PDA

View Full Version : Comparison specs: ViewSonic LCD vs. Samsung LCD



drsmith
05-31-2005, 07:04 AM
I need some help for starters in selecting a 19" LCD flat screen monitor which will be best suited for FB/PF. I now have a 5 year old ViewSonic 19" crt which has performed well.

I have internet specs on two models only, the ViewSonic VX910 OptiSync Analog Digital 19" LCD and the Samsung SyncMaster 19" TFT LCD Flat-Panel Monitor 930B. The ViewSonic is $369.99 and the Samsung is $359.99 (with both rebates).

The MAIN difference I can determine are as follows:
Samsung ViewSonic
Contrast Ratio 700:l 550:l
Response Time (ms) 8 16-25
Screen Resolution 1280x1024 1280x1024
Mfg. Warranty Hdwr) 3 Yrs. 1 yr.
Brightness 300 cdm2 250 cdm2

Both have good customer ratings, but ONE buyer said the Samsung "doesn't beat my old 17" crt".
He was the one exception, although a few said the Samsung was not built sturdily, but permformed well.

And suggestions or alternative recommendations will be appreciated. Thanks.

x__CRASH__x
05-31-2005, 07:23 AM
I wouldn't worry about it. LCD's cause ghosting, and are no good compared to CRT's. Get a new Viewsonic CRT. I have one and its been the best screen I've ever owned.

Saunders1953
05-31-2005, 07:36 AM
I disagree, Crash. I've had the ViewSonic 19" VX910 for a couple of months and love it! I haven't had any ghosting problems at all. I set the refresh rate at 60hz (I think--I'm at work and can't confirm)--but have tried higher with no problems. I change the rse in the config file to whatever the screen's native res is--1200 x 1024 or something like that--and it just works great. It is heads above the 17" CRT I had, at least as far as viewing area, of course, but I do honestly think it is clearer as well.

My 2 cents, anyway. drsmith, if you are going to buy one, I can heartily recommend the Viewsonic. BTW, the rebate from them took 9 weeks.

Jumoschwanz
05-31-2005, 07:36 AM
I just got a Dell 2001fp. It is a full 20.1 inches corner to corner. 16ms response time and native resolution is 1200x1600. Dell is selling these for between $500-$600 right now.

I switched from a 19"aoc crt monitor. At first the quality of the picture was pretty much the same except I could see objects against the ground better than before. I used to run the crt at 1200x1600 also, with a 9800pro.
After a week I also switched to a high-end ATI X850XTPE video card, and this made all the difference. For one with the new card I can run perfect mode smoothly, and now it is also really easy for me to fly online and spot targets against the ground on summer maps. I can see twice as well as with the old CRT/9800pro outfit.
And no, I have no ghosting or other problems with the image. In fact after getting the new video card the image was so much better it seemed as if my plane was flying better as things were so much clearer even when I was rolling fast and tracking objects against the ground!
With the old setup I was wondering how it was so easy for some to spot me against the ground when I knew if positions were switched they would be almost invisible to me. After changing the monitor and graphics card I can see how much of a difference this can make in visibility of targets. The guys who cannot see well on full-difficulty type servers are surely not going to enjoy it as much, or be as successful as they would if they had my setup.

Size is another big helper. My old 19" CRT measured an actual 18" corner to corner. At 20.1 inches for the Dell 2001fp lcd job, I have a lot more viewing area and everything is much bigger, another big help for visibility.

Lastly, eye strain. There isn't any to speak of! My old CRT bothered my eyes a lot. After only a few days using the crt I noticed that even after hours long sessions on the computer I felt the same after using it as I did before. No eye strain or fatigue! So just the health issues alone made me feel good about buying it. Because I know most bigger CRT monitors 20" or larger do not pass radiation emissions tests.

I looked at the Dell 2001fp because another longtime online pilot of this sim that I knew was a sharp cookie got one and really liked it. I wanted a bigger monitor than I had because I remembered what an improvement going from 17" to 19" was. So taking performance and size into consideration, the 2001fp looked the best buy.

I think 16ms response time is the slowest you want to go in an lcd monitor. And flying 1200X1600 resolution like I did for so long, once you do it you don't want to go back, things look great at this resolution! Another point, I got zero dead pixels with my monitor.

