20"-21" Shoot Out For Gaming

D

DasFox

Limp Gawd
Joined
Oct 13, 2005
Messages
479
Well I'm in the same boat as most, trying to find a killer LCD for gaming without all the problems typically associated with LCDs at present.

There have been some nice rants over the Viewsonic VX2025wm and the NEC 20WGX2, besides these two are there any other LCDs in the 20"-21" range to compete with these?

Ultimately I wanted to game with a 23" at 1900x1200 MAX details, but there is no way to get around a decrease in performance. Now some new 24" range LCDs are on the way in the next few months, so there is no telling if they will give better performance like the smaller LCDa at the 1600x resolutions.

Next another dilemma of DX10 on the way, changing everything we have now in the way of performance, and taking possibly another hit on it.

So maybe for the next few years, real quailty and performance will still rest on the shoulders of the 20"-21" LCDs and for the bigger sizes we'll just have to wait and see.

In the meantime do tell and let us hear about any other great 21" range gaming LCDs, if there is any?

THANKS

P.S. I read this article:

http://www.xyzcomputing.com/index.php?option=content&task=view&id=620&Itemid=0&limit=1&limitstart=4

On this article for the Viewsonic it says The Dell 2005FPW has become the king of performance and value in this class and the newer 2007WFP is poised to keep that run going.
 
read my 204B review.

WS is not well accepted by game manufacturers yet and prolly wont be for a while longer. If you dont mind a stretched looking or part cut off screen in some games by all means go WS...
 
Yes I know, but so far games I have played have worked just fine with it, and this is for a SLI box that I only play new-generation games on.

It wouldn't really make sense to play older titles on a box like this, that can't take advantage of the 7900 cards.

So for me WS seems ok, and is what I want, since most new-generation games support this.

For those games that aren't quite up to specs of my SLI box, I play on my older box, which is better suited for older game titles.

THANKS
 
Samsung 204B. Why? B/c it's a GREAT monitor AND you can get it at BB so if there's an issue for ANYTHING just return it.
 
Also check out Gateways FPD2185w..Great performer,great price..I love mine.
 
spaceman said:
Samsung 204B. Why? B/c it's a GREAT monitor AND you can get it at BB so if there's an issue for ANYTHING just return it.
Click to expand...

Yeah having a store to return things to really is way nicer than the whole RMA route. BB is a bit costly usually though.

If you want a Dell monitor I'd sugest you buy it from the Costco website where it usually is at a decent price, comparable to the Dell coupon sales. Then if there's any problem you just take it right back to Costco...hassle free. Only problem right now though is that Costco is still only selling the 2005fpw and the 2405fpw...no signs of the 2007fpw on their site yet. Hopefully soon though.
 
Acer F-20/AL2032wd - those are supposedly very nice, kind of a poor man's NEC.
 
Costco actually has a pretty good line-up. Here's what they have on their web.

Costco's LCD's

I picked up the 20 inch Sceptre and its pretty good actually. But it has one big fat dead red pixel on the left side, so I might be taking it back for either the 2007fpw (when they get it) or the BenQ.

Only problem for you might be that if you wanna order of their website I'm not sure how the shipping to Hawaii will work. :confused:
 
Thanks for the input guys, but I guess I should of STRESSED the WORD --> "HARDCORE GAMER"

All these monitors you are mentioning the Sceptre and Acer are just general all around LCDs, with exeception of the Samsung 204B, but that is a TN panel, old technology, not going to be of any use to anyone soon for new-generation gaming, not to mention it's downfalls already as a TN.

Basically I know the top gaming LCDs, or at least what is considered to be them, and just want to hear what people are saying about them, and possibly newer LCDs coming.

THANKS
 
DasFox said:
Thanks for the input guys, but I guess I should of STRESSED the WORD --> "HARDCORE GAMER"

All these monitors you are mentioning the Sceptre and Acer are just general all around LCDs, with exeception of the Samsung 204B, but that is a TN panel, old technology, not going to be of any use to anyone soon for new-generation gaming, not to mention it's downfalls already as a TN.

Basically I know the top gaming LCDs, or at least what is considered to be them, and just want to hear what people are saying about them, and possibly newer LCDs coming.

THANKS
Click to expand...

If you're considering the Viewsonic or Dells, you have to consider the Acer, cause it's as good or better than those two for gaming.
 
well since your calling yourself "hardcore", i'd have to say the best thing out now is the NEC 20WGX2. Taking the price away from the equation, it seems to have the bang. Integrated tv tuner and other inputs besides analog/digital is a plus (plug in your consoles). I was shopping for a 24" (namely the dell2405) but after reading/seeing this monitor, it has jumped to the top of my list.

