Best 30" monitor for FPS gaming?

P

pcgamer420

Limp Gawd
Joined
Jan 5, 2009
Messages
197
A couple months ago I purchased a 32" TV for use as a PC gaming monitor. I absolutely love this thing, but I just hate the fact that I am limited to a 1920x1080 resolution, and I would love to step up to 2560x1600.

So I am wondering, do most games support this resolution? And what would be the best monitor to buy for the sole use of gaming? I want the lowest input lag and response time available. My budget would be roughly $2000.

I am thinking of the NEC MultiSync LCD3090WQXi. Is this a good choice? And will my i7, 5850 CF setup be enough to get a consistent 60FPS in most games? I figure at that resolution I won't even have to worry about enabling AA.

I am happy with my current TV, but I can just imagine how awesome it must be to game at 2560x1600. You guys think its worth it to make the upgrade? Thanks for any advice.
 
Pretty sure 3007HC still has lowest input lag. IMO its the way to go for gaming, especially FPS games. I got mine used for ~$700 I think. The other alternative is 3 24" monitors which would probably be a more dramatic upgrade over a single 32" 1080p display. It might not be ideal for all games though, but it does work well for FPS games. Sc2 makes me hold onto my 30" and not go 3x24.
 
bexamous said:
Pretty sure 3007HC still has lowest input lag. IMO its the way to go for gaming, especially FPS games. I got mine used for ~$700 I think. The other alternative is 3 24" monitors which would probably be a more dramatic upgrade over a single 32" 1080p display. It might not be ideal for all games though, but it does work well for FPS games. Sc2 makes me hold onto my 30" and not go 3x24.
Click to expand...

google says 3 frames input lag
 
I definitely recommend 2560x1600 for any games. It's just sick. I think your CF 5850 will handle the high resolution just fine.
 
dowant120hz said:
google says 3 frames input lag
Click to expand...

Err, okay link? I mean you can search this forum and look at pictures vs crts, its the lowest. 3007 has no build in scaler which is why its low. Its not the lowest monitor of all time, but for 30" panels it is.

http://www.lesnumeriques.com has avg as 11.5, thats <1frame for 3007hc, w3000h is 22 = double.

--edit--

Oh did you look at behardware? You're looking at review of Dell 3008, not the 3007. 3008 has a built in scaler and is known to be slower, which is why 3007 is better :p.
 
Last edited:
I think the hp lp3065 is comparable to the dell, it also has no scalar. I have the 3007 though so im not sure.
 
Wow I noticed that they UPPED the price on the 3008wfp.

Edit:Nvm, it was the Canadian website although it does seem like the 3007 is an amazing deal over there.
 
I don't get something. The only reason to go to 30 inch pc monitor is for the higher resolution. Why not just game at 1920x1080 and use AA to the max or whatever your card will support? The only thing your getting in gaming is just crisper images at the cost of needing power to run at that ungodly resolution. I use a 37 inch LG HDTV LCD as my monitor. It is a super IPS panel 16:9 1920x1080. My video card is a 275 gtx and I use AA that makes the image look quite a bit better than the rez for those 30 inch monitors.

I see posts all the time about running 30 inch lcds and I just do not get it. Your getting higher resolution images at a extreme cost for the hardware to run it at the native res and the cost of the panel. Just run the image at 1920x1080 with AA and enjoy a better PQ.

I have had a 30inch apple cinema display and a 30inch dell and none of those panels have the picture quality as my current SIPS panel....and it's 37 inches to boot. 1920x1080 gives my eyes a rest as well with text.

Maybe I just don't get the reasoning of a 30 inch computer monitor vs 32-37inche HDTV's.

??
 
The 3007WFP-HC has no more than 0.2 ms of input lag. However, it does indeed have an aggressive AG coating, and all else being equal, an S-IPS LCD will have more noise/sparkle from the same AG coating than an H-IPS LCD will. This is because the AG coating diffuses more black from the spaces between the pixels into where the pixels should be on an S-IPS, which has more space between its pixels.

The 3008WFP, an H-IPS, almost certainly has less AG noise/sparkle than the 3007WFP-HC, and some people have indeed said this is the case (I don't have links to those posts handy). However, nobody has reported whether the 3008WFP has a game mode that gives it near-zero input lag, and nobody has done a proper measurement of input lag, AFAIK. (The input lag tests on digital versus are not properly done, and usually overestimate input lag by quite a bit.) For all I know, the 3008WFP may have a game mode that takes it down to <1 ms of lag, but I didn't know for sure, so I bought a 3007WFP-HC.

I have an ongoing project to try to convert my 3007WFP-HC from matte to glossy. So far, all the ingredients haven't quite fallen into place. The thread concerning this project
 
I see 0 sparkle and I have 0 lag. I've played counterstrike, TF2 and god knows what other pc games for the past year on this thing with 0 issues. My panel was 599 for 37 inches vs 1200$ for 7 inches less. You do get more desktop real estate but at double the cost.
 
jarablue said:
I don't get something. The only reason to go to 30 inch pc monitor is for the higher resolution. Why not just game at 1920x1080 and use AA to the max or whatever your card will support? The only thing your getting in gaming is just crisper images at the cost of needing power to run at that ungodly resolution. I use a 37 inch LG HDTV LCD as my monitor. It is a super IPS panel 16:9 1920x1080. My video card is a 275 gtx and I use AA that makes the image look quite a bit better than the rez for those 30 inch monitors.

I see posts all the time about running 30 inch lcds and I just do not get it. Your getting higher resolution images at a extreme cost for the hardware to run it at the native res and the cost of the panel. Just run the image at 1920x1080 with AA and enjoy a better PQ.

I have had a 30inch apple cinema display and a 30inch dell and none of those panels have the picture quality as my current SIPS panel....and it's 37 inches to boot. 1920x1080 gives my eyes a rest as well with text.

Maybe I just don't get the reasoning of a 30 inch computer monitor vs 32-37inche HDTV's.

??
Click to expand...

You say 2560x1600 is an ungodly resolution for games, and it does require more GFX horsepower for sure, but it is a blessing when in Windows. I used a 37" Westinghouse for years and thought it was an awesome display (and it is) but once you go 2560x1600 it's hard to go back to 1920x1200/1080. Running a game at 2560x1600 is a sight to behold, and that extra real estate is VERY welcome on the desktop. It mitigates the need for multiple monitors since you can fit so many windows on a single screen.

HDTVs rarely (if ever) equal the quality of a good computer monitor, even if the resolution is the same. Trust me, I've had my fair share and have done a lot of research on the subject. It's nice to be able to use a 1080p HDTV as a monitor, but the results are just not on par with a dedicated PC monitor 99% of the time. I'm saying this as someone who has used both.

If you sit a good distance from your monitor, then yes...a 32"/37"/42" display running at 1920x1080 is a good choice. Text is easy to read and you have a large, immersive display. I've been debating this with a coworker of mine who has a Westy 37" at home, and he argues that text on a 30" is too small. That's because he sits a lot farther away from his monitor than I do. I contest that the resolution is excellent, and you always have the option of running a game (or your desktop) at 1920x1200/1080 while he never has the option of scaling up to 2560x1600.

30" monitors aren't cheap, but they are awesome for those who appreciate their qualities. You can get a large 1080p display for much less money, so it really boils down to your intended use and the sacrifices you are willing to make/live with. As with so many things on this forum (and elsewhere), there is no best. Just what's best for you. I and many others see the value in a 30" monitor. Others are just fine with a large 1080p display and that's fine too, but be aware of what you're giving up on either end of the spectrum.
 
37" TV is not perfect. I too started with that, but its just not a monitor, the resolution is just too low. It sucks for non-gaming, and for gaming its just such a low res and almost too big. I dunno. I was unhappy enough that I ordered the Dell3007 to replace it (actually I still have it for watching movies but, yeah).

Also for AG coating on Dell3007-- not perfect. When I first got the monitor I noticed it, but really I stopped noticing it after a day or two. Recently I was reading some thread about people complaining about AG coatings on monitors, so a few days ago I pulled the AG coating off an old Dell2405-- yeah it makes any monitor look better... but there is no 30" screen without some antiglare coating.

Pretty much every option is not going to be perfect, you just gotta pick what is best for you.

I'll take 30" + high resolution + low input lag + not the best ag coating over other options.

Oh yeah, FYI Dell 3007, if you keep an eye out they go for ~$700 used vs the ~1100-1200 new. Sucks that prices have gone up compared to like 1-2 years ago.
 
imyourzero said:
Running a game at 2560x1600 is a sight to behold, and that extra real estate is VERY welcome on the desktop. It mitigates the need for multiple monitors since you can fit so many windows on a single screen.
Click to expand...

But, you know what I found is even better than a single 30" 2560x1600 monitor?

TWO 30" 2560x1600 monitors.

It would be difficult for me to now give up my 2nd monitor!

You can see more per window, which is why I bought it. But since I wanted to see more per window, I did not make any of them any smaller. So, based on proportions my desktop's the same size!

(I also used to run a 37" Westinghouse, and am considering going back to it for gaming since it's bigger.)
 
Tolyngee said:
But, you know what I found is even better than a single 30" 2560x1600 monitor?

TWO 30" 2560x1600 monitors.

It would be difficult for me to now give up my 2nd monitor!
Click to expand...

Yep. I own two 30" monitors myself (see sig) and am contemplating buying a third so I can be as [H]ardcore as Frraksurred. :)

Tolyngee said:
(I also used to run a 37" Westinghouse, and am considering going back to it for gaming since it's bigger.)
Click to expand...

I know what you mean. Games are sooo nice on a single 30" but the Westy 37" was my first large monitor and it absofuckinglutely ruled for gaming. Even a single 37" just encompasses your field of vision when sitting at a typical PC distance. It kind of sucks for OS use since text is so large and you can't fit as many windows on screen, but if you're primarily using it for gaming or you sit a good distance away, it rocks hardcore. I have two Westy 37" that I'm trying to get rid of, but I will miss them very much when they're gone. They are excellent gaming monitors.
 
imyourzero said:
Yep. I own two 30" monitors myself (see sig) and am contemplating buying a third so I can be as [H]ardcore as Frraksurred. :)
Click to expand...

Oops, didn't note your sig. My bad.

imyourzero said:
I know what you mean. Games are sooo nice on a single 30" but the Westy 37" was my first large monitor and it absofuckinglutely ruled for gaming. Even a single 37" just encompasses your field of vision when sitting at a typical PC distance. It kind of sucks for OS use since text is so large and you can't fit as many windows on screen, but if you're primarily using it for gaming or you sit a good distance away, it rocks hardcore. I have two Westy 37" that I'm trying to get rid of, but I will miss them very much when they're gone. They are excellent gaming monitors.
Click to expand...

Why not do surround/Eyefinity with three 37" Westinghouses! :D:D:D

But yeah, I agree for these reasons:

1) It is big enough to fill your FOV without extra monitors from my experience. I tend to just about sit on top of it though.

2) have a 2nd monitor (what I originally was doing before I got a 2nd 30") that's a 30" for desktop usage. Or do what I am going to do now, and have two machines, one dedicated to desktop, other dedicated to gaming.

3) 1080p's also a bit less pixels for your video card to have to muscle with. I was about to go tri-SLI, then noticed hardly any games even benefit from the increased framerate of GTX 480 SLI (it scales well, but once you are way over 60, it's starting to get pointless). Any games that would want tri-SLI, I can just decrease the res. Well, once you start decreasing the res of 2560x1600 down to 1080p, why not just use that 37" native 1080p monitor sitting right next to me?

2560x1600 is absolutely more crisp, but 37" I sometimes miss...
 
J87X said:
Does blu-ray look better in 2560x1600?
Click to expand...

No. Actually, if you are doing it full screen and the upscale's not done right, it looks even worse.

For best results, I watch blu-ray at its native res, so in a window, not full screen.
 
imyourzero said:
You say 2560x1600 is an ungodly resolution for games, and it does require more GFX horsepower for sure, but it is a blessing when in Windows. I used a 37" Westinghouse for years and thought it was an awesome display (and it is) but once you go 2560x1600 it's hard to go back to 1920x1200/1080. Running a game at 2560x1600 is a sight to behold, and that extra real estate is VERY welcome on the desktop. It mitigates the need for multiple monitors since you can fit so many windows on a single screen.

HDTVs rarely (if ever) equal the quality of a good computer monitor, even if the resolution is the same. Trust me, I've had my fair share and have done a lot of research on the subject. It's nice to be able to use a 1080p HDTV as a monitor, but the results are just not on par with a dedicated PC monitor 99% of the time. I'm saying this as someone who has used both.

If you sit a good distance from your monitor, then yes...a 32"/37"/42" display running at 1920x1080 is a good choice. Text is easy to read and you have a large, immersive display. I've been debating this with a coworker of mine who has a Westy 37" at home, and he argues that text on a 30" is too small. That's because he sits a lot farther away from his monitor than I do. I contest that the resolution is excellent, and you always have the option of running a game (or your desktop) at 1920x1200/1080 while he never has the option of scaling up to 2560x1600.

30" monitors aren't cheap, but they are awesome for those who appreciate their qualities. You can get a large 1080p display for much less money, so it really boils down to your intended use and the sacrifices you are willing to make/live with. As with so many things on this forum (and elsewhere), there is no best. Just what's best for you. I and many others see the value in a 30" monitor. Others are just fine with a large 1080p display and that's fine too, but be aware of what you're giving up on either end of the spectrum.
Click to expand...

*

Also, that resolution is extremely useful in rts and mmorpgs. :)
 
I'm using an Apple 30" Cinema HD Display, and it's actually turned out to be a decent gaming monitor. I'm not a hardcore FPSer, to be fair, but I've yet to see any serious issues with my current drugs Bad Company 2 or the Medal of Honor beta (that said, I'll probably finally get into Shattered Horizon or Metro 2033 and it'll somehow go from zero to suck in five seconds).
 
the lag was never a problem for me playing cod4 and i played a lot (4+ hours a day for well over a year). i am good and i played on a pretty skilled server - consistently with my name on top of leaderboards and positive KDR.. pulling off the occasional 4:1 ratio and still leading the points. but i'm not pro. my point with all this is that the monitor won't hold you back if you are a solid gamer.

the AG coating is horrible. it took me a couple months to get used to it. i don't notice anymore unless i'm looking for it, but i got over it. as soon as i hear about a 2560 monitor that doesn't have this sparkle effect i'm selling my 3008WFP. i do photo editing at 100% a lot and i just cant stand scrutinizing photo details from artifacts of my display.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top