How good is this Acer LCD widescreen?

Toggle sidebar Toggle sidebar
R

robx46

Distinguished
Sep 28, 2006
115
0
18,680
Went to my local walmart and I didn't want to buy a monitor online due to high shipping charges. They only has one 20" LCD, which was I figured was the perfect size for me. Any larger and the far sides of the screen would look darkened because I sit only a couple feet away from the screen. 20" is perfect for a widescreen, IMHO.
Anyhow, this 20" was Acer. Did some research beforehand on brands, didn't recall this specific model, but heard some good things about the brand.

It was fairly expensive for a 20" widescreen. $239 without tax. I am a noob at LCD specs, but the main thing I knew to look for was to make sure it was 1680x1050, had a low response time, and good constrast ratio. Was able to spot those things on the box.
Was 1680x1050 (perfect but not too big for my 320mb 8800gts KO to handle vga memory-wise). Response time was 5ms, from what I read that is pretty good, if not really good. And the contrast ratio is 800:1, I also heard that is quite good. Has the dvi input for my vga, which is great because I have a real dvi monitor, not just CRT with dvi adapter.

The reason I'm double checking here is because I couldn't find ANY info on this particular model. Everest says it was manufactured in 2007. The model I'm talking about is AL-2002w SD, TFT. Couldn't even find this product on the Acer web site, newegg, or anywhere where there might be reviews on it. I did find a similar AL-2002 model, but it was different, looked different, specs slightly different, and cost $50 less. I'm wondering though if these cheaper models might be just as good for less $$.

Also, I've simply never had an LCD monitor before, so I have nothing to compare it to. I think it looks OK to me, love the simpleness of LCD and picture looks OK to me, not CRT good but not far enough off that I care much, and again the pro's are outweighing the overall cons here, I think. If somebody could tell me whether or not those specs and the Acer brand are worth about what I paid, then I'll be happy. If not, then I can return and look elsewhere.
This may seem like a dumb post and maybe it is, but with my experience with LCD being none and not being able to find one review of this exact model anywhere, I just want to make sure I didn't pay $238+tax for an LCD when I could get something as good or better for less.
 
There are alot of 22" LCDs about right now using the same 5ms 1680x1050 panel. They should all be fairly similar.

I have one, but unfortunately I bought the wrong one and it only has a VGA input, therefore it is being donated to my little brother while I get a new (probably 24") one.

Anyway, the only other TFT monitor I have to compare it to is my HP LP2065, which is a 20.1" 4:3 1600x1200 8ms S-IPS panel.

There is no contest. The HP is a FAR better monitor in every regard. The colours on the 22" widescreen are HORRIBLE, however I'm not 100% sure if this is because of the panel or the VGA connection.

Still, I'm comparing it to a high end S-IPS panel here, which cost alot more money....
 
I bought a 22" Acer, I should know how it looks tomorrow. I hear they are quite decent for the price. I believe they have 3yr warranties as well which is a plus. Of course they wont be as good as your Samsung or Dell, but you also save $100
 



I just thought having dvi was nice because I needed no adapter anymore. But is there other advantages to having straight dvi? Maybe that is the reason this one was more expensive than the other acer I saw that had similar specs?

But yeah, I think the colors here are fine. Red is red, blue is blue, I really don't see anything out of the norm. Maybe that dvi is helping in this regard. It sure is nice after having good graphics cards for so long with this input that I can finally get proper use out of it.

Anyhow, if notable steps up from what I have here are solutions that cost much more $$, then count me out. I shouldn't of paid so much for this one, which is also why I want to make sure it is at least an OK buy. Was nice not needing to pay shipping though, so even if I could find something exactly the same for $20-$30 less, with the shipping rates I would have to give those savings right back.
 


Yeah, I can't spend another $100. I already hit my max spending limit and then some on this one, but I am happy with it so far. Just still wondering if it is good enough to warrant what I paid for it.

It was hard when I was online searching LCD's (just for reference and to learn specs). Yeah, you got one 20" that is $400. Then you see another 20" that is $160. The more expensive one may just have slightly better specs, both have 5 star reviews. So what I'm saying is that it is confusing trying to understand why one is $400 since I'm sure slightly better specs shouldn't cost $240 more. Know what I mean?

How familiar are you with LCD's? If you have used/owned and seen a few or more of them, then please report back to me here on what you think. I don't know if it is possible that your Acer could be so much different than mine. What is your model#? How much are you paying? What are your specs? That will help me roughly to see how mine might compare to yours.

I am really starting to like this after having some hours with it now and am starting to notice good things. For example, right on this reply page there is that rainbow for colored text. Looks beautiful! Then there are all these emoticons to the left, they are also very colorful, very high res, and the animated ones are smoothly moving. I'm not noticing strain on my eyes, really not noticing flicker either. Good stuff.
 
I have a 22" acer AL2223W, purchased from tiger direct for 259.00 plus shipping. Had to replace my aging 19"crt in a hurry. I'm not looking back. It was worth every penny I spent on it.
Not sure if you get the same quality from wally world or not.
 
Newegg has a 20" widescreen Acer for $169. I was also wondering about the quality of Acer Monitors. It seems like too good of a deal to pass up.
 
One thing to look for is a big viewing angle. The better lcd's are 178 degrees, both horizontal and vertical. If the viewing angle is poor, you need to keep your head in a relatively small area to keep the display from getting washed out and the colors altered. The other thing to look for is dead and/or stuck pixels. Less expensive units will not have as good quality control.
 
Hard to beat the Egg! Retailers typically stock different models so they don't have to compete directly with Net E-tailers, because, they can't! Look at CompUsa's death spiral.
 
Best Buy has a 19" Acer on sale this week for $140. My dad bought one and let me tell you, it's nice. We have it on a lower resolution because his GPU is only a Ti4200, but it looks very very nice. Cheap as hell too! I am considering pairing it with my 22" Acer that comes in the mail tomorrow.

Oh yeah, 0 dead pixels on it as well. DVI cable included. Fantastic deal
 
Careful guys, I just found something out. Perhaps the main reason why seemingly similar models with similar specs can cost so much different.

Seems to be all about display colors, plus a couple other more minor things that make the more expensive models better. But main thing is display colors, so lets go over what I just learned from another site from a guy that thankfully knows lcd's inside and out.

A perfect example are the products brought up here. My 2002w Acer ($238) and the previously mentioned and more popular 2016wbbd linked above at newegg (price under $200 at various places).

Now I don't have my pixel pitch spec, but from what I saw on another site it looks to be just a tad better, but roughly the same, I guess. Response is 5ms on each, resolution same, contrast ratio same, viewing angle and brighness specs, all the same.

However, the only real difference (minus possibly the pixel pitch) is the color depth.
If you are like me and you are comparing LCD's, you have probably seen 16 million for the color depth. Yeah, some monitors might say 16.2 million, some might say 16.7 million. Hardly a difference, right? Well, that is what I thought, but there is a difference.

I read about this, I can only roughly explain it very briefly and in lamens terms. For more details, find somebody better with this stuff.
Anyhow, 16.2 color depth is what makes monitors cheaper than their very similar counterparts that may have 16.7.
Apparently, 16.2 million color depth is dithered. You guys know what dithering is, right? If not, you can google it.

Basically, dithering isn't a good thing. As for why 16.2 is dithered, I read about why, although I won't try to explain it, it just is. It makes the color and picture become of less quality than 16.7 million color depth because the 16.7m depth is NOT dithered.
It seems that those people who are really able to test nearly identical brand/model LCD's with only color depth being the difference, they say that they can definitely tell a quality difference.

However, that doesn't mean I have the know how to tell anybody that a 16.2 color depth won't be good enough for them. And if you want a good 20", for example, but going well over $200 is out of your budget, then I'm guessing a 20" 16.2 color depth may suit you just fine. As I said before, I had a feeling there was some kind of "catch" with a near identical model being so much cheaper.

Now the question becomes. Is paying an extra 20% just for 16.7 mil. color depth worth it? Perhaps.
But it seems a lot of people are happy with many of the 16.2 mil LCD's, whether they are aware of the dithering or not. However, they might be happy just because they got such a good price.

There you have it. 16.7 depth is better, I just don't know how much better. I don't know about anybody else, but I just don't like the idea of dithering at all so despite paying more, I am happy with my picture and overall product so far and plan to keep it.
Btw, no dead pixels here! I'm good on that end too.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Moderators online

Share this page

COMPANY
RESOURCES
FOLLOW
Top Bottom