there will always be a difference of ~8.33 ms between a 120hz CRT and a 60hz LCD, simply because of the max. video frequency supported

would be nice to see real (nothing artificial) 120hz flatpanels

Heh, there's a bigass commercial for a 200hz LCD TV ZOMGZ in my bus station. Every second time I walk past it I just roll my eyes.

artificial

hence the eye-rolling :))

care to elaborate that to me? I'm a n00b :)

I mean those existing 120hz flatpanels still use a native 60hz input signal and perform a trick on it to reduce motion blur. They dont lie, because the screen actually works at 120hz, but its made up from a 60hz source. So, the disadvantage of input lag even increases because it takes time to do this trick.

One good turn deserves another, I found this very good LCD roundup thread which also has links to other reviews: LCD Thread

i shall wait until Erk posts in this thread

groupie

the guy sounds like a fucking scientist when he talks about this stuff

prad.de is what i use at the moment.

Digital Versus has more features and monitors. Only place where the Hardware.info is better is with the pixel reaction delay. However the standard test image gives enough information IMO. Delay compared to CRT is just one value, while digitla versus give 10 samples which is important. If one frame is very late, but all the others are quite fast then it might be a slight glitch or a level of delay that doesn't occur frequently.

There are five things that are important to gamers, Input lag and response time, Colors, image quality and contrast. The first two are crucial while the importance of the last three varies from gamer to gamer. The nice thing about the Digital Versus site is that it's easy to compare many monitors in a short amount of time.

Just wish both sites would add the BenQ v2400WD which afaik uses the same panel as V2400W (AU24) which has faster pixel response than the G2400W panel. If the G2400WD is similar to the V2400W it would be maybe the best buy for a gaming monitor with accurate colors after some minor calibration on the monitor. Using sRGB mode, contrast 48 (makes a lot of difference in grey quality compared to standard 50) and brightness between 60 and 75 I get great black, grey and colors in general on my V2400W. If the panel on G2400WD is similar then it's a steal considering it can be found at about 70% of the cost of a V2400W (in Norway atleast).

so which 19"/22" lcd would you say is the best overall ?

Don't know. Only looked at 24" when I wanted to buy and at the time BenQ V2400W was the one that fullfilled my needs. BenQ G2400WD is prob the 24" I would recommend since it has very good pixel response time and relatively low input lag (uses same panel and scaler as V2400W). No LCD will ever be as good as a CRT when it comes to quake/UT since the gamespeed makes you notice every little increase in latencey. In slower games like CS/TF2 etc. the difference between a good LCD and a CRT is not noticable. Use the digital versus site and look at delay compared to CRT, game rendering best and worst result. Once you find one that you like, search the web for reviews to determine if the color charecteristics are accurete. For gaming you will most likely end up with a TN panel since they generally have the best pixel response time, however they also have limited view angels.

however they also have limited view angels

but that doesnt really matter, since everyone sits right in front of his PC-screen (unlike with TV's in the living room)

Actually with TN it does. 24" is about maximum size you should consider for a TN panel. After that you might notice a slight color difference between top and bottom since vertical viewing angles on TN panels is typically very poor. If you sit 1m from your screen move your head 15cm up or down compared to optimal viewing angle you will most likely see a small shift in brightness between top and bottom of the screen with a TN panel. No other panel type has that poor viewing angles.

There are two major advantages with TN panels:
1) It generally has the fastest pixel response out of any LCD panel type
2) It is cheap to produce

yeah totally agree, I dont even consider 24" :)

thanks.

any thoughts on the Dell 2408WFP?

http://www.digitalversus.com/duels.php?ty=6&a...9&ph=1

I have been looking online to get a new monitor, and found a site that is selling the V2400W (£194) cheaper than the G2400WD. (£197) Would you recommend I go for the V2400W?

G2400WD has slightly lower input lag and VESA compliant mounting, while V2400W is IMO one of the best looking LCD monitors out there. Scaler is the same and afaik that applies to the panel as well. If you don't care about design go with the G2400WD, if design is important to you then you can't go wrong with the V2400W. Both have very low input lag and fast pixel response. I don't even use the overdrive on my V2400W and color drag is only noticable when stuff goes really fast in Quake.

From what I've heard, the G2400WD is just the G2400W with an over-drive for 2ms response. However, I've never actually found any evidence of that, or any sites that have statistics on the WD version in particular, but if it's true, the G2400W's input lag would be a great booster.

