LCD Buyer's Guide

[Zebo]

Originally posted by: darXoul
In the US, yes. In Poland, it will cost approx. 50-70% more - which still means an outrageous price.

If it performs well in games, I'll probably get it anyway. What can I say, I'm not a fan of small widescreens and glossy coatings...

Get some 600 grit sand paper....can't help you on size.. Seriously worth every penny.. guys who are buying it over at WSGF are raving dispite it's inflated price... though a couple have complained about back light bleed like the Dell 2005 is famous for...I guess that's endemic of S-IPS technology...myteriously it seems to go away after about a weeks use for those unlucky ones who got it in the first place.

For example...
Before http://i3.photobucket.com/albums/y87/AgtX2003/DSCF0149.jpg
After http://i3.photobucket.com/albums/y87/AgtX2003/DSCF0150.jpg


... firesquad must not have had one in possesion to make such errors.. The 244t response time is slower but somehow wins pixelpan when every other reviewer says NEC is just as fast as overdriven TN's.. combine that with many posts at hardforum about 244t's input lag... something seems extremly fishy about this adver... I mean review. But since it costs 2.5x as much it better be better which I seriously doubt.

 

[Zebo]

Originally posted by: yacoub
Are you ever going to add the Sony P234 23" 1920x1200 widescreen S-IPS LCD to your list? It's basically the 2405FPW in 23" (tighter pixel pitch), better measured response rate (I'll have to dig up the link to the review I read recently about it though) and it's S-IPS so there's no input lag and better color reproduction, just not quite as dark blacks. It also can be found for under $990, so it's not terribly more expensive than the 2405FPW even though its MSRP is $1400. Looks like a heck of a monitor for gaming (no input lag) and movie watching (tighter pixel pitch). Haven't heard any complaints about it aside from it having a slightly higher price and less inputs.

the HP L2335 is the same thing which Kris really liked back when anandtech used to do LCD reviews. As far as compaints it's slower older IPS...

 

[yacoub]

Which is slower, the HP? The Sony is actually pretty quick response-wise. Maybe not totally matching the 2405 all across the spectrum but it does very well and it's certainly light years better than my old Sony LCD from 3-4 years ago (SDM-X72).

 

[xtknight]

Originally posted by: Zebo
"16.7M colors (RGB 8-bit data)"

Once the panel is in the monitor, ViewSonic can neuter it however they please. Plus, I am not even sure if that P-MVA panel listed on AUO's site is the one ViewSonic uses. They could be ordering an old one not listed on AUO's site, like Tom's Hardware seems to suggest.

You can tell a 6bit from a 8bit a mile away unless you're color blind.

High contrast is the difference in the fast VA vs. TNs, not color depth. Additionally the 970P PVA screen was obviously doing some dithering. It's only natural that given these patterns we see on the VP930, that its MVA panel is also doing some frame rate control. Yet, the 970P's colors still stand out vs. an old TN.

But it's nothing to worry about much. Soon we will see true 8-bit S-IPS screens on 19".

 

[darXoul]

Originally posted by: Zebo

Get some 600 grit sand paper....

Hehe, this is exactly what my girlfriend told me

Now, I got my mind set on the 2090UXi. Once it's available here (should be soon), I'm getting this sucker. It should be a damn fine monitor, since already its predecessor, the 2080UXi was highly praised for its nice colors, superior viewing angles, good blacks, even backlight and good response time, suitable for gaming. The 2090 should be significantly better thanks to overdrive and RapidMotion, which should improve video playback.

 

[yacoub]

Originally posted by: xtknight


High contrast is the difference in the fast VA vs. TNs, not color depth. Additionally the 970P PVA screen was obviously doing some dithering. It's only natural that given these patterns we see on the VP930, that its MVA panel is also doing some frame rate control. Yet, the 970P's colors still stand out vs. an old TN.

But it's nothing to worry about much. Soon we will see true 8-bit S-IPS screens on 19".

23" Sony P234 is 8bit tho, right?

 

[MarkShot]

*** Background ***

I have been thinking about replacing my 20" CRT with a 21" LCD.

