I've been looking around and i see all these new monitors at 600:1 ratio with like 2ms response time for like 180-250 bucks.. if all this is true does that mean ghosting and crystal clear pictures are true now for video games?

My first and last viewsonic a few years back with its 12ms response time and 500:1 contrast ratio looked terrible with games.. can anyone help a brother out and let me know if you are having premium experience with your new LCD monitors..

as of now i'm using a flat CRT from Samsung syncmaster 793mb.. it looks great, but its already starting to die on me at only 2-3 years old... so its time for something new.

Tom's did a review a while back:
http://www.tomshardware.com/2006/0 [...] ollection/

The new LCD's are getting pretty good, and most people find them acceptable now. Look closely at the ones advertising 2ms response time, they may advertise to be faster, but overall image quality was rated lower than many with 4-8ms response time, and some of the very fast rated LCD's actually performed worse than their slower rated counter parts.
A good 8ms LCD can provide a decent gaming experience with todays models.
My advice, go to a store where they have a bunch setup, and view them yourself before making a decision.

I've been using a Dell 17" LCD monitor (not the cheap-o kind) for a while now and it games perfectly well. Monitors these days are neigh equivalent to CRT's, and game just as well. Even better are the widescreen LCD's, although there are resolution issues...

If you want to game, then a good LCD monitor won't dissapoint. Tom's has a good guide, but it is kind of old, there are many new monitors out there.

Me, I'm looking at the VX2235WM, 22" widescreen viewsonic monitor.

Try walking into Best Buy if one is near year, they have a handful of PCs running a game like BF2 and is connected to an LCD monitor. It may not be connected to the LCD monitor you want, but it can give you an idea of how they perform nowadays.

Unless you're a hardcore FPS addict, you won't notice the difference on an 8ms screen.

Just make sure you do your homework first since not every LCD has a response time as advertised (know the difference between G-T-G response and B-T-W, overdrive panels, etc). Viewsonic and Samsung tend to be the most popular LCD's among gamers.

Also, don't get a widescreen if you value FPS framerate.

Otherwise you'll be pleasantly surprised with the quality and reclaimed desk space

i have the NEC w20gx2 and its awesome the viewsonic 9x22 is very good by all accounts to

I've been using a 22" Acer for a few months with no problems... before that a 19" BenQ. LCD's are much better than old CRT folks suggest. CRTs are outdated suck power and give me headaches.

I've had zero problems and I used to play Call of Duty in TWL and CAL.

I'd say LCD gaming is definitely a viable option today. I just bought a 42" Westinghouse 1080P LCD-TV and it's sweeeeeeeeet. I have to use VSYNC on FPS games but that doesn't really bother me.

-DW

Thing about widescreen is if there are compatability issues, the screen will just black out the edges so it can go back to a more normal size. However, then you have a "smaller screen"... shrug. I balance out game and movie time, and since I'm in a dorm, can't really have a HDTV and a monitor...

What compatibility issues? Most games released in the last 2 years or so will scale up to widescreen quite beautifully. If you do a search for "wide screen gaming" you can find websites that tell you how to fix most games so they will work perfectly. This issue bothered me before I dove into widescreens, but it really isn't a problem at all.

-DW

thats is my problem. I'm hardcore FPS addict.. both ways as well.. First person shooter and Framerates per second. I never really payed much attention to how monitors and the such work.. i just buy whatever people say is the one for price/performance.

I've been newegging for awhile but obviously i wont trust anyone that reviews there..

So far i've had my eyes on the 19" inchers and i think the only 3 companies i would look at are Acer, Ben Q, and Samsung. I don't really care for viewsonic anymore just because of my bad experiences with them, but they aren't necessarily out of the question.. especially if one of them seems to be the ish.

Thanks for the link and warning.. for some reason i couldn't find monitor reviews.. only was coming up with graphic cards..

I figured 2ms 4ms and 8ms would be one of those things that had to perform well and work to advertise them.. but once again i guess i get to see the side of the marketing industry destroying my trust in all companies.

I also recommend using DVI and not Analog. Difference is like HDTV (DVI) compared to standard TV (Analog)

Eh, I still play a lot of old school games, but yeah, most new games will run without a problem since widescreen's are becoming more and more commonplace. I'm just saying that compatability might be a problem...

The only reason DVI would be "higher quality" than BGA is if you converted the signal i.e. DVI->VGA. On the other hand if you do a VGA->DVI conversion your quality is less than vga->vga... either way it is not really noticible. The real reason for DVI is to enable HDCP and keep you from copying protected HD content, it simply wasn't possible with an analog(VGA) signal. Its not as if HD resolutions are higher than PC resolutions already in use....