Display Recommendations

The final area that we want to discuss is the display choice. We've abandoned CRTs, as innovation has pretty much ceased, and the quality is getting worse relative to three years ago. LCDs are attractive, lightweight, space saving, and supposedly easier on the eyes over extended use. If you already have a good CRT, it might be worth keeping, and there are still some older model 21/22" CRTs that are worth buying, but we won't recommend any specific model here as supplies are limited. If you're looking for a large CRT, try to find one that has a 140 kHz horizontal scan rate or higher - that will allow 85Hz refresh rate at 2048x1536. Now, let's get to our LCD recommendation.


Click to enlarge.

Base LCD Recommendation: Acer AL1914smd-8 19 inch 8ms LCD
Price: $301 shipped (Retail)

The Acer AL1914smd is an 8ms response time LCD that performs very well in games and other uses. (At least it does to my less than stellar eyesight.) There are other LCDs that perform similarly or better, but they cost more. We've recommended the Acer display in previous Guides, and we have not yet found an LCD that can beat it on price/performance. The 6-bit color panel isn't the best, but most people won't notice the dithering that takes place. In addition, few people will experience problems with motion blur given the low response times. Of course, 8ms displays are no longer that special.

If you're willing to spend the money, you can now get sub-8ms response times - assuming that the marketing department is telling the truth. Viewsonic and several others are advertising 6ms and lower response times - Viewsonic even claims 3ms gray-to-gray response times on their VX924 19" unit. Some people are not bothered by motion blur even on 16ms LCDs, but others may notice it and may find it distracting. If you are irritated by motion blur with LCDs (try a few out in person), the 3ms GTG Viewsonic should remedy that problem. We must admit that with a refresh rate of 60 or 75 Hz for all the LCDs that we've used, we're a little curious to know how a 6ms response time can be measured, but hopefully, the worst case color transitions will still be under 12ms. However, getting a 19" LCD may not be the best idea - for gaming or business use.

Our advice is to get the absolute best display that you can afford and stick with it for a long time. I used a 21" CRT for 8 years (through at least as many computers), so quality vs. time is definitely in favor of buying a high-end display. My own upgrade just recently was to a Dell 2405FPW, and it's great - hopefully it will last at least five years, if not more. You don't need to go out and spend $900 or more on a display, but many people do just that. If you stick with the base 19" LCD recommendation, you'll be CPU/platform limited in the majority of games with a 7800 GT. For professional work, the native 1280x1024 resolution can also be limiting, although you can always go with dual LCDs if you need more screen real estate. We would strongly urge enthusiasts and power users to at least look at the 20" or larger range.


Click to enlarge.

Upgraded LCD Recommendation: Dell 2005FPW
Price: Varies; look for under $500 sales

The Dell 2005FPW and 2001FP are a couple of great choices if you can grab one on sale for $500 or less. (Sales happen frequently on these parts, but they also sell out fast.) The 2005FPW is widescreen with a 1680x1050 native resolution, while the 2001FP is a standard 1600x1200 display. We'd go for the 2001FP, but it frequently costs $75 to $125 more than the 2005FPW, so it may not be worth the premium.

HP has similar sales on their LCDs, though they're usually still more expensive than Dell. Truly high-end users might even consider picking up something like the Apple 30" Cinema Display, though you'll need a card with a dual-link DVI connection for that. 7800 GT/GTX cards have one dual-link, as do several of the Quadro cards. Do some research before going this route. Long story short (too late!), it's basically very difficult to overspend when buying a quality display. It's one of the few components that can last half a decade or more without upgrades.

Just to reiterate, the Acer display that we've chosen to recommend is a good-not-great LCD. Upgrade to something better if you can spare the money and you won't be disappointed. Widescreen LCDs can be really nice as well, but getting games to work can prove frustrating. We suggest that you take a look at websites like the Widescreen Gaming Forum to make sure that the games you play are fully supported before going that route. We'd like to think that all future games will offer native support for WS resolutions, but Battlefield 2 has shown that even high profile games may not include proper support.

Storage Recommendations System Summaries
Comments Locked

56 Comments

View All Comments

  • flatblastard - Tuesday, September 20, 2005 - link

    This was my only beef with the guide as well. Seems like at stock speeds you would have a mostly "entry-level" performer thats trying to be on the "high-end" with other components. I suppose at higher resolutions the 7800GT would come in handy, but again, we are talking about "mid-range" where the screen would be between 17-19 inches.
  • JarredWalton - Tuesday, September 20, 2005 - link

    Hence, the disclaimer on the bottom of page 4. I'll be publishing an article looking more into the how-to of overclocking, and rest assured I will be spending a decent amount of effort advising people to not assume too much. Still, all overclockers have to start somewhere.

    I personally have yet to see a Venice 3000+ that can't run 2.4 GHz - provided the user knows what they're doing and has an appropriate motherboard. Mine runs 2.7 GHz and almost 2.8 GHz (i.e. 2.8 crashes in several tests). However, overclocking is part art and part science. You have to put a lot of effort into getting the best results, and a lot of people just want it to be easy. Oh, well.
  • danmitchell - Monday, September 19, 2005 - link

    Can you please elaborate on this? My 19" CRT is failing and I was thinking of replacing it with a 1905FP.
  • huges84 - Tuesday, September 20, 2005 - link

    I too am interested in that statement. It was important enough to you to put into bold, but I don't see much of an explaination for it.
  • JarredWalton - Tuesday, September 20, 2005 - link

    Basically, spending more money on a bigger, better display isn't a bad idea if you can afford it. A 19" LCD is what I would call the bare minimum for a Mid-Range system. A 20 or 21" with native 1600x1200 resolution would be better, in my opinion - perhaps not for gaming, but certainly for office work. If you're happy with a 19" LCD, then go ahead and purchase one; I was merely pointing out that people ought to at least consider the larger options for a moment. :)
  • BladeVenom - Monday, September 19, 2005 - link

    With Battlefield 2 and for future games they should really be recommending 2 GB of RAM for a gaming machine.
  • JarredWalton - Monday, September 19, 2005 - link

    Read the memory page. More RAM is suggested, particularly for BF2 and FEAR. It isn't in the final table because that would add another $100 to the price.
  • SimonNZ - Tuesday, September 20, 2005 - link

    I have a rig similar to that with a few higher end components and my 1gb DRR500 does me easily in FEAR and BF2, all setting maxed, full AA/ AF etc so more ram and need, the mobo would be running it in dual channel 2:)
  • deathwalker - Monday, September 19, 2005 - link

    It's a truely great list of hardware..no argument with that. But I just don't see a DFI SLI mobo at $165 and a 7800 GT graphics card at $380 being "Mid-Range" equipment. Hell..all you have to do is update the Processor recommendation and it vaults right into High end equipment.
  • deathwalker - Monday, September 19, 2005 - link

    I guess what it comes down to ..is that I don't think $1500 is an appropriate mid-range budget.

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now