Gaming lcd list! 24" 25.5"

Bun-Bun said:
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.
Click to expand...
the average human eye can see a difference past 200fps and probably a lot more with a display capable of showing it, stop this this nonsense. I play CSS at 160hz and can sustain at least 160fps most of the time, if i make a bind for maxfps 120 or 100 and hit it I can tell immediately. Dropping down to 60 or god forbid 30 is like being in the stone age.

where do these 30/60 fps human limit people come from?
 
shiznit said:
where do these 30/60 fps human limit people come from?
Click to expand...

From the deepest most hellish depts of their rectums that's where. 30fps to 60fps is night and day. Fuck, I can tell a difference between 60fps and 85fps. Does that make me superhuman?
 
Your eyes may not pick out individual details above 30 fps perhaps, but it sure the hell can track much better with higher fps rates. What you can/can't see and what you can follow/track are two difference issues. With "2ms" LCDs, where are our 500 fps dvi links? :D
 
I would say around 85+ is where it becomes a lot less noticeable but going from 60 to 75 or 85 is an enormous difference. Whoever said 30fps has no damn clue what they are talking about.
 
It was cool playing UT (original) at 120fps @120hz on my old crt. 120 real FPS was definitely cool, you could tell the difference between 60 and 120, but it was small.

If you have more fps than hz it is pointless. 120fps vs 200fps on a 120hz screen is still only 120 images/sec.

Same goes for LCDs and 60hz. All you get past 60 is tearing in your images.
 
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...

*Puts on his elitist hat*

You'll find the words you were looking for, respectively, were "you're" and "reverence."

*Takes off his elitist hat*

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...

I hate to be downright offensive, but clearly you are an idiot. Calling people names because they are bothered by slow hardware? Where do you get off doing that? If a Pentium 3 is fast enough for you, it should be fast enough for everyone, right?

It's not always about how it slows down reaction times, or how you're milliseconds behind in a first person shooter.

For some people, it adds a detached feeling that completely ruins immersion and game play. When you move the mouse and notice the screen is not in sync with your movements it is distracting and frustrating.

You are clearly inexperienced in this subject but try to post as an authority. I guess in the end you are lucky you do not notice the latency of your display. Not everyone is as undiscerning as you.
 
Since we're talking about input lag, can anyone tell me if the Samsung 2693HM is as good as the 2493HM which has pretty much 0 input lag.
 
I picked up a Samsung T260HD locally for $50 less than Newegg, how is that one for gaming? I didn't notice any bad lag or smearing really. It's just a low end panel I guess, a bit of 6-bit glitter and lower saturation, frustrating buttons, but I'm overlooking that for the price I got. Cripes it's huge.
 
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...

Unless you want to feel drunk without even drinking :rolleyes:
 
Phyltre said:
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.
Click to expand...

Hehe. I have a Dell 2007FP IPS (actually: I have two of them) and a Samsung 204T PVA and I played the game on both monitors. Clearly the score sucks bigtime when on playing on the Samsung. :D
 
Can we get back on the dusty trail of what are the best monitors? Input lag dude put up your list, picture quality&overall value plp put up your list.Lets face it most gamers want speed so maybe we will find the same panels on both lists "best of both worlds as we would say eh?
 
What's the difference other than the .5" between 25.5" and 26" monitors? Different resolutions?
 
shiznit said:
the average human eye can see a difference past 200fps and probably a lot more with a display capable of showing it, stop this this nonsense. I play CSS at 160hz and can sustain at least 160fps most of the time, if i make a bind for maxfps 120 or 100 and hit it I can tell immediately. Dropping down to 60 or god forbid 30 is like being in the stone age.

where do these 30/60 fps human limit people come from?
Click to expand...
Yeah its funny when people think their eyes are that weak and cant see higher than 30FPS. I used to say the same on this eye topic before asking an optician while @ an appointment LOL and then Googling it to find this is nothing more than n00b myth started by some lame.

Running Crysis at 30FPS and then running it at 50FPS is 2 very different worlds.
 
It's funny how people have to ask or read ANYTHING before changing their minds on the whole eyes can't see over x amount topic. Obviously NONE of those people EVER had a good monitor that did high refresh rates, or a good computer that could sustain high FPS alongwith the refresh. I can tell the difference between 120hz and 160hz, 120fps and 160fps. It's very easy to tell, most people have never had a monitor that does 160hz so they have no clue what a smooth display is.
 
Slider19 said:
What's the difference other than the .5" between 25.5" and 26" monitors? Different resolutions?
Click to expand...

Yeah, I was a bit miffed when my 26" screen was actually 25.5" -- I mean, it's under 26" on Newegg and the model is T260HD, but clearly the box and specs say 25.5" -- no trickery just got to look at the info but still. I guess it's just the LCD panel size that's coming out of the factories, and people don't want to say "25 point 5" all day long? *shrug*
 
Anyone have any experience gaming on the LG L246WP? Considering picking one of these up and would love to hear a few opinions of what gamers think of it!
 
I've recently got the NEC 24WMGX3; it's definitely not for gaming. Too much ghosting, evident on all of these monitors.
 
Ok, just received my T260 today. Fired up RB6 Las vegas 2 and played through my usuall terrorist hunt maps. No easily perceivable difference in response lag vs my T220 but this monitor is too damn big for competitive fast twitch fps gaming. I did the Sheep Reaction time test which is hard to do if its all over your screen and I don't feel like theres any more response lag vs my T220, maybe 10-15ms more but nothing thats easily discernable. Looks just as great as my T220, love the rich colors and its really big.
 
I'm a little late to the party but I just have to say that, at least according to Prad, the 275T does NOT have a 60ms average input lag like the 245T, it has a 33ms average input lag, pretty much same as the 305T (from lesnumeriques) and others like the HP LP2475W. I don't know nor care if it's noticeable or not, I'm just relaying what the pros said.
 
Anyone who makes the argument of people not being able to "see" > 30FPS forgets one VERY important thing about how we perceive motion. MOTION BLUR.

We known something is moving fast across our field of vision because it tends to be blurred as it moves past us (More blurred == fast it's moving). Most FPS games don't have motion blur (or implement real motion blur), which is why having high frames/sec is important.
 
[H]adouken;1033577894 said:
Definitely not for gaming, known for extreme ghosting issues and high input lag. Bought one myself, denied it, and experienced it first-hand.
Click to expand...

Repling to above post regarding a Dell 24 incher

Dell 2407 WFP

Have one for about 3 years now, gaming is just fine with Crysis, Flight Sim X, Ghost Recon, etc, and no ghosting for me nor light blead.
 
Strictly for gaming, maybe

- Iiyama B2403WS (24 inch)
- HP w2408h (24 inch)
- Samsung T240

One question though (not trying to make a riot or something),but i´m also looking for a new lcd for gaming, but i don´t want JUST a gaming monitor. I want image quality, and not only low input lag. I understand the discussion, since response time is incredibly important in games, but for a gamer, i thing image quality can play a part too. That said, (and i hope i´m not flamed for naming a 26inch monitor), what do you guys think about LG W2600HP for gaming. Any experience there?



Tkz
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top