I've never owned an LCD and the largest CRT I've ever had is a 17" (trinitron) so I've been studying pretty hard at what my next/first LCD choice will be.
 
Well Varmint, I'm not disputing Acer, or their quality, they are not what I have come to see as big in the gaming community.

Plus you didn't mention anything about their gaming line, which I think is what we would want in this case, not these others you have suggested.

But I wouldn't mine hearing something on the Acer AL2015W if anyone knows anything.

http://global.acer.com/products/monitor/5_series.htm
 
DasFox said:
Well Varmint, I'm not disputing Acer, or their quality, they are not what I have come to see as big in the gaming community.

Plus you didn't mention anything about their gaming line, which I think is what we would want in this case, not these others you have suggested.

But I wouldn't mine hearing something on the Acer AL2015W if anyone knows anything.

http://global.acer.com/products/monitor/5_series.htm
Click to expand...

There have been a few threads on this site, as well as widescreengamingforum, praising the Acer 20" wides for gaming. I've seen almost no negative reviews on these forums, vs lots of negatives about the 2007FPW. So like I said, if you want widescreen, the Acer should be in your top three, including the NEC, and the Viewsonic 2025.

If you don't want widescreen, then I'd avoid Acer, there are better options.
 
Varmint said:
There have been a few threads on this site, as well as widescreengamingforum, praising the Acer 20" wides for gaming. I've seen almost no negative reviews on these forums, vs lots of negatives about the 2007FPW. So like I said, if you want widescreen, the Acer should be in your top three, including the NEC, and the Viewsonic 2025.

If you don't want widescreen, then I'd avoid Acer, there are better options.
Click to expand...


Well the only one I'd be interested in at this moment is the Acer AL2015W, unless people using it are saying another version of Acer is better at gaming.

Either this model is new, or isn't available in the USA yet. I don't see anyone selling them in the USA. In fact I don't see much of anything on the web over this model at all.

ALOHA
 
450 for the 204B isn't too much imo. It's the best bang for the buck 20" monitor out there which I can buy local. the viewsonic obviously is the other. basically, there's not much out there atm which qualifies as "hardcore" the sammy does it all without ghosting and with great color and clarity. who knows what's new coming out nobody is really showing their cards atm.
 
I wonder how the samsung 204b compares to the 214T...

both 1600X1200, I was more interested in the 214T (for dual monitors since I have a 213T already) but if the 204b is faster I would consider it.
 
yeah it's faster. only gripe is wire management really but otherwise it's about as good as it get's except for the NEC which costs nearly 2X as much.
 
Yashu said:
I wonder how the samsung 204b compares to the 214T...

both 1600X1200, I was more interested in the 214T (for dual monitors since I have a 213T already) but if the 204b is faster I would consider it.
Click to expand...

I've been using the 214T for the last couple months. I really like it. I got it from NewEgg with no dead pixels. Don't believe those NewEgg comments about displays from Mexico being worse. That guy is a moron. My backlight is uniform when properly adjusted. Games are damn good on it. BF2 I can play with no vsync and the tear is only minimal. WoW looks freakin' awesome too with the 8-bit panel.

I've been into BB and looked at the 204B. If you want big on the cheap, then go for a 204B. But if you want an 8-bit panel with larger viewing angle (160 vs 178), then get the 214T.
 
well I am looking for 1600X1200 that is faster then my 213T (enough where I notice)...

I am willing to lose the extra 1 inch and get the 204B *if* it is a faster panel then the 214T...

so... one person said it was faster... but you think not?

I love the color reproduction of the 213T... I just wish it was faster and am afraid that the 214T won't be that much of an improvement in speed.

so far I see one vote for the 204B with speed. (and the price is right :) )
 
Budwise said:
read my 204B review.

WS is not well accepted by game manufacturers yet and prolly wont be for a while longer. If you dont mind a stretched looking or part cut off screen in some games by all means go WS...
Click to expand...

Sorry, but that is total bullshit. The vast majority of triple A titles released in the last 12 months support widescreen. For example:

Far Cry
HL2
CoD2
Oblivion

...really I can't be bothered to go on, the list is endless. And the vast majority of games that don't support it out of the box can be easily tweaked to do so. I really do noy understand why this "games don't work with widescreen" myth continues to be perpetuated.

There's only a tiny handful of games, such as BF2, where widescreen presents a problem.
 
Yashu said:
well I am looking for 1600X1200 that is faster then my 213T (enough where I notice)...

I am willing to lose the extra 1 inch and get the 204B *if* it is a faster panel then the 214T...

so... one person said it was faster... but you think not?

