Acer's AL1951D 2ms gamer monitor

Gamer display makers are shaving down like an Olympic swimmer to get those crazy pixel response times, and soon enough we'll be measuring in nanoseconds. But until we're there, we're still going to have to deal with millisecond measurements, as in Acer's new AL1951D gamer monitor, successor to their AL1951C. This one keeps the same 1280 x 1024 pixel count, cuts the pixel response in half to 2ms, drops the brightness from 400 cd/m2 to 300 cd/m2, and ups both the contrast ratio to 1,000:1 from 700:1 and the price to $379 from $359 (MSRP, of course). Certainly not worth it for everyone when you can have a decent and somewhat larger widescreen for about the same or even less, but these are the sacrifices gamers are expected to make for their art.

[Via Bios]

[Abraham @ May 4th 2006 9:12AM]

Serious gamers don't make any sacrifices, they use CRT's. Sure they're big and ugly, but the quality can't be matched by LCD's today and probably for a few years to come.

[NRG-753 @ May 4th 2006 9:33AM]

My 12ms monitor is fine for gaming, it's great even in UT04 being an incredibly fast paced game. I think you'd notice little or no difference between a 2ms LCD and a CRT.

[Michael Quell @ May 4th 2006 10:02AM]

I also don't notice much difference in the refresh rates (bad terminology, so sue me), and I prefer my whale of a CRT that everyone makes fun of me for over your silly LCDs anyday.

The color is better, it's easier to see, and the video as a whole doesn't seem 'flat.'

That's just my opinion, though. =

[Ben Atwood @ May 4th 2006 10:11AM]

Wow, I can't wait to play FerrisWheel '06 on this bad boy!

[tiuk @ May 4th 2006 10:20AM]

I held onto my CRT until the Dell 1907FP was available for $219 USD, then I decided it was time. Boy does it ever make a difference! Text is so much clearer and sharper, it makes me wonder how I used a CRT for so long. Colors in games are bright and vibrant, no ghosting, and it even seems to handle dark areas quite well. I think LCDs are finally to the point where they can replace CRTs in almost every instance (except maybe high end photo work or something, I don't have any experience in that area).

[slyecho @ May 4th 2006 10:28AM]

They should already use nanoseconds to compare displays, because saying 2 ms has very low accuracy. I don't believe it's exactly 2.000 ms. Instead they should've said something like 2167 ns.

[Evan @ May 4th 2006 11:32AM]

Just a little typo:
"1,00:1 from 700:1"?

Keep up the great work,

Evan

[blah @ May 4th 2006 12:11PM]

People always come in these posts and post "CRT pwns, its l337 blah blah" but I can tell you most people won't notice. I have a LG Flatron L1720P, which I believe has a response time of either 8 ms or 12 ms (can't remember), but at any rate I remember the first time I play UT2004 it was like the scales fell from my eyes. (this is my first LCD I got almost a year ago I think)

The picture clarity was so amazing, as was the color depth compared to my old Samsung CRT - and NO BLUR OR GHOSTING. I think a lot of people are in denial over this, but I still have yet to see ANY ghosting or blur in any game. Most LCDs simply don't do that. Movies on the other hand, tend to have a slight blur, but its ok.

But games are 100% fine.

[carl @ May 4th 2006 12:49PM]

doesn't ms mean milliseconds? in that case you'd be looking at 2167 microseconds, not nanoseconds.

[Vincent @ May 4th 2006 12:50PM]

Hey Blah:

Te reason you dont see ghosting is because on a good PC, your games are running at 60fps or higher (if you know how to build a system) Movie standard framerate is 29.95fps, and with an 8ms or faster LCD, you can take full advantage of the higher framerates.

As for the rest of you LCD freaks, if your CRT is old (like mine) you'll notice a GREAT difference in the quality of the picture between a CRT and a brand new 19" Acer LCD (like my new one). I use dual monitors on my setup, but am considering replacing my CRT with another 19" Acer, but if you look at a 19" LCD next to a brand new 19" CRT by NEC or Samsung, my God, the CRT owns. But as for the older ones, yah they suck compared to the new LCDs. Whatever floats your boat, you know? I happen to like the contrast and the colors of my LCD, and I've played many a game on it, and it looks fine. Almost hard to look at my old CRT, it just looks blurry and crap next to that thing. So yeah, I'll be replacing it with either a second LCD or a new CRT in the next week or so.. and after I build my new system, maybe go three 19"ers for peripheral vision in CS hehe.

