Dunno about that Samsung monitor, but if you are happy with the picture quality of your CRT and you don't mind the bigger space required and the extra 60W it eats (2 Euro + / month), I suggest you avoid TN "pro-gamer" gimmicks.

But if your CRT IS already old and blurry, and you are ok with the price, well, I guess you can update than, it's a well accepted model with a large service background and it will display everything;) (1-2 frame(s) later, which is negligible).

Ye i think so but i heard CRT is more smoother than that LCD because of RESPONSE TIME. LCD is 2 ms and CRT is between 0 ms - 1 ms.

And can i get answers for my other questions too, please?

Well, i wrote a post about this some time ago but I (google) can't find it anymore (wtf?). This is a very deep subject and hard to cover in a post.

0, 2 or 5ms doesn't really matter, they are still happening faster than 1 frame of the game, so they are just visual artifacts when things change fast on the screen (e.g: blur, trail, etc). And that 2ms is not really 2ms because that's only the best scenario. It's just a marketing thing, you shouldn't pay attention to that, and those numbers differ with different LCD panel technologies anyway (e.g.: an IPS panel with a 6-8ms response time will produce the same amount of trails what a 3-4 ms TN panel would do with its much worse image quality.

TN panels are based on a very outdated technology and monitors using them (like the 2233RZ) have almost just as high response times as expensive IPS or PVA panels have, but they add some extra accelerator circuits to speed things up at the expense of color clarity and depth.

here is the wiki about response time in display technologies.

The 2233RZ has a (average) 15ms input lag (which tells how much time do you have to wait until the picture (frame) - sent by your video card - appears on the screen), so if your game is running at 120fps, you will see things approx 2 frames later so it's really nothing.

thx for it too, and what do you say about resolution/refresh rate?

which one should i use?

160 is maximum for me but i run slow and jump slow too, its like slow motion.

I don't feel the difference above 125Hz tbh, which is enough for me. 100 is not enough, but 125 feels superfluid. Sometimes I think I feel 144 smoother, but imo it's just placebo and there is not many game what my system could run with such a high fps anyway. Some QW player told me they feel the difference even at 200hz, guess my rusty brain is not fast enough for that:)

Just test things, and find the settings what suits you the best, what feels the most comfortable. Atm, I playing quake at 1024x768@125Hz and it's smooth as f**k:D

edit1.: perhaps make a 960x720@125Hz custom res, that would do just fine, and if you only make a 125Hz version of that resolution, all the 60hz locked shits will also run 125Hz if you switch that res in the game:)

edit2.: dont understand what's slow. Are you sure vsync is OFF?

in counter strike, half-life games

i walk slow, jump slow.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E8wNZYnBpxQ

think 160 fps version of it.

vinkieee's post didn't help?

it did but man you know the difference between 100 and 120-160 :(

feel choppy @100

Things are not that fast in CS. I doubt that anything can move enough unit to feel the difference between 100 vs 120, but since I'm not a fun of that game (didn't play the new one so dunno about that), I have no clue if the 100Hz is mandatory or you can use higher values while keeping the fps at 100.I'm sorry:(

But if you ask in the CS forum, I'm sure they will help, and about q3/ql, it's best at 125Hz for sure:)

i get tearing with 100, image is not correct, what to do?

As I said, ESReality has a CS forum, I'm sure they can help.

"developer debug console messages" its not a command u should use.. its even a illegal command so...

cs doesnt go higher then 100fps, if u have tearing u should lower AA and AF in your videocard driver menu.. vsync off..

"AND Can someone explain me RESPONSE TIME DIFFERENCE between new LCD's and my CRT?"


Sure. The fastest any manufacturer would ever claim their LCD monitor to be is 2ms gray to gray. CRTs are much faster than that, as CRT pixel response time is measured in nanoseconds.

OK, i got my answer for that question too, and last problem is;

Second problem is;

I bought a 997MB for 6€. Its clean and working well.

There are some refresh rate options for this monitor. I couldn't decide which one to choose.