If you do not buy computer equipment too often, then bite the bullet and get the best you can. It saves you money in the long run as you don't get the urge to upgrade very soon. If you go halfway, it will not be long before you want more and then you end up spending twice as much buying what you really wanted in the first place. I did learn this the hard way. S!

Jumoschwanz

Oh yea, and the dell runs at a recommended 60hz refresh rate. But this is like running 85 or something on a crt because the response time smooths out the frames, they blend into each other. So refresh rate is not even a factor for an lcd, until maybe they get to such fast response times that they emulate the instant on and off of a crt or light bulb. I have had the dell to a higher rate by accident, but I want to stick with the mfr recommedations so this baby lasts a long time....

WWSensei
05-31-2005, 08:03 AM
I have the Dell FPW (Widescreen) 20.1 LCD. No ghosting. LCD ghosting is pretty much a thing of the past unless you get something with a 16ms or greater response time. My Dell specs at 12ms but averages around 10. If you are an FPS player you want something 12 or less with 8 being the optimum.

The quality, smoothness and HUGE drop in eyestrain pretty much guarantees I'm not going back to a CRT as my primary display. I still have my ViewSonic CRT since I run my setup in dual head mode. The difference in visual quality between the two is very apparent and quite significant.

MelonheadUK
05-31-2005, 08:38 AM
Another vote here for LCDs. I made the switch in December from a 19" Mitsubishi Diamondtron CRT to a Viewsonic VP201 20.1" LCD (same 1600x1200 panel as the Dell I've heard). So far everything is perfect on the LCD. Easier on the eyes, less power, more desk space, looks great on games and absolutely no ghosting. I've watched action movies and played all the way through HL2 and Doom3 and this stuff about ghosting really is in the past now. This Viewsonic even plays games perfectly at 1024x768 and 1280x1024 as well as 1600x1200 (the review that convinced me to buy it said it was one of the first LCDs to work well at non-native resolution in games and it really does!). This Viewsonic LCD is my best PC buy in years! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Worf101
05-31-2005, 09:41 AM
Originally posted by WWSensei:
I have the Dell FPW (Widescreen) 20.1 LCD. No ghosting. LCD ghosting is pretty much a thing of the past unless you get something with a 16ms or greater response time. My Dell specs at 12ms but averages around 10. If you are an FPS player you want something 12 or less with 8 being the optimum.

The quality, smoothness and HUGE drop in eyestrain pretty much guarantees I'm not going back to a CRT as my primary display. I still have my ViewSonic CRT since I run my setup in dual head mode. The difference in visual quality between the two is very apparent and quite significant.
I just bought the same monitor and it was/is a revelation and I got it for under $500.00 and you can't beat that. My CRT's gathering dust right now... poor thing...

Da Worfster

drsmith
05-31-2005, 07:34 PM
Is the ViewSonic 20.01" LCD a "widescreen" model? I'm unfamiliar with widescreen monitors...does it work well with FB/PF as well as everything else? And about how much do those suckers cost? I really do appreciate the advice and input you guys are giving me on this subject. I'm learning a lot. Thanks for your interest.

Bearcat99
05-31-2005, 08:06 PM
What you want is a low response time and a high contrast ratio.... I used to work at Best Buy and I am familiar with both of those.... If I were you i would also take a look at the LG 19" LCD as well...

drsmith
06-01-2005, 07:22 AM
Thanks for the positive responses. The ViewSonic 19" VX910 is one that is highly recommended. However, the contrast ratio is 550:1 and the response time is 25 ms. Is that good enough? This monitor is $369.99. The ViewSonic 20.1" and the Dell 20.1" Widescreen monitors are also highly recommended. Are these 20.1" monitors available from ViewSonic and Dell in the "standard" format rather than "widescreen"? Is the price difference really worth it?

TgD Thunderbolt56
06-01-2005, 08:24 AM
I had a Samsung 192N 19" LCD and absolutely loved it. The biggest benefits were the reduced heat output, reduced eye-strain, reduced power consumption and brighter picture. Not to mention the non-existent footprint. I still have it but have relegated it to another pc in the house as I recently put a Samsung 213T in its place...and love that one as well.


TB

Saunders1953
06-01-2005, 08:37 AM
"The ViewSonic 19" VX910 is one that is highly recommended. However, the contrast ratio is 550:1 and the response time is 25 ms. Is that good enough?"

Double check that 25ms rate. Best Buy had it listed at that rate on their tag, but on the Viewsonic website it was listed as 16ms (at least it was several months ago). Anyway, I bought it for $350 (with the rebate) and it works great for me. Crisp, clear, no ghosting, etc.

MelonheadUK
06-01-2005, 09:26 AM
Are these 20.1" monitors available from ViewSonic and Dell in the "standard" format rather than "widescreen"?

They're not widescreen.

The reason these monitors are more expensive is not the extra screen size as such, it's the fact that this particular panel handles 1600x1200. Pretty much all the 17" and 19" LCDs still only handle 1280x1024. I like to keep a display a few years, and I'm sure that within that time I will be able to run everything at that resolution. In fact, thanks to my new X800 XT I can now! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

drsmith
06-01-2005, 09:47 AM
What is an X800 XT?

drsmith
06-01-2005, 04:35 PM
Thanks, Guys...You have put me on the right track. Probably the best review I have seen on the internet is from GamePC. This is in summary of how they rate the ViewSonic VP201B 20.1" monitor. "Amazingly, ViewSonic has not only delivered the first truly gamer-friendly large screen LCD display, they've created what may be the flat-out, drop-dead, bar-none best LCD monitor we've ever had the chance to look at in the labs."

JadehawkII
06-01-2005, 05:28 PM
Having done quite a bit researching on my own when it comes to LCD Monitors, you need to pay attention to the Responce time. The lower the number the better responce will be. Currently 8MS responce is the best with 6 and 4 not too far behind. A 12ms is good for PF gameplay with hardly no ghosting what so ever. So any LCD with more than 12MS is not really worth it. Again, it depends on the brand but this is a general guide I go by.
Another thing to watch out for is the contrast ratio. The higher the number the better it should be.
But having said that, it also depends on the screen and brand as well. Why? well not all LCD screens are made the same. SO it pays to see them in person.
This is where I got confused and can only say that it's best to see whatever monitor you want to buy in person before you lay your money down for one.

Most good online stores give you a dead pixal rebate, but be careful again as some wont return it unless you have 6 or more dead pixals before they honor that.
Buyer beware!

Capt.LoneRanger
06-01-2005, 05:57 PM
The stated milliseconds are pure statistically and for selling more TFTs. They're not real.

Not real, because the measurment sounds like this is the time a dot needs to go from black to white to black. Considering a time of 8ms for that is great but never met in real life. So the industrie falsed their method. A full black is thereby reached, when 80% black is fullfilled. Same is for white. Now, the problem is, that adjusting from one color to another takes extremely long during these 20%, cause hitting the exact 32bit color with an interleaved 16bit display technology is simply impossible.
That way you always have shadows on a TFT, no matter how fast they want it to be.
It's just a question if you realize it and IL2 is not really a good reference for that. But even in IL2, you'll see the dots much more blured, especially over ground, as this is where the little difference between colors count and TFTs simply cannot do this yet.

You then got to keep in mind, that black on a TFT never means black=unlit. Even with high-end systems, you have a black that is in reality a very dark brown or grey, even on 750:1 screens.
Another problem is the angle of view. You can see the image from any angle on most TFTs now, but that does not mean it's the same from every angle. Colors and contrast changes drastically.

I don't say TFTs are bad. Got one myself and its a nice thing, light and easily transportable, with <12ms a fast screen, great for writing, but I don't play anything else on it, than SH3.

The no-pixel-error guarantee is worthless. You have to have at least 5 pixels CONNECTED not working to get a new screen from most companies. That is statistically nonsense.

drsmith
06-02-2005, 07:26 AM
Whooa...JadehawkII..You really struck a nerve here. You stated "So any LCD with more than 12MS (response time) is not really worth it". Is this a fact? My impression, from the specs I have seen, on LCD monitor response time don't go as low as 12MS. A 12MS response time would seem to considerably narrow one's choice of a LCD monitor...If the primary interest is playing FB/PF. Are we correct here? What choice do I really have at this point?