Bestbuy only had the 941bw on display. They dont have the viewsonix model and the other samsung 931c. The 931c is listed as there in the showroom so Im going to go back today and see the 941bw and see if I can find the 931c. Im checking to see if the viewsonic is in a showroom near me.
Shoud I stick with just these or is there another I should look at?[/u][/i]
Shoud I stick with just these or is there another I should look at?[/u][/i]
The Viewsonic, the Samsungs and the NEC 90GX2 all get high marks from gamer buyers on Newegg. Other than the Brite screen of the NEC, the're probably all mostly similar. Any other top choices would also most be similar. (If you're hoping someone will reveal some other model which is super-duper in the same price range, you're not going to find it. The all have the same resolution, similar response times, similar contrast, similar brightness, similar TN panels. How different could another be?)
ch1ckench0wme1n
Distinguished
- Dec 14, 2006
- 31
- 0
- 18,530
Heres the comparison of 19" lcd monitors from newegg.
http://www.newegg.com/Product/ProductCompare.asp?Category=19&Nty=1&Submit=ENE&N=2010190020+1309821317&SubCategory=20&CompareItemList=N82E16824009087%2CN82E16824002129%2CN82E16824001230%2CN82E16824116380%2CN82E16824116375%2CN82E16824001085%2CN82E16824001088
In this newegg comparison I took all the 19" lcd, 4ms and lower latency monitors I could find and compared them. I took out the ones with names I've never heard of and the ones with speakers in the monitor. This is what I got from that.
Now I'm also a gamer(fps's) in the market for a new 19" lcd monitor and based on this comparison I would go with either the Samsung 940bf or the 931C. My question is what is 2000;1 dynamic mean(Samsung 931C has this) and how does it relate to the 700;1(non-dynamic?). Also is having 300 cd/m2 compared to 250 cd/m2 that noticeable.
http://www.newegg.com/Product/ProductCompare.asp?Category=19&Nty=1&Submit=ENE&N=2010190020+1309821317&SubCategory=20&CompareItemList=N82E16824009087%2CN82E16824002129%2CN82E16824001230%2CN82E16824116380%2CN82E16824116375%2CN82E16824001085%2CN82E16824001088
In this newegg comparison I took all the 19" lcd, 4ms and lower latency monitors I could find and compared them. I took out the ones with names I've never heard of and the ones with speakers in the monitor. This is what I got from that.
Now I'm also a gamer(fps's) in the market for a new 19" lcd monitor and based on this comparison I would go with either the Samsung 940bf or the 931C. My question is what is 2000;1 dynamic mean(Samsung 931C has this) and how does it relate to the 700;1(non-dynamic?). Also is having 300 cd/m2 compared to 250 cd/m2 that noticeable.
Ok, I was just curious if I cant go wrong with any of these choices. Usually when I am set to buy, something better comes along which was the reason why i was basically like ok are these, the only ones for gamers and if there were any others before I make my choice. For non-FPS games, 2ms and 4ms response times really are they same and no noticeable difference?
I was going to pick the Samsung 940bw because of the 300cd brightness, its widescreen and cant beat the $179 price
I was looking at the 931c because of the 2ms repsonse time, 2000:1 contrast but its brightness is 250cd
The viewsonic vx922 is 2ms and 270cd brightness and its popularity
Now one more entered my head, the Samsung 940bf...2ms, 300cd brightness and 700:1 ratio.
I noticed some say 2ms or 2ms grey to grey...Is there a difference or doesnt matter? Now I think my mind is changing towards the 940bf. Any objections?
I was going to pick the Samsung 940bw because of the 300cd brightness, its widescreen and cant beat the $179 price
I was looking at the 931c because of the 2ms repsonse time, 2000:1 contrast but its brightness is 250cd
The viewsonic vx922 is 2ms and 270cd brightness and its popularity
Now one more entered my head, the Samsung 940bf...2ms, 300cd brightness and 700:1 ratio.
I noticed some say 2ms or 2ms grey to grey...Is there a difference or doesnt matter? Now I think my mind is changing towards the 940bf. Any objections?
You probably shouldn't be concerned about "more brightness", either. You're going to have to turn it down to about 120 nits to use it anyway.... unless the ambient light is very bright, you'll be viewing it from a farther than normal distance, or you plan to wear sun glasses.
ch1ckench0wme1n
Distinguished
- Dec 14, 2006
- 31
- 0
- 18,530
Thank you hose for answering my questions.
So we agree that the 2000;1 ratio on the 931C is totally bogus. The only real difference between these two monitors is the cd/m2, and the product number.
