Awesome gaming display(s)

J

Jon55

2[H]4U
Joined
Jul 7, 2008
Messages
2,349
My buddy wants to get some new displays for his comp. He's currently running dual-display with an older Samsung 19" LCD and a CRT. Here's the thing, he uses it 90% of the time for gaming (WoW, a few random FPS's, AoC) but loves dual-displays (which, from what I understand, is not that great for gaming). The other 10% he uses for internet browsing, watching videos, music, basic multi-tasking, etc. He just wants to play games, max the settings out, and get 60 fps, which I know isn't ideal with dual-display setups.

So first, any input on whether or not he should do dual-display. If so, which ones? If not, which one? He has a 9800 GX2. And also, from my understanding (please correct me if I'm wrong) the 9800 GX2 is not very good at high-res. I havn't followed the LCD market much, but only the best is wanted (Samsung, etc.).

His gfx card (and some other specs just for funsies):

Nvidia 9800 GX2 (BFG I believe)
Quad-Core 9550
Gigabyte mobo (fairly new, he bought it with the 9550)
8 GB RAM
Antek PSU (I want to say 800w, but not sure on that)
Vista Ultimate 64
 
For a single monitor gaming experience, I would go with FP241VW. I would do the same for dual IF your friend has enough desk space. Otherwise, I don't know what to tell you for dual monitor AND gaming.
 
Alai said:
For a single monitor gaming experience, I would go with FP241VW. I would do the same for dual IF your friend has enough desk space. Otherwise, I don't know what to tell you for dual monitor AND gaming.
Click to expand...

Multi-arm mount + 2x FP241s = win. That is if certain people are correct and you can pop the screen out of the stand.
 
IMO dual-screen is the way to go. Especially if he plays WoW, because lets be honest, it gets boring at times.

Yes he will sacrifice something in the FPS department to do it, but it's worth it IMO. I don't know how you could go back to just one screen after using duals.
 
The lag on those BenQ FP241VW "Gaming" displays is very high according to this: http://www.digitalversus.com/duels.php?ty=6&ma1=48&mo1=229&p1=2117&ma2=98&mo2=420&p2=3989&ph=1


I suppose their being recommended for gaming is a good job in advertising on BenQ's part, although misleading. The BenQ V2400W has much less lag according to several sources. However, the discontinued G2400W is reported as having the least of the BenQ's that I've seen in review. You can still get the G2400W refurb for under $300 shipped on the Yahoo/BenQ site, but they are as-is. (http://benqshopper.stores.yahoo.net/rlcdmo.html)
 
Um... I have the FP241VW. And I play games constantly when I'm not working. Trust me, even if there's lag, you won't be able to detect it. It's got amazing angles and amazing color if you get the right color profile (talk to 10e).
 
To everyone who says stuff about dual monitors,
I've run benchmarks (3dmark) on my dual monitors at home with both active, and only one active, and the difference between them is negligible.
I ran the CS:S framerate test and the difference is not noticeable (~2-4 fps)

sure it's not "ideal" in the direct definition of the word, but it's far from noticeably detrimental
 
But the Source engine is famous for being light on the graphic hardware. If you told me that it was unnoticeable during Far Cry 2, now THAT would be saying something.
 
Alai said:
But the Source engine is famous for being light on the graphic hardware. If you told me that it was unnoticeable during Far Cry 2, now THAT would be saying something.
Click to expand...

Yes, the source engine is pretty light on graphics hardware, so any differences between the two would be more exaggerated in framerates.

On the flip side, 3DMARK 06 on a Pentium 4 3.2C and X800XT, good enough for you?
 
My gaming rig has been dual monitor for years and it works fine for most games, including crysis and other beastly games. The key is to only have the games run on the main monitor and leave the other one for basically 2D apps. I have firefox, vent and iTunes on the second display and the game on the primary. I may lose a few FPS but I would estimate 0-5 for most games. Some games won't let you use the second display while they are running but they still work fine. It'd great for wow since you can have info sites up and can see them without having to alt+tab. He should be able to do a 1680x1050 display to replace the CRT and still get decent perf with that card.
 
TroubleMagnet said:
My gaming rig has been dual monitor for years and it works fine for most games, including crysis and other beastly games. The key is to only have the games run on the main monitor and leave the other one for basically 2D apps. I have firefox, vent and iTunes on the second display and the game on the primary. I may lose a few FPS but I would estimate 0-5 for most games. Some games won't let you use the second display while they are running but they still work fine. It'd great for wow since you can have info sites up and can see them without having to alt+tab. He should be able to do a 1680x1050 display to replace the CRT and still get decent perf with that card.
Click to expand...
Yeah... that is the way to go. When I played Wow, I surfed and watched movies while playing. I would even Alt -Tab in battle lo!
 
Epiik said:
CRT for 100hz+ gaming and 24" lcd for the rest.
Click to expand...

No CRTs.

TroubleMagnet said:
My gaming rig has been dual monitor for years and it works fine for most games, including crysis and other beastly games. The key is to only have the games run on the main monitor and leave the other one for basically 2D apps. I have firefox, vent and iTunes on the second display and the game on the primary. I may lose a few FPS but I would estimate 0-5 for most games. Some games won't let you use the second display while they are running but they still work fine. It'd great for wow since you can have info sites up and can see them without having to alt+tab. He should be able to do a 1680x1050 display to replace the CRT and still get decent perf with that card.
Click to expand...

