What size display do you play on now? (PICS welcome)


What size display would you want? 17", 19", 20"WS, 24", 30" or Larger?

I was plting on a 24 ws but it craped out on me :( Now im on a 20.1 ws!
http://i11.photobucket.com/albums/a196/ ... mage62.jpg

I use 19 now, but it's 16ms :(

Newegg has a sweet deal on Viewsonic 19" 2ms at $250, so if that deal is still running next month, I'll own one. But a new computer comes first. I don't see the need for anything greater than 19". Sure, it would be nice to brag about having duel 32's, but I'll never need that much monitor.

i use this 19" black one

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.a ... 6824014090

its awesome i even have the first review you see on there right now ;P

Let me start...

Display i currently use: NEC 90gx2
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.a ... 6824002122

Very nice 19" monitor... 4ms response time and 75hz refresh rate allows for some very smooth fast motion graphics... ghosting is nonexistent and motion blur is slight but barely noticeable.

I've also had the opportunity to play with the NEC 20wmgx2... which is a 20 inch widescreen display... also very nice... no ghosting... but motin blur is noticeable since it only supports 60hz at 1680x1050.


What size is ideal... I'm gonna have to say anywhere from 30"-37" at 2.5 to 3 feet distance... higher resolution the better.
What do you think about this LCD
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.a ... 6889101082

i think you are crazy but thats another story why did you go with the 4ms 19" instead of a 2ms screen?

and for your idea about the large screen you do have to remember what happend last time you tryed this ... i think the resault was not so good for you ... whats the difference between this monitor and the last time you tryed?

I use a 19in one and it is excellent. You can see it below.
http://www.shopping.hp.com/webapp/shopping/product_detail.do?storeName=storefronts&landing=displays&category=displays&orderflow=1&product_code=P8732AA%23ABA&catLevel=1

I went with 4ms for a few reasons...
1) actual reported response times are sketchy at best... just take it with a grain of salt.
2) The difference between 2, 3, 4, or even 6ms LCD's is negligible and not worth the price premium... especially if you understand the way LCDs work and what they're limitations are (i'll cover that in my next point)
3) The LCD limitation on supported refresh rates negates the benefits of reduced response times after a certain point. First you must understand how refresh rate affects LCDs...
Refresh rate(hz) dictates the number of new images your LCD will display per second. This has nothing to do with flickering, as flickering is strictly a CRT phenomenon. LCDs hold an image until its told to change it. Most LCDs can support a refresh rate of 60hz or 75 hz... this means that the LCD can only show you a max 60 or 75 frames per second regardless of the awesome capability of your graphics card.

Response time is the time it takes for an LCD pixel to change from one color to another (simply put). Since response time is measured in seconds, we can relate it to Frames per second. For instance, if you have a LCD with an actual 8 ms response time, you can do the math and figure out that at 8ms change over, this monitor can potentially support 125 frames per second... here's how... frames per second = 1frame/.008 seconds = 125

Therefore, a 12 ms respone time can theroretically support 83.333 frames per second... and so on and so on...

Aww... but the limitation of 60 hz or 75 hz still prevails... that is the bottleneck... no matter how many frames per second yoru graphics card can pump out, no matter how low your response time, as long as the refresh rate is limited to those timings.... we're stuck at visually seeing 60 or 75frames.

Fortunately 75hz is acceptable for most ppl...

anyway... as you can see after a certain point, response times are meaningless. Just go low enough so that you know for sure that the monitor can indeed respond lower than 12ms and you'll be set.


As far as the new Sharp LCD goes... I've discovered that Samsung panels based on s-pva have a problem called input lag... apparently the overdrive technology behind samsung has a fairly large processing lag... 45ms on average. That means it lags behind your mouse by 45ms.... ewww. So down with samsung LCDs. This is not an opinion... its been documented Search samsung and input lag in google and yuou'll find tons of articles. The sharp uses a different panel... it supports 75hz at 1920x1080... and its got a 6ms response time... all the things point to a winning combination...

My main is a 17" CRT Monitor, and my secondary for my dual is a 36" Zenith

i have a 15" lcd that came with my emachines but im working on getting a 19" lcd

and you just soo full of shit...

NEC MultiSync LCD 1765
17'', vsync refresh rate: 60

Weedman, I have a pic.

I pick 12' ;)

My screen currently is a 19" Lcd screen. i have used a 24" before but i just found that if u dont got an amazing video card its useless because it becomes blurry. Its easier to use a regular sized one. Main reason i use an Lcd screen cuz it saves a ton of space rather than my other 19'' with like a foot of screen in the back. Retro ftw!

Dell 1800FP (18") for the game/work PC, an Envision 17" CRT for mointoring the server farm.

emachine 17inch crt

dude i saw this threads title and i thought it had something to do with the male member lol.

My 24 inch monitor serves me well.

Still not yours :)