Now thinking logically the better monitor should in theory be the one with the higher product number correcT? so I've come to the conclusion that the 940bf>931C
Also I've started going through the reviews of some monitors and i came to this review(newegg) and he said this "I find the 931c surpasses the vx924 in response time, color saturation and contrast levels. It bests the al1916fbd for color saturation and contrast, but seems similar in response time. It equals the vx922 in response time, but colors and contrast are better. However, the 931c does fall behind in viewing angle to the vx924, vx922 and al1916fbd, as well as the 740b from Samsung"
This should help mikeny a little.
And this is what i was looking for.
"If your still stuck in the 4:3 world then there are better monitors than this. Samsung for some reason rates this at 2MS, I havent been able to get below 8MS when viewing non-motion frames, like a slide show of static images, and no better than 13MS for moving video. Even when I switch the [RTA] Response Time Accelerator, on or off I see very little change in the response times. The contrast ratio is rated at 2000:1 dynamic contrast ratio. Which is not even close to the 550:1 that I am seeing. You have to understand when figuring the contrast ratio, you can do it (2) ways. Samsung chose to measure the brightness in full screen black and then to full screen white, which represents in my testing 1860:1, which is close to the 2000:1 they are stating, but that's not how you would measure the real time contrast ratio. The only true way is to have the same amount of blacks and whites on the screen at the same time, then you take your measurement, which evaluates to 550:1 in my testing...
The recommend Samsung SyncMaster 940B, at least everything stated there is 100% factually!"
So we agree that the 2000;1 ratio on the 931C is totally bogus. The only real difference between these two monitors is the cd/m2, and the product number.
Now thinking logically the better monitor should in theory be the one with the higher product number correcT? so I've come to the conclusion that the 940bf>931C
Also I've started going through the reviews of some monitors and i came to this review(newegg) and he said this "I find the 931c surpasses the vx924 in response time, color saturation and contrast levels. It bests the al1916fbd for color saturation and contrast, but seems similar in response time. It equals the vx922 in response time, but colors and contrast are better. However, the 931c does fall behind in viewing angle to the vx924, vx922 and al1916fbd, as well as the 740b from Samsung"
This should help mikeny a little.
And this is what i was looking for.
"If your still stuck in the 4:3 world then there are better monitors than this. Samsung for some reason rates this at 2MS, I havent been able to get below 8MS when viewing non-motion frames, like a slide show of static images, and no better than 13MS for moving video. Even when I switch the [RTA] Response Time Accelerator, on or off I see very little change in the response times. The contrast ratio is rated at 2000:1 dynamic contrast ratio. Which is not even close to the 550:1 that I am seeing. You have to understand when figuring the contrast ratio, you can do it (2) ways. Samsung chose to measure the brightness in full screen black and then to full screen white, which represents in my testing 1860:1, which is close to the 2000:1 they are stating, but that's not how you would measure the real time contrast ratio. The only true way is to have the same amount of blacks and whites on the screen at the same time, then you take your measurement, which evaluates to 550:1 in my testing...
The recommend Samsung SyncMaster 940B, at least everything stated there is 100% factually!"
ch1ckench0wme1n
Distinguished
- Dec 14, 2006
- 31
- 0
- 18,530
definitely
Also thought I should point this out since it was in my first comparison.
http://www.newegg.com/Product/ProductCompare.asp?Category=19&Nty=1&Submit=ENE&N=2010190020+1309821317&SubCategory=20&CompareItemList=N82E16824009087%2CN82E16824001230
The acer monitor was in my comparison at first but was taken out because;
1. It was out of stock.
2. There were a lot of complaints about it being built cheaply, dead pixels, and a few people even had their monitors go dead after a couple months.
So the winner is the 940bf
Also thought I should point this out since it was in my first comparison.
http://www.newegg.com/Product/ProductCompare.asp?Category=19&Nty=1&Submit=ENE&N=2010190020+1309821317&SubCategory=20&CompareItemList=N82E16824009087%2CN82E16824001230
The acer monitor was in my comparison at first but was taken out because;
1. It was out of stock.
2. There were a lot of complaints about it being built cheaply, dead pixels, and a few people even had their monitors go dead after a couple months.
So the winner is the 940bf
ch1ckench0wme1n
Distinguished
- Dec 14, 2006
- 31
- 0
- 18,530
I think the 931C is newer than the 940's... the 931C claims to be better at colors, too. The relative value of the numbers I think often means little. (The 940s get better Newegg reviews than the 960... which is older.)
Like i said "in theory"...
Hose do you agree with the conclusion i came up with?
I think the 931C is newer than the 940's... the 931C claims to be better at colors, too. The relative value of the numbers I think often means little. (The 940s get better Newegg reviews than the 960... which is older.)
