Originally posted by DerWotan

Well I'm done with Samsung. Bought a 22 inch years ago for (350 $). some weeks ago at night the picture became black ->monitor done. Their support didn't even offer me a timely replacement.

Anyway I've had the best experience with Eizo (pricy and not made for gaming) and Iiyama monitors (real nice quality versus  price relationship).

Personally I prefer a more simplistic design and IIyama fits that well.

Judging by your needs (which are exactly the same as mine) I'm going to buy this one here.

http://www.iiyama.com/gl_en/products/prolite-e2472hd-1/#specification

 

fits everyting you need:

DVI-D / HDMI / 1920 x 1080 (full hd) / 2ms response time /

there fixed it for ya:D   i was like he's b1tchin about a 22 yr old monitor? for a second there:D  honestly tho. "years ago" really isnt a very objective measurement.  it could mean 2 years, or it can mean 5 or 6 years...   if you got 5 years out of a monitor, i'd say you got your $'s worth.  most monitor starts to fade after a few years so picture quality isnt going to be good for modern day gaming anyway.

if memory serves, Iiyama and Eizo both target the professional market more then they do consumer market.  so you'd have to actually hunt down suppliers that actually carry them in the 1st place.   i haven't looked into them lately, but they do have good reputations tho they generally price at the professional market level rather then consumer market level.

---

Originally posted by Kabaal
I sit perhaps 2 feet away from the screen and find that 1920x1080 looks much better on a 24" than a 27" but i guess that's down to personal preference. Currently using a 24" Samsung p2450 atm and its been fantastic so far. There are probably newer models out now with higher contrast ratio etc but 2ms and 70000:1 it's still not bad and was a huge step up from my old 27" dell in terms or picture quality.

---

I tend to agree with this, and at times I even find 24" to be a bit large. I have to move my eyes a lot to go from one corner to the opposite corner and see all the information on the screen - maybe I'm getting too old. But if something moves in one corner and I'm looking in the other, I'm liable to miss it because I just can't see it out the corner of my eye as well. My older 19" 4:3 ratio I could pretty well see the entire screen without a lot of eye movement.

For gaming, for me, I can't see going much bigger. Multimonitor may be neat to play around with because you can basically wrap it around your chair, but that would be a lot of additional information for me to process and I may just be too dense to be able to handle it.

---

Originally posted by psyclum
if you REALLY want to see what a good monitor looks like, go to your local APPLE store and look at the display unit sporting the 30" cinema HD monitor. 

---

My boss has the 24" LED Display, and I keep trying to talk him into upgrading to the 27" so I can reallocate the 24 to my office...

They are very expensive for what you get - but damn do they go easy on the eyes. It makes going back to my old Dell monitor almost painful.

 You want a Samsung SynchMaster  that's 3D vision ready.  Then you get the fast response time of 2ms and you get a refresh hrz of 120hrz so you'd get 120fps in a game with sync on and giving you back that smooth feeling of the old CRT monitor back again. Don't get a 60hrz LCD or LED, they bottle neck high end gfx cards. You have the choice to get 3d nivida kit, but that 120hrz monitor just worth it for that refresh along for gaming. Also the panel used in the Samsung I think they call the the BN panel is what gamers need too. So can't go wrong with the Samsung Syncmaster 3D vision ready, as it's a gaming monitor through and through. Stick with the 24inch size, any bigger then the pixels are bigger to fill the screen size and not made up of smaller pixels like the 20 .22 or 24inch, for LCD's this rules applies.

Originally posted by Ridelynn

 

My boss has the 24" LED Display, and I keep trying to talk him into upgrading to the 27" so I can reallocate the 24 to my office...

They are very expensive for what you get - but damn do they go easy on the eyes. It makes going back to my old Dell monitor almost painful.

there's nothing wrong with the dell...   if you are talking about the 30" 2560x1600 res dell:D

I have a 3 monitor set up consisting of 1 2ms monitor and 2 5ms monitors. If you understand what motion blur looks like on LCD monitors compared to CRT/Plasma, then the difference between 2ms and 5ms is unnoticable, in that 2ms isn't a noticeable improvement in gaming over 5ms and neither approach the clarity in motion of CRT/Plasma.

