Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Displays PC Games (Games) Entertainment Games

Samsung's 17" LCD Gaming Monitor Rated 79

Posted by CowboyNeal from the window-to-the-game-world dept.
An anonymous reader writes "A year ago gaming on LCD monitors was laughed at, now days it's becoming much more practical thanks to more responsive LCDs like Samsung's SyncMaster 172X, reviewed over at OverClocker's Club. The 172X is a 17" monitor, with a very important feature for us gamers and hardcore computer geeks, a 12ms response time. A 12ms response time literally means zero ghosting in games and in fast action movies."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Samsung's 17" LCD Gaming Monitor Rated More

Samsung's 17" LCD Gaming Monitor Rated

Comments Filter:

  • Well... (Score:5, Funny)

    by hookedup ( 630460 ) on Monday May 03, 2004 @11:29AM (#9041511)
    A 12ms response time is nice and everything, but how do I explain to my wife why I need one, in english.

    • Re:Well... (Score:5, Funny)

      by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 03, 2004 @11:31AM (#9041536)
      1: Wait till the next lightning storm.
      2: Coat the male power connectors on the back of your current monitor with nonconductive paint.
      3: Tell he the lightning took it out and you have to get a new one.

      • And she's just going to assume that the $600 LCD monitor is a reasonable replacement?

      • 1: Wait till the next lightning storm.
        2: Coat the male power connectors on the back of your current monitor with nonconductive paint.
        3: Tell her the lightning took it out and you have to get a new one.
        Won't work damn it, my girlfriend is an electrical engineer!

  • I use a 25ms 19'' monitor for gaming... (Score:4, Informative)

    by Dot.Com.CEO ( 624226 ) * on Monday May 03, 2004 @11:30AM (#9041515)
    And I haven't had a problem with it. Granted, I'm not a "pro" gamer, and I don't really like FPS games, but gaming on an LCD monitor is more than OK for me. I haven't really noticed any "ghosting" as such, except on games set on dark areas (Half Life and Halo were noticeable in a couple of areas, and that's it). I realise that, in effect, I am playing the game at more or less 25fps (my calculations might be off, I apologise in advance), but the motion blur - if that is the correct term - actually makes games more enjoyable. Also, for strategy / games, playing on my 191T is an absolute dream...
    • I believe the calculation would go as following:

      1000 / 25ms = 40 pixel changes per second. Since your refresh rate is probably 60hz or 75hz you might get ghosting under certain conditions...
    • I'm not a "pro" gamer, and I don't really like FPS games

      And

      but the motion blur - if that is the correct term - actually makes games more enjoyable

      Which is much like a person saying they're not a pharmacist and recommending drugs to take for various conditions. I suppose some people just like to talk. About anything. Even though they've just disqualified themselves from making informed or useful commentary.
      • I OWN a TFT monitor and I think I am qualified enough to make a statement on how well it handles games. I have been playing games on it for about a year. So, yes, I can make commentary that is informed, although whether it is useful or not obviously is in the eye of the beholder. I bet you're one of these "hardcore gamers" who see a difference between 100FPS and 110FPS, well, to each their own I guess.

        Also, I have been reading your "comment" again and again trying to see how my not being fanatical of FPS g

        • I never said you weren't in a position to judge whether a particular monitor is useful for gaming. You disqualified yourself. I was just pointing out how amusing it is that you opted to go ahead and qualify monitors as suitable or unsuitable anyway.

          It's just like an MSCE popping in and saying "Hi, I wouldn't know linux if it slapped me, but Redhat is a great distro and SUSE is no good at all." Now this guy might OWN a redhat support agreement but that simply does not qualify him as a great judge of linu
          • I think you have a problem in understanding the concept of the phrase "in my opinion". Also, this part of your argument:

            I can tell you that LCD does not come close to CRT for image quality.

            is ABSOLUTELY laughable, and will be enjoyed in all eternity by generations of slashdotters. Have you even sat in front of a modern 19'' TFT monitor? Say what you want of "blurry graphics in FPS games", but as far as image quality, LCD have ABSOLUTE clarity. Digital to digital cannot be worse than Digital to analog to

  • Correct me if I'm wrong... (Score:5, Informative)

    by ERJ ( 600451 ) on Monday May 03, 2004 @11:33AM (#9041560)
    A 12ms means that you should be able to handle a 83.3ish refresh without any ghosting (1000 / 12). Not too shabby. Oh course, this is an average, but if you run it at 60hz it should probably be fine under worst case. Of course games are then limited to 60fps, which is fine for me, but some people claim to be able to feel the difference.
    • Of course games are then limited to 60fps, which is fine for me, but some people claim to be able to feel the difference. turn of vSync in opengl setting on your video card.

