Windows Is a bigger monitor better for gameing ?

Buying a tft/lcd monitor just want to no which size would be better for gameing ?

15" 17" or 19" ? just info on tft/lcd not crt thanks..

(my gfx card xfx geforce 6600 gt)

 

Screen size is personal preference. One thing to keep in mind though is that larger screens will have a higher native resolution. Running games at native might over tax that 6600. Dropping below native res looks a bit different for every monitor but is usually not pretty.

 

17" and 19" LCD monitors have the same native res i do believe. 17" monitors are usually more crisp for this reason.

 

Be warned if you want a tft to make the game look any good you will have to run it at native res so thats why ive gone with crt simply because my system cannot run games at tft native res I did alot of research on this before I wanted a tft if you have the space i'd get a crt imo I think the best function for tfts is if you have a space problem or you simply want one for looks.

 

Between 15", 17" and 19", I would definately get the 17". They are bigger and have a higher resolution than a 15", which is useful. 19" TFTs generally have the same native resolution as 17" TFTs, so the 17" one will be clearer and look better.

 

I went for a 19" TFT. Although it has the same res as the 17", its larger, which makes it easier on the eyes, which is a priority for me.

 

Go for a 20.1 widescreen They are fab, but will probably take the toll on the 6800, and costs more.

17" is probably the optimum for 1280x1024, although it does depend how close you sit to your monitor, no point getting a 30" if you are gonna sit 30cm from the screen. Bigger isn't always better.

Depends what's in your budget, but also think about brightness, contract and response time a 17" tft with a 4ms response time is going to be much better than a 19" with a 24ms response time!

 

With regard to response times, I really can't see much difference once you get past 12ms.

 

19" wide 4tw! It even runs games at 1024x768 and doesn't look _THAT_ bd considering the native res is 1440x900. W I D E is the future, you'll never go back

EDIT: I have an Acer 1916w, great tft and is only about £180 new

 

I've had my "Samsung 17" LCD Syncmaster 172X" for about 15 months now, I've loved it since I got it , one of the first 12ms panels, clearest picture I've ever seen, good scaling below native res (though I still obsess over running 1280* just because ) thin and light as anything.

Although the prices and performance stats on monitors since then have made me wince repeatedly at the price

 

thanks for the post's guys i ended up buying an 17 " samsung syncmaster 173p picture qual is nice a lot better than my crt i will never go back to a crt ever again and recament lcd's to any 1

 

what this guy said

 

Agreed, considering you can get like 4ms now :/

 

I'd agree, get either a WS 19" or a good quality 17"

<A88>

 

After you get a good refresh rate, its all just personal preference and what you can afford.

Would you rather watch a movie on a 13" movie or a 32"? The same goes for a monitor, gaming or not.

My dad just bought this 23" widescreen HD hp monitor, I'd like to say its amazing, but the video card he has paired up with it couldn't run a game at its native resolution for the life of it. Well not atleast with medium settings. But for browsing the web/watching movies the depth/clarity is amazing. Not to mention having a resolution of 1920x1200.

 

Agreed, though he's got a 6600
If you *ever* watch movies on your computer, get a widescreen. If it's absolutely not possible for price reasons (or whatever), I'd really say go for the 19". While it's true that they're not as sharp as a 17", you still have more virtual real estate.

Response times - my official stance is beyond 16ms is worthless, and it's pretty common that they sacrifice color quality for faster response on the really low-response time models (<6ms or so, but it varies). Why 16ms? Almost all LCDs run at 60Hz. With vsync enabled (and it should be, to prevent tearing), you show one frame every 16.666...6 milliseconds. If they can change colors in 16ms and you show a new frame every 16.66ms, it's not a problem, is it?

Having said that, I've only ever really noticed ghosting on a 50ms model (demo 14" thing at best buy, lol-crappy), but numbers don't lie.

 

1440x900... would you like some pixels with your screen?

 

Having personally tried back to back the difference between a 12ms and a 20ms response, you can definetly tell there is a difference. When playing bf2 I couldn't hit **** on the 20ms, but the 12ms just as easy as point and click.

 

Bah, I work for *all* my stuff at 14. I don't expect to be getting a 30" Apple Cinema Display or a 42" plasma... Plus my PC couldn't handle *any* games such a high-res so STFU

 

should've got a crt
bought mine 3-4 years ago now for just under £200
1600x1200 ***