24" LCD Round-Up: Acer S242HL, Dell U2412M, And Samsung T24A550

Page 3 - Seeking answers? Join the Tom's Hardware community: where nearly two million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Status
Not open for further replies.
Old Samsung Hybrid models, I owned those early last year and gave one to my sister and replaced one in MAY with the 27" Samsung SyncMaster T27A950 which has much improved viewing angles and speed and also includes a DisplayPort connection on the non-TV version.
Perhaps it's the goal to just look at 20-24", but you included other 27" models in the tests and that model/product line has matured into a much better 27" which, granted, still trails GOOD IPS panels, but can hold it's own against the cheaper ones. And don't discount the nice uncompressed ATSC tuner for watching a little HNIC while working. :sol:
It would be nice if the review included the latest models, not last year's models which were good for their time, but outdated now.
 

flong

Distinguished
Dec 27, 2010
1,106
0
19,310
[citation][nom]TheGreatGrapeApe[/nom]Old Samsung Hybrid models, I owned those early last year and gave one to my sister and replaced one in MAY with the 27" Samsung SyncMaster T27A950 which has much improved viewing angles and speed and also includes a DisplayPort connection on the non-TV version. Perhaps it's the goal to just look at 20-24", but you included other 27" models in the tests and that model/product line has matured into a much better 27" which, granted, still trails GOOD IPS panels, but can hold it's own against the cheaper ones. And don't discount the nice uncompressed ATSC tuner for watching a little HNIC while working. It would be nice if the review included the latest models, not last year's models which were good for their time, but outdated now.[/citation]

It was not reviewed here but it has been reviewed by other sites and it did not do too well - especially considering its asking price. They say it has a beautiful form factor but its picture is not equal to the Dell U2711 and other competitors. I think it is TN panel - but that is just from memory.
 

RySean

Distinguished
Nov 8, 2009
18
0
18,510
What converter cable is there available for the Dell to use HDMI? I tried using Monoprice's DisplayPort to HDMI converter, but apparently it only works from DisplayPort devices to HDMI displays. Any suggestions? (Like to connect an Xbox to the U2412M via HDMI output)
 

ikaruga

Distinguished
Jan 17, 2011
44
0
18,530


Perhaps this (with your hdmi cable ofc) + this (for audio)?
 

RySean

Distinguished
Nov 8, 2009
18
0
18,510
That would work, but it's DVI output, and I'm currently using the DVI input on my monitor for my computer, which is why I wanted DisplayPort output from HDMI.
 
G

Guest

Guest
Shame the Sony Vaio's still can't do resolutions above 1920. This seems a bit crazy in this day and age but I've just had confirmation from Sony on this including the new Vaio Z.
 

hmp_goose

Distinguished
Nov 15, 2010
131
0
18,680
[citation][nom]flong[/nom]That is a 2009 article and I am not sure why you are saying it is the "standard." Samsung's monitors have changed a lot since then.[/citation]
I was referring to how the response time was measured: To wit, use "frames of ghosting" instead.
 

glarimore

Distinguished
Nov 11, 2006
17
0
18,510
Personally, I'd be very interested in seeing the performance of different 120 Hz monitors, and would especially like them compared to their 60 Hz Brethren.

As a Counter-Strike 1.6 player and an e-sports amateur competitor for close to a decade now, I know very well that people who play games competitively have very different requirements for a monitor than those who are simply gaming enthusiasts. There is a reason that I (and many CS 1.6 players) still use CRT monitors. Input lag is nearly non-existent and the monitor typically supports refresh rates of 100 Hz or more at a variety of different resolutions.

