View Full Version : Understanding my 2005fpw/2405fpw, response times and refresh rates
I have a Dell 2005fpw that I just got a few days ago. I also have a Dell 2405fpw on the way (gonna decide which is more fit for me).
I am replacing my 21" CRT, which gave me 100fps with vsync on at 1152x864 (my favorite gaming resolution for CS: CZ).
Here is the problem... I only get 60fps with vsync on with the LCD at 1680x1050 (recommended) resolution. If I try any other resolution I can get 75fps, but it causes that blurry effect (whatever that's called)... so basically I can't use those since they are so blurry. Now I'm stuck with 60fps, and that's a HUGE drop for me from 100fps. I just can't seem to enjoy it. I just gamed for about an hour and a half, and I can't seem to like the fps.
The picture quality is AWESOME. The widescreen view is AWESOME. The resolution is AWESOME, but I can't live with such low fps. Now I've been told that refresh rates (hz) don't matter on LCDs and that it's all about response time (ms), but that makes no sense as I really am stuck at the 60hz refresh rate. Since this monitor is a 12ms response time, I figured that I'd get 83.33fps (since 1 sec = 1000ms I just did 1000 divided by 12). Maybe I'm wrong, but I seriously can't live with 60fps either way.
My questions (don't recommend disabling vsync b/c I just won't do it):
1. How does refresh rate not matter when that's what holds me back?
2. When is low response time useful when I don't see it doing anything?
3. If I can't do anything to gain more fps with vsync enabled on this monitor, then are there other LCD monitors out there that can give me 100fps (or close to)?
The monitor itself is sexy, don't get me wrong...
ajrettke
10-15-05, 03:07 PM
dusable v sync (yeah I read what you said....but that's what I'm saying)
1. LCD's don't refresh like CRT's do...you need to get rid of vsync so that as soon as theres a new image rendered it sends it to the LCD so the pixels that need to change can start to change.
2...kinda tied into 1
3. they're makin new 4ms LCD's.....but why do you want vsync? It doesn't do anything for an LCD.....
it doesn't? really? i didn't know
damarble
10-15-05, 08:12 PM
but why do you want vsync? It doesn't do anything for an LCD.....
Huh? My 2005fpw was tearing badly in Doom 3, Vsync fixed it.
What fps do you get with vsync on? I can't break 60fps. I mean... I could override refresh rates to hit 83.3 hz, but I dunno what I should do.
60fps is not enough for me. any clue guys?
Achilles17
10-15-05, 09:24 PM
You can't get more than 60fps with V-sync on if your refresh rate is at 60. 60 FPS is enough for you though, as you cant notice a difference between 60 and 120. Sure, if it dips lower you can, but V-sync just caps the FPS at 60, it doesnt reduce your FPS percentage wise. Anything that would normally be above 60 just becomes 60, and anything that would be below becomes whatever it would be normally.
i thought the human eye couldnt tell 60 fps from 100
maybe it's psycological, get a friend to test you to see if u can guess which is which
Meathead
10-15-05, 10:14 PM
I can definitely tell the difference between 60hz and 100hz. 60hz seems to blink very rapidly and gives me a headache. 100hz looks so much smoother to me and you need 100fps for cs:s and cs or else you will be at a disadvantage. If its stuck at 60 fps then thats defnitely vsync on. Try disabling it in the propoerties and in the game.
ajrettke
10-16-05, 03:45 PM
hmmm...I tried vsync on and off with my LCD's and it didn't do a thing....also the way it works it doesn't make sense why it would help for an LCD...maybe I'm wrong on how it works though.
Also, the human eye can see the difference all the way to 250 fps (this was tested in the airforce on pilots as they had to get specs for their flight simulators (they probbly wanted to find the point at which it gets anoying...but found that it was possible to notice that high....just a little FYI)
{PMS}fishy
10-16-05, 03:49 PM
LCDs run one resolution and they don't have a refresh rate like a CRT does.
vsync should always be off, regardless of the monitor, and the refresh rate should be auto or 60hz and never run anything other than the nativite resolution, it just won't be right.
I think people are confusing fps with the refresh rate. On a modern CRT, the refresh rate is what gives you a headache. I can tell the difference between an 85Hz and a 100Hz refresh rate (and anything below 85Hz is painful). However, I've got an older (20 inch) CRT that is usable by me at 75Hz due to the slow-decay phosphors (but has the associated tradeoff of slight blurring during fast motion).
There was a study done about 5 years ago (I know I've got it or a link to it stored somewhere, I'll edit this when I find it) on gaming-related frame rates; different from movie-related frame rates where you have blurring in each frame. For no-blur situations, most people could not detect above about 45fps, with the cutoff for the "best" people being around 55fps. For movies (they rendered the same sequence of images, but with motion blur) the rates were about 10fps lower.