So I've been looking at the BenQ V2400W and Acer G24 otherwise, because I may well do some Xbox 360 gaming here and there (shoot me) so the 1:1 pixel mapping is quite important (though could be useful for PC usage anyway).
DigitalVersus shows the V2400W as having a minimum input delay of 0, a maximum of 20, and an average of 8, which I'd say is pretty good. The G24 on the other hand, has a minimum as bad as the V2400W, with 9, a maximum of 30 and an average of 19.
However, prad.de just flips that around. They reckon the V2400W has a higher maximum of 33, and an average of 15, whereas the G24 has a maximum of 16. So I'm pretty confused now. They do show the G24 with justified and 1:1 pixel mapping on though, which hits a massive 47 maximum, 16 minimum and average of 31. Whilst I'd probably use 1:1 pixel mapping on the console primarily (1080 on a 1200 height), I wonder if with a wireless controller on top of that the lag would be noticeable just for casual play.

Anyway, I don't understand how these values have just been effectively flipped on either site unless there is some major configuration difference. I have heard that some graphics cards even have a small difference between plugging into either DVI port, but I never looked into this or saw any detailed analysis. So I'm pretty stumped as to what to do now, except for the fact that prad.de shows the V2400W's over-drive doesn't work particularly well.
I really want responsiveness to be good because that 5ms Samsung 225BW I tried two years ago haunts me whenever I think of LCD :P
As a note, though, I don't remember feeling lagged on the 225BW, which DigitalVersus claims has a minimum of 0, maximum of 23, and average of 11.3, but I'm not sure how much I would have noticed because trying to compensate for the responsiveness was my biggest issue in game.

The latency differences could very well be slight variations between the panels tested and different testing methods. Just took a quick look on prad.de and they never give all the numbers for the average calculations and pretty much all the screens where they show input lag have either 0 or multiples of 1 frame delay which I find strange. Digital versus gives all the values and seldom get 1 exact frame of delay for any of the numbers used in the input lag calculations.

Actually if prad.de's method relies on screen on numbers in the screen updates, then it is flawed. Digital versus method relies on a camera which takes 1 picture every ms and counting the difference between the monitors. If prad.de's method really just uses the numbers, then you get the same results for 9ms delay and 16ms delay (16.67ms as result), 17ms delay and 24ms delay is gives aprox 25ms if they can masure it and the monitor they match against is running 120hz which would be the logical value unless it can do 180 or 240 (due to syncing issues). If the monitor they match against is running 60 hz and they only use onscreen numbers then 1ms and 16ms delay becomes the same and you get really strange results.

The overdrive on the V2400W is not a problem, I mainly play quake and never use it. The panel is plenty fast without it.

Yeah, it does seem odd that they were getting those kind of figures for the V2400W. As for the responsiveness, I have since found a user review that also suggests there isn't much difference with the overdrive on as well, and in fact the artefacts when enabling it particularly troublesome for use whilst on the desktop. I suppose if it really bugs me I can put it on in games.

Colours don't seem to be that different for both the G24 and V2400W, and the 1:1 pixel mapping seems to work well on both, so it's looking more like this will come down to price, which I'm pretty sure the V2400W wins. I'm going to look at more reviews with tests though to make sure I get the right one, but I'm not sure there is that much in it to worry about.

Got 2*G2400WD , don't feel the any tearing or issues when playing. The screen performs really well compared to the price, it's atm very cheap.

you spelled digital wrong in the first paragraph. This whole post is void.

I bought the LG 227WT four months ago and it's fucking perfect for gaming. But I don't quake anymore, so I will upgrade to a bigger Full HD PVA Panel next year...

From the Anandtech thread:

22": LG L227WT, 1680x1050 (16:10)

* Panel: TN (LPL LM220WE3); 6-bit+Hi-FRC, 16.7M colors
* Image Delay (rt+lag): 0 - 0 - 0
* Specifications: LG L227WT
* HDCP Compliant: Yes
* More Info: prad.de
* Notes: US model is L227WTG-PF (glossy). Excellent gaming monitor (zero input lag). Vibrant colors.

Then I look over at Hardware.info and DigitalVersus.com, where it doesnt score well at input lag (20ms and 33ms max).

I don't know about the US models, mine is non-glossy and after all I am a quaker, I think I can judge gaming hardware, and the 227WT is a hardcore gaming monitor for sure.

anandtech forums has a thread on monitors that provide the most conclusive results in an organized list depending on monitor need and they are constantly updated.

You mean the one Thurrabred already mentioned?

