Been looking around, so far the cheapest are:

BenQ 24" G2410HD 23.6" Full HD Widescreen LCD Monitor - $275

23.6” 5ms DVI Acer X243HQ Full HD - $295



I don't really know about tech specs other than resolution, refresh rate and contrast ratio.


What do you think are some good ones?

Umm i dont know too much but... E2400 HD
Its full HD 1920 * 1080p rez

how much is it?

the dell 2209WA is the best screen you can get in my opinion. costs around 400 (350 when dell has a deal on) but its eIPS so you're getting your monies worth. It makes all my other monitors look like absolute shit.

http://www.cnet.com.au/dell-2209wa-339294389.htm

as soon as the 50$ off deal is back on, im getting another 2 of them.

also depends on comps specs cause u will loose frames too... i would recommend a 21" screen personally... and how many ms its displaying soforth

1680 screens look better then full HD imo as the image is sampled down.

whats the reason for this monitor, are you really i need of one that size for work or are you lookingforward to spendingalot of dosh in upgrading your PC to run the spcs required for that pc, in my opinion stay at 21- 22 inch

id suggest nothing bigger than 22" , go for BenQ again if you want the cheapest and that is still good. ive got BenQ's and they are great


though a 24" for $275 is a pretty good deal, any others are gonna be pretty damn expensive.
though make sure your cpu has alot of grunt because HD screens take away quite alot of frames when you play games.

Currently using a Samsung 245B+, great screen. Current models are the 2233/2243.

The Acer one you mentioned is going for around $250 @ MSY after cashback. Probably worth having a look at.

LilbootsFTW wrote:

whats the reason for this monitor, are you really i need of one that size for work or are you lookingforward to spendingalot of dosh in upgrading your PC to run the spcs required for that pc, in my opinion stay at 21- 22 inch

I'm buying an i7 rig, and don't have a tv, so I was thinking it could double as my tv. I have a projector, but it's a hassle setting up when i just want to watch one show or something.

So HD is bad?

its not bad. but its not great. its gonna cost you frames, for a resolution very few things support. your better off with a step down in resolution and the very few things that display it will look even better in quality coz they are sampled down.

https://clanftw.forumotion.net/multimedia-f40/i3-1080p-rips-t1032.htm

thats a 1080 bluray rip of transformers and thats fucking awesome quality and it fits perfectly into a 1680x1050 screen.

HD is only good for things that are displayed in HD. your monitor will be able to support a ridiculously high res, but that means you'll lose frames in games. and being HD uses more processing power apparently, making you lose frames.


however if youre like me with an xbox 360 (or something), i plug that into my HDMI monitor, and my other 22" which isn't HDMI i run crysis on. the difference for me between the non HD and HD monitor is about 20 frames loss on HD.


both my monitors cost about $250 when i got them a while back now, (probs exactly $239 each or something like that) so for a little over the cost of a good 24" i got two 22", one with HDMI and one without.
they are probably cheaper now if you can get a 24" for $275

GazzFTW wrote:

also depends on comps specs cause u will loose frames too... i would recommend a 21" screen personally... and how many ms its displaying soforth

How much does ms play on a 22 inch screen ? I've only ever owned the 1 lcd. It's an asus mw221 with ms = 2 ?
And it's been back to repair about 3-4 times too, however, asus have an amazing repair policy.
Home pickup and delivery by their couriers and paid for by them too. Complete hassle free (except for the fact it needed repair about 4 times in 2yrs !!!

most screens are ms 5, ms 2 costs more. dont really notice though unless youre a freak.

the 2ms is the lag time the monitor takes to show the display on the screen, NOT the refresh rate. Anything less than 10ms is wasted on the human eye and 25ms is sufficient for general use. There is no point getting anything much faster than that cos the refresh rate is limited by the firmware at 60fps on most monitors. Most monitors run at 5ms and theres LITERALLY NO POINT getting 2ms hardware. The extra ms are just a way of marketing the screen.

yep, the ms rating is the fade time of a pixel to change from one colour to another if im correct? hz/refresh rate has nothing to do with it.

Just so you know "HD" is just a nick name for 1920x1080 resolution. Your performance loss when running on the "HD" monitor is nothing to do with "HD" itself, just the fact that the GPU has to display the image at 1920x1080, instead of 1680x1050 resolution. I run 1920x1200 on my 24", even my 8800GT could somewhat handle it in most games, but the 4870 fair stomped on it at that resolution. Basically, if you can't run 1920x1200 comfortably, you should probably think about upgrading your GPU

Spot on the money with the MS thing there Clerk. Fuckin irritates me listening to people yammer on about how they can see the difference between 2ms and 5ms. I wonder if they've seen God while they were at it.

Thanks for that shin, i wasn't really sure what HD meant. The other guys were turning me off 24", but seeing as it's the resolution and i'll have a decent video card, i should be ok. I think i'll get that acer one at MSY, it seems like great value.

SHINSSS plz explain y my monitors which run at the same res, have a 20 frame diff between them on crysis?
=[


1680x1050
DVI

If they're both running at 1680x1050 then there shouldn't be any difference in frame rate. The only thing monitors are capable of is post processing adjustments, like Samsung's "MagicBright" or BenQ's "Senseye", they're all engines that run off the monitor to further enhance an image, but have absolutely zero impact on the frame rate you'd get in game.

You'll notice both the E2200HD and the 2233SW feature "FullHD" and both have a maximum, and native resolution of 1920x1080 pixels. If you're getting a frame rate difference it would have to be because one monitor is running higher resolution. In saying that, if you are running your "HD" monitor at "HD" spec, then you are infact running it at 1920x1080 resolution, explaining your FPS difference.

at this point id also like to add in that you should all be using your monitor's manufacturer's correct ICC profiles. I spent days calibrating my 2209WA and the color you can get out of those screens has to be seen to be believed.

i would also like to add once again, that shin is the hottest busted-eye chick i've seen since Feb 2008.

*looks sheepish* actually i may have been running my HD monitor at a higher res
fuckin whoever said its cause its an HDMI screen and i believed im gonna smack over the head


thats like quacks telling me to smack the shit out of my computer because the fans were fucking up over TS

Quacks: you gotta fuckin give it a good whack mate none of this pussy shit, fucking hit the thing. i always do it always helps
Dog: *WHACK WHACK WHACK* ... i don't think it's changed much..
Everyone else: *laughing*



btw trae, youtube 'boxxy' and youll meet the girl of shins DP..
very on crack, very 12 years old, very annoying, very should die in a fire.

HAHAHAA i love her!!

ok trae, im very seriously starting to doubt your dp has you in it at all, for if you were in the company of those lovely lass' then compared to boxxy you wouldnt:

TraeliumFAG wrote:

HAHAHAA i love her!!

rofl

haha i think shed be great fun at a party.

Party............... IN MY PANTS!!!!!!!!11!!1!eleven.

/me walks off

*throws up a little*

lol, nice and on topic..

Still haven't decided, probably going for a 24" atm. Probably get the Acer one from MSY cause i'm cheap, and it's cheap so it should be good

well yeah its up to you man, a 24" under $300 is a good deal imo
and if your comp can handle it then theres no problems. just remember bigger res = more resources used.