My long run down on FPS Games and the ideal monitor size, rez, and aspect ratio

R

R0achTheWarHero

Limp Gawd
Joined
Jun 9, 2007
Messages
488
I've played FPS games on the following LCD resolutions:

17inch (5:4) 1280x1024
20inch (16:10) 1680x1050
22inch (16:10) 1680x1050
24inch (16:10) 1920x1200
26inch (16:9) 1366x768
28inch (16:10) 1920x1200
32inch (16:9) 1920x1080
42inch (16:9) 1920x1080

All of these panels were 7-15ms or so input lag. I use a logitech G9 mouse currently and previously used a Razer Deathadder and Razer Diamondback before that. In terms of skill level, I'll get 1st - 4th place in whatever FPS game exists 99% of the time.

Here is what I have noticed after using all these:

- In terms of visual quality and aesthetics, a 26-27inch monitor at 16:9 ratio gives the best overall feel in games. When using a 24inch 16:10, it gives an awkward feel of not being wide enough to encompass your entire peripheral view but is tall enough to do so. This size and resolution should really never have been created in the first place.

- the higher the dot pitch of the monitor, the easier it seemed to aim and land hits on people. This rule becomes a little sketchy on monitors bigger than 27inches, I think 27" (16:9) is big enough for pretty much full immersion, anything larger on a desktop PC is basically overkill and really provides no benefit to me personally. Also, 720p on a 26-27inch doesn't provide enough detail to spot things off in the distance so 1080p is the best choice by default.

- 16:10 feels decent at 22inches but feels like a bizarre monitor aspect ratio at 24inches as mentioned above. At 22", it's not quite wide or tall enough whereas 24" is just tall enough but not wide enough. I guess satisfying no dimensions feels more normal than satisfying 1 out of 2.

So basically if you've read through all this, the ideal monitor for gaming at a desk would be 26-27inches, 1080p, at 16:9 aspect ratio, if you want the best visual quality and immersion without sacrificing too much of your play skill. I'm sure there's some guy that plays at some small rez on a FW900 that probably offers better performance skill wise than what I listed, but we're talking about fixed rez LCD's here that you also have to use for desktop, websites, and other stuff.
 
Interesting that you haven't tried a 30" monitor though at 2560x1600.
 
Quigon said:
Interesting that you haven't tried a 30" monitor though at 2560x1600.
Click to expand...

Mostly because they were always like $2000 when they first came out which I consider a little high for a computer monitor. It would be different if they actually lasted but LCD's just aren't very durable for the long haul and most the one's I've used look way better new than 2 years later. Also keeping in mind the technology increases so fast, I can't imagine buying a $1200-$2000 monitor and having it made obsolete 1 year later by a monitor that looks twice as good with LED's or something. Unless you're rolling in dough, $1000 is about the absolute max I'd spend on a PC monitor and 30's didn't hit that price till like...this month. Not to mention state of the art gfx cards not being able to run games on high settings in 1080p already.

For TV's, I have a Kuro and Panasonic plasma, I'd never buy an LCD for TV use unless it had LED's, I don't trust the CCFL lights to not turn to crap after 1 year.

Also, I scored better using a 1680x1050 22inch than my current 1920x1200 24inch. The 24 even has lower input lag. I think lots of so called "pro" gamers still use ridiculous resolutions like 1024x768 on a crt. Making your screen bigger and dot pitch lower definitely doesn't help your score. Honestly I think it's a combination of dot pitch and mouse technology. I have 3 gaming mice from 1800-3200dpi. It's easy to find good settings for the mice using 1680x1050 and lower, using the 24inch, all the settings for each mouse seem to either not rotate my view in game fast enough for the engine (which causes tearing/chop) or moves the cursor too fast. It's either unlucky design from the engineers on all 3 mice or they just don't operate good enough to plow through 2million pixels giving me the control I get using the same mouse in lower resolutions. Maybe the new 5000dpi Logitech g9x will be better, dunno.
 
You know you can get a Dell 3007WFP-HC for $750 in the Dell outlet? Makes access to a nice 30" monitor quite easy.
 