I love the color reproduction of the 213T... I just wish it was faster and am afraid that the 214T won't be that much of an improvement in speed.

so far I see one vote for the 204B with speed. (and the price is right :) )
Click to expand...

is the 204b build on TN+ panel ? And you are thinking what pick up ? Come on! Offcourse 214T! S-PVA vs TN+ ? No comparision. 21'' vs 20'' ? same.
I switch from 25ms NEC 1980SXI to Samsung 214T. Best move ever ;)

greetings,

Peacemaker.

ps.

what settings you using to tweak 213T ? (brightness/contrast/gamma/ etc ) :)
 
so you say 214T all the way... wow... hmm....


the spec says 16ms for 214T and 8ms for the 204b. the 213T is 25ms or worse like your old one...

I figured they did like most other manufacturers and just changed the way they measure instead of really upping the performance. but I don't know alot about different panels. I mean, there are only really 2 1600X1200 panels... the 21.3" one and 20" one regardless of manufacturer.

it is hard to invest more then 700 bucks in a monitor that I might not even notice is better. but you said you definately noticed... so hmm...

the 204b is probably the same panel in the EDIT: dell 2001fpw, and I hate the colors on that thing... (I have two at work)


as far as tweaking... I use the DVI, so I just set 50% brightness and that is that. are there things I can do in the interim to make this thing seem faster?
 
caboosemoose said:
Sorry, but that is total bullshit. The vast majority of triple A titles released in the last 12 months support widescreen. For example:

Far Cry
HL2
CoD2
Oblivion

...really I can't be bothered to go on, the list is endless. And the vast majority of games that don't support it out of the box can be easily tweaked to do so. I really do noy understand why this "games don't work with widescreen" myth continues to be perpetuated.

There's only a tiny handful of games, such as BF2, where widescreen presents a problem.
Click to expand...

I can't speak for any of the games you mentioned, so perhaps I should keep my mouth shut :)

However -- I see a lot of people mention "widescreen support" for WoW. If that's the sort of support that the games above provide, then it's no support at all. WoW shows the _same_ viewport (or close enough to fool me) regardless of resolution, except with widescreen resolutions -- and there they chop off a bit of the top and bottom.

Note: My very simple test for this is to change the resolution and look at some pre-selected markers on the edges and tops of the screen and see if they get truncated or if more area comes in to view. Hopefully that's a valid test.

Personally, when I refer to "widescreen support", I'm referring to the widening of the viewport that I'm used to seeing (at 1600x1200, for example) -- not having the viewport truncated.

I'm sure there are many games that support this -- perhaps all the games you mentioned. I just tried this out on WoW yesterday, and it does not truly support widescreen on any of the resolutions that I tried.

At any rate, I'm typing this on a 204B that I purchased yesterday (from Best Buy) and I'm disappointed. The color shift, while just sitting here directly in front of the screen, is very noticable. I've got iTunes up and the columns are supposed to alternate from light blue to white. The blue columns at the bottom of the window (still a good inch from the bottom of the screen) are _nearly_ blended in with the white ... the columns at the top of the screen are much darker. The response time is acceptable to me. It's not CRT quality, obviously, and I can't tell the difference between this and my wife's 930B -- but it seems good nonetheless. I haven't tried out anything slower than 8ms though, but I think I'm about to.

Likewise with web pages -- if I go to slashdot or digg, the green bars and hyperlinks (respectively) for the articles are dark at the top and very faded and light at the bottom. I've calibrated the monitor using the built in calibration tools under Mac OS X and using the supplied software under Windows XP. The results are the same -- much better than when it's first plugged in, but by no means uniform. If I sit up more straight or slouch even more (if that's possible), the whole look of the monitor shifts.

Kevin
 
Hey let's not kill the post, hehe :)

Tomb Raider - Legend also supports widescreen, I was playing it on a 23" ACD.

Anyhow with my rig specs I think I'll hold out for a 23"-24" something to game at 1920X

You can hack F.E.A.R. to play at 1920X1200 as well, which I believe is a widescreen resolution.

Look here guys ----> http://www.widescreengamingforum.com/

ALOHA
 
silentsammy said:
I picked up the 20 inch Sceptre and its pretty good actually. But it has one big fat dead red pixel on the left side, so I might be taking it back for either the 2007fpw (when they get it) or the BenQ.
Click to expand...

I work at wal-mart, and they do have that 20.1" Sceptre for $390 or something, plus with my 10% discount and well... living 2 miles from the store... Would be easy to return it, if its fubared. But im liking the BenQ for its base, so Id have to drive to costco with someone else who does have a member card.

