[geeks] LCD display options

[Charles Shannon Hendrix]

Joshua Boyd wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 23, 2005 at 12:36:40AM -0500, velociraptor wrote:
>> On Tue, 22 Feb 2005 21:36:57 -0500, Kurt Huhn <kurt at k-huhn.com> wrote:
>> > I'm lookingto get a couple LCD monitors fairly soon here to replace a
>> > couple failing CRTs.  I need 17" at a minimum.  Any suggestions?
>> > Budget is limited to under $300 each.
>> 
>> If you are planning on any gaming at all on these, pay attention to
>> pixel refresh rate and go for the lowest you can afford.  You will likely
>> have to search for that on-line; few of the boxes/signs on products in
>> stores have this listed in my experience.
> 
> Pixel refresh rate?  LCDs don't need to refresh.  They just hold the
> image until the next comes along.
> 
> I thought the thing for LCDs was the pixel response time.  I wouldn't
> expect better than 16ms on an affordable LCD.  If your display can take
> a 72hz signal, but still only has a 16ms response time, you haven't
> gained anything over running it at 60hz, display quality wise. 

True, it is the pixel response time that matters.

Pixel response time implies a maximum effective screen update rate for a 
given LCD monitor.  For example with a 16ms LCD, you have a maximum of 
around 60 frames-per-second.  I assume that an LCD can update the entire 
screen just as fast as a small part of it.  In some games, you can 
greatly reduce blurring and other artifacts with faster FPS, which is 
why gamers tend to dislike low-end LCD monitors.

Input frequency is a different animal.  You only need to worry about 
that when you are using an analog video card.  The signal must be 
converted, and the circuitry of most LCD monitors does best if the input 
signal is 60Hz, at least most manuals say it does.

The real deal of course is that you want to avoid using analog video 
with an LCD if you can.  An LCD driven by DVI looks a lot better.