Cynch,

I haven't bought one yet but I've been reading good things about the Hitachi CML174B. It's a 17 inch LCD monitor that is supposed to be TWICE as fast as the next fastest 17 inch LCD monitor. It was tested on the new Unreal game and apparently did great so it can handle the frame rates. It's 575.00 at Monitersdirect though the black one is sold out at the moment. It has both digital and analog inputs and right now they are selling a 3 year warrenty for 1 cent. I almost pushed the buy button last night but I'm going to have to wait to buy a new system so I don't want a monitor sitting around unused. Though I could plug it into my laptop I suppose.

My brother has an LCD monitor - 19" I think.
He plays RPG's on it and there isn't any lag that I can tell. It cost a little over $800.

However, his monitor has a native resolution of 1280x1024 and so objects in games look taller and skinnier than on a CRT monitor that would display 1024x768 or 800x600 and other resolutions of that aspect ratio.

The aspect ratio you see on CRT monitors is 1.3333...
The aspect ratio of my brother's monitor with 1080x1024 is 1.25.

If you want to keep the proper aspect ratio for your games, an LCD monitor with a native resolution of 1600x1200 would be a better choice than a 1080x1024. Of course it will be more expensive and maybe the vertical stretching won't bother you.

Hi Scout....
Thanks for the info...I checked out that Hitachi CML174B--looks like just what I am looking for. And the price is not as bad as I thought it would be. Thanks for the tip.
Cynch

I may add more confusion - I am a bit uninformed in this aspect, also - but I think there are two types of flat panel (those new light slim monitors) and I am not including the new TV sets (plasma, right?)
At least that's what I can gather from the publicity... ones are LCD and the other ones are something else?
Anyone can enlighten a bit more?

Also, from what I read recently, some new flat panel monitores already have good refresh rates - although I don't know if they rival the CRTs...

Got another question. Is resolution a function of the monitor or the software? I looked at a dozen flat panels on computers running XP and none of them had a resolution below 800x600. Is that a limitation of the monitor or is it something in the drivers on XP. If I installed it on a windows95 would it go to 640x480?
Bob

800x600 as the lowest is a limitation of XP, though compatibility mode is a way to get around it and use 640x480 for games.

Flat panel monitors look sharpest in their native resolution, but they can use other resolutions. The difference can be pretty obvious when you try running at something other than the native resolution.

My brother's flat panel monitor can run at 640x480, but it's a bit pixelly. He seems to be able to choose between digital and analog with it. Analog doesn't look as bad at 640x480, though it still doesn't look as good as a regular CRT. Digital shows super-pixels at 640x480, though it's way sharper for native resolution.

Jenny, are you saying that the physical dimensions of the screen have a 1:1.25 aspect ratio instead of 1:1.33? That would make it more squarish. But, if the video adjustments allow you to adjust height, couldn't you compensate for the vertical stretching that way? It would leave blank areas at top and bottom something like wide-screen movies on TV but would be preferable to the distortion you would see otherwise (also seen sometimes in TV's wide-screen movies).

I think you can't adjust the screen if you're operating the monitor in digital mode. I'll have to ask my brother about that to be sure. I think I did ask him a while back, but I've forgotten by now. He likes using the native resolution in digital mode because it looks so much sharper than the analog mode and his computer and video card are powerful enough to run games in 1080x1024.

I'd have to measure his screen to be sure, but it does look more squarish than mine (Mine is a flat screen CRT).

I don't know if anyone's mentioned it, but you need a video card with a DVI socket if you want to use a flat panel monitor with it.

Part of the answer to your question depends on the type of gaming you plan to do. If you are mostly doing Adventure games then any of the more recent LCD-flat monitors should be okay. But if you also do 3D FPS games or fast sports games eg. NHL Hockey etc., then you need to consider the Redraw or Response time of the monitor. This essentially determines the number of images per second produced and if it's too slow you'll see ghosting which can cause some people to get dizzy/nauseous. Most of the newer LCD monitors will give the Reponse time in milliseconds. The human eye discerns a continuous motion if there are at least 25 images/second which translate to a Response time of somewhere around 30-35ms.

In conclusion, I would look for a monitor with a Response time of at least 25ms (which is about 40 frames or images/sec-eg. Samsung Syncmaster 191T) if you're an 'action' gamer. Even then, some reviewers/users complain of some ghosting, but it hasn't bothered me too much. Don't let dummy salesmen tell you the Response time isn't known. The better LCD monitors will have this value listed in the manual or on the manufacturer's website.