1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Windows Is a bigger monitor better for gameing ?

Discussion in 'Gaming' started by j4ck3l, 4 Feb 2006.

  1. j4ck3l

    j4ck3l New Member

    Joined:
    3 Feb 2006
    Posts:
    23
    Likes Received:
    0
    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)
     
  2. LockmanX

    LockmanX New Member

    Joined:
    8 Jun 2003
    Posts:
    387
    Likes Received:
    0
    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.
     
  3. DivineSin

    DivineSin New Member

    Joined:
    23 Apr 2004
    Posts:
    1,251
    Likes Received:
    0

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

    Ab$olut New Member

    Joined:
    22 Dec 2004
    Posts:
    590
    Likes Received:
    1
    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.
     
  5. ozstrike

    ozstrike yip yip yip yip

    Joined:
    19 Sep 2004
    Posts:
    2,946
    Likes Received:
    11
    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.
     
  6. oasked

    oasked Stuck in the Mud

    Joined:
    24 Aug 2005
    Posts:
    4,015
    Likes Received:
    55
    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. :)
     
  7. MrWillyWonka

    MrWillyWonka Chocolate computers galore!

    Joined:
    25 Jul 2004
    Posts:
    5,892
    Likes Received:
    12
    Go for a 20.1 widescreen :D 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!
     
  8. ozstrike

    ozstrike yip yip yip yip

    Joined:
    19 Sep 2004
    Posts:
    2,946
    Likes Received:
    11
    With regard to response times, I really can't see much difference once you get past 12ms.
     
  9. Hybr1d

    Hybr1d Bаnned

    Joined:
    13 Dec 2005
    Posts:
    883
    Likes Received:
    0
    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 ;)
     
  10. Bladestorm

    Bladestorm New Member

    Joined:
    14 Dec 2005
    Posts:
    698
    Likes Received:
    0
    I've had my "Samsung 17" LCD Syncmaster 172X" for about 15 months now, I've loved it since I got it :thumb: , 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 :hehe: ) thin and light as anything.

    Although the prices and performance stats on monitors since then have made me wince repeatedly at the price :hehe:
     
  11. j4ck3l

    j4ck3l New Member

    Joined:
    3 Feb 2006
    Posts:
    23
    Likes Received:
    0
    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 :D
     
  12. fullfat

    fullfat New Member

    Joined:
    3 Jul 2005
    Posts:
    404
    Likes Received:
    0

    what this guy said
    :D
     
  13. Shadowed_fury

    Shadowed_fury Active Member

    Joined:
    21 Nov 2003
    Posts:
    7,506
    Likes Received:
    21
    Agreed, considering you can get like 4ms now :/
     
  14. <A88>

    <A88> Trust the Computer

    Joined:
    10 Jan 2004
    Posts:
    5,441
    Likes Received:
    25
    I'd agree, get either a WS 19" or a good quality 17" :)

    <A88>
     
  15. Knoxxy

    Knoxxy New Member

    Joined:
    24 Jun 2005
    Posts:
    29
    Likes Received:
    0
    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.
     
  16. Firehed

    Firehed Why not? I own a domain to match.

    Joined:
    15 Feb 2004
    Posts:
    12,574
    Likes Received:
    16
    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.
     
  17. Hamish

    Hamish New Member

    Joined:
    25 Nov 2002
    Posts:
    3,649
    Likes Received:
    4
    :hehe: :hehe: :hehe:

    1440x900... would you like some pixels with your screen? :p
     
  18. Knoxxy

    Knoxxy New Member

    Joined:
    24 Jun 2005
    Posts:
    29
    Likes Received:
    0
    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.
     
  19. Hybr1d

    Hybr1d Bаnned

    Joined:
    13 Dec 2005
    Posts:
    883
    Likes Received:
    0
    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 :p
     
  20. Hamish

    Hamish New Member

    Joined:
    25 Nov 2002
    Posts:
    3,649
    Likes Received:
    4
    should've got a crt
    bought mine 3-4 years ago now for just under £200
    1600x1200 *** :p
     
Tags:

Share This Page