Samsung 710N 12MS good enough for gaming?

cheezies

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Feb 8, 2003
Messages
1,106
I am looking to buy a Samsung 710N LCD 12 ms, is this LCD good enough for gaming? If not , what other 17" LCD's are avaiable? It's been a while, but I'm hoping that LCD technology has caught up to CRT's.
 
i have a 712n (same thing as the 710, just the retail store version) that i got at best buy for 350 and it's phenomenal. so much so that i just put in an order for a second that i can pick up tomorrow morning. there's no noticible ghosting and the refresh rates are superb. i've bought 2 so far (mine, and one for my parents) and haven't seen a broken pixel yet...
 
I picked one up today. So far it's been great and I have absolutely no complaints to offer. I've been playing Doom 3 on it and haven't noticed any visual problems at all. Works great for gaming!
 
The 710T is the same panel and model as the 710N except for the simple fact that the 710T has DVI capability. I'd look for the 710T on the Dell website. Tons of deals and coupons all the time can almost assure a great price.

Dark Assassin
 
I am absolutely in love with my 712N, its fantastic colors, great blacks and whites, and best of all, no ghosting or dead pixels! at $350, i definately couldnt beat that deal from best buy
 
Looks like I'm getting a Samsung 712N next week :D

Didnt know they sold it at BestBuy and with the PSP it's even better!
 
The 710T costs more than the 710N because of the DVI input. In terms of gaming, is there any advantage in using DVI over analog?

Samsung 710N - $469 CAD
Samsung 710T - $549 CAD

The difference with tax included for the DVI model is $92 CAD, is DVI worth $92 CAD?
 
DVI is always worth it, in my opinion. The color optimization is fair more true than can be said about an analog connection. It's simply a better technology than D-sub. I'd be worth your while to get the 710T.

Dark Assassin
 
I hope the benefits of DVI can be seen when gaming.

The Samsung 710T is $549, that's a 17" screen, DVI and 12 MS.

I can also get a BenQ FP931-D for $559, that's a 19" screen, DVI but only 16 MS.

Trading 2" for 2 MS, which is the better choice?
 
i heard the samsung 712 was phenominal. but im into MAD REFRESHMENT so i stick with CRTs. maybe a plasma. :D
 
I have the 710T and it is fabulous for gaming, I use my 213T mostly but when i am in a serious competition i use the smaller 710T. There is 0 motion blurr and i have noticed no ghosting with it.

Most impressive is its contrast ratio and I am amazed at how bright it is
 
cheezies said:
I hope the benefits of DVI can be seen when gaming.

The Samsung 710T is $549, that's a 17" screen, DVI and 12 MS.

I can also get a BenQ FP931-D for $559, that's a 19" screen, DVI but only 16 MS.

Trading 2" for 2 MS, which is the better choice?

i say go with the 19 incher. between 16ms and 12ms I don't believe there is a large difference. In response to "is DVI that much better?", yes it is. I was running my 20 inch HP on this with analog before I got my DVI cables, and the difference is astounding. This is admittedly partially due to the fact that analog cables just don't provide enough bandwidth for 1600x1200 to run truly smoothly.
 
Tell me if I`m wrong:
The only difference between 710N and 710T are the buttons on the front panel?
 
global said:
Tell me if I`m wrong:
The only difference between 710N and 710T are the buttons on the front panel?
710T has DVI, 710N doesn't.
 
As for the topic, yes, I believe the 710N is good enough for gaming. I have the 710T and blurring is only noticeable in very fast games. Still not as good as a CRT, but no LCD is. Overall, it's a very good monitor. However, I'm thinking about selling mine because the viewing angles of TN panels annoy the hell out of me.
 
far as ghosting is concerned...

I've been using an LCD for gaming since my original NEC 5 years ago. Never had any issues there. Currently using a sony 17in LCD Widescreen rated at 22ms refresh and I see no ghosting. Anything below 25ms should be fine for you. Anything below 16 and there shouldn't be any questions what so ever.

Keep in mind I'm not stating this as a scientific fact or anything, but IN MY EXPERIENCE.

According to what I've read though, that "less than 25ms" statement should hold true. I'm just wondering why I keep seeing these ghosting questions about lcd's years after they technically should all be way past the refresh rate requirements where that was a problem.

Except for maybe the cheap ones, anything by a name brand ought to treat you just fine.

T
 
Back
Top