Yep

Resuming: CRT still the best.

True, but is there still a manufacturer left? Dont think so.
I'm still on a Iiyama Diamondtron tube too btw (HM903DT/VMpro454).

so what kind of CRT would you prefer if one was gonna buy one ( rather for fast speed games like quake/ut ) ?
Planning to buy a new monitor here (currently using some 22 tft crap).
Advice would be nice :>

I wouldnt get a CRT no more, dispite it is better. More and more tournaments are using LCD, so if you're the pro type of gamer, you would suffer because you're not used to it (CRT at home, LCD in finals).
And if you're more the casual or simply competitive gamer, there are reasonably good LCD monitors to pick, where the advantages make up for the downsides (at that level).

MAYBE, if you're stubborn and dont do LAN finals (like me), it would be a right choice to look into the second hand offerings. Then I would look for a Trinitron/Diamondtron type of tube. Personally prefer 19". If you can, look up what the max refreshrates are at the different resolutions. Good ones can go 200hz at lower res. I personally use a higher res (11xx by 8xx) on 120hz because of mousing precision and the clearer image.

Good thing that around a month ago, Sony showed their 19 FED monitor running Gran Turismo 5 in 240Hz. Same did some specialised manufacturers of studio hardware, while Field Emission Technologies Inc. said that FED monitors will be released in upcoming year.
They all were supposed to be dedicated as master screens for studio use, but with Sony showing it with PS3, it seems like they will hit wider audience too. Additionaly maybe this will sped up release of SED screens.

Something like Nec FE2111SB if I remember number correctly. Its same family that smaller Nec FE991SB and FE791SB. There should be also Mitsubishi made version of it (their 19 is called 950 SB, dont know about bigger one). Basicaly Diamondtrons SB and m2.

I've yet to do it, but I'd imagine that Samsung would still have CRT monitors left in their inventory. They can't technically sell them online or anything, but I'm sure if you called them and demanded you purchase one, they'd let you do it.

i tried that with viewsonic, they couldn't find any seller for them, i ended up getting a used 2-3 years old CRT. Just so i have a backup if my current viewsonic 21" breaks down.

There are still many many excellent CRT's widely avaialable at many overstock and refurbished online warehouses. Just have to search abit ;]

Does anyone consider the Iolair MB24W?

As far as i can see its got the best reactivity with no input lag for an LCD, and its not even a TN but MVA.

Im a bit surprised there hasnt been more talk about this screen since its as responsive as a crt:

http://www.digitalversus.com/duels.php?ty=6&a...8&ph=9

For hardcore fps gamers you can talk about contrast,colors,viewing angle etc but most important by far is of course the performance in response time and ghosting.

Afaik they have a very big spread qualitywise and you cant adjust the backlight, which is way to bright, so that black turns to grey.

6ms?

Everyone knows the # ms doesnt mean anything. Practical tests is the only way to tell how fast a screen is.

In tests this Iolair 6 ms screen beats the fastest 2ms TN panels with ease.

It's not the perfect lcd but the response time of it gives hope for hardcore fps gaming on LCD.

There are also MB24Ws with TN-panels, infact I think they don't make MVAs anymore. Also that screen is damn bright and the black looks, well not black. What's best is that you can't really change the brightness without modifying.

LCD hz is a fake shit where they add black images in between actual updates to 'eliminate' ghosting.

DVI itself is very limited when it comes to updates per second (Hz).

Maximum clock frequency in single link mode: Capped at 165 MHz (up to 3.96 Gbit/s)
Example display modes (single link):
HDTV (1920 × 1080) @ 60 Hz with CVT-RB blanking (139 MHz)
UXGA (1600 × 1200) @ 60 Hz with GTF blanking (161 MHz)
WUXGA (1920 × 1200) @ 60 Hz with CVT-RB blanking (154 MHz)
SXGA (1280 × 1024) @ 85 Hz with GTF blanking (159 MHz)
WXGA+ (1440 x 900) @ 60 Hz (107 MHz)
WQUXGA (3840 × 2400) @ 17 Hz (164 MHz)

Conclusion: CRT for games.

wow... didnt know that, about the DVI limit, that sucks bigtime
what about Displayport?

Dunno. I just copy pasted from wikipedia.

:DDDDDDDDDDDD

Most newer monitors use DVI dual link (24pin) which has 7.92Gbit/s though. His numbers are for single link (18pin).

ah, so 120hz would be possible for lets say 1920x1080 ?

