LCD size and gaming resolutions?

H

Hornswoggler

2[H]4U
Joined
Jun 29, 2004
Messages
2,325
My 21" trinitron CRT is starting to die (its been giving me a headache the last few days) and I think its about time for replacement. I am heavily considering an LCD since they have made such progress in the last few years for gaming and ghosting.

Gaming is my most critical application. I play Quake 3/4 and lots of it. Actually, I play other DM games too (like UT2004, warsow, etc.) but still the same criteria. I always turn the graphics down low so I can focus on the gameplay and my competition.

I play Quake 3 at 640x480 and Quake 4 at 800x600. I run Q3 that low because my current CRT can display that at 120Hz refresh, which I like a lot. My eyes can tell a difference between 60, 72, 85, 100, and 120 Hz refresh rates and I always crank it as high as possible. I also like smooth and need as many fps as I can get. My system is a AMD 3500+ and 6800GT AGP vid card. I am definately due for an upgrade (really want a core 2 duo!!!) but it might have to wait until spring.

My concern is with non-native resolutions and interpolation. For example, a Viewsonic VX922 has a native resolution of 1280x1024. This sounds perfect for desktop usage but my system can't crank out smooth Quake 4 performance at that resolution. I understand that I can play with a division of that number... cut in half would be 640x512 (is this close enough to 640x480??). I should be able to play Q3 at that resolution, but I think Q4 starts at 800x600. How ugly will Q4 and UT2004 look if running at 800x600? Since I won't have refresh rate concerns, I can start playing at higher resolutions ONCE I upgrade my system... but it won't be pretty until then.

How bad is gaming at non-native resolutions? Since I play Q4 and UT04 at 800x600, should I find a 4:3 LCD with native res of 1600x1200 so it can be an even division and not interpolate?


Cliff Notes:
- Plays games at 800x600 (sometimes lower)
- Competitive gaming is my killer app
- CRT is dying, need replacement. Considering a 4:3 LCD
- Want 19" at minimum. 20-21" would be ideal for desktop usage.
- 2-year-old system unable to sufficiently power quake4 at 1280x1024
- May be able to power native resolutions with spring 07 system overhaul.
- How bad is interpolation on today's LCD's?


Also, what are some monitors you guys would recommend? Looking for gaming performance, 19-21", 4:3 aspect, and resolution options. I am really considering a Viewsonic VX922 right now.

TIA!
 
upgrade your computer to be able to run at native resolution.

you won't regret it.
 
Keep in mind LCD monitors have a refresh rate of 60hz. I saw a thread earlier about someone complaining about playing quake 4 on an LCD cause with vsync you're limited to 60fps and he wanted 120fps for quake 4, but could only get it by turning off vsync which resulted in massive tearing. Something to keep in mind if that is important to you.
 
I would say you are a canidate for a new CRT since you play quake competively. I agree with the post above, if you are that serious about a high Hz stick to the CRT.
 
davodavo said:
upgrade your computer to be able to run at native resolution.

you won't regret it.
Click to expand...

That is my plan for next year... just don't have the money to do it all at once right now. I'm figuring about $200 for new CPU, $160 for mobo, $100-200 for RAM, and something like a 7900GT will run me around $300. Add a $300 monitor and thats a $1,100 chunk (minus revenue from selling current parts) I don't have today. This spring I am going to upgrade for sure.

xenogears said:
Keep in mind LCD monitors have a refresh rate of 60hz. I saw a thread earlier about someone complaining about playing quake 4 on an LCD cause with vsync you're limited to 60fps and he wanted 120fps for quake 4, but could only get it by turning off vsync which resulted in massive tearing. Something to keep in mind if that is important to you.
Click to expand...

That's a good point.

Q4 is limited to 60 fps itself, but Q3 can go way higher. I don't want tearing. Will all my games be capped at 60 fps if LCD is 60 Hz and vsync is turned on? Yikes! Maybe I'll start shopping CRT's :/

I was hoping for a light LCD for lan parties and saving energy. Oh well.
 
Hornswoggler said:
Will all my games be capped at 60 fps if LCD is 60 Hz and vsync is turned on? .
Click to expand...

Yup, vsync will cap it to what the refresh rate is, but it'll prevent tearing.
 
Ok, here are my thoughts..
before I got my Acer F-20 I was really angsty and worried about ghosting and even though I have a 7900GT SLI I also wondered about games like FEAR and Oblivion that wouldn't take kindly to 1680x1050 with a decent level of eyecandy turned on. Well...it seems that surfing forums and reading too many reviews makes you worry about issues that may not really exist..I have found that 1680x1050 works just fine on my current games (Flatout 2, Rome total war) and games such as NFSMW are easily hacked to run 1680x1050 or even a lower widescreen res if you're lacking hardware power.

I found that widescreengamingforums has fairly simple workarounds for just about any game you can imagine...but the fact is that many newer games already have widescreen support and others have added it in a patch. I also don't regret not getting the 2007FPW for scaling because my Nvidia Forceware drivers allow setting up custom res and scaling....while avoiding some of the issues and slower response time of the Dell. Basically everything I worried about was unfounded....if ghosting exists on my monitor then it really is a ghost because I don't see it, and I haven't had any major scaling/res issues with games so far, black levels are great. Just jump in and enjoy the wideness :cool:

edit- just noticed you like competitive gaming...better keep a crt around for those sessions
 
I play CS competitively at a high level and just got a Samsung 204b and absolutely love it. I play CS at 8x6 with no problems with iq at all. 6x4 is pushing it as pixels become interpolated and it looks bad. q4 and ut2k4 look fine at 8x6 as well. This can be had retail for 370 and online for 350 w/ 60 mir.
 