      • Re:Correct me if I'm wrong... (Score:4, Informative)

        by ERJ ( 600451 ) on Monday May 03, 2004 @04:38PM (#9045237)
        Turning off vsync allows the video card to produce more frames per second. However, the limiting factor is still your monitor. If your card produces 600 fps in quake 3 but your refresh rate is 85hz, the most frames you will ever see is 85.

        Disabling vsync is really only useful for benchmarks because it shows how many frames per second the card could create. However, for actual game play you might then experience "tearing" where you get half of one frame and half of the next because the video buffer is being written while the monitor refresh is happening.

    • A 12ms means that you should be able to handle a 83.3ish refresh without any ghosting (1000 / 12).

      If I have understood correctly, the 12ms time is for the best case scenario (going to total black to total white or the other way around, which ever is faster). The true display speed is much harder to determine. I once read that this is because for black and white you just cut the power or put full power for the pixel to turn black or white. For something in between, you have to use limited current and just

  • Gaming on LCD Monitors (Score:4, Interesting)

    by MonkeyCookie ( 657433 ) on Monday May 03, 2004 @11:36AM (#9041593)

    A year ago gaming on LCD monitors was laughed at...

    It was laughed at by some perhaps, but a year ago LCD monitors were quite capable of handling games. I got my 19in. 25ms LCD monitor about a year ago, and there were already many people using them for gaming at the time. I have yet to see any problems whatsoever with any games that I have played on that monitor.

    No doubt, a 12ms will be even better, but many current monitors are probably good enough for most gamers.

  • Dot pitch incorrect in article? (Score:5, Informative)

    by Emnar ( 116467 ) on Monday May 03, 2004 @11:40AM (#9041635)
    The article says the dot pitch is 0.294mm, and specifically knocks the 172X for it. However, Samsung's US product page [samsungusa.com] claims 0.264mm.

    Either the article is wrong, or Samsung updated their specs!

  • Fenol (Score:3, Insightful)

    by suss ( 158993 ) on Monday May 03, 2004 @11:49AM (#9041730)
    In other news; it has been discovered that dangerously high levels of Fenol (a chemical related to alcohol used on circuit boards in both CRT's and LCD's) are given off in the first two weeks of use of new monitors and increases your chances of getting cancer quite a bit.

    Seeing as reviewers must see a lot of these (new) monitors, this is becoming an occupational hazard...
    • Do you have an article somewhere to point to? You have got me very curious now - if you're serious and not joking that is.
    • which is released from pretty much any electronic goods.
    • http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/tfacts115.html [cdc.gov]

      According to the CDC, phenol is a manufactured substance that is used to manufacture nylon, as an antiseptic, or in mouthwash & throat lozenges.

      The effects of breathing airborne phenol (Which I assume is what would be coming out of the monitor) are unknown; additionally the CDC lists it as unclassifiable regarding carcinogenity. As such, I wouldn't recommend monitor testers run out looking for a new job, considering that you're likely to run into more heavy
    • Good thing I bought the floor model, then. And for $200 off, too!

      By the way, buying a floor model allows you to inspect for dead pixels and assures you that this unit is up and running beyond the warranty time is over. Floor models are tried and true and are a good purchase, as long as you can get over the fact that it's not "virgin" equipment.

      • Re:Fenol (Score:1, Offtopic)

        by karnal ( 22275 )
        Not being virgin equipment doesn't bug me as much as it used to.

        Hell, once you get to be around 30ish, you'll find it's hard to get anything that's virgin anymore. Unless you're just plain sick.

  • I have one (Score:5, Informative)

    by Apreche ( 239272 ) on Monday May 03, 2004 @12:03PM (#9041912) Homepage Journal
    I recently bought one of these. I was in the market for a new monitor, and let me tell you, everything you hear about this monitor is true. You get what you pay for. And for the price newegg charges you are getting the best lcd monitor I have ever seen. When the price drops to the 300 area I'll probably buy another one and do dual screen with them. Check my slashjournal for the epic tale of my monitor purchase.