Should be possible to do 1920x1200@120hz with the current standards as long as they utilize the bandwith properly. Atleast the bandwith is there, however no LCD panel can do 120hz properly since they can't do 8.33 ms response time on all colors. Think we need to wait for OLED which should be coming out in the consumer display market sometime in the next 1-2 years now that Samsung have solved the diode lifetime problem. Was the blue lights that had a very short lifetime which meant that panels would become useless after a few years.

Thnx!

A few monitors have under 8 ms on all colors.


benQ fp93gx+

LG l1952tr

I had the LG, fucking amazing!

gaming monitor

LCD

:DDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDdd

any news about oled tech ?

Afaik Samsung has solved the blue light problem (had much lower life time than the green and red lights) so their lifetime is now acceptable. Wouldn't be surprised if you start seeing large OLED displays in the mainstream market in 1-2 years.

Few months ago I researched about TFT monitors because I was a bit annoyed of having 100hz or whatever at home and then switching to TFT on LAN, I got a LG 227WT it was supposed to be one of the best TFT monitors at that time for gaming, it arrived I tryed it for maybe 2 weeks, and didn't get used to it, I gave it away to my sister and atm I'm playing on my friends 19" CRT @ 120hz which I traded for a pair of headphones. I'm still waiting for the day that TFT or LCD, or whatever becomes almost as smooth as CRT. The TFT has some really nice colors and definition and I would like to use it for watching videos and surfing on the web, I've already tryed to use TFT for videos/web and CRT for gaming but it's too much for my messy desk.

That monitor has a 27ms average delay according to digital versus. That's quite a bit compared to the best monitors out there. No LCD will ever be as smooth as a CRT until they start increasing the HZ in a non artifical way. However for pretty much any game, except for fast paced games like quake and UT series, the difference between a good LCD with low input lag and a CRT is very small.

OLED next year

but will it be affortable before 2010?

Afaik OLED is cheaper to produce than LCD, but they are planning on introducing it in large models first so could take some time before smaller screens are available.

In my experience, brands choose to overprice new technology first, to get the early adaptors paying for the R&D. They keep it this way as long as they can, sometimes up to a year.

When something is cheaper to produce you can keep the same prices per screen area and still make more profit though. Wouldn't be surprised if they use the same prices as the old LCD monitors but make more money since each screen costs less. It's the volume vs high profit margin that comes into play here and equal prices with better technology usually leads to large volumes sold. Only thing that would lead to higher prices IMO is if they have a lot of faulty panels in the early batches.

where did you hear that they are cheaper to produce? I heard they were quite expensive atm and that they will be in the same prize range as lcds 2010 at the earliest

Don't remember the exact source, but my impression is that the improved version of OLED which they will use in the new generation coming in the next few years will be cheaper to produce in mass production than LCD. Problem with OLED was always being able to give the blue light long enough lifetime and making large scale displays. From what I've heard about samsungs breaktrough , OLED should be mainstream and mass produced as early as in 1-2 years. Current OLED tech is expensive though.

overall lcd is cheaper then crt. the most expensive part of selling a screen is the transporting

Good thread!

I too am looking to switch to an LCD monitor - My hardcore gaming days are behind me for now - for my casual play. I still would like a good flatscreen for when the times comes a decent game arrives!

Instead of starting a new thread, I may as well post in here. I'm looking for a monitor (originally was going to go for a 20", but will stretch to a 22" after reading about some of the monitors in this thread).

At first I was just going to get a cheap Samsung SM-2032BW Pebble 20", but after hearing a few bad stories regarding how different the monitors can arrive; it seems to be pot luck whether you get a decent one.

I decided to go with the 22": LG L227WT and found it as low as 150-170£ price range but happened to be out of stock. Also on the anandtech forums, the hardcore gaming monitors all seem to be 24" - which I don't really want. Any 22" inch ones which are recommended? Even 20" would be good to save a few £££.

p.s. What technical spec should I be looking at when dealing with LCD's? If response times seem irrelevant, what is it that defines a good monitor?

tl;dr: Any alternatives to the LG L227WT for around 160£ price range? Any good sites around?

i dont have the time for a large reply now, but one thing; the response time does matter, but the specs the brands give arent correct
and they dont even talk about input lag

thats why I made this thread, so we can share our findings and reviews with good tests we found, read those

Ok, after reading the Hardware.info site I've chosen either the Samsung T200 or ViewSonic VX2255wmb, good price, good size etc. Does anyone have any experience with these monitors? Any Opinions at all?

I'll have a look round for reviews but I'm kind of weary trusting sites that aren't really reviewing them for gaming.

What's a good monitor to compare these with on the Digitalversus site?

You don't really need to compare it. Just check "Delay compared to CRT" and game rendering best and worst results. Then use reviews to judge color accuracies.

Ok, will search around now.

Just to clarify, the lower the score (in Delay compared to CRT) the better? It's just that some Monitors posted - or lead to believe are good - have a strange comparison score, so it confused me a little.

Cheers

It is not a score but added delay in milliseconds and 0ms means no delay compared to CRT. Anything below 15 average is acceptable IMO, below 8 average is great.

what about these upcoming 120Hz LCD monitors
ViewSonic VX2265wm
Samsung 2233RZ
real 120Hz and good image quality, or marketing bullshit ?

btw thanks Erk for your answer a few posts above

you have to know if it actually uses a 120hz source, or 60hz which he doubles artificially

I think its not possible with current LCD technology, or at least we wont see it. A new tech (maybe OLED this year?) will take over sooner.

AFAIK 'real' 120Hz is coming this year, so that we can all 'benefit' from Nvidia's new stereoscopic glasses.

Samsung 2233RZ is the real deal. I'm really looking forward to this year's offerings.

But thats a "3D monitor"... I havent looked more than 5 mins at it, but I think the videocard will send two versions of each frame (one for the left eye, one for the right eye). So it still comes down to only 60fps/hz for each eye.

Anyways I dont think it will be the e-sport monitor we're looking for. but I really have to sleep now, will check later

looks really promising
the possibility to choose between 60/100/110/120Hz is interesting ; does this have any drawback (e.g. a 120Hz "native refresh rate", the other ones inducing a worse image quality ?) ?

what are the lcd monitors drawbacks again ? you have to use the "native resolution" else you get a blurry image, and you have to get more fps than the refresh rate else you get tearing or something ?
that would mean having to buy a fuckingly powerfull video card to run the recent games at 1680*1050 with more than 100 fps

afaik tearing only appears when you have alot more fps than the monitor refreshrate can display

thats easy to fix with v-sync, altough this can bring mouselag (which is why I everyone puts it off)

in some games you can set a max fps

Samsung readies LED-backlit P2370L Full HD LCD for later this quarter
http://www.tcmagazine.com/comments.php?shownews=23985&catid=2

Very interesting monitor :) Have to wait for input lag tests.

keep it up, son.

whats the deal with IPS panels?

do you monitor geeks know if they can they compete with TN panels wrt to input lag?

this one is being talked up heavily: http://www.cnet.com.au/desktops/monitors/0,23...389,00.htm

hi n00b, this is geek
dunno if you're still interested, but IPS generally gives a worse response than TN
most people choose for IPS for its better image quality / colors / contrast

Btw, when it comes to hz and fps. I've heard you have to set com_maxfps matched with the hz your LCD is running at (normally at 60hz or 75hz).

Someone care ellaborating on this (why, what happens if you keep it at 125fps, etc)

I know a lot of gamers prefer to sync this, but I've always had better results with having higher fps, regardless of my actual refresh rate. Keep in mind, this is mostly in games where the physics ARE affected by maxfps, such as Quakeworld and Warsow.

Just saying because Fox mentioned doing that to avoid the terrible tearing.

i prefer tearing over mouse lag tbh..
btw: u would't set maxfps to the hz of the monitor, u would just set r_swapinterval 1 (=vsync)

r_swapinterval 1 (=vsync) adds terrible mouselag in all games, specially noticeable on Quake. gg

i know m8 :>
what i meant:
doesn't vsync (=swapinterval 1) have the the same effect as setting your com_maxfps to your monitors Hz?

I dont think so since I used to play r_displayrefresh "120" and com_maxfps "120" in Q3 when I had my 19 CRT (now 17 CRT, so I use 100hz) and there was no input lag, so vertical sync definitely fucks up with more stuff. Input lag is the prize you pay for 0 tearing basically. The real revolution will begin when you can play with 0 input lag and 0 tearing (the effect you have with vsync 1), that conbined with 120hz is going to be smoother than real life.

no, max fps stops the game engine from rendering more frames, while v-sync caps it afterwards by graphics driver afaik.

So you cant compare and v-sync brings the mouselag

see v-sync as a form of post processing, just like these damn LCD's give input lag

okey dokey

This monitor has 0 input lag according to HWI:
http://www.hardware.info/nl-NL/productdb/bGdk...W2442PABF/

http://www.hardware.info/en-US/productdb/ZGRn...ZiVmJbKYMg

can these numbers be trusted? i've seen before that e2200hd do not have 0ms input lag atleast...

