TR Forums

Murso24 wrote:

will the Processor be good for gaming as well?

Everything there is good.. except that monitor.

which monitor would you suggest than?

You may consider upgrading to this one when your Samsung fails on you. Otherwise, no need to buy it if the current one works for you.

one problem with that monitor is that the contrast isnt as high as the samsung

and here's the KEY: the Response time is 6ms..wher-as the samsung is 2ms

im looking at a acer or viewsonic as well

Color gamut is worth something.

im not sure i know what that is..

but the response time is important for..pretty much everything..

as long as the native Contrast is at LEAST 1000:1 and the response time is at LEAST 5ms, with a high native resolution..im good.

any body wanna reccomend? feel free

That is if your eyes can discern the difference in response time.

Murso24 wrote:

im not sure i know what that is..

but the response time is important for..pretty much everything..

as long as the native Contrast is at LEAST 1000:1 and the response time is at LEAST 5ms, with a high native resolution..im good.

any body wanna reccomend? feel free

Not really. That number is as meaningless as the MPG numbers that use various difference standards, or wattages of the different PSU manufacturers. I don't know about you, what if you have that super fast monitor but colour is so washed out due to crappy colour reproduction? It's going to affect your enjoyment too. Viewing angle is another problem with those fast+cheap TN panels. You are using a pretty big screen so there will be areas on the monitor that you don't view straight on, and colours will look weird from those angles.

point taken..

so shich brand or which monitor (LCD) do you guys think i should go with? i want good quality, but no more than $300

Monitor does not drop in value so fast like other computer components. It is definitely a longer term item. Remember also, you can replace computer components if they turn bad, but you cannot replace your eyes. I would not have gotten that QX and Dell, and would skimp everything else but the monitor. I stare at the thing 8+ hours a day I make damn sure I get the one I want.

Edit: oops, fingers too quick

Agree with FlyingFox.

Buying the XPS is a waste of good money.

Proceeding to skimp on the monitor is sheer folly.

To the OP: you shouldn't believe the marketing bullcrap that accompanies response times. GtG figures can be wildly out of line with the response time of the LCD in other situations, such as when you're actually playing games...most games aren't coloured in grey, after all. In addition, all these low response time monitors achieve their 'specs' by using response time compensation (RTC), which can create visual artefacts by overdriving the lcd. Compare this 2ms 22" Samsung monitor tested at xbitlabs - the slowest response times on the matrix goes up to 17ms*, nearly 9 times higher than quoted. In addition, RTC errors go up to 55%. Turn off RTC and the errors go away, but the response time goes up even further.

Although S-iPS and P/MVA matrices have slower peak response times, their average response time tends to be more closely spaced. With their wider colour gamut, better vertical viewing angles and more accurate colour reproduction, I'd rather spend the money to get one like the Dell 2407W, for instance.

* It should be noted that 16ms is good enough for gaming at 60fps, so the Samsung will still be perfectly fine for gaming. But if you were expecting to get 500 fps from the monitor, prepare to be disappointed.

Can LCDs go past even 120 FPS?

Nitrodist wrote:

Can LCDs go past even 120 FPS?

Considering the typical LCD refreshes at 60Hz no, you're not going to see 120 fps.

crazybus wrote:

Nitrodist wrote:

Can LCDs go past even 120 FPS?

Considering the typical LCD refreshes at 60Hz no, you're not going to see 120 fps.

LCD with 60HZ of refresh rate should give you 60 FPS max ...

Jigar2speed5095 wrote:

crazybus wrote:

Nitrodist wrote:

Can LCDs go past even 120 FPS?

Considering the typical LCD refreshes at 60Hz no, you're not going to see 120 fps.

LCD with 60HZ of refresh rate should give you 60 FPS max ...

Baloney. Then how come benchmarks show games running beyond 60 fps?

BoBzeBuilder wrote:

Jigar2speed5095 wrote:

crazybus wrote:

Nitrodist wrote:

Can LCDs go past even 120 FPS?

Considering the typical LCD refreshes at 60Hz no, you're not going to see 120 fps.

LCD with 60HZ of refresh rate should give you 60 FPS max ...

Baloney. Then how come benchmarks show games running beyond 60 fps?

I'm not sure if your being serious or not. Usually my sarcasmometer works pretty good so I'll bite. To answer your question vertical sync is generally disabled for benchmarking purposes.

crazybus wrote:

Nitrodist wrote:

Can LCDs go past even 120 FPS?

Considering the typical LCD refreshes at 60Hz no, you're not going to see 120 fps.

Actually, I've seen this 60 Hz figure quoted many times, but I'm not sure how true it is.

If a LCD can only refresh a bank of pixels every 1/60th of a second, how do review sites measure response times of less than 16 ms?

In addition, we have LCD TVs that are 100-120Hz.

At the risk of thread jacking, are there any reputable sources of information on this old saw?

Voldenuit wrote:

Actually, I've seen this 60 Hz figure quoted many times, but I'm not sure how true it is.

If a LCD can only refresh a bank of pixels every 1/60th of a second, how do review sites measure response times of less than 16 ms?

In addition, we have LCD TVs that are 100-120Hz.

At the risk of thread jacking, are there any reputable sources of information on this old saw?

I'm interested in this too. What I've heard is that the LCD driver in most pc displays typically outputs at 60hz, no matter what the input frequency is, but I've no idea of the accuracy of that statement. Obviously with a 100/120hz LCD it's different, but those displays are made to work with 25/24hz input. Nevertheless, if your video card's output signal is at 60hz, the contents of a frame are not going to refresh more than 60 times per second, period.