After reading some threads here, im not sure if I want to get an LCD anymore... :(. Sounds like a 20" CRT monitor would be a better deal all around.
 
Yashu said:
the spec says 16ms for 214T and 8ms for the 204b. the 213T is 25ms or worse like your old one...

I don't know alot about different panels. I mean, there are only really 2 1600X1200 panels... the 21.3" one and 20" one regardless of manufacturer.

the 204b is probably the same panel in the EDIT: dell 2001fpw, and I hate the colors on that thing... (I have two at work)
Click to expand...

Well... here is my NEC's review http://www.hardforum.com/showthread.php?t=869306
Unfortunatly i had to delete almost all pictures, but there is all about it.

The diffrence between TN+ and S-PVA or S-MVA or AS-IPS is like day and night.
Before S-xVA panels are born, best panel for gaming, graphic and movies was S-IPS from some good manufacture. You can get panel form LG.Philips or Samsun or even NEC oryginal panel (2180UXi). Most 20'' lcd using LG.Philips S-IPS panel (Dell 2001, NEC 2080UXi, Viewsonic VP201 (all the same panel) and some Philips, IIyama) and if you spend some time to tweak settings you will get really great colour reproduction and picture quality.
25ms on S-IPS was like 16ms on TN+, so.... Nec using Rapid Responce technology, Dell using some other electronic chip, Viewsonic also. All works good.

PVA has got great black level and colours, but poor responce time.
MVA has good even better black level and great colour, but was terrible slow...

TN+ has got fastest response time, poor view angles (130/150 vs 170/178 on S-IPS, xVA)
and colours start to be weak and wash out and yellow if you didn't stay exacly straight ahead of monitor.

But now... now we have got new panels with new technology S-PVA means Super-PVA. Response time is going to be smaller and smaller. 16 ms for S-PVA (8ms grey to grey) is not the fastes on the market (you can find 12ms), but its true in Samsung case. In other models is too much marketing bullshits (for my taste).

I'm not saying that new TN+ panels are for nothing. I just saw the diffrence between them and i don't like it.
If someone got TN+ inside his LCD and he is happy with those settings, monitor gaves him all he need - great! I'm glad to hear that someone is just happy with his new LCD.

But my advice (TN+ vs S-PVA) is S-PVA all the way.
I'm hardcore gamer. Playing IL2 Pacific Fighters most of the time, Lock-ON, AA, SWAT4, BF2, sometimes UT2K4.
My new Samsung resolves all previous problems with resolutions (i know - many of games can be tweak by editing config.ini - i know, i know) - all games support native 1600x1200. And it looks sooo sweet! You have to keep in mind, that you will need strong gpu and cpu to handle this resolution with all eye candy, but even if not... scaling down not looking that bad on my 214T. (you can alway cut down some AA or AF settings)
All objects, contacts in the sky or ground, enemies are just like it should be :) BIG :)
I really enjoying the time spending on internet gaming.

this is only my 2 cents ;)

greetings,

Peacemaker.

p.s.
this is rather old panel guide, but when i was looking i found this very helpfull.
http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/other/display/lcd-guide.html

its not including S-xVA series of todays panels, but give you some informations about the most important diffrence.
 
Alright, so I went out and got the Samsung 204T (20" 4:3, 16ms S-PVA panel) to compare it with the Samsung 204B (20" 4:3, 5ms TN panel). The difference is really incredible, with the clear advantage -- IMHO -- going to the 204T.

The 204B _is_ noticably faster, when I'm looking for it. While playing WoW, I can't tell the difference in motion blur, although admittedly I haven't spent much time testing it (an hour total, perhaps). I can drag a web browser around, while displaying HardForum, and see that the 204B blurs less where the sharp reds bleed into the blacks and greys. Both blur, of course, but the 204B is definately superior in this regard.

The 204T is _far_ superior in terms of viewing angles. As I mentioned earlier, I can't stand the fact that the colors are noticably different between the top and bottom of the screen on the 204B. In fact, while using color calibration tools that show a flat color in a square at the center of the screen, the color difference between the top and bottom of the _square_ (perhaps two inches tall) is obvious! The 204T has an inferior horizontal viewing angle, so if I shift side to side I can see the colors fade slightly, but it's nothing like the shift seen on the 204B in the vertical. And the vertical shift on the 204T is very minimal.

However, the 204T does exhibit the decreased details when viewing the picture _dead_ on, which I've read is a problem with VA-type panels (or perhaps just certain descendants). So far, it doesn't seem extreme enough to be a problem for me. The colors on the 204T, after calibration, are great. What I've noticed on both monitors (as well as my wife's Samsung 930B) is that whites are blown out extremely badly unless contrast is set down between 80 and 90. In fact, I can watch as light colors disappear completely into _white_ as I increase the contrast to 100, on all three monitors. This is with brightness _anywhere_ -- although I typically set them down near 30.

