17" Flatscreen suggestions?

Status
Not open for further replies.
DonNagual

DonNagual

Posts: 2,385   +5
I am on the market for a cheap flatscreen, 17 inch. My budget is about 400 bones or so.

Any suggestions?
 
OK, I have done some research here, let me refine my question a bit.

I am on a budget and trying to make a choice between:

25ms Response time using Dsub15 connection (Samsung)

16ms response time using DVI connection (iiyama $100 more than the samsung above)

I am strongly leaning towards the cheaper Samsung. My vid card does support DVI but since the Samsung has superior response time, it is really worth it to spend the extra cash on a low end DVI monitor?
 
Originally posted by DonNagual
OK, I have done some research here, let me refine my question a bit.

I am on a budget and trying to make a choice between:

25ms Response time using Dsub15 connection (Samsung)

16ms response time using DVI connection (iiyama $100 more than the samsung above)

I am strongly leaning towards the cheaper Samsung. My vid card does support DVI but since the Samsung has superior response time, it is really worth it to spend the extra cash on a low end DVI monitor?
Click to expand...

The lower the response time, the better; hence, the higher price for 16ms.

Response time really matters if you are an FPS gamer. But that's about it. If you just do office work etc... Then the higher response time (worse) is fine.

As for DVI vs. VGA.. I've never really been able to "see" the difference in picture quality when I've compared LCD screens in the past.

Supposedly DVI allows the video signal to remain pure and digital, where VGA converts the signal. Conversion is supposed to result in quality loss, but I guess with today's converters, it isn't that big of a deal.

I am not sure if DVI offers any extra features over VGA either, but there may be other reasons to use DVI than picture quality.
 
Lower equals better........

Yikes. :blush:

Showing my incredible depth of knowledge now, aren't I?!!!

Thank you SOOOO much. You just saved me from making a BIG mistake. Cheers.
 
Alright then, what is the highest response time you recommend? I am a gamer. Anything less than 20 is acceptable?
 
Originally posted by DonNagual
Lower equals better........

Yikes. :blush:

Showing my incredible depth of knowledge now, aren't I?!!!

Thank you SOOOO much. You just saved me from making a BIG mistake. Cheers.
Click to expand...

You saved yourself by asking the question before you made the decision. :)
 
Originally posted by DonNagual
Alright then, what is the highest response time you recommend? I am a gamer. Anything less than 20 is acceptable?
Click to expand...

That really depends on how picky you are. 25ms and even 20ms still exhibit some "ghosting". I imagine some people are more sensitive to it than others.

I've heard a couple of people with 16ms LCDs fairly happy with gaming. And I have read reviews from people about various 12ms LCDs who are very happy with the lower response time for games.

You pay extra for the lower response times though. You may be able to find a 16ms LCD in your price range.

Response time isn't the only consideration either, when buying an LCD. Be aware of the brightness and contrast. This can vary a whole lot between different LCDs. I recommend getting at least 500:1 contrast ratio and a brightness of 250cd or better would be good..
 
Response time isn't the only consideration either, when buying an LCD. Be aware of the brightness and contrast. This can vary a whole lot between different LCDs. I recommend getting at least 500:1 contrast ratio and a brightness of 250cd or better would be good..
Click to expand...

Thanks again Rick, this website is such a huge help.

One last question to make sure I am not going to make the same mistake I made with response rates....

The two specs you mention above

Contrast ratio
Brightness

Can I assume that for example 500:1 is better than 400:1 for contrast

and 300cd is better then 250cd?
 
ok for the ratios yes its the higher the better, it is the difference between the brightest white and the darkest black, so the higher the ratio, the more colors it will contain. for the brightness, i think it is measured in candelas(correct me if im wrong) but i do not know if it is better high or low.
 
Candelas would be correct. And the higher the number, the more candelas are produced per square meter.

Of course, manufacturer ratings are not exactly 100% correct either. I've found that LCDs with the same specifications vary widely. So don't take the specifications literally.. But perhaps use them as a guide and look up reviews before you buy.

I tend to stay away from off-brand stuff. I've seen some really good off-brand LCDs though. However, I have also seen some very bad ones. :)

Tips: Shop wisely! Find something with 16ms response or less. Always read reviews. Do this and you should end up with one nice LCD.
 
The NEC 1760NX is a good LCD monitor wich has 16ms respons time. In a very large norwegian test it came out as the best gaming monitor. I have one myself, and after a short adjustment period it's great! (It turned out I'm very sensitive to ghosting and image oddities so I had a slight problem with it at the start, but not any more :))

A lower respons time isn't always better, if the monitor isn't ISO certified.
If it is ISO certified, then you can trust the respons time given, as the iso specifies how to calculate it.

For gaming you might prefer using DSUB instead of DVI, but it depends from person to person. I use DVI @ 60 hz, whereas others might use DSUB @ 70 hz.
(Be carefull about what hz you use, as some monitors really can't take anything over 60hz, and others has no problems...)

But why don't you tell us which models you are looking at, and what shops are you looking in and we'll see what the best deal is...
 
Originally posted by MrGaribaldi
For gaming you might prefer using DSUB instead of DVI, but it depends from person to person. I use DVI @ 60 hz, whereas others might use DSUB @ 70 hz.
Click to expand...

I'm curious. What's the benefit to using VGA over DVI for flat panels? Does the extra Hz make a difference?
 
Originally posted by Rick
That really depends on how picky you are. 25ms and even 20ms still exhibit some "ghosting". I imagine some people are more sensitive to it than others.

I've heard a couple of people with 16ms LCDs fairly happy with gaming. And I have read reviews from people about various 12ms LCDs who are very happy with the lower response time for games.
Click to expand...

A good read about 17" TFTs is Toms hardware round up here

At the time when I bought a Hyundai Q17 it had a response time of 20ms. I sold a Samsung 172T which had a 25ms response time. The difference is staggering. And as Tomshardware states the 20ms of the panel used in the Hyundai beat the 16ms of other panels so its not always completely straight forward to say that the lower speed is always better. It is a good guideline but its usually a low response time paired with the other properties of the display that result in a superior display suitable for gaming.

All in all I doubt you'll be disappointed by the Ilyama you have ordered :D
 
Originally posted by DonNagual
... and 300cd is better then 250cd?
Click to expand...
I can't speak for anyone else, but I find 300cd useless. Even with 250cd, its far too bright, and I need to turn the brightness way down (to zero in some cases) just to get any tonal gradation in the image, otherwise everything looks washed out (it is only backlight brightness that you can adjust on an LCD monitor, not pixel brightness). The best way to evaluate a monitor is to take a trip down to your local store and compare a few, then you can order online if its cheaper.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

TheGodlyGecko
Monitor suggestions
Replies
3
Views
446
Nelson28
N
midian182
Skull and Bones has the lowest Metacritic user score of 2024 so far
2
Replies
27
Views
515
trieste1s
T
midian182
Ubisoft defends $70 price for Skull and Bones, citing its "AAAA" status
2
Replies
26
Views
515
RandomWAN
R

Latest posts

Back