Gaming lcd list! 24" 25.5"

E

Eppidemic

Weaksauce
Joined
Jan 7, 2009
Messages
73
Their seems to be no concencise on whats the best LCD displays for gaming. Dont get me wrong. but for a noob trying to make a selection its hard to sift through all the threads. That's why I see a ton of new... "is this monitor good" type threads.

I, and I'm sure others would like to see a top 5 list for 24 and 25.5" monitors. Please. those of you that are in the know. help us out. I know tons of the members here obviously know their shit. so. Through all the reviews and personal experience. please list your favorite 5-10 monitors in order. keep it under $500. Please... only list if you feel your information is informed and correct. These will be gaming only monitors. if people want 1:1 1080p. you can then sift through the top choices. Please don't debate peoples list. just do your own. If 15-20 of you do this. we will begin to see a pattern, and find out what the top 5 monitors are. Then we can concentrate more on price and such.

1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
 
1. Samsung Syncmaster T240*

*the only 24in monitor i've used and it plays fast paced cs:s smoothly with no blurring, input lag or ghosting. Sorry i dont have a list.
 
I've been using a Dell 2407 for about two years now. It's been more than fit for gaming. I can only imagine Dell's latest tech would be even better.

Prior to this, I stubbornly stuck to CRTs. I would try LCDs every so often, but invariably returned them because of lackluster gaming performance. This thing nailed it for me.
 
T260

I've had the Gateway 24" both of them. Had the T240 and now the T260.

The T260 is sick. Love it. The PS3 through HDMI-DVI is great. Call of Duty 4 and 5 and also Little Big Planet looks good. But the BluRay shines. I dig this monitor. I even have my HD DVR connected to it through HDMI. More than enough for gaming.
 
Can't go wrong with any of the monitors listed so far, except maybe the samsung 2493HM lags behind the rest a bit.

If the T240's color, reactivity, and input lag are as good as the T220 I had, it should be fantastic. It was a tight race in the end between the t240 and the G2400WD, the latter winning out in the end for me. If I had paid less for the T220 I would have kept it, it looked seriously fantastic, like it wasn't a TN.
 
Acaid said:
I've been using a Dell 2407 for about two years now. It's been more than fit for gaming. I can only imagine Dell's latest tech would be even better.

Prior to this, I stubbornly stuck to CRTs. I would try LCDs every so often, but invariably returned them because of lackluster gaming performance. This thing nailed it for me.
Click to expand...
Definitely not for gaming, known for extreme ghosting issues and high input lag. Bought one myself, denied it, and experienced it first-hand.
 
I got the Sammy TOC260HD.. just like the convenience of watching HD TV on it :p Play COD4 on it w/ no problems.

- Ton
 
The OP asks for 24" and 25.5" and posts about 26"and 27"are abound....classic.
 
VorpalBFG said:
Samsung 275T. Absolutely insane for gaming.
Click to expand...

ROFL

Insane is right

There's the lag of it's younger brother, the 245T s-pva panel. I'm sure the 275T is virtually identical. I wish people would STOP claiming a monitor is good just because they own it and turning this forum into a retard fest in the process. That monitor isn't even suitable for moving the mouse to click icons on the desktop:

36_233_112.jpg
 
R0achTheWarHero said:
ROFL

Insane is right

There's the lag of it's younger brother, the 245T s-pva panel. I'm sure the 275T is virtually identical. I wish people would STOP claiming a monitor is good just because they own it and turning this forum into a retard fest in the process. That monitor isn't even suitable for moving the mouse to click icons on the desktop:

36_233_112.jpg
Click to expand...

QFT, Amen brother
 
R0achTheWarHero said:
ROFL

Insane is right

There's the lag of it's younger brother, the 245T s-pva panel. I'm sure the 275T is virtually identical. I wish people would STOP claiming a monitor is good just because they own it and turning this forum into a retard fest in the process. That monitor isn't even suitable for moving the mouse to click icons on the desktop:

36_233_112.jpg
Click to expand...

