Lcd/tft vs led for gaming...

[borgqueenx]

I could buy a old but really well working dell ultrasharp 1408wfp...
But im wondering how it compares with monitors of right now(cheaper ones below 200 dollar) for example how is it against a samsung syncmaster s23a350?
I am going to play far cry 3 on highest so colors are important. I want a deep experience in the jungle!

All monitors of today uses led.
Ive ofcource done my homework on researching this subject...but it seems the opinions are very different.

Like i said...its for the games. I want to see a nice deep sea the deep green jungle...i have intention on ever going to watch movies on this.

The ultrasharp i can buy (for about 125usd) does have 6ms pixel response. I have no idea if thats bothering me. Playing games above 30fps is good. Im now used to playing games above15 fps. If that ms reponse time got anything to do with fps.

People also seem to complain about input lag for the ultrasharp..

 

[logicearth]

I assume you mean a Dell Ultrasharp 2408WFP, if so that is an awesome monitor. Even by today's standards. The wide viewing angles are the main aspect you want to look for when buying a monitor. Get a cheap crappy one and your eyes will bleed after a few minutes of strain.

However, when it comes to monitors I am very bias. I am of the opinion when you buy a monitor you do not look for the cheapest. You look for the highest quality you can afford, top of the line professorial grade monitors none of those "gamer" monitors. But I did just spend around $1,500 on my 30 inch monitor... (Dell UltraSharp U3011) My reasoning of course, you look at it every day you are on the computer, needs to function, needs to last, and most certainly should not make your eyes bleed.

 

[borgqueenx]

Heard it has input lag... Do you have experience with that?
And yes thats what i ment the 2408

 

[logicearth]

Input lag is something only very few people would actually notice, but all monitors have input lag there is no way around that. But we are talking milliseconds beyond what you can perceive. Your own brain has far greater input lag then any monitor.

Note Dell's UltraSharp line of monitors are all professional grade, with top of the pile premium LCD panels.

 

[borgqueenx]

Hmmm...i dont hope i am one of those people. I dont want to be "cursed" with fast perceiving eyes or something.
But every monitor probaly got different input lag..

 

[logicearth]

If you can snag the Dell monitor for about $130 that is a steal. That monitor was sold for about $500 to $600.
http://reviews.cnet.com/lcd-monitor...4505-3174_7-32886455.html?_escaped_fragment_=

 

[borgqueenx]

So you think the 2408wfp is still very good compared to cheaper monitors nowadays? Even with their led ips displays ect ect?

Ive read that cnet review but doubt if cnet will still say its so good if they would review that monitor today^^

 

[logicearth]

The LEDs panels are not necessarily better, their only real advantage is lower power consumption. But yes, the Dell monitor is solid even compared to a lot of the newer panels.

 

[bobkn]

Remember that the LEDs are just used for backlights, rather than the fluorescent tubes used in other monitors. Some manufacturers play tricks with the LEDs to extend the dynamic range of the display, but that sounds more than a little bogus to me.

If you're really concerned about the response time of the monitor, get a 120Hz model with a 2ms gray-to-gray response. It will probably be a TN panel, inferior to the S-PVA Dell for everything but fast-twitch gaming, and it'll be a lot more expensive.

Some hardcore gamers want high refresh rate CRTs. They probably are frying their ears listening to vinyl records played through vacuum tube power amps. Having to drop out of the game every 20 minutes to flip LPs must be a drag, though.

 

[DeaconFrost]

I've always gone with Dell LCD monitors, especially the UltraSharps when price allowed. They have always looked good in FPS games, as far as I could tell.

 

[Dwarf]

If you can get to a computer store to see the different monitors in action, then do so. Make your choice based on what you actually see and don't be afraid to adjust the monitor settings.

 

[bobkn]

If you can get to a computer store to see the different monitors in action, then do so. Make your choice based on what you actually see and don't be afraid to adjust the monitor settings.

That can be difficult. Most retail displays I've seen have been of multiple monitors being driven by a common signal, which makes it difficult to judge what any monitor is capable of.

If you could find examples that are attached to standalone PCs, that would be good.

 

[Dwarf]

Yes and no. It can sometimes be easier to compared them when they are fed, via a splitter, a common signal. This theoretically means that each monitor receives exactly the same signal and eliminates any possibility of graphics settings on individual machines skewing the results, which is what you might/will get if the display monitors are connected to individual signal sources. Of course, it should be noted that most retail displays will have the monitors set up with their dynamic settings, but this can give false impressions as to image quality (it does make it seem brighter and sharper, but it's really a marketing gimmick to make them stand out).