When you talk about gaming on a 60 Hz monitor, your screen is being updated with new information every 16.6 milliseconds. At 120 Hz this is reduced to 8.3 milliseconds. Ignoring input lag and servers latency, if two players using 60 Hz monitors simultaneously peek a corner to look at each other, there is a maximum difference in the time between they see each other of 16.6 milliseconds. Average human reaction time is about 215 milliseconds -- when you talk about pro-gamers it is probably more in the neighborhood of 150 milliseconds. This means that when peeking a corner a player can potentially have his reaction time increased by 10%, depending on at what point in his monitor's refresh cycle he peeks the corner. When you're talking about two people facing off with guns (the AWP in Counter-Strike) that both deliver an instant kill, this small fragment of time becomes extremely important.

The fact of the matter is that things can occur in a video game at any time -- not just at one of 60 points within a second. Even though most humans can not *see* the difference between 60 Hz and 120 Hz, there is constantly new information being generated -- would you like to be updated about new information 60 times per second or 120 times per second? On a 60 Hz monitor the information you are receiving is a maximum of 16.6 milliseconds old, at 120 Hz it's reduced to 8.3 milliseconds. Sounds better, doesn't it?
 

flong

Distinguished
Dec 27, 2010
1,106
0
19,310
[citation][nom]Glarimore[/nom]Personally, I'd be very interested in seeing the performance of different 120 Hz monitors, and would especially like them compared to their 60 Hz Brethren. As a Counter-Strike 1.6 player and an e-sports amateur competitor for close to a decade now, I know very well that people who play games competitively have very different requirements for a monitor than those who are simply gaming enthusiasts. There is a reason that I (and many CS 1.6 players) still use CRT monitors. Input lag is nearly non-existent and the monitor typically supports refresh rates of 100 Hz or more at a variety of different resolutions.When you talk about gaming on a 60 Hz monitor, your screen is being updated with new information every 16.6 milliseconds. At 120 Hz this is reduced to 8.3 milliseconds. Ignoring input lag and servers latency, if two players using 60 Hz monitors simultaneously peek a corner to look at each other, there is a maximum difference in the time between they see each other of 16.6 milliseconds. Average human reaction time is about 215 milliseconds -- when you talk about pro-gamers it is probably more in the neighborhood of 150 milliseconds. This means that when peeking a corner a player can potentially have his reaction time increased by 10%, depending on at what point in his monitor's refresh cycle he peeks the corner. When you're talking about two people facing off with guns (the AWP in Counter-Strike) that both deliver an instant kill, this small fragment of time becomes extremely important.The fact of the matter is that things can occur in a video game at any time -- not just at one of 60 points within a second. Even though most humans can not *see* the difference between 60 Hz and 120 Hz, there is constantly new information being generated -- would you like to be updated about new information 60 times per second or 120 times per second? On a 60 Hz monitor the information you are receiving is a maximum of 16.6 milliseconds old, at 120 Hz it's reduced to 8.3 milliseconds. Sounds better, doesn't it?[/citation]

Excellent post! So far what I have heard from gamers is that HIPS are excellent for all games but TN may have a slight edge for "quick jerk" games.

To tell you the truth, I have heard nothing but bad things about the 120 Hz monitors. Further, I have heard that current GPUs cannot take advantage of the 120 Hz speed - but I have no first hand experience with this.

It would be great to have an article on 120hz monitors to discuss their current state,performance and 3D capability.
 

ikaruga

Distinguished
Jan 17, 2011
44
0
18,530

That's so not true! Gamers can even see the difference between 120Hz and 140Hz also, but it's mostly about smoothness and feel (e.g.: when I in the mood for some nostalgia and I go back to play some quakeworld, I can't stand anything slower than 800x600@200Hz). The input lag is what really matters and it's much more important!


That would only mean 1 frame advantage if your game is running significantly faster than 60fps, and you take your sample at the "peak" frame time! (oh, and also let's assume that using two ports won't add 1 extra frame into this story). And this is still holds even with sub 100ms reaction times what pro gamers truly have.

IPS panels are much better than TN panels in every way, period. I mostly play on my secondary CRT display (I use 1152x864@144Hz) but I would take an IPS any day over a 120Hz TN gimmick.

