Best Size LCD for Gaming?

L

LiquidFlame

n00b
Joined
Nov 13, 2006
Messages
59
I'm looking into getting an LCD, but I’m not sure what size I want. Right now I have a 19" CRT so I know I don't want to go any lower then 19". I've read that the best size LCD for gaming is between 20"-24", anything lower or higher then that will just look and operate poorly. I also want to take full advantage of my GPU, and not limit its capability. Any advice would be great. Thanks.
 
well considering you have an 8800GTX in your box (nice buy btw;) i'd get a 24" lcd due to the higher resolution and smaller pixel size than the 22" monitors. also, getting 24" gives you a HUGE choice of what to spend your money on.

get a TN if low input lag, low response time, low cost are important to you but you don't care about viewing angles. i really like my samsung 245BW.

want better viewing angles? try an MVA panel. they're more expensive, kind of a middle of the road. great monitors, but slower response time and some suffer from input lag.

want the best of the best? try a S-IPS panel. best pretty much everything except that input lag problem. if you want to get rid of that its either a TN panel or a very expensive planar.
 
i've preorderes a 28" TN panel.... im not sure how good the responsetime really is but the given numbers from man. are 3ms gtg and 5ms typ.... if those numbers are correct then its a steal - but I doubt that they are.... still its very cheap and its 27.5"! :D
 
LiquidFlame said:
I'm looking into getting an LCD, but I’m not sure what size I want. Right now I have a 19" CRT so I know I don't want to go any lower then 19". I've read that the best size LCD for gaming is between 20"-24", anything lower or higher then that will just look and operate poorly. I also want to take full advantage of my GPU, and not limit its capability. Any advice would be great. Thanks.
Click to expand...

Get a 24 for soo many reasons, 1080P for one, better quality panels for another like PMVA panels in LG246 and benq.

I have the LG246 and game with it all the latest pc titles, have no problems, everything looks great.

smaller than 24 and you lose out as most are only TN panels and have very little vertical height so you lose alot of vertical real estate for the widescreen gain in horizontal real estate over a 19 inch crt. Your graphics card can handle a 24 inch panel at native resolution with no problems whatsoever though few games support 1920x1200 anyhow.

by the way most 24 inch panels have 8ms response time, this is NOT A PROBLEM AT ALL dont buy into all the 2ms hype as most of it is just that......HYPE. the LG236 has the LOWEST input lag of all 24's on the market, I do NOT have any response time, ghosting or input lag problems, the LG has a PMVA panel.
 
I've had a 15" laptop and CRT, a 17" laptop and CRT, a 19" CRT, a 20" widiescreen LCD, a 22" widescreen LCD and a 24" widescreen LCD, interestingly enough in that order (excluding the laptops)

By far the best is my current 24" widescreen LCD for gaming. The answer is also weighted by the fact my 24" is a TFT panel.
 
20" widescreen hands down, and here's why:

Of course when you say "gaming" i presume you mean PC gaming. I really dont know why people buy these 24" monitors and play Xbox360 and watch movies on them (i go the full nine and just get a gigantic tv that i can mount up and watch and console game on from a distance).

Plus, yes for the time being an 8800gtx will kick ass on a 24" display, but that native resolution is still something of a premium and as those DX10 games ramp up the 8800 will start getting slammed kind of hard, and having a slightly lower resolution may come in handy, and you know LCD's with their untweakable resolutions (well you can, but it just wont look very good, a shame really).

I also think that alot of the other panel techs have caught up to TN, they have better detail and colors, and i'd say its damn hard to truly notice the MS boost from the TN, which is why i'd steer clear from 22" panels despite them not being a higher resolution.
 
spincut said:
20" widescreen hands down, and here's why:

Of course when you say "gaming" i presume you mean PC gaming. I really dont know why people buy these 24" monitors and play Xbox360 and watch movies on them (i go the full nine and just get a gigantic tv that i can mount up and watch and console game on from a distance).

Plus, yes for the time being an 8800gtx will kick ass on a 24" display, but that native resolution is still something of a premium and as those DX10 games ramp up the 8800 will start getting slammed kind of hard, and having a slightly lower resolution may come in handy, and you know LCD's with their untweakable resolutions (well you can, but it just wont look very good, a shame really).

I also think that alot of the other panel techs have caught up to TN, they have better detail and colors, and i'd say its damn hard to truly notice the MS boost from the TN, which is why i'd steer clear from 22" panels despite them not being a higher resolution.
Click to expand...

trouble is with a 20 inch panel you are LOSING ALOT of vertical real estate over a standard aspect 19crt or a 24 inch lcd panel. Lets face it how many games play 1920x1200 res anyhow? I play my games at non native with no problems whatsoever. Web browsing on a 20 inch LCD leaves ALOT to be desired.

