Mid-Range Buyer's Guide, September 2005
by Jarred Walton on September 19, 2005 12:05 AM EST- Posted in
- Guides
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
56 Comments
View All Comments
JarredWalton - Tuesday, September 20, 2005 - link
This recommendation has nothing to do with marketing. Does anyone *need* this fast of a card? Well, if you want to play certain games at 1600x1200 (or 1920x1200), then yes, this level of hardware will be required. If you're okay with 1024x768, then the 7800GT is overkill. However, you're talking about spending $300 for a new GPU. That would get you a 6800GT, X800XL, or X850Pro. For 25% more money on the GPU, you will get a card that is http://www.anandtech.com/video/showdoc.aspx?i=2496...">far more than 25% faster in most 3D games. (Unless you continue to run at 1024x768 without AA enabled.)That's not marketing, that's the simple truth. A 7800GT is 25 to 75% faster than the current $300 cards. If you've already got a good gaming system, there's no need to upgrade right now. If you're running two year old hardware and want to upgrade to something faster, though, why come up a bit short? It's not like I'm suggesting that you spend the extra $100+ to go from a 6800GT to a 6800Ultra or from an X800Pro to an X800XTPE. You *can* cut costs on the hardware, but if anything I'd ditch the SLI board and enthusiast RAM rather than downgrading the GPU - at least in a gaming system.
jonah42 - Monday, September 19, 2005 - link
Yes a good guide, some thought provoking choices but you have forgotten the importance of a good sound card. You do not mention the quality of the onboard sound of the DFI board - I think goud sound quality realy brings a game to life - adding to the cinematic feeling greatly. If you want good multichannel placement then the Audigy 4 is a must, for best sound qaulity then a good Envy24 based card is recommended - eg Audotrak Prodigy or equivalent.PrinceGaz - Monday, September 19, 2005 - link
Onboard sound quality is more than good enough for most people these days, and if they want improved sound quality it would be better spent on higher-quality speakers than on a discrete sound-card.For gamers an Audigy 4 is unnecessary, a cheap Audigy 2 or Audigy 2 ZS would be perfectly adequate. Or you could always fall for Creative's hype and blow a fortune on an X-Fi of course. I'm perfectly happy with the sound from the Karajan module on my DFI board, but I do occasionally consider getting an Audigy 2 [ZS] for games.
yacoub - Monday, September 19, 2005 - link
BlueGears X-Mystique - $99 and I believe it does not resample sources like the Creative cards do. If it does, there are other options out there for around the same price that don't.So anyway, you're looking at an affordable non-Creative soundcard that offers great sound reproduction. It's hard to ask for more than that short of a pro-level card. :)
ceefka - Monday, September 19, 2005 - link
I agree with your point of view here, though I wouldn't recommend a board that doesn't feature Firewire. Sure it is possible to buy a PCI card for Firewire (where are the PCI-E 1x/2x Firewire cards by the way?) but you might want to save the ever diminishing number of PCI-slots for something else than a PCI-card?ceefka - Monday, September 19, 2005 - link
Forget what I said. I just found one from http://www.siig.com/product.asp?catid=14&pid=9...">SIIGceefka - Monday, September 19, 2005 - link
but you might want to save the ever diminishing number of PCI-slots for something else than a PCI-card?bummer, that shoud have read:
but you might want to save the ever diminishing number of PCI-slots for something else than a Firewire PCI-card?
flatblastard - Monday, September 19, 2005 - link
.....but I can't seem to get past the fact that the system must be overclocked to actually reach the level of "Mid-range". Buying the exact parts in the guide and build without overclocking will result in an "entry-level" rig. I know we don't have to buy EXACTLY the same parts, but still, I wouldn't call that a mid range rig, not by a long shot.yacoub - Monday, September 19, 2005 - link
Or just don't go dual-core if you want more CPU speed -and- the faster GPU. :)Sure if you encode Div-X while you game it wouldn't perform as well but honestly people who does that??
JarredWalton - Monday, September 19, 2005 - link
It doesn't *have* to be overclocked. I've got an article that will show the performance scaling of several options, and while the overclocked 3200+ is definitely faster, I'd take a stock 3000+ with a 7800GT over a 3800+ with an X800Pro. I mean, do you want 30% faster frame rates at 1024x768 (which is what you'd get with a faster CPU), or do you want 50% faster frame rates at 1600x1200? I don't know that those percentages are exact, but I'll look at those in the article.