The computer and electronics super geek thread

[Guest davidwhangchoi]

this is not a bad deal:

MSI GE60 0ND-654MX Intel Core i7 3630QM(2.40GHz) 8GB Memory 750GB HDD 15.6" Notebook Windows 8

•Intel Core i7 3630QM(2.40GHz)
•8GB Memory 750GB HDD
•NVIDIA GeForce GTX 660M
•1920 x 1080
•Windows 8 Multi-language
•DVD Super Multi

for 750 shipped on newegg

i don't need it but i would prob get it if i didn't have a gaming lappy already

[mikeszekely]

this is not a bad deal:

MSI GE60 0ND-654MX Intel Core i7 3630QM(2.40GHz) 8GB Memory 750GB HDD 15.6" Notebook Windows 8

•Intel Core i7 3630QM(2.40GHz)

•8GB Memory 750GB HDD

•NVIDIA GeForce GTX 660M

•1920 x 1080

•Windows 8 Multi-language

•DVD Super Multi

for 750 shipped on newegg

i don't need it but i would prob get it if i didn't have a gaming lappy already

I have an GE70 0ND-213US. It's got a 17" screen, but otherwise is spec-for-spec the same as this one, and I paid $1200 for it back in April or May.

I'm not sure I'd pay that much for it again... I wanted a more portable laptop than my old Asus, and while the MSI GE series is thinner than comparable gaming laptops, that really just brings it down from "tank" to "ordinary"... it's not ultrabook thin, or anything. Thing is, I did wind up getting a really portable laptop for generic stuff, and I could have got more gaming power for my money if I'd not cared about the size.

That said, for $750, it's a steal. The only game I had any trouble running was BioShock Infinite, but oddly enough, only when I had Windows 8 on it. I actually installed an mSATA SSD in mine, then put Windows 7 on it with some drivers from an identical Windows 7 MSI laptop. Everything runs pretty good on it after that, and it goes from completely off to even the background Windows processes loaded in under 30 seconds.

[azrael]

this is not a bad deal:

MSI GE60 0ND-654MX Intel Core i7 3630QM(2.40GHz) 8GB Memory 750GB HDD 15.6" Notebook Windows 8

i don't need it but i would prob get it if i didn't have a gaming lappy already

That's not a bad price for a gaming laptop. Unfortunately, I don't do laptop gaming.

[Guest davidwhangchoi]

I have an GE70 0ND-213US.

but oddly enough, only when I had Windows 8 on it. I actually installed an mSATA SSD in mine, then put Windows 7 on it with some drivers from an identical Windows 7 MSI laptop. Everything runs pretty good on it after that, and it goes from completely off to even the background Windows processes loaded in under 30 seconds.

That's not a bad price for a gaming laptop. Unfortunately, I don't do laptop gaming.

nice grab!mSATA or an SSD is so awesome, nice lappy you got there. yeah windows 7 is better for gaming imo.

i was looking for a desktop but couldn't pass this up.

i ended up with an amazing steal in april (love finding deals )

m18x

dual 7970m cards 2gb ddr 5 ram ea.

i7 3840QM

512ssd

32gb ram

blu ray/dvd drive

1980 x 1080

for 1200.00

it was more powerful than most gaming desktops plus i can move it around a but easier. so i decided this will be my desktop replacement. but end up using this to carry around to work daily, the power brick is bigger than two ps vita's sandwiched together so i got an extra plug to leave in the office and one at home. (dell sent an extra for free)

but i'm still looking for an actual portable lappy... so i was considering that msi. i'm just skeptical of the cooling solution for smaller lappy w/ a nice card, if i would to get that i would want a 17" just to give the card some room to breathe.

[Guest davidwhangchoi]

Just a heads up for any MW hunting for a deal on a desktop or lappy, dell is having a good sale. This is where i got my deal above, new stuff is added daily so if you dig around you'll find some insane rig, i haven't seen any alienware 18's yet but they get posted they go in about 10-20 seconds bc everyone is poaching for one. I spend 5hours failing until i finally was able to add one to my cart. There also a dell gift card trick to combine but you need to chat or phone to make it work

Details here: http://slickdeals.net/f/6422096-dell-outlet-home-30-off-800-and-above-25-off-500-799-20-off-499-and-below-w-fs

Good luck!

