pwyll on 6/4/2012 at 02:47
Thank you for your suggestions. TN matrix is better for gaming so the choice should be:
BenQ XL2420T Bottom line: £280, 24-inch, 1080p res, best TN ever, stupid quick, 120Hz loveliness.
However it is not available in my country and also it is 24" which results in larger pixel pitch and it will make me move my head to cover it.
I'm thinking of Samsung S23A700D. Does anyone here have it? Is 10ms input lag a large value for gaming monitor? Also what troubles me is the back-light bleeding and screen uniformity.
ZylonBane on 6/4/2012 at 03:19
Quote Posted by pwyll
Thank you for your suggestions. TN matrix is better for gaming so the choice should be:
WTF is wrong with you people?
june gloom on 6/4/2012 at 03:40
We're not you.
pwyll on 6/4/2012 at 07:12
Quote Posted by ZylonBane
WTF is wrong with you people?
I'm sorry I didn't get what you mean. Please explain what provoked such statement. If you disagree with me at any point I would like to hear your well-founded arguments not such girlish exclamations. But if you came here just to troll, please find your way out. No need to spoil this gentlemen discussion.
Zerker on 6/4/2012 at 11:59
It's very clear. Fastest response time is not the be-all-and-end-all criteria for monitors. Some people actually LIKE vivid colours, better than 6-bit-per-colour depth and good viewing angles.
And a 8-12ms response time is perfectly fine for running at 60 Hz, which a large percentage of people (myself included) are happy with. A full frame at 60 Hz is 16.667 ms, so your "response time" is still lost between the time the screen draws one frame and the time it draws the subsequent frame, and isn't going to make a lick of practical difference when playing a game.
242 on 6/4/2012 at 12:28
Quote Posted by pwyll
I'm sorry I didn't get what you mean. Please explain what provoked such statement.
He meant your choice of TN, and he is right. Unless you're a "cybersporsman" who whom 0.01 of a second (and who can see the difference) is more important than normal color reproduction in games. IMO, (p/m)va or ips would be better for any use except perhaps informational purposes or usual office use.
ZylonBane on 6/4/2012 at 15:30
Quote Posted by 242
Unless you're a "cybersportsman" to whom 0.01 of a second (and who can see the difference) is more important than normal color reproduction in games. IMO, (p/m)va or ips would be better for any use except perhaps informational purposes or usual office use.
Office use benefits even more from an IPS/PVA panel's wide viewing angles, since you're likely to be sitting closer to the screen, and standing around looking at other people's screens. With larger TN screens, when sitting up close it's literally impossible to position your head so that no part of the panel is showing color shifting.
So having grown up with CRTs, I find the narrow viewing angle of TN panels to be absolutely unbearable. TN is the white trash of flat-panel display technologies.
242 on 6/4/2012 at 16:18
By usual office use I meant mainly Word, Excel, stuff like that, who worries about color shifting working in them. And of course the main reason is that TN monitors generally cost less, so it's just cost ineffective to use pva/ips for such tasks.
ZylonBane on 6/4/2012 at 18:04
Quote Posted by 242
By usual office use I meant mainly Word, Excel, stuff like that, who worries about color shifting working in them.
If I was working in an app that was supposed to have a mostly solid white background, but the edges kept shifting into that photo negative look that TN panels do when viewed off-angle, I guarantee that it would drive me shitbonkers.
