that's the issue.
Most are 25ms. You really want one of the newer 16ms displays for the best
results.
-Larry
> the main prob with lcd's is the only support low refresh rates especially
at
> higher res. Personally ive never seen a lcd that gives a better picture
than
> a crt
> dan
> > > At 1280x1024, you really need at least a Radeon 9700 Pro or better or
> > frame
> > > rate will be compromised. The alternative would be to run a GF4 Ti at
> > > 1280x1024x16bit to maintain good frame rates. GPL is the exception -
it
> > > runs in 16-bit and only 36fps so most half-decent video cards are
> capable
> > of
> > > that.
> > Not necessarily true, unless you measure a Radeon 9700 Pro and a GeForce
4
> > Ti4200 as comparable cards. First off, you're not saying what game
you're
> > playing. I have a LCD 18", and with my GF4 Ti200 FIC runs perfectly
fine
> at
> > 1280x1024x32. Now with Nascar 2003, I drop down a bit and never run the
> > game in 32 bit, usually running in 1152x864. But even with most of the
> > options on and running N2003 in 1280x1024x32 I get at least 40 fps, full
> > field, in the back, with all cars drawn. I just prefer to get a bit
> higher
> > so I run in a lower resolution.
> > And of course the processor speed might have something to do with it,
> also.
> > But I disagree with your opening statement-- and especially for F1C--
you
> > don't need all you say you need (LCD).
> > Alanb