Actually I can not tell if those numbers are correct/can be trusted. I had compared a few monitors both hardware.info and digitalversus had reviewed, and those numbers regarding delay/response time etc were quite similar.

But I have also found that both review sites are contradicting each other. So I do not know who to 'trust'. Various review sites and the fact that they are contradicting each other adds even more to the confusion. Anyway I just ordered myself the LG W2442PA-BF, if I do not like it, hopefully I am allowed to return it within 7 days. I know that a LCD will never replace my Vision Master Pro 454, in terms of performance, but I am not a hardcore gamer. As soon as those 120hz OLED LCD's are available and affordable I will switch to them.

would appreciate if you could say a few words about it when you get it.. :)

Best keep it as high as possible.

Can result in tearing I guess, but with let's say 120FPS 60hz compared to 60fps 60hz at least it'd render more recent frames I guess.

does anyone have the 2209wa?
coz i've been reading mixed reviews about how good it is for gaming (its a e-ips).

http://www.hardforum.com/showthread.php?p=103...1034028590
http://www.digitalversus.com/article-358-4862-88.html
http://www.prad.de/en/monitore/review/2009/re...art14.html
http://www.lcdreviewz.com/review_Dell_2209WA/responsiveness
its the 2nd pick for "HARDCORE GAMING" at anandtech's thread: http://forums.anandtech.com/messageview.aspx?...id=2049206

cmon fast rply and u'll have the 100th comment:)

2. 22": Dell UltraSharp 2209WA, 1680x1050 (16:10)
# Panel: hard anti-glare e-IPS, 72% NTSC, 16.7M colors
# Inputs: DVI-D (HDCP), VGA, 4-Port USB Hub
# Scaling: Full, Aspect
# Input Lag: 20.6 ms, avg (8 - 20.6 - 30)
# Ergonomics: Height Adjustment, Tilt, Swivel, Pivot, VESA Mount

gg

digital versus say 9 avg input lag, and the hardforum says almost none.
but i did notice that on some forums ppl are confusing the 2209WA (e-ips) and a 2209W (TN) monitor.

that hardforum post didn't look too reliable, he posted 2 shots only right?

it seems to be an good gaming lcd considering it being an e-ips though.. but def not the best gaming wise.

and only old screens in that anandtech post?

k, i officially dunno what to get now. my mitsubishi diamond pro 930sb broke and i gave it to a service centar. i borrowed a faulty iiyama 454. i cant seem to find any good crts in croatia, nor can i find a zero input 22" lcd.
is the G2200W same as the G2400W?

Dude the 2233rz is basically 0 input lag.

Stop being so anal and get it, you wouldn't notice average 11ms of input lag unless you are some kind of robot.

Im waiting for the new Viewsonic anyway and see how things develop, is just a month away.

i was talking about 2209wa here. 2233rz costs 410euro without the glasses in Croatia. But the service center was able to fix my crt, so I don’t have to be “anal” any more^^

Holy shit, thats twice the price.

cheapest here in NL is 300,-

so anyone know is the G2200W same as the G2400W?

I just ordered the LG W2442PA-BF, i cross my fingers :)

A bit of reading for people curious about how input lag works...

http://www.anandtech.com/video/showdoc.aspx?i=3601

This month I really want a new monitor, so I've been searching some more and stumbled on some more interesting review sites.

http://www.prad.de/en/monitore/reviews.html
Many detailed reviews including input lag tests!

http://www.tftcentral.co.uk/reviews.htm
This one has some very detailed tests, also for the popular Samsung 2233RZ 120hz monitor.

check out this chart:


http://www.cnet.com.au/computers/monitors/reviews.htm
Less detailed reviews.

Had a look at the 2nd link, pretty good site/review of the samsung panel i just read..

What's a good 21" CRT monitor that I can game at 120hz at a high resolution?

The only 120hz monitors that exist (currently) are the Samsung 2233RZ and ViewSonic vx2265wm/vx2268w (USA / Europe) and these are 22 inch.

Asus should bring a 24 inch 1920x1080@120hz screen this quarter (VG242H was the prototype called).

he said CRT :x

oops...

any will do. the problem is rather finding crts these days.

You've got to be careful on choosing. Old monitors often have washed out colours so you might want to try them before buying. (I spent way too much on a vision master 514 because of this :/)