VOGONS


First post, by retro games 100

User metadata
Rank l33t
Rank
l33t

I would like a new 1600x1200 LCD monitor. A lot of monitors sold these days seem to have very fast (2ms) response times, but not so it seems for 1600x1200 monitors. Nearly all of them seem to be 8ms (grey to grey) / 16ms (on off).

Would 16ms (8ms grey to grey) be fast enough for most games?

I was thinking of getting the following monitor, because it has good reviews -

Viewsonic VP2130b - 21 inch 1600x1200 4:3 monitor 16ms (8ms grey to grey)

There are a couple of "faster response" monitors -

Samsung SyncMaster 204B (5ms)
NEC MultiSync LCD2070VX (5ms)

However, I think both these models are a bit old now, and are now harder to find new.

Should I go for the 16ms Viewsonic VP2130b?

Any thoughts gratefully received.
-Robert.

Reply 1 of 3, by Davros

User metadata
Rank l33t
Rank
l33t

its ok obviously lower is better
be aware most lcd's with low response times are actually 6bit panels and not 8bit

Reply 2 of 3, by retro games 100

User metadata
Rank l33t
Rank
l33t
Davros wrote:

its ok obviously lower is better
be aware most lcd's with low response times are actually 6bit panels and not 8bit

I didn't know anything about this (6/8bit panels). I'll have to read up on it, so I can understand more about this topic. Thanks.

Reply 3 of 3, by Davros

User metadata
Rank l33t
Rank
l33t

well 8bit panels are capable of 24million colours
6bit panels are capable of 250,047 colours (allthough they use a few tricks to simulate a bit more)
on a 6bit panel you can notice banding in some games (battlefield 2 for example)
chances are if its dirt cheap or has very fast response time sub 5ms its 6bit

ps: i have a viewsonic va2216w 22" widescreen (£134) and its 6bit, its ok though but you do notice banding in some games whereas i dont on my sony 8bit but then again its only 17" and cost 3 times the price