[mikeszekely]

That's not a bad price for a gaming laptop. Unfortunately, I don't do laptop gaming.

I certainly don't prefer it. My main computer is a desktop with a 27" monitor and surround sound speakers in my basement man-cave.

That said, a gaming laptop is convenient when you travel. I took my previous lappy to Beijing with me, and Civ V was pretty much what kept me sane in the evenings when my wife and her family were watching some soap opera set during WWII.

[azrael]

That said, a gaming laptop is convenient when you travel. I took my previous lappy to Beijing with me, and Civ V was pretty much what kept me sane in the evenings when my wife and her family were watching some soap opera set during WWII.

When I last traveled with my 13" classic MBP a few months back, that felt too heavy, which has prompted me to consider the new 13" rMBP. I could have brought my iPad but I needed to do actual work and I was watching my TV shows on the road.

[Guest davidwhangchoi]

another newegg deal (deal is only good for today) that's good for gaming but the cpu is weaksauce

MSI GX60 3AE-217MX AMD A-Series A10-5750M(2.50GHz) 8GB Memory 750GB HDD 15.6" Notebook Windows 8 Multi-language
$750 / Shipping is Free

• A10-5750M CPU (2.5 - 3.5Ghz) (Quad Core) (HD 8650G Onboard Graphics)
• AMD AM70 FCH Chipset
• 15.6" Full HD (1920x1080) anti-glare LCD panel in LED backlight
• 8GB Memory DDR3 1600
• 750GB HDD (7200 rpm)
• AMD Radeon HD 7970M (GDDR5 2GB) (Discrete Graphics)
• SteelSeries keyboard made just for gamers
• Audio Boost, 2.1ch Speakers, THX TruStudio Pro virtual surround
• 10/100/1000 Killer E2200 series
• Blu-ray Reader
• HD Webcam (30fps@720p)
• Windows 8 Multi-language
• 9-cell lithium ion Battery
• Dimensions 395 x 267 x 55mm (14.97"W x 10.24"D x 1.77"H) Weight 3.5kg (7.7lbs)

the cpu bottlenecks it and an i7 will destroy it, but for gaming it's decent for 750 shipped.

i would just take out the gpu and sell it, it's going for 500 itself:)

Edited November 14, 2013 by davidwhangchoi

[Archer]

Thinking about getting either a surface pro or pro 2, mainly for college work, but for the occasional steam game (last gen stuff, civ 5, etc.) as well.

Does anyone have a pro or pro 2, and have opinions about them? (i.e. good, bad, etc.). Also, anyone think the pro 2 is worth the 200 - 300 extra bucks? (as compared to the first gen pro)

Thanks

Edited November 15, 2013 by Archer

[mikeszekely]

Thinking about getting either a surface pro or pro 2, mainly for college work, but for the occasional steam game (last gen stuff, civ 5, etc.) as well.

Does anyone have a pro or pro 2, and have opinions about them? (i.e. good, bad, etc.). Also, anyone think the pro 2 is worth the 200 - 300 extra bucks? (as compared to the first gen pro)

Thanks

If you're planning on gaming, the Surface Pro 2 has around 9% improvement over the original Surface Pro, going by strictly benchmarks.

Honestly, as the owner of a Windows 8 tablet (but not the Surface Pro or Pro 2), I kind of feel like Windows 8 isn't all that great of a tablet OS. Mine is almost always docked with the keyboard, which begs the question, why not just get a decent portable laptop instead? For a little under $1300, you can get a 13" Digital Storm laptop with an i7 and a Geforce 765M (although it's admittedly nowhere near as thin as a Surface, or even an Ultrabook). Although I personally haven't used Digital Storm, a friend of mine got a desktop from them, and he was extremely satisfied with their service.

[Shadow]

What I'm eyeing for my first build.