Note that this was with the display (in their case, CRT) refresh rate at exactly double the frame rate. This was to ensure a quick update and to minimise jitter. For example, 60fps on a 100Hz refresh rate will look less "smooth" than 50fps (or 100fps) due to the additional frame jitter. However, you would be a very rare person to be able to distinguish between 60fps at a 120Hz refresh rate and 120fps at the same refresh rate for "normal" images. For ultra-high contrast images with fast movement (such as a white ball bouncing left/right across your screen on a black background) you can see slightly higher, but this is not exactly what happens unless you're playing pacman on some ultra turbo mode :)
The Air Force thing was something quite different again. They put the pilots in a black room, and then flashed a picture of an aircraft up. The pilot had to identify the aircraft. This is not so much a test of refresh rate of the eye, but rather the minimum time to stimulate the "afterglow" effect in the eye. Similar to the blob you get in your vision after you see a camera flash go off. The time to stimulate this effect was measured to be 1/220th of a second (for the "best" eyes).
What you ideally want is the entire mouse/keyboard/video card/monitor/server system to be in sync. If this is the case, then you would have a hard time picking up anything above 55fps. However, in most systems (especially CRT-based ones), these are not in sync. You have your mouse going at 125 or 150 updates per second, who knows what your keyboard update rate is, your monitor is at 100Hz, and your video card is wobbling between 75 and 85Hz. You could easily get a 2 frame lag between you moving doing something and the screen responding. Because of this, your perceive a much lower refresh rate, one third of what it really is. And you notice when your video card drops down to 65 to 75Hz. Add to this that the server is updating at potentially completely different rate again and it gets even worse.
Whether it's because of this or another reason, some systems feel laggier than their specs say they should. I look after the CS server around here, and as a result end up doing a large amount of tech support for people who are having problems with CS. So I've tried out (and tweaked with) a fair few systems. There's a guy with a A64 something-or-other, a 6800GT and a beautiful flat-fronted 21 inch Sony monitor (not sure of the exact model, but it's one apparently designed for digital photo stuff, which he does a lot. It's got a cool little auto colour calibration thingee as well). Does 1600x1200 at 85Hz (his frame rate is rock-solid at 85Hz, VSync on), and latency to the server is tiny. But I swear his system is one of the laggiest I've messed around with. It SHOULD be one of the best, if not the best, around here but it just doesn't feel like it. Possibly it's because I've got the server heavily tweaked towards 60Hz LCD users (everything right down to the kernel HZ parameter is a multiple of 60Hz) and he's being hit by jitter problems, but his 85 fps definately feels less smooth than most other people's 60 fps.
OK, that's probably enough rambling from me for now ...
EDIT: Oh, one more thing ... vsync off can decrease the jitter a bit, but will almost always cause tearing. Personally, I can't stand the tearing so always have it on :)
So where does response time show you an advantage in real time gaming?
With vsync off I cap at 100fps at the native resolution (1680x1050). With vsync on I get 60fps at the native resolution... b/c the monitor has a resfresh rate of 60hz at that resolution.
My main question was what the heck response time (12ms for my dell) is for when the refresh rate is what's keeping it stuck at 60hz. And for the person who said I can't see above 60fps, I can. I can tell the difference between 85 and 100 as well. I once used to play at 120fps with vsync on, on my 21" crt. This was in the Half-Life days. I used to override my refreshrate to 120hz for 1152x864 and enable vsync... it was as smooth as a baby's butt. This was an upgrade from 100fps, which I played at before 120fps and my eyes saw every bit of the difference!
I am very interested in this because I want an LCD and I game a lot. Currently I have a CRT with my refresh rate at 85 with vsync on and everything is great.
I can tell when I'm playing CSSource and my fps drops into the 60s. Its a noticable difference, but luckly it doesn't happen that often. Its not because of the rate I'm getting updates from the server either, because my fps doesn't effect that rate on low tickrate(33 or 66) servers and I still notice the fps drop.
In CSS the rate which you get updates is limited by 3 things: server tickrate, your fps, and your cmd and updaterate. Whichever of these is set the lowest is the amount of updates you will get from the server.
If LCDs only have 60Hz refresh rate that means you not only get 60fps max but you also only get a max of 60 updates a second(in 100tickrate servers) with vsync on. If you disable vsync to get more updates you get tearing.
Are there any high refresh rate LCDs out there? I thought I had seen specs on a few that were 75Hz, but are there any that have 85 or even 100?
Seven7Thirty30
10-17-05, 09:00 AM
I just made the switch from a 19" CRT with a 100Hz refresh rate at 1280 x 960 to a 24" wide-screen LCD with higher resolutions but at a lower refresh rate, and I haven't noticed the change (except how glorious my new monitor is). The higher the resolution the lower the refresh rate options on all monitors. My LCD will operate between 60Hz and 100Hz at 1024 x 768, but will only operate on 60Hz at its native res. I agree with emboss, I think everyone is confusing FPS and refresh rate.
Are there any high refresh rate LCDs out there? I thought I had seen specs on a few that were 75Hz, but are there any that have 85 or even 100?
Off the top of my head, I dunno any that can go that high at their native resolutions. My Dell is awesome at native, but garbage for gaming at anything other than native.
I have to admit... the picture is awesome compared to my 21" CRT side-by-side. I never noticed how dimm my 21" is until I put it next to my Dell widescreen.
Btw, since I had to decide between 60fps vsync on and 100fps vsync off, I chose 100fps vsync off. This is the first time in almost 4 years that I'm going to game with vsync off. I'm getting used to it, although I do miss the smoothness of vsync on.
