Hello Everyone!
I am writing to see if anyone has any experience with LCD monitors and EQ. I am currently using a 19" Sony Trinitron which has been exceptional - Trouble is I have moved and the monitor is far too large for my current space, not to mention the amount of heat the thing produces. Can anyone recommend an LCD monitor to replace it? I will want one that is at least 17" and under $1000. Lately I have been reading a lot about the Samsung 171p - looks very nice, but I do not want any ghosting while playing EQ (my Main gaming concern). Does anyone have any experience with this monitor or similiar models? I appreciate any information or insight you can provide, as the web sites I generally read for hardware information do not have much to offer in this territory...

Kendrick 51 Druid
Kixim 46th Monk

My general advice is to stay away from LCDs -- and particularly 17" to 19" LCDs -- for a gaming-oriented system, because:<ol><li>LCDs have a fixed native resolution. If you want to game outside of the native resolution, you either (a) can't or (b) have to compromise considerably on output quality.
<li>Even the best LCDs on the market, with the lowest response time, will exhibit blurring on a fast scene transition (e.g., panning around, levitating, etc.). A larger LCD screen will make the effect appear more prominent.
<li>Even the better panels have issues displaying the full spectrum of colors, meaning they drop the lightest or darkest shades. This can cause games to look odd and require you to readjust the settings for games from your normal desktop settings.
<li>17"-19" LCDs in particular tend to fixate on the non-standard 1280x1024 native resolution, which is really bad for gaming because it's a 5:4 aspect ratio and not a 4:3 aspect ratio. This means either the manufacturer makes the monitor with a different aspect ratio -- making other resolutions distorted -- or the manufacturer doesn't even care and you end up with a vertically squashed image in the native resolution. If you must get an LCD, I would strongly suggest you either go for the 15" ones, which tend to use the 4:3 ratio 1024x768 resolution, or move up to the ones that use 1600x1200 (there aren't many).</li></ol>If you still want to go with an LCD, the new Samsung 152T/172T models are very nice with a reasonable response time. The older-generation Samsungs (151, 171, 181, 191) are also good if the new ones aren't available in your area.

I would also strongly recommend that you use a DVI interface over an analog interface, meaning you should make sure the panel has a DVI input and your video card has a DVI output. DVI is always better looking, and in some setups the difference in quality is dramatic.

I have had a LCD for about a month on my 2nd box because of lack of desk space.

While I agree with Tudamorf that the confort is nowhere near the traditional CRT (my LCD is low-mid range), it is still very playable with EQ. Personally, I don't regret it.

You are pretty much stuck with a 15" LCD. I have one now and LOVE it!

A 15" monitor is fixed at 1024x768 (ideal for gaming) and in fact, as was mentioned, the larger ones would require you ro lock into a VERY high resolution. You see while LCD's will scale lower than their fixed resolution they do this by doubling the pixels and such IE rotten picture.

Keep in mind that a 15" LCD is really 15" so it is very close in size to a 17" traditional monitor that really only displays 16" max.

If your system can handle playing EQ in 1024x768 then you will not see a better picture with a 15" LCD IMHO.

The problem with LCD monitor for gaming is not the resolution but the refreash rate. You would be amazed at how many have a rate of 60 hz. For gaming you need something that can handle at least 75 hz. CRT monitors are still best for gaming. I was able to get a good 19 inch for less than friend could get a good 15 inch LCD.

Brairwolf says: The problem with LCD monitor for gaming is not the resolution but the refreash rate. You would be amazed at how many have a rate of 60 hz. For gaming you need something that can handle at least 75 hz.

Refresh rate is not as critical on LCDs because they don't flicker like CRTs, and therefore it's not uncomfortable to view them at lower refresh rates.

Also, vertical refresh rates above 60 Hz are pointless on LCDs (though many LCDs support them in both analog and digital mode). This is because the best-case response time for the newest LCDs is about 25ms, which means the liquid crystals can only change their state (and thus change the scene) about 40 times a second. No LCD that I know of can update fast enough to keep up with 60 Hz, let alone a higher refresh rate.

Find more room =D

I love big CRT's. I have a 19" right now and I'm going to upgrade to a 21" /drool

Thank you all so very much for your responses. I really appreciate the advice. I had not considered the aspect ratio of a 15" vs a 17" and I think it might be worth looking at. I wish some of our bigger Electronics Stores carried a more varied stock of LCD's so I could compare them in person. I know going to a 15" will be tough at first since I am spoiled by the 19" CRT!! Is there a 15" LCD tha is highly recommended for gaming? I have read some nice reviews of the Solorism monitor...anyone seen one of these in person? Also there is supposedly some newer LCD technology coming out FFA (??) - has anyone heard of this? Thanks again for the responses - is nice to talk about LCD's as the info on the web is not the most conclusive...Have fun and keep on playing!!

Kixim

Also should add that my PC system is fairly robust - built it myself and am very proud!! So it should be able to run EQ at most resolutions...

Athlon XP1700+
GeForce3 Ti500
512MB DDR RAM
Soyo Dragon+ Mobo
DSL line (hooray!!)

Err.. No tuda you are so wrong here...

It is not about flicker and eye strain that the higher refresh rates deal with but the strobe effects some monitors have when dealing with alot of graphic intensive games.
Most LCD can't go above 60 and that is part of the reason they suck for gaming.

For example the samsung 151B, it can support 75 hz refresh rate. There was a noticable improvement just from changing the refresh rate from 60 to 75 when viewing games and dvd movies.

Brairwolf says: strobe effects some monitors have when dealing with alot of graphic intensive games.

What strobe effect is that? And more importantly, how can you (even theoretically) get such an effect when using a digital interface and a 3D game? Maybe you have Vsync off or something on your video card's drivers?

Personally, I have a Samsung 210T on a secondary system, which I also use for gaming sometimes. That LCD can support up to 85 Hz analog and 75 Hz digital, but no matter which refresh rate I choose (60 to 85), the display looks identical in games because scene transitions are swallowed up by the response time. Of course, digital looks far better than analog, but given the same interface, changing refresh rate makes absolutely no difference. The same goes for another LCD I have in the same room, a Sony SDM-M81, which I have used (rarely) for gaming.

Now if you're talking about programs that display material encoded at a predetermined frame rate (e.g., the players on TV add-in cards, perhaps even DVD players), the wrong refresh rate can certainly result in a choppy image, depending on how the display software is implemented. Also ironically, TV players sometimes look much smoother at 60 Hz than 85 Hz due to the way the frames are split up. But that's only because the source material is played at a fixed refresh rate, which is not true for 3D games.

Well for one thing not every card out there has a DVI port. Hook a LCD to a analong port and see what happens