And WTF is your graph actually depicting? Input lag? Oh your one of those elitist gamers who actually notices input lag. Everyone bow down in his reverance. Tried the monitor? Probably not eh. Just assume its the same as its smaller cousin released 2 years later. I guess assuming it has intolerable input lag makes you feel better about not having one. Come on, buddy. You can do better than that. Show me something with some credibility and we'll talk. Til then, haters will hate.:rolleyes:
 
I just bought the Samsung T240 after reading dozens of forums and doing a weeks worth or research. I feel I made a very good choice. It is a very impressive monitor! I guess the only little complaint I have is the viewing angle. If I move my head up or down slightly I can notice the image get lighter or darker from the top and bottom.

Other than that small annoyance, I guess I can live with it because it is inherent in the monitor. Gaming is very nice, crisp and clean, no noticeable ghosting or blurring, although I still have yet to test out UT which is a fast paced twitch based game. So far so good though. I think if you went with this monitor you'd be very pleased!
 
VorpalBFG said:
And WTF is your graph actually depicting? Input lag? Oh your one of those elitist gamers who actually notices input lag. Everyone bow down in his reverance. Tried the monitor? Probably not eh. Just assume its the same as its smaller cousin released 2 years later. I guess assuming it has intolerable input lag makes you feel better about not having one. Come on, buddy. You can do better than that. Show me something with some credibility and we'll talk. Til then, haters will hate.:rolleyes:
Click to expand...

The graph's source is about the most reliable on the net when it comes to monitor lag (lesnumeriques/digitalversus).
And it seems that the 275t lag didn't change much compared to the 245t. http://www.yougamers.com/forum/showthread.php?p=941387

So I wouldn't recommend recommending it for games...
 
Benny said:
The graph's source is about the most reliable on the net when it comes to monitor lag (lesnumeriques/digitalversus).
And it seems that the 275t lag didn't change much compared to the 245t. http://www.yougamers.com/forum/showthread.php?p=941387

So I wouldn't recommend recommending it for games...
Click to expand...

I would like for you to explain to me exactly what real world effect the input lag has on your gameplay. How does it tarnish your gaming experience? Have you ever played a game on this display? Whether you recommend it or not, it is an awesome display and playing games on it is an absolute dream.

Then, have a flip through this. It may change your opinion.
http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/monitors/display/lcd-parameters_7.html
 
Lol input lag ruins it for many people, I didn't think I'd notice it but when I bought my 24" screen it was an MVA panel so while the viewing angles were decent the input lag reeked, the mouse had to catch up to my actions.
 
VorpalBFG said:
Then, have a flip through this. It may change your opinion.
http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/monitors/display/lcd-parameters_7.html
Click to expand...

From that article:

"47 milliseconds is a very small time period in terms of human reaction speed. It is comparable to the time it takes the signal to travel from the brain to the muscles via nerve fibers. There’s a term in medicine that sounds like “the time of a simple sensorimotor response”. It is the time between an occurrence of some event the brain can easily process (for example, the lighting of a bulb) and a muscle reaction (a press on a button). For humans, this time is 200-250 milliseconds on average. During this time the eye registers the event and transfers information about it into the brain, the brain then identifies the event and sends an appropriate command to the muscles. A lag of 47 milliseconds doesn’t seem big in comparison with this number."

I thought those numbers sounded a bit funny. Then I remembered something I ran across a few years ago: Sheep Reaction Test

This is a reaction time test, fairly accurate as far as such things go if you play it several times in a row and average your results. From what I've heard, for PC gamers, the average reaction time is going to be in the ~130ms range or below (this lines up with my personal results.) Now, I am playing this little flash game on an older LCD monitor with input lag of around ~40ms average. Given those numbers, it would be laughable to claim that my LCD is not having an effect on my measured reaction time--its absence could reduce it by a third or more!

Forgive me, but that article addresses input lag more with psychology than with hard numbers--a sure sign of someone with a point to back up rather than something to prove, when the numbers are the facts of the matter.
 