I have used 75 MHz refresh rate on my Dell 2005FPW. It seems to work the best for me. I only have two choices available, 60 and 75. If you want higher FPS, you might need to drop down to a lower resolution.
Lower resolution causes that blurry effect when I game (which I dislike). That is why I can't try a lower resolution, bro. :(
I cannot complain at all about the picture quality, though...
KillrBuckeye
10-17-05, 02:18 PM
I'm also very curious to know the answers to your questions. However, I think there is a relatively simple explanation for these mysteries. I will try to explain my take on this issue as follows:
As it has been stated before, there is no "refresh rate" in the traditional sense on LCD monitors. However, make no mistake--the speed at which they can change the colors of pixels is finite, and the response time specification is "supposed" to give an indication of this. I have read from several sources that the "response time" specification is fairly meaningless. Manufacturers can use "best-case scenarios" for reporting these specs, so the true response time is something that is not easy to define. Therefore, it makes no sense to apply reasoning such as "(since 1 sec = 1000ms I just did 1000 divided by 12)".
With vsync off, a high-end system will be feeding video frames to an LCD monitor at a rate that is faster than it can handle, i.e. the pixels cannot change color fast enough to keep up with the frame rate. This is the cause of the "tearing" effect that people are describing. By enabling vsync, the frame rate is being capped at 60 Hz, which is slow enough that the LCD monitor can give an accurate representation of the colors for every frame.
The conclusion is that the frame rate output from the video card must be somewhat in-line with the response rate capabilities of the monitor, otherwise "tearing" will be observed. You might say "12 ms should be plenty fast to handle 100+ FPS". Well, as I mentioned before, take those response rate specifications from the manufacturer with a grain of salt. The true responsiveness of a monitor can only be subjectively determined, IMO. Sadly, it seems that the 12ms spec on the Dell 2005FPW is a bit optimistic. (This won't stop me from getting one, however :p)
I understand how vsync works. It just makes no sense to me to say "12ms response time," when refresh rate also comes into play. They say refresh rates mean nothing for LCD monitors and that response time is what's so important... then why do I cap at its refresh rate of 60hz???
P.S. I also understand how and why tearing occurs already... I read up on that way long ago when I bought my 21" CRT (4 years ago)
KillrBuckeye
10-17-05, 02:56 PM
I understand how vsync works. It just makes no sense to me to say "12ms response time," when refresh rate also comes into play. They say refresh rates mean nothing for LCD monitors and that response time is what's so important... then why do I cap at its refresh rate of 60hz???It's true--the refresh rate setting in Windows has no bearing on how fast an LCD monitor updates its picture, EXCEPT when vsync is enabled. So when refresh rate is set to 60 Hz and vsync is OFF, the LCD monitor is trying to update the image as fast as the video card is sending it information. This is often too fast for the LCD monitor to handle and "tearing" will be observed. The reason that "tearing" seems to be reduced when vsync is enabled is that information is being sent to the monitor at a slower rate (60 FPS instead of say 100 FPS) and it can "keep up".
Does that make sense? With an LCD monitor, refresh rate in Windows is just a meaningless value. However, that number takes on meaning when you enable vsync in a game, because the frame rate will be capped at whatever that number is.
So it may be possible to disable vsync and not get tearing if you tweak your games max fps to match the monitor?
deception``
10-17-05, 03:01 PM
I think you are missing the point entirely here. Let's try to make this a little simpler:
In a nutshell, LCD's are imperfect when it comes to gaming. Sure, they have many other benefits (such as power consumption, space, DVI, etc) but gaming has always been a sore spot in the LCD community. However, over time panels have become better and better for even today's PC titles.
Honestly, I don't think you have given yourself enough time to adjust to your LCD screens. I first doubted all of my LCDs in gaming when I got them, then became more comfortable over a short period of time. It took me at least about a week before I actually preferred gaming on my panels over my old CRTs, and this also includes the Dell 2005fpw. It is in my personal opinion that gaming on LCDs just takes a bit of an adjustment - you shouldn't expect instant gratification straight out the box.
Additionally, I think that your expectations are a bit high. As I said earlier, LCDs are still imperfect for gaming. The visually stunning panels usually have slightly higher response times, and the ones with the 4 and 6ms sacrifice color fidelity (TN panels) for speed. The point is this: a tradeoff is always going to exist when dealing with an LCD, as no monitor is absoutely perfect. It is up to the individual user to gauge his/her tolerance to a particular LCD.
Personally, I would not recommend any LCD for the hard-core gamer. I say this because CRTs are still king if you play games all the time. If you do more with your system, however, an LCD may be a good buy.
I do enjoy an occassional game from time to time, but in no way would I consider myself an avid gamer anymore. In addition to the average Q3/Cs:s/Madden game, I also do a lot of business on my PC and even enjoy an occassional video or two. Given my needs, and LCD was a smart choice. If I still considered myself to be a heavy gamer, however, I would have stayed with a CRT.
Here's my point to all of this: in the long run, it benefits you more to have realistic expectations when it comes to an LCD (or any other product, for that matter). A lot of people were disasitisfied with DFI's earlier boards (as an example), yet they could not fathom that when you look for the best overclocking platform around, you're probably going to have to sacrifice in another area. No one product can be all things to all people, and an LCD is no different.
