View Full Version : Advice needed!!! i'm looking to by a new monitor i have a 9800 pro card....
12-03-2003, 06:04 PM
What would be the best monitor (I don't mean brand) however i am looking into the samsung 19' monitor crt flat. Which resolution would i run fs9 at. I know ati 9800 pro covers alot of res. modes but i'm a newbie when it comes to getting a new monitor with a powerful video card. I want lots of eye candy. Any help whatsoever please. Thanks!
12-03-2003, 07:08 PM
Well...depending on what your other specs of your rig are (i.e. CPU, RAM, etc...) you may be able to run at 1280x1024 or (if you are very lucky) 1600x1200. I am running mine at 1280x1024 and have maybe lost 1-2 fps versus 1024x768. I am now averaging 18-22fps with everything maxed, but with clear weather. I believe that a 19" monitor will go upto 1600x1200, but don't quote me on that.
What you want to look for is the contrast ratio (white to black) and dot pitch. The smaller the pixels, the better quality the picture will look and the better the contrast ratio (i.e. 600:1 is better than 300:1) means that the colors will be crisper and brighter. You also want to look at the actual size vs. the viewable size. Usually, when they say 19", that means they are 19" diagonally from end to end of the physical monitor, but the viewable size is 18". What version of the Samsung 19" were you looking at?
The entire 900-series from Samsung I believe has .2mm dot pitch, but no mention of contrast. They also say that their max resolution is 1600x1200 @ 68Hz, but recommended 1280x1024 @ 75Hz. This Hz is the vertical frequency. The higher the frequency, the "cleaner and sharper" the image. You can, however change the frequency for any given resolution as long as your video card and monitor can support them. Sometimes, depending on the way the monitors are manufactured, lower frequencies at higher resolutions still produce really good pictures.
Hope this helps!
12-03-2003, 07:16 PM
it would be between the 955df or the 957mb. I'm really not sure between the 2. Thanks for your info it did help. :) My other specs are 1 gig ram p4 3.0. does attaching another monitor make a difference to my video card quality, logically it will have to share with both monitors?
12-03-2003, 07:21 PM
Both excellent models. I am not sure what the difference between the DynaFlat and MagicBright types are because they are proprietary to Samsung. However, The 957MB does offer a higher resolution so that is good. But, sometimes running a game at that high of a resolution could cause lower performance depending on the rest of you system specs. You are basically trading off quality for performance.
Well...apparently you added your specs while I was replying, so I would go with the 957MB, but run the game at either 1280x1024 or 1600x1200. I am running the game at 1280x1024 like I said with a AMD XP 2600+ with 1GB DDR400 RAM with a 19" Flat LCD from Dell. I also have a FX5900 Ultra 256MB vid card.
Adding a second monitor will not affect quality, but WILL affect performance. So, lower FPS. Do a search in the forums for "second monitor" or "multiple monitors". There have been many people who asked this same question.
12-03-2003, 08:10 PM
The 957mb runs at a higher res. but will i ever use the high res if it would cut performance, will it help my viewing experience that much more having a higher res capable monitor??? I'm just trying to understand all this before i buy, i'll check the price difference between the 2 as well. it reaches 1920x1440 the 957mb.
12-04-2003, 06:31 AM
Do not get the 18" Sony Flat Panel Monitor SDMX82 because it will not let you change the frequency rates. It is locked at 60.
Also, it takes forever for the drivers to load and it does a self test at startup that takes about 4 minutes to load up- never seen anything like it.
Good picture is only good part.
12-04-2003, 10:30 AM
You might want to look at Viewsonic's Professional Series, they have several monitors that are really nice. NEC also has good monitors, great color but some lack image detail.
12-04-2003, 12:38 PM
Higher res usually means better quality pictures. The resolution means the amount of pixels horizonal x amount of pixels vertical. Thus 1024x768 means 1024 pixels across x 768 pixels down and 1600x1200 means 1600 pixels across x 1200 pixels down. The more pixels the better the quality of the picture. Of course since there are more pixels that need to be rendered and displayed, the performace would decrease. It also as a result, may make things smaller. Especially on the desktop. That is why a 19" monitor at 1280x1024 is better than a 17" at that same resolution. I personally would just stick with 1024x768 or 1280x1024 at highest. Anything higher would require massive processing power to keep the performace decent and the visual quality is not that much better. I would only go higher if you had a 21" or better.
FYI...NTSC television signals (not High-definition) is 640x480 and I believe PAL is 720 x 576. That's why their picture is more clearer.
12-04-2003, 05:48 PM
Thanks you were great help. I'm gonna settle with the 19' 955df it's highest capable is 1600x1200x32 but like you said i'll want to run it lower than that. Of course i want eye candy but i will not settle for loosing performance. Anyway anything is better than my 15' 800x600x32 :)
12-05-2003, 12:48 PM
I just purchased the Viewsonic E90fb, 18inch viewable, flat screen. I love it! Beautiful, crisp, great clarity...wide range of resolutions and refresh rates..decent price too! :7
AMD Athlon XP3000+
ASUS A7N8X nvidia nforce2 mobo
ATI Radeon 9600 pro, 128mb
512 PC3200 ddr
12-06-2003, 09:20 PM
I have a Samsung SyncMaster 950p 19", and I can reach resolutions well over 1600x1200x32. Good choice for a monitor IMO.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.0 Copyright © 2013 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.