    • Re:I have one (Score:2, Insightful)

      by JustNiz ( 692889 )
      Nothing personal, but I have never heard of anyone who spent a significant amount of money on anything admit to the fact that there's a better alternative.

      • Re:I have one (Score:3, Interesting)

        by Apreche ( 239272 )
        oh, there sure is a better alternative. If you don't care about refresh rates and you want more than 17" in size DO NOT buy this monitor. Especially don't buy this monitor if you care about getting the best deal.

        But if 17" 1280x1024 is enough for you and you need that 12ms real bad, buy this. It's sooooo bright!
        Your star burns!

  • Review? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by jguevin ( 453329 ) on Monday May 03, 2004 @12:07PM (#9041975)
    So they spend four pages talking about what's in the box (including a picture of the brown cardboard box??) and restating the published specs. Then there are two short paragraphs saying, "wow, looks great, no ghosting, 12ms!!!". I need to get myself a damn review website.

    Fine, mod me down, I just felt like complaining.

    • Re:Review? (Score:5, Informative)

      by Rhys ( 96510 ) on Monday May 03, 2004 @01:29PM (#9042950)
      Toms Hardware's review was not nearly so glowing. I just happened to read it this morning and it's worth a look.

      http://www6.tomshardware.com/display/20040413/in de x.html

      • Re:Review? (Score:1, Informative)

        by Anonymous Coward
        http://www6.tomshardware.com/display/20040413/inde x.html [tomshardware.com]
      • Tom's review was the first I saw of the 172x, saying it was absolutely horrible for gaming for some reason, they explained how response ms is just the time to go from totally black and white, and proved that that speed doesen't correlate with speed of changing between other colors. Though I did hear a rumor that Tom's received a different version, I'v still sometimes heard references to the "terrible attempt" on more recent articles. Anyone have any answeres on why our trusty tom's hardware's review is so
        • Possibly because Toms is in the big league of review sites, so he gets sent so many different monitors and cpu's and gpu's and cases and other fun toys that he's practically unbribeable.

          It's a lot easier to be objective if both nVidia and ATI send you the latest and greatest cards. If you only got an nVidia card for free and ATI didn't send you one, you'd push out a great review for nVidia.

    • Re:Review? (Score:3, Interesting)

      by Carnildo ( 712617 )
      For me, the only important information is right there on the first page:

      "Native resolution: 1280x1024"

      That's a 5:4 aspect ratio. Every CRT monitor and every other LCD native resolution has a 4:3 aspect ratio.
      • For me, the only important information is right there on the first page:

        "Native resolution: 1280x1024"

        That's a 5:4 aspect ratio. Every CRT monitor and every other LCD native resolution has a 4:3 aspect ratio.

        Not particularly important in an LCD, because 5:4 aspect LCD's are actually 5:4 screens. You actually do gain a bit more vertical space.

        Running that resolution on a standard CRT means you're shrinking stuff vertically, because you're running a 5:4 resolution in a 4:3 aspect ratio. But on an LCD

  • The 12ms response time is so much bullshit. (Score:4, Informative)

    by Sevn ( 12012 ) on Monday May 03, 2004 @12:07PM (#9041981) Homepage Journal
    It's the speed of a pixel going from off to on and back. BLACK AND WHITE. It doesn't actually measure the response for a specific color at the sub pixel level. For gaming there is ONE lcd panel that has consitantly done better than all others, and that's the HyDIS panels manufactured by Hyundai. It's very very hard to find an LCD monitor still made with one. The ONLY currently available LCD panel I know of with the HyDIS panel is the Hitachi CML174B featured here [monitorsdirect.com] with the specs here [monitorsdirect.com]. If you buy into the LG screen 16ms or 12ms aussie myth, hey, it's your money. Enjoy the ghosting.
    • I own one (CML-174B) and A/B/C comparisons with CRT and other LCD are like night/day. It is on par w/ CRT in terms of ghosting and colors, not quite as bright. It *destroys* all other LCDs I have seen in terms of pixel response. Read a real, in depth technical review [gamepc.com] of this >1 year old display. The submitter of the article must have been living under a rock for the last year.
    • The AU Optronics 16ms panel is also excellent.