FatFed said:
You know you can get a Dell 3007WFP-HC for $750 in the Dell outlet? Makes access to a nice 30" monitor quite easy.
Click to expand...

I have too many problems with loud, buzzing backlights, dead pixels, backlight bleed, etc on brand new LCD's to deal with a used monitor.
 
I appreciate your views, though I have to disagree on the 1080p aspect for gaming. Just find 16:10 to be so much better all around. Some of my friends game on a big screen and one has a new Asus 1080p monitor -- both look too "skinny" to me.

One thing I wanted to ask is how far you typically sit away from your screen while gaming. Assuming you're within 2 feet, I can see why you'd prefer 16:9. For me, I'm sitting just over 4 feet away from my 24" BenQ V2400W which is about as close as I want to be.

My vid card is a bit dated, but I run Left 4 Dead @ 1920 x 1200 with 4xAA/4xAF and everything else maxed just fine. COD4 gets ~ 55 fps avg at that rez with 2xAA/max everything else, but dips to the 30s on maps like Overgrown which is definitely noticeable. Best setting is 1680 x 1050 with 4xAA/max and scaled up. Much more responsive like you noted...including the mouse movements.

I used to sit 2.5 feet away from my old 17" CRT, FYI.
 
R0achTheWarHero said:
I have too many problems with loud, buzzing backlights, dead pixels, backlight bleed, etc on brand new LCD's to deal with a used monitor.
Click to expand...

Dell has a zero dead pixel policy, even on their refurb models, and you also get a three year warranty with no cost to you. Mine looks/feels/sounds brand new, can't tell it was a refurb.

You can see here that plenty of people didn't have an issue with their, not saying it's 100%, but quite good for a refurb.
 
Interesting observations - good post!

Of course people's preferences will differ, but good to hear some observations. I'm a fan on 1080p and 16:9 for home use myself. At work, I never play games, and appreciate the slight extra space afforded by 16:10 - makes me feel like I'm not losing any space having the Windows taskbar locked in place at the bottom / top of the screen. For home use, I like the 16:9 aspect ratio, makes the display seem more versatile for mixed video, console, and PC use.

Amazing you found so many displays with such low input lag. No doubt that took a lot of research, which can be annoying. I wish manufacturers started quoting input lag numbers.
 
I, on the other hand consider 24" the perfect size for 1920x1200 resolution, but mainly based on reading text (which is what people mostly do on their monitors). For gaming I'd rather have a large HDTV but then again I'm certainly no "hardcore" gamer.
 
Agreed on the mouse thing. Wireless mouse is a no-no. I can feel input lag with a wireless mouse on a no lag or low lag monitor, even CRT. A good mouse with a low polling delay is always good.

If my 2709W had lower lag (like a frame less) it would be the perfect gaming monitor. I sit two feet away when reading it, and three feet when gaming and it still feels big and "close" for lack of a better term. 1920x1200 resolution at this size is nearly perfect for me. Big text, but big games too.
 
10e said:
If my 2709W had lower lag (like a frame less) it would be the perfect gaming monitor. I sit two feet away when reading it, and three feet when gaming and it still feels big and "close" for lack of a better term. 1920x1200 resolution at this size is nearly perfect for me. Big text, but big games too.
Click to expand...

16-20ms input lag is about the absolute max I can handle without feeling like my cursor is completely disconnected from my mouse. I can even tell the difference between 226bw (2ms input lag) and 245bw (7-8ms input lag). The 226bw feels practically the same as a CRT while you notice there's something just a little off with the 245bw.
 
OP, care to specify the LCD models you used?

I am looking to pull trigger on the planar 26. just debating price over a good tn 24.

thoughts.
 
shagvirus said:
OP, care to specify the LCD models you used?

I am looking to pull trigger on the planar 26. just debating price over a good tn 24.

thoughts.
Click to expand...

I wouldn't buy it. Backlight buzzing and black level isn't very good. Only monitors I would consider at the moment:

- Dell 2209wa 22inch IPS panel

- HP 2475 24inch IPS panel

- Samsung 305T 30inch for $999 new (yea, it's a S-PVA but only 29ms input lag, less than a NEC 2490, bearable for most people)

- Dell 3007WFP-HC IPS

- The 23inch 16:9 LG IPS panel about to come out

I'm on a 24inch TN panel right now that is being replaced soon, I don't think I'd buy a 24inch TN panel again, at 22inches they aren't that big of a problem, 24 is just too big for TN limitations though.
 
