Moniter

Hi,

I've decided to build a new system, since this one is slow... I've got just about everything I need:

512MB PC133 SDRAM(If I can find anyplace that sells it cheap, I'm getting PC150)
Athlon SPI Sparkle FSP350-60BN Power Supply(300Watt)
ASUS A7V KT133A Socket A Motherboard(w/ 266FSB)
Plextor 16x10x40 CD-RW IDE
Pioneer DVD 16x40 Speed
Creative Soundblaster Live Value Sound Card
GeForce2 MX(32MB SDRAM)
3Com 905C 10/100 PCI Network Card
Altec Lansing ACS33 Stereo Speakers
AMD Athlon K7 1.2GHz 266 FSB Thunderbird
Floppy Drive

I still may change my mind about the CDR/W I'm going to get, but everything else is final.

But, I can't decide on a moniter to buy...
It has to be under $300, and preferably under $250. I also want it to be able to run on 1280x1024.

are there any that any of you recomend?
Thanks,
Dennis

BTW, just so I'm not called an idiot, I already have mouse + keyboard(MS Optical Intellimouse, and MS Natural Keyboard) that I'm going to use for my new system... BTW, I do have the Mouse and Keyboard, but the items listed on my first post, I have not purchased yet.


Incase any of you want to see the cooling system I am getting, here it is:

Socket "A"MD (462 pin) Blizzard Cooler Kit $179 + $29.99 for dual 120v pumps
http://www.overclockershideout.com/M...gory_Code=BLZD

idiot ;)

You're such a Steve....

:eek:

damn....I gotta stop pullin Steve's...that must be the fourth time today :rolleyes:

:rolleyes:

Does anybody have any real help? :p

Monitor is not as important as the Video controller.

I am buying components for a new system, and a 17 inch monitor was quoted at $175.00 (American). Just make sure you get a Multi-sync monitor with a dot pitch of .28 (Mask pitch) or preferably less. My current NEC 15 inch monitor is rated at .25 mask pitch, which seems okay. The monitor should be capable of 55-60 Hz refresh rate at 1280 by 1024, and higher refresh rates at lower resolutions. Anything less than 55-60 Hz causes eye strain because you can notice it flickering. I am not sure, but at lower resolutions, 55-60 might not be adequate. The better monitors have higher refresh rates for lower resolutions.

Multi-Sync might be NEC jargon, and other manufacturers might call it something else. I do not think any reputable dealer would sell you a monitor that was not multi-sync, but they might. I am not even sure that such monitors are being manufactured for use with computers anymore. They might be sold for use as dumb terminals for mainframe work stations.

The better video controllers now have 32-64MB of memory on the card. 16MB might be adequate, but I do not really know. Beware, some video cards claim a lot of memory. but actually use some of the CPU memory on the Motherboard.

Thank you for your help Guv, but, why is less dot pitch better?


Do you think this is an Ok to Good Gfx card?

http://www.monarchcomputer.com/Merch...ct_Code=190303

Less DPI mean that its clearer and easier on the eyes. If you are anything like me you sit in front of the computer for way too long. Also the refresh rate can be important, 80-100Mhz at that size is a good rate for most monitors. 120-150 is really good but I doubt you want to shell out the $$ just for that. I have been building comps for a long time and Samsung is the best brand when comparing size, DPI, refresh and $$. In your price range I would go with:

SyncMaster 750P 17" (16"VIS) .22 mm dot, its about $247

You can also find a decent 19' for about the same price but at .26 or .28 DPI if you look around. The 19' model # in your price range is the 900P

Sitting here looking at your config I see something you might want to think about a little bit more, I see you want to get the, GeForce2 MX(32MB SDRAM). If you like to play games and want some good FPS, I would try to save some more $$ or chop something out and get a standard Geforce2 , or an Ultra if you could swing it. The MX version is getting dumpy FPS with most games when compared to the standard Geforce. Plus the standard is not a whole lot more than the MX anymore. Also DONT skimp on the video card, because thats where alot of your performance can be lost, esp in games. So dont go and try to find the cheapest card you can, stick to good manufacturers. Creative, Elsa, and Asus are the top three, listed in the order at which they score.

Also, I know this is a small thing and it prob doesnt matter, but you might want to think about the Altec Lansing ATP3 speakers. These speakers rock!!! I have had them for awhile and they are seriously almost the best speakers I have ever had. I think that only the huge Kenwoods and Dolby speakers I have in my living room's surround sound are better. I can seriously shake my whole appartment with these little guys. Drop some bassy DMX, KoRn, Limp etc. MP3 in Winamp and watch my whole place shake. Its funny to see all this power come out of these little, flat guys.

Other than that, it is real close to the system I have at my house. You have some good choices there. ;)

I don't play any computer games, I used to, but not any more, that's why I chose a lower-end gfx card.

Then the MX should rock for ya.

Cool :)

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Guv
Monitor is not as important as the Video controller.

---

If you're staring at it for many hours a day, I think the monitor is considerably more important. The card only really comes into the equation if you rack it up to 1024x768 or more and play Quake II Arena...after all, which out of the two is going to give you eye-strain (you can always compensate for a bad card by lowering the reso, but a bad monitor is just plain bad)

JMTC :D

To give an idea of dot pitch, imagine making a diagonal line. With a bigger dot pitch, the diagonal line looks more like the side view of a staircase. It is jagged. The smaller the dot pitch, the more detailed the graphics seem to be.

It is not that you can use a crappy monitor, but I would rather have a good 17 inch monitor and an excellent graphics card than a 19 or 21 inch monitor and a lessor graphics card. I would never skimp on the graphics card and pay extra for a monitor capable of 1600 by 1200.

As long as the lowest refresh rate is 55-60 Hz, and the dot pitch is .25-.28, you should be okay with the monitor.

A lessor graphics card will result in slower display of complex graphics, and slower response for games. Even with a fast internet connection, an inferior graphics card will make the internet seem slow.

Samasung Monitors are the Best !.

I was actually trying to upgrade my 15 Inch monitor
to a 17Inch Monitor....But the Dealer who is a friend of
Mine told me...That The Prices of 21 Inch monitor will
come down to approximately the price of 17 Inch monitors by october this year.

So I am Waiting.

Samsung are better than sony?

Yes !... That's MHO + Conclusion from Analysis of Various Magazines...

2 nd Place Was For LG

Last time I was in the market for buying a computer, about 15 months ago, the top high-quality monitors were Mitsubishi and Sony, with their diamondtron/trinitron products. It looks like most people here are talking about FST monitors. I have a Mitsubishi Diamond Pro 710, which has been superseded now, but basically the screen is totally flat. Which I like.

Diamondtron/trinitron tubes generally have a lower AG (aperture grille, roughly equivalent to dot pitch), making for finer graphics. I think there are differences between FST and *tron tubes, like one is better for contrast and the other better for detail, or something like that, but I have forgotten. It's a good idea to check some computer magazines anyway for monitor reviews. They quite frequently will get 15-20 or so different monitors in a class (maybe all 17") and rate them for clarity, contrast, focus, continuity across the screen, features in the monitor adjustment options, etc etc. It's a good guideline (I think) especially if you can't get to see the monitors in action in a shop somewhere nearby.

Yep, i have to agree with chrisjk, the ,monitor is a much more important decision than a graphics card. A decent monitor will last you at least 3 years, you usually get a 3 year warranty with them as well remember, while a gfx card will be outdated in 3 months.

Like Harry, i have a Mitsuibishi monitor, the diamond pro 720 i think, and it is very good. Of course sony are good as well, but the mitsubishis are just as good. Also look out for other companies using the diamondtron/trinitron tube technology in their monitors, this way you usually get a very good monitor at a cheaper price. I cant remember the names of any specific companies at the minute, but they are out there.

If you plan on running your resoloution at 1280x1024 then i would be looking for at least a 19" monitor. Mine is a 17" and i run it at 1280x1024, but this is puching the limit of readability of text.

I would like it to be able to go to 1280x1024, but I'm probably going to be running it at 1024x768 or lower :( (My family likes to see large colorful objects on the screen... guess that's why my brother is still bitching that we don't have AOL)

Do any of you recomend any specific models?

I've been thinking about the ViewSonic E773, but it's not really top of the line...

I'm willing to spend up to about $350 for a monitor..

Here are the spec's for the new PC I'm going to build:

http://www.promasc.com/comp.htm

I think it's pretty much the same as the original list I posted.. but there are links in that one....

YUCK low end Viewsonic. I wouldnt touch that with a 10 foot pole. Any of there models that are not their professional series use their cheap ViewClear, or ViewShap or whatever it is called, tubes that have a high tendency to burn out. Plus those tubes have a poor gun alignment, which causes poor picture quality and ghosting.

Samsungs are better than Sony when you take into account price, and quality. Sony's are generally like $100-$400 more than Samsung. Sony monitors have a real high brightness and contrass. But they have a simular quality qeo and focus as Samsung. So bottom line is you pay more for a slightly brighter picture quality.

Mitsuibishi are generally good, and are almost exactly the same a Samsung picture wise but are generally more expensive.

17'
http://computers.cnet.com/hardware/0...5871-7-2313945

19'
http://computers.cnet.com/hardware/0...71-8-4169233-1
See that Viewsonic's pro version is there also.

I've never seen a samsung with an aperture grille, only shadow mask tubes. I have heard that Samsung actually make a large proportion of the tubes in monitors, and sell them to other manufacturers. I think I heard a figure of 80% but that may not be accurate, and it was a couple of years ago.

Like I said, check out some reviews if you can, and find out what people who have been comparing the range currently on the market critically have to say. You may be tempted to get a cheaper 19" monitor rather than an expensive 17", but bear in mind that they take up about an acre of desk space.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by HarryW
I've never seen a samsung with an aperture grille, only shadow mask tubes. I have heard that Samsung actually make a large proportion of the tubes in monitors, and sell them to other manufacturers. I think I heard a figure of 80% but that may not be accurate, and it was a couple of years ago.

---

This was true, but its not so anymore. Tubes are easy to produce these days, so most "big" companies make their own tubes. NEC, Samsung, ViewSonic, Sony are the ones I can think of off the top of my head. I believe that NEC and ViewSonic are the biggest sellers of tubes these days, espically ViewSonics ungodly cheap tube.

Well i use a 8mb video card and a 19" monitor, ive been staring at that monitor 24/7 for the last 5 months and its is a nice monitor....oh sorry if i wasnt drinking as much i wud have told you what monitor.......LG studio works, not the cheapest really but a good monitor.