Antec ATX Mid Tower Case

ASRock Z77 Extreme4 LGA 1155 Intel Z77 motherboard

MSI R9 270X 2G Radeon 2GB 256-bit GDDR5 CrossfireX Video card

Intel Core i5 3570K or 4560 (both are priced the same) I'm not sure of the big differences between the Ivy Bridge and Haswell processors.

Thermaltake TR2 Power Supply

8GB HyperX Blu Memory

WD 1TB HDD

DVD-RW and CD-RW Drives (Taken from previous computer)

Windows 7 Home Premium

[Archer]

If you're planning on gaming, the Surface Pro 2 has around 9% improvement over the original Surface Pro, going by strictly benchmarks.

Honestly, as the owner of a Windows 8 tablet (but not the Surface Pro or Pro 2), I kind of feel like Windows 8 isn't all that great of a tablet OS. Mine is almost always docked with the keyboard, which begs the question, why not just get a decent portable laptop instead? For a little under $1300, you can get a 13" Digital Storm laptop with an i7 and a Geforce 765M (although it's admittedly nowhere near as thin as a Surface, or even an Ultrabook). Although I personally haven't used Digital Storm, a friend of mine got a desktop from them, and he was extremely satisfied with their service.

I get ya that a dedicated gaming laptop may be better for gaming, but right now, I can pick up a pro for $575.

I'd love to get a dedicated gaming laptop or something of the sorts, but I've got a PS4 to scratch that next gen itch, and I've got a retina macbook pro 15 inch for portable power usage (and maybe more demanding gaming).

I don't really have a tablet at the moment (except for an iPad mini, which I will be giving away soon), and I kind of wanted a tablet that I could throw in my backpack [none of my classes allow laptops, so I don't carry it with me] and not weigh me down too much.

This is kind of why I gravitated toward the surface pro. I had the surface RT, but I hated that I couldn't use legacy apps, and the windows app store pales in comparison to the iTunes App store. That being said, I LOVED the keyboard and being able to actually do stuff on a machine that doesn't take up a whole deal of space.

I felt like the Pro should be able to deliver on that slight mobile gaming need [civ 5 mainly, maybe some stuff like read dead redemption/skyrim/borderlands with a controller hooked up, obviously at low settings], and my need for legacy apps and productivity.

[mikeszekely]

I get ya that a dedicated gaming laptop may be better for gaming, but right now, I can pick up a pro for $575.

I'd love to get a dedicated gaming laptop or something of the sorts, but I've got a PS4 to scratch that next gen itch, and I've got a retina macbook pro 15 inch for portable power usage (and maybe more demanding gaming).

I don't really have a tablet at the moment (except for an iPad mini, which I will be giving away soon), and I kind of wanted a tablet that I could throw in my backpack [none of my classes allow laptops, so I don't carry it with me] and not weigh me down too much.

This is kind of why I gravitated toward the surface pro. I had the surface RT, but I hated that I couldn't use legacy apps, and the windows app store pales in comparison to the iTunes App store. That being said, I LOVED the keyboard and being able to actually do stuff on a machine that doesn't take up a whole deal of space.

I felt like the Pro should be able to deliver on that slight mobile gaming need [civ 5 mainly, maybe some stuff like read dead redemption/skyrim/borderlands with a controller hooked up, obviously at low settings], and my need for legacy apps and productivity.

If your main use is school, and you can't take a laptop, there's nothing particularly wrong with the Surface Pro, per se. Just, as I said, I don't think Windows 8 is a particularly good tablet OS. If you've used the regular Surface already, you kind of know what you're getting... slightly thicker, worse battery, more power, better compatibility.

I haven't had hands-on time with it yet, but the Surface Pro 2 is basically the Surface Pro with a bump from Ivy Bridge to Haswell. That means a little better performance all-around and a little better battery life, but it's up to you if that's worth the extra money.

[azrael]

What I'm eyeing for my first build.