Like i said "in theory"...
Hose do you agree with the conclusion i came up with?
I'm not clear as to which conclusion you are referring to...
I was reading all the reviews. On the 931c a few were complaining about saturation of colors and some ghosting. The ghosting is on FPS's so I shouldnt worry about ghosting since I dont play FPS. The low amount of 5eggs worries me. The 940bf is catching my eye yet Im still staring at the 931c, vx922 (viewsonic). If the 90gx2 was under $300 maybe I would look at it but with shipping its a little expensive but i find Im still looking at it because all of the reviews are 5eggs (100%). The 40bf with over 80% 5eggs looks appealing. Im skeptical with 55% for 5eggs on the 931c.
ScarletSpider
Distinguished
- Oct 23, 2006
- 76
- 0
- 18,630
Look, all you should be concerned about is 1) size 2) response time 3)contrast. Pick the size first (keeping in mind, it will look best in its NATIVE resolution) and then find one with a low reponse (like mine has one of 2ms), and then look out of those you find, which has a higher contrast ratio. Despite what others will tell you, here's a clip from wikipedia on contrast ratio:
"A notable recent development in the LCD technology is the so called "dynamic contrast". When there is a need to display a dark image, the display would underpower the backlight lamp (or decrease the aperture of the projector's lens using a shutter), but will proportionately amplify the transmission through the LCD panel. This gives the benefit of realizing the potential static contrast ratio of the LCD panel in dark scenes, when the image is watched in a dark room. The drawback is that if a dark scene does contain small areas of superbright light, they may be sacrificed and blown out.
The trick for the display is to determine how much of the highlights may be unnoticeably blown out in a given image under the given ambient lighting conditions.
Brightness, as it is most often used in marketing literature, refers to the emitted luminous intensity on screen measured in candela per square metre (cd/m^2). The higher the number, the brighter the screen.
With display systems that support 8-bit color channels, contrast ratio is the ratio of the screen's whitest white (output level 255) to its blackest black (output level 0)[3]."
So now think of how many games you play (or might) that place you in a dark area, i.e. a dungeon, dark room, cave, etc AND you are also carrying a light, flame, etc OR there are torches on the wall, something your wielding/shooting is going to be bright, etc. Basically, if you screen in mostly displaying something dark, and one portion is bright(or meant to be), then a lower contrast ratio will display it only somewhat bright and not what it's meant to be. Also consider the opposite; you in an outside area with the sun sitting sky high, but your trees in the area are showing shadows and not coming out as dark as they should. That's also low contrast at work.
If all that makes no sense, then think of it like this: Imagine (or draw out) a long rectangle. Now divide it into 10 squares. On one end is white, and the other end black. Everyother square is a shade in between (greys). So you have white, a shade darker, another shade darker, another shade darker, etc until you reach black. This is going to be your low contrast ratio. Now take your 10 squares and multiply it out by 100. With a larger range of brights and darks to use, your screen is now capable of showing both dark darks, as well as superbrights (i.e. the sun) at the same time. Higher contrast ratios do matter.
"A notable recent development in the LCD technology is the so called "dynamic contrast". When there is a need to display a dark image, the display would underpower the backlight lamp (or decrease the aperture of the projector's lens using a shutter), but will proportionately amplify the transmission through the LCD panel. This gives the benefit of realizing the potential static contrast ratio of the LCD panel in dark scenes, when the image is watched in a dark room. The drawback is that if a dark scene does contain small areas of superbright light, they may be sacrificed and blown out.
The trick for the display is to determine how much of the highlights may be unnoticeably blown out in a given image under the given ambient lighting conditions.
Brightness, as it is most often used in marketing literature, refers to the emitted luminous intensity on screen measured in candela per square metre (cd/m^2). The higher the number, the brighter the screen.
With display systems that support 8-bit color channels, contrast ratio is the ratio of the screen's whitest white (output level 255) to its blackest black (output level 0)[3]."
So now think of how many games you play (or might) that place you in a dark area, i.e. a dungeon, dark room, cave, etc AND you are also carrying a light, flame, etc OR there are torches on the wall, something your wielding/shooting is going to be bright, etc. Basically, if you screen in mostly displaying something dark, and one portion is bright(or meant to be), then a lower contrast ratio will display it only somewhat bright and not what it's meant to be. Also consider the opposite; you in an outside area with the sun sitting sky high, but your trees in the area are showing shadows and not coming out as dark as they should. That's also low contrast at work.
