[redsniper]

I'm ready to cave and give up my CRT for a nice LCD monitor. As I understand it, different panel types have a big effect on the picture quality, so what should I look for there? I'd like to go for 1920 x 1080 provided it's not prohibitively expensive, say around $300. Also, I can get full HD out of a DVI to DVI connection right? I've got an ATI 4890 right now, which doesn't have HDMI out or anything like that. Thanks in advance, HLPeople.

[The E]

Yes, full HD should not be a problem for a DVI connection. (You won't be able to display Bluray movies, but I suppose that's a minor concern).

[SkycladGuardian]

Err, I have a BluRay drive in my PC and it is connected to my LCD with an DVI cable and I regularly watch BluRay movies...
More important is that your Hardware (graphics card and monitor) supports HDCP (High-bandwidth Digital Content Protection), but every recent device does that.

[The E]

Yes, but you need a card that cna handle HDCP as well as a monitor that can decode it; while the latter certainly is not hard to find, the former might not be the case. (Although, a 4890 should be able to do it, I think)

[Klaustrophobia]

my 4850 had HDCP, the 4890 should.  can't really help with the monitor though, other than to say i like my samsung.  honestly though if it wasn't for size concerns i'd still use a CRT. 

[Astronomiya]

Dell U2311H.  IPS panel, meaning accurate colors (when calibrated, of course), nice looking monitor, 1920x1080, $320 before shipping.

Here's a breakdown of the panel technologies:

TN:  The cheapest and most common.  Has the fastest response times, but does not support full 8-bit color.  All modern TNs can fake it through dithering, but if accurate color is at all important to you, stay away.  Has terrible viewing angles (sitting in a normal viewing position, you can see color shift between the bottom and top of the screen.  Yeah, it's that bad).

VA (MVA, PVA, S-PVA, etc.):  Best black levels of all the three main panel types.  Better colors (full 8-bit) and viewing angles than TN, but not as good as IPS.  Not too many monitors use this nowadays.

IPS (H-IPS, e-IPS, S-IPS, etc.):  Best color reproduction and viewing angles of all panel types.  No color shift.  However, it is usually the most expensive type.  All professional monitors use this panel type.  Slower response time than TN, although the consumer grade IPS monitors are still perfectly fast enough, even for FPSes (I use three HP ZR24w's and have no problems).

[redsniper]

I'm actually using a crappy LCD at the moment, and I see these weird kind of color-banding effects sometimes when there's a lot of motion. I don't want anymore of that. And I'll bet it's a TN since I see pretty apparent color shift. So it sounds to me like IPS is the way to go for picture quality, and like the slower response time isn't really a problem nowadays, right?

[redsniper]

Man, this looks pretty good here. http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16824005230
Can anyone think of a reason NOT to go for it?

[Polpolion]

Try and look at a few 16:10s in the 1920×1200 size. 16:10 is superior because taller screen.

On second thought now that I'm looking myself, most of 1920×1200 seem prohibitively expensive...

[redsniper]

yeah idk if another 120 pixels of height will greatly improve my life.

[JGZinv]

Look at getting the Asus VH236H... I left a review at Newegg. I've got two of them.

[rev_posix]

Heh, I'm still sporting my Dell UltraSharp 2005FPW from several years ago.  Working perfectly for day to day stuff and games.

[Mongoose]

Maybe I should look into this too once I get a bit more money saved up.  I'm still stuck on a six-year-old default Dell CRT which has a noticeable Moire pattern I can't manage to finagle away.

[Fury]

Right, there are three things one should look out for when buying a new LCD monitor:
- LED backlighting. Full backlighting, not edge-backlighting. This allows better colors and contrast, not to mention you get very good colors and brightness as soon as you turn the monitor on. CCFL backlighting requires warm-up time to get good.
- 120Hz refresh rate. These are being marketed as 3D-monitors to be used with 3D-glasses. I doubt anyone here gives a **** about 3D, me included. But 120Hz refresh rate allows twice as many frame updates in best case scenario, making even regular Windows (or whatever OS you run) smoother. It also reduces visible RTC artifacts significantly.
- IPS-panel. IPS is the best quality LCD panel we get in computer monitors today. Most monitors are inferior quality TN panels.

What's the catch? You can only pick two out of three if you want a monitor now. You can pick both LED-backlighting and 120Hz refresh rate, but you have to give up on IPS-panel. Or you can get IPS-panel and LED-backlighting but have to give up on 120Hz refresh rate. Personally I would pick LED-backlighting and 120Hz refresh rate. Maybe in a few years we can get IPS panels with both of those.

[JGZinv]

While your points are technically correct Fury, I have to disagree with them. People all over the net run this same stuff in the ground.
What most people want is a good quality monitor that looks good and is at a reasonable price.

LEDs while you are correct mostly, however there are still late generation CCFL's that perform very well and are cheaper.
Granted they use a bit more power in standby and other modes. Startup time on a decent current gen LCD from standby is about 3
seconds and it's fully lit. Coming from a CRT particularly, you're either going to notice a speed increase, or not see any major difference.
120Hz while fine for 3D and updating, isn't a deal maker/breaker. You still have to add in the cost of the glasses and other hardware.
IPS panels are quite expensive. Dell's the most widely bought brand I'd say at this time. Compare $320 for a 23" IPS to a $160 23" TFT.
You can go dual screen for the price of a single IPS monitor.

Case in point my VH236H's are well known for being a gaming monitor used at Street Fighter tournaments for the simple reason it looks
very good and has no discernible lag or tearing. It's brighter than anyone could live with long term right out of the box, and any significant
color correction someone would want can be done via the monitor settings and your video card settings.

The only downside to them, is the poor speakers... which is standard across the board on just about everything in the sub $260 range.
I picked up each of these for $150 new. 23 inch is right at the sweet spot right now for price vs. viewable size. 20" and under you get a
disappointing small screen. 24" and up and you're paying premium.

IPS may be all that and a box of socks, but there is nothing lacking from these TFT panels I have. Unless your job depends on absolute color accuracy
and you're willing to pay double what you would on a single TFT, I say it's not worth it. Read reviews of other people on different monitors, they are quite satisfied
without having to go to an IPS. LED is really more of a feature, not a must have. 120Hz... depends on how much spare cash you've got and the desire to do
3D, but it's also a feature.

I've got a folder of over 150 complex wallpapers I have set to swap at random, I know how well these screens display color. I'll take pics if need be to prove that perfectly
decent and affordable screens are possible outside of IPS.

*Note - I'm not really ranting at you, just the criteria that is run into the ground all over the net. Which isn't as true in actual practice as the golden rule it's made out to be.

[Nuke]

i was looking at a 120 hz screen when i bought this one (samsung p2570), because i was somewhat interested in 3d, but this screen was cheaper, bigger, and had a better rating. so far im fairly happy with its not 120hz but it looks good and performs well. i like the idea of stereoscopy, but i dont think the technology is there quite yet, and you kind of have to give up size and quality for it right now. frankly youd be better off with an hmd or an autostereoscopic display, those usually allow simultaneous left/right rendering instead of shutter flipping and therefore look much better dispite their lower resolutions.

[Mongoose]

Regarding the hertz ratings, are the larger TVs like my family's Sony Bravia really working at their stated refresh rate (120 Hz in this case), or is it generally more of an interpolation process that's being applied?  I do know that there's a qualitative difference between it and something running at 60 Hz, as we initially looked at that version, but I'm not sure what's really going on under the hood.

[redsniper]

Too late guys, I got an LG IPS236V and it's sweet.

[Nuke]

Regarding the hertz ratings, are the larger TVs like my family's Sony Bravia really working at their stated refresh rate (120 Hz in this case), or is it generally more of an interpolation process that's being applied?  I do know that there's a qualitative difference between it and something running at 60 Hz, as we initially looked at that version, but I'm not sure what's really going on under the hood.

tvs interpolate up to their specified refresh rate. they still only accept an input rate of somewhere between 30 and 60 fps. i very much doubt you would be able to set your refresh rate to 120 if you hooked up your computer to it. i doubt they have the capability to run an actual 120fps video stream. computer monitors on the other hand can, and this is usually used for stereoscopy, or people with really beefy video hardware who want a monitor that can keep up with it.

[IceFire]

I'm looking for a new monitor right now myself. The Dell monitor with IPS is a strong contender but I have to admit that the design of the monitor is rather lacking and if I'm going to be staring at the bloody thing all the time it better look decent.

There's a new line of LED IPS panels from LG coming soon that I have my eye on. They started selling in Japan and Europe recently and North America is due some time soon. IPS definitely the way to go if you want a very good looking LCD monitor these days.