I'm building a new i7 Rig and I'm buying parts one by one over the course of the last 2 months and I received my new 20" 5ms (BTW, not GTG) 1600x900 monitor a few weeks ago. http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produ...4236106&cm_re=1600x900-_-24-236-106-_-Product I bought it off amazon but that's the one. Now 1600x900 is perfect for me, it's right in the middle. Not too high, and not too low. I've been using 1024x768/1152x864 monitors for the past decade and not anything else. As soon as I started using my new monitor on my old Rig I noticed right away the severe ghosting problems. I thought it was just me and that I would get used to it but I haven't. It's awful, you can't scroll through webpages or watch fast motion videos without it killing my eyes and giving me a headache. I Hooked up my PS3 via HDMI-To-DVI to test some games out to see if it was just my old clunky PC. In these photos I tested FFXIII , I also tested a few other games but you can clearly see the ghosting in places http://img218.imageshack.us/img218/7761/dscn4428z.jpg http://img153.imageshack.us/img153/8972/dscn4429.jpg http://img715.imageshack.us/img715/4919/dscn4430.jpg I'm in the process of trying to return it to the seller (With a 15% restocking fee albeit) Does anyone know of a 1600x900 Monitor that has an actual response time of 2ms and not Grey-To-Grey that won't get all blurry when fast motion objects move across the screen?
Eh here is the truth of the matter when it comes to specs of monitors these days: they're all the marketing deparments collective bullshit. Most of the time it seems the "black to white" when it comes to the contrast ratio is measured at the full brightness of white and then measured against the blackness produced by having the monitor off. This is mostly anecdotal but I don't quite understand how we went from 2004 where the display I'm looking at was just a prototype at 1000:1 for a contrast ratio and now we have 10,000:1 and 100,000+:1. Thing is I wouldn't believe any of the specs without finding a reputable place that reviews these sorts of things and has done their own measurmenets. Consumer Reports is a good first stop in general just because of how long they do this sort of thing and their methods are pretty sound from what I recall them doing (such as buying their own hardware and not using anything provided by manufacturers). The display I'm using is a Dell 2405FPW which doesn't explicitly say on the provided link what the grey to grey spec is. However I've never ONCE regretted (even remotely) having dropped $840 on this thing back in 2006. For me that was saving for a couple of months on a fresh High School graduates budget with nothing but random computer work for employment. The thing games extremely well for PC games and for XBox 360 titles as well as the occasional PS2 hook up. I'm sure it pales in comparison to more modern displays but the point being if this old thing can please me so well I'm sure more modern displays can please even better.
Ah Yeah I see what you mean. Most just list 5ms or 2ms GTG which is pretty much the same iirc since GTG is slower. And I never thought i'd run into this problem when I bought this, I bought my brother an ASUS LCD earlier this year and it runs like a champ and doesn't really have this problem.(And it was cheaper, 1440x900 res as well) I Guess I just gotta find a way to go on a Monitor Testing trip at a place like Best Buy or something to find a monitor that will work for me
Be prepared to give them a kidney in return. Even decomissioned medical monitors aren't cheap unless they're really old.
