Need help for fast General LCD decision 17" vs 19"

[Ron Sallanto]

Hey out there,
I need to select an LCD in a package right away. It's between a 17" and a 19" that are exactly the same quality - response time, native resolution 1280 X1024. Will the 19" strain the video card more and therefore cause more problems like latency, "after glow", "ghosting"? The card is a 128MB PCI Express™ x16 (DVI/VGA/TV-out) ATI Radeon™ X300 SE.

Thanks

 

[Godataloss]

Bigger is always better

Get the big boy if price is no option- it won't affect the vid card.

 

[Ron Sallanto]

17" vs 19"

So the card is ok - that's good
But I've been reading bits about this ghosting effect. If all things are equal, will the 19" "ghost", "after glow" more than the 17". It seems to be the only problem with LCD's. If your not sure, it's ok.

 

[agissi]

Nope, ghosting and afterglow wont be affected by the videocard, or affect it.

You can determin how bad, or how great the LCD screen will have the ghosting effect by looking at the responce time in ms. Below 30 is good, 15ms and under is no ghosting, but my moniter I *think* is 40ms, maybe its 30, and there is no visible ghosting in games at all.

Just makesure the brightness is atleast 400:1 and the contrast is good.

 

[Ron Sallanto]

That sounds reassuring. Is your LCD a 19"?

 

[agissi]

Its a 17", but size really has nothing to do with how valid my comment is, or the performance of the moniter.

a 19" doesnt have higher propencity to ghost anymore than a 17" does.

 

[Ron Sallanto]

Well I'm a more informed shopper now.
I guess I'm leaning toward the 19".
Thanks to you both.

 

[agissi]

Glad we could help - and glad your getting a 19" If you can afford the extra $200 or so, a 19" is oh so much nicer than a 17!

 

[Godataloss]

Just makesure the brightness is atleast 400:1 and the contrast is good.

Actually that ratio is the contrast. Brightness is measured in candellas per square meter (cd/m2).

Both measurements are usually grossly inflated by manufacturers so the only true test is a visual comparasion.

 

[Athena]

If you can afford it spend a few more bucks to upgrade your X300 to a x600 and take advantage of that sweet LCD you are getting!! Unless you are not going to play games, if no games then forget what I said.

 

[Mictlantecuhtli]

You can determin how bad, or how great the LCD screen will have the ghosting effect by looking at the responce time in ms. Below 30 is good, 15ms and under is no ghosting, but my moniter I *think* is 40ms, maybe its 30, and there is no visible ghosting in games at all.

I'd recommend to test the monitors before buying, if possible. Some people seem to notice ghosting easier than others, just like with cathode-ray tube displays some people notice low refresh rates easier than others.

To make things more confusing, manufacturers don't always use the same method to measure and publish LCD response times.

Tom's Hardware Guide Displays: BenQ's FP71e+ LCD Is Fast, But How Furious?
But, the real question to ask is: Should a panel get a latency rating of 8ms if the actual latency value is really 20ms much of the time?

According to the ISO standard, the monitor's latency value is still 8ms, despite the variations during actual use. But you have to admit that the gap between what the user sees and what the standard dictates is widening into a gulf. When a 20ms panel measures at 28ms, the gap is 35% compared to the theoretical rating. But when an 8ms panel gets near 23ms and 24ms, that gap widens to 200% of the nominal value, which is absurd. This doesn't mean that the monitor is bad - it's not at all. But users have to be given a point of comparison that's representative of the use they make of the product. It makes you wonder what the real motivation is behind why the ISO standard for TFT monitor reactivity remains unchanged....