Antec ATX Mid Tower Case

ASRock Z77 Extreme4 LGA 1155 Intel Z77 motherboard

MSI R9 270X 2G Radeon 2GB 256-bit GDDR5 CrossfireX Video card

Intel Core i5 3570K or 4560 (both are priced the same) I'm not sure of the big differences between the Ivy Bridge and Haswell processors.

Thermaltake TR2 Power Supply

8GB HyperX Blu Memory

WD 1TB HDD

DVD-RW and CD-RW Drives (Taken from previous computer)

Windows 7 Home Premium

I'd consider bumping up to 16GB if cheap enough. But going by specs alone, it looks like this will be a mid-range computer so 8GB should be fine. If you can find a deal for 16GB, I would probably go for it but I won't go out of my way to make it happen. I'd probably omit the CD-RW. The DVD-RW is sufficient and will give you one less piece of equipment that would probably end up taking space.

Difference between Ivy Bridge and Haswell besides age, Haswell has significant enough power-price ratio improvements as well as a integrated graphics boost over Ivy Bridge. This would help in the long run. Since you're going with a dedicated graphics solution, integrated graphics wouldn't enter into the picture.

[azrael]

If your main use is school, and you can't take a laptop, there's nothing particularly wrong with the Surface Pro, per se. Just, as I said, I don't think Windows 8 is a particularly good tablet OS. If you've used the regular Surface already, you kind of know what you're getting... slightly thicker, worse battery, more power, better compatibility.

I share mikeszekely's musings with Windows 8. While I think Windows 8/8.1 is a good OS, it is paired with a very confused UI that doesn't seem to fit with either tablet or laptop very well. Your mileage may vary.

I haven't had hands-on time with it yet, but the Surface Pro 2 is basically the Surface Pro with a bump from Ivy Bridge to Haswell. That means a little better performance all-around and a little better battery life, but it's up to you if that's worth the extra money.

Simply, the Surface 2 Pro is an incremental upgrade to the Surface Pro. The Surface Pro 2's price + keyboard is already in the $1000 and you would get a decent laptop for that price.

[Shadow]

I was original debating on opting for a Geforce GTX 660Ti till I saw the MSI R9 270X which from what I understand is pretty new but it was priced $50 cheaper. People were claiming they could run BF4 on High settings with the 270X no problem. Yeah, I'm opting for a mid-range for now, see how it turns out.

I'll keep my eye open for any deals on memory this upcoming black friday.

Edited November 16, 2013 by Shadow

[technoblue]

Shadow: I'm running an Ivy Bridge system, which shares basically the same specs above as your proposed 3570k Ivy build with 8GB of system memory. I do have an older GTX 460 that I am in the process of upgrading. The only other difference is that I use a small SSD as my OS drive and a 1TB HDD for data. If you don't mind managing your installation, I would recommend a configuration like that. The other option is a hybrid drive. I have no personal experience with them, but I have heard good things about them.

My system runs all my games with maximum detail at 1600x1200 resolution. Yeah, my next big PC upgrade will be a new widescreen monitor. I'm looking at what is available in the 27" range...

To me, the question of Haswell vs Ivy Bridge is more about what deal you can get today than about performance. If you are looking at both and a Haswell build costs as much as an Ivy Bridge build, then go Haswell. If you are not into overclocking, also remember to look at the non-k CPUs. Buying one of those can save you about $10.

[azrael]

Shadow: I'm running an Ivy Bridge system, which shares basically the same specs above as your proposed 3570k Ivy build with 8GB of system memory. I do have an older GTX 460 that I am in the process of upgrading. The only other difference is that I use a small SSD as my OS drive and a 1TB HDD for data. If you don't mind managing your installation, I would recommend a configuration like that. The other option is a hybrid drive. I have no personal experience with them, but I have heard good things about them.

My system runs all my games with maximum detail at 1600x1200 resolution. Yeah, my next big PC upgrade will be a new widescreen monitor. I'm looking at what is available in the 27" range...

To me, the question of Haswell vs Ivy Bridge is more about what deal you can get today than about performance. If you are looking at both and a Haswell build costs as much as an Ivy Bridge build, then go Haswell. If you are not into overclocking, also remember to look at the non-k CPUs. Buying one of those can save you about $10.