I've got the two monitors side by side right now, so I'm not dreaming this stuff. Perhaps there are FPS games out there that will need to rely on the 5ms timing of the 204B, but I'd have real trouble making it my every-day-use display.

To wrap things up -- I had no dead pixels on the 204B (from Best Buy), and one dead pixel on the first 204T (from Comp USA). I returned it and the new one is dead pixel free, as far as I can tell.

I hope this rambling is worth something.

Kevin
 
I think you mean 214T...

and yeah I *know* the color gamut is damn good... and it sure looks nice doing graphics work...


I think I might invest in the 214T afterall... I mean, I love my 213T so I should love the 214T even more.

you guys helped alot... having the 213T and it's very slow response time has always left me wanting something better when I game... and it sounds like the 214T is a great compromise.

I would not want washed out colors and strict viewing angles... even for a couple less ms latency.

thanks guys... and peacemaker for the explaination of panel tech differences. I could deduce some of that from experience... but I didn't know that the 214T panel was actually a genuine new version of the one in my 213T (as opposed to just tweaking the driving and measurements)
 
codehoser said:
What I've noticed on both monitors (as well as my wife's Samsung 930B) is that whites are blown out extremely badly unless contrast is set down between 80 and 90. In fact, I can watch as light colors disappear completely into _white_ as I increase the contrast to 100, on all three monitors. This is with brightness _anywhere_ -- although I typically set them down near 30.
Click to expand...

Um, I don't think that any monitor at 100 contrast will be correctly calibrated, so that's hardly a problem. It goes that high just so they look more vivid in the store.
 
Peacemaker said:
I'm hardcore gamer. Playing IL2 Pacific Fighters most of the time, Lock-ON, AA, SWAT4, BF2, sometimes UT2K4.
Click to expand...
Hardcore, and yet hadn't noticed the horrid lag of PVA based monitors (Dell 2405FPW, Samsung 244t, ...). The monitor lags more (51ms) than the servers I play on. You are dead meat with PVAs playing online. PVAs are definitely *not* suitable for any kind of gaming.
 
DusanV said:
Hardcore, and yet hadn't noticed the horrid lag of PVA based monitors (Dell 2405FPW, Samsung 244t, ...). The monitor lags more (51ms) than the servers I play on. You are dead meat with PVAs playing online. PVAs are definitely *not* suitable for any kind of gaming.
Click to expand...


Yes I'll back this up too, since this is what everyone out there is saying, even though I've never gamed on these panels, enough people out there are all saying the samething.
 
Yashu:
I'm not sure if you were refering to my post or not, but I was talking about the 204T not the 214T. I realize you were wondering how the 204B compared to the 214T, but that's not the comparison I was able to make ;)

Truffle:
I don't think the contrast issue is a "problem" either -- it works fine with the contrast set down to ~85. I was under the impression that higher contrast was intended to, you know, increase the actual contrast of the monitor, not decrease it past a certain point. I thought it was worth noting.

DusanV:
When you say PVAs aren't suitable for any kind of gaming, are you referring to just the makes that you mentioned? Are you referring to old-school PVA without an overdrive-type technology? I just finished a four hour WoW gaming session on my 204T (S-PVA), and it was perfectly suitable to me. I wouldn't extrapolate that little piece of information and assert that it's perfectly suited to every type of gameplay -- you should avoid doing the same.

On a 5ms TN panel, it's obvious that motion blur is in effect in any game that I try. As soon as the camera starts to spin, images go from crisp to _blur_ -- much more so than on a CRT. However, I think the more severe problem is perhaps what's meant by "ghosting" -- enough of a blur to leave a residual image in the wake of a moving object. The 5ms 204B that I tried out exhibited this as well, but this 204T clearly performs worse in this regard. What it amounted to in my 4 hour gaming session was me being able to pick out a "ghost" image when I whip my camera around, and only when there's certain color combinations -- usually some bright color onto a flat background (red guy next to a grey sky, for example). And then, the "ghost" image is clearly noticable _if_ I'm looking for it -- but not enough to affect my gameplay in _any_ way.

Maybe in FPS-land this sort of ghosting equates to people performing badly. That hasn't been the case for me in an MMORPG. I'd wager it wouldn't affect me in an FPS either -- although I never was any good at those ;)

Kevin
 
I did not know there was a 204T maybe that is where I got confused...

panel types are confusing... I always figured there were only 2 types of 1600X1200 panels out there period... a 20" and a 21.3" each a different tech.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top