On LCD Monitors

[Artega]

So, as is the custom with my family, we cracked open the presents on the 24th instead of the 25th, so we can sleep in the following morning:)

Along with a shirt and some other nominal gifts, I received an LCD monitor for this year. I have yet to test it for dead pixels (which I'll do tomorrow, I imagine), and haven't been able to find a review on any of the major sites for this specific model.

Some basic specs for it:

Westinghouse LCM-17v8

Native Resolution: 1280x1024
Response Time: 8ms
Contrast Ratio: 450:1
Maximum Brightness: 300 Nits (What's a Nit?)

While the 8ms response time is a good thing, as I recall, I'm worried about the contrast ratio. From what I've read (reviews for 17" LCDs are fairly old), it should be at least 500:1 to 600:1; will a 450:1 cause significant differences in color richness and depth?

Another concern is the native resolution; with my current CRT monitor (which I like), I run most programs at 1024x768 @ 85Hz, with more demanding programs or programs that require high framerates (such as CS:S, UT2k4, Doom3, and Quake 4) at lower resolutions to increase framerates. If I lower the refresh rate of my monitor, I can usually run 1280x1024 with few problems, but lower refresh rates cause increased eyestrain/eye fatigue. Do LCDs even have a refresh rate selection? I can't find any mention of refresh rates in the specs either online or in the user's manual, so I'm assuming it's locked at a particular refresh rate.

Next, because I will inevitably have to lower the resolution to play certain games, how much of a difference does it make running games at a significantly lower resolution (such as 800x600)? Will this cause excessive blurring and artifacting, or would it be mostly agreeable?

Third, I can't find any real mention of Westinghouse on many review sites (and it's generally LCD TVs on the sites that do have listings), and I don't know whether to take this as good or bad. What's the general reputation of Westinghouse? Are they reliable? It has a ten year limited replacement warranty that I haven't fully read just yet, but I'd rather not have to use the warranty at all.

I'm somewhat concerned about whether I should keep this gift or have it returned in exchange for something else (the car could use some repairs...), because I do not know if I have a computer capable of using an LCD monitor to its fullest. I run a 128MB Sapphire Radeon 9600XT on an AthlonXP 2500+ with 512MB RAM, and I don't think that's going to be enough to run most programs at 1280x1024 at acceptable framerates. I thoroughly enjoy my current CRT, and hence wasn't really expecting or wanting an LCD monitor; while it would be useful for watching movies and surfing, I do not think it would be a good idea to keep it for use in such a limited capacity when I could have the money refunded and returned or used elsewhere.

Would it be a better idea to keep this or return it for something else?

[Rhydderch Hael]

As to refresh rate, LCDs are locked in at 60 Hz. Deviating from that setting may damage the monitor.

Thing is, there's no 'flicker' at all with an LCD as you perceive with a CRT, even at 60 Hz.

I don't know what the picture quality will be when your graphics output is projected below the native resolution, but it's a fair guess that it'd be better than try to attain an adapter resolution above what the monitor can do, so at least you're on the right side of the see-saw.

[Concillian]

Some basic specs for it:

Westinghouse LCM-17v8

Native Resolution: 1280x1024
Response Time: 8ms
Contrast Ratio: 450:1
Maximum Brightness: 300 Nits (What's a Nit?)

While the 8ms response time is a good thing, as I recall, I'm worried about the contrast ratio. From what I've read (reviews for 17" LCDs are fairly old), it should be at least 500:1 to 600:1; will a 450:1 cause significant differences in color richness and depth?

Printed LCD specs are almost useless.

1) the "response time" is usually a black to white measurement, and more often you are changing from some medium color to some other medium color, which actually generally take longer. Some monitors handle the whole range well, others will handle black to white much, much better than middle color transitions. The worst offenders will have great black to white transitions, so the spec sheet looks great, but actual practical color changes can take twice as long or longer. 8ms is probably okay, just look at how it handles motion, either DVDs or games or whatever. As long as it looks okay for you, then it's performance is adequate.

2) Contrast ratio is nice, but most people view at some much lower brightness level than this is measured at. Somewhere around 100 nits or so is "typical" and what is more important than contrast ratio (which is usually measured at max brighness) is a "blackness" measure at a more normal viewing brightness. To me the level of "blackness" is more what I'm after than overall contrast ratio. As long as my black is black, the other stuff doesn't need to be super bright, but I generally compute in low light.

3) 300 nits is it's max brightness (nit = units of a brightness measurement). Anything over 200 is probably more than adequate. As mentioned earlier, something around 100 nits or so is considered a "normal" brightness level for office applications. Maybe a little higher for movies and games.

If you can find out what actual screen is used in your monitor you can find out a lot more about it. There are hundreds of LCD monitors but only a handful of actual screen manufacturers, many monitors share the same screen component, and there is probably another monitor of a more well known brand that uses the same screen as your monitor, and you'd be more likely to find some reviews that way.

The reviews at Tom's Hardware are pretty excellent for LCDs. I don't particularly like some of their other hardware reviews, but they rock on LCD reviews.

An example review:
http://www.tomshardware.com/2006/06/27/xxl...lays/index.html