Samsung 17" LCD monitor

[vitinho]

I'm planning to buy a Samsung 17" LCD monitor, but there are many models which are 17 inches ...
Eg:. 171N, W, P, T, S,
172N, W, P, T, S,
173N, W, P, T, S,
etc... etc...
Any suggestions or comments? Even better if you have experience with them or actually using them!!! Please share with me what you know about them...
:D :D :D
Thanks in advance;) ;) ;)

[SnComet2]

Wait and get the 173p, it will be out before the year is over. Or if you don't care about 16ms and 25ms is fine the 172t and 173t look to use the same panel (just like the 191t, 192t, and 193t use the same panel) and are very nice.

However, the 172t/173t, and definitely the 173p are the best digital lcds samsung makes at 17". I love my 172t :cool:.

edit: it seems that the 173t uses an inferior panel to the 172t. I have heard that this was done to make it cheaper. 173t is 450:1/270, while the 172t is 500:1/250. I read a review that said the 173t looked slightly worse.

[Stormer]

when is the 173p coming???

[SnComet2]

I think it has been found that the 173p is 25ms, and even the 16ms 172x is no good for games (thg's review).

[Mike360000]

Originally posted by SnComet2
I think it has been found that the 173p is 25ms, and even the 16ms 172x is no good for games (thg's review).

First rule of thumb:
Don't believe crap that comes from thg's.
Second I am running a Viewsonic VX800 with 25 ms response times and it plays games fine, including UT2k3 which thg said wasn't playable on 25 ms LCDs.

Yes it can ghost or blur, but ONLY under the most demanding or unusual circumstances. Actually it is hardly noticeable when it happens unless one is just a stickler for such things, in the most minute way. I have to actually force it to ghost or blur in UT2k3. But as I said it can under undue circumstances. Otherwise the 25 ms LCDs will run frame rates that is about equal to crts running 38-44 fps (constant).

For the trade offs, what few there are, I still wouldn't go back to a crt. My eys thank me also. And no more crt headaches.

Cheers,
Mike

[Stormer]

Originally posted by Mike360000


First rule of thumb:
Don't believe crap that comes from thg's.



not sure why that should be a rule, maybe according to you. I realize thg is not the greatest source for researching reliable benchmarking results/comparisons of products however maybe you are taking it a bit too personally in this situation.

Its human nature to think that your product shows no blurring..and is an awesome product after all you spent a lot on it. I also understand you say you have to force it to blur, well if it blurs it blurs doesnt it? As well I highly doubt that when in a heated game of ut2k3 any 25ms lcd is hard pressed to blur at all.

I hope i dont start a flame war, because that was not my intention.

take care

[SnComet2]

Different people have different tolerances for blurring. I love my lcd, but if I was a hardcore fps fan then I know I would not want 25ms. But for my gaming needs, right now ffxi, 25ms is perfect. And don't bash thg review of the 16ms/20ms panels so badly. You do need to read more than one review, but I believe that they do give an accurate rating to the lcds they test. Maybe not perfect, but I don't feel that there tests are inherently flawed. The anandtech review of an AU optronics monitor (in there case the hitachi) falls right in line with most other reviews for the panel; including thg's.

edit: I agree with stormer. No matter what a 25ms monitor will blur in ut2003. I have a friend who has a 35ms monitor and he can't see it at all. But it makes me really sick to watch his monitor. My 25ms 172t blurs waaaay less but its definetly still they. Even 16/20ms monitors still blur somewhat, just less. It's just ur eyes adjusting. My comp is sitting next to my roommate's (he has a 19" sony crt) and so I see the difference between blurring almost constantly. So I guess my eyes have never had the chance to adjust. But, I would still take my lcd over a crt anyday.

[Mike360000]

Nothing personal taken here. No flames intended.

I can understand that all people see things differently, both physically and literally, as well as implied. Some people will notice the differences more than others. And to some it will not be tolerable. Each person will just have to decide for themselves. However because of this, it does NOT meam LCDs are not suitable for fps gaming, especially the LCDs with 25 ms response times. thg did condemn ALL 25 ms LCDs and he was wrong there.