Input lag, coupled with the ~130ms range that an average person has, spesh at 40+ms ends up being upwards of 170ms input lag (from human to game)
.2 seconds is more than enough time for someone (with less input lag) to frag you.
Important in UT and Source games, along with other fast paced shooters.
For an RTS?
Sure, have fun.
 
Phyltre said:
Forgive me, but that article addresses input lag more with psychology than with hard numbers--a sure sign of someone with a point to back up rather than something to prove, when the numbers are the facts of the matter.
Click to expand...

Respectfully. I think the whole point of the article is that people's perception of it is entirely psychological, especially because they have some numbers to back it up. Hard numbers are not important in this case because the author is not debating whether or not input lag exists. We all know it does, but people like to overstate it.

I like the point about the gamer getting a new display and now experiencing lower scores when playing. No one considers how trained you are to your original montitors size. The change in size, resolution, new mouse settings(if necessary) all play a part. You read tons of posts like this: got the monitor, scores went down, gotta be input lag (because it is measurable). Sorry, don't buy it. I've read a few posts of peoples like this: got the monitor, scores went down, gave it some time and worked through it, scores went up again.

The author did state that in the rare occurence that you actually saw eachother and were lined up exactly to shoot eachother at the same time, (remember, we're talking about at the exact thousandth of a second) plus you have the same reaction time, the guy with the higher input lag is finished. In reality, how often does that happen. If someone has the jump on you, it's already over.

In the end, people will believe what they want to believe, and stand firm to their opinions. I for one am usually not like that. If there's a better way to do it or a better technology, I'm all for it. I have no qualms pawning off my 27" to my wife and buying a newer, better display. Money is no object when it comes to this passion of mine. I gamed on high end NEC crts for 5 years before buying the 275T. I absolutely would not go back. For anyone that cares, mouse movements are crisp and my gaming performance hasn't suffered.

One last point. Why did I post about a 27 when he's asking for 24's and 25'5s? Sorry, I assumed he/she was looking for a 1920x1200 display and thought I'd throw my 2 cents in because of how happy I am with this screen.
 
VorpalBFG said:
I would like for you to explain to me exactly what real world effect the input lag has on your gameplay. How does it tarnish your gaming experience? Have you ever played a game on this display? Whether you recommend it or not, it is an awesome display and playing games on it is an absolute dream.
Click to expand...

Its not a matter of if you physically notice the input lag or not. (btw I play fighting games and 3 frames is DEFINATELY noticable)
Its the fact that it exists there and WILL have a impact on your gameplay, especially the ones that require fast reactions to your own advantage.
The sniper battle example you mentioned is a perfect example.
If you weren't hindered by some 40-50ms delay, I'm sure some or a good amount of your deaths could have been a frag.
These kind of people swear on CRTs or the fastest LCDs.
 
VorpalBFG said:
Respectfully. I think the whole point of the article is that people's perception of it is entirely psychological, especially because they have some numbers to back it up. Hard numbers are not important in this case because the author is not debating whether or not input lag exists. We all know it does, but people like to overstate it.

I like the point about the gamer getting a new display and now experiencing lower scores when playing. No one considers how trained you are to your original montitors size. The change in size, resolution, new mouse settings(if necessary) all play a part. You read tons of posts like this: got the monitor, scores went down, gotta be input lag (because it is measurable). Sorry, don't buy it. I've read a few posts of peoples like this: got the monitor, scores went down, gave it some time and worked through it, scores went up again.

The author did state that in the rare occurence that you actually saw eachother and were lined up exactly to shoot eachother at the same time, (remember, we're talking about at the exact thousandth of a second) plus you have the same reaction time, the guy with the higher input lag is finished. In reality, how often does that happen. If someone has the jump on you, it's already over.