I could use some help with this as I don't have much experience with LCDs.

*** Usage ***

I use my display for both work and games.

Work: Computer programming (mainly text), document writing, and Internet access. My desktop is configured for 1600x1200.

Games: The games I play are submarine simulations, grand strategy games, and war games (map and 3D). I don't play shooters, flight sims, and racing sims. Most of the games I play have a significant amount of text. The resolutions I use are: 640x480, 720x400, 800x600, 1024x768, and 1280x1024.

*** Concerns ***

I assume that any decent LCD will be adequate for the work I do. So, my main concern is with games. I am primarily concerned with scaling and what that will do to image quality. I cannot play my games at 1600x1200 for the following reasons:

(1) Some only support a single resolution.
(2) My PC doesn't have the hardware (CPU & GPU) to run them at higher resolutions.
(3) At 1600x1200 despite the improved sharpness of a native LCD display, the text would be just too small.

So, I will have to depend on the display scaling my games. I don't want to run my games in 1:1 mode as I am used to playing them on a fairly large display area. Also, despite the sharpness at 1:1, the text will probably be too small.

*** Questions ***

(1) Based on my issue with games, does it make sense for me to get an LCD or should I just stick with CRTs?

(2) Is there any difference in scaling performance and features between the various 21" LCDs on the market these days?

(3) If yes to #2, then which monitors offer the best scaling performance and the most features?

(4) Will decent scaling on a 21" LCD get me equivalent quality text in a game at 1024x768 as I would have seen on a 20" CRT?

(5) What type of response time should I be looking for based on my needs?

(6) Are there any online suppliers for the USA that sell LCDs that permit full refunds of opened packages without restocking fees?

---

Thank you very much for your time.

 

[Zebo]

Scaling looks like crap - worse than even cheapest CRT. Unless you are going to run at native resolution or use centered output (where image isn't scaled at all, but instead your monitor will run at resolution game tells it and the image will display in the center of your monitor. This will result in a black border around the sides of the image but perfect convergence.) do not get an LCD.

Edit but if you want to run centerd output, with those resolutions it would be best to do so on large pixels found in 19" LCDs sicne it will give you the largest overall image. Any should do lile the dell 1905 on a hot deal for less than $280 - great image wise.

 

[Zebo]

Originally posted by: xtknight

Originally posted by: Zebo
"16.7M colors (RGB 8-bit data)"

Once the panel is in the monitor, ViewSonic can neuter it however they please. Plus, I am not even sure if that P-MVA panel listed on AUO's site is the one ViewSonic uses. They could be ordering an old one not listed on AUO's site, like Tom's Hardware seems to suggest.

You can tell a 6bit from a 8bit a mile away unless you're color blind.

High contrast is the difference in the fast VA vs. TNs, not color depth. Additionally the 970P PVA screen was obviously doing some dithering. It's only natural that given these patterns we see on the VP930, that its MVA panel is also doing some frame rate control. Yet, the 970P's colors still stand out vs. an old TN.

But it's nothing to worry about much. Soon we will see true 8-bit S-IPS screens on 19".

Well that's the panel you said it used in OP so I ran with that... You could always take it apart.

 

[xtknight]

Originally posted by: yacoub
23" Sony P234 is 8bit tho, right?

Probably. I was saying that the lack of 8-bit displays lies in the 19" range.

 

[xtknight]

Originally posted by: MarkShot
The resolutions I use are: 640x480, 720x400, 800x600, 1024x768, and 1280x1024.

First, welcome to the forums.

Out of curiosity, what games specifically? Even Hexen 2 and Quake 1 can request at least 1024x768 these days so yours probably can too via console or config. If you scale to 1024x768 or so and then up to 1600x1200 on the LCD, you get larger text, and bearable scaling. If you wanted to play 640x480 on a 1600x1200 in interpolated (stretched to fit) mode, I really wouldn't recommend it. But maybe it is not so bad on old games.

So, I will have to depend on the display scaling my games.

