image enough to see individual pixels and still can't see any difference. Yes, I know that theory say there is; practically, I don't believe it, and I see that most LCD monitors are just VGA now.

 

Ok, I went out and bought a Samsung SyncMaster 712n. (17 inch, 12ms response, 600-1 contrast.)

I played Battlefield 1942, Desert Combat Mod, Medal of Honor Allied Assault, and Call of Duty. I have been doing this for the past few hours. The monitor works great. I can't tell if there is any ghosting and with my video card pushing the settings in the game to high, the gaming is great.

I think I made a good choice. It was only $350. (with a rebate, of course) It works great for gaming.

 

Well done!

Glad you're happy with it. Review supports your decision.

 

Lighthammer, as long as YOU don't notice it, then it's a moot point!

As far as the DVI thing, there is a big difference in "video quality ". AND, it is incorrect to say that "most LCD monitors are just VGA now." First, they are both VGA, it's just the way the signal gets transfered between the card and the display. What you are referring to is an LCD that only has straight analog interface. The video card processes the video in a digital format, converts it to analog to send it over the analog VGA port (often using the cheapset D/A converter they can find), and then it's converted back to digital on the LCD (ALWAYS using a cheap A/D converter). What you are looking at is the lower end monitors and, yes, the cheaper folks want them, the less functionality they will have. This Digital -> Analog -> Digital conversion process is where the picture loses some of it's quality. If you're looking at a monitor that has both RGB and DVI connections and you can't see a noticable difference in the color and sharpness of your display, then I would have to say that your monitor ***** all around! Here's a similar test that is a little more pronounced than the difference between analog and digital LCDs. Find someone with a TiVo device. Connect it first using RF (yuk!). Turn to channel 3 and check out how bad the picture looks. Then connect it using a composite cable (that would be the yellow RCA cable ). You should see a noticeable difference. THEN, go back to RF. Look at it again. THEN connect to the TV using an SVideo cable. If you don't see big differences in the picture quality, then your TV is what *****!! LOL!

Obviously, there is no picture degredation as long as we keep the signal digital the whole time. That is why you see home theater equipment all provide a DVI interface and even the medium end receivers do DVI switching...some of the higher end recievers do DVI upscaling...using a very expensive A/D converter...not a cheap one!

The biggest thing with an LCD today is response time and brightness. The cheap ones that advertise a ~25ms response usually won't work for someone that's playing games where there's a lot going on on the screen. I believe there are some out there now that have broken the ~15ms barrier...but you're gonna pay for them. You should be able to find a 16ms LCD with DVI, >= 500:1 contrast, and a brightness of at least 260 cd/m2. That should satisfy the more picky folks.

Just my .02.

 

Hi mjg1973,

Thanks for the erudite explanation of the differences between monitor connections. TV transission can't approach the clarity of analog signals from a computer. Even tho it's more correct to call the cables analog the ads frequently say VGA.

My point exactly. I'm happy too!