![[H]ard|Forum](/styles/hardforum/xenforo/logo_dark.png){kind=logo}
Well I decided to take the time to talk about the many LCDs that I have owned. I am sharing this information for people in the market of a LCD from someone who has a lot of FPS gaming and CRT experience. I hope that my opinions of the the items that I have owned will help people find the right monitor for them.
First off, I want to make clear that I own a 24" Widescreen Trinitron Tube CRT (HP A7217A), and own a 22" Diamondtron tube and another 21" Trintron tube monitor. I have used shadow masked monitors most of my computer career. I play a moderate amount of computer games, but I mostly play FPS games. I played for a Rocket Arena Q3 clan that competed in the Midwest, and I currently play alot of Counterstrike 1.6. I played the aforementioned games hardcore for over 5 years. I play some other FPS games very seldomly, like CS:S, UT2k4, Doom3, Quake4, HL2, BF2, etc.
A note about response times: Every LCD I used exhibits some blurring/ghosting. It's not the video card/V-sync/refresh or what other "technicality" that causes it. Straight out, LCDs aren't as fast as CRTs. Some are worse than others. For most people in the newest fastest LCDs, the ghosting/blurring isn't enough to compromise someone's gaming skill. Ghosting/blurring is easily noticeable in old ancient, terrible graphic games like the old counterstrike 1.6 than newer games such as counterstrike: source. If you probably don't notice ghosting, you probably play a newer graphic game, or you just haven't been accustomed to a CRT. Newer games tax the video card enough that you rarely get a constant 100 fps or more like you do in an old game.
A second note about response times: Yes, I know the "theories" behind refresh rates in a CRT vs. an LCD. Yes, you may not be able to see the difference upwards of 60hz in an LCD, but the main reason pro gamers want high refresh rates is due to mouse sensitivity. Not many professional gamers use LCDs because mostly of poor interpolation, and the low refresh rate that affects mouse sensitivity. Many FPS gamers have their CRT monitors jacked up to 120hz or more, because it feels better.
Enough rambling, here are the monitors:
The monitors:
Gateway FPD2185W: The Gateway(s) I had I thought were just okay monitors. The Gateway had terrible blacks and by looking straight into the monitor, you can see the blacks on the ends of the monitor turned milky dark gray. Response time was about the same as the Hyundai L90D+ 8ms monitor I had a year ago, which is pretty good. Analog performance was terrible, and it only includes the DB15 cord, not the DVI. Text was easily worse on the analog, and it seemed that the Gateway runs some interpolation in analog mode. At random, there would be scan lines running through the two that I had in the analog mode. Color in DVI was good and viewing angles overall were worse than PVA/MVA average. Like all PVA/MVA panels, detail is lost looking straight on a black image, and it turns whitish off angle. The Gateway had bad backlight bleed. Overall, don't buy this monitor if you can only use analog.
Samsung 970P: I still have this monitor. Overall colors are good like other PVA panels. Picture quality is better than the Viewsonice VP191B I had before. Response times with dark colors give the 970P problems. Overall, the monitor is a bit slower than the VX924, I had, but the black/dark color transitions are far slower. Looking at say, Dust2 where bombsite "B" or "A" are written in black against the yellow wall, and turning your head side to side, you can see the letters drag into the wall weird because the response time in those colors are slow. Response time, I think, is a bit slower overall than the VP191B.
Viewsonic VP191B: Great monitor except it didnt' seem to get as far into reds or blues and the "X" pattern in the backlight. Seems faster than the Hyundai L90D+ to me and a bit quicker than the 970P.
Viewsonic VX924: The fastest monitor that I have used. Still blurring in comparison to a CRT, but shouldn't be enough to make you a worse FPS gamer. Colors are washed off like all TN "16.2 million color" screens. It was very sharp though. I had bad backlight bleed in all four sides of the screen.
Dell 2405FPW: Man I loved this monitor, and I really wanted to keep it. Had no dead pixels and the colors were very good. One downfall: input lag. I couldn't play competitively with this monitor. Looking quickly side to side felt like I was grabbing someone's hair and pulling their head side to side. I couldn't make any flick shots and I was always compensating for the lag in my aim. I tried many ways to fix it, but I couldn't. Of all monitors, this one was the only one with the lag. I am sure the lag has to do with something in the Genesis decoder. I eventually reluctantly sold it to my brother and took a huge loss on it.
Dell 2005FPW: A very nice monitor. S-IPS has the best colors and viewing angles and is the closest to a CRT in color reproduction. Not as fast as the fastest monitors now and ghosting is pretty noticeable. Blacks aren't black and they turn purple when viewed from an angle. I had 6 2005FPWs, all of them had some dead pixels in them. If they every make an overdrive S-IPS panel, I would be the first one to buy it. Easily the most pleasing monitor to look at, other than the very slight "screendoor" effect.
Dell 2001FP: It was an okay monitor at it's time. Colors aren't as good as the 2005FPW, and it seemed dark and the response time is a bit slower. It had the screendoor effect as well. Good monitor in it's time.
Hyundai L90D+: First "fast" lcd. Good picture quality for a TN screen and the colors were acceptable. It had a dead pixel which I rubbed off.