640x480 - 160 HZ
800x600 - max. 147 HZ (overclock w/ PowerStrip) 140 normal
1024x768 - max 118 hz (overclock w/ PowerStrip) 100 normal

I play Quake, Counter-Strike, Left 4 Dead and Adrenaline Gamer(Half -Life)

160 hz is more smoother than 120 in CS. ( with developer 1 and fps_max 161)

BUT I walk so slow and jump slow too. Its like slow-motion.

I would like to use 1024x768,

BUT It is a bit choppy coz 118 hz or 100

So, what do you recommend me to use?

I personally use 800x600@120hz, but my monitor can do 140hz at that rez, just don't want to kill my CRT too fast.

i overclocked the monitor with PowerStrip,

maximum hz of 1024x768 is 100 but i use it with 120,147 hz atm

so is it a problem? it works well.

that will shorten the life of the monitor

How so? It is within the specs of the monitor, so it should work fine?

On the other hand I had numerous old crt die on me on which I maxed out the screen refresh so that would explain the short life span....

is it 19"?

yes

I recommend 800x600 at 120 hz. 140 hz is not needed so no need to tear on your monitor by using unnecessary high refresh rate. 100 hz is alright but I would any day pick a bit lower resolution and get 120 hz instead. Remember to play with r_displayrefresh 120.

one has more megabytes than the other

Stay with the crt screen. Disable vsync.

Can you guys explain my RESO/HZ question too?

What exactly do you want to have explained? Quake you play at 120Hz and 125 FPS, you obviously use the resolution that can manage it on your CRT without buring it down too fast. For CS you use 100Hz 100FPS, again you use the resolution that can handle it without buring your screen.

Quake: 800x600 @ 120Hz

CS 1.6: 800x600 @ 100 Hz or 1024x768 @ 100 Hz

Everything below 100 is too choppy and everything above 120 is useless. Got it?

yep, thx.

everything above 120 is useless,,,,,

NO.

For non QW-Player with Infrared eyes... YES! :)

Almost any human can notice the difference between playing at 120fps and 240fps and since a human can technically keep up with 240fps+, so having an equal refresh rate would be beneficial.

you know why you used 125 fps in Quake 3 right? Because you couldn't do certain jumps without his fps-rate. Everything above is/was not usefull, and by the way. I don't see a big difference from 125 FPS onwards in QW, Q3A, Warsow and Xonotic :). I'm pretty sure that people who say 140Hz and >125 FPS is waaaaay more smother to play only make it up (placebo-effect).

eh going past 125 broke q3's physics especially at 333fps ( max jump height ) if it didn't I'm sure people would feel a difference and switch and in cpma servers automatically set you back to 125fps.

also go in warsow cl_maxfps 660 and play for ten minutes and the go back to 125.

what is "placebo" mate?

Something that you feel happening that's not happening only because you believe in it.

If fps and screen refresh are not synched it is indeed like that, more is always better in that case.

Before you make wild assumptions like 'placebo' you should make shure by trying it first? There is a huge difference between 100, 120 and 140 hz screen refresh, with q3/ql. If you can't see it that does not necessarily mean it is not there, it could also mean you can't see it because of som physical limitation or lack of experience.

Where did I make a wilde assumption? I played Q3 on a CRT for some hours (120 Hz 125FPS) and I play QL on TFT (60Hz 125FPS) and even with this huge technical-difference the difference in feeling was pertty low. Played W§W with 400 FPS and don't see any difference between it and playing on 125. No assumptions just my own experience.

I meant the placebo effect in itself is a wild assumption, easy to assume but tough to prove..

I cannot argue with your feeling, but I say it is very wrong to generalize from that as I see a HUGE difference with changing refresh rate for example

if you can't tell the difference between a high end crt and a 60hz TFT there's something wrong

Where did you read that out?

"I played Q3 on a CRT for some hours (120 Hz 125FPS) and I play QL on TFT (60Hz 125FPS) and even with this huge technical-difference the difference in feeling was pertty low"


right there

and if you couldn't tell the difference between 125 and 400 fps on warsow, you're not very good.

It was low not nonexistent :). Maybe it's just me being bad or my setup but there wasnt something like "whoa this is so smooth I now can hit 30% lg", so in my opinion it wasn't a huge difference. And no there is definitely no difference between 400 and 125 FPS in W§W (for me) I'm quite sure.

