Ostriig on 3/2/2009 at 00:35

---

I've been looking to make the move to widescreen for some time now, but I'm having trouble deciding whether it's worth doing it at this point in time. To elaborate, I'd appreciate some advice bearing in mind a couple of different issues.

First off, if I were to buy a new screen now, it would be a regular 60/75Hz LCD. Recently, however, nVidia (http://www.gametrailers.com/player/44766.html) announced the release of their 3D glasses, which have as requirements an nVidia card (check) and a 120Hz screen (apparently the new "big thing" in the displays industry nowadays). These are simply out of my budget right now, as it seems only HDTVs sport 120Hz refresh, starting from ~400 quid, and I'm looking in the 100-150 tops range. Now, if I were to change my current 17'' screen, I'd be swapping out a reasonably decent one-year-old Acer, and the last thing I'd want is to find myself aching to change it again in one year's time because the whole 3D tech gets taken to a new level with affordable displays and I'm "seriously missing out".

Second, I'm curious if anyone could give me some sort of estimate on how big a performance hit I'm to expect in the long run from switching 1280x1024 to 1680x1050. Going off a very simplistic way of thinking - going from 1024x768 to 1280 is generally quite noticeable in terms of framerate, and that's for cca. 520000 extra pixels on screen. Going from 1280 to 1680 would be a step up of ~450000, therefore quite comparable, if it scales linearly. Not running games on an LCD's native resolution is really not a compromise I'd like to make, since it means a dreadful loss of sharpness. And furthermore, if going widescreen means that I have to seriously tone down the graphical quality of my games, then it's not extremely desireable, imo. So what I'm asking is - how big of an FPS loss (estimate), for current and future games, am I looking at for going from 1280 to 1680? My specs (not likely to change too soon): Core2 E6420 2.13Ghz 1066FSB, 2GB RAM 667Mhz, GeForce 9800 GT 1GB.

Finally, if I were to make the change, (http://www.aria.co.uk/Products/Displays/Monitors/TFT+20+-+23/20%22+Asus+VW202S+Widescreen+5ms+?productId=28669) this Asus is the screen I'd be going for right now, with alternatives in (http://www.aria.co.uk/Products/Displays/Monitors/TFT+20+-+23/20%22+LG+L206WU+Widescreen+LCD+Monitor+?productId=34083) this LG and a no-name (http://www.aria.co.uk/Products/Displays/Monitors/TFT+20+-+23/20%22+Arianet+Premium+Widescreen+LCD+Monitor+?productId=33790) Arianet (details scarce on this last one, though). I want to get a 20'' for size considerations (will be sitting quite close to it, and the desk corner is rather cramped) and for the added sharpness. What do you guys think about these ones, and if you know of some better deals in the UK with a reasonable delivery rate, by all means, please let me know.

That pretty much covers it. Any insight and suggestions would be much appreciated.

Ostriig on 3/2/2009 at 15:22

---

Hey Biker, thanks for the info! I'll be going through the review and the threads in a minute, looks interesting, but I have to admit the HP seems a bit out of my price range (the NEC isn't even worth dreaming about). I'll see, I could probably sit on the matter for a bit, while I conjure up some more money, as I'd definitely be interested in making a quality purchase this time around.

Could I also bother you to volunteer a guess on the other two issues, the possibility of 120Hz tech for low prices in the near future, and respectively, framerate hit between 1280 and 1680?

Ostriig on 3/2/2009 at 16:14

---

So it's a threshold kinda thing? I've got a 9800 GT (1GB DDR3 1800Mhz, 600Mhz core), and it's running pretty much everything new I have on 1280x1024 at a comfy 40-60 FPS with all details up to max. If I changed to 1680, would the FPS loss be major, requiring me to tone down options all across the board, or something in a 10FPS margin, that I could offset, if necessary, with turning AA down from 8 to 4 or something like that?


It's the whole 3d glasses thing. I've got a link up in the OP, second paragraph, worth a look if you have a couple of minutes to kill. nVidia drivers have had for some time now the possibility to render two distinct viewports at 60Hz on the same 120Hz capable screen. With a pair of glasses that can sync to turn each lens alternatively off (non-transparent or something) in tune with the screen display, it effectively feeds you a different image for each eye, creating the appearance of 3D space. This is not brand new tech, but with nVidia putting their own glasses on the market, I'm wondering if that won't push for a drop in price for 120Hz displays in the near future.


P.S. I noticed that the HP you linked has a response of 6ms. As far as I know, 5 is the desired value for gaming screens, with 8 being suggested by some as being too slow. I take it that 6 shouldn't be an issue?

Matthew on 3/2/2009 at 17:41

---

So what do people who already wear glasses do about having to wear silly specs for 3D?

Ostriig on 3/2/2009 at 18:45

---

Ah, sorry. The tech itself isn't that new, but this does appear to be the first time a big company gets involved. The more I think about it, though, the more I think you're right - not only do you need the 120Hz screen and glasses, but also the video capability to render twice as many frames per second. That given, I don't think that current-gen consoles are capable of pushing that at full detail, and if that's so, I'm not sure to what extent this sort of tech would go mainstream unhindered.

And thanks for the info on the resolution issues, very helpful.


If it's just form factor, I suppose it's not too difficult for the manufacturer to provide a means for wearing their 3d glasses over regular seeing glasses. I guess it depends on whether it picks up or not as a product.


Viewing angles are not too big a deal, since most of the time I'll be looking straight in it from half a meter away. And the 20'' size is very appealing to me, given the room I've got available. The 5ms response seems just right, I'm pretty sure that's what I have on my current 17'' and it's served me well.

However, I'd like to ask about the 800:1 contrast ratio. What was your experience with it? I'm asking because the LG I linked earlier, for instance, while I don't doubt what you said about its faults, does boast a 5000:1 dynamic contrast ratio, and I'm guessing that comes up to a 1000:1 static. Is this something of note, or is the 800:1 good enough for media such as games and movies?

Sorry if I keep pestering you, by the way, just trying to gather as much info as I can.


P.S. "As new & boxed (Dell Outlet cancelled order stock, in original boxes, with full kit)" <- That still means new, right?