Congrats on the new system....it will feel fabulous compared to your P4 rig.
I disagree with "16ms" is fine for FPS games,flying jets it really matters or you get annoying ghosting and hiccups.
2-6 ms is where its at baby...grab one!

crazybus wrote:

Voldenuit wrote:

Actually, I've seen this 60 Hz figure quoted many times, but I'm not sure how true it is.

If a LCD can only refresh a bank of pixels every 1/60th of a second, how do review sites measure response times of less than 16 ms?

In addition, we have LCD TVs that are 100-120Hz.

At the risk of thread jacking, are there any reputable sources of information on this old saw?

I'm interested in this too. What I've heard is that the LCD driver in most pc displays typically outputs at 60hz, no matter what the input frequency is, but I've no idea of the accuracy of that statement. Obviously with a 100/120hz LCD it's different, but those displays are made to work with 25/24hz input. Nevertheless, if your video card's output signal is at 60hz, the contents of a frame are not going to refresh more than 60 times per second, period.

Xbitlabs measures response time directly off the monitor using a photosensor. The monitor is connected to a regular Radeon 1650 card using dual-link DVI.

With their setup, they have measured response times as low as 1ms on lcd monitors.

This suggests that the monitor input over dvi is not technically limited to 60 Hz, nor is the output similarly constrained.

Unless there is some interference going on with the backlight (typically 180-200 Hz) that causes fractions of the true result to be measured instead.

The DVI standard allows for signal transmission at up to 185 MHz (iirc) for single link, and higher for dual link (of course, the sustained bandwidth needed to refresh a whole display means it can't hit that speed if it were refreshing the entire screen).

I have a feeling that the "60 Hz" figure is something that is a relic of older technology and might no longer be relevant today.

Voldenuit wrote:

Xbitlabs measures response time directly off the monitor using a photosensor. The monitor is connected to a regular Radeon 1650 card using dual-link DVI.

With their setup, they have measured response times as low as 1ms on lcd monitors.

This suggests that the monitor input over dvi is not technically limited to 60 Hz, nor is the output similarly constrained.

What Xbit Labs is measuring is the time it takes for a pixel to change state, i.e. the GtG response time. This value is really independent of the full frame refresh rate of the display. The display could theoretically be refreshing at 1hz, but the time a pixel takes to change state could still be in the millisecond range.

The DVI standard allows for signal transmission at up to 185 MHz (iirc) for single link, and higher for dual link (of course, the sustained bandwidth needed to refresh a whole display means it can't hit that speed if it were refreshing the entire screen).

It's actually 165mhz, and its the same for dual-link. Nevertheless, what it means is that to refresh a 1920x1200 screen at 120hz would take the full bandwidth of dual-link dvi.

crazybus wrote:

Voldenuit wrote:

Xbitlabs measures response time directly off the monitor using a photosensor. The monitor is connected to a regular Radeon 1650 card using dual-link DVI.

With their setup, they have measured response times as low as 1ms on lcd monitors.

This suggests that the monitor input over dvi is not technically limited to 60 Hz, nor is the output similarly constrained.

What Xbit Labs is measuring is the time it takes for a pixel to change state, i.e. the GtG response time. This value is really independent of the full frame refresh rate of the display. The display could theoretically be refreshing at 1hz, but the time a pixel takes to change state could still be in the millisecond range.

I see what you mean. Given a signal input, the time it takes for a pixel to respond is still finite, and can be measured. Indeed, it need not have any correlation with the refresh rate of the actual device. Sorry for being so thick.

This does mean that any response time under "16 ms" is "wasted" on a 60 Hz display then, doesn't it? Although a smaller value might reduce "input lag", I doubt a difference of several miliseconds is perceptible or significant in hand-eye coordination.

Whether ghosting is detectable depends on the person. Some claim they will see ghosting no matter how low the response time is compared to a CRT, some have no trouble even if it is 20ms. Some will just compromise because they value things like colour reproduction more.

Pixel response time has nothing to do with the refresh rate. It's simply the measurement of how long it takes a pixel to respond. If it takes too long, you'll see ghosting, regardless of the refresh rate. Response time is measured differently by different manufacturers, so they are not all that comparable. However, it is generally accepted that TN panels have a lower response time than other panels, but at the expense of both viewing angle and color gamut.

Input lag is the measurement of how long it takes the LCD to process the signal and send it to the pixels. Some panels have input buffers in them which are needed in order to do the processing for overdrive compensation. This can result in a delay between when the image is rendered on the video card and when you actually see it on the screen. Response time should be added to the input lag to get the "total" lag.

Refresh rate is how often the video card sends a new image to the monitor. For most LCDs, this is fixed at 60Hz. You may be able to set the video card to something higher, like 75Hz, but the LCD will sample this signal back down to 60Hz (and some monitors will have a hard time with any signal over 60Hz and will display a fuzzy image). End result is that you're never going to see anything faster than 60 FPS on an LCD, even with VSync disabled.

EDIT: added link

Oops, forgot to edit first post before the split, here is the context.

Murso24 wrote:

what kind of performance should i expect on gaming, multitasking, and everyday use?

Murso24 wrote:

my old specs are as follows

Pentium 4 2.8ghz single core
1gb 533mhz ram
ATI Radeon 9250
780gb 5400rpm hdd


to a Dell XPS:
Intel Core 2 Quad QX6800 OC'd to 3.20ghz
2gb 800mhz RAM
NVidia GeForce 8800 GTX
320gb 7200rpm 16mb cache HDD
samsung 22in monitor (2ms response)

and i wanna play games like Supreme Commander, Medieval II: Total War, Crysis, Company of Heroes, basicly any game at maxed settings..and im looking to upgrade to 4gb of RAM.

i like to watch movies, while surfing the web, while performing a virus scan, while Instant Messenging 2 different people, all at the same time..

key is: id LIKE to..but cant with my current machine

** Original thread can be found here if you want to comment on whether his QX can run his games.