Thank you for starting this topic. I'm gonna buy one too...must have info...

I've had the Viewsonic VX2265wm for about 9 months now and I like it a lot. That and the Samsung are probably the cheapest but only do 1650x1080. It depends on how much you are looking to spend.

Wonder the same, I think the input lag is different between them still... not sure. Really doubting between 22"and 24" aswell :/

for me, 24" is just too big for gaming, but depending on far away you are from the monitor while playing, that might be different for you

I love my 2233rz even though I've barely used 120hz cuz most tourneys monitors only do 75. But when I do use 120 hz its as good as a CRT

so you train with 75?

It's the smart thing to do, the difference between 120hz and 75 is pretty substantial. I wish I would of done that before Qcon :(

On a german esport site there is an on going discussion about the samsung monitor having a bad interpolation. So if you want to use a resolution below 1024 you'll have a blurred picture. Can you confirm that?

Yes, most 4:3 low resolutions are blurry. However, native res is extremely crisp and looks fantastic.

has anyone ever managed to run ql at a custom 4/3 res based on the native vertical res of the screen?
I could do it in q3 ( I think it was 1440*1080 ) but thanks to the browser stuff, it's always been fucked up with windows leaking on the side and stuff even though everything was configured to respect the ratio.

Not that I care anymore, I use a crt nowadays.

everyone does, i also play with 75 hz but i wanna play with 120hz thats why i wanna see 120hzmonitors on tournaments

You should have said that then.. I was kinda surprised when I heard the first time *i think strenx told me.

Anyway, I still think it is a shame that you have to train with shitty settings like 75hz just to able to compete at the venue. I can really understand why you demand 120hz screens :)

But I guess time will come :)

I'm with you.

I'm tired of organizations doing a lot of things, but one of them specifically is using shitty monitors at computer gaming events.

I mean is it so difficult to secure 120hz monitors? Dreamhack is a "smaller" PRO event compared to ESL, yet they manage to get 120hz monitors for all events twice a year.. It should be a #1 priority at pro computer gaming events.

im still using a crt... im afraid my fucking ati gfx card will mess up scaling as id like to play with proper black bar scaling 4:3 so it feels and looks like a crt. i dont want this 16:10 stuff or whatever some ppl play nowadays.

:x

Afaik best monitors are ASUS and LG, but they also cost way too much... Just ordered 2233rz myself for 200€, not bad deal, atleast here in finland!

Don't know which one is best but I love my 2233rz. It's even responsive enough to play cpm on!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fbGkxcY7YFU

Does any of those monitors support 120hz through the D-SUB (VGA) port?

afaik no, bandwitch isnt big enough to handle them. They all have dual link dvi which means you cant compress it even with an adapter.

Alright thanks!
A shame though, seems like I'll be keeping my CRT for a while :(

i think fazz was saying he could use 120hz fine. the 2233rz doesn't have vga input though.

Wow, that would be great!
Thanks man, I sent him an iMsg

edit:
ok, it seems that the viewsonic one can handle 120hz only on low resolutions through vga
though there are bugs with it

<3 Alienware AW2310

My AW2310 came with a bunch of stuck-on-and-off-again green pixels on the left side of the panel, but it's gotten great reviews so far and I still like it a lot myself whenever the stuck pixels aren't as noticeable. Definitely very pricey at $600, but considering you can get it on a line of credit and the product exchange policy allows you to receive the replacement before you ever have to ship the defect back, I say it's worth the extra money if you can afford it. Definitely the best option if you can't get what you want from a brick-and-mortar store since I'm sure this sort of issue I'm having right now is decently common when shipping monitors.

Also, lol @ anyone saying LG is best at anything.

read reviews, speak after that...

The Acer, Samsung and Viewsonic are all very good. Alienware is very good as well but costs way more, not worth it.

I own the 2233rz from Samsung and the Acer GD245HQ and you can't spot major differences, tho the Acer goes to 1920x1080.