I own a cheap U2311H (it's the better version of the 2312HM) which I use on 75Hz (to make things smoother and reduce input lag further) and I had almost all the 120Hz models for a comparison and testing as well.

As a hard core gamer and computer enthusiast, I can tell you that a good 75Hz IPS monitor is a zillion times better than any TN panel currently available in the market.
 
[citation][nom]flong[/nom]It was not reviewed here but it has been reviewed by other sites and it did not do too well - especially considering its asking price.[/citation]

I could say the same about your vaunted Dell, especially when it comes to ghosting and lack of features.
The asking price is fine if you know what they're asking for... I use two different calibrated monitors for any 'close' work.

However, you miss the point completely. The Samsungs tested are older models/technology, and do not benefit from the imtprovements made to the newers series, and as an owner of both, (and many more including Dell, NEC and Mitsubishi [and a few P260s that still beats them all for colour transition & gradients]), I know that the units tested/chosen are far from the best that Samsung has to offer, and even for that line with a specific goal of being a Hybrid, those have long since been replacedby far better models.

They say it has a beautiful form factor but its picture is not equal to the Dell U2711 and other competitors. I think it is TN panel - but that is just from memory.

I wasn't looking for another review, I was wondering why a 2 year old model was chosen, not the 4 month old model when testing. The panels have changed ALOT in that time and it seems unbalanced to be testing these old models instead of the new (well newer to some) models. It would be like testing a new Graphics card against the competitions' previous generation.

It's funny your previous statement repeats the same idea though... "Samsung's monitors have changed a lot since then." that's true in more ways than one. ;)
 

flong

Distinguished
Dec 27, 2010
1,106
0
19,310


You are right, I think they should use the most current monitor in their tests but keep in mind that monitors don't change or evolve quickly in the computer world.

For example, when I bought my HP 2475w it was one of the highest rated 24" HIPS monitors on the market, even slightly beating out the Dell U2410 and that was over 3 years ago. I thought my monitor would be passed up very quickly and soon be out of date.

Fast forward almost 4 years and we see to my surprise that the HP 2475w is STILL one of the highest rated 24" HIPS monitors out there even beating Asus's new HIPS monitor and some of NEC's monitors. I did not think that would happen. I thought for sure that LED monitors would dominate the market by now and frankly I am perplexed as to why they are not.

My point is, monitor technology for some reason is changing at a snail's pace compared to GPU and CPU technology. I really don't understand it.

I do know that for my next build I will have 3 really cool monitors in eyefinity hopefully with little or no bezel width to separate the screen edges and mounted on a really cool stand ha, ha.

I don't mean to be blunt but the HIPS monitors being discussed here do not have major problems with "ghosting," which you keep referring to. You obviously don't own one of these monitors.

They handle fast motion extremely well. I think you may be thinking about the early IPS monitors that came out that had some problems. The HIPS monitor like the Dell U2410, the Dell U2711, the HP2475 and Asus's new HIPS monitor exhibit very little ghosting and it is invisible to the naked eye.

More importantly, they do no blur fast motion - though much of this would depend on the quality of the video card being used with the monitor. Cheap video cards do not have the horsepower to process the signals well and can cause all sorts of problems for TN or HIPS monitors.

You don't need to be snide, I don't own the "vaunted" Dell U2410 or the U2711 (though I would like to own the 2711). They have sterling reviews from multiple professional reviewers and that is why I recommend them. The U2410 is very similar to my HP 2475w 24" monitor.

I have owned a Samsung monitor and though its video quality for movies was pretty good, it really had poor color control and it was nowhere near as precise as the above mentioned monitors. Its text was blurry on my computer and I ended up taking it back. It is a TN monitor and they just are not as good as an HIPS monitor for overall picture quality. I am not putting down any Samsung owners.

The Samsung 27" monitor you mention is still a TN panel which is a cheaper, mass-produced panel. No TN monitor matches up well with the HIPS monitors, but that is not a slam against Samsung or against you.

Samsung could if they wanted to, put out a full LED monitor and rock the computer world but so far they haven't. They clearly have the technology and they are good at it; just look at their HDTVs. However they choose to go on the cheap with their computer monitors for some reason.


 
G

Guest

Guest
[citation][nom]Ikaruga[/nom]That would only mean 1 frame advantage if your game is running significantly faster than 60fps, and you take your sample at the "peak" frame time! (oh, and also let's assume that using two ports won't add 1 extra frame into this story). And this is still holds even with sub 100ms reaction times what pro gamers truly have.[/citation]

I don't understand a thing what you just said there. Ports?
 

flong

Distinguished
Dec 27, 2010
1,106
0
19,310
[citation][nom]Ikaruga[/nom]That's so not true! Gamers can even see the difference between 120Hz and 140Hz also, but it's mostly about smoothness and feel (e.g.: when I in the mood for some nostalgia and I go back to play some quakeworld, I can't stand anything slower than 800x600@200Hz). The input lag is what really matters and it's much more important!That would only mean 1 frame advantage if your game is running significantly faster than 60fps, and you take your sample at the "peak" frame time! (oh, and also let's assume that using two ports won't add 1 extra frame into this story). And this is still holds even with sub 100ms reaction times what pro gamers truly have. IPS panels are much better than TN panels in every way, period. I mostly play on my secondary CRT display (I use 1152x864@144Hz) but I would take an IPS any day over a 120Hz TN gimmick.I own a cheap U2311H (it's the better version of the 2312HM) which I use on 75Hz (to make things smoother and reduce input lag further) and I had almost all the 120Hz models for a comparison and testing as well.As a hard core gamer and computer enthusiast, I can tell you that a good 75Hz IPS monitor is a zillion times better than any TN panel currently available in the market.[/citation]

That is really interesting but I think that you are talking about factors that may not necessarily have to do with the Hz rating. Whether a video picture is smoother at 120hz as opposed to 60Hz could be due to the video card, the CPU, the monitor's response time (as you mention) and probably other factors. Are you sure that it is the increase from 60Hz to 120Hz.

Ideally, the increased speed of the 120Hz monitors would be a factor to improve fast moving video like games or sports and as you say make them smoother. However, to date I have yet to read a positive review of a single 120Hz monitor. It is really inexplicable because we don't see this problem with HDTVs. It is inarguable that the faster Hz rate on TVs makes a difference in fast moving video.

I don't play fast-twitch games and so I will defer to you that there is a noticeable difference. I am just not sure if it is all due to the increased Hz rate. I enjoyed your post because you have gone even further than 120 Hz and you are speaking from first-hand experience.

However, I watch a lot of sports on my 60Hz Hp 2475w and the picture is very good without the 120 Hz refresh rate and these sports are VERY fast moving video. With a cheaper video card I see the problems that you mention and so if you are watching a 60 Hz computer with a low-dollar video card you are comparing apples to oranges. A 120Hz monitor with a cheap video card will also have choppy video which is not smooth and it has nothing to do with the Hz rate.
 
[citation][nom]flong[/nom]I don't mean to be blunt but the HIPS monitors being discussed here do not have major problems with "ghosting," which you keep referring to. You obviously don't own one of these monitors. They handle fast motion extremely well. I think you may be thinking about...[/citation]

Nope I don't own them, I've used them, and it's one of the reasons I still use the P260s at work and at home for 'close work' like I said. They are getting better, although the Gamut on the 2412 is a major weakeness.
But then again I'm a bit of a stickler for what I need... but I'm not the only one who noticed it, there are many others, and even a good example shown in this review of the 2412 (which is the THG target remember) which still says "– whilst obviously no match for a 120Hz TN panel the visual experience at these ‘medium speeds’ was very good. The trailing.. . ..became more exaggerated and the image appeared to break up in places due partly to the RTC impulse artifacts. It is worth noting that such high-speed transitions are not something any 60Hz LCD monitor will take in its stride regardless of panel technology.";
http://www.pcmonitors.org/monitor-reviews/dell-u2412m

So not as bad as it used to be (where it was obvious to someone with cataracts) it's still got a bit further to go.

So while you're right that I don't own them, I equally and conversely think you've never really tried a good 120hz panel or top tier CRT and may not know, or perhaps forget, what GREAT looks like after being so accustomed to 'good', kinda like folks who like 320kbps compressed audio versus CD let alone SACD/DVDA/Phono.
However, that's simply a sub point and I'm not going to bother with a 'my perception is better than yours debate', but I will question your idea that people can't perceive these differences, it's that kind of thinking that gives us the rainbow effect on single chip DLP despite the tripling of the colour-wheels to 360 hz. Very myopic to think in those terms. I hate those and prefer Plasma and 3 chip DLP because I DO notice these things, especially when watching fast moving material, like hockey which has stressful full-on white-black-white transitions.

The original point remains, there are much better examples from Samsung in the last two years, especially in the category tested where there have been dramatic advances , which while not making them equal to IPS in many ways (as I still contend they aren't) they have greatly improved them and make those new Samsungs the best in class.... so the question is Why Not Test Those if you want an idea of the state of Onion on these monitors ?

Cheap video cards do not have the horsepower to process the signals well and can cause all sorts of problems for TN or HIPS monitors.

Yeah, that's not a problem for me. I still have Matrox cards at work that I was working on until last year because of my demand for quality, only recently having replaced a few with Quadro and one FireMV card. Not the issue either at work or at home, and especially not when you know what you're doing.

You don't need to be snide

Really?
A little hypocrisy there me thinks, unless you forget your own comments to others earlier. :sarcastic:

No TN monitor matches up well with the HIPS monitors, but that is not a slam against Samsung or against you.

Again, you're missing the point, like I said. I'm not saying they are better/worse in every way (nothing is), but ignoring the improvements and the areas they are good/imptoved, in order to just show a 5/5 win instead of an 8/10 will because they limit the test or pick the older crippled models (to cook a 10/10) is simply bad practice. I would prefer they test current vs current, or best example vs best example or $/$ whichever is something someone would currently do for themselves, this test doesn't really represent that IMNSHO.
 

flong

Distinguished
Dec 27, 2010
1,106
0
19,310
[citation][nom]TheGreatGrapeApe[/nom]Nope I don't own them, I've used them, and it's one of the reasons I still use the P260s at work and at home for 'close work' like I said. They are getting better, although the Gamut on the 2412 is a major weakeness.But then again I'm a bit of a stickler for what I need... but I'm not the only one who noticed it, there are many others, and even a good example shown in this review of the 2412 (which is the THG target remember) which still says "– whilst obviously no match for a 120Hz TN panel the visual experience at these ‘medium speeds’ was very good. The trailing.. . ..became more exaggerated and the image appeared to break up in places due partly to the RTC impulse artifacts. It is worth noting that such high-speed transitions are not something any 60Hz LCD monitor will take in its stride regardless of panel technology.";http://www.pcmonitors.org/monitor-reviews/dell-u2412mSo not as bad as it used to be (where it was obvious to someone with cataracts) it's still got a bit further to go.So while you're right that I don't own them, I equally and conversely think you've never really tried a good 120hz panel or top tier CRT and may not know, or perhaps forget, what GREAT looks like after being so accustomed to 'good', kinda like folks who like 320kbps compressed audio versus CD let alone SACD/DVDA/Phono. However, that's simply a sub point and I'm not going to bother with a 'my perception is better than yours debate', but I will question your idea that people can't perceive these differences, it's that kind of thinking that gives us the rainbow effect on single chip DLP despite the tripling of the colour-wheels to 360 hz. Very myopic to think in those terms. I hate those and prefer Plasma and 3 chip DLP because I DO notice these things, especially when watching fast moving material, like hockey which has stressful full-on white-black-white transitions. The original point remains, there are much better examples from Samsung in the last two years, especially in the category tested where there have been dramatic advances , which while not making them equal to IPS in many ways (as I still contend they aren't) they have greatly improved them and make those new Samsungs the best in class.... so the question is Why Not Test Those if you want an idea of the state of Onion on these monitors ?Yeah, that's not a problem for me. I still have Matrox cards at work that I was working on until last year because of my demand for quality, only recently having replaced a few with Quadro and one FireMV card. Not the issue either at work or at home, and especially not when you know what you're doing.Really? A little hypocrisy there me thinks, unless you forget your own comments to others earlier. Again, you're missing the point, like I said. I'm not saying they are better/worse in every way (nothing is), but ignoring the improvements and the areas they are good/imptoved, in order to just show a 5/5 win instead of an 8/10 will because they limit the test or pick the older crippled models (to cook a 10/10) is simply bad practice. I would prefer they test current vs current, or best example vs best example or $/$ whichever is something someone would currently do for themselves, this test doesn't really represent that IMNSHO.[/citation]

You make some really excellent points. You are 100% correct, I do not own a 120hz monitor and I do not have first-hand experience. I have a friend with a CRT monitor but they are kind of dinosaurs aren't they? Next time I get a chance to look at monitors I will see if there is a 120hz available.

Keep in mind that the review that you cite when they talk about "trailing" on the 2412 they are taking high-speed snapshots to see it. Also remember that the 2412 is a down-graded HIPS panel - it is eIPS which is not the same quality. That being said you are right; not having first-hand experience with a 120hz monitor, then I really have nothing to compare to my HIPS monitor. I will say this though, I have looked carefully at 120hz and 240hz HDTVs and I see little difference in fast motion between my 60hz HIPS monitor and the 120hz HDTV (the HDTV does have a better overall picture due to its superior video processing hardware). The 240hz is an improvement over the 120hz and my 60hz monitor and I could see a difference - though it was not huge. Some of the 240hz HDTVs looked almost plastic though - yuck, what's up with that?

I like my monitor - it is a beautiful monitor - but I have no illusions of it competing with $2000 NEC monitors or $10,000 pro monitors. Even the U2711 has better resolution (but it costs twice what I paid for my monitor). Still, my monitor coupled with my XFX 6950 produces a superb picture and handles fast motion very well. I do not see any artifacts or breakup when watching fast sports and I still see these problems on cheaper HDTVs. The color accuracy on my monitor is good enough for professional photographers. But the more expensive NECs has superior blacks, greys and color accuracy in general. The total black screen is really where a $2000 NEC beats the HIPS monitors because they have a slight "glow." All HIPS monitors have this glow, it is part of their construction.

Go back and re-read my earlier post - I agreed with your point that the most current Samsung monitor should be used for the reviews. I think that Samsung makes the best HDTVs on the planet and that is why I have been very interested in their monitors. Sadly, I do not think their monitors are that great and I said before, I don't understand why. I have not had a chance to see their new 27" monitor in person though.

Thanks for the heads up on the 120hz monitors. When I get a chance to look at one I will. So far there are no too many of them and I have not seen them in the stores. Next time I am in Frys, I'll look for one.
 
G

Guest

Guest
I've returned my Dell 2412M back because of backlight flickering. Dell uses PWM modulation for LED becklight with too low frequency. Brightness below 80% can cause eye strain for sensible users. Therefore Dell 2412M should be AVOIDED not approved! Btw I've tested rev 1.0 and 1.01.
 
G

Guest

Guest
I'd like to see a review of 23" - 24" combination monitor HD TVs. Having a good combo monitor and a good single-purpose monitor or more looks to me like an ideal setup.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.