It may be harder to spot in duel, but I assure you if you played defrag/race maps you'd see it more easily, and after you're used to that you'd see it in dm gametypes, too.

Playing Duel ever since in War§ow so can't tell you anything about Race :).

its slow because u use developer 1 command in cs...
100hz and 100 fps in cs is enough, for cs set this in launch options
-freq 100

I have 2233rz, it's really great monitor. If I where you I was going to invest in the future... 120Hz lcd, I think you will have better overall experience(after all, you don't play only quake).

that's what dual monitors are for

and why you should do that if one of them(the compact one) is good enough for quake and better for the modern games?

yeah i have a samsung 2233rz and a viewsonic P225F this is a 22" crt that i can play 1024x768 @ 150 hz wich is really great, truth is do I feel any difference from one or another that will make you loose accuracy and the answer is no :D

In QW its nicer to play with the crt wich "feels" smoother but its not that you miss anything really.

Feel free to ask anything that i may help you with

Leave your CRT for gaming purposes and get IPS-panel monitor for everything else. TN+Film is just awful.

surely, it feels nice to have 160hz instead of 120hz but really 120hz, 125fps is fine as it is.

and a crt still feels smother than an lcd. there is still a difference - i played with a couple of tfts and when I go back to my crt its just pure bliss. only thing that i hate is the shitty resolution and colors in windows.

hence: gaming + crt; windows + tft = and ur good to go.

Get powerstrip and make a custom video mode for the resolution. You can set custom Hz that way and can get 125 Hz @ 800x600. 125 - 125 ez?????

I have a 997MB and a 2233rz.

I have been playing with my Syncmaster 997MB for years (quake, painkliller, cs, tf2). It's indeed a great monitor and it feels great to play in such high refresh rates (160Hz, 140Hz ...) when it's synchronised to your fps cap.

I used to have a negative opinion on LCDs before but I bought a 2233rz some months ago and it's just perfect. I just can't get back to my CRT now.

I haven't compared for CS, but for Quake and every game I play it's just fine, you get use to it very quickly and it's way less tiring for eyes. I didn't have to change my sens or anything in the CFG to adapt.

The problem you have with LCDs is when you don't use the native resolution, it's a bit blurry, but honestly not disturbing (I play QL in 800*600, with black stripes).

Anyway trying to reach the highest refresh rate possible is not necessarily the key.

why do you prefer 800x600 if you can play with 1680x1050

Well, I have tried and I just didn't like it...

Having black stripes around the actual image is called "Swedish Edges" in Germany (Schwedenrand or Schwedenbalken), but don't ask me why. :)

Thats because most black strippers in germany are swedish.

best reply 2011

What monitor do you have to have to have 120hz@1024x768 (LCD)? My EIZO 17 is slowly getting darker and darker and I had it for like ~12 years already. So if it dies, what should I look for in the near future? (I don't know anything about monitors)

Depends on what you want. Do you want the least input lag or do you want just an okay'ish monitor for gaming but with splendid colours? How much money do you want to invest? Given you've had an EIZO before, I assume you're looking for an IPS panel. But I've never had the opportunity to play on one, so I can't help you out with these.

The 2233rz is one of the best gaming monitors in relation to its price. It's cheap and belongs to the quickest TN panels. But the colour quality is below average (for TN, that is) and it uses one of the early widescreen aspect ratios for LCDs, 1680x1050 (8:5).

I myself have an BenQ XL2410T and I'm very satisfied with it. But I use it mainly for playing, so I don't care too much about the bleeding and the corona (ghosting) I get when playing in 120Hz mode. There's a revision of that model, XL2420T, I guess. But I don't know about that one.

thanks

I own both and the CRT is smoother (in quake 120hz feels smoother than 160 tho) but saying that you get use to the 2233rz fairly quickly! the difference isn't that big!

I never understood anything about screens, hz, and their consequences. Still don't. Never will.

if you read all this page. you will learn everything already. and just try different options with your monitor

I love the 2233rz. The input lag is noticeable, but really minor. (I switched from a CRT, but I got used to the lag after a hour or so) It's not like I'm a pro gamer or anything. I can now play all games at 120hz and decent resolutions. It's very enjoyable.