      It's in a number of monitors, including the Hitachi CML174SXW.

      I wanted to get a display with a HyDis 20ms anel, but eventually settled on the CML174SXW (with the AU Optronics panel) because I was unable to find a monitor with the HyDis 20ms panel.

      The AU Optronics panel is excellent for gaming. I cannot see any ghosting even with games like Unreal Tournament 2004. Note that the gamma (at least on my Hitachi monitor) is set too high at the factory. Since I'm us

  • Dual LCDs? (Score:2, Interesting)

    by orn ( 34773 )

    Does anyone know of a good graphics card for two LCDs? I really want to stick with the DVI outputs because the 2001FPs from Dell look so much better on their DVI inputs.

    Thanks!
    • Anything from ATI's FireGL [ati.com] Z or X series will have dual DVI.

    • Re:Dual LCDs? (Score:2, Informative)

      by JustNiz ( 692889 )
      Wait for the new Nvidia 6800 ultra-based cards being released this month. (Nvidia 6800 is currently the fastest and "most features" 3D video chipset around). It supports 2 DVI connectors and has the processing power to make use of both with 3D. Nvidia also officially releases Linux drivers.

      Even though the imminent new ATI chipset will probably have better performance than the new Nvidia chipset (as ATI try to regain the performance crown) it is still unannounced and I also wouldn't reccomend ATI as they do

      • Re:Dual LCDs? (Score:2, Informative)

        by JustNiz ( 692889 )
        Woah I just checked the ATI website after writing the above and it turns out that they now DO have linux drivers for download. I think this is new.

        • Re:Dual LCDs? (Score:3, Informative)

          by moreati ( 119629 )
          They've had them the last few months, unfortunately their 3D performance sucks (as compared to the Windows drivers) & updates are sporadic. I'd recommend you stick with Nividia for 3D on Linux (assuming of course you can bare to use closed source drivers).

          Regards

          Alex

          PS I'm not affiliated with Nvidia, ATI or Linus Torvalds. YMMV.
      • I have dual Sony 17's (both DVI) on a 5600 Ultra.. believe me when I say wait for ATI-based dual DVI cards because this thing can BARELY hack out individual frames of UT2004 @ 800x600 with everything set to low. it's quite sad, but it really looks like NVIDIA hasn't known what they were doing for a while now. Their chips have been odd since NV35. someone screwed their design up..

        So here I am, stuck with this crap until ATI 2x DVI cards come out. How's X support for ATI these days? anyone care to chime
        • Comment removed based on user account deletion
          • I suppose, but damn.. athlon xp @ 1.66ghz, 768mb of 266mhz DDR and an
            a7v8x asus mobo.. via kt400, i think. dma is on on disks, i'm using the latest nvidia drivers, 8x, side band addressing on, i've tried forcing lower framerates and turning on AA (fakes it to look more smooth) and vice-versa.. different libSDL and openal.so's have made differences for me and made it playable @ 1024x768, but with static in the sound..

            it's a sucky situation, really :)

        • Dude NV35 is an aberration.

          I have a Geforce 3 (NV3 not even ultra) and it plays UT2004 pretty well at 1024*768 with average (i.e NOT all lowest) settings, although obviously in terms of sheer data to move around ( 2*800*600 ) > ( 1*1024*768 ). Suggestion: try 16 bit instead of 32 bit color. Appearance is hardly much different and it saves 50% of your GPU memory bandwidth or whatever.

          There are many reviews on the net about the NV40 and they are all saying this thing is as good as it gets.
    • Just bought an XFX with dual DVI outs. It's pretty sweet. chek it out [viperlair.com].

  • Ghosting? Aliasing? -- Features, not problems! (Score:4, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 03, 2004 @12:49PM (#9042482)
    You know, I've run games before at 800x600 on my laptop's display (native 1024x768) with the stretching feature turned on in the display driver. The result? Free anti-aliasing! Sure, some things look blurry, but it's only a 15" display.

    Ghosting? Come on... That's motion blur!

    Get with the times!
    • People used to mock me back then, but I liked it when X-Wing would ghost on my old pc.

