Gaming on flat screens

Yes, the topic has been done before. However, besides a couple of brief revivals, there hasn’t been anything of real substance there since like last May or something.

So I’m putting together my Christmas list. Which flat screen monitor do I ask for? I have a 21" CRT now which is starting to go out (hey it is 6 years old) so anything less than a 20" flat screen won’t do. Also, it must play Painkiller expansions without ghosting.

Thoughts? What are the big bad voodoo daddies of flat panel gaming now? And what are the little brothers which (6 months later than last thread) aren’t bad for the lower price range?

Dell FP2001 (20.1", 1600x1200 native res, sub-16ms response time)

or Dell FP2005 (20 inch widescreen), 1680x1050. Note that 4:3 stuff will look smaller than the 20.1" 4:3. But it does have a sub 12-ms response time.

What happens if you switch a widescreen monitor like the 2005fpw to a 4:3 resolution…does it stretch it out or does it use black bars on the sides?

Loyd, have you ever tested a Viewsonic VP201?

http://www.gamepc.com/labs/view_content.asp?id=vp201b&page=1

I’m probably gonna ask for the Dell 2005fpw but the viewsonics look pretty good too. The link above is one of the reviews I found earlier.

Either. It’s a driver-level option.

Thanks!

:D

you ask for the dell 2001fp
i’ve got one. some people here have two.

it rocks.

Stop it! Don’t you make me buy one as well!

My roommate just got one and it is amazing for gaming. No noticable ghosting, or anything of the sort.

But, the big question is, though, do you have a fairly kickass videocard? Because the native resolution is 1600x1200, it means that is the best resolution to run games (and all your apps) at. If you run at anything lower or higher, it means the FP has to work extra hard interpolating the pixels.

That said, the FP2001 and a nVidia GeForce 6800GT OC (From BFGTech) looks simply amazing.

I haven’t, but Alfred Poor did, for PCMag. I believe he found it to be underwhelming, but Alfred is an SID board member, and is very picky.

I think the FP2001 is one of the best deals out there. That’s my pick. The 2005 is good, too, but its 4:3 area is smaller than the 2001 – equivalent to a 17" display.

The scaler on the 2001 is pretty impressive. We often run games at 12x10 or 12x9, and they still look pretty damned good.

Thanks for the feedback.

As a general rule, are scalers better on monitors or videocards? I’m thinking the former.

After reviewing a 23-inch LCD from HP, I bought the thing. It’s amazing. I think it’s the same planel Apple sells.

I hope I’ll be happy with the 2005 then despite the 17" 4:3 area. (Presuming I get it of course.)

I suppose I can set up a dual monitor setup with my current 19" CRT for use with games that just HAVE to be in a square mode.

:D

I’m salivating already!

As a general rule, are scalers better on monitors or videocards? I’m thinking the former.

After reviewing a 23-inch LCD from HP, I bought the thing. It’s amazing. I think it’s the same planel Apple sells.[/quote]

The scaler is generally something uniqe to fixed pixel displays like LCDs. While CRTs have phosphor pitch, they generally are set up to use multiple phosphors to create screen pixels, and the pitch is fine enough not to be noticeable. So until you get really low res, you don’t notice anything weird. LCDs need to use scalers to blend colors between adjacent pixels so that multiple physical pixels can look correct representing a pixel at a given resolution lower than the true display res.

It does have one stupid detail that I have to mention, though. The native resolution is 1600x1200, so one might think that 800x600 would also be razor-sharp: the scaling function should only have to quadruple each 800x600 pixel to fill the screen.

That would seem to be the logical thing to do, right? Instead, the scaling routine still applies its blending routines. So instead of razor-sharp 800x600, you get fuzzy edges.

So Case, if you get the chance to talk to any of the engineers, I’d really like to know why they chose to implement the scaler the way they did. I know I can’t be the only person to wish 800x600 was un-interpolated.

Well, if you have a 19" CRT, you effectively have 17 inches of actual display. So it won’t actually be that much smaller.

Not a ton of games support widescreen, so expect to play the majority centered.

[quote=“Roger_Wong”]

So Case, if you get the chance to talk to any of the engineers, I’d really like to know why they chose to implement the scaler the way they did. I know I can’t be the only person to wish 800x600 was un-interpolated.[/quote]

I have to admit that I haven’t played at 800x600 since the last time I booted up Diablo II… a couple of years ago?

I’ll have a look at it. I know that when I set up Windows for testing, it comes up at 800x600 and the desktop looks okay. But I haven’t checked out games, though.

Well, if you have a 19" CRT, you effectively have 17 inches of actual display. So it won’t actually be that much smaller.

Not a ton of games support widescreen, so expect to play the majority centered.[/quote]

Good point.

:D