New 3D HD Monitors: Acer Vs. Alienware

Status
Not open for further replies.

Chris_TC

Distinguished
Jan 29, 2010
36
0
18,580
0
"22” displays are simply too small".

Assuming average PC gamers sit maybe 1.5 feet away from their 22" monitors, in terms of perceived size that's the same as sitting about 3.5 feet away from a 50" TV.

Since people love to talk about "the big TV in the living room", I wonder how close they sit to it. If a 22" PC monitor is too small, then a lot of couches will need to be moved for 3D console gaming and 3D movies.
 
G

Guest

Guest
"Acer, on the other hand, lists its monitor at 3ms grey to grey, and as expected, performed significantly worse on the response time test."

So, uh, wheres the test results? Why would it be 'expected' to perform slower?
 

UmeNNis

Distinguished
Feb 20, 2007
41
0
18,590
1
Uhm how did the earlier 22" models 'not measure up'?

Last I checked, the Samsung 22" model was widely reviewed as (albeit pricey) possibly the best gaming monitor you could buy at the time? (I know, I did the research, then bought it; not surprisingly, I am very happy with it)
 

MagicPants

Distinguished
Jun 16, 2006
87
0
18,610
7
I just got the Alienware monitor on Thursday. It's sitting next to a 26" S-IPS monitor that blows it away for anything but 3d games, still it's okay.

One thing I've noticed is that there is a sweet spot distance-wise for the 3d effect which is maybe 18". Sitting closer than that actually kills some of the depth effect.

By far the worst thing about the 3d experience is hovering gui elements that are at the screen depth. Portal and L4D have cross-hairs focused at infinity which is very nice.
 

MagicPants

Distinguished
Jun 16, 2006
87
0
18,610
7
I just got the Alienware monitor on Thursday. It's sitting next to a 26" S-IPS monitor that blows it away for anything but 3d games, still it's okay.

One thing I've noticed is that there is a sweet spot distance-wise for the 3d effect which is maybe 18". Sitting closer than that actually kills some of the depth effect.

By far the worst thing about the 3d experience is hovering gui elements that are at the screen depth. Portal and L4D have cross-hairs focused at infinity which is very nice.
 

jamezrp

Distinguished
Feb 6, 2009
104
0
18,630
0
[citation][nom]Chris_TC[/nom]"22” displays are simply too small".Assuming average PC gamers sit maybe 1.5 feet away from their 22" monitors, in terms of perceived size that's the same as sitting about 3.5 feet away from a 50" TV.Since people love to talk about "the big TV in the living room", I wonder how close they sit to it. If a 22" PC monitor is too small, then a lot of couches will need to be moved for 3D console gaming and 3D movies.[/citation]

The effect of 3D, as we've seen in theaters and such where images pop out of the screen and give the sensation of actually existing in the real world, just don't happen when there is so little space between you and the screen. That's why the size of the display is important for 3D gaming: ultimately, the best home 3D experience should rely on a large TV that you still sit very close to. Clearly, this is not an economic possibility for most of us, so various technologies are being explored to broaden the appeal of 3D at close range. It has not as of yet managed to do so.
 

jamezrp

Distinguished
Feb 6, 2009
104
0
18,630
0
[citation][nom]Ritorix[/nom]"Acer, on the other hand, lists its monitor at 3ms grey to grey, and as expected, performed significantly worse on the response time test."So, uh, wheres the test results? Why would it be 'expected' to perform slower?[/citation]

When a company lists response time, it means how fast the connection is to your computer, essentially. 2ms is the fastest for LCDs today. When the number says 3ms grey to grey, it doesn't mean it's 3ms period. It means that the response time for different shades of grey, and only grey, is 3ms. But reading a box or looking at online specifications, you wouldn't necessarily know that if you're interested in buying it. That's why we pointed it out.

[citation][nom]UmeNNis[/nom]Uhm how did the earlier 22" models 'not measure up'?Last I checked, the Samsung 22" model was widely reviewed as (albeit pricey) possibly the best gaming monitor you could buy at the time? (I know, I did the research, then bought it; not surprisingly, I am very happy with it)[/citation]

That is based on my previous time with Viewsonic's VX2265WM 22" 120Hz FuHzion display (long name, I know). It only had relatively good quality, and at the time I wrote the review (for Total PC Gaming Magazine UK), it received a 6/10. I've only had a limited time with Samsung's model, and more research on it proves that you are in fact correct. Samsung's display is not to be discredited, as it is rated quite well by several trusted hardware publications.
 

