On Sun, Jun 13, 2004 at 07:43:57PM -0400, Brian J. Conway wrote:
On Sun, 13 Jun 2004 16:14:54 -0400 Andy Stewart <andystewart@comcast.net> wrote:
Does the LCD quality degrade when using the VGA input vs. the DVI input (assuming that the monitor has both) ? Are there any major Linux related issues when using the DVI output of a video card ?
There are no DVI-specific issues I have found with Linux, on either Nvidia or ATI video cards.
My experiences, having played with a bunch at work, is that you can find a decent 17" LCD that will do 1280x1024x75 for around $400-500 with both VGA and DVI inputs, and a 19" with better resolution between $700-900, depending on the model. I don't understand the intricasies of refresh rate on an LCD versus a CRT, but the 75Hz on an LCD is more than sufficient for the average gamer. I haven't noticed any difference when
Actually, the usual optimum refresh rate on an LCD is 60Hz. Any higher LCD refresh rates are usually only supported for convenience and VESA standards compliance. This isn't a problem, because refresh rates on LCD TFT technology isn't really applicable.
using the VGA versus DVI inputs on the same system, but it's been only desktop stuff. The LCD is definitely much easier on the eyes, and the sharpness of the screen is considerably better (as I'm sure you know from
I'd agree here. I haven't noticed too much difference between VGA and DVI. More degredation and ghosting is noticed going through my KVM switch, so I connected DVI directly from my "good" system to the LCD, leaving the KVM on the VGA input. The longer your cable is, the more DVI is going to help you. DVI is also nice because it skips the video card RAMDAC conversion for transport across the VGA cable, and conversion back to digital inside the LCD monitor. This eliminates your video card's RAMDAC quality as a factor (Matrox's have always had a reputation for excellent RAMDACs which contributed to their excellent, crisp 2D image quality).
your laptop). No matter how nice a CRT seems, every time I switch back from a flat panel to a CRT, I think "My eyes!!" You also get the extra viewable area of a 17"/17" veiwable versus a 17"/16.1" viewable.
The biggest thing I notice when going back to a CRT is the flicker and shakiness of the image. LCDs simply do not flicker or shake.
quality). If someone here can justify paying 3x as much for an LCD that could arguably be worse for gaming, I'd love to be convinced (and power consumption doesn't count). =)
I game on my 20.1" LCD all the time with no negative experiences, and I only paid $800 for it a couple years ago. The nice thing about LCD sizes, is you actually get the full stated size in the viewable image.