TFT/LCD Monitos & 2D games 60FPS/ 120HZ

[retroborg]

I want to buy a TFT monitor.
I’ll be using it mainly for games, 3D PC games & 2D emulators.

At the moment I’m using a 17” EIZO CRT F55S.
When I play 2D Emu games, MAME, NEOGEO, Capcom, SNES, genesis, etc…which are at 60FPS, I have to set the display at 120HZ or else the video will appear dithering & there will be jerky, tearing effects in horizontal scrolling. (Example: the Intro in Super Contra III, the horizontal scrolling letters “Alien Wars” are jerky)

I noticed that most TFT monitor’s refresh rate don’t go over 75HZ so is there going to be dithering & tearing in the video display when I play games in MAME & other 2D games at 60FPS?
Also the response time in TFTs is considerably larger than CRT monitors (12-25ms)
Will that also degrade 2D & 3D gaming experience?

How about this:
EIZO 17'' L550
http://www.eizo.com/products/lcd/l550/index.asp#
Specs:
http://www.eizo.com/products/lcd/l550/spec.asp
I found this at a shop for 399 Euros / 534$ is this price ok?

Or this:
EIZO 17'' L551
http://www.eizo.com/products/lcd/l551/index.asp#
Specs:
http://www.eizo.com/products/lcd/l557/spec.asp

Thanks in advance.

[Kezzer]

Turn vsync on, it'll limit the frame rate but it'll stop the tearing

[retroborg]

I always use vsync at 120HZ & works fine.

the problem occurs when playing games at 75HZ & vsync.

So I want to know if this same thing will happen in a TFT monitor considering it can't reach 120HZ.

[tom deloford]

I recommend this 21inch TFT, the Samsung 213T-Black, its absolutely fantastic in every respect, DVI/VGA , Portrait/Landscape 1600x1200 and very easy to move about but also a strong build quality and a feeling that it will last. It was expensive (about 600quid) but Im so glad I spent the extra money, Id never use anything less than 21 now! I am actually thinking of getting a second screen, the rim is very thin and ideal for multi monitor display. Everyone who I know with CRT's who have seen it and played games on it say they dont notice its not CRT, I know the difference (from using it so much!) but its fractional and the sheer size and beauty of games on this monitor far outweigh its disadvantages..

About tearing, this occurs when the frame buffer (the memory where the final image is written by the graphics card) is being updated at a different rate to the monitor refresh rate. This is why you will always get tearing when playing a game in the window, the frame buffer is being written at your monitors refresh rate, i.e VSync is forced off (because of windows). If you run at 60hz with VSync on in fullscreen (with my system anyway) you wont get any tearing.

Something I have realised since having got this monitor (25ms response) is that response times are not the most important/only factor for big tfts.. I used to have a woeful Geforce FX5600 and even when the frame rate was high (i.e 60fps near monitor refreshrate) I still got quite considerable "ghosting", but a few weeks back I got an ATI x800 XT PE , which to say the least is an absolute revolution in game performance for me.

Anyway the ghosting is gone and in games like hl2/farcry and doom3 I dont even notice its a TFT (perhaps this is coz Im so busy gawking at the stunning effects!).
It seems to me that the quality of the graphics card is actually a much larger factor than most ppl realise.

All in all, I would recommend saving for an extra month and paying out for a monitor like this, I also use a freeview card on it to watch tv and its fine. Whatever you do dont buy a 17inch monitor. The future of gaming is 1600x1200 17inch doesnt cut it.

[StormPC]

The main reason people run their videocards higher than 60Hz vertical is because on fast monitors the short persistence phosphorus will allow the eye to actually see flicker because the refresh rate is too slow. At 70Hz or higher it is impossible for the eye to see the refresh flicker. This is not the case with even the fastest LCD monitors. You will not be able to see flicker even at 60Hz refresh because the LCD is so slow. I usually run mine at 70Hz but it's not necessary. So if you run 60Hz you should be styling. No need to buy a 21 inch monitor (although they are quite nice).

[tom deloford]

No need to buy a 21 inch monitor (although they are quite nice).

Isnt that a contradiction? Same as saying "No need to buy anything good but it would be nice". Anyway quite nice is a huge understatement, you try and replace my monitor with a 17lg and there would be a lot of screaming like a little baby.

[StormPC]

Is that because of their cost?

I have a Samsung 213T and it's nice, but some people don't have any use for 1600x1200 (even though it's nice if you have the realestate on your desktop and the cash in your bank account). As far as I am concerned 19" monitors are a complete waste because most are limited to 1280x1024, the same as most 17" monitors, yet they often cost much more.

So it all depends what your needs are in the end.

[tom deloford]

I agree its of course dependant on your needs. But we know this guys needs he said "I’ll be using it mainly for games, 3D PC games & 2D emulators". In my opinion 1600x1200 is the best way to play 3d games. Soon all (gaming) gfx cards will support playing games at 1600x1200 (ok 256mb is better but 128mb with less AA and AF is ok)

With these two facts in mind to me it makes sense to go 21inch, it certainly does if you buy a X800Pro / NVidia 6800GT or better! Granted its expensive and it might mean saving for an extra month (or 2 ) but hey Id do it again! I see all these ppl with 6800/X800 shouting about their 17inch LG with 16ms response and max res of 1280 and I think its quite funny, they are really missing out, HL2 @ 1600x1200 Full quality settings, 50-150fps on 21inch monitor is pretty damn amazing even for someone who thinks he's seen it all! Me

[StormPC]

1280x1024 is plenty high for gaming. Also, the Samsung 213 is very nice but not great for gaming because of it's relatively slow 25ms response time. I much prefer my 17" Samsung with a 12ms response time. It is over twice as fast, has 20% better contrast ratio and smaller dots which means it's a sharper picture if you get up close.

I use my 213T for my internet PC because I can sit back and still see pretty well. When I game I have a tendency to sit closer to the monitor so the 712n suits me much better because of it's increased speed and picture quality. The 712n is a much newer design.

Also, if you sit too close to that 213T you'll not only look like Stevie Wonder but you could screw up your neck.

[tom deloford]

I disagree totally. 1280 is NOT "plenty high enough for gaming", tell that to ATI and NVIDIA. Some games really benefit from bigger screen and bigger res. FS2004 is one, you can actually fly in virtual cockpit mode and in this game and many others the longer response times make little difference.

Personally I really dont find ghosting an issue even in fps games on this monitor. I play UT2004 and Half life 2 online quite a lot and I regularly come out pretty high up on the scoreboard.

smaller dots which means it's a sharper picture if you get up close.

Smaller dots but much less of them which means you have to sit closer which means the effective dot pitch is reduced. The picture is much more impresive on a 213T

It is over twice as fast, has 20% better contrast ratio

500:1 contrast ratio is perfectly adequate contrast ratio for gaming.

Response time is not a true guide to how much ghosting youl get, some 25ms tft are better than other 25ms, bear in mind that response time is not a perfect measurement since it is only measures the time for a pixel to change from off to on, not from 1 color to another this can be much longer. This is why you get "12ms" cheap monitors that are outperformed by "16ms" etc.

When I game I have a tendency to sit closer to the monitor so the 712n suits me much better because of it's increased speed and picture quality.

You sit closer coz its such a small screen (which will damage your eyes), one day ppl will look back and scoff at you peering at your 17inch screen with its "supperior" picture quality If you are so particular about speed/quality why dont you use a CRT for gaming, you seem to have every other piece of hardware ever created!

[StormPC]

I'm not that into games. Just play when I get a chance. Far Cry and Doom3 mostly. You seem to be taking the position that the only worthwhile monitor is a Samsung 213T. I (and apparently many others according to sales statistics I've seen) strongly disagree. I like the 213T for Autocad and for surfing the WWW but it is my 3rd choice for gaming. Certainly it is a nice monitor. When I bought mine it was over $1300 US. They can be found for less now but to me they are still old tech. The size is good for some things and bad for others.

Oh, and now that you mention it, I do have a Viewsonic 21 CRT on one of my gaming machines. Been gaming a lot on the FX-55 in a Monarch SFF Hornet case though. I like the transportability. Needless to say I prefer the 712n for traveling. It works very well.

Yes I do buy just about every new piece of hardware. It's the only way I know what works well and what does not.

[tom deloford]

I'm not that into games

And yet you have several custom-built gaming rigs. Cool!

The size is good for some things and bad for others.

Not sure I agree with that. I assume u mean the performance compromise.

You seem to be taking the position that the only worthwhile monitor is a Samsung 213T

Not at all that would be very silly! Im just saying in a nutshell that:

1) This monitor is not bad for gaming (in my opinion and I have been gaming for quite a while on quite a few different crts/tfts) there are not many large tfts that are better (perhaps dell 2001fp, Im sure u know of others!).

2) Most ppl arent gonna have 1 monitor for windows and 1 for games therefore you have to go for a bit of a comprimise between speed (rt) vs size and image quality, in my opinion its a damn good comprimise!

