New PC monitor

M

malikrthr

New member
Hello everyone. I would like to know if I can get some recommendations on a new PC monitor for my budget gaming/Trainz PC that is a 1 1/2 years old. I am looking to purchase a good quality LED monitor for Trainz within the $90-$150 price range. I am not really sure what factors to consider though when purchasing PC monitors. Some of the questions that I have for the PC monitor is below.



1. Would it be better to use VGA, DVI, or HDMI connection, my current graphics card has a VGA, DVI and HDMI connection?

2. What is the response time in a PC monitor and what response time should I consider for Trainz and light gaming?

My current PC specs are below.

Processor: AMD Phenom II X4 965 Black Edition @ 3.4Ghz
Graphics: EVGA Geforce GTX 550Ti @ 951Mhz core clock and 1GB GDDR5
PSU: ULTRA LSP 700W Limited Edition
Motherboard: AMD UD3-970A
Memory: 16GB DDR3 in dual channel configuration
Hard drive: Seagate Barracuda 1TB 7200RPM with 64MB cache
OS: Windows 7 64 bit Home Premium System Builder Edition
 
DVI is current tech, buy one with HDMI or DisplayPort as well if you want to future proof.

For a "slow" game like Trainz you don't need to worry about response times.
 
Thank you for the info. All along, I've been using the older VGA technology. Would there be a difference in picture quality between the DVI connection and the HDMI connection?
 
malikrthr said:
Thank you for the info. All along, I've been using the older VGA technology. Would there be a difference in picture quality between the DVI connection and the HDMI connection?
Click to expand...

On my ASUS the DVI works well, I don't think I currently have the HDMI connected. Watch the resolution a 4K monitor needs a lot more processing power, I have a 1080 by something or other so Blue ray works nicely.

Cheerio John
 
I see that Newegg has a 23" Acer monitor for $109 here. I like it so much I've got two of 'em! Note that you MUST use the enclosed stand - it will not mount on a generic display stand (no mounting holes in back). It's got some bad reviews, but like I say I have two. Brilliant and sharp display.

Darrel
 
I'm actually using a 32" Vizio TV for a monitor through the HDMI port. I did this as I spend most of my time at my desk in my room. If I want to watch TV I just switch over. Before this one I had a 23" TV that had a DVI port on it. It all depends on how much you want to spend. There are lots of choices depending on your situation.

Jack
 
malikrthr said:
Would there be a difference in picture quality between the DVI connection and the HDMI connection?
Click to expand...

For standard consumer usage, no, but it's worth mentioning HDMI will carry audio as well as much higher bandwidth if you're running at very high resolutions (eg. 27" or 30" displays). Note that a 30" display is tremendously larger (and costlier) than a cheap 30" telly (or most small telly smaller than 42" for that matter). The former will give you 2560x1600 whilst the latter will put out 1440x900 or 1920x1080 if you're lucky.
 
I do not recommend HDMI for anything above 1080P due to bandwidth limitation issues that will cut refresh rates beyond 1080P. 60Hz is satisfactory at 1080P but beyond this resolution the refresh rate will be cut to 30Hz which will have a negative impact on the viewing experience. For monitors beyond 1080P I recommend sourcing a Display port panel due to Display port being a superior standard which allows 60Hz up to 3840X2160. As far as response times are concerned it does become quite hard to tell the difference. I have both a 2ms 1080P panel and a 5ms 1080P panel and can't see any difference however this may vary from user to user. Anything 5 milliseconds and downwards is acceptable and cost effective however.

Given you are using a GTX550Ti I wouldn't recommend going beyond 1080P regardless.
 
Thank you everyone for the help with the new monitor. Today I went to MicroCenter and purchased the ViewSonic VA2246m 22" Full HD monitor along with a DVI cable. I read the reviews on this monitor and it seems to be a very good monitor. I gave it a run in Trainz earlier today and I did notice some stuttering or freezing every couple of seconds. It's probably because my Trainz settings are all on maximum, including antisotropy and antialiasing. It does make for a nice sharp picture but a decrease in fps, so I brought some of the graphics settings down to around somewhere between medium and high. For now, I am more than happy with the monitor though. I gotta save my money because my next big investment for Trainz will be a good graphics card to replace the GTX 550Ti, but that will be months away. Below is a picture of the new monitor.

 
Regarding the stuttering, what Graphics Card are you using? I used to have a Palit GTX 460 three years ago and it was OK but when I tried to record video of my route using FRAPS the results were very disappointing. Then I moved up to a Radeon 6950 and things improved markedly.
If I had seen this thread earlier I would have advised you (being on a budget) to look on Ebay for a decent Used monitor - I recently bought a 27 inch Dell Ultrasharp U2713HM for half the normal list price of £470. My "old" BenQ 24" monitor is standing unused because it's not worth selling for what I would get for it, even though it is only 2 years old.
 
lewisner said:
...My "old" BenQ 24" monitor is standing unused because it's not worth selling for what I would get for it, even though it is only 2 years old.
Click to expand...

Do you have room for both monitors? Using a second (or third!) monitor is very convenient. I've got three: one for live television, one for internet, and the third for whatever else I'm doing - work, Trainz, whatever. Love it!!!

Darrel
 
As I understand it, larger monitors mean higher resolution and so, more pixels, causing your video card to work harder.
 
SuperFudd said:
As I understand it, larger monitors mean higher resolution and so, more pixels, causing your video card to work harder.
Click to expand...

This varies from monitor to monitor of course. This information can be found within the specification sheet for an individual panel. The loss for going for a larger diagonal size with the same resolution when compared to a smaller panel with the same resolution is lower pixel density. This may matter to some more than others of course.
 
SuperFudd said:
As I understand it, larger monitors mean higher resolution and so, more pixels, causing your video card to work harder.
Click to expand...