R0achTheWarHero said:
What good is a monitor with low input lag when the power supply is going BZZZZZZZZZ at you the entire time it's turned on.
Click to expand...

all the threads i read on the planar, didn't really hear complaints of buzzing? hmmm then again cant hear the buzzzzzzz if you are wearing a headset, lol

i think if i could stand the 60mm deltas in the athlon days that monitor cant be that bad..besides if i buy it from provantage 30days return no questions asked.
 
I used to game in Cal-invite and various tournaments... at the end of the day, most of my clan used 1024x768 on CRTs exactly as the OP said above in his first reply to me.
Most tournaments at the time that used LCD's were considered a joke. But now adays things have changed a bit... A large part of the reason we chose the 1024 resolution over 1600 was for more frames, not because of pixel size. It was as simple as that.
When you have a lot of explosions and action going on, you don't want your framerate to drop at all.
 
Quigon said:
I used to game in Cal-invite and various tournaments... at the end of the day, most of my clan used 1024x768 on CRTs exactly as the OP said above in his first reply to me.
Most tournaments at the time that used LCD's were considered a joke. But now adays things have changed a bit... A large part of the reason we chose the 1024 resolution over 1600 was for more frames, not because of pixel size. It was as simple as that.
When you have a lot of explosions and action going on, you don't want your framerate to drop at all.
Click to expand...

How much input lag would you consider "too much" for fps gaming? I've been considering the LP 2475 but their average input lag is somewhere between 1 and 2 frames. I understand that it's somewhat subjective but I'd like your opinion.

Like the OP stated though, I've tried various 0 to 15ms input lag TN panels at 24 inches and between poor black levels, narrow viewing angle ( I sit pretty close but I am constantly adjusting my sitting position as I play) and backlight bleed, I've returned all of them.
 
Oko said:
Like the OP stated though, I've tried various 0 to 15ms input lag TN panels at 24 inches and between poor black levels, narrow viewing angle ( I sit pretty close but I am constantly adjusting my sitting position as I play) and backlight bleed, I've returned all of them.
Click to expand...
I'm currently sitting ~ 4' away from my V2400W. This is a perfect distance for me and everything looks great. It would be a far different story if I sat only 2' away -- just tried it and the color shift is pretty noticeable. So I agree, if you sit close with a big TN, you're probably going to be disatisfied. I came from a 17" CRT recently so 4' is perfect for me.
 
brencat said:
I'm currently sitting ~ 4' away from my V2400W. This is a perfect distance for me and everything looks great. It would be a far different story if I sat only 2' away -- just tried it and the color shift is pretty noticeable. So I agree, if you sit close with a big TN, you're probably going to be disatisfied. I came from a 17" CRT recently so 4' is perfect for me.
Click to expand...


will that apply to the planar 26 ? i usually sit like 3 feet away from screen. then again on my desk i can move it back further.

my only grips is spending 800 on a lcd, when i can spend 1/2 or less for a tn. guess when i build my rig i will have to grab a lcd from bestbuy and this planar to test. sucks that BB has ok lcd's
 
shagvirus said:
will that apply to the planar 26 ? i usually sit like 3 feet away from screen. then again on my desk i can move it back further.

my only grips is spending 800 on a lcd, when i can spend 1/2 or less for a tn. guess when i build my rig i will have to grab a lcd from bestbuy and this planar to test. sucks that BB has ok lcd's
Click to expand...
No, the Planar is an IPS panel, and as such doesn't suffer from the critical viewing angles like a TN does. And as far as the money goes, yeah, $800 is a lot of scratch just to play games. If it's for photo work too, then it's more easily justified I suppose.

For reference, I start to notice a shift in color around the outer edges on my BenQ around 28" away from the screen or closer, dead center viewing. That, in addition to minimizing eye strain, is why I choose to sit nearly 4' away.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top