Shadow, I would second technoblue recommendation on a SSD+HDD combo. If there's one thing that will slow you down, it's the HDD. Putting your OS and primary apps on a SSD would dramatically improve performance. I'm using hybrid drives and they literally are the middle ground. But I see hybrid drives more as a solution for laptops. There are people out there that live out of their laptops (they're laptop is their primary PC) so having that speed improvement over a conventional HDD without too much sacrifice on price/storage like a SSD is great. Considering this is a desktop, I would look at the scenario of SSD+HDD. But if you don't want to pay for that I'd consider a hybrid drive. But if you're happy or don't want to pay, then stick with a single HDD.

[mikeszekely]

I was original debating on opting for a Geforce GTX 660Ti till I saw the MSI R9 270X which from what I understand is pretty new but it was priced $50 cheaper. People were claiming they could run BF4 on High settings with the 270X no problem. Yeah, I'm opting for a mid-range for now, see how it turns out.

I'll keep my eye open for any deals on memory this upcoming black friday.

It seems like developers tend to optimize more for Nvidia cards these days than AMD, plus having a GeForce card will potentially give you Shield streaming options, should you decide to go that route ever. Personally, I've been using Nvidia cards for as long as I've been PC gaming. I only used a Radeon once, and I really didn't care for it or the Catalyst software that went with it.

Rather than save a little and get a Radeon, I might suggest you skimp on the CPU and actually spend a little more on the GPU. If Battlefield's your thing, I've read that the best bang/buck ratio is the GTX 760.

[Shadow]

Shadow, I would second technoblue recommendation on a SSD+HDD combo. If there's one thing that will slow you down, it's the HDD. Putting your OS and primary apps on a SSD would dramatically improve performance. I'm using hybrid drives and they literally are the middle ground. But I see hybrid drives more as a solution for laptops. There are people out there that live out of their laptops (they're laptop is their primary PC) so having that speed improvement over a conventional HDD without too much sacrifice on price/storage like a SSD is great. Considering this is a desktop, I would look at the scenario of SSD+HDD. But if you don't want to pay for that I'd consider a hybrid drive. But if you're happy or don't want to pay, then stick with a single HDD.

Would two HDD, one a standard like a WD Blue and the other a WD Black, work in this case aswell? Trying to stay in a certain price range but the SSD+HDD does sound like a good idea in this case. I was also just thinking using a higher performance HDD for games and a regular for the OS and standard apps.

[azrael]

Would two HDD, one a standard like a WD Blue and the other a WD Black, work in this case aswell? Trying to stay in a certain price range but the SSD+HDD does sound like a good idea in this case. I was also just thinking using a higher performance HDD for games and a regular for the OS and standard apps.

Not really. The difference would only be marginal between the 2 HDDs. I would either get a hybrid drive, like this one

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16822178381&ignorebbr=1

Or a <128 GB SSD + a HDD.

[Guest davidwhangchoi]

ssd world of a differece for Os booting installing programs and loading games. a 128 gb you can get pretty cheap. or a 256 if you hunt a bit. (new egg has a 256gb for 149 right now)

[mikeszekely]

ssd world of a differece for Os booting installing programs and loading games. a 128 gb you can get pretty cheap. or a 256 if you hunt a bit. (new egg has a 256gb for 149 right now)

If you're on a budget, skip the 256GB and go for the 128. I have Windows 7 Pro, Chrome and Firefox (I use both, ok?), Microsoft Security Essentials, Office 2013 Professional, Visio 2013 Professional, Project 2013 Professional, 7-Zip, and Foxit installed on mine, and I've got some room to spare. Just make sure you create folders on the traditional drive for the stuff that usually goes in your personal folder (the stuff under C:\Users\YourName, like Documents, Videos, Downloads, Pictures, etc). Then you can use Windows 7's libraries feature to not just include those folders, but make them the default save locations.