My brother must have some of the world's most sensitive eyes. He gets a headache from playing games on a crt if he plays it for more than 30 minutes. He even gets a headache if he watches TV for a couple hours straight. Yet he is afraid to even try a LCD because of what he has heard about them ghosting and blurring in games. And he has seen some LCDs, but not enough of them to know if he could really play games on one. He did recently buy a LCD TV because of the eyestrain/headaches and he does not complain of that pic being bad in any way.

My point being concerning my brother, is that there is a trade off in what you use. It just depends on what is acceptable and what is not. At the same time these complaints about response times, in particularly from thg is over-statimg the problem, and is just plain wrong about the 25 ms times.

Sure I have a considerable some in my LCD, but I also had just as much money invested in the crt I had when I bought it new. I paid over 500 bux for my Viewsonic PS790, new, when I bought it about 5 years ago. But just because I have this much money invested in something does NOT mean I would defend my purchases based solely on the money spent. If my LCD had not worked for me acceptably I would have done something different and had planned to exchange the LCD if need be. In the end it was suitable for me and in the process proved to me that information contrary to the 25 ms reponse times was not completely right, and from thg completely wrong.

I go way back with thg, reading his reviews back form the mid to late 90s. He has been so far out and changeable in so many of his articles that I eventually quit taking him seriously unless there were several other reviews of the exact same thing saying the same thing. Not only that Tom Pabst is one arrogant fellow with the email I have exchanged with him, as well as some remarks I have read in his articles. But I still go there from time to time just to see what he is saying.

Finally, I didn't say the 25 ms LCDs did not blur at all. I said they would blur, some, under the right conditions. I am sure that some LCDs claiming 25 ms response times would be worse than others.
The point is, some 25 ms LCDs will be acceptable to some, even many or most individuals. It is they who will be gaining all the extra benefits from the switch.

I think I can see the near demise of crts as LCDs get better and quicker. I never would have thought it would have happened so quickly, but it is for the better.
Cheers,
Mike

[SnComet2]

Just a quick point, in games like ut2003 a 25ms monitor won't just blur some. That blur is there from the second you move the mouse or start to run. Admitedly its small and you might start to ignore it after a few minutes, but the blur is not just under the right conditions. Games like splinter cell, mmorpg's, max payne 2, strategy games, and such do play perfectly on 25ms monitors. Those games having blurring only under certain conditions. But please don't say that a super high fps and bright game like ut2003 only blurs sometimes because that's not true. Even a slight blur in a fast game makes me nauseas. So If I were ever going to buy an lcd based on wanting to play that type of game alot, 25ms wouldn't be for me. Also, 16ms/20ms lcds have slight blur in ut2003 and such. So they still aren't a perfect gaming solution.

Even though I hate to defend such a biased website, I believe that thg gave the lcds props where they deserved them (image quality, colors, and ergonomics). I think that the reviews are so harsh in terms of games for people like me. Also, other publications like anandtech highly recommend against 25ms lcds for gaming for the same reasons. Not trying to scare anyone away from a 25ms monitor (as I absolutely love mine), just make sure you buy something that fits you.

[Mike360000]

"Just a quick point, in games like ut2003 a 25ms monitor won't just blur some. That blur is there from the second you move the mouse or start to run. Admitedly its small and you might start to ignore it after a few minutes, but the blur is not just under the right conditions."

I guess that is left to everyone's own opinion. I never noticed blurring the first time I started UT2k3, not from the sec I first moved my mouse anyways. I looked for it too! Again as I said, the game can blur but it depends on the conditions. Also I will add those conditions will vary from person to person.

Cheers,
Mike

[lazerin]

Ok, you guys have mentioned ut2k3 a lot, but I'd really like to know about some other games. How are things like bf1942/dc and cs/hl/dod? How about sports/racing games?

I'm thinking of getting an LCD which would mainly be used for gaming, any recommendations?

[Stormer]

imo if an lcd doesnt ghost in ut2k3 i doubt any other game out right now will cause ghosting