Q. is there any reccomended viedo cards i should buy with this size of monitor?
A. 32" lcd monitor, not a tv/monitor, should have a higher resolution than your typical 17" monitor. However, this doesn't mean that things will necessarily look better.
in fact, it may do the opposite because your video card will have to work harder to display at a higher resolution, therefore making everything pretty choppy.
not to mention that everything will be HUGE in comparison.
it will look just as good with the same resolution when you look at it from a distance. that's really the big advantage of having a bigger monitor - that you can see it better from a longer distance.
as far as quality of the image is concerned, that all varies on your pc equipment. if you upgrade your PC with a high end video card, it might look much better. in general, it will make it look just as good or possibly a bit worse.
as far as recommendations are concerned, i would get an nvidia 8800 class video card or higher if you plan on using it with the maximum resolution that your lcd monitor will support. trust me, it'll slow down significantly once you boost your video resolution up.
in fact, it may do the opposite because your video card will have to work harder to display at a higher resolution, therefore making everything pretty choppy.
not to mention that everything will be HUGE in comparison.
it will look just as good with the same resolution when you look at it from a distance. that's really the big advantage of having a bigger monitor - that you can see it better from a longer distance.
as far as quality of the image is concerned, that all varies on your pc equipment. if you upgrade your PC with a high end video card, it might look much better. in general, it will make it look just as good or possibly a bit worse.
as far as recommendations are concerned, i would get an nvidia 8800 class video card or higher if you plan on using it with the maximum resolution that your lcd monitor will support. trust me, it'll slow down significantly once you boost your video resolution up.
does Refresh Rate really important when buying a lcd monitor of 23 or 24 inch for watching movies and games ?
Q. i wanna buy a LCD-monitor for my PC. i researched on a few things before buying. but I'm confused with refresh rate of LCD-moniters. some experts say that 85 Hz for 24-inch size is best and more than this it will not be a good thing but will result in a bad display. some say that 120 hz is new and best refresh rate for good picture clarity and for movies n video games.... :( what to do ?????
A. 60 Hz is good enough for an lcd-monitor because the picture is steady by nature, in contrast to tube-monitors that tend to flicker at lower refreshrates. 60Hz is a bit faster then the refreshrate of the human eye/brain, so you don't realy need anything faster. 60Hz also has as an extra advantage in games that it puts less load on the videocard, because the higher the refreshrate the more the videocard has to work, because 1 refresh-cycle consists among others of calculating the actuall content of the picture, so the less refresh-cycles in a given time-period, the more calculatingtime the videocard has left to for instance display a higher resolution or smoother video. What is important for lcd-monitors is a fast responsetime, a responsetime of 5ms or less is good.
oops now i gotta get a bit messy because this is new for me also:
Hmmmm, wel the higher refreshrates u mention are in fact not realy higher refreshrates but some new/unclear technique. (i just read it now, and it's new for me) of inserting black images to reset the eye. But anyway it seems that lcd tv's have a habit of not mentioning the responsetime (this is NOT the same as the refreshrate or responseRATE) while monitors do mention the responsetime. A good responsetime (grey to grey 5ms or less) is the most important thing. The higher refreshrates are an unclear technique to me so i'd rather have an lcd monitor with a low responsetime like 2ms then an lcd-tv with 480 Mhz with a worse or unspecified responsetime. Or to put it differently: a monitor with a 5 or even 2 ms response time wil give a very nice smooth picture. However the insertion of black images may make it even smoother, but i think that's marginal (when i look at a video on my 5ms monitor it just looks great)
hd-tv's seem to utilize a new technology that projects black images over the native refreshrate of the videosource like for instance 50Hz (tv) or 60Hz (computer). So lets refrase my statement. You should use a video-source of no more then 60Hz because more is a waist of resources. I also think high refreshrates is something for tv's rather then monitors, maybe because tv's have a lower responsetime.
I would prefer a monitor that just displays at 60Hz with a low responsetime above any lcd-tv unless it also gives the responsetime in ms. But for use as a tv, not as a computer-monitor a high refreshrate may also be good, but again the responsetime is more important as i see it.
Also artficially increased refreshrate may have some nasty side-effects (see sources)
So there's actually 3 thing's when it comes to refreshrate: the rate of the source (lets say your computer is set to work at 60Hz, the refreshrate of the monitor (normally 1:1 so also 60Hz, but for tv's artificially increased)
Since you want a monitor and not a tv, i'd go for a "normal" led-monitor displaying the source 1:1 and with a 2ms responsetime. movies wil look great guaranteed, but monitors are normally smaller then tv's so you wil have to sit close.
For a livingroom tv, i'd get a tv with a low responseTIME, and an artificially increased refreshrate/responseRATE may be usefull but also must be able to be deactivated because it can actually decrease the quality of a movie.
oops now i gotta get a bit messy because this is new for me also:
Hmmmm, wel the higher refreshrates u mention are in fact not realy higher refreshrates but some new/unclear technique. (i just read it now, and it's new for me) of inserting black images to reset the eye. But anyway it seems that lcd tv's have a habit of not mentioning the responsetime (this is NOT the same as the refreshrate or responseRATE) while monitors do mention the responsetime. A good responsetime (grey to grey 5ms or less) is the most important thing. The higher refreshrates are an unclear technique to me so i'd rather have an lcd monitor with a low responsetime like 2ms then an lcd-tv with 480 Mhz with a worse or unspecified responsetime. Or to put it differently: a monitor with a 5 or even 2 ms response time wil give a very nice smooth picture. However the insertion of black images may make it even smoother, but i think that's marginal (when i look at a video on my 5ms monitor it just looks great)
hd-tv's seem to utilize a new technology that projects black images over the native refreshrate of the videosource like for instance 50Hz (tv) or 60Hz (computer). So lets refrase my statement. You should use a video-source of no more then 60Hz because more is a waist of resources. I also think high refreshrates is something for tv's rather then monitors, maybe because tv's have a lower responsetime.
I would prefer a monitor that just displays at 60Hz with a low responsetime above any lcd-tv unless it also gives the responsetime in ms. But for use as a tv, not as a computer-monitor a high refreshrate may also be good, but again the responsetime is more important as i see it.
Also artficially increased refreshrate may have some nasty side-effects (see sources)
So there's actually 3 thing's when it comes to refreshrate: the rate of the source (lets say your computer is set to work at 60Hz, the refreshrate of the monitor (normally 1:1 so also 60Hz, but for tv's artificially increased)
Since you want a monitor and not a tv, i'd go for a "normal" led-monitor displaying the source 1:1 and with a 2ms responsetime. movies wil look great guaranteed, but monitors are normally smaller then tv's so you wil have to sit close.
For a livingroom tv, i'd get a tv with a low responseTIME, and an artificially increased refreshrate/responseRATE may be usefull but also must be able to be deactivated because it can actually decrease the quality of a movie.
Powered by Yahoo! Answers
Tidak ada komentar:
Posting Komentar