What to get first?

[pcgamer]

I am going to buy a new monitor and CPU for my PC the new monitor to show off my new GPU lol as it will be a 1080P 1 but I'm not sure weather or not to get the new Quad core CPU first or my monitor what do you think?

 

[CommonTater]

I am going to buy a new monitor and CPU for my PC the new monitor to show off my new GPU lol as it will be a 1080P 1 but I'm not sure weather or not to get the new Quad core CPU first or my monitor what do you think?

LOL... I think it's up to you. Personally... if my computer was stable and working well, I'd go for the monitor.

 

[whs]

I am going to buy a new monitor and CPU for my PC the new monitor to show off my new GPU lol as it will be a 1080P 1 but I'm not sure weather or not to get the new Quad core CPU first or my monitor what do you think?

LOL... I think it's up to you. Personally... if my computer was stable and working well, I'd go for the monitor.

+1, you'll probably get more out of the monitor.

 

[pcgamer]

i was thinking monitor as my PC plays all games on ultra high now stably and is really fast on dual core and the new monitor will show of the gfx better i was thinking

 

[whs]

You have to be careful with quad cores. A 2.5GHz quad may run slower than a 3.0GHz duo core if the program you are running does not make full use of the quad. I have a Q6600 and I am actually very disappointed about its performance.

 

[pparks1]

What monitor are you thinking about getting? One of my next 2 upgrades is going to be the Dell U2410 IPS flat panel to replace my current 23" Acer monitor.

You have to be careful with quad cores. A 2.5GHz quad may run slower than a 3.0GHz duo core if the program you are running does not make full use of the quad. I have a Q6600 and I am actually very disappointed about its performance.

Yeah, with the earlier quad cores, I usually recommended for gamers and such to stick with dual cores as they often had more cache, faster front side bus speeds and faster clock cycles.

 

[pcgamer]

You have to be careful with quad cores. A 2.5GHz quad may run slower than a 3.0GHz duo core if the program you are running does not make full use of the quad. I have a Q6600 and I am actually very disappointed about its performance.

That is what i was worried about TBH as my Dual Core is overclocked to 3.24GHz and it runs super fast then if i get a Q9400 is taking a big hit going to 2.66 even though its a Quad Core it might be slower in overall performance which is not good.

 

[pcgamer]

What monitor are you thinking about getting? One of my next 2 upgrades is going to be the Dell U2410 IPS flat panel to replace my current 23" Acer monitor.

You have to be careful with quad cores. A 2.5GHz quad may run slower than a 3.0GHz duo core if the program you are running does not make full use of the quad. I have a Q6600 and I am actually very disappointed about its performance.

Yeah, with the earlier quad cores, I usually recommended for gamers and such to stick with dual cores as they often had more cache, faster front side bus speeds and faster clock cycles.

And this is my new monitor I'm going to order: LG W2361V 23" LCD Widescreen Full HD Gaming monitor 1920x1080 300cd/m2 50,000:1 2ms VGA/DVI/HDMI Tilt Stand 3yr Onsite Warranty - Gloss Black - Ebuyer

 

[fseal]

What monitor are you thinking about getting? One of my next 2 upgrades is going to be the Dell U2410 IPS flat panel to replace my current 23" Acer monitor.

I just got that monitor, it's nice and less than half the price of my old 23 incher when I got it 6 years ago.

When my old samsung burned out, I was flabberghasted that I could not just walk into Fry's or Best Buy and buy a REAL computer monitor any more

It's really really sad that they are pushing these craptastic 6 bit TN /TELEVISION/ panels down everyones throats to the exclosion of EVERYTHING else. Just walking down the isle and seeing the beautiful smooth W7 default background on every single computer broken into bands of color on EVERY monitor... unbelievable.

There is almost no choice any more to buy a real monitor without spending $1800 or more and special ordering it. Except for that dell, reasonably priced, and a real monitor with real color and a real 1920x1200 resolution.

I just can't believe the BACKWARDS travel of color fidelity and monitor resolution we taken in the last 6 years. I worry about 6 years from now when I want to replace it. How much worse off will things be then?

Disclaimers:
1) THere are a couple of 1920x1200 TN panels rather than 1920x1080 but they are still TN panels.
2) Frys does sell ONE decent monitor that is not TN, the Apple Cinima Display, but.. uh... too rich by far.
3) Some TN panels don't look as terrible as most but that is because they are dithering the 6 bit data to smooth out the posterization and appear more like an 8 bit panel but that adds a graininess to the image that FURTHER makes working on photographs frustrating as you can't tell if you have over processed your own image or if it's the monitor working against you.

 

[pparks1]

Many people simply aren't that knowledgeable when it comes to their monitors. They often just settle for bigger is better...but want to spend as little as possible on the monitor. I knew what I was getting into my Acer...but I fully intended to replace it fairly quickly and use it as a spare monitor around the house or a secondary monitor. My previous flat panel was an 18" Dell Ultrasharp and I was spoiled by that monitor...which was over $700 when it was purchased in 2001.

I often hear people remark about how cheap flat panels have become over the years. I gently remind them that the cheapness is as much related to the quality of the displays as much as it does to evolving technology.