If gaming is your #1 concern, then you can easily sell your panels and either break even or make a fair return; otherwise, go back to the CRT.
deception``
KillrBuckeye
10-17-05, 03:07 PM
Yes, I fully agree with your post deception. My post was aimed at explaining, from a technical standpoint, why people might not be satisfied with their gaming experience on an LCD monitor. Everyone has different sensitivities to things like FPS, tearing, color fidelity, etc., so it complicates these discussions when you have a group of people claiming that their monitors are perfect, and another group of people who aren't satisfied. Very likely there is little difference in performance among the monitors, just that some people have higher expectations.
So it may be possible to disable vsync and not get tearing if you tweak your games max fps to match the monitor?Yes, this may be possible, although this is essentially what vsync is doing. I have a feeling that Dell set the default refresh rate (frame rate) to 60 Hz for a reason--because they know that much above that will create tearing.
All I know is that I can lower the resolution on my 2005FPW to about anything and have no problem gaming. Maybe you need to update drivers?
@ deception: Awesome post! :)
I am a hardcore gamer, but after playing with the 2005fpw for a few days I know like it. The widescreen, and the picture quality have caught my eye. I now play with 100fps and vsync off. I'm starting to get used to it. My 21" CRT is still in my room, just on my other PC.
When you look at the monitors next to each other, you can tell taht the 2005fpw looks like pure quality.
My 2405fpw arrives in CT tomorrow (I live in NY). I dunno when, but maybe sometime this week I'll visit my gf's parents (where it's going in CT) and I'll pick it up. I'm so eager to see how much better the 24" model is than the 20".
If I don't find a buyer for equal amount or profit on my 20", then it's going back to Dell (assuming I'm going to want to keep the 24" over the 20").
Thanks for your input deception, and by the way... I hope you all know that everytime someone explained vsync and tearing to me, I already knew. I guess everyone misunderstood my questions.
My main question was why would there be a refresh rate option if LCDs are all about response times... but I guess it's just a setting just in case someone wants to use vsync.
I wonder what would happen if I override the refresh rate a bit; not that I would, but I wonder if it will burn out or actually work well up to a certain point. When I get rich I'll try... unless someone has already and the info is up floating around in cyberspace.
KillrBuckeye
10-17-05, 03:11 PM
All I know is that I can lower the resolution on my 2005FPW to about anything and have no problem gaming. Maybe you need to update drivers?This is a perfect example of the difference in people's expectations. My stepfather-in-law has the 2005FPW and IMO, any resolution other than the native 1680x1050 looks horrid! It's not a driver issue, just a perception issue. I think it looks extremely blurry, you may think it looks fine.
My main question was why would there be a refresh rate option if LCDs are all about response times... but I guess it's just a setting just in case someone wants to use vsync. Yes. That, and there probably needs to be a dummy value for refresh rate in Windows. Otherwise, dozens of applications would crash. If there's ever a time when the entire population is using LCD monitors, the term "refresh rate" will probably be phased out on future OS's. :)
From trying to understand all this info and info from other sources, the best resolution to play on a LCD is always its native resolution. Unfortunately your stick at whatever refresh rate you get at that resolution, which in godmans case is really low.
Another OCforums member complained of the same thing. He got low fps cuz he had to enable vsync to stop tearing but at such a high native resolution the refresh rate was to low. Then when he lowered his resolution to increase his refresh rate hit got blurring and mirroring even with vsync on LOL
In the coming months there's a new standtard of LCD's to be released, i think they are called SCD's if I remember correctly, they are said to be less expensive to make and BUY and have performance of a CRT. Thats what i'm waiting for, i will find the link from Xtreme forums...
From trying to understand all this info and info from other sources, the best resolution to play on a LCD is always its native resolution. Unfortunately your stick at whatever refresh rate you get at that resolution, which in godmans case is really low.
Another OCforums member complained of the same thing. He got low fps cuz he had to enable vsync to stop tearing but at such a high native resolution the refresh rate was to low. Then when he lowered his resolution to increase his refresh rate hit got blurring and mirroring even with vsync on LOL
In the coming months there's a new standtard of LCD's to be released, i think they are called SCD's if I remember correctly, they are said to be less expensive to make and BUY and have performance of a CRT. Thats what i'm waiting for, i will find the link from Xtreme forums...
First of all, nice avatar. Secondly, what you're speaking of is what I would invest my money in... I am going to keep the Dell widescreen though, at least one of the two that I'll have.
As I've mentioned before, and also in agreement with KillrBuckeye, any resolution other than the native is blurry to my eyes... very much.
A couple things ... first, an LCD is limited in the same way as a CRT by a dot clock. The whole screen is not refreshed at once; rather, a single pixel is updated at a time (select the pixel using a row and column address, set the intensity by the about of current you put through it). This ties in with the dot clock of the DVI link (or D-DUS link if you're using an analogue connection) and typically the two will be in sync (though with a slight delay due to the time it takes for the data to be processed by the DSP).
