Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

LCD vs Mouselag vs ghosting

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

    #16
    Well that's funny.

    I recently bought a new PC, and a SyncMaster 206BW, which has a native resolution of 1680x1050 (16:10), just like the 226BW. I also had horrible mouselag, and **** frames at 1024*768. Tried every tweak in the book, but just couldn't get the responsiveness I had with my old, crappy PC and CRT monitor. UT2k4 was unplayable (decent frames but I had 0 aim because of the lag), and World of Warcraft was frequently dipping below 20 FPS on 1280x800. This is on a Intel dualcore 2.4ghz, 2gb RAM at 800mhz, 10.000rpm WD Raptor harddisk, and an Asus GeForce 7300GS. It was driving me crazy.

    I told a friend about it (who is a bit of a hardware/tweaking nut) and he told me that my videocard only has a 64 bit memory bus, which could probably cause the mouselag. So today, I went and bought an XFX GeForce 7900GS (256 bit memory bus) and indeed, all is fine and dandy now. I'm playing UT2k4 at 1680x1050 and 4xAA with 200+ FPS. WoW never goes below 60 FPS (in busy areas) at the same resolution and 4xAA. Mouse feels great, as responsive as ever. I was always saying "LCD sucks, stay CRT" but boy, was I wrong (as long as you have a very low response time, and a good videocard). I have fallen in love with my SyncMaster!

    The bottomline: Check your videocard specs and possibly do an upgrade.

    (And yes, if you have a lot of white on the screen, you almost need sunglasses to look at the SyncMaster. I just fix it by using darker colors in Windows. The brightness is great for watching movies, though.)

    Comment


      #17
      Thanks for the response.

      I found out the 206BW and 226BW are actually very much the same in all their specs. Only the size and price differs (22" vs 20", and about 50€ extra for the large one). Seems like a dilemma now. :-\

      Comment


        #18
        Originally posted by Taleweaver View Post
        Thanks for the response.

        I found out the 206BW and 226BW are actually very much the same in all their specs. Only the size and price differs (22" vs 20", and about 50€ extra for the large one). Seems like a dilemma now. :-\
        I'd say that, because both have the same native resolution, the 206BW is better. Why? Because the pixels are smaller. I have pretty good eyesight, and when I looked at the 226BW in the store I could easily make out the individual pixels from a distance of about 50cm.

        So I guess it depends on how far away you will sit from the monitor, and how good your eyes are. Just know that the 206BW can display the same amount of detail as the 226BW, but on a smaller surface.

        EDIT: Whoa, comprehensive UT2004 guide you have there Taleweaver. Looks like it's UT's bible! Props.

        Comment


          #19
          Just to post back. I have played several FPS games now on the SyncMaster 906BW (16x10) at 1440x900 using a 9800 pro video 256 meg.

          I am still very impressed with this thing. Specs mean nothing with these things if you look at some of the testing methods out there. But, when you see and use the thing, that speaks so much more.

          Yes you can see the pixels up close on mine, but you could on the Sony CRT too so that is a wash.

          The widescreen is much more useful than I expected.

          I couldn't get Doom3 to look right in widescreen, so I just ran it at normal aspect non full screen with windows at a black background.

          UT (all versions) just took an ini edit (posted here in the forums) to work fine widescreen.

          Hadn't thought about changing my window color to reduce the solar brightness. Great idea.

          Comment


            #20
            Originally posted by nfleming View Post
            UT (all versions) just took an ini edit (posted here in the forums) to work fine widescreen.
            Yeah I have a question about that if you don't mind the short thread hijack. I was able to put the resolution to 1680x1050 in UT's settings menu, but the HUD is a little stretched now. For example, the default mini crosshair is a circle but it looks slightly like an oval on my screen. Is there an ini setting for that? I searched around here, but could only find comments related to setting the resolution in the ini's, not the HUD proportions.

            How did you fix that?

            Comment


              #21
              I didn't do anything else. It all looks good to me.
              There are 2 pair of ini edits.
              [WinDrv.WindowsClient]
              WindowedViewportX=640
              WindowedViewportY=480
              FullscreenViewportX=1440
              FullscreenViewportY=900

              and

              [SDLDrv.SDLClient]
              WindowedViewportX=640
              WindowedViewportY=480
              FullscreenViewportX=1440
              FullscreenViewportY=900



              that is all I did, that I remember, and it was just a couple weeks, so I am pretty sure, mostly

              You have set your resolution #s for a 16x10, I assume you meant to, mine is also a 16x10.

              edit

              Well in 2k4 it does look a little off, barely noticeable, but I do see what you are saying.

              I don't have a clue as to why

              Comment


                #22
                Hmm ok thanks. I do believe I have seen screenshots somewhere where the HUD was drawn correctly, so I'm hoping someone else comes along with the answer.

                Comment


                  #23
                  Originally posted by jehjoa View Post
                  I'd say that, because both have the same native resolution, the 206BW is better. Why? Because the pixels are smaller. I have pretty good eyesight, and when I looked at the 226BW in the store I could easily make out the individual pixels from a distance of about 50cm.

                  So I guess it depends on how far away you will sit from the monitor, and how good your eyes are. Just know that the 206BW can display the same amount of detail as the 226BW, but on a smaller surface.
                  I should have guessed this. 't Was obvious, with exactly the same stats.

                  Anyway...I ended up buying the 206BW. And boy, talk about a difference with a CRT. Sharp, clean, and WIDE.

                  Not everything is fine, though: if I turn up UT2004 to the native resolution (1680x1050), I get the same problem you had. I have an FX5200 with 128 bit memory, I guess that isn't enough for this game either. Well: in that resolution, that is (it runs better on a lower setting, but it looks kinda stretched).

                  Or perhaps it's the fact that I'm dual-screening that screen with my previous 21" CRT screen? This setup clearly shows the difference between the two kinds: I play this flash game a lot. At a high rhythm, the crosshair kinda fades out at a CRT...but it isn't noticeable until you see how crystal sharp it looks on a flatscreen.

                  Oh, and thanks for the comment on the guide.

                  Comment


                    #24
                    The extreme resolutions these things have are really driving video card sales. You just can't run the things on the old cards.

                    Another odd thing, to me anyway, the manual (paper) for the monitor said lower refresh rates would be better for it Since my only choice with my card at this res is 60, well, I guess that is what I use.

                    The brightness, well, I see in Doom3 now without turning my brightness to 80%

                    Comment


                      #25
                      i just bought the lg 19inch widescreen 16x10 monitor with 2 ms and 3000:1 contrast... if this one doesnt work oput get what i have... it only costs 220 dollars and with a 3 year warranty its deffinately quality

                      Comment


                        #26
                        I noticed that the wide screen LCD's usually look clearer and have less ghosting than the "square" LCD's.

                        But I've tried alot of LCD's and have yet to find one that's as clear or smooth as my Viewsonic PS790 19" CRT.

                        Comment

                        Working...
                        X