If you're really on a budget, you can go smaller and just put Windows and your AV software on the SSD

It really makes a big difference, though. From the time I hit power until all background processes were loaded and you could open a web browser was around 2 minutes on a 1TB WD Black 7200RPM drive. With a 128GB Kingston SSD, it's under 30 seconds.

[miles316]

My mom is looking to get a new desktop computer Wallmart has a computer Gateway SX110G-uw24 with a AMD E1-1500 E-series accelerated processor 1.48 GHZ and comes with a AMD redeon HD7310 graphics card.

most of the reviews I have found online are not good they say that it is a Notebook computer in a small desktop shell but its in my moms price range will this be ok for playing Facebook games which is what she does with it and chat on Facebook.

Our old desktop is not very good when trying to play Farmville on FB and freezes up and will not go fullscreen and runs slow compared to my Laptop which had a failed hard drive.

The desktop has a Intel Celeron D processor 356 3.33 GHZ with a Nvidia GeForce 7xxx graphics card.

will this be a good replacement for what she uses it for.

[mikeszekely]

My mom is looking to get a new desktop computer Wallmart has a computer Gateway SX110G-uw24 with a AMD E1-1500 E-series accelerated processor 1.48 GHZ and comes with a AMD redeon HD7310 graphics card.

most of the reviews I have found online are not good they say that it is a Notebook computer in a small desktop shell but its in my moms price range will this be ok for playing Facebook games which is what she does with it and chat on Facebook.

Our old desktop is not very good when trying to play Farmville on FB and freezes up and will not go fullscreen and runs slow compared to my Laptop which had a failed hard drive.

The desktop has a Intel Celeron D processor 356 3.33 GHZ with a Nvidia GeForce 7xxx graphics card.

will this be a good replacement for what she uses it for.

Short answer, no. AMD's E series is junk. It is commonly found in notebooks, yes, but even then cheap budget ones. Under AMD's simplified naming conventions, The A series is their main line, with bigger numbers telling you that one is better than another (ex. A10 is better than A4). The E series doesn't even qualify to be an A anything.

What is your mom's price range? I'd be happy to keep an eye out for any deals.

[miles316]

Short answer, no. AMD's E series is junk. It is commonly found in notebooks, yes, but even then cheap budget ones. Under AMD's simplified naming conventions, The A series is their main line, with bigger numbers telling you that one is better than another (ex. A10 is better than A4). The E series doesn't even qualify to be an A anything.What is your mom's price range? I'd be happy to keep an eye out for any deals.

$400.00

Will it have the same problems my old desktop has with running slow because my Sony vaio laptop which I got in 08 worked much better than my old desktop?

[mikeszekely]

$400.00

Will it have the same problems my old desktop has with running slow because my Sony vaio laptop which I got in 08 worked much better than my old desktop?

I can't say for sure how it'll work exactly for your mom's Facebook games, because there's a number of factors going into it. I can say that, in general, the computer will be slow. It's not even much of an upgrade. I couldn't find the model you listed, but a Pentium D @ 3.2GHz scores around a 714 on PassMark, and a Pentium D @ 3.4GHz scores 753 (higher is better). An E1-1500 gets a 746. To keep things in perspective, I have a tablet/notebook hybrid that struggles with YouTube sometimes. It runs an Atom Z2760, and even that scores a 679. The lowest benchmark I could find for a Core i3 is nearly 1200.

If you're just looking to replace a tower, and you're not partial to any particular brand, you should be able to a lot better than an E1-1500 on $400. I'll look around.

EDIT: You might want to see if your local Staples has any of these Lenovo PCs in stock. 4GB of RAM and a 500GB hard drive is pretty low-end these days, but adequate, and the AMD A4 5000 CPU gets a PassMark score of 1909. Pretty good for under $300. Not sure how long the sale will last.

Edited November 20, 2013 by mikeszekely

[miles316]

my sony vaio with a Intel core 2 duo T5800 2.0 GHZ it played webbrowser based games like ones on Facebook far beter than my old desk top my argument that the Gateway computer is not a inprovement over the old desktop has not convinsed her that we would be beter off geting a more expensive plus the Gateway comes with a larger monitore.

