Looking for a good gaming monitor for my first build

[redboy]

RobsX2, you are really wasting your time telling all this because i already know that an 8800 is better than x1950xtx. And do you really think ATI is going to release a card that will be worse than 8800, now think about it. And as far as prices go x1950xtx is cheaper:

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/B000IMN2QO/dealtime-ce-feed-20/ref=nosim

Though not by much.

You know, there is alot of folks out there that stick to their brand, there are people buying AMD right now, so what are going to go out there and get on their case as well? All i'm saying is i dont go hard on people for brand loyalty and neither should you.

 

[Rovemelt]

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.asp?Item=N82E16824236011

ASUS MW221U Black-Silver 22" 2ms (GTG) DVI Widescreen LCD Monitor 300 cd/m2 700:1

There may be a problem with some of the very first versions of this LCD monitor, but it is rated to 2ms. I haven't seen a good review of this LCD yet, but the more recent reviews on Newegg seem positive.

I have personal experience with the 22" 5ms Chimei from Newegg. I had a chance to hook it up to my pc with an X1900XT 512mb video card and play a few rounds of Unreal Tournament 2004. I am used to playing on a 21" P1100 CRT at 1200x1600. I still have my CRT and secretly hope it dies so I have an excuse to replace it.

The CRT shows no real ghosting, and I could tell the difference between the CRT and LCD in the game, but only with the fastest motions. UT2004 is very fast paced, so most other games won't be nearly as demanding. The LCD didn't affect my gameplay (I play quite a bit,) so I don't think ghosting on a 5ms LCD will bother most people. Really, the ghosting is so subtle you'll get used to it right away.

The 22" widescreens seem to be at a pretty good price point. The 24" screens are too expensive for the gain in screen area, in my opinion. And the 24" LCD's aren't as fast as the 22" 5ms screens.

Here are three good reasons to not get a CRT over and LCD:

1. Physical weight and volume of the CRT make it a pain to move anywhere. My 21" monitor weighs on the order of 80lbs, making a real hassle to bring to lan parties and move around the house.

2. The 22" LCD's will use around 25 watts while the CRT can use close to 100 watts. This makes the LCD cheaper to operate in the long run and probably more friendly to the environment.

3. The LCD won't be as blurry for reading small text. LCD's seem to be easier on my eyes.

 

[Rovemelt]

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.asp?Item=N82E16824236011

ASUS MW221U Black-Silver 22" 2ms (GTG) DVI Widescreen LCD Monitor 300 cd/m2 700:1

There may be a problem with some of the very first versions of this LCD monitor, but it is rated to 2ms. I haven't seen a good review of this LCD yet, but the more recent reviews on Newegg seem positive.

I have personal experience with the 22" 5ms Chimei from Newegg. I had a chance to hook it up to my pc with an X1900XT 512mb video card and play a few rounds of Unreal Tournament 2004. I am used to playing on a 21" P1100 CRT at 1200x1600. I still have my CRT and secretly hope it dies so I have an excuse to replace it.

The CRT shows no real ghosting, and I could tell the difference between the CRT and LCD in the game, but only with the fastest motions. UT2004 is very fast paced, so most other games won't be nearly as demanding. The LCD didn't affect my gameplay (I play quite a bit,) so I don't think ghosting on a 5ms LCD will bother most people. Really, the ghosting is so subtle you'll get used to it right away.

The 22" widescreens seem to be at a pretty good price point. The 24" screens are too expensive for the gain in screen area, in my opinion. And the 24" LCD's aren't as fast as the 22" 5ms screens.

Here are three good reasons to not get a CRT over and LCD:

1. Physical weight and volume of the CRT make it a pain to move anywhere. My 21" monitor weighs on the order of 80lbs, making a real hassle to bring to lan parties and move around the house.

2. The 22" LCD's will use around 25 watts while the CRT can use close to 100 watts. This makes the LCD cheaper to operate in the long run and probably more friendly to the environment.

3. The LCD won't be as blurry for reading small text. LCD's seem to be easier on my eyes.

 

[darkstar782]

Yes, the x1950XTX can run any current game on max ingame settings in 1280x1024, so could my previous card, a 7900GT.

(by the way, the onlt reason I bought a 7900GT over an x1900XT at the time was because ATi cards perform badly in City of Heros, an OpenGL game that I was playing alot at the time, although I have left it now).

However, My 8800GTX was still a nice upgrade from my 7900GT, as it ment I could use driver level x16Q AA and x16AF in almost every game, which looks amazing.

My point is that there IS a use for more power.



Anyway, monitors.

I'm a big fan of CRTs, but they dont make'm like they used to. A good 21" CRT used to rock for 2048x1536 gaming @85Hz or more.

Now however, most CRTs are limited to 1600x1200@85Hz, or 2048x1536@60Hz (unusable imho).

Add to that the fact that CRTs age significantly after 2-3 years, loosing brightness and focus.

Add to that the fact that CRTs just dont come as big.

Add to that the fact that CRTs dont come with HDCP, essential for high-def viewing under vista, at least untill things are cracked (AnyDVD HD can already playback HD-DVD without HDCP compliant hardware... just waiting on Blu-Ray)


However,

Low end TFTs suck, and going for the headline "2ms response" is normally a bad thing.

2ms response panels usually have way too much overdrive, and often use 6bit panels, which are both horrible for quality.

Low end TFTs are often TN+Film panels, which again, suck. S-PVA is filtering down though, and these are not bad.

1280x1024 is a horrible resolution made up by someone with a marketing degree to "get both numbers over 1000". Its 5:4 not 4:3 ffs.

Go for a 20.1" 4:3 1600x1200 TFT like the HP LP2065, which uses an amazing S-IPS panel. Like most CRT lovers, I'd only ever seen crap TFTs before I bought this, and I love this thing! It is however missing HDCP, but AnyDVD HD can solve this. But then, seeing as you refuse to consider DX10, I don't see that HDCP/Vista should be an issue to you...

The Acer AL2623W is 26" (yes, usually you only get 24" or 30"), 1920x1200, 5ms response time and supports HDCP, its extremely competitively priced, cheaper than most 24" models, but still might be over your price range.

The beauty of 1920x1200 is that you can just run in 1600x1200 with black bars at the side in the few games that dont allow widescreen, whereas 1680x1050 means you have to have bars all around or horrible scaling.

 

[petevsdrm]

Add to that the fact that CRTs dont come with HDCP, essential for high-def viewing under vista, at least untill things are cracked (AnyDVD HD can already playback HD-DVD without HDCP compliant hardware... just waiting on Blu-Ray)

Yes I read that! Thats good news. I will actually buy AnyDVD (rather than pirate it) just because i want to support what they are doing.

If you couldn't tell from my name DRM is the bane of my existence and I live only to eradicate it from this earth.

 

[redboy]

RobsX2, you are really wasting your time telling all this because i already know that an 8800 is better than x1950xtx.

And yet you insist on going with the X1950XTX even though an 8800GTS is both less expensive and beats the X1950XTX in performance hands down. Never mind the fact that the 8800GTS is DX10 ready and the X1950XTX isnt.


And you wonder why I call you a fanboy. :roll:

And do you really think ATI is going to release a card that will be worse than 8800, now think about it.

Show me where I said it would be worse :roll:

And as far as prices go x1950xtx is cheaper:

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/B000IMN2QO/dealtime-ce-feed-20/ref=nosim

Though not by much.

Wrong again, The 8800GTS is just $344.99 after mail in rebate (making it cheaper) and is only $10.00 more than that X1950XTX that you linked before the rebate.

You have NO valid point here in the price comparison as anyone with half a brain can clearly see that the 8800GTS is the better choice between the two.

You know, there is alot of folks out there that stick to their brand

Yup, and they are called FANBOYS.

All i'm saying is i dont go hard on people for brand loyalty and neither should you.

There is nothing wrong with brand loyalty up to a certain point but when things are this Obvious when comparing an 8800GTS to a X1950XTX when you can get the 8800GTS for less $$$ and run circles around a X1950XTX and also be ready for DX10 it makes you a complete and total FANBOY to take the lesser GPU over the better one.

Look, if it makes you happy to call me a fan boy, go ahead. I've seen too many of these arguements already and they are counterproductive and only lead to insults and people getting upset. And now i'm getting upset, thats what i wanted to avoid, i didnt come here to hear you twisting my words and insulting me. On top of that you disrupting this thread and getting off topic, i'm sure people looking for a monitor dont want hear your rants on the vid card, if they wanted that they would have read reviews and looked at benchmarks. Furthermor, it doesnt make sense for me to get a nvidia card because i'm getting a mobo which supports only crossfire (bad axe 2), so even if i get an 8800, i'll never be able to get another one and eventually i want to have 2 cards.