I do have to agree with you on consoles, I dont know why on earth people buy computer monitors for console gaming, something they arent really geared towards anyhow. For that matter I dont know why people buy consoles anymore now that they cost as much as a computer and you cannot upgrade them, seems like a tremendous waste of money to me all the way around. Gaming is far more immersive and easier to control on a computer than with consoles joystick thingies.
 
conghelach said:
trouble is with a 20 inch panel you are LOSING ALOT of vertical real estate over a standard aspect 19crt or a 24 inch lcd panel. Lets face it how many games play 1920x1200 res anyhow? I play my games at non native with no problems whatsoever. Web browsing on a 20 inch LCD leaves ALOT to be desired.

I do have to agree with you on consoles, I dont know why on earth people buy computer monitors for console gaming, something they arent really geared towards anyhow. For that matter I dont know why people buy consoles anymore now that they cost as much as a computer and you cannot upgrade them, seems like a tremendous waste of money to me all the way around. Gaming is far more immersive and easier to control on a computer than with consoles joystick thingies.
Click to expand...

Losing verticle real estate??? i didnt think it cut off anything, i figured it displays just as much as the other monitors just at a scaled size to it's monitor diagnal.

And i still like consoles, i still play them more than PC's actually, if you study there are ups and downs to the non-upgradeability to a console and it's one time hardware fee, and it "can" translate positively to game performance in many situations. On top of that the control schemes still make the PC good for some things and the console good for others.

Granted they are a bit pricey out of the gate this generation, but they will go down, and besides graphics cards havent exactly sunk in price, most of those new alone are pricier than the most costly video game system (which for the short time being is probaby packs more specialized power than most PC's).
 
nice thing about a 20'ws is that i can play at 1680x1050 on most games
 
I'm still not sure about this losing the verticle real estate thing. AS far as i can tell you're getting the same scaled widescreen image shown, and there isnt any extra verticle space being cut off.
 
Honestly I find my Westinghouse 37" 1920x1080 from 3ft away the best for gaming. I don't find myself looking around because the screen is too big.

If it wasn't the Westinghouse I'd say a 24" 1920x1200 from 1ft away.
 
Here's what I mean by losing vertical real estate SPINCUT, this guy is coming from a 19 inch crt.

compared to a standard aspect ratio 19 inch crt or lcd for that matter you will find that they are higher measured vertically compared to the screen of a 19,20 or 22 inch widescreen monitor. With a 24 inch widescreen lcd you are not losing any vertical height over what he has already or if he had a standard aspect 19 lcd.

In essence with sub 24 inch lcds you have squeezed down the vertical height and stretched the width out. Unfortunately we dont scroll horizontally to view web pages and documents, we view them vertically and that is where the sub 24's come up short in terms of viewing area. Most web pages and web sites are not widescreen.

Anyhow I also forgot to mention that the LG246 and most 24 inch panels are 8 bit color which I doubt you would find on anything smaller, nearly all of them use dithering to acheive higher than standard 6bit but still not 8bit color. A 24 is gonna look better all the way around. I looked at smaller but the 24 I bought has a much higher quality panel so for a hundred fifty bucks over the best 22's I got an even better 24 with a higher quality PMVA lcd panel.

Bottom line, 24's are great for gaming, plenty of response, my LG246 has no input lag problems and makes for an overall more immersive gaming experience than a smaller panel would.

Yes graphics cards for computers do run high but at least when my card is yesterdays news I can buy an identical one for a hundred bucks and SLI my rig for improved performance. Hats off to anyone who still likes to console game but I left it years ago and havent looked back since. The games are alot better for PC, cheaper too.

Back to the real estate, the 24 also has a higher resolution ( which you dont have to use if you dont want to) that contributes significantly to its vertical real estate. The sub 24's are becoming yesterdays news as the 24's are now king of the hill and most popular in the market like the 22's were not soo long ago for a rather short period.

In any case I think Flame has enough input to make his own decision on which size, then he can move on to which type of panel and what brand.
 
oh ok then, then i stick to what "i" said, the 20" is still the current sweet spot in my mind until the performance cost of the 24" native res goes down a little, i can understand the feeling of losing verticle area and all, but i still think the resolution point is important and solving it later by spending more money on the same card tech (i doubt it will be 100 bucks if it's good even then) just to handle the extra res in my mind isnt fun.

You dont "have" to use the native res but i havent seen many people feel that lowering it once performance demans get high is a big option, since it generally doesnt seem to look very good.

And i beleive all the worth while 20" screens do have 8 bit.
 
24" FTW.
- 1600*1200
- 1080p.
- 1680*1050 can be used with or without black bars.
In other words, you do not have to use the total available estate if the video card is struggling.
 
so basically you're just saying that if someone wants to use a lower WS resolution that they can? because most people get that, but as far as i can tell most monitors do not do it well, to the point where it's not much of an option, and if you get an lcd monitor, you probably should get used to keeping its native.
 
spincut said:
oh ok then, then i stick to what "i" said, the 20" is still the current sweet spot in my mind until the performance cost of the 24" native res goes down a little, i can understand the feeling of losing verticle area and all, but i still think the resolution point is important and solving it later by spending more money on the same card tech (i doubt it will be 100 bucks if it's good even then) just to handle the extra res in my mind isnt fun.