[Blake @ May 4th 2006 1:51PM]

The real reason gamers like CRT monitors is because they are cheaper (especially in sizes 19" up). It's hard to pony up for a good LCD when you just spent $500 on some new video card.

[Kazolar @ May 4th 2006 1:54PM]

I'm enjoying gaming on my 30" Dell perfectly fine.

[CeeJay @ May 4th 2006 2:50PM]

Not everyone notices the difference in response between a LCD and a CRT.

But some people do notice .. I'm one of them.

However it's becomming increasingly harder to get a good new CRT monitor because manufacturers are ceasing to make them, so in a few years when it's time for me and others to replace their old CRT monitor , there may not be any other choice than a LCD.

Hopefully by then LCD's have either overcome their weaknesses or SED's have become available (and afordable)

[Abraham @ May 4th 2006 2:51PM]

Like i said SERIOUS gamers, and design profesionals, use CRT, LCD's are fine for the casuals. Blake believe me price is not an issue, if you have spent all that money on your set up, its such a waste to use an LCD.

[JeffNLA @ May 4th 2006 6:28PM]

Every technology has its die hards. �SERIOUS gamers use CRT� - Give me a break.

I remember people who did want to give up the IBM selectrics.

Current LCD blows CRT away in every respect. RIP CRT!

[SERIOUS Design Professional @ May 4th 2006 10:59PM]

I happen to be a SERIOUS design professional, and happen to know a lot of other SERIOUS design professionals... on that note, let me say this... not once have I stepped into a design firm and seen a clunky CRT resting on the desk. Most professionals prefer the LCD... type is crisper (very important in design), colors are more vivid (still very important), and contrast is sharper. Besides, I really enjoy having the extra desk space for spreading out the rest of my crap.

[lowlight @ May 5th 2006 2:25AM]

Funny how they call it a "gamer monitor" yet they use a resolution that is NOT friendly for gaming. Most games come in a 4:3 ratio resolution (like 1024x768 or 1600x1200) and do NOT support this awkward resolution. Instead, you'll get terrible looking graphics, or a warped, narrow visual, if the game does happen to support 1280x1024 natively.

Stupid, stupid, stupid

[Lane @ May 28th 2006 1:05AM]

lowlight, pretty much 90% of the games out there support 1280x1024... so i am not sure what you are talking about or what games you are playing that dont support this resolution.

Also, i am interested in getting the screen, but curious how it actually performs, not hearing about crt vs lcd debates.

[Matthew @ Jul 10th 2006 12:59PM]

The statement about serious gamers prefering CRTs is true. The most ardent gamers do. The reasons are:

1. When moving the mouse quickly in a 3D game, an LCD monitor tends to make the world blur while the mouse is moving, whereas a CRT will blurr the world far less, especially if it is 21" or larger - because it has virtually no response time whatsoever. This is due to the fact that the bandwidth on larger CRT's (20+ inches) is so great - the data throughput. The blurring of LCD's is due to the poor response time. Even 2ms (yes, milliseconds, not nanoseconds) will cause significant blurring in comparison to a large CRT.

2. Even a response time of 2ms is inexusible in gaming. In gaming, we must contend with our connections causing lag, even if it's low, the video card may also add what appears to be "lag" in dropped frames - even the most powerful of them in recent games. The last thing a gamer needs is the display adding to the time it takes for them to fire at an opponent or respond to being fired upon. ; )
2ms can make a veryt noticable difference in a gunfight. Trust me - I am a highly skilled player who has been a gamer for many years. MY PC is near the top in performace, and I would NOT consider an LCD for gaming. At least, not with their current response times.

3. LCD monitors have lower refresh rates. This GREATLY affects gaming performance. LCD's average perhaps 75hz while larger CRT's do up to 100. In case you don't really understand how this works - regardless of how many FPS you get in a game with your PC, you will only see as many FPS as your monitor does in refresh rate.

75 hz = 75 viewable FPS max.
100 hz = 100 FPS.

Beginning to see how an LCD is a no-go for serious gamers?

4. CRT's have a sharper image than LCD's currently, whether it is text, images or whatever content, LCD's simply have not quite caught up to CRT's, although this may change in a few years.

There you go.