I can notice the difference between the 2ms and 5ms in specific tests that demonstrate response time issues, and the 2ms does a little better in those. But in practical use I can't detect the difference between them at all, but I can tell they are better than my previous slower monitors and not as good as CRT/Plasma (all tested side by side in the past).

Originally posted by noquarter

I have a 3 monitor set up consisting of 1 2ms monitor and 2 5ms monitors. If you understand what motion blur looks like on LCD monitors compared to CRT/Plasma, then the difference between 2ms and 5ms is unnoticable, in that 2ms isn't a noticeable improvement in gaming over 5ms and neither approach the clarity in motion of CRT/Plasma.

I can notice the difference between the 2ms and 5ms in specific tests that demonstrate response time issues, and the 2ms does a little better in those. But in practical use I can't detect the difference between them at all, but I can tell they are better than my previous slower monitors and not as good as CRT/Plasma (all tested side by side in the past).

the funniest part of this whole thing is now that you've taken out motion blur from the monitors by going with the 2ms unit, nvidia will ask you to buy a more powerful GPU so they can "simulate" the motion blur back into your monitor:D

this is why i'm strongly aginst turning EVERYTHING in your game setting to max:)  dev's are finding ways to make your game look worse simply because it's an "effect" that the other game doesnt have:D   take CoD for example,  you cant see jack shiet 80% of the time because your screen is covered by blood, refracted/reflected light, lense flare, etc...   and you are just hiding behind a car because you cant see ANYTHING for like 20 second:D  aside from the fact that bloom effect makes EVERYTHING blurry even items that are 2 feet away from you...    people need to realize that maxing everything in display setting in a game actually makes the game looks worse and less functional.

---

Originally posted by psyclum

---

Originally posted by noquarter
I have a 3 monitor set up consisting of 1 2ms monitor and 2 5ms monitors. If you understand what motion blur looks like on LCD monitors compared to CRT/Plasma, then the difference between 2ms and 5ms is unnoticable, in that 2ms isn't a noticeable improvement in gaming over 5ms and neither approach the clarity in motion of CRT/Plasma.

I can notice the difference between the 2ms and 5ms in specific tests that demonstrate response time issues, and the 2ms does a little better in those. But in practical use I can't detect the difference between them at all, but I can tell they are better than my previous slower monitors and not as good as CRT/Plasma (all tested side by side in the past).

---

the funniest part of this whole thing is now that you've taken out motion blur from the monitors by going with the 2ms unit, nvidia will ask you to buy a more powerful GPU so they can "simulate" the motion blur back into your monitor:D
this is why i'm strongly aginst turning EVERYTHING in your game setting to max:)  dev's are finding ways to make your game look worse simply because it's an "effect" that the other game doesnt have:D   take CoD for example,  you cant see jack shiet 80% of the time because your screen is covered by blood, refracted/reflected light, lense flare, etc...   and you are just hiding behind a car because you cant see ANYTHING for like 20 second:D  aside from the fact that bloom effect makes EVERYTHING blurry even items that are 2 feet away from you...    people need to realize that maxing everything in display setting in a game actually makes the game looks worse and less functional.

---

My personal hatred is Depth of Field effect. It has a pretty big performance hit too and it's stupid. It keeps whatever is under your crosshair in focus and unfocuses everything else, but I'm not always looking where my crosshairs are so everything else is just an out of focus mess unless I point at it. And a lot of times stuff like grass will cut the DoF distance short and make what you actually are pointing at blurry. Happens a lot in Borderlands. I suppose if motion blur simulates slow response time DoF simulates low resolution for you..

And yea there's so many games that use bloom effect so terribly. Sunlight does not cause stuff to have a glowing aura to me in real life! It's like these people have glaucoma and think that's how everyone sees the world.

The best monitor I have ever had is the one I have now which is a widescreen 19''. So I'm pretty sure going to the good quality 23'' will "wow" me. Though I'm sure the 2560 resolution is much nicer I just can't find one worth getting and from everything I have heard 30'' is to much for pc gaming when I will be very very close to the monitor already.

Originally posted by psyclum

Originally posted by DerWotan

Well I'm done with Samsung. Bought a 22 inch years ago for (350 $). some weeks ago at night the picture became black ->monitor done. Their support didn't even offer me a timely replacement.