If all that makes no sense, then think of it like this: Imagine (or draw out) a long rectangle. Now divide it into 10 squares. On one end is white, and the other end black. Everyother square is a shade in between (greys). So you have white, a shade darker, another shade darker, another shade darker, etc until you reach black. This is going to be your low contrast ratio. Now take your 10 squares and multiply it out by 100. With a larger range of brights and darks to use, your screen is now capable of showing both dark darks, as well as superbrights (i.e. the sun) at the same time. Higher contrast ratios do matter.
So theres a trade off. The 931c is less brighter but has a higher contrast (2000:1). The 940bf is brighter but has lower contrast (700:1). Some of my games do have lighting for instance Caesar IV, Roller Coaster Tycoon 3, and 18wheels of steel: Haulin. Both have 2ms response time. To make matters worse, the 90gx2 (NEC) is creaping up into me saying "Buy me".
Actually there probably is neither good nor bad... just marketing hype.
"CR = "Ratio of light/dark on the same screen".
For most situations, the brightness needs to be turned down from the factory-set maximum. The comfortable amount of luminescence is approximately 120 nits. (1 nit = 1 candela/meter^2). The average "darkest black" most monitors can produce these days is approximately 0.6 nits. (On some models, it's .8 or .9) 120/.6 = 200 CR. Nothing impressive about THAT!
So, the makers try to be "creative" about these numbers [read LIE]. So what if the monitor has a brighness of 500? You won't normally use more than about 120 and you have to turn the brightness down to about 25%. (If the room is brightly lit or if viewed from a farther distance than normal, you can use a higher brigtness setting comfortably.)
Therefore, what we REALLY need for CR is (a) makers to engineer their LCDs so that their monitor's darkest black is actually darker than it is presently, and (b) to post in their specs the "actual luminescence of the darkest black when viewed with normal usable brightness"..... I haven't seen that one, have you?
Think about this... if the makers got their darkest black down to 0.1 nits, and we can "use" 120 nits of brightness, that's 120/.1 = 1200!
The place to find out the ACTUAL CR on a specific monitor is to check out x-bit labs or other reviewers who do things like measure colors with a colorimeter and measure luminescence electronically. When you do that, you often find the *maximum* CR is around 400-450 and the usuable CR is 200-250. (Another way, though subjective, is to read the Newegg reviewers' comments and notice which ones claim "really dark blacks"... that's the only important measure of CR.... and at least those models have a chance of having lower black luminescence.)
I happen to like Samsung. But their claim of "200:1 CR" is virtually meaningless... and this type of marketing is being used on most newer models. On an older model, a claimed CR of 700:1, is likely to be closer to the truth because when those models came to market the makers weren't making such exaggerated claims.
Just as claimed "response times" are mostly balloon juice, so are the claimed CRs.
(And BTW... the makers also screw with the specs on "viewing angles", too!! 😀 )
look this is all getting too complicated and really quite unnecessary. Just decide what resolution monitor you want then read a few reviews about them. If the reviews say monitor is ok then go for it. If the reviews say it is crap then don't. Simple as that. If you get a chance to see the monitor demonstrated then that is even better. Or even an option to return the monitor for a different one if you are not happy with it.
Of course viewing before purchase would be best, but many models are not available to most people. I live in a medium sized metro area with all the big retailers, but we're very limited on the quality monitors.... we've got SCADS of the cheap-o ones though.
This is true. I checked on BB's website and it showing that all 3 monitors are at the location near me so i will probably check them out tonite. I was thinking of not getting the nec gx2 because if I have to turn down the brightness it might be easier to get one thats not as bright. I guess the one thats in the middle would be the 931c or the 941bf. Any objections if I pick the 940bf?
It's good to get everyhting out in the open, if the technobabble is confusing, its good. Even though im not technologically brainy it helps to clarify. Its like the ddr2-533 i bought in august, I heard it takes advantage of the 1066 fsb, then 533 is hardly being sold so i had to move to ddr2-675. I want to get a monitor that im going to like and not find out later that I shoulf of gotten the other one. I like the posts/threads to hear comments and what others think of the products as well as reading the reviews. Im anal when it comes to having a great picture so I want to make sure I understand and get what is best but not waist money...you know the best bang for my buck. I want to makre sure I get a good LCD because i need to get another 2GB kit of RAM.
TRENDING THREADS
-
-
Question No graphics signal after installing PCIe wifi adapter- Started by mrpsuri
- Replies: 2
-
Question Should I be worried for AiO leakage? Gigabyte Waterforce X 360 II Ice- Started by hermesa
- Replies: 5
-
Question I changed some BIOS settings. But now I have no display. How do I fix this?- Started by bbxpro
- Replies: 5
-
-
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram