- Status
metallifux
Distinguished
- Apr 26, 2010
- 224
- 0
- 18,690
cmartin011
Distinguished
- Jan 15, 2010
- 319
- 0
- 18,780
all i really want is a 40in monitor (yes a 40in) with 3840*2160 resolution and 1000hz refresh rate with SED technology and response time of .00ms and a lag of none can i please have that and call it a day =)
Is it possible to add a simple "color banding" test to show how well the monitor can display all 256 colors in a gradient, i.e. with or without using some kind of dithering? Many TN monitors use bad (obvious) dithering techniques, while some other seem to have better solutions that produce a result similar to true 8-bit colors. For this test, looking at pure full-screen color gradients would be a good start. It is also important to look at the screen from different angles. When the monitor can not display all pure colors, you'll see some multi-pixel dither patterns or other artifacts. That would be interesting to have a test directly targeting this problem.
Thank you for adding a real response time benchmark. I'm sick of seeing monitors advertised as 2ms that don't deliver anything near that.
Maybe you could have two movement tests (an object moving on different background colors) and see how many ms it takes for a frame to disappear/update. (I'd also be really interested what that time is for good CRT monitors, faster than 5ms ?)
Maybe you could have two movement tests (an object moving on different background colors) and see how many ms it takes for a frame to disappear/update. (I'd also be really interested what that time is for good CRT monitors, faster than 5ms ?)
I would like to see reviews on the 120Hz monitors, such as the Acer GD235HZbid and I believe Alienware has one too.
As well, I would also like to see stats for input lag on monitors. I mainly play FPS and input lag is the sole reason I use TN panels and wont goto a IPS panel.
As well, I would also like to see stats for input lag on monitors. I mainly play FPS and input lag is the sole reason I use TN panels and wont goto a IPS panel.
Why does this article make it sound like its nearly impossible to find a 23 inch display cheap? This article takes the 22 inch models reviewed at $150-$200 and gives the impression that they are hard to find.
There are always tons of 23' 1080p monitors for $150-$200 that blow the sh!t out of the crap you picked for review here.
Why did you pick suck crappy overpriced displays for review and then try to pass them off as being all that is available at that price range?
There are always tons of 23' 1080p monitors for $150-$200 that blow the sh!t out of the crap you picked for review here.
Why did you pick suck crappy overpriced displays for review and then try to pass them off as being all that is available at that price range?
AppleBlowsDonkeyBalls
Distinguished
- Sep 30, 2010
- 117
- 0
- 18,680
Well, for $215, you can get the Dell U2211H, which absolutely destroys all of these in everything but response times, and even then they're decent. If your budget can't go that high and you're willing to sacrifice build quality and features to get the same panel, get the LG IPS226V-PN, which goes for only $180, or $150 if you use the promo code.
Furthermore, you also have the option of going for bigger monitors if you're not concerned about image quality much. For under $200 a good option includes the ASUS VE248H, which nets 24" of screen real estate.
At this price you guys could've really done a much better job with the monitor selection. All you did was pick out generic models from the main companies which have very few distinctive features.
Furthermore, you also have the option of going for bigger monitors if you're not concerned about image quality much. For under $200 a good option includes the ASUS VE248H, which nets 24" of screen real estate.
At this price you guys could've really done a much better job with the monitor selection. All you did was pick out generic models from the main companies which have very few distinctive features.
AnUnusedUsername
Distinguished
- Sep 14, 2010
- 235
- 0
- 18,710
To add to the 1920x1200 list beyond just the dell, HP's zr24w is 1920x1200, HP also makes a TN panel one, the LA2405. Hanns-G makes several 1920x1200 panels, but they're known for low quality so I'm not sure a review of them would do a lot of good. NEC makes several 1920x1200 monitors, though their prices are usually higher than their competitors at around $600 or more. Their EA241WM-BK is one that isn't as pricey. Lenovo's L2440p is 16:10, as are the PA246Q by ASUS and Samsungs 2443BWT. Those are just what I came up with after a quick newegg search. What I'd call the big players in the 24'' 1920x1200 monitor section is pretty much limited to the aforementioned Dell U2410 and the HP zr24w, as they've been around for awhile and both use IPS panels. It would be nice to see a comparison between those two and some of the less popular screens in that category though, like those made by ASUS, Samsung, Lenovo, and NEC.
Of course, the point's moot for me as I just bought a 1920x1200 monitor about a month ago, but it would be nice to see a comparison nonetheless.
A comparison of IPS panel monitors would also be nice, as they are becoming signficiantly less expensive than they were in the past and are relatively common in the 23'' market.
Edit: Just a few companies that I know make quality IPS panes at the 23'' 1920x1080 resolution are BenQ, Dell, LG, and NEC, probably LaCie, and Viewsonic as well. I'm sure there are others I didn't list though.
Of course, the point's moot for me as I just bought a 1920x1200 monitor about a month ago, but it would be nice to see a comparison nonetheless.
A comparison of IPS panel monitors would also be nice, as they are becoming signficiantly less expensive than they were in the past and are relatively common in the 23'' market.
Edit: Just a few companies that I know make quality IPS panes at the 23'' 1920x1080 resolution are BenQ, Dell, LG, and NEC, probably LaCie, and Viewsonic as well. I'm sure there are others I didn't list though.
[citation][nom]crisan_tiberiu[/nom]I have a Philips 222ELSB 21,5' TN monitor, and it is very good. I dont see Comptons point here with the Jihad on TN panels. Not everybody can aford a very expensive monitor[/citation]
That's the point. IPS panels have and probably will always be expensive on a comparative basis, but eIPS panels are on par with TN LCDs. The panel itself is much cheaper and more transparency which is supposed to reduce the bill of materials (like backlights). If you're happy with a TN panel, then be glad. Once you understand why they're not that great, you can't go back.
TN panels are the one place you don't have to equivocate. Or hem and haw. By any objective measure, or subjective even, they're not that good. But once upon a time you had to have one. Now you don't.
s/p-IPS screens haven't always been good at everything anyway, especially not at gaming. That has changed, but they still don't have great blacks. eIPS is in itself a compromise, but not a big one. The best part is the price. You're not really paying more than a decent TN panel. In some cases, less.
Also, since someone was asking about the u2311h and gaming, it's pretty fantastic. It has good RTC and very (as in almost no) little input lag, but all of the 23" models with the same panel and RTC are pretty good. With out RTC they aren't for gaming. I don't think the NEC and LG 23" eIPSs have RTC. The u2311h has a CCFL backlight while some of the other models use LED -- this is mostly a matter of preference, but I prefer CCFL. Most non RTC model eIPSs have an ISO Response time listed at 14ms.
Since I've been gaming a lot more lately, the U2311H is now the monitor sitting on my desk. It's only half as much money as the U2410. It goes on sale a lot too. The LG eIPS monitors have been on sale at Newegg recently. The 21.5" was $160 for a few days but is currently $180 -- but with the promo code its only $150. In fairness, that's probably not the best eIPS, but is still better than a TN. It has no height adjustment or usb ports. It's also LED (again, not my preference) but some might say is has a not so uniform backlight, one which bleeds somewhat.
Think it over.
That's the point. IPS panels have and probably will always be expensive on a comparative basis, but eIPS panels are on par with TN LCDs. The panel itself is much cheaper and more transparency which is supposed to reduce the bill of materials (like backlights). If you're happy with a TN panel, then be glad. Once you understand why they're not that great, you can't go back.
TN panels are the one place you don't have to equivocate. Or hem and haw. By any objective measure, or subjective even, they're not that good. But once upon a time you had to have one. Now you don't.
s/p-IPS screens haven't always been good at everything anyway, especially not at gaming. That has changed, but they still don't have great blacks. eIPS is in itself a compromise, but not a big one. The best part is the price. You're not really paying more than a decent TN panel. In some cases, less.
Also, since someone was asking about the u2311h and gaming, it's pretty fantastic. It has good RTC and very (as in almost no) little input lag, but all of the 23" models with the same panel and RTC are pretty good. With out RTC they aren't for gaming. I don't think the NEC and LG 23" eIPSs have RTC. The u2311h has a CCFL backlight while some of the other models use LED -- this is mostly a matter of preference, but I prefer CCFL. Most non RTC model eIPSs have an ISO Response time listed at 14ms.
Since I've been gaming a lot more lately, the U2311H is now the monitor sitting on my desk. It's only half as much money as the U2410. It goes on sale a lot too. The LG eIPS monitors have been on sale at Newegg recently. The 21.5" was $160 for a few days but is currently $180 -- but with the promo code its only $150. In fairness, that's probably not the best eIPS, but is still better than a TN. It has no height adjustment or usb ports. It's also LED (again, not my preference) but some might say is has a not so uniform backlight, one which bleeds somewhat.
Think it over.
I'd like to see a shootout between monitors that claim fast response times and still have good color reproduction for viewing pictures. Last time we bought a monitor we put the Staples employee to work comparing monitors(in the same price range) side-by-side playing the same video. The AOC monitor we bought just looked better than the Samsung that was our second choice. But this is an out of the box comparison with no calibration.
Suggesting 24" 16:10 LCD that are worth comparing: Asus PA246Q, HP LP2475w, Dell U2410.
Meanwhile, I'd like to know whether calibrating LCD using free tool, just like http://www.lagom.nl/lcd-test/ ,is enough to get the best out of the monitor?
Anyway, great article.
Meanwhile, I'd like to know whether calibrating LCD using free tool, just like http://www.lagom.nl/lcd-test/ ,is enough to get the best out of the monitor?
Anyway, great article.
In your article, you mentioned a lack of 22" monitors while also stating that higher resolutions show off monitor qualities. (And, many people are stating the desire to have 16:10 & 4:3 monitors in the showing.)
1. I must agree with the 4:3 & 16:10 monitor request, for I am yet another PC user that despises the push by manufacturers of the 16:9 standard on the PC markert just because that is what the TV market standardized on. (Reasons for these resolutions' superiority over 16:9 have been mentioned by others.)
2. Although I agree that higher resolutions allow feature qualities to be seen, there is also the GFX card's ability to game at that resolution without turning down game details. Since these monitors would most likely be used with a budget gaming machine, many games do not yet require the 1080p 16:9 resolution in width, and game quality settings can be increased if the GFX card does not have to push as many pixels, why not include a monitor similar to:
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16824236050&cm_re=asus_22_inch_monitor-_-24-236-050-_-Product
In this review? Was HDMI input a requirement? If so, I would ask why. (Most budget PC's will only use a single monitor that will be connected via DVI-I, not HDMI, since PC sound will be outputed through MB onboard onboard sound to separate speakers.)
I link this monitor in particular because my mate and I both use 2 of them in an extended desktop format on ~$750 gaming PCs. One is due for an upgrade to its 9800 GT 1GB, while the other has a 5770 1GB GFX card. The lower max resolution of 1680 x 1050 allows more game details to be ran since the machines don't push the extra 309,600 pixels. And, for office and productivity work, you only lose 30 vertical pixels from the 1080p "TV" standard.
3. Although TN panels do indeed not have the quality of more expensive panels, they get the job done. (Especially in a typical office environment... or for the needs of the typical budget gamer.)
4. The conclusion of needing to spend over $200 for a 23" monitor of "good, yet budget, pc quality" is slightly dubious.
http://www.newegg.com/Product/ProductList.aspx?Submit=ENE&DEPA=0&Order=BESTMATCH&Description=23+inch+monitor&Page=1
With a specific example being the:
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16824236059&cm_re=23_inch_monitor-_-24-236-059-_-Product
(The new, 1080P, includes HDMI input model of the 22" ones we use. Just, for all Asus monitors, ignore the speakers. )
1. I must agree with the 4:3 & 16:10 monitor request, for I am yet another PC user that despises the push by manufacturers of the 16:9 standard on the PC markert just because that is what the TV market standardized on. (Reasons for these resolutions' superiority over 16:9 have been mentioned by others.)
2. Although I agree that higher resolutions allow feature qualities to be seen, there is also the GFX card's ability to game at that resolution without turning down game details. Since these monitors would most likely be used with a budget gaming machine, many games do not yet require the 1080p 16:9 resolution in width, and game quality settings can be increased if the GFX card does not have to push as many pixels, why not include a monitor similar to:
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16824236050&cm_re=asus_22_inch_monitor-_-24-236-050-_-Product
In this review? Was HDMI input a requirement? If so, I would ask why. (Most budget PC's will only use a single monitor that will be connected via DVI-I, not HDMI, since PC sound will be outputed through MB onboard onboard sound to separate speakers.)
I link this monitor in particular because my mate and I both use 2 of them in an extended desktop format on ~$750 gaming PCs. One is due for an upgrade to its 9800 GT 1GB, while the other has a 5770 1GB GFX card. The lower max resolution of 1680 x 1050 allows more game details to be ran since the machines don't push the extra 309,600 pixels. And, for office and productivity work, you only lose 30 vertical pixels from the 1080p "TV" standard.
3. Although TN panels do indeed not have the quality of more expensive panels, they get the job done. (Especially in a typical office environment... or for the needs of the typical budget gamer.)
4. The conclusion of needing to spend over $200 for a 23" monitor of "good, yet budget, pc quality" is slightly dubious.
http://www.newegg.com/Product/ProductList.aspx?Submit=ENE&DEPA=0&Order=BESTMATCH&Description=23+inch+monitor&Page=1
With a specific example being the:
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16824236059&cm_re=23_inch_monitor-_-24-236-059-_-Product
(The new, 1080P, includes HDMI input model of the 22" ones we use. Just, for all Asus monitors, ignore the speakers.
)back on the topic of 1920x1200 monitors, here's a list of candidates I'd like to see reviewed. Some TN, Some IPS with a fairly wide price range.
DoubleSight DS-245V
ASUS ProArt Series PA246Q
HP ZR24w
Dell UltraSharp U2410
HP LA2405wg
SAMSUNG 2443BWT-TAA-1
I also really dislike 16:9 for working, although I have considered using 3 16:9 panels in a portrait configuation. I've been using the same Samsung 1680x1050 panels for a few years now and am ready for an upgrade. I don't do much print work, so color accuracy isn't paramount, but it is still important. I'd be interested to know if any of the non ips 16:10 panels can do well enough.
DoubleSight DS-245V
ASUS ProArt Series PA246Q
HP ZR24w
Dell UltraSharp U2410
HP LA2405wg
SAMSUNG 2443BWT-TAA-1
I also really dislike 16:9 for working, although I have considered using 3 16:9 panels in a portrait configuation. I've been using the same Samsung 1680x1050 panels for a few years now and am ready for an upgrade. I don't do much print work, so color accuracy isn't paramount, but it is still important. I'd be interested to know if any of the non ips 16:10 panels can do well enough.
The anti-TN brigade are being childish; TN technology has improved a lot over the last few years, it's not a simple case of TN = crap and IPS being automatically superior, some TN panels are superior to low-end IPS panels (e.g. Iiyama ProLite B2712HDS).
Also, colour reproduction isn't the be all and end all anyway. Average users and gamers are going to be far more interested in price and screen size than accurate colours.
Also, colour reproduction isn't the be all and end all anyway. Average users and gamers are going to be far more interested in price and screen size than accurate colours.
Flying-Q
Distinguished
- Feb 20, 2006
- 643
- 7
- 19,065
Last year I was hunting in great detail for a 24" monitor but was severely limited by my budget. I was using a 1280x960 and worked out that to get an increase in vertical size (from a human perspective) I would have to restrict my choice to 16:10 format monitors. I have several friends and relatives that work with cheaper 16:9 format 1080p (TV) monitors and my impression is that they feel confining when using browsers, word processors and spreadsheets due to that lack of 120 pixels.
Through my searching I came across many of the monitors mentioned in the above comments, but was drawn to this
http://www.iiyama.com/gb_en/products/prolite-e2607ws-1/
because it fell within my budget. After a week of further comparisons I sunk my money into one and have never regretted it.
Being long sighted I can sit further back from the monitor and still get the impression of angular coverage without the eystrain. In Word, I can edit 2 A4 pages side by side and they are lifesize even with a large menu ribbon above, likewise pdf's in A4 are lifesize when viewed 2-up. To my eyes I see no poor comparison with my previous (CRT) monitor, at least once the brightness was dropped to half the factory preset.
Q
Through my searching I came across many of the monitors mentioned in the above comments, but was drawn to this
http://www.iiyama.com/gb_en/products/prolite-e2607ws-1/
because it fell within my budget. After a week of further comparisons I sunk my money into one and have never regretted it.
Being long sighted I can sit further back from the monitor and still get the impression of angular coverage without the eystrain. In Word, I can edit 2 A4 pages side by side and they are lifesize even with a large menu ribbon above, likewise pdf's in A4 are lifesize when viewed 2-up. To my eyes I see no poor comparison with my previous (CRT) monitor, at least once the brightness was dropped to half the factory preset.
Q
jamie_1318
Distinguished
- Jun 25, 2010
- 188
- 0
- 18,710
Love 16:10 for actual work and web browsing and stuff. 16:9 is great for entertainment because it more closely matches the ratio of width:height for our vision. I still wish that 1920x1200 monitors weren't so damn expensive over their 16:9 counterparts. I am still using my cheapy Acer 1680x1050 monitor I got three years ago so I want to see what is available for the 16:10 aspect ratio.
I have the Dell U2711 2560x1440.. its beautiful at native resolution, but you need serious hardware to game at that with high settings. I need a ~24 inch top of the line, pref 120hz so i can try 3D with beautiful picture and gaming experience at a reasonable resolution.
I realize this is out of the range of most gamers, but I would REALLY like to see a gaming comparo of 30" screens. I have a pair of Dell 3011's, and the graphic design reviews when I was making my purchases were all but useless.
TY as always Toms!
TY as always Toms!
best buy was the supplier. that explains much.
on another note i went to look at viewsonic monitors that i knew wee much better then these for the size and price points and they are all gone now. i had last seen them on newegg and microcenter and tiger direct 3 months ago. they were the same as this beast http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16824116441 i ended up getting, but 24"-22" at 2ms/1ms and for less then $200.
samsung and viewsonic are about the only ones i know of worth buying locally (as long as you pay attn to the specs) with out going to an etailer.
on another note i went to look at viewsonic monitors that i knew wee much better then these for the size and price points and they are all gone now. i had last seen them on newegg and microcenter and tiger direct 3 months ago. they were the same as this beast http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16824116441 i ended up getting, but 24"-22" at 2ms/1ms and for less then $200.
samsung and viewsonic are about the only ones i know of worth buying locally (as long as you pay attn to the specs) with out going to an etailer.
- Status
TRENDING THREADS
-
Review AMD Ryzen 9 9950X3D Review: Stunning gaming performance meets top-tier productivity- Started by Admin
- Replies: 61
-
-
Review AMD Radeon RX 9070 XT and RX 9070 review: An excellent value, if supply is good
- Started by Admin
- Replies: 167
-
News Fake Ryzen 7 9800X3D bought from Amazon was actually an old AMD FX chip disguised by IHS sticker
- Started by Admin
- Replies: 43
-
News We need your help to shape the future of Tom’s Hardware
- Started by Admin
- Replies: 97
-
Discussion What's your favourite video game you've been playing?- Started by amdfangirl
- Replies: 4K
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram