Testing an LCD monitor

**washe** · December 2nd, 2004, 06:52 PM

I have a 17" LCD monitor that its for a friend, and I want to test if its good for gaming (to get it for myself).

So what will be good for testing? and what to look for?

So far I have played WoW that looks very good and I dont see anything different from my CRT (well looks more brighter on the lcd).

**bluemonkey** · December 2nd, 2004, 06:59 PM

I would use a game that you've played before more than one time so that you will be able to notice any loss or gain in quality compared to your normal monitor.

**Bizkitkid2001** · December 2nd, 2004, 07:01 PM

Get a game that you get high FPS on. Like quake 3 or unreal tournament. Then look for ghosting when you move around.

What LCD is it?

**Eryk** · December 2nd, 2004, 07:06 PM

arent most LCDs at 60Hz? i got mine yesterday and the FPS stays at 60... no more no less.

**Bizkitkid2001** · December 2nd, 2004, 07:10 PM

Originally Posted by Eryk

arent most LCDs at 60Hz? i got mine yesterday and the FPS stays at 60... no more no less.

you can turn off vsynce and get higher fps.

Also, there are LCD monitors that can go above 60hz.

**RobRich** · December 2nd, 2004, 07:13 PM

So what will be good for testing? and what to look for

Biz has got the right idea. Turn off vsync in your video card's properties and look for screen tearing and artifacts during 3D game play and benchmarking. If there are no noticeable artifacts, then you should be good to go.

**mr.jiggyfly** · December 2nd, 2004, 07:16 PM

I dont' think refresh rates matter that much with LCDs, but if you like to have a fixed rate with your monitor this is a utility you can use:

http://www.pagehosting.co.uk/rf/

As for testing LCDs, like the others said, just try and do some fast paced gaming on it. Do some word processing, and check if the text is crisp. Also, check for contrast, you want the blackest black color you can get.

Thats about it.

**RobRich** · December 2nd, 2004, 07:21 PM

I dont' think refresh rates matter that much with LCDs

Pixel response rate is the most important aspect, but you can further stress the pixel refresh process when frame rates scale above the refresh rate by disabling v-sync. This is the easiest method for analyzing potential screen tearing.

**washe** · December 2nd, 2004, 07:31 PM

http://www.newegg.com/app/viewProduc...factory=BROWSE

So far for writing, surfing the text looks ok.

Used like 4 hours yesterday and my eyes didnt feel tired, as my current CRT, now Im sure now I want to get now.

Well looks like time to hunt a copy of UT or UT demo....

**proffit** · December 2nd, 2004, 07:34 PM

well you dont realy need to test it it all comes down to the monitors reasponse time 12ms is the best now days and it will not blur when moveing not matter how hard you try. 16ms monitors are very much similar but you might notice a slight blur every now and then. any monitor over 16ms i would not recomend you use for gameing. but if you want to test try 3d mark 03 the fps get pritty high on that one and isalso fast moveing.

**RobRich** · December 2nd, 2004, 07:34 PM

The L1710SK has a 16ms pixel response time, so you should fine it perfectly acceptable for most games and 3D applications. It is mostly models with 25ms+ timings that show 3D artifacting.

**washe** · December 2nd, 2004, 07:42 PM

Well read somewhere that even 12ms were not true 12 yet, and still some 16 ms models were better than newest generation of 12 ms...

of course this was like 3 months ago, right now I cant hunt down the article.

But so far I like this monitor, I played with the windows fast moving them and can see it renders a little slower than the monitor.... but whom will be moving all the time the window...

Also watched a pair of movies and no noticeable difference from the CRT.

**RobRich** · December 2nd, 2004, 07:49 PM

Well read somewhere that even 12ms were not true 12 yet

Some models have different rise and fall rates, so manufacturers have been known to "cheat" the specifications by listing whichever rate is faster. However, this is not a huge concern, as both rates are commonly very close due to timing concerns.

**washe** · December 2nd, 2004, 08:47 PM

Well...

Going to test the darkest game you can think about....

Doom 3 and painkiller!

**vicarious george** · December 6th, 2004, 03:11 PM

I just bought the Dell 1703FP, and all I can say is that it is a very good display for the money. I play HL2 on it all the time, and the slight ghosting is hardly noticeable. (your eyes will be used to it in 5 minutes anyway). My only complaint--and this is true for all LCD's--is that some of the details are lost in very dark scenes. (i.e. things lost in shadows). This is because LCD's are incapable of displaying true black. Again, this is only a minor issue, especially considering this monitor now lists for $300. You can get it during one of their sales for around $200.

The moral of the story is that the price/performance difference between a 16ms and a 25ms monitor is not always justified.

**washe** · December 6th, 2004, 03:14 PM

Well the monitor handled almost everything I ran, but I couldnt use Doom 3 that its very dark, not enough time, case arrived and I assembled his system.