Cons29

Distinguished
Feb 10, 2010
342
0
19,010
25
darn i clicked the wrong button/icon :)

22 and 23.6 monitors are too small. Ive had a 24" 1920 x 1200 since before anyone had one 3 years now but now that everyone and there brother can pick one up cheap its time to move up to a 30 incher at 2560 x 1600. I sit 6 feet away from my 46" LED 240htz Samsung and it runs fine. 3D isnt all that by the way. If you cant afford it then dont comment on something you know nothing about those of you with the puny 22 inchers.
well, is it cold in here or what? yeah yeah we know we cant afford your 46" LED and im sure it runs "fine".
 

jamezrp

Distinguished
Feb 6, 2009
104
0
18,630
0
[citation][nom]soldier37[/nom]22 and 23.6 monitors are too small. Ive had a 24" 1920 x 1200 since before anyone had one 3 years now but now that everyone and there brother can pick one up cheap its time to move up to a 30 incher at 2560 x 1600. I sit 6 feet away from my 46" LED 240htz Samsung and it runs fine. 3D isnt all that by the way. If you cant afford it then dont comment on something you know nothing about those of you with the puny 22 inchers.[/citation]

The issue right now with 3D monitors is that, because monitors are not made to be TVs, that is they are made to be viewed from a distance so the screen does not look pixelated, it's very expensive. Sure, you can sit close to a full screen TV, but do you actually game on it? And how many people actually do that?

Ultimately, the issue is that gaming is evolving to be more interactive, but image projection and user interfaces aren't advancing at the same pace. Realistically, having a dedicated room in the house for gaming, where all the walls, the ceiling and the floors can be projected on, and where the hardware recognizes where you are in accordance to the game...that would be optimal. That, however, is at least a decade away.

Such a thing might be worth investigating, however...
 
G

Guest

Guest
The article specifically says the Acer "performed significantly worse on the response time test."

What response time test methods were used? High-speed camera, cloned or split video with CRT, etc.

Where are the results?

 

baracubra

Distinguished
Jan 24, 2008
63
0
18,580
0
woot, gonna pick up 3 of these acer bad boys and hook them up to my 2x "soon arriving" Fermi GTX485's...or i might just end up buying a pair of GTX495 (x2)to go with these monitors
oh yeah, also picking up BFBC2 to go with them

:D woohoo :D
 
G

Guest

Guest
man you are really testing waters with this review.
3D nowadays with LCD does not exist!!!
All LCDs ghost like hell everything is unplayable...
if you want 3D you have to buy a DLP which costs a fortune..
 

Transsive

Distinguished
Aug 5, 2008
13
0
18,560
0
Info I would have like to see
- what panels are they? TN I'd guess
- how bad is the backlight bleeding
- how bad are the viewing angles
- do the monitors buzz (high pitched sound)
- is black actually black or gray
- can aspect ratio be configured (4:3) or will everything be stretched on the screen on non 16/9 resolutions
- how is gaming on 120Hz without the glasses

Thankfully you mentioned image persistence (blur, ghosting) which for 120Hz LCD monitors seems to be a fleeting problem. My 24" LCD blurs like crazy.

I'm dreaming of a 120Hz IPS 1920x1200 screen...
 

memeroot

Distinguished
Jan 7, 2010
22
0
18,560
0
I have the Acer

- what panels are they? TN - you cant get the refresh rate with IPS

- how bad is the backlight bleeding - fairly poor - comparing to my dell

- how bad are the viewing angles - fine

- do the monitors buzz (high pitched sound)- no

- is black actually black or gray - slightly blue... will have a go at changing settings at some point

- can aspect ratio be configured (4:3) or will everything be stretched on the screen on non 16/9 resolutions - yes... like anymonitor???

- how is gaming on 120Hz without the glasses - very very smooth and nice


its a nice monitor - not IPS nice (or even realy good TN nice) but decent...
 

memeroot

Distinguished
Jan 7, 2010
22
0
18,560
0
lag is not noticable... but I'm not a pro gamer

the move to 120htz is noticable however.

I'd say for the cash go for a good ips (say the nec) for a main monitor

if you have a main monitor you're happy with pick up the acer as a second and use it for gaming.
 

memeroot

Distinguished
Jan 7, 2010
22
0
18,560
0
Oh and the 3D is amazing in my view... and that of the wife/kid

but it's not for long term use - more of a wow!! thing
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Thread starter Similar threads Forum Replies Date
I Streaming Video & TVs 1
jsimenhoff Streaming Video & TVs 0
S Streaming Video & TVs 1
M Streaming Video & TVs 3
A Streaming Video & TVs 2
L Streaming Video & TVs 2
O Streaming Video & TVs 3
S Streaming Video & TVs 5
S Streaming Video & TVs 1
T Streaming Video & TVs 1
M Streaming Video & TVs 2
K Streaming Video & TVs 1
A Streaming Video & TVs 1
O Streaming Video & TVs 1
M Streaming Video & TVs 6
E Streaming Video & TVs 1
E Streaming Video & TVs 2
B Streaming Video & TVs 1
M Streaming Video & TVs 2
A Streaming Video & TVs 1

ASK THE COMMUNITY