What would be an excelent gaming monitor under 200-250 and for like the best gamers? I saw an asus monitor in newegg that's good but it got deactivated. Also which of these harddrives are better to get and would perform better? This http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16822136073 or this http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16822136298 ? Thanks. Peace.
With the HDDs, they are both very good. I think the Green Power Drives from WD use less power and operate quieter. Usually, this means there is some type of performance sacrifice. Maybe it will have to do with seek times. Overall performance should be pretty close though and maybe there would only be benchmark differences. With Western Digital, I believe the way it goes is, Green Power Drives are for energy savings and silent PCs, SE16 Drives are for everyday use, Caviar Black Drives are for Performance/Gaming, and RE2/RE3 drives are for servers/RAID. There are also the Velociraptors which would be the best performance from WD, but also the most expensive (about 6x more $$$ per GB). Other than the Velociraptor drives, there should be no noticeable difference in speed. Maybe 10 MB/s difference between the slowest and the fastest. I would not know about monitors. I use my HDTV as a monitor and that works for me. I would assume to go with a reliable brand. My Samsung LCD is not that much worse than the Pioneer Elite. Also, it is leagues better than the Westinghouse LCD I have seen Samsung LCD Monitors in your price range. I would recommend Samsung based on their LCD TV quality.
The Greenpower drives are slow, but energy efficient. If you are installing either an OS or Games to that drive, then you want the WD5000AAKS. For a monitor, this is a good one: http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16824001310
Is this a better monitor? http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16824001268 than the link you posted? Cuz this one has 2ms (GTG). The green powered have energy efficiency but what is the point of energy efficiency? BTW this was stated " SE16 Drives are for everyday use, Caviar Black Drives are for Performance/Gaming, " Are the caviar black drives better? Are the carviar black for everyday use? What's faster IDE ULTRA ATA or SATA ? What the difference between 8mb, 16mb, and 32mb catche? Which one is best? If you say one of the lower mb is best then why is it best? Isn't the higher mb supposed to be better since it's higher cache (When I say better I mean even just a little better counts.? Which interface would be better? Thanks. Peace.
You will never see the difference between 2ms and 5ms. Energy efficiency means the drives don't get as hot, and use less power (better for the environment and your electricity bill) - the Greenpowers are also quieter. IDE = UDMA, or P-ATA. S-ATA is the newer, faster technology, which uses smaller cables and is less confusing to set up. The more cache, the faster the drive is up to a point, but no gains have been seen from going from 16MB to 32MB.
Your's was 2ms response time too. I mean mines included GTG. But since you told me you will never see the difference between 2ms and 5ms that means between these 2 latencies none of them are best for gaming their both the best. Well if there is a cheaper 5ms samsung monitor for high gaming can you show me it? Thanks. Peace. So is it better to get caviar black or the SE? Cuz can the black stay on 24/7? Does heat matter in them? Do they overheat? Thanks. Peace.
GTG is the latency that is always stated, just some manufacturers assume it and others actually state that it's GTG. BTW is the more accurate figure, but manufacturers don't include it usually. With latencies, you want them to be lower, but you will never notice anything below 12ms anyway. Hard drives never overheat (especially not WDs) unless you put them in a really bad case.
Ok but which one of the two monitors would be better? This one (the one u stated) http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16824001310 or this one (the one I asked about) http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16824001268 . And you mean one's that have GTG are considered to have more accurate pictures and colors? BTW Would I rather get a cavier black than the SE you stated? Since it has 32mb cache which may be used for the future and be better at everything. Thanks. Peace.
GTG is not a 'thing to have'. It's not a specification. Refresh time is a measurement of how long it takes a monitor to completely change from one image to another. Grey to Grey Refresh time is the one that is usually measured, as it is quicker, and varies more between different monitors. Black to White Refresh time is the higher figure, and is probably ultimately more important but is never considered. All monitors are measured using both grey-to-grey and black-to-white refresh times, but usually only the grey to grey is stated, and sometimes it is assumed, so they don't even write GTG. This is all academic though, as refresh rates now are always low enough to never disturb the picture. I know of no monitor you can still buy where this isn't the case. The Caviar Black is more expensive, and will hardly be any faster than the normal WD5000AAKS. Buy it if you like, but the normal drive (I think they call it a Caviar Blue now) will do fine.
I forgot. Ok but which one of the two monitors would be better? This one (the one u stated) http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16824001310 or this one (the one I asked about) http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16824001268 . Was never answered. Thanks. Peace.
Patience man, for god's sake. I don't spend every single hour at aD. The two monitors are basically identical. Go with whichever one you prefer the look of
Sammoris someone told me that this http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16824009157 is much better than the samsungs. Would the gtx 260 black edition run crysis warhead on it on the highest settings or at least pretty high settings smoothly and great image quality on this monitor? Well it has more pixels than the samsungs. I know that for this resolution the xfx gtx 260 216 black edition would be the win between the sapphire hd 4870 1gb and the xfx gtx 260 216 core black edition. Thanks. Peace.
Here are some benches with both the 512MB and 1GB versions of the 4870: http://www.overclock.net/ati/401321-4870-512mb-vs-1gb-comparison.html The only thing I have seen on the GTX 260 was 1900x1200 at medium with 0xAA and that was 45FPS, which tied the HD 4850 1GB and HD 4870 512MB. Odds are the 4870 1GB is a better all around card and should perform equal or better on crysis at 1900x1200.
1680x1050 Ide go with black edition after looking at benchmarks. For 1900x1200 the hd 48701gb will do but for even higher than that the gtx 260 216 black edition.