Not necessarily. Digital displays (anything that isn't a CRT) only look best at 1 resolution and that is their maximum resolution. You can have a big screen but set a small resolution on it and your video card will work less hard. Downside to this though is your image will be slightly distorted.
 
nicky9499 said:
Not necessarily. Digital displays (anything that isn't a CRT) only look best at 1 resolution and that is their maximum resolution. You can have a big screen but set a small resolution on it and your video card will work less hard. Downside to this though is your image will be slightly distorted.
Click to expand...

Running at native resolution gets the most out of your system so given two monitors the same size but different native resolutions I would expect higher frame rates on the monitor running at native resolution rather than windowed.

Cheerio John
 
nicky9499 said:
Not necessarily. Digital displays (anything that isn't a CRT) only look best at 1 resolution and that is their maximum resolution....
Click to expand...
I would agree with that. I have a Benq 24" that I've had for a while and still works very well. I have tried changing the resolution a few times and at any res other than the native 1920 * 1020 it looks awful. It has HDMI as does my video card but DVI works fine.

I'd like a larger monitor, or two, but sadly not enough deskspace.
 
johnwhelan said:
Running at native resolution gets the most out of your system so given two monitors the same size but different native resolutions I would expect higher frame rates on the monitor running at native resolution rather than windowed.

Cheerio John
Click to expand...

I beg to differ John. The much-regurgitated "better performance at native resolution" mantra in both rail and flight sim circles is nothing but a myth. Logically it doesn't make sense either. Why would a graphics card have a lower workload (and thus better performance) when there are more pixels to render? That's like saying I have a 250hp motor that will pull ten tons faster than it can pull five. In practice this is also observed. I used to take screenshots at 1920x1080 (native on a 24" 16:9), then cut it down to 1600x900 because the performance was so bad in the newly-built areas I couldn't even position the camera properly. I run sessions at 1440x900 because I get more frames and thus smoother performance at that.
 
nicky9499 said:
I beg to differ John. The much-regurgitated "better performance at native resolution" mantra in both rail and flight sim circles is nothing but a myth. Logically it doesn't make sense either. Why would a graphics card have a lower workload (and thus better performance) when there are more pixels to render? That's like saying I have a 250hp motor that will pull ten tons faster than it can pull five. In practice this is also observed. I used to take screenshots at 1920x1080 (native on a 24" 16:9), then cut it down to 1600x900 because the performance was so bad in the newly-built areas I couldn't even position the camera properly. I run sessions at 1440x900 because I get more frames and thus smoother performance at that.
Click to expand...

That's not what I'm saying. What I am saying is you normally take a performance hit when you don't run at native resolution. Running in a window that is 1440 by 900 on a 1920 by 1080 may give you better frame rates than 1920 by 1080 but running a monitor that is 1440 by 900 at 1440 by 900 normally gives even better ones. I suspect the drivers are optimised for the native modes.

Cheerio John
 
That simply isn't true. I have three displays; two 24" primary and one 19" secondary. The native resolution for the 19" is 1440x900, which I what I typically run in Trainz. Occasionally when I fiddle around with Trainz "on the side" - using the 19 incher while doing other things on the main screens. Performance is exactly the same as if I had played Trainz at 1440x900 on my 24" screen.

Of course, in both these cases Trainz runs maximized. It goes with reason that running a program designed for fullscreen operation in windowed mode is going to cause a big performance hit because other windows and the OS UI (including Aero and whatnot) need to be rendered alongside. The only reason why you'd want to run Trainz at native resolution in windowed mode is because the window isn't big enough; in which case wouldn't it make more sense to use fullscreen mode anyway?
 
nicky9499 said:
That simply isn't true. I have three displays; two 24" primary and one 19" secondary. The native resolution for the 19" is 1440x900, which I what I typically run in Trainz. Occasionally when I fiddle around with Trainz "on the side" - using the 19 incher while doing other things on the main screens. Performance is exactly the same as if I had played Trainz at 1440x900 on my 24" screen.

Of course, in both these cases Trainz runs maximized. It goes with reason that running a program designed for fullscreen operation in windowed mode is going to cause a big performance hit because other windows and the OS UI (including Aero and whatnot) need to be rendered alongside. The only reason why you'd want to run Trainz at native resolution in windowed mode is because the window isn't big enough; in which case wouldn't it make more sense to use fullscreen mode anyway?
Click to expand...

Think about what you'd just said and what I'd just said.

Take a non-technical person then the simplest advice is to run a monitor full screen in native mode and not in a window and I think we are agreed on that.

If you are running the monitor which I assume is a flat screen led / lcd then it is covered in small dots that get illuminated. When you run at native mode all the "dots" are in the same place as the program wants to display a pixel. Run it at some other resolution and the pixels have to be approximated which means in non-technical terms as the image is not as sharp or clear as it could be. In other words you've just paid a sum of money for a monitor with better resolution and ended up with an image that isn't as good as if you had purchased a monitor that worked at the native resolution you wished to run at.

Locally 1440 by 900 monitors are cheaper than 1920 by 1080 of the same "quality" but this may differ where you live.

I think the matter is now closed.

Bye John
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

S
What stock PC is best for Trainz 2019?
2
Replies
24
Views
1K
Paul_Bert
P
J
Is there good VR technology for Trainzers and PC users?
Replies
0
Views
573
JonMyrlennBailey
J
J
NVIDIA GeForce RTX 2080 Super GDDR6 Graphics Card - 8GB
2
Replies
30
Views
3K
johnwhelan
J
J
I want to convert my ATX home-built PC into a Trainzing machine.
2
Replies
34
Views
3K
autodctr
A
S
So I ordered a new computer...
Replies
9
Views
2K
clam1952
C
Back
Top