Well that's it for now. I am sure I have used other monitors, but I can't recall them right now. Hope this was helpful to anyone in the market to buy these monitors. Feel free to ask questions about them.
First off, I want to make clear that I own a 24" Widescreen Trinitron Tube CRT (HP A7217A), and own a 22" Diamondtron tube and another 21" Trintron tube monitor. I have used shadow masked monitors most of my computer career. I play a moderate amount of computer games, but I mostly play FPS games. I played for a Rocket Arena Q3 clan that competed in the Midwest, and I currently play alot of Counterstrike 1.6. I played the aforementioned games hardcore for over 5 years. I play some other FPS games very seldomly, like CS:S, UT2k4, Doom3, Quake4, HL2, BF2, etc.
A note about response times: Every LCD I used exhibits some blurring/ghosting. It's not the video card/V-sync/refresh or what other "technicality" that causes it. Straight out, LCDs aren't as fast as CRTs. Some are worse than others. For most people in the newest fastest LCDs, the ghosting/blurring isn't enough to compromise someone's gaming skill. Ghosting/blurring is easily noticeable in old ancient, terrible graphic games like the old counterstrike 1.6 than newer games such as counterstrike: source. If you probably don't notice ghosting, you probably play a newer graphic game, or you just haven't been accustomed to a CRT. Newer games tax the video card enough that you rarely get a constant 100 fps or more like you do in an old game.
A second note about response times: Yes, I know the "theories" behind refresh rates in a CRT vs. an LCD. Yes, you may not be able to see the difference upwards of 60hz in an LCD, but the main reason pro gamers want high refresh rates is due to mouse sensitivity. Not many professional gamers use LCDs because mostly of poor interpolation, and the low refresh rate that affects mouse sensitivity. Many FPS gamers have their CRT monitors jacked up to 120hz or more, because it feels better.
Enough rambling, here are the monitors:
The monitors:
Gateway FPD2185W: The Gateway(s) I had I thought were just okay monitors. The Gateway had terrible blacks and by looking straight into the monitor, you can see the blacks on the ends of the monitor turned milky dark gray. Response time was about the same as the Hyundai L90D+ 8ms monitor I had a year ago, which is pretty good. Analog performance was terrible, and it only includes the DB15 cord, not the DVI. Text was easily worse on the analog, and it seemed that the Gateway runs some interpolation in analog mode. At random, there would be scan lines running through the two that I had in the analog mode. Color in DVI was good and viewing angles overall were worse than PVA/MVA average. Like all PVA/MVA panels, detail is lost looking straight on a black image, and it turns whitish off angle. The Gateway had bad backlight bleed. Overall, don't buy this monitor if you can only use analog.
Samsung 970P: I still have this monitor. Overall colors are good like other PVA panels. Picture quality is better than the Viewsonice VP191B I had before. Response times with dark colors give the 970P problems. Overall, the monitor is a bit slower than the VX924, I had, but the black/dark color transitions are far slower. Looking at say, Dust2 where bombsite "B" or "A" are written in black against the yellow wall, and turning your head side to side, you can see the letters drag into the wall weird because the response time in those colors are slow. Response time, I think, is a bit slower overall than the VP191B.
Viewsonic VP191B: Great monitor except it didnt' seem to get as far into reds or blues and the "X" pattern in the backlight. Seems faster than the Hyundai L90D+ to me and a bit quicker than the 970P.
Viewsonic VX924: The fastest monitor that I have used. Still blurring in comparison to a CRT, but shouldn't be enough to make you a worse FPS gamer. Colors are washed off like all TN "16.2 million color" screens. It was very sharp though. I had bad backlight bleed in all four sides of the screen.
Dell 2405FPW: Man I loved this monitor, and I really wanted to keep it. Had no dead pixels and the colors were very good. One downfall: input lag. I couldn't play competitively with this monitor. Looking quickly side to side felt like I was grabbing someone's hair and pulling their head side to side. I couldn't make any flick shots and I was always compensating for the lag in my aim. I tried many ways to fix it, but I couldn't. Of all monitors, this one was the only one with the lag. I am sure the lag has to do with something in the Genesis decoder. I eventually reluctantly sold it to my brother and took a huge loss on it.
Dell 2005FPW: A very nice monitor. S-IPS has the best colors and viewing angles and is the closest to a CRT in color reproduction. Not as fast as the fastest monitors now and ghosting is pretty noticeable. Blacks aren't black and they turn purple when viewed from an angle. I had 6 2005FPWs, all of them had some dead pixels in them. If they every make an overdrive S-IPS panel, I would be the first one to buy it. Easily the most pleasing monitor to look at, other than the very slight "screendoor" effect.
Dell 2001FP: It was an okay monitor at it's time. Colors aren't as good as the 2005FPW, and it seemed dark and the response time is a bit slower. It had the screendoor effect as well. Good monitor in it's time.
Hyundai L90D+: First "fast" lcd. Good picture quality for a TN screen and the colors were acceptable. It had a dead pixel which I rubbed off.
Well that's it for now. I am sure I have used other monitors, but I can't recall them right now. Hope this was helpful to anyone in the market to buy these monitors. Feel free to ask questions about them.