However, on your video card, you can change from one frame to the next more or less instantly through a page flip. If this happens after half of the old frame has been sent over the link, then you end up with a discontinuity in the picture for 1/60 of a second or whatever your refresh rate is. If your frame rate and refresh rate are sufficiently different, this discontinuity will be jumping all over the screen and will not be too annoying (though I can still see it and it gets on my nerves). It's much worse when the rates are nearly the same, and you get the line moving up or down the screen. For example, if your screen has a refresh rate of 60Hz, and your frame rate is slightly above 63Hz, then you will have three lines that will be slowly moving down your screen (like noise lines on a TV, sort of). This is highly visible and at least for me is unusable. When you enable vsync, these page flips are queued up and not actually done until the full frame has been sent. This means that there are no discontinuities in any of the sent frames.
Back to the DSP and the dot clock ... the refresh rate is obviously limited by the maximum frequency that the DSP can operate at. I suppose it's possible that you could overclock the DSP, but they're all pretty integrated nowadays so I suspect it would be extremely difficult. In addition, you'd probably lose colour fidelity and contrast since the display would be designed with the particular (electronic) rise and fall times of the panel.
The second point is wrt to seeing more than however many fps ... I couldn't find the article (pretty sure it was with my SIGGRAPH stuff, but doesn't seem to be), but I've just about completed a program that does a similar thing that their study did. Essentially, it displays a dynamic scene (in my one it's circle-strafing with jumping, solely because it's easy to do and I don't think there would be much to gain by anything more complex) either at the maximum frame rate (ie: the refresh rate) or at half the frame rate. So if you're running with an 85Hz refresh rate, you can flick between the program running at 85fps or 42.5fps. You then have to decide which of the two modes is the lower frame rate. If you can distinguish above 42.5fps then you should be able to say, with a high rate of success, which one is slower. If you have a CRT, you can then figure out where you can see up to since you can run at multiple refresh rates. With the bit of experimenting I've done while writing it, the difference between 30fps and 60fps is there if you're looking carefully (though I'm more wincing due to the flicker in this test), between 37.5fps and 75fps is about the same, I can only spot the difference between 42.5fps and 75fps if I look really carefully at edges, and for me there is no discernible difference between 50fps and 100fps.
Note that this is with zero jitter, no dropped frames, no input lag, etc etc. In other words, it's only measuring how fast you can perceive the changes. The "smoother" feel at a higher frame rate where both are above your ability to see it (100fps compared to 85fps for example) is due to a number of other unrelated factors, roughly in order of importance:
1) Higher minimum frame rate. Sometimes the computer will drop a frame (background task does something, needs to load textures to the card, etc) or two and this is obviously more noticable at lower frame rates.
2) There was something here but I forgot it while typeing number 1 ... I'll probably remember it as soon as I post, in which case I'll edit this one ...
3) Input lag due to desynchronised components. A higher frame rate will decrease the input lag. Jitter due to desynced frame rate and refresh rate falls into this group as well.
4) Psychological factors. I have a higher frame rate therfore it must be smoother ...
Finally, I cannot emphasize enough about jitter being more perceptible than frame rate at high rates. For example, a pattern of two refreshes for the first frame, then one refresh for the second frame will look much worse than if the frame rate was lower but at a constant rate. CS:S seems particularily bad at this, at least on my machine. It does the 2-refresh-1-refresh pattern at 85Hz with certain settings (telling me it has a frame rate of 56Hz), but it feels a lot better if I crank *up* the details a bit more to force it down to a 2-refresh-2-refresh pattern (42.5Hz). It actually even feels BETTER than if I crank the details down to get it up to 85 Hz, as it can do a solid 42.5Hz nearly all the time, but I get dips at 85Hz.
The human mind and eyes are funny things, and it's quite easy to think you're seeing one thing, but in reality are seeing another.
So it may be possible to disable vsync and not get tearing if you tweak your games max fps to match the monitor?Yes, precisely. Vsync should always be disabled if you serious about performance. If you need to cap, cap with the max_fps function in your game regardless of what the display refresh happens to be.
When I used a CRT I ran 125Hz refresh rate and a fps cap of 250fps. It looked and felt great. With the 2005, I run the native resolution 60Hz refresh rate, and cap at 125fps. 250fps looked funky, I don't know that I would go as far as to call it "tearing".
Certainly the speed of CRTs is envious when it comes to gaming. But after a few hours play, I had adjusted to the difference in look and feel that results from the refresh and fps changes--and left with the warm fuzzy feeling inside that the 2005's image quality imparts. I do feel that the 12ms rating of the 2005 is as accurate as any other LCD's rating, and that the 2005 is in general one of the better gaming LCDs to be had.
First of all, nice avatar. Secondly, what you're speaking of is what I would invest my money in... I am going to keep the Dell widescreen though, at least one of the two that I'll have.
As I've mentioned before, and also in agreement with KillrBuckeye, any resolution other than the native is blurry to my eyes... very much.
Thanks I like my avy too.
here is the place i got alot of comprehensive knowledge on the current LCD situation, it had grown alot since i read it last lol, somewhere in this thread is the info on the SCD's or whatver they will be called.
http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/showthread.php?t=71226&highlight=LCD+sticky
QUOTE:
Plans For The Future:
In the near future, LCDs, CRTs, and Plasmas will be replaced by a new tech called SED.
SED (Also called "Surface-conduction Electron-emitter Display") will offer the following specs:
(WARNING: what you are about to see could make you pee your pants).
Response times of 1millisecond or EVEN LOWER!!!
Contrast Ratio of up to 100,000:1 !!!
Viewing angles of up to 160 degrees !!!
Can scale up to 50” of HDTV viewable goodness !!!
Blacks can go as low as 0.003 cd/m2 !!!
Maximum Resolutions will be 1,920x1,080 !!!
Other stuff about SED:
-SED will also offer more vivid colours and blacker blacks
-SED uses 1/3 the power necessary to run a plasma display
-SED is expected to be cheaper than LCDs, but more expensive than plasmas
-Tohsiba and Canon are working together to bring this tech to life
-Tohsiba and Canon have made a new company called SED inc., which will be dedicated to production and manufacturing of SED displays. For more info about SED.inc, follow this link http://www.canon.com/press/p2004sep14.html
-The first 50" SED displays are expected to hit the Japanese market next Spring
-Toshiba will be producing 75,000 displays per month, in 2007
How it works:
Quote:
Originally Posted by geek.com
SED displays work by placing two glass plates next to each other, one with electron emitters and the other with a fluorescent surface. The two panels are sealed so there is a vacuum between them, and a voltage is then applied. This voltage makes one panel emit electrons, which hit the fluorescent surface of the other panel and produce light. The way the technology works means scaling up the size of the screens is very simple, as you just use bigger glass plates and more electrons.
I WANT ONE ! :p
Alchemy1
10-17-05, 07:28 PM
And how much is something like this going to set up back?
And how much is something like this going to set up back?
They'll probably be like $8000 a pop... lol... if not, more
Meathead
10-19-05, 07:25 AM
Says in the article that SED is expected to be cheaper than LCD's so it can't be that expensive.
Okay, so I just hooked up my 2405fpw and replaced my 2005fpw (probably gonna return the 20").
OH MY GOD!!! I didn't think it would seem THAT much bigger, but it is... it just freakin' is, and I'm going crazy. This is the biggest monitor I've ever seen... well, not really but holy crap!
The only thing I noticed is that I get more TEARING with vsync off on this monitor than I did with the 2005fpw.
If anyone wants comparision stuff between the monitors, you better start asking questions now b/c I'm not going to have the 2005 for much longer...
Cisco Kid
10-20-05, 02:28 PM
Okay, so I just hooked up my 2405fpw and replaced my 2005fpw (probably gonna return the 20").
OH MY GOD!!! I didn't think it would seem THAT much bigger, but it is... it just freakin' is, and I'm going crazy. This is the biggest monitor I've ever seen... well, not really but holy crap!
The only thing I noticed is that I get more TEARING with vsync off on this monitor than I did with the 2005fpw.
If anyone wants comparision stuff between the monitors, you better start asking questions now b/c I'm not going to have the 2005 for much longer...
godman, lay the smackdown. I just bought the 2005fpw off 10 days of dell deals here in Canada. Got it for the equal of 500 US shipped. I have sold my 24bit 19" Benq T903 DVI LCD to a buddy to fund the buy.
I have no interest in watching HD on the unit as I have a plasma and prefer to watch from a comfy couch.
I have read this review and found the 2005 is a solid LCD, and for me price is king
http://www.anandtech.com/displays/showdoc.aspx?i=2400
What I wanna know is gaming ability since I wanna move to the 1600x1050 res range over 1280x1024. I feel my current X23800 at 2.6 with a Sapphire X800GTO2 at 545/595 is more than adequate to push my games with detail on at the 1600x1050 res.
I do know that neither the 2004 or 2004 are HDCP compatible. That means that you cannot hook them up to an HDTV cable or satellite box and watch HDTV feeds that are HDCP encrypted.
But I know You CAN hook them to an HDTV box and watch an HDTV feed using component cables.
So if you really want to watch HDTV over DVI on one of these monitors, there are ways to get around HDCP which is good enough for me.
So besides pushing that the 2004 is larger tell me what your experience is with the 2005 and considering price and com,ing from 1280x1024 I think I made a great choice as the gateway here is over $250 canadian with tax more which I just can not justify.
I played video games with the 2005fpw for a whole week, and LOVED IT THE WHOLE TIME! It's money well spent bro. I upgraded from a 21" CRT, and although the 'smoothness' of the CRT is now gone with LCD it was still worth it.
I'm still tinkering with it and trying to see what setting I will be using, definitely the native, but dunno if I want vsync on and less fps or vsync off and more fps. I was used to 100fps vsync enabled for 4 years, and that's hard to let go. I always bought a video card to support my current games at those framerates and now I'm making the sacrifice for LCD.
Dude, widescreen is just so leet I can't even begin to tell you. This was money well spent for me.
The only thing I have to figure out now is what to do with the 20"... I have the 24" now set up for my main rig, should I keep the 20" or what? I put the 21" crt with my intel rig, and I think it's pointless to have two widescreens...
grrr... no clue.
So happy you're on the widescreen era with me, bro! Lemme know how it works out, and yes the high res is clutch!
Seven7Thirty30
10-20-05, 03:02 PM
I watch HDTV and DVD movies on my 24" and the picture looks fantastic from my bed (about 10 feet away). I couldn't be happier...actually...I could if the monitor was fitted with an HDCP compliant HDMI port. Oh well.
Do you have a DVD player hooked up directly to it?
What's the best way to play DVDs on this monitor? I feel like it doesn't look AS NICE AS IT COULD through powerdvd/win media dvd.
How do you hook HDTV up to it, and what's HDCP compliant HDMI port.
God, I'm such a newb... dunno diddly!
Cisco Kid
10-20-05, 03:32 PM
I watch HDTV and DVD movies on my 24" and the picture looks fantastic from my bed (about 10 feet away). I couldn't be happier...actually...I could if the monitor was fitted with an HDCP compliant HDMI port. Oh well.
WOW 10 ft is too far away or you have eyes like a hawk but truly is to far as my 42" plasma is best viewed at 10 ft max and best at approx 8 ft.
Explain how you have dvd hooked up and whether you are using the component method for your HDTV viewing.
Since I have Bell HD at home I can always get a receiver if the component method to watch it will work. I also know you can actually use a component-to-VGA (15-pin D-sub) cable and watch HD content in this manner. Not the best method similar to using a 15-pin D-sub cables for regular computer use.
I know you are on the 24" but method will be same for the 20". Last what is the best calibration software, in the review I linked they use ColorVision Spyder , any feedback on something that is free and good?
#1 - I'm now lost in conversation... I dunno this stuff, but I'm trying to learn what you guys speak of, so that I can try some high-quality TV on mine :)
#2 - what video card you got now, cisco buddy? BFG what? 7800gt, gtx?
Cisco Kid
10-20-05, 03:52 PM
#1 - I'm now lost in conversation... I dunno this stuff, but I'm trying to learn what you guys speak of, so that I can try some high-quality TV on mine :)
#2 - what video card you got now, cisco buddy? BFG what? 7800gt, gtx?
I have 7800GT and Sapphire X800GTO2
I have just come across and Acer 1916W 1440x900 wide @ $350 Canadian, that is a great deal but I do not know if the native res is a very useful of if this will be an issue. Can not find any info on it , look to be very new
ACER - AL1916W-19 TFT LCD WIDE, 500:1,BLACK
AL1916W - 19 TFT LCD WIDE, 500:1 CONTRAST RATIO, 300 CD/M2 BRIGHTNESS, 8MS RESPONSE TIME, 1440 X 900, 150 DEGREE HORIZONTAL VIEW ANGLE, 130 DEGREE VERTICAL VIEW ANGLE, BLACK, INTERNAL POWER ADAPTER
This is looking to be about 225 canadian less than the dell I bought but can it even be compared??
I just saw a 27" viewsonic wide on newegg for like high 700s shipped... I was ****ed at first, but then I realized how freakin' low the resolution was on it.
The Dell has a higher resolution than what you're showing, and has a higher ratio... the only thing about the one you showed me is that it's 8ms and not 12ms like the Dell.
I dunno, bro... I haven't seen anyone on OCF with a different brand widescreen other than Dell so far...
Cisco Kid
10-20-05, 05:10 PM
I just saw a 27" viewsonic wide on newegg for like high 700s shipped... I was ****ed at first, but then I realized how freakin' low the resolution was on it.
The Dell has a higher resolution than what you're showing, and has a higher ratio... the only thing about the one you showed me is that it's 8ms and not 12ms like the Dell.
I dunno, bro... I haven't seen anyone on OCF with a different brand widescreen other than Dell so far...
The viewsonic is a good HDTV LCD but it is limited to 1280x1024 for gaming I beleive, you can buy it at Costco who has the best return policy. A better HDTV LCD is the 32" Daytek which is just excellent and it can do 13xx7xx or 9xx but takes some fiddling but both these units are HDTV ready. There is a diff. I bought the Daytek for a home HDTV as well but it was too small so I returned it and got their 4202 plamsa 42" for home theatre.
I am just hoping to see some feedback on the Acer 19" as from what I have read if you go wide you wanna do 20"+ for the higher native res, I have no clue what you can do with 1440x900
As far as I see the Dell is great with 12ms and the native res of 1600x1050 or 1080. That Acer is also a WXGA+ screen vs the Dell WXGA so the Acer may have a tiny edge there.
http://www.campus-technology.com/print.asp?ID=11816
I dunno wtf TFT and WXGA mean... I'm just like "Oh Dell on sale? The one everyone thinks is AWESOME!! I'M ON IT!!"
That's how I bought it, lol...
{PMS}fishy
10-20-05, 06:08 PM
Just got my 2405fpw in. I don't know what the heck g0m@n is talking about. This thing rules.
No ghosting, easy on the eyes.
Out of the box it needs some tweaking, the brightness is a bit too high, and the colors are off just a bit.
Other than that, blacks look black, and there is no backlight bleed.
No dead pixels that I can see, but we will see if any develop.
Just got my 2405fpw in. I don't know what the heck g0m@n is talking about. This thing rules.
Huh? What did I complain about? If I complained about anything, it's the fact that you can't break 60fps vsync on on an LCD.... my eyes are used to 100fps solid with vsync on, but I'm trying to get used to this...
definitely something i'm going to keep.
Seven7Thirty30
10-20-05, 09:55 PM
Do you have a DVD player hooked up directly to it?
What's the best way to play DVDs on this monitor? I feel like it doesn't look AS NICE AS IT COULD through powerdvd/win media dvd.
How do you hook HDTV up to it, and what's HDCP compliant HDMI port.
God, I'm such a newb... dunno diddly!
I get HDTV through my cable company. I have an HD Tuner/Cable box and DVD player built into the same unit. It's connected to the monitor via component cables. You can hook up a DVD player in the same manner. It definitely looks better than Windows Media Player.
Do a google search on HDCP, it will affect your life sooner or later.
Cisco Kid
10-21-05, 12:32 AM
I get HDTV through my cable company. I have an HD Tuner/Cable box and DVD player built into the same unit. It's connected to the monitor via component cables. You can hook up a DVD player in the same manner. It definitely looks better than Windows Media Player.
Do a google search on HDCP, it will affect your life sooner or later.
This is sweet, so a better method than using power dvd for dvd's via my DVDRW is to connect the svideo from the video card direct to the LCD S Video in. But can one also have the DVI plugged in to the LCD as well at same time and toggle between the 2 connections.
I guess what I am asking since the 2005 lacks component to watch a dvd would the dvd appear better when played via the DVDrw drive in the pc if it is output to the LCD via Svideo or is it gonna look the same if you just run it normally through the DVI connection??
I am not bringing the HD box into the equations yet. I looked at the Gateway here in Canada at Futureshop. The best deal they can give me is $830 (700US approx) tax in Canadian vs the 625 (500 US) shipped I paid for the Dell 2005. The Gateway is 21" and offers HDCP and has DcDi Faroudja technology and it pivots 90 as well as adjusts up and down and has component.
But I just can not justify $200 more (165US)
Seven7Thirty30
10-21-05, 07:20 PM
This is sweet, so a better method than using power dvd for dvd's via my DVDRW is to connect the svideo from the video card direct to the LCD S Video in. But can one also have the DVI plugged in to the LCD as well at same time and toggle between the 2 connections.
I guess what I am asking since the 2005 lacks component to watch a dvd would the dvd appear better when played via the DVDrw drive in the pc if it is output to the LCD via Svideo or is it gonna look the same if you just run it normally through the DVI connection??
You could have both the S-Video and DVI plugged in at the same time, but if you played video on your DVD drive the picture would be sent through both connections. Then you could change between the two via the monitor. But why would you want to do that? DVI is a better and higher quality connection than S-Video.
Cisco Kid
10-22-05, 03:53 AM
You could have both the S-Video and DVI plugged in at the same time, but if you played video on your DVD drive the picture would be sent through both connections. Then you could change between the two via the monitor. But why would you want to do that? DVI is a better and higher quality connection than S-Video.
confirmed , as I was asking not telling, I just am trying to figure out where I can go with the 2005 as I looked at the Gateway but you know what I can not justify the extra cost cause I will not be watching HD on a 20" set, as I have another source I would prefer to watch HD on
autolex84
10-22-05, 03:01 PM
i'll buy whichever one you decide not to use, LOL!
Henrik2k
10-24-05, 05:24 PM
@ deception: Awesome post! :)
I am a hardcore gamer, but after playing with the 2005fpw for a few days I know like it. The widescreen, and the picture quality have caught my eye. I now play with 100fps and vsync off. I'm starting to get used to it. My 21" CRT is still in my room, just on my other PC.
When you look at the monitors next to each other, you can tell taht the 2005fpw looks like pure quality.
My 2405fpw arrives in CT tomorrow (I live in NY). I dunno when, but maybe sometime this week I'll visit my gf's parents (where it's going in CT) and I'll pick it up. I'm so eager to see how much better the 24" model is than the 20".
If I don't find a buyer for equal amount or profit on my 20", then it's going back to Dell (assuming I'm going to want to keep the 24" over the 20").
Thanks for your input deception, and by the way... I hope you all know that everytime someone explained vsync and tearing to me, I already knew. I guess everyone misunderstood my questions.
My main question was why would there be a refresh rate option if LCDs are all about response times... but I guess it's just a setting just in case someone wants to use vsync.
I wonder what would happen if I override the refresh rate a bit; not that I would, but I wonder if it will burn out or actually work well up to a certain point. When I get rich I'll try... unless someone has already and the info is up floating around in cyberspace.
Have you got ur 2405FPW yet ? Im about to buy one as well. But im also a hard core games and I think fps and correct display without blurry images is important. I mean this dell monitor has 1930x1200 native res. and I like to play cs in 1280x1024 would this stretch the image alot and make it blurry or what happens ? It is better to get another lcd with lower res native? I got a benq tft 19" 8ms that is exelent in games but I want a bigger monitor.
I also read a rewiev from tomshardware on this monitor http://graphics.tomshardware.com/display/20050706/professional_lcd-12.html Where it says its not suited for games ?!?
Does this mean I cant get a lcd 24" to play with ? Am I stuck with 19" for best performance ? I mean that sux.. Its to small I think..
Thanks guys !
vBulletin® v3.8.4, Copyright ©2000-2009, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.