Flickering screen on boot

[Fourjays Veteran]

Hey,

Second problem of the day. :(

Yesterday morning when I booted my computer I noticed the screen flicker for about 5-10 seconds, until it reached the "Windows is starting" part of the boot process. After that it worked fine until later when I awoke it from a 1-2 hour sleep and it did the same again. Again, after 5-10 seconds it went away and was absolutely fine. It has done the same again today and I'm a little concerned it is the graphics card (an ATi HD 4650) on the way out.

My LCD monitor seems fine - the flickering is only during this 5-10 second period as the computer boots or wakes from a long sleep. Restarts and short-term sleeps do not cause the screen to flicker, so it is only occurring when starting from a "cold" state. I read that it may be that the video card and monitor are not syncing up their refresh rates at first?

Any advice?

Thanks in advance for all help. :)

[TEX4S]

youre right, probably is the card.

Its 1 of 3 things:

1.) Video card

2.) PSU

3.) Voltage regulator on mobo (probably not as this is normally laptops)

[Fourjays Veteran]

Just to add, I turned it on this morning and left the monitor off. Turned the monitor on once it was booted to Windows and it was flickering and remained flickering. Then I went to shutdown and it stopped as soon as Windows displayed the "Shutting down" screen. Rebooted and it has gone now.

youre right, probably is the card.

Its 1 of 3 things:

1.) Video card

2.) PSU

3.) Voltage regulator on mobo (probably not as this is normally laptops)

Wouldn't the PSU cause other issues too? Apart from my LAN problems (long term issue), everything else seems fine.

[MR_Candyman]

honestly, it sounds like the cathode backlight is dying in the monitor

[Fourjays Veteran]

honestly, it sounds like the cathode backlight is dying in the monitor

I'll try leaving the monitor on when I put the computer to sleep later for a few hours, so the computer goes "cold" but the monitor doesn't. Could also try it the other way - turn the monitor off and do something else for a while and see what it does when it is turned back on. Seems worth a try anyway.

[MR_Candyman]

Most screens shut themselves off when there is no signal going into it, so turning off the computer will not keep the screen on. Doing the other way of just turning the monitor off for a while will tell you though. Keep in mind you might have to test a few times since this problem will be intermittent for a while until the light finally dies (my laptop had this problem for about a year until it finally died completely)

[Fourjays Veteran]

Most screens shut themselves off when there is no signal going into it, so turning off the computer will not keep the screen on. Doing the other way of just turning the monitor off for a while will tell you though. Keep in mind you might have to test a few times since this problem will be intermittent for a while until the light finally dies (my laptop had this problem for about a year until it finally died completely)

Ok, will try it that way. (Y)

[Fourjays Veteran]

Well it looks like it is the monitor. :/ Had the computer on with the monitor off for 3 hours and when I turned the monitor on it was doing its flickering. Did it again to be sure and the same happened. Could try another monitor to double check. Is there any other possibility?

Each time it happens the flickering seems to last slightly longer and the flicker rate slows down before stopping. It isn't a random flicker, but almost like there is a fixed amount of time between the images shown... if that makes sense.

[MR_Candyman]

sorry bud, I would just recommend replacing the monitor. You might be able to find a new light for it, but the cost and effort just aren't worth it.

[Fourjays Veteran]

sorry bud, I would just recommend replacing the monitor. You might be able to find a new light for it, but the cost and effort just aren't worth it.

Definitely the monitor - confirmed with another monitor that works fine. Good call MR_Candyman (Y), I was convinced that it happening at start-up ruled out the monitor. :p Much more of a pain to sort out, although it is still within its 3 year warranty. In case I have to choose a new monitor, do you know if it is worth getting one with an LED backlight instead of a normal lamp?

[MR_Candyman]

Definitely the monitor - confirmed with another monitor that works fine. Good call MR_Candyman (Y), I was convinced that it happening at start-up ruled out the monitor. :p Much more of a pain to sort out, although it is still within its 3 year warranty. In case I have to choose a new monitor, do you know if it is worth getting one with an LED backlight instead of a normal lamp?

That is a VERY tricky question. It really depends on what LED dies and circuitry they use. Unfortunately there's 2 problems to answering this question: 1: Companies never advertise what lighting they use 2: Nobody questions what lighting they use. They think all LED lighting is the same when it is not. I am actually an active member on a flashlight forum as well and am a flashaholic myself. I can certainly tell you that there are LED lights that are MUCH brighter than cold cathode lights. They are also far more efficient, so you will save power by using an LED backlit monitor at the same brightness. LEDs also have a longer expected life as long as they get adequate cooling.

However, LED lighting right now is more expensive, and it has a blue tint to it. I actually have the exact same monitor that came in 2 versions, one LED light, one cathode. Separately they both look great, stick them side by side and you can tell in an instant the one with the LED light. It looks VERY blue in comparison, and consequently very unnatural. There are however also LED lights nowadays that are "warm white" that are exactly the same but have more phosphorous, which diminishes the light output, but makes for a yellower, more natural light.

Basically, in my opinion the cathode lights are the cheaper, more natural looking light, but might not be as bright as you can find in an LED, and might not last as long. It's a tough decision, but if you could go for the screen type you want with a warm white led with a high output that seems to have decent cooling, then that's what I would go for

[Fourjays Veteran]

That is a VERY tricky question. It really depends on what LED dies and circuitry they use. Unfortunately there's 2 problems to answering this question: 1: Companies never advertise what lighting they use 2: Nobody questions what lighting they use. They think all LED lighting is the same when it is not. I am actually an active member on a flashlight forum as well and am a flashaholic myself. I can certainly tell you that there are LED lights that are MUCH brighter than cold cathode lights. They are also far more efficient, so you will save power by using an LED backlit monitor at the same brightness. LEDs also have a longer expected life as long as they get adequate cooling.

However, LED lighting right now is more expensive, and it has a blue tint to it. I actually have the exact same monitor that came in 2 versions, one LED light, one cathode. Separately they both look great, stick them side by side and you can tell in an instant the one with the LED light. It looks VERY blue in comparison, and consequently very unnatural. There are however also LED lights nowadays that are "warm white" that are exactly the same but have more phosphorous, which diminishes the light output, but makes for a yellower, more natural light.

Basically, in my opinion the cathode lights are the cheaper, more natural looking light, but might not be as bright as you can find in an LED, and might not last as long. It's a tough decision, but if you could go for the screen type you want with a warm white led with a high output that seems to have decent cooling, then that's what I would go for

Would I need to spend a decent amount on an LED monitor to really get the benefits? Only asked as I noticed one for just a few quid more than a cathode.

Also, I'm not seeing many 16:10 monitors about compared to last time I looked at monitors (a few years ago). Any major disadvantages to 16:9 for web design/development and a few (oldish) games? Or is it better to hunt down a 16:10 one?

[MR_Candyman]

Personally, I don't think I would go for that monitor. It's a business series monitor with a fairly low brightness of 250 cd/m2, a screen resolution of 1440x900 (which can be a pain with some games), a response time of 5ms (so you might notice some ghosting), and a contrast ratio of 1000:1 which is pretty low by today's standards. On the plus side, it's a samsung, and it does have a low operational power of only 18 watts. I guess it just depends on what you're going to use the monitor for. Games, I wouldn't go for it, movies I wouldn't either, but everything else should be quite good.

As for the 16:10 to 16:9 thing, it's really a personal preference thing. I personally prefer the 16:9 screen because it just gives so much horizontal space. It makes it so in programs like photoshop you get extra space for the menus without sacrificing much vertical space for the pictures. It's all personal preference as I said, but I would go into a shop and compare them side by side. As for games, any decent monitor will adjust to the resolution and either stretch the image, or give black bars to keep the aspect ratios. I never have a problem with either way, but I know some people are picky. I know somebody who only gets 4:3 monitors to keep the aspect ratio of older games and stay away from the black bars.

[Fourjays Veteran]

Personally, I don't think I would go for that monitor. It's a business series monitor with a fairly low brightness of 250 cd/m2, a screen resolution of 1440x900 (which can be a pain with some games), a response time of 5ms (so you might notice some ghosting), and a contrast ratio of 1000:1 which is pretty low by today's standards. On the plus side, it's a samsung, and it does have a low operational power of only 18 watts. I guess it just depends on what you're going to use the monitor for. Games, I wouldn't go for it, movies I wouldn't either, but everything else should be quite good.

As for the 16:10 to 16:9 thing, it's really a personal preference thing. I personally prefer the 16:9 screen because it just gives so much horizontal space. It makes it so in programs like photoshop you get extra space for the menus without sacrificing much vertical space for the pictures. It's all personal preference as I said, but I would go into a shop and compare them side by side. As for games, any decent monitor will adjust to the resolution and either stretch the image, or give black bars to keep the aspect ratios. I never have a problem with either way, but I know some people are picky. I know somebody who only gets 4:3 monitors to keep the aspect ratio of older games and stay away from the black bars.

Am currently using a Samsung SyncMaster 940BW which is 1440x900 (and 5ms but I've never noticed ghosting) which has been a pain with some of my older games. Difficult to get some of them to work on the resolution. Extra horizontal space does sound appealing though, especially with regards to Photoshop as you said.

How would you rate this non-LED monitor? To my untrained eye it seems quite impressive, given the SyncMaster cost the same two years ago and has nowhere near those figures. :laugh:

Hopefully Ebuyer respond fairly soon to my question regards the warranty on this... flickering is now taking almost a minute to stop. Getting bad quite quickly it seems. :/

[MR_Candyman]

my roommate has the exact same monitor but in a 24". I must say it is very nice. Keep in mind that contrast ratio is dynamic, not static, but I think they do a good job with it. My monitors are 30,000:1 contrast ratio dynamic and everything always looks good. I would definitely recommend the monitor you linked.

[Fourjays Veteran]

The retailer told me to contact Samsung, and I'm very impressed with Samsung's warranty service. They sent a replacement monitor panel the following day and took the old one back. The replacement unfortunately seems to have a couple of stuck/dead pixels, but they aren't too distracting.

I think I'll still pick up one of these newer models in the near future though, especially considering the price and the good warranty experience. :)

Thanks for all your help MR_Candyman. :p

[MR_Candyman]

Glad to hear you had good warranty service with them. I've had a couple with stuck pixels too, but I've always been able to massage them into working properly