[miles316]

Are any of the All in one computers worth anything I have heard story's that they are terrible?

[mikeszekely]

Are any of the All in one computers worth anything I have heard story's that they are terrible?

Does she need a new monitor? You'd have some money left over if you got that Lenovo I linked to you for $280. But while it's possible to get a computer and a monitor for $400, you're not likely to find a good one.

As for all-in-ones they're not all terrible. There's a few things to remember, though.

1. They're really laptops. They use laptop parts, and they're harder to upgrade or repair.

2. If it's under $500, yes, it is terrible. Most in that price range use AMD E series CPUs or Pentium Dual Cores. I remember Samsung had a pretty nice one with a Core i5, but it was $800 on sale.

3. Touchscreens cost extra.

4. If the screen goes, you're SOL.

[miles316]

She wants a bigger monitor.

[Cdr Fokker]

She wants a bigger monitor.

I'm quite happy with the monitor on my new PC: A 50" LG Plasma.

It's actually the thing that has brought me back to MW. Built a new HTPC/Steam-gaming-rig a few weeks ago and have been ripping all of my DVDs/BDs. Of course, one of the first things to be put on there was SDFM followed by DYRL, which got me back into watching all of it. Which has now gotten me back here, which will of course lead me to spending all kinds of time and money on Macross, as it always does. (And, really, what's wrong with that?)

[myk]

I'm quite happy with the monitor on my new PC: A 50" LG Plasma.

It's actually the thing that has brought me back to MW. Built a new HTPC/Steam-gaming-rig a few weeks ago and have been ripping all of my DVDs/BDs. Of course, one of the first things to be put on there was SDFM followed by DYRL, which got me back into watching all of it. Which has now gotten me back here, which will of course lead me to spending all kinds of time and money on Macross, as it always does. (And, really, what's wrong with that?)

Ok, it's time to get a new tv but I'm not sure which way to go. My main priority is the 50-55" screen size, the ability of the t.v. to keep up with FPS' and other fast-paced media like games and sports. Finally, I would like a total price of $1K or lower. With this in mind I figured the obvious choice was plasma, but I'm told that's a negative because I can't control the lighting in my living room very well and that the plasma's screen would get wiped out. Is this a reasonable set of criteria? Should I stick with plasma and try to manage the lighting issue? If not, what LED/LCD's am I supposed to be looking at? I see a lot of LCD/LED's rated at 120hz, only to read that they can't keep up with games, sports, etc. Hell, I've even read reviews on 600hz plasma's that can't perform either.

I thought I had this all down but when I consulted with Cnet I saw a list for the "top 20 t.v.'s for gaming," which confused me even more because the t.v.'s they listed were ranked high for frame rate performance, but in their individual reviews they more or less said the frame rates weren't adequate. http://reviews.cnet.com/8301-33199_7-57589240-221/best-low-lag-hdtvs-for-serious-gamers/

I don't get it! In any case, thanks in advance guys...

Edited December 2, 2013 by myk

[azrael]

Ok, it's time to get a new tv but I'm not sure which way to go. My main priority is the 50-55" screen size, the ability of the t.v. to keep up with FPS' and other fast-paced media like games and sports. Finally, I would like a total price of $1K or lower. With this in mind I figured the obvious choice was plasma, but I'm told that's a negative because I can't control the lighting in my living room very well and that the plasma's screen would get wiped out. Is this a reasonable set of criteria? Should I stick with plasma and try to manage the lighting issue? If not, what LED/LCD's am I supposed to be looking at? I see a lot of LCD/LED's rated at 120hz, only to read that they can't keep up with games, sports, etc. Hell, I've even read reviews on 600hz plasma's that can't perform either.

I don't get it! In any case, thanks in advance guys...