The display adapter can also handle scaling so you'll want to find out which works best for you in terms of quality. I assume these games that don't support any higher than 640x480 must be fairly aged, so if you could get them to 1024x768 (retain big text) and then force a high level of AA (should be very fast on old games) on them you can squeeze out some better quality after it's scaled to 1600x1200. If they are very old (don't use Direct3D or OpenGL, you might be out of luck).

(1) Based on my issue with games, does it make sense for me to get an LCD or should I just stick with CRTs?

The only problem I can foresee is resolution scaling. If you could get to at least 1024x768 (preferably 1280x960) somehow with one of the games, then have it scale that to 1600x1200, that would give you big text and reasonable scaling quality.

(2) Is there any difference in scaling performance and features between the various 21" LCDs on the market these days?

If you look up a specific model you could probably find a review that mentioned if the scaling was OK, but there are no laid-out comparisons as far as I'm aware. I find that my graphics card (7800GT) has a very good scaler in comparison to my LCD (VP930b).

(4) Will decent scaling on a 21" LCD get me equivalent quality text in a game at 1024x768 as I would have seen on a 20" CRT?

At 1280x960 it would probably be equivalent (for all practical purposes) but at 1024x768 and lower it'll start to get worse.

(5) What type of response time should I be looking for based on my needs?

16 ms on S-IPS type LCDs, 8 ms on P-MVA type LCDs, 6 ms on S-PVA type LCDs, and 12 ms on TN type LCDs.

(6) Are there any online suppliers for the USA that sell LCDs that permit full refunds of opened packages without restocking fees?

I think buy.com's policy honors that but I'm not certain.

If a 20" is fine, the LG L2000C looks perfect for your needs. If you want a 21.3" (no extra resolution), the NEC LCD2190UXi, although extremely expensive, looks decent but I have not seen reviews on it yet. I could give you recommendations if you give me a price range.

 

[MarkShot]

Xtknight,

Thanks for the response.

Here is my list of current/intended games:

Aces of the Deep [DOS] - 700x420 (fixed)

Combat Mission Africa Corps - flexible (see note #1 & #2)

Combat Mission Barbarossa to Berlin - flexible (see note #1 & #2)

Civil War Bull Run - 800x600 (should be no problem as it is an even multiple)

Europa Universalis II - 800x600, 1024x768, and 1280x1024 (see note #3)

Highway to the Reich - flexible (see note #2)

Conquest of the Agean - flexible (see note #2)

Sub Command - flexible (see note #2)

Silent Hunter 2/Pacific Aces - 1024x768 (fixed)

Victoria - 1024x768, 1280x1024

Birth of America - flexible (see note #2)

Take Command Second Manasas - 1024x768 (fixed)

Sid Meier's Civil War Collection - 640x480 fixed

Silent Hunter 1 - 640x480 fixed

Notes:

#1: I don't have the CPU/GPU to run this at 1600x1200.
#2: At 1600x1200, the text even native on an LCD would be too small.
#3: Running this at 800x600 to use an even multiple would be too restrictive.

Most of the old games fixed at 720x400 and 640x480 should not be a problem when scaled. The text/images on these games are big and blocky anyway. Also, for the most part, they have limited text. Meaning there isn't much that a display can do degrade the video quality of these games.

It is the games that I now run at 1024x768 with lots of text which is my main concern.

Anymore thoughts?

Thanks!

 

[xtknight]

Originally posted by: MarkShot
It is the games that I now run at 1024x768 with lots of text which is my main concern.

Given 800x600 performance on my 1280x1024 LCD (monitor scaling even), it looks great IMO. They have come a long way. On the desktop I'd stick with native resolution (and big font settings if you need), but with games it will be just fine, and dare I say great given those 20" monitors have a much lower DPI (higher aperture/fill ratio) than my 19" by far and most likely newer scaling technology. You'll want to do 1280x960, not 1280x1024 because 20" and 21.3" have a 4:3 aspect ratio at 1600x1200 just like 1280x960. 1280x1024 is an oddball 5:4 resolution. Like I said though even 800x600 scaled to my oddball resolution (different aspect ratio) looks great in games. You can also use fixed aspect ratio scaling to have some black bars and some interpolation to reach best overall quality with different aspect ratios.