That's pretty much what he does now; has WoW on one screen and Firefox/iTunes/some movie/tv show playing in VLC on the other screen, and sometimes has both screens running WoW.

Also, I highly appreciate all the input on whether or not to go dual-screen, and can't thank you enough, but any actual LCD model/brand suggestions (for gaming) would be most excellent.
 
Dont get a dual display. They are a total waste of power / space... Get a nice 24 inch or a 20wmgx2
 
Ok, how about this Samsung for a start? A lot of monitor selection is subjective unfortunately so you need to decide what you are looking for. I usually start with size and rez so for that card and use 1680x1050. Then you need to look at other properties, glossy or matte finish for one. The panel type will influence the response time, viewing angles and color response so how important are these to you? Do you want to spend the extra $$ for LED backlighting? You might want to go to a 24" panel since if getting the viewing angles and color response of a non-TN is important to you but in that case that video card may be a bit weak to run the latest games with all the bells and whistles turned on. Right now all the new 1680x1050 monitor seem to be TN. Personally I've been waiting for a larger non-TN with LED backlight before upgrading and so far only the new apple LED cinema looks to fit the bill but I'm still waiting a bit to see if someone comes out with competitor for it.
 
If I put a PCI video card with my current 4870, would I be able to run a second monitor with no noticable slowdown in a video if it was on the second monitor or less of an decrease in fps on the main monitor?(Don't have either currently)
 
TroubleMagnet said:
Ok, how about this Samsung for a start? A lot of monitor selection is subjective unfortunately so you need to decide what you are looking for. I usually start with size and rez so for that card and use 1680x1050. Then you need to look at other properties, glossy or matte finish for one. The panel type will influence the response time, viewing angles and color response so how important are these to you? Do you want to spend the extra $$ for LED backlighting? You might want to go to a 24" panel since if getting the viewing angles and color response of a non-TN is important to you but in that case that video card may be a bit weak to run the latest games with all the bells and whistles turned on. Right now all the new 1680x1050 monitor seem to be TN. Personally I've been waiting for a larger non-TN with LED backlight before upgrading and so far only the new apple LED cinema looks to fit the bill but I'm still waiting a bit to see if someone comes out with competitor for it.
Click to expand...

That does look pretty awesome, my only concern is how well it would do on a 9800GX2 (supposedly that card doesn't do very well at high-resolutions, but not entirely sure on that).
 
I can't seem to find a nice [H] review with that in it but this review has a 9800 GTX able to run crysis at that rez ok and some of the other games even higher, so I think you should be ok since your card is faster.
 
TroubleMagnet said:
I can't seem to find a nice [H] review with that in it but this review has a 9800 GTX able to run crysis at that rez ok and some of the other games even higher, so I think you should be ok since your card is faster.
Click to expand...

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/nvidia-geforce-9800-gx2-review,1792-16.html

Having said this, we do not recommend buying a GeForce 9800 GX2 for those who rarely change graphic cards and want to invest in a very high end card and keep it for a long time. There are times when a card like this should excel, like when games are played at high resolutions and with demanding settings, but the 9800 GX2 is barely better than a simple GeForce 8800 Ultra. The problem, as is the case with the 3870 X2, is the relatively meager 512 MB of memory, which is incompatible with very high resolutions and when antialiasing is activated. The numbers speak for themselves: the 9800 GX2 out performs the 8800 Ultra (with 768 MB) by 29% on average and up to 41% at a resolution of 2560x1600, while activating antialiasing at this resolution shortens the gap to 13%. Yet, for many games, it's the only mode that still isn't smooth and the 9800 GX2 doesn't deliver much.
Click to expand...

Again, I'm still unsure about the 9800GX2 being bad a high-res stuff claim, but still concerned.
 
Alai said:
For a single monitor gaming experience, I would go with FP241VW. I would do the same for dual IF your friend has enough desk space. Otherwise, I don't know what to tell you for dual monitor AND gaming.
Click to expand...

If money is no object, the FP241VW is wonderful, otherwise you can save some money and get the LG L227WTG-PF as a main monitor. As for the 9800 GX2 high-res limitation, that's because of it's memory, which is 2x512MB; you shouldn't notice the limitation if you're running 1680x1050, but it has a good chance of creeping into play in 1920x1200 (especially if AA/AF is turned on). At 1680x1050 and lower resolutions, it should actually be faster than a GTX 260/280 or HD 4850/4870 by a considerable amount; 20% or more in some cases.
 
tungt88 said:
If money is no object, the FP241VW is wonderful, otherwise you can save some money and get the LG L227WTG-PF as a main monitor. As for the 9800 GX2 high-res limitation, that's because of it's memory, which is 2x512MB; you shouldn't notice the limitation if you're running 1680x1050, but it has a good chance of creeping into play in 1920x1200 (especially if AA/AF is turned on). At 1680x1050 and lower resolutions, it should actually be faster than a GTX 260/280 or HD 4850/4870 by a considerable amount; 20% or more in some cases.
Click to expand...

Thanks mate. Also a quick question; what's the difference between TN panels and non-TN panels, etc.? Which are best for gaming?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top