That CNet article is in regards to input lag (the time it takes for the monitor to receive commands, then to translate that to movement on screen). While reducing the lag is ideal for quick movements in FPS-gaming, I'm not sure how well that translates to sports games through a receiver. Plasmas have better control over input lag and ghosting but that means nothing if the room is so bright that it washes out the screen. They still have lag, but it should be better than the LED LCDs. If lighting-control is a concern, then I'd stick with the LED LCD-panels. Going that route, I'd look at TVs that can do 120hz-240hz (as high as you can afford). But keep in mind that some of these refresh rates are not really what they claim to be.

http://reviews.cnet.com/8301-33199_7-57598032-221/fake-refresh-rates-is-your-tv-really-120hz/

[Guest davidwhangchoi]

120hz-240hz 600hz has nothing to do with decreasing gaming input lag. you can have a 60hz tv that won't factor into gaming lag. that's all marketing speak.

in fact, having a 120hz-240hz can increase input lag if the feature 120hz-240hz tv's were made for, is engaged.

what 120hz refresh rate is for:

in terms of sports, the issues the tv marketers claim to have solved is motion dejudder. when cameras pan fast in sports 120-240hz tvs can engage a "smooth motion" gimmick to eliminate judder when the camera pans in sports by doubling the refresh rate. 120hz-240hz allows hdtv to engage a post processing to create the illusion of getting rid of judder in slow planning scenes and motion blur in fast scenes which is marketed for sports watchers. it's really garbage and makes the tv look unnatural. 99% of videophiles do not use it including the editors at cnet. (sports is ok to use but you don't need it)

120hz is useless unless you plan to use the artificial smooth motion gimmick. (soap opera effect which increases lag)

90% people don't use it.

marketers will try to sell you on the refresh rate eliminates motion blur. most modern tv's at this point don't have to worry about ghosting (high ms on lcd's) as that was an issue on lcd hdtv's in their infancy.

the truth is motion judder/blur we all see from slow/fast camera pans in sports is mostly from the original broadcast source material and not the actual limitation of you tv. but marketers lie about this to sell tv's.

the 600hz is a term designated for plasmas not LCD's and it means absolutely nothing. marketers just came with that to combat lcd advertising.

i'll try to bracket it to simplify and cut through the BS tv makers try to sell you:

LCD/LED

60hz is standard refresh rate every tv broadcasts in. this is perfectly fine for 95% of viewing material.

120hz = lcd makers doubled the refresh rate to create the artificial smooth motion gimmick. (it is artificially adding frames to give an illusion of smooth playback on slow camera pans eliminating dejudder which is from the broadcast source)

240hz = lcd needed to produce 3d smooth motion 120hz spit in two (otherwise little or no benefit of getting 240hz)

Plasma

600hz = has nothing to do with anything. term was created to combat the 120hz-240hz craze

why is there judder in films?

movies are filmed in 24fps/

tv broadcast standard is NTSC standard =60fps.

so films have to be converted to fit 24frames into 60 fps by converting frames in a 3:2 ratio causing an uneven skip between frames. so marketers came out with gimmick to eliminate those issues.

Plasma have the smooth motion gimmicks as well.

but their main gimmick is playing 24fps film content by converting 60frames back to 24 fps film content. some LCD's do this as well. (this gimmick the ps3 gives as an option for tv's capable of using it.) but it works for some films while for some older films flicker which bother people.

48hz doubles 24hz (but creates flicker)

96hz (hdtv makers doubled 48hz again to reduce flicker)

gaming lag is a separate issue. dis-engaging all gimmicks reduces lag. (making the point of having a 120hz or 96hz hdtv useless)

the cnet article on dis-engaging all the post processing features (or using game mode) finding a way to by pass it helps gaming lag.

most hadcare 360 fps players use an old 360 w/ vga port to a low ms pc gaming monitor.

real hardcore fps will find an old tube crt for zero input lag.

personally get i would get a hdtv for the best picture quality and worry about gaming secondary as i don't think it's worth the trade off to get a tv for gaming if it sacrifices in the picture quality dept.

imo, i would look for the best contrast ratio (best blk levels) then color accuracy. and gaming lag third in that order.

Edited December 4, 2013 by davidwhangchoi