JFP

O.K., my new system is finally running, and running fine.Built with a RADEON card--just so I can get it running--it is now time to consider the GF3. Narrowed down to Leadtek TD and ASUS 8200 deluxe.
The question, then, is to DVI or not-to-DVI?
I am running a regular (non LCD) 19" monitor. Do the LCD flat panels yield any better FPS or quality in GAMING,ESPECIALLY FLIGHT/COMBAT SIMs to justify the horrendous expense of one or the DVI output on the card?
To BobbyJo,if you read this, you have had some really good advice in the past; please post an opinion. Thanks.

Thanks for all the replies. Am moving ahead with the card purchase. LCD was never really an option, like most of you I think they cost to much and those I looked at the last two days did just as described--blurred with motion. I will stick with my 19"CRT.
I do like my Radeon, those that care, but am trying to be ready (this time) for the newer sims and games this fall. My poor old Voodoo just wasn't enough card. Damn!I wish they were still around: The V5/6000 sounded GREAT!

[Edited by JFP on 06-27-2001 at 10:39 PM]

__________________
JFP

Memo

Well, I wanted to buy an LCD Monitor recently as well. First, the FPS that you get in game is dependent on your graphics card. The reason you see lower FPS in some games is because there is an option Vertical Sync (VSync) in most graphics cards which sort of limits the FPS to the refresh rate of your current monitors resolution. One thing you might want to consider is that LCD Monitors do not have as high resolutions as normal monitors. Most LCD Monitors have a maximum res. of 1280 x 720 or 1024 x 768. There might be some with higher resolutions, but they will probably end up costing you WELL over $1,000. Since I run my 19" monitor at 1600x1200, this was a problem for me, but you might be happy with that resolution. I don't wanna bash your idea or anything, but you'd probably like to go and check out the monitors at the stores and see if you think they really do justify the high price tag.

hapoo

For high FPS go for a traditional monitor.

1 Simple reason... LCD panels can't refresh fast enough to give you crisp images, for example if you move around real fast you'll most likely see a blur. Untill they can address this issue i think that a good CRT is better than an LCD for high framerate situations.

__________________

Jeffbx

...and if you DO decide you want to go with a flat panel, you definately want to get one with a DVI input. I had one at work that we wanted to use at a demo, and the color depth didn't even come close to the conventional monitor that the demo was developed on until we ran it through a DVI input.

ken

I just got a LCD with DVI inputs.

The only reason to justify the expense is that LCD's are very good for your eyes.

That is, unless you're playing games (especially FPS), in which case, the LCD blur will probably kill your eyes and give you a massive headache.

I'd say, get the DVI out. It doesn't cost that much more, and when you do get an LCD (the fact that you're thinking of it means you want it, and if you want it, you will eventually get it) then you can use the DVI for applications, and the CRT for games, using a two monitor setup.

joe52985

whats wrong with a radeon? the quality kicks ass, so does the FSAA, there is virtually no performance hit in 32 bit color, its fast (not the fastest) and ati rules screw nvidia, get a highquality crt, you can get a 21 inch for the cost of like a 18 inch lcd

__________________
DISCLAIMER: At any given time my grammar and/or spelling may be incorrect

-all of your mom are belong to me


p4 1.7 ghz
19 in sony flat screen trinitron
40 gb ibm 75gpx
altec lansing ada 885 dolby digtal THX surround speakers
Elsa Gladiac 920
128 mb rd ram
16/40 Sony dvd
16/12/40 NEC cd-rw