3) There are some games that really benefit from 1600 and large screen realestate, simulators / strategy games (FS2004 & Rome TW, btw have u seen RTW on 21inch, surround sound, incredible). Also quite a lot of games do not cause ghosting because of relatively slow movement of objects on the screen. FS2004 / GTR (suprising but true) / RTW / Warcraft / All other strategy games / ... etc. Quake 3 on the other hand might be more of a problem for some ppl, agreed. but there are probably more games where the effects are negligible and (in my humble opinon) outweighed by extra realestate!! Phew.

4) Personally I dont like sitting really close to the screen!

5) I dont know anyone who has bought a smaller monitor than their last one!

Anyway I suppose we can agree to disagree on this one, maybe its just me, I suppose Im a sucker for a big display! You seem to have a lot of hardware and experience it's great that there are so many ppl here sharing their knowledge!

Right must get some sleep!!!

[retroborg]

I've read this at another forum:

The big thing that makes LCDs somewhat unsuitable for 2d games is the fact that they can only run in one resolution. So unless the game you're playing runs in the same res as your monitor's native resolution, you're going to get nasty scaling effects. These bother some people more than others, but personally I can't stand them. If you're emulating, you're pretty much going to be okay as long as you can scale the image to an integer multiple of the original resolution, but you likely won't get a fullscreen display that way. Also keep in mind that scaling the image is going to be slow compared to running a game at its native res. On my machine, for example, Psikyo games start dropping frames if I scale them more than 2x.

I don't quite understand what he's trying to say? I've seen TFT monitors that support 640, 800 & 1024 resolutions at 60 - 75HZ no problem.

One feature I would like in a TFT monitor, is being able to to tilt the screen 90 degrees verticaly.
I would like to play Ikaruga vertical & some other shmups in Mame without having to strecth the display.

Can you do that with this 21" Samsung monitor?
Which one can?

Thanks.

[tom deloford]

Hi

The issue about scaling is simple but difficult to explain, but ill try!.

Yes a tft may support all resolutions (like crt) but tft has a set number of defined pixels, so a 1600x1200 capable monitor has 1,920,000 unique physical pixels (3 light emitting transistors at each, RGB). If you want to display 640x480 pixels resolution then somehow you have to scale your image to 1600x1200 (1920000 unique pixels). This is done by the monitor, it has a chip inside it which can accept all different resolutions and scale up. This leads to a less than perfect image because scaling is inherently not perfect, (unless the resolution being scaled is a direct multiple, i.e 800x600 -> 1600x1200).

But to be honest the scaling is pretty good these days and most ppl wouldnt be able to notice the scaling. I play some games at 1280 (e.g PES4) and I honestly cant see any ill effects.

The difference in CRT is that the image is not produced in the same way, there are no defined pixels. Instead an electron gun fires electrons through a magnetic field at the screen. To increase the number of pixels the gun fires more times/sec as it scans across the screen. In effect the resolution is analogue and so no "scaling" is required.


To anser your second question the samsung doesnt tilt 90degrees, I dont know of any that do. You could always lay it on its back and take its stand off, but it would be a bit of a pain to be honest unless it was a permanent thing.

[retroborg]

What about old 2D PC Games & 2D Emulators that work at 320x240 - 640x480 Resolutions. They would look pretty bad when scaled to fit a native 1280x1024 TFT resolution.
Also what does DC, Saturn & PSX look like on a modern TFT when scaled to fit?

Thanks for the info.

[tom deloford]

320x240 is gona look pretty bad on 21inch fullstop!!! Seriously though, the scaling techniques are pretty good these days and the difference between CRT 21inch 320x240 is and tft is not that noticable (on a good tft at least).

The 213T does support 320x200 (I dont know about other tfts), I just tried glquake at 320x200 and it was perfectly playable, whether or not youd get a better image on a 21inch crt I dont know, probably not much if anything.

640x480 is not going to be noticable when scaled to native 1280 since its pretty close to a 2x scale, i.e 1 image pixel -> 4 screen pixels.

I dont know about Saturn and PSX, but I do have XBOX and PS2 hooked up to this tft and its great, (just got GT4 ) It also depends on your signal convertor, if you get a tft with native (on board) input options like Scart, Svideo etc then the image on the screen will be better than running it through a TV Tuner card or video in card. On the other hand its nice to be able to play xbox in a window (and then record your best moments!!)

But you will never escape the reality that PSX run at much lower resolution than PC monitors, CRT or TFT and the lower image quality of any console is noticable (if you are used to PC games at 1280+!!! )

The 213T only has DVI and VGA so you cant hook up directly to PSX/Saturn/Xbox etc, I use Blackgold TV card which has RF and Svideo input, then hook the audio into my line in and thats it.