On the Acer I couldn't get 120 hz to work on lower rez than it's native 1920x1080 tho (might be fixed with new ATI drivers - im still on 10.4, haven't tried the new ones). I'm on a CF of ATI 5870's. It worked fine for the Samsung one, but in the end it does not bother me because I'm ok with playing at native rez on the Acer.

also @draven, there are like 3-4 threads about 120 hz monitors in the forums, almost everything has been discussed there. Maybe you should have a look...

And also, Viewsonic is supposed to launch a 120 hz LED monitor that goes 1920x1080 very soon. That might be one to keep an eye for.

What's the name of the upcoming Viewsonic?

/e: http://www.flatpanelshd.com/news.php?subactio...1263457115 (Release is in Oct. 2010)

yep, that's the one. Looks promising...

Wanted to buy a 120Hz one next month, but I guess one more to wait doesn't hurt.

Samsung SyncMaster 2233RZ 22inch

good prize & very high quality

bought 3 days ago!

why half of you would want to go 4:3 on a 16:10 screen is not only beyond me, but absolutely retarded

IT'S DIFFERENT OMG!

yeah, 16:10 isn't so bad, 16:9 might be too much though.

Even though 16 and 9 are multiples of 4 and 3? If anything, 16:9 is perfect for imitating a ~19" 4:3 monitor.

that's not what nvc was talking about. with the whole screen size filled i prefer 16:10 over 16:9 for gaming.

Uhh, what I was talking about was exactly what he was talking about. Maybe it's just not what you're talking about?

not so sure about that, maybe nvc can enlighten us.

why half of you would want to go 4:3 on a 16:10 screen is not only beyond me, but absolutely retarded

why half of you would want to go 4:3 on a 16:10 screen is not only beyond me

why half of you would want to go 4:3 on a 16:10 screen

to go 4:3 on a 16:10 screen

uhm, first off chill the fuck out. secondly, how I understood it, he was saying that there's no reason to get a widescreen if you're not going to use a widescreen format. that makes more sens to me than what you are assuming since you can do 4:3 fine on a 16:10 screen. maybe you didn't realise that 4:3 times 4 is 16:12 and not 16:9? if you think there's too much vertical screen size when using 4:3 on a 16:10 there's solutions for that as well - you could have it so the format is exactly the same as on a 16:9 screen. think about it..

secondly, how I understood it, he was saying that there's no reason to get a widescreen if you're not going to use a widescreen format.

You mean aside from the times you spend doing something other than playing Quake on the computer?

maybe you didn't realise that 4:3 times 4 is 16:12 and not 16:9?

Oh, wow...tell me you didn't just say that...

having a bad day are we? keep posting funny internet pictures if it makes you feel better matey.

Umm...I'm not sure what about my post would imply that I'm mad or down about anything.

well you come across as pretty emotionally concerned about the topic. let's just leave it be, 4:3 works fine on my 16:10, that's all I'm saying really. I use the whole screen size for everything including quake anyways.

well you come across as pretty emotionally concerned about the topic

Emotionally concerned? Do you even know what sort of context that term would imply, and how that context makes very little sense?

You just need to stop acting like you know what you're talkin about and you won't come across as dumb as you are right now. I mean, I could just keep reading your shit and continue to laugh at how you don't think before you say anything, but honestly, I don't care if you keep this up or not. Just sayin, right now, you're lookin pretty dumb.

I'll leave you thinking you're smarter than me, have fun bro.

Actually you're the retarded one. Endless lines of emotionally charged bullshit. Whereas, everything Sub has said makes sense.

nt troll.

I'm actually not trolling at all. Its just ever so evident you're retarded.

Its just ever so evident you're the only one here who isn't retarded.

Fixed your retarded post, retard.

You sure showed me!

I don't need to show retarded felchmongers a fucking thing, fishcake.

post more 4chan pictures to prove how intelligent u are please

Keep acting cynical while ignoring everything I'm saying in a thinly veiled attempt to come across as something other than a complete asshat.

And I was going to post more 4chan pics, but since you asked and I make sure not to give anyone here what they actually want, have a dozen ampersands:

&&&&&&&&&&&&

k

frustrated jew is frustrated

Brain-dead Croatian is lol.

go cry at a wall.

tourists are fags

Not sure why you're asking us this since at least most if not all of the monitors Draven listed, including mine, have a native resolution of 1920x1080 (16:9), not 1920x1200 (16:10). And since 16 and 9 are multiples of 4 and 3 respectively, you can obviously do 12:9 (aka 4:3) with a bit of cutoff on each of the sides of this 16:9 panel and it's going to look just like you're playing on a 4:3 monitor.