 

[roisin]

looking at the review of Nec 20WGX² http://www.behardware.com/articles/610-...gx-an-ips-equivalent-to-a-2-ms-tn.html
why would the pixperan images have those vertical stripes in them? http://www.behardware.com/medias/photos_news/00/15/IMG0015799.jpg
none of the other ones have that...

 

[samduhman]

Originally posted by: roisin
looking at the review of Nec 20WGX² http://www.behardware.com/articles/610-...gx-an-ips-equivalent-to-a-2-ms-tn.html
why would the pixperan images have those vertical stripes in them? http://www.behardware.com/medias/photos_news/00/15/IMG0015799.jpg
none of the other ones have that...

That review kind of put me off of the NEC 20WGX2. For one the glare issue and second the fact that it's widescreen and the reviewer said it actually looks small even though its 20". Im not willing to spend $700+ on a screen I may not be totally happy with. It would be nice if a local B&M carried this and the L2000C monitor so I could check them out in person. Ordering online with crazy restocking fees is not an option for trying out a LCD.


OOOOO, Just noticed an Acer 19" replaced the NEC as best gaming monitor but I didn't see a reason why. Anyone know?

Thanks!

 

[MarkShot]

Xtknight,

How much more viewable area does 21.3" add over 20"? Is it noticeable?

Thanks.

 

[tw33ter]

assuming its measured diagonally, that's a little over 1/2'', maybe 5/8'' on all sides

 

[samduhman]

Was scanning through the thread trying to figure out why the Acer 1923r is the number one recommendation for gaming. I saw one persons comments on it. I searched the web for reviews and found none. So is this recommedation based on one persons comment in this thread? Im a little warie of plunking down hundreds of dollars based on one persons opinion. No disrespect intended.

OP what reasons made you recommend this monitor over the NEC for gaming? Do the specs tell all or am I missing other reviews? Im just trying to figure out if Im missed something.

Also was it ever confirmed whether its 6 or 8 bit color?

Its beginning to become a major pain trying to find a gaming LCD to replace my aging 19" CRT.

 

[spectra9]

Originally posted by: xtknight
The ViewSonic VP930 is in fact NOT 8-bit. (as I had suspected for months now!)

http://www.viewsoniceurope.com/DE/Products/LCDProf/VP930.htm

19"-MVA-Farb-TFT-Aktiv-Matrix-LCD-Display, SXGA
16,7 Mio. Farben
(6-Bit + 2-Bit FRC)

Fast 8-bit PVA/MVA panels are a fantasy, but you do get the higher contrast and wide viewing angles. We do still think the S-IPS are true 8-bit displays.

Is there some way that we as users can be certain of this. I mean is there some sort of applications or test images that we can use to differentiate between TRUE 8-bit and 6-bit+2bit FRC?

 

[spectra9]

Just an update on my VP930 flickering color problem, I finally receive a replacement unit which does not exhibit the problem from Viewsonic. It's also manufactured in September, only 2 weeks newer than my old one. So far it's working great, no dixels, no color flicker, and it even has less backlight bleed than the old one, so I'm happy now . Just hope it stays this way

@xtknight, just curious, you mentioned that you do saw some sort of flicker in your theoretical tests. Can you explain the way that you test it? thx

 

[xtknight]

Originally posted by: samduhman
OOOOO, Just noticed an Acer 19" replaced the NEC as best gaming monitor but I didn't see a reason why. Anyone know?

Sorry for the confusion. I do state that the recommendations are in no particular order (whichever of the listed LCDs that you can find in a store will suit you). The Acer is the best price/performance ratio of all those though, I'd say. If you can't afford the new NEC that is. Although, right now I am going to rate them based on how good they are, regardless of their price. I'm not sure if the Acer is 8-bit or not, but I don't think it is. In any case I'll probably put the Samsung above the Acer.

I do have to put some faith in people when they say things, but generally when the panel is the same, there is not much they can do to *destroy* the final LCD. I am still confident it is at least better than any of the TNs in the same price range. Justification being I have not seen one case where one monitor with the same panel obliberates the other.