In the end, people will believe what they want to believe, and stand firm to their opinions. I for one am usually not like that. If there's a better way to do it or a better technology, I'm all for it. I have no qualms pawning off my 27" to my wife and buying a newer, better display. Money is no object when it comes to this passion of mine. I gamed on high end NEC crts for 5 years before buying the 275T. I absolutely would not go back. For anyone that cares, mouse movements are crisp and my gaming performance hasn't suffered.

One last point. Why did I post about a 27 when he's asking for 24's and 25'5s? Sorry, I assumed he/she was looking for a 1920x1200 display and thought I'd throw my 2 cents in because of how happy I am with this screen.
Click to expand...

And that is YOUR opinion. Do you have any proof or hard evidence yourself? Your comparing to something general not specific. The human eye can't see faster then typically 60 FPS but does that mean that you cant tell the difference betwen 60-100 FPS? Do you have any RIGHT to say what others think or feel?

I am not a twitch gamer by any means (and I have not used a 275T so can not comment on that monitor) but I do OWN a 244T and a 930BF and a BenQ G2400WD. I CAN notice input lag differences between the monitors even when they are not beside one another. Certain games are far more pleasureable on the 930BF or G2400WD then the 244T due to the lower input lag of them. These are typically FPS's and similar fast paced games. However games like Command and Conquer 3 and World of Warcraft benefit from the better color more then the less input lag and thus I play them on my 244T. And for those who are wondering I place the G2400WD inbetween the 930BF and 244T in terms of input lag. Though much closer to the 930BF then the 244T.

Every person is different. The only thing you can do is try out different monitors for yourself and see what works for you. Another point to add is I am faster at CAD work (which I do for a living) with lower input lag monitors then I am with my 244T.

As for the topic of the thread I reccomend the BenQ G2400WD as a 24" Gaming monitor. Sorry I do not have a list as I have very limited personal experience with 24"+ monitors.
 
Bun-Bun said:
And that is YOUR opinion. Do you have any proof or hard evidence yourself? Your comparing to something general not specific. The human eye can't see faster then typically 60 FPS but does that mean that you cant tell the difference betwen 60-100 FPS? Do you have any RIGHT to say what others think or feel?
Click to expand...

I HAVE the right to express my opinion Bun Bun. I think its an interesting topic and I'm sharing my thoughts on it. I never stated what others are thinking or feeling nor did I say they have no right to their thoughts or feelings. I don't know where you got that from. If you actually read this entire thread you'd realize that I'm merely defending the 275T as a gaming monitor from some ignorant, name-calling trolls.

Questions for Bun Bun:
1.How am I being general and not specific?
2.If human sight can't tell the difference between 60 and 100 fps, then which sense are you using to tell the difference? Touch, taste, smell, hearing, ESP perhaps?
 
VorpalBFG said:
I HAVE the right to express my opinion Bun Bun. I think its an interesting topic and I'm sharing my thoughts on it. I never stated what others are thinking or feeling nor did I say they have no right to their thoughts or feelings. I don't know where you got that from. If you actually read this entire thread you'd realize that I'm merely defending the 275T as a gaming monitor from some ignorant, name-calling trolls.

Questions for Bun Bun:
1.How am I being general and not specific?
2.If human sight can't tell the difference between 60 and 100 fps, then which sense are you using to tell the difference? Touch, taste, smell, hearing, ESP perhaps?
Click to expand...

Yes you have the right of opinion but that is not how you were coming off. You were coming off that input lag does not matter to anyone. Not just to you. You suggested a 275T for gaming while lots of people would find that unacceptable (myself included). In your opinion it is ok (and that is fine) but for many it is not regardless of what your beleifs are (and what you linked to is not proof of this topic).

And I have read the whole thread and I respect your opinion (and that you are sharing it) but do not agree with your stance.

Answers:

1. You are refereing to a study that is on human response in general on a small sample group. Not specifically gamers in relation to input times on monitors. Related but nothing conclusive can be drawn from it.

2. The AVERAGE human eye can not discern specific FPS above something in the 30's I think. But just because you can't decern 34 from 35 FPS does not mean you can't notice a difference in a much larger range (60-100 fps for example). Also it can have other affects that you are not conciously aware. Like a spinning wheel you see the illusion as it turns faster it apears to be going backwards. You can't actually see it spinning anymore but you can see differences.

Bad analogy I realize now. Point is human reaction time may be much greater then the input lag of a monitor but that does not mean a person can not sense a difference. Also the brain can adapt to the difference but it does (in fact and by definition of input lag) increase the reaction time. And no study has been done to prove whether or not this actually affects anything in relation to games. So dont try and say there is proof of it because there is not. All we have is experiences of one user to another.
 
Bun-Bun said:
Yes you have the right of opinion but that is not how you were coming off. You were coming off that input lag does not matter to anyone. Not just to you. You suggested a 275T for gaming while lots of people would find that unacceptable (myself included). In your opinion it is ok (and that is fine) but for many it is not regardless of what your beleifs are (and what you linked to is not proof of this topic).

And I have read the whole thread and I respect your opinion (and that you are sharing it) but do not agree with your stance.

Answers:

1. You are refereing to a study that is on human response in general on a small sample group. Not specifically gamers in relation to input times on monitors. Related but nothing conclusive can be drawn from it.

2. The AVERAGE human eye can not discern specific FPS above something in the 30's I think. But just because you can't decern 34 from 35 FPS does not mean you can't notice a difference in a much larger range (60-100 fps for example). Also it can have other affects that you are not conciously aware. Like a spinning wheel you see the illusion as it turns faster it apears to be going backwards. You can't actually see it spinning anymore but you can see differences.

Bad analogy I realize now. Point is human reaction time may be much greater then the input lag of a monitor but that does not mean a person can not sense a difference. Also the brain can adapt to the difference but it does (in fact and by definition of input lag) increase the reaction time. And no study has been done to prove whether or not this actually affects anything in relation to games. So dont try and say there is proof of it because there is not. All we have is experiences of one user to another.
Click to expand...

Thanks for the clarification. I'm sorry that I came off that way. I was only trying to suggest that input lag is not as bad as some make it out. Recall the comment made earlier about the display not being appropriate for clicking icons. This absurdity fuels me. It's too bad no one has done a thorough study of the effects of input lag on performance. I never claimed the article was proof of anything. I just stumbled upon it, found it interesting and as I said earlier, wanted to share it. Have a good one:)
 
ihira said:
15-16ms for gaming usage is fail in my books.

From all the reviews and input lag tests I've read, seems like the lowest input lag 24"ers are BenQs G/V2400Ws.
Click to expand...



Meh, actually the DS-263 and planar px2611w both are ips and have 0 lag, but OP wants < 500.
 
R0achTheWarHero said:
ROFL

Insane is right

There's the lag of it's younger brother, the 245T s-pva panel. I'm sure the 275T is virtually identical. I wish people would STOP claiming a monitor is good just because they own it and turning this forum into a retard fest in the process. That monitor isn't even suitable for moving the mouse to click icons on the desktop:
Click to expand...

Thank you, one would think this forum would have more people who research the shit they buy, instead we get marketing statements. What they should really say is something like:
"zomg COD4 at 1024x600 scaled to 720p and then scaled again to 1080p and then stretched to 1920x1200 because of lack of 1:1 with Quincunx AA and blurry textures on my PS3 looks amazing on my 50ms input lag LCD!!!! Buy now!"
 
VorpalBFG said:
And WTF is your graph actually depicting? Input lag? Oh your one of those elitist gamers who actually notices input lag. Everyone bow down in his reverance. Tried the monitor? Probably not eh. Just assume its the same as its smaller cousin released 2 years later. I guess assuming it has intolerable input lag makes you feel better about not having one. Come on, buddy. You can do better than that. Show me something with some credibility and we'll talk. Til then, haters will hate.:rolleyes:
Click to expand...
you're calling him elitist? you don't notice something so automatically it's not a problem and it shouldn't be discussed? ok...

I can notice it just moving the mouse cursor on the desktop, let alone in something serious like CSS.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top