And why do you care so much which card i'm getting anyway?

 

[leonardotmnt]

Yes, the x1950XTX can run any current game on max ingame settings in 1280x1024, so could my previous card, a 7900GT.

You Obviously have not played Oblivion, Call Of Juarez, Tombraider legends or R6 either then :roll: Play any of those games at MAX settings and the X1950XTX will be struggling pretty badly much less a 7900GT :roll:



And besides this still holds no water and has nothing to do with the fact that it should be a no brainer to get a 8800GTS over a X1950XTX when you consider all the points in my other post :roll:

You've made your point and it's always been fairly obvious. If he wants to waste his money on an inferior card more power to him I guess.

 

[redboy]

That is exactly what i'm saying, enough! There is nothing to be accomplished in this debate, is complete counterproductive.

 

[leonardotmnt]

RobsX2, you are really wasting your time telling all this because i already know that an 8800 is better than x1950xtx.

And yet you insist on going with the X1950XTX even though an 8800GTS is both less expensive and beats the X1950XTX in performance hands down. Never mind the fact that the 8800GTS is DX10 ready and the X1950XTX isnt.


And you wonder why I call you a fanboy. :roll:

And do you really think ATI is going to release a card that will be worse than 8800, now think about it.

Show me where I said it would be worse :roll:

And as far as prices go x1950xtx is cheaper:

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/B000IMN2QO/dealtime-ce-feed-20/ref=nosim

Though not by much.

Wrong again, The 8800GTS is just $344.99 after mail in rebate (making it cheaper) and is only $10.00 more than that X1950XTX that you linked before the rebate.

You have NO valid point here in the price comparison as anyone with half a brain can clearly see that the 8800GTS is the better choice between the two.

You know, there is alot of folks out there that stick to their brand

Yup, and they are called FANBOYS.

All i'm saying is i dont go hard on people for brand loyalty and neither should you.

There is nothing wrong with brand loyalty up to a certain point but when things are this Obvious when comparing an 8800GTS to a X1950XTX when you can get the 8800GTS for less $$$ and run circles around a X1950XTX and also be ready for DX10 it makes you a complete and total FANBOY to take the lesser GPU over the better one.

Look, if it makes you happy to call me a fan boy, go ahead. I've seen too many of these arguements already and they are counterproductive and only lead to insults and people getting upset. And now i'm getting upset, thats what i wanted to avoid, i didnt come here to hear you twisting my words and insulting me. On top of that you disrupting this thread and getting off topic, i'm sure people looking for a monitor dont want hear your rants on the vid card, if they wanted that they would have read reviews and looked at benchmarks. Furthermor, it doesnt make sense for me to get a nvidia card because i'm getting a mobo which supports only crossfire (bad axe 2), so even if i get an 8800, i'll never be able to get another one and eventually i want to have 2 cards.

And why do you care so much which card i'm getting anyway?

You know, pointing out an actual reason for going with an ATI card in the first place might have worked better. Though if you're going to upgrade in a year what card you get now won't matter since the cards have to be the same.

 

[kitchenshark]

You know, you should just stop worrying about what card he's getting. He didn't come here to discuss cards, he wants info on monitors.

You're just trying to pick a fight, plain and simple.

Go away if you don't want to help with the monitor questions. He doesn't want to hear what you have to say, and I doubt that anyone else following this thread does either. You posts are out of line and out of place.

 

[redboy]

You are right, leonardotmnt, i should have said earlier that i'm getting a mobo which supports only xfire. However, i was trying to loook up monitors and participate in the thread and do things around the house at the same time so i forgot to mention that. i thought i had my signature up in this forum but i only realized 20 min that i didnt because i was busy with the abovementioned things. Since i'm only getting one card now i could get any, and you are right about that, but i just choose ati.

I'm sorry this turned out this way, i was trying to avoid an arguement but i kept getting sucked back into it when i should have stayed away. I'm apologize to everyone who had to listen to this and if anyone still wants to stick to the topic, i'm up for it.

 

[darkstar782]

Yes, the x1950XTX can run any current game on max ingame settings in 1280x1024, so could my previous card, a 7900GT.

You Obviously have not played Oblivion, Call Of Juarez, Tombraider legends or R6 either then :roll: Play any of those games at MAX settings and the X1950XTX will be struggling pretty badly much less a 7900GT :roll:



And besides this still holds no water and has nothing to do with the fact that it should be a no brainer to get a 8800GTS over a X1950XTX when you consider all the points in my other post :roll:

Ah, but my 7900GT used to run at 750/1400, not 450/1320, and played Oblivion fine in 1280x1024, albeit without FSAA (but the game itself doesnt allow that with HDR, driver level is the onlt way to do it, and that doesnt work on the 7900).

I admit I havent played TR:Legends. I hate Tomb Raider, always have. I have proper porn instead.

If you'd read the rest of my post, I support the 8800 idea totally. I also talked about monitors for redboy 😛

I thought the R600 wasnt going to work in Xfire on Intel 975x?

 

[kitchenshark]

Hey, no problem redboy. Just don't let the trolls like RobsX2 get to you.

My personal preference for monitors are CRT's. Image quality is of utmost concern for me since I like to dabble in 3D modelling and in-depth Photoshop work on occasion. CRT's up to this point have served me better than LCD's for this kind of work.

1) The pixel spacing on CRT's is a lot closer together (dot pitch) so it gives me sharper images.

2) Color rendering. I don't know the right word for this...bah, can't think right now. :/ Anyway, the 'faithfulness' of the color reproduction seems to be better for me on CRT's.

I believe Hz is vital in gaming (CRT or LCD), the faster it can refresh the screen, the more fluidly the frames can be displayed.

I do game a lot too, and still like CRT's for it. I just have to find a better one than I have now. Currently looking at a CTX 17" (space is a premium), CTX I've been told by people around work here is a good brand.

One thing that caught my eye is what darkstar782 said about lcd panels used in the construction of displays. Take a look into those he mentioned. If they're as good as he says, they sound like a good deal.

 

[redboy]

Thanks for the suggestions, guys! So much info in the past few posts gives me a lot to think about. Early in the thread i was leaning towards CRT, but now i'm considering LCD again. I didnt know that CRT dont support HDCP and loose brightness and focus after 3 years and the fact that they are limited 1600x1200@85Hz or 2048x1536@60Hz.

I like the model suggested by darkstar and backed up by kitchenshark though i dont know what S-IPS panel means, i'm not really that monitor savyy so you must excuse me. it doesnt have HDCP, i guess the only downside.The reason I dont consider DX10 and Vista only because they are just so new and they still have a lot of bugs to work out. i do however plan to switch to Vista and get a DX10 card when majority of the flaws associated with both are workedf out. So tell me darkstar, you have an 8800, do you think this monitor is limiting the cards potential? Also is it Vista-certified?

 

[kitchenshark]

Wikipedia and google are your friends

Looks like S-IPS is a technology of the panel itself. I guess kind of like a microprocessor architecture. Looks like its strengths are color reproduction and a weakness is contrast. Here's the excerpt:

[edit] IPS
IPS (In-Plane Switching) was developed by Hitachi in 1996 to improve on the poor viewing angles and color reproduction of TN panels. Most also support true 8-bit color. These improvements came at a loss of response time, which was initially on the order of 50ms. IPS panels were also extremely expensive.

IPS has since been superseded by S-IPS (Super-IPS, Hitachi in 1998), which has all the benefits of IPS technology with the addition of improved pixel refresh timing. Though color reproduction approaches that of CRTs, the contrast ratio remains relatively weak. S-IPS technology is widely used in panel sizes of 20" and above and LG.Philips remain one of the main manufacturers of S-IPS based panels.

AS-IPS - Advanced Super IPS, also developed by Hitachi in 2002, improves substantially on the contrast ratio of traditional S-IPS panels to the point where they are second only to some S-PVAs. AS-IPS is also a term used for NEC displays (e.g. NEC LCD20WGX2) based on S-IPS technology, in this case, developed by LG.Philips.
A-TW-IPS - Advanced True White IPS, developed by LG.Philips LCD for NEC, is a custom S-IPS panel with a TW (True White) color filter to make white look more natural and to increase color gamut. This is used in professional/photography LCDs.

EDIT:
Whole article:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S-IPS

 

[redboy]

of course, how could i forget wikipedia, thanks!

i took another look at the other monitor suggested by darkstar, the 26" Acer widescreen, may be thats what i should be getting? Nice resolution support too. Though i couldnt find that exact model in the U.S. i found these 2 at newegg, very similar to that one:

26" widescreen
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.asp?Item=N82E16824009101

24" Widescreen
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.asp?Item=N82E16824009089

I like the 24" better for 2 reasons, it costs $600, $150 less than 26" and it is black/silver as opposed to silver 26". I'm getting everything in black (case, keyboard, mouse) so it would be nice if monitor would be black too, or at least black/silver

So what do you guys think? Good choice or bad?