      Example: when moving around, if there was another X-wing in the distance, it would bluf slightly as I moved it.

      Back then, I thought that was so cool. I though (in my pre-pc-knowledge days), that meant my machine was so powerful (which it wasn't), that it was running beyond smooth, and it was artificial motion blur.

      Granted, I know better now, but I miss the old days. Back then, games were FUN and you didn't complain ab
      • Heh, I would do that too, but I'd have to go buy a floppy drive first. ;-)

        I still have a bunch of Dynamix and MicroProse games, like A-10 Tank Killer II, F-15 Strike Eagle III, and Descent (fun times were had when I finally bought a joystick for that one!) and loads of others.

        Man, we had some good games back then! Now I have to go trawl The Underdogs [the-underdogs.org] since I've lost or destroyed almost all of those old floppies.

        ~ Mike

  • I have a 17" NEC LCD... (Score:4, Insightful)

    by AvantLegion ( 595806 ) on Monday May 03, 2004 @01:28PM (#9042939) Journal
    ... with a 16ms pixel response rate, and there are absolutely, positively no ghosting effects. Not even uber-subtle ones.

    I've seen LCDs with even higher response rates that lack ghosting.

    You don't need a 12ms LCD to avoid ghosting.

  • Looks nice indeed, but LCD technology is still too expensive in my opinion. It's hard to justify $539 for 17-inches of screen estate, when I can get excellent 19-inch CRT's for a hair under $200. Mind you, I know that the way these monitors are measured, the actual screen estate you get on the CRT isn't much more at all, but you're still paying an extra $239 to pretty much save space and look nice.

    When I can get a nicely-sized, gaming-capable LCD for under $300, then I might bite. It'd certainly be nice
    • I'd love to upgrade to LCD, but when I have a 22inch CRT, nothing comes close yet. And 12ms isnt fast enough for 85hz refresh yet.

      Also, I like some of the features of LCD's,, Widescreen or even ones that rotate for 90 degrees. Sony's 24 inch LCD is nice, but almost 2K for it, and its 40ms.
      • And 12ms isnt fast enough for 85hz refresh yet.

        Just curious--why do you need an 85Hz refresh rate on an LCD?

        It's not like a CRT, where the picture starts to fade immediately after it's drawn, causing visible flicker at lower refresh rates. On an LCD, there would be no flicker at all even if the refresh rate were 10 Hz.

  • Tweaknews has a better review (Score:5, Informative)

    by UnderScan ( 470605 ) <jjp6893.netscape@net> on Monday May 03, 2004 @02:55PM (#9043971)
    SAMSUNG SYNCMASTER 172X LCD at TweakNews.net [tweaknews.net], seems to he a more thorough review. Sounds like a great monitor, though too much for my wallet. $400 seems to be a viable price point for me.
  • I picked up a Samsung 213t 21" arround the hollidays and i love it. I needed the size because i use it mainly for graphics work and page layout. Its native 1600x1200. The colors are very consistant, brightness is great and viewing angle is nearly 180.

    I do have a few complaints. When watching movies or playing games where there is a lot of dark scenes, there just isnt the contrast to make it look good. Even at 600:1, CRTs destroy LCDs. And my Ti4200 card dosent have the muscle to run the panel at full r

  • Half the problem I have with LCDs is that so many idiots (users and also manufacurer's defaults) crank the brightness and contrast up to 100% and the think "OMG thi5 rOxOrs", because it's like reading black print on a lightbulb. But those settings suck for anything other than text.

    I've spent the last few days analyzing 16-bit grayscale micrographs of neurons for my thesis. Even after correcting the settings on the LCDs (Dells with DVI) in the computer lab, they're still next to useless for visualizing f
    • Well, all of the above, but in consideration that the 22" widescreen 3840x2400 IBM LCD displays are nice, but $4000 or more, and aren't likly to become much cheaper. Plus, they only do a ghastly 42Hz at max resolution with FOUR DVI inputs in parallel. At 1920x1200, they can do 60Hz MAX. Not much of an improvement over 1600x1200-100hz.
  • The 5 (or so) year old SGI 1600sw doesn't seem to have any ghosting artifacts with games or movies, why can't so many more recently produced displays do the same?

Slashdot Top Deals

C for yourself.

Close