Besides, widescreen monitors are the industry standard now, and we like having space on our desks.

so going 1600x1200 on a 16:10 would not work, because?

Cause the monitor would scale one image pixel over an odd number of monitor pixels and make the image go all blurry, I assume.

/e: "all blurry" in terms of nerd-standards ;P

I meant 1600x1200 with cutoff on a 16:10, just like 1440x1080 (12:9) with cutoff on a 16:9 screen as he suggested.

He seemes to think the if you can divide 10 by 3, the number of vertical pixels can be divided by three either ...

prepare for incoming facepalm picture ;) most 16:10 screens only do 1680x1050. I just played ql in 4:3/120hz on my 2233rz and it was all dandy btw, I'll leave it at that.

well, he was the one talking about 1920x1200 for the 16:10.

I never said it wouldn't -- namely because I don't have a single 16:10 panel and have never used one, so I wouldn't know anyways. I was just saying that all of these monitors are 16:9, not 16:10, and so I can tell you that it works very well and I simply explained another reason why it does.

you did say in anothe post that 16:9 is perfect for imitating 4:3, while if a 16:10 has more vertical pixels than a 16:9 it should be better.

while if a 16:10 has more vertical pixels than a 16:9 it should be better.

The way you wrote your post, I can't tell if you're saying I said this. But assuming you are, I never did. Not sure how to do the math on that one, but the image probably ends up being a bit narrower than it would be on a 16:9 panel, I'm guessing. Could end up looking just a bit warpy or something to a trained eye, but I wouldn't know.

Also, what sort of point are you getting at, exactly? I mean, I don't know why you keep bringing up 16:10 when I already said all these panels are likely 16:9...

you mentioned 16:10 yourself quite a few times in this thread. and you did write "16:9 is perfect for imitating a ~19" 4:3 monitor." and then you wrote

And since 16 and 9 are multiples of 4 and 3 respectively, you can obviously do 12:9 (aka 4:3) with a bit of cutoff on each of the sides"

which made me wonder if you were not aware the same thing is possible with 16:10 except that you use a higher percentage of the available pixels.
That is why I adressed in the form of a question.

But this means stretching the image of the source material vertically. Thus, you're throwing the appearance of the source material out of its original proportion. I've seen 1920x1200 wallpapers look pretty vertically squished on my 1080p monitors, so I can imagine the opposite effect can easily apply to viewing 4:3 and 16:9 material on a 16:10 aspect.

And again we reach my initial question.
Why would that be?

I mean scaling should be possible on a 16:10, as well. So all you have to deal with are the cutoffs.

e:

1600x1200 is one of the standard 4:3 resolutions, why should it look stretched if you have 160 blacks pixels to the left and right?
Likewise 1920x1080 is a standard 16:9 resolution, so that would mean 60 black pixels on top and bottom.

I was just saying that all of these monitors are 16:9, not 16:10

Nope, the Samsung and the Viewsonic one are 16:10 not 16:9 (1680x1050 native).

opinions are retarded

.... are you trolling or just that dense?

changing from 4:3 -> 16:10 takes time to adapt, even moreso if you don't particularly like 16:10. It is perfectly reasonable to use 4:3 resolutions on these monitors if you are used to 4:3, a 24" LCD I used on LAN in 4:3 seemed to have around the same viewing area as my 21" CRT at home so it was perfect... switching to 16:10 would have been retarded choice. No reason to be a condescending prick because people use different setups to you.

it takes no time to adapt if you use the same field of view

if it takes you time to adapt, you're pretty special

ah so you're saying you understand primary school level maths and can even calculate a new field of view for the new aspect ratio? HOLY SHIT I NEVER KNEW THAT, and now that the ONLY difference is righted i guess i should start playing 16:10 at every LAN i attend

playing 4:3 feels awesome, 16:10 feels like shit, you're awful and shouldn't try to give advice on this