 

[darkstar782]

S-IPS gives very good colour rendition as has been mentioned. As for contrast, while people seem to want 1200:1 ratios etc (which just hurts your eyes imho) I have got mine set at 83% for an accurate colour gamut. On the other hand, S-IPS panels have a purpleish tint (only really noticeable on a black screen) when viewed from a wide angle, making them unsuitable for TVs. (you generally look straight on at a monitor anyway however).

You are correct that LCDs historically have a larger dot pitch than CRTs, however thats only true of the low end ones now imho.

Mine is 20.1" 1600x1200, while a 21" CRT will often have around the same viewable area, and run in the same resolution, meaning the dot pitch is about the same. (the CRT will probably fare SLIGHTLY better, as it will have a slightly smaller viewable). 24" 1920x1200 widescreen TFTs are very close to the 20.1" 1600x1200 dot pitch, as they are about the same hight, just with 20% extra width.

For CAD work, TFTs have much better screen geometry, every pixel is exactly the same size and there is no image distortion.

You CAN get CRTs that will do higher than 1600x1200 with a decent refresh rate, but as time goes on they are harder and harder to obtain, and cost more and more.

I love CRTs myself, but the lack of investment in the technology these past years has lead to stagnation. Before this monitor, I had a Mitsubishi Diamond Pro 920 (19" CRT) that I had had for about 6 years... I loved that screen...

When I came to replace it though, I just couldnt find a worthy CRT.

Now, the HP LP2065 I mentioned is NOT HDCP capeable.

You can run Vista, and play any games you want, without HDCP.

ALL HDCP affects is HD content that is DRMed. At the moment this boils down to HD-DVD and Blu-Ray. If you DONT have a HDCP capeable screen/GPU, then you either have to use a program to get rid of HDCP (AnyDVD HD is working for HD-DVD already) or you run the risk of having your HD content played back in what is basically Standard definition.

If you have no plans to add a HD-DVD player or Blu-Ray drive to your PC, this wont matter to you anyway. Any HD content you Download, not that you would do an evil thing like that I'm sure, will be free of DRM anyway.

This is a very good article on how the various TFT technologies work, and the differences therein. Of course its from 2004, so the response times and other figures they talk about have improved since.

EDIT: Dot pitch on the HP LP2065 (and therefore all 20.1" 16x12 LCDs) is 0.255 mm. This is not *quite* to the level of a high end CRT, but damn close. CRTs in my experience mostly vary from .26mm to .22mm

 

[darkstar782]

Here is a nice review over at Hardforum on a slightly older (non-HDCP) version of that 24".

Looks like the one to get to me, its P-MVA, but thats fine for games really, I just like S-IPS for non-gaming reasons.

The x1950XTX wont be maxing everything out at 1920x1200 though, not AA and everything. Looks to me like you want either two of them, one being a crossfire master, and they are getting rare, or an 8800GTX 😛

Still, the monitor will last you well into your R600 days.

There is a 24" version of the HP but its not all that cheap, and doesnt have HDCP. Just trying to give you options

 

[redboy]

Thanks for the link, darkstar. i'll look it over and if its recomended over there i'll priobably get the newer version from newegg. Even though it cost $600, and i'll be going over my budget of $500 by $100, its ok,ther monitor looks like a great piece of work. Basically i'm buying this monitor for the next several years thats why i asked whether i can use high-end vid cards to their fullest with a monitor. I ont be crossfiring that 1950 anyway, cause i dont want to drop another $350 on another card at the moment, i'll wait for thr R600 days and do it then.

 

[darkstar782]

Yeah a good monitor will last you though a number of graphics cards. I dont understand the people who drop $500 on an 8800GTX and then use a $150 19" 1280x1024 monitor with it 😀

I kinda feel that my 8800GTX is wasted on 1600x1200....

EDIT: The review mentions "Burn In". This is NOT a significant issue on TFTs like it is on RPTVs and really old CRTs.

What does happen is that if a static image is left on the screen for like 36 hrs straight the pixels will "settle". It is not permenant however, having a moving image on the screen for a few mins will clear it up, even dragging a window around the desktop madly will fix it, not that I have ever had this issue myself as my monitor switches off after 1 hr.