I too play CS competitvely on my Hyudai L90D+. It has a native res of 1280x1024. Games do not support 640x512. I play CS at 1024x768 and it looks fairly good.
 
With that criteria buying a LCD will be your worst deal ever. I have one and is happy with it but except for the refresh issue you also have this "input lagg". So your aim may suffer a bit too as well as the less IQ you get...

However if you really need it for space saving then it´s a good choice :)

Otherwise go widescreen and 30" minimum if you are going to buy a LCD...
 
Nope, I'm playing at 100 with vsync of and a refresh rate of 75hz. When I play q3 I have my maxfps set to 125 and in ut I get 75-200 depending on the map and server population. I assume you're wanting to know if I'm using vsync? No I'm not and I get no noticable tearing.
 
Refresh rate and tearing issues aside...

I am heavily considering the Samsung 204B, 20" and 1600x1200. If I play my games at 800x600, it should use four LCD pixels for every one "output" pixel, right? I mean, its not the native resolution but a division of the native resolution so it should still look sharp (well, as sharp as 800x600 can be expected)...

thoughts and experiences?

Would 800x600 look cleaner on this monitor than 1024x768?
 
You're completely right on everything you said. I like mine alot, and I've only had it for a couple of days now I have completely adjusted which is surprising because I've been playing more WoW than anything else.
 
Thought I would give an update for anybody else in a similar situation.

Last Friday, I went out to the local Best Buy and picked up a Samsung 204B. Very awesome display. 20" with standard aspect ratio (not widescreen). Native resolution was 1600x1200. While this monitor didn't have the extremely low latency of the Viewsonic VX922, it received better reviews in all the other stuff (desktop usage, movie playback, etc.). Plus I wanted 1600x1200 for resolution as I could game at 800x600 without interpolation (in theory)

I get the display home, hook it up, etc. Looks awesome for desktop usage. Fired up my favorite games (quake 3/4, UT2004) and had a few problems. First off, resolution was a non-issue. I was able to run all of them at 1600x1200 without any problem, very smooth (well, system-wise). Resolution good, response time pretty good (I could notice a slight blur during very fast action) and liveable, but the deal killer for me was Tearing.

The tearing was the one problem I could neither fix or adjust to. No reason I should have to make such a concession when there are CRT's out there that will perform every bit as good as my old one (granted, it might be used as they dont make many good new CRT's these days as I understand). The tearing was awful. I tried both vsync on and vsync off (vsync = on actually caused a 2-second delay in input while playing UT2004, with it off was a big help). I tried different resolutions, installed everything on the included CD, and no luck removing the tearing.

So, next day I took it back to BB and got my refund.

I'm back to my old 21" CRT, although its a little blurry and still needs replaced. With LCD's ruled out for my gaming needs, time to start shopping for nice CRT's!

This is too bad as I really wanted an LCD. *sniff*
 
Hornswoggler said:
Thought I would give an update for anybody else in a similar situation.

Last Friday, I went out to the local Best Buy and picked up a Samsung 204B. Very awesome display. 20" with standard aspect ratio (not widescreen). Native resolution was 1600x1200. While this monitor didn't have the extremely low latency of the Viewsonic VX922, it received better reviews in all the other stuff (desktop usage, movie playback, etc.). Plus I wanted 1600x1200 for resolution as I could game at 800x600 without interpolation (in theory)

I get the display home, hook it up, etc. Looks awesome for desktop usage. Fired up my favorite games (quake 3/4, UT2004) and had a few problems. First off, resolution was a non-issue. I was able to run all of them at 1600x1200 without any problem, very smooth (well, system-wise). Resolution good, response time pretty good (I could notice a slight blur during very fast action) and liveable, but the deal killer for me was Tearing.

The tearing was the one problem I could neither fix or adjust to. No reason I should have to make such a concession when there are CRT's out there that will perform every bit as good as my old one (granted, it might be used as they dont make many good new CRT's these days as I understand). The tearing was awful. I tried both vsync on and vsync off (vsync = on actually caused a 2-second delay in input while playing UT2004, with it off was a big help). I tried different resolutions, installed everything on the included CD, and no luck removing the tearing.

So, next day I took it back to BB and got my refund.

I'm back to my old 21" CRT, although its a little blurry and still needs replaced. With LCD's ruled out for my gaming needs, time to start shopping for nice CRT's!

This is too bad as I really wanted an LCD. *sniff*
Click to expand...

And that, my friend, is why I no longer even bother trying to play FPS games on my LCD. I think if I had known more about issues with LCD's beforehand, I would not have purchased the Dell 2405FPW that I use now.
 
Hornswoggler said:
My eyes can tell a difference between 60, 72, 85, 100, and 120 Hz refresh rates and I always crank it as high as possible. I also like smooth and need as many fps as I can get.
Click to expand...

Get a new CRT. Heck, I'll give you my old 19" for cheap if you live in/ near Pittsburgh
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top