I actually feel sorry for you

you're embarrassing yourself

Intelligence is not embarrassing mate

actually, it's more like common sense nvc

actually, meez is correct, by giving the player extra horizontal viewing area.. he will aim worse

LOL STFU

:DDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDD

it's hilarious how you try to tell people better than you how to play, try and give them your config, try and look important. add a bit of racism to your repertoire and you'll soon be a Jamerio level peon

don't mad

don't mad

replies to self

well i wouldnt mind it in QL but in Q3 my zoomscript would go hay wire senstivity and fov wise since i use Q3s zoom algorithem

fuck forgot to bid for this :(

http://cgi.ebay.de/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&...K:MEWAX:IT

I've used both the Samsung 2233RZ and the Acer GD245HQ.

Can't really tell the difference except for the slightly blue-ish colors on the 2233rz and the resolution difference (1680x1050 vs 1920x1080).

Both worked just as good for QL and weren't really far behind my old CRT. I find the 2233rz more esthetically pleasing in terms of design/color but miss the resolution of the Acer GD245HQ.

I actually bought the Acer GD245HQ 24inch to day but I'm gonna swap it for the 2233RZ tmorrow simply because it's too wide and the full HD is giving me minor fps drops at times. I can't seem to play at lower resolutions than the native without the colours fucking up so this is a no-go for me.

I really like the Acer design tho.

i am not sure about it but i think the best thing for gaming is to find a LCD with an vertical resolution that double 600.

so that an rmode 9 (800*600) can streachet to 1600*1200. i think this can fix the interpolarisations problem.

or u use for a 1080 LCD a cutom heigt from 540...

1ingamepixel is than exactly 4 on screen.

can someone confim that? i still use crt.

afaik it's not interpolated 1 to 4 on most monitors(and neither by modern gfx drivers if you use driver scaling ;o) since the interpolation methods dont distinguish resolutions and work the same way with all of them.
every non-native resolution even if it's half-native will be as blurry as any other one if the interpolation is badly implemented
but tbh i dont consider it to have an important effect on gaming since you dont really need a crispy clear still image when everything on the screen is moving every second/

The most annoying thing about the 2233RZ is the side power button, I would like to eventually buy a second one and have them side by side.. How do you turn off one of the monitors?! :|

Turning stuff off manually is so yesterday, auto power off!

Wrong! The most annoying thing is the blinking blue led when the monitor is off (standby).

I turn mine off manually, mainly because of this and sometimes my computer doesn't like going to sleep.

Yeah I do the same. Can't believe what were they thinking...

how bad is a pixel failure class 2 for gaming? anyone have experience with this?
could get a Asus VG236H for 100 euros.

I have 2233rz for some time now, and I'm extremely satisfied. 120 HZ u can really feel after 75Hz but can't comment on other 120 Hz monitors as I haven't tested them.

Acer GD245HQ!

I have a CRT moniter and all theese post confuse me.

You can get modern day lcd monitors now who are almost as good as crt's for gaming! ;)

The only question is who is gonna pay for them.

for most cases here the answer should be mom

So there really is no point in buying a CRT now?

Bah, all the LCDs decent for gaming are outta mah price rangeh.

if i could find a good and new one, i'd get a crt.

s'all about the Alienware AW2310's. can get them in AU for $380 when using a 15% coupon code (always easy to find on the net).

my mates have the samsung but honestly does not compare to the AW2310. the AW does 1920x1080, has height AND swivel adjustment (samsung has neither) samsung also only does 1680x1050. The base on the Alienware is so well built, its solid as a rock. Also love the use of HDMI ports (samsung doesnt have any) this is great for when I want to switch straight over to hdmi input for playing my xbox 360. Really, really impressed by my Alienware 120hz. Yes its more expensive but if you can get some discount codes to reduce the price, go for it! the extra features it has on other models alone are worth the extra cash. my 2c :)

Are crt bad?

4:3 aspect ratio... bad colours... screen flicker... low resolutions.. you name it, it has atleast as many flaws as normal 60hz tft...

A good crt has only one negative and that's 4:3 ratio