Also, the backlights in TFTs tend to have a lifespan of around 50000 Hours. However, if it were lit constantly, thats about 5.7 years. In reality, you are likely to turn it off (or let it shut off) at least 8 hours a day, and it is possible to replace the CCFL backlight tubes for ~$150 including labour, less if you do it yourself.

CRTs on the other hand would suffer other non-reversable aging affects after 5.7 years of uptime....

 

[redboy]

By the way, how is Acer for quality in general, i havent heard anyone mention them until you did, what is the opinion of their monitors?

 

[darkstar782]

I kinda feel that my 8800GTX is wasted on 1600x1200....

I dont see how you could possibly say that unless you don't play Oblivion, R6, or Tomb Raider legends.

I find that a single 8800GTX is pretty much perfect for the res I play at of 1680X1050.

I played and completed and moved on from Oblivion before I got my 8800GTX. Dont like Tomb Raider of any form, its like really crap porn. I assume you mean Rainbow Six? I havent played that either :/

I'm mainly trying to justify a 1920x1200 monitor upgrade to myself to be honest. Hes getting one and I feel 8800GTX is perfrct for this.

Still, I can't see myself persuading him so I gave up.

 

[slavadon]

come summer R600 will wipe the floor with 8800, because thats just how it goes. You know as well as i do that technology goes in cycles: AMD was on top a year ago, now its Intel, ATI was on top until Nvidia released 8800, now they are the king, when ATI will releases R600 they will be king

This has absolutely nothing to do with a debate about currently purchasing a graphics card. What is relevant is that you are choosing to pay the same amount of money for a card that is less future proof and definitively outperformed by another card on the market. Clearly an illogical choice, which would suggest that you are enthusiastic enough about ATI to waste money on an inferior product just because it has their label on it: possibly classifying you as a fanatic, or fanboi if you happen to be talking on an internet forum.

Now as for LCD vs. CRT. I have a 19" Viewsonic VX922 and a 20" Viewsonic CRT. The VX922 weighs about 30 pounds less than the CRT. The VX922 displays an image comparable to the CRT, although not quite as crisp. The CRT can display true black, which the LCD cannot. The LCD has a slightly noticable glow to its edges when displaying a dark screen. The LCD is far easier on the eyes than the CRT. This is a scientific fact related to the way light is projected onto the different types of screens and then to your eyes, not a matter of opinion. I play CSS competitively and can guarantee my LCD does not deteriorate my play, and probably allows me to play for longer than I would if I used a CRT.

I certainly would not go so far as to say CRTs still decimate LCDs for gaming. That's simply not true. They have a small edge, which I believe to be negated by the practicality of LCDs and their availability in much larger sizes.

Based on all of that, I would highly recommend an LCD. The only time you might regret it as a gamer is when you play very dark games like F.E.A.R.

 

[leonardotmnt]

I kinda feel that my 8800GTX is wasted on 1600x1200....

I dont see how you could possibly say that unless you don't play Oblivion, R6, or Tomb Raider legends.

I find that a single 8800GTX is pretty much perfect for the res I play at of 1680X1050.

I think the new rule should be that after you try to change someone's mind 10 times to no avail that you stop. How's that sound? If he wants to buy a card that isn't as good for more money it's his prerogative. I can see if the decision for was for a friend or family member maybe since you want the best for them but really, his decision doesn't affect you. Explaining your point once or twice may be fine if he doesn't know what he's doing but he clearly does now. Besides, think of all the people out there spending money on Dell's and components that are more expensive than better alternatives. Think of how many people you can reach if you devote your time to them instead Not everyone plays those games you mentioned btw...

 

[leonardotmnt]

Not everyone plays those games you mentioned btw...

Thats besides the point.

1. The 8800GTS wins in the price dept.
2. The 8800GTS wins in the perf dept.
3. The 8800GTS wins in the image quality dept.
4. The 8800GTS is ready when DX10 gets rolling.


I couldnt care less with what GPU the little fanboy goes with but comments like this are what got him in trouble to begin with.

As far as the vid card goes, i really dont want to get that nvidia crap

And then going even further on trying to justify his inferior purchase based on brand name makes him a FANBOY

So he's a fanboy. So are a million other people, it happens. If you really knew anything about fanboys you'd know that you're not going to convince him otherwise so drop it.

In monitor news I was thinking about getting a Chimei 221-D. Does anyone have any experience with them? Also in a few places I've read people have said that 6-bit doesn't really matter all that much in games and that many people won't notice anyway. How much worse is 6-bit for games and movies?