You dont "have" to use the native res but i havent seen many people feel that lowering it once performance demans get high is a big option, since it generally doesnt seem to look very good.

And i beleive all the worth while 20" screens do have 8 bit.
Click to expand...


I dont even run my 24 lcd at native, I generally use 1280x960, contrary to popular belief you can use certain non native settings and still have a nice picture. An 8800 GTX can handle 1920x1200 no problemo.
 
conghelach said:
I dont even run my 24 lcd at native, I generally use 1280x960, contrary to popular belief you can use certain non native settings and still have a nice picture. An 8800 GTX can handle 1920x1200 no problemo.
Click to expand...

as i already said, of course the 8800 gtx can handle that resolution right now, it should be able to otherwise it wouldnt be worth the money. But its performance life at that resolution as DirectX10 games come down the pipe will shorten a bit quicker in my mind.

I have never heard anyone also suggest that non-native resolutions run well, at least no specific resolution in particular.
 
spincut said:
as i already said, of course the 8800 gtx can handle that resolution right now, it should be able to otherwise it wouldnt be worth the money. But its performance life at that resolution as DirectX10 games come down the pipe will shorten a bit quicker in my mind.

I have never heard anyone also suggest that non-native resolutions run well, at least no specific resolution in particular.
Click to expand...

A video card can be replaced every year, but a monitor usually stays with people through several upgrade cycles. Every LCD has a certain non-native resolution or two that work better than the rest and are very enjoyable to use if running in native is not feasible.
 
-=Antimatter=- said:
A video card can be replaced every year, but a monitor usually stays with people through several upgrade cycles. Every LCD has a certain non-native resolution or two that work better than the rest and are very enjoyable to use if running in native is not feasible.
Click to expand...

oh of course it can be, but i'm sure many users, including the OP wouldnt want to do that. video cards, especially the top of the line ones, are expensive and while every generation can lat a ertain set of time based on a different set of performance settings and premiums, i'm likely sure that the last thing the OP and many others want to hear is "no biggie, just replace that ~400-500 dollar card next year".

-btw, do you have a structured list/page that states these "alternative" good looking resolutions for each native one? or does it vary from monitor brand and model rather than just size/native res?
 
spincut said:
oh of course it can be, but i'm sure many users, including the OP wouldnt want to do that. video cards, especially the top of the line ones, are expensive and while every generation can lat a ertain set of time based on a different set of performance settings and premiums, i'm likely sure that the last thing the OP and many others want to hear is "no biggie, just replace that ~400-500 dollar card next year".

-btw, do you have a structured list/page that states these "alternative" good looking resolutions for each native one? or does it vary from monitor brand and model rather than just size/native res?
Click to expand...

This is an enthusiast forum, since when is $500 per year an extravagant annual upgrade budget :p

People who buy large high-resolution displays, especially gamers, know that the high resolution comes with the high price tag associated with being able to drive games at that resolution at smooth framerates.

Sorry, I don't know of such a list. It's entirely subjective- what one person may be able to use as a resolution another person would not be able to stand. Some people refuse to use anything but native res.
 
-=Antimatter=- said:
This is an enthusiast forum, since when is $500 per year an extravagant annual upgrade budget :p

People who buy large high-resolution displays, especially gamers, know that the high resolution comes with the high price tag associated with being able to drive games at that resolution at smooth framerates.

Sorry, I don't know of such a list. It's entirely subjective- what one person may be able to use as a resolution another person would not be able to stand. Some people refuse to use anything but native res.
Click to expand...

oh ok i thought there was a structured system about the resolution.

Also keep in mind that enthusiasts still dont have bottomless pits of money to spend on replacing something like a graphics card every year, especially when reading tthe OP's original request of not wanting to limit his card, which is precicely why i said to him what i did, alot of people, even enthusiasts want to make their hardware last as long as it can.
 
spincut said:
oh ok i thought there was a structured system about the resolution.

Also keep in mind that enthusiasts still dont have bottomless pits of money to spend on replacing something like a graphics card every year, especially when reading the OP's original request of not wanting to limit his card, which is precisely why i said to him what i did, alot of people, even enthusiasts want to make their hardware last as long as it can.
Click to expand...

You're right, Enthusiast doesn't necessarily mean deep pockets as well. It just means we get more excited than most people about computers. :)

The OP has a nice rig but it could've been his first new one in 5 years or 6 months.

We still don't really know how current DX10 cards will perform in full-blown DX10 games. By the time Crysis comes out we'll probably have second-gen DX10 hardware from nVidia anyway.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top