Apple TFT screens...

Post by **Eraser** » Tue Jul 19, 2005 11:25 am

I just got an offer for a 20" Apple screen. I don't have an apple but do have DVI output on my videocard. Are these suitable for gaming? Response time is 16ms so that should be low enough right?

Post by **Geebs** » Tue Jul 19, 2005 4:42 pm

Never had a problem. My old 20" was a really nice monitor.

'cept, of course, you can't adjust the colour balance as easily on a PC

Post by **rep** » Tue Jul 19, 2005 6:21 pm

16ms is fine for gaming. 2D gaming.

LCDs will never be suitable for gaming. They won't even get the chance. By 2008 the best they'll have is 6ms, which will really perform like 8ms. OLED will clear the room like the SAS.

Post by **Foo** » Tue Jul 19, 2005 7:05 pm

rep wrote:16ms is fine for gaming. 2D gaming.

LCDs will never be suitable for gaming.

and 640K is Enough For Anyone?

Wahaha, loser.

Post by **Kills On Site** » Tue Jul 19, 2005 7:15 pm

I once said that optical mice will never be good enough for gaming. Now I never say never when it comes to computers or electronics.

Post by **mik0rs** » Tue Jul 19, 2005 7:33 pm

I say I'll never be able to use a banana instead of a processor on any motherboard, so neeer.

Post by **mad** » Wed Jul 20, 2005 1:04 am

rep wrote: By 2008 the best they'll have is 6ms

viewsonic have a 4ms tft out

Post by **Canis** » Wed Jul 20, 2005 1:34 am

AFAIK they're great for gaming...never used one for it though.

Post by **Eraser** » Wed Jul 20, 2005 8:10 am

My brother has a 16ms TFT screen from Hercules and that's fine for a fast game like Quake III so I wouldn't think the responsetime should be a problem. Knowing Apple, this screen should be high quality. I'm very tempted to buy it, I can get it for €500 (new-price is $800 USD). It's a hell of a lot of money for a screen though so I'm not sure if I'll get it but it is tempting

Post by **saturn** » Wed Jul 20, 2005 8:21 am

i'd get it

Post by ***OptimusPrime*** » Wed Jul 20, 2005 8:34 am

Post by **Eraser** » Wed Jul 20, 2005 8:35 am

mad wrote:viewsonic have a 4ms tft out

:icon28:
You're bullshitting us here right?

Post by **Dave** » Wed Jul 20, 2005 9:38 am

If it's an old Apple with an ADC power/usb/video all in one cable, you're SOL, but if it's a new-style aluminum lcd, it will work.

Post by **mad** » Wed Jul 20, 2005 9:55 am

Eraser wrote:
mad wrote:viewsonic have a 4ms tft out
:icon28:
You're bullshitting us here right?

http://www.ebuyer.com/customer/products ... _uid=93240

Post by **4g3nt_Smith** » Wed Jul 20, 2005 12:23 pm

Once again rep shows his complete lack of knowledge on the subject at hand.

Post by **rep** » Wed Jul 20, 2005 12:40 pm

4g3nt_Smith wrote:Once again rep shows his complete lack of knowledge on the subject at hand.

Considering it's response time is actually 6ms, and performs the same as their 8ms models. (Which by the way, have the same fade effect as their 16ms models, so in reality it's no better than a 16ms screen.)

"Response Time 4ms (gray-to-gray); 6ms (white-black-white) (typ)"

Auto dealers don't advertise the miles per gallon on super, they advertise the regular unleaded ratings.

Post by **Eraser** » Wed Jul 20, 2005 1:32 pm

That sort of thing happends everywhere.
Intel still advertises by clockspeed while that doesn't mean anything anymore with AMD's Athlon XP clock speeds.

Post by **saturn** » Wed Jul 20, 2005 3:40 pm

btw eraser, is it a new screen?

Post by **Eraser** » Wed Jul 20, 2005 5:45 pm

No, 2nd hand, I'm not entirely sure how old exactly. Don't think I'm gonna get it. While it's nice, I don't think my home computer use warrants the amount of money I'd have to put into it when a decent 17" would cost me 300 euros max.

Post by **duffman91** » Wed Jul 20, 2005 9:51 pm

I have a 20" widescreen apple LCD. It's response time is 16 ms and performs great. My best advice would be to go into an apple store and test one out yourself.

edit: I have this: http://www.apple.com/displays/specs.html . And I absolutelly love it.

Post by **saturn** » Wed Jul 20, 2005 9:52 pm

Eraser wrote:No, 2nd hand, I'm not entirely sure how old exactly. Don't think I'm gonna get it. While it's nice, I don't think my home computer use warrants the amount of money I'd have to put into it when a decent 17" would cost me 300 euros max.

if he would drop another 100 euros and the monitor is less than 400 days old, I'd buy it

Post by **4g3nt_Smith** » Wed Jul 20, 2005 9:53 pm

Eraser wrote:No, 2nd hand, I'm not entirely sure how old exactly. Don't think I'm gonna get it. While it's nice, I don't think my home computer use warrants the amount of money I'd have to put into it when a decent 17" would cost me 300 euros max.

I don't know if it would be cheaper than the deal you were going to get, but look into Dell's 20" Flat Panels, they use the same internals and screen as the Apple, and cost a bit less.

Post by **rep** » Sun Jul 24, 2005 3:51 pm

From hardocp, today:

"Even the companies selling LCD monitors get confused. For one of its monitors, Samsung advertised one response time and showed a different response time on the model's spec sheet--yet the company maintains that both figures were accurate. For about a month, an ad for Samsung's SyncMaster 915n LCD monitor touted the display's 4-millisecond response time, while Samsung's own Web site indicated that the monitor's response time was 8ms."

Post by **+JuggerNaut+** » Sun Jul 24, 2005 5:31 pm

ahahaha

that's like believing wattage ratings for amplifiers, poor uninformed.

Post by **inolen** » Sun Jul 24, 2005 5:33 pm

I have 2 dell 2001fps with I think 12ms response times, I don't notice any weird effects when I play games.