Anyway I've had the best experience with Eizo (pricy and not made for gaming) and Iiyama monitors (real nice quality versus  price relationship).

Personally I prefer a more simplistic design and IIyama fits that well.

Judging by your needs (which are exactly the same as mine) I'm going to buy this one here.

http://www.iiyama.com/gl_en/products/prolite-e2472hd-1/#specification

 

fits everyting you need:

DVI-D / HDMI / 1920 x 1080 (full hd) / 2ms response time /

there fixed it for ya:D   i was like he's b1tchin about a 22 yr old monitor? for a second there:D  honestly tho. "years ago" really isnt a very objective measurement.  it could mean 2 years, or it can mean 5 or 6 years...   if you got 5 years out of a monitor, i'd say you got your $'s worth.  most monitor starts to fade after a few years so picture quality isnt going to be good for modern day gaming anyway.

if memory serves, Iiyama and Eizo both target the professional market more then they do consumer market.  so you'd have to actually hunt down suppliers that actually carry them in the 1st place.   i haven't looked into them lately, but they do have good reputations tho they generally price at the professional market level rather then consumer market level.

Thanks, yeah years ago (2 years) so it was like 175 $ / year which is a bit high for a non professionel screen I think. Well Eizo is targeting the professionel market more thats right but IIyama oiffers a really good price versus quality relationship. If gaming is your main target I wouldn't recommend an Eizo cause of the high responsetime, otherwise they are the best choice.

I know some view  HP, Benq and Nec as >  Iiyama but I disagree. Iiyama and Eizo are focused purely on monitors so that leads to better quality.

Right now I wouldn't recommend buying a multi touch screen.

Originally posted by noquarter

 

My personal hatred is Depth of Field effect. It has a pretty big performance hit too and it's stupid. It keeps whatever is under your crosshair in focus and unfocuses everything else, but I'm not always looking where my crosshairs are so everything else is just an out of focus mess unless I point at it. And a lot of times stuff like grass will cut the DoF distance short and make what you actually are pointing at blurry. Happens a lot in Borderlands. I suppose if motion blur simulates slow response time DoF simulates low resolution for you..

And yea there's so many games that use bloom effect so terribly. Sunlight does not cause stuff to have a glowing aura to me in real life! It's like these people have glaucoma and think that's how everyone sees the world.

hehe in a few more years, we'll need a even more powerful video card so they can "simulate" lag, dropped frames, and stutter :D

Originally posted by Nunez1212

The best monitor I have ever had is the one I have now which is a widescreen 19''. So I'm pretty sure going to the good quality 23'' will "wow" me. Though I'm sure the 2560 resolution is much nicer I just can't find one worth getting and from everything I have heard 30'' is to much for pc gaming when I will be very very close to the monitor already.

a 2560x1600 is 4096000 pixels. 

a 1080p is 1920x1080 which is 2073600 pixels

so as you can see, a 30 inch monitor has almost twice the pixels as a 1080p monitor.  so basiclly running a single 30 inch monitor is not very much different then running 2 1080p monitors.(as far as numbers of poly's, pixels and partical effects rendered also physics calculated)  a video card as powerful as a 570gtx can easily run 2 monitors with good framerates..   

as for it being "too much" for pc gaming:)  all i can say is,   nah:)

here is an example of just how powerful today's gaming machines really are

Still using my trusty Sony FW900, 24 pure flat Widecreen CRT bliss. It also weighs a hundred pounds, lol. I won't have to go lcd for another decade hopefully. LCD or Plasma don't compare to this monitor still, though they are getting better, but the solid look of crt still beats them to me, Blacks don't get any blacker, response time is not an issue and i can play in any resolution i personally would need. Perfect picture from any angle. They are so good they still used them in the making of the movie 300. Hi def movies look amazing on it too.

1920x1080p 24 hertz x5 (tv  got those)23 inch(standard size for 1920x1080p)yes other size are avail ,but read carefully all have a specitic size ,if you ain sure check what your graphic card support.

24 hertz why?because it will make the monitor work more and your graphic card work less

monitor or tv will say 120 hertz just ask vendor if it is a 24hertz x 5 processed in the tv if it is your in business

stay with corp that make the tv or monitor ,a lot of brand are out there but not many actually make them.samsung make them(one of the best brand)

make sure it support the latest a greatest in hdmi or thunderbolt if you are using apple thunderbolt product.never use an adoptor to go from say dvi to thunderbolt!

with these small thing you should be on your way to a good screen purchase,without being stuck with a screen on an old standard that will look worst then your old 1980 tv!

---

Originally posted by psyclum

---

Originally posted by Ridelynn
 
My boss has the 24" LED Display, and I keep trying to talk him into upgrading to the 27" so I can reallocate the 24 to my office...
They are very expensive for what you get - but damn do they go easy on the eyes. It makes going back to my old Dell monitor almost painful.

---

there's nothing wrong with the dell...   if you are talking about the 30" 2560x1600 res dell:D

---

It's definitely not.

I have an old 2405FPW at home, and it's nice (although after several years, standing next to a newer LED display, it looks a bit dim). It has a ~ton~ of different inputs though. Apple Cinema Displays have ... one.

Originally posted by psyclum

Originally posted by Nunez1212

The best monitor I have ever had is the one I have now which is a widescreen 19''. So I'm pretty sure going to the good quality 23'' will "wow" me. Though I'm sure the 2560 resolution is much nicer I just can't find one worth getting and from everything I have heard 30'' is to much for pc gaming when I will be very very close to the monitor already.

a 2560x1600 is 4096000 pixels. 

a 1080p is 1920x1080 which is 2073600 pixels

so as you can see, a 30 inch monitor has almost twice the pixels as a 1080p monitor.  so basiclly running a single 30 inch monitor is not very much different then running 2 1080p monitors.(as far as numbers of poly's, pixels and partical effects rendered also physics calculated)  a video card as powerful as a 570gtx can easily run 2 monitors with good framerates..   

as for it being "too much" for pc gaming:)  all i can say is,   nah:)

here is an example of just how powerful today's gaming machines really are

Ha, I watched that video. Pretty crazy. I honestly did not realize the 570's were quite THAT powerful. Sounds cool and all but I mean...I just don't want to spend a grand on a 30''. I think I'll be satisfied with the 23''. One day...when I have a much better paying job trust me, I will get the latest and greatest stuff to waste my money on just to make you happy psyclum.

---

Originally posted by psyclum
as for it being "too much" for pc gaming:)  all i can say is,   nah:)
here is an example of just how powerful today's gaming machines really are

---

I routinely play multiple games at the same time. It's not uncommon for me to have 3 Everquest clients running (boxing my group, or sitting around in a ~slow~ raid because my guild is really a species of snail), maybe a WoW or LOTRO client running chatting with friends - at times I would have 1 or 2 EVE clients running ice mining, a web browser is almost always running on my side screen (usually watching Netflix or something).

I don't run Eyefinity, so I can't see everything at once, but that's what Alt-Tab is for.

Really it has less to do with the video card, because most of these older MMO's aren't that graphically intensive and only the game in the foreground monopolizes the graphics resources. It has a lot to do with RAM - at 1920x1200 most all games are going to take over 1G of system RAM per instance. I have a i7 920 and it's rare for my CPU to even spin up on more than a couple of cores (because nearly all of these games are single or dual core optimized at the best).

Even with 6-8 game clients running, there's still plenty of spare horsepower to go around, and my computer is getting long in the tooth by gaming standards. Granted, I can only concentrate on one screen at a time, but it's not exactly intense ice mining in Eve or just sitting in Stormwind playing on the AH chatting with some friends who are in Vent in between raid wipes or pulls.

That being said, most people don't do this. Maybe I just have ADD or something, or maybe it explains why I play every game semi-poorly.

But yeah, the modern "gaming computer" has so much unused potential it's a crying shame - and it's not because the gamers aren't willing or capable of using it, it's because the developers haven't figured out what to do with it all yet (other than make inane graphics effects just to have them for marketing reasons).

I do like the vertical triple eyefinity setup, it's still ~huge~ as far as I'm concerned, but it has more even aspect ratio so there isn't the extreme side-to-side head bobbing that you have to do with the landscape setups. Now if only someone would put out some good bezel-less monitors. I know it's possible to gut the case off an existing monitor, but I really don't want to go through that much trouble...