 

[MarkShot]

Xtnight,

The NEC LCD2180UX and NEC LCD2190UXi are both 21.3" displays. However, I don't see what the difference is between them other than the latter is more expensive and not widely available.

Will the response time of 20ms for the LCD2180UX be adequate for the type of games which I play (see earlier posts)?

---

The following LCD displays in 20" are available locally such that I could pick it up and return it myself with no restocking fees if I wasn't satisfied with it:

LG Flatron L2013P
Samsung SyncMaster 204B
Sony StylePro SDM-S204/B
Samsung SyncMaster 204T

Samsung SyncMaster 213T {21.3"}

Would you recommend any of the above for my needs?

A friend of mine raves about his NEC LCD2180UX. Unfortunately, I am in the USA and he is in Germany so I cannot see it in action. Aside from the slightly increased screen realestate is a NEC LCD like the 2180UX worth the premium it will cost?

You asked about my budget earlier. I can afford LCDs in the $1,000-$2,000 USD range, but I don't want to spend money needlessly if it can be avoided.

Thanks.

 

[xtknight]

Originally posted by: samduhman
Also was it ever confirmed whether its 6 or 8 bit color?

The Acer? I'm not sure. The ViewSonic is 6 bit+FRC. Reason being, somebody on these forums called and was told that the German site that listed 6 bit+FRC was accurate because they are required to state the individual components unlike the UK/US subsidiaries. The UK one just assumes 6bit+2bit=8bit, and they even list 8-bit for VP930b and 6-bit+FRC for the VX924 right in a PDF, despite both of them being the same.

Its beginning to become a major pain trying to find a gaming LCD to replace my aging 19" CRT.

If you are wary of the Acer, the Samsung 970P and ViewSonic VP930b are fine. Though neither is 8-bit, they still have higher contrast (much better colors) than the TN alternatives. This high-contrast P-MVA 6 bit VP930b beats my TN 6 bit Samsung 710T easily, despite still being 6-bit. To be fair, the frame rate control itself is basically no issue at all for me but I'm just mad at ViewSonic for posting deceptive info and persuading me and others to pay for something that never existed.

If you can afford it, the NEC 20WMGX2 is superior to anything else for gaming and worth its price premium. However, the LG L2000C is reportedly also a great monitor that you'll want to look out for. One user has just received it in the 'best LCD for $650' thread so you can check out his comments there.

 

[xtknight]

No two gamers are the same. Thus, I have decided to partition the gaming sections into maximum speed, and decent speed+high contrast. Currently, the NEC dominates both easily. As for the rest, you will have to decide if you want a higher contrast display, or you want the fastest response time possible.

I now believe that the key reason TN panels aren't very good at displaying a wide range of colors is because of their lower contrast compared to IPS/VA panels, not because of the dithering or frame rate control. Once the new-from-CeBIT high-contrast TN LCD from LG Philips is tested and available, I'll put that over the VA LCDs in a heart beat. The main thing VA has over TN is viewing angle from below, and nothing else from my experience. They possibly display a slightly wider angle on the side, but it's not worth it for their inferior response time and high price as long as the new TN's contrast raises to VA levels. But I am not going to put a TN above a VA just yet until I see it tested and proven.

 

[xtknight]

Originally posted by: spectra9
Is there some way that we as users can be certain of this. I mean is there some sort of applications or test images that we can use to differentiate between TRUE 8-bit and 6-bit+2bit FRC?

The reason this even came up in the first place was because I noticed weird patterns on certain colors on my desktop background, although extremely subtle. I decided to investigate it further and you can see the results of that from about the last 10 pages of this thread. Typical FRC/dithering on the TN LCDs seems not to be nearly as bad as this. I certainly never saw this on my Samsung 710T TN, but I noticed it on the VP930b within a week.

If the dithering is good, it's probably hard to tell. As I said above I now believe contrast is the reason why the colors on IPS/VA panels are much better, not the 6-bit/8-bit dilemma. My VP930b shows a MUCH wider range of colors than my 710T could ever hope to, despite both being 6-bit.

Originally posted by: spectra9
Just an update on my VP930 flickering color problem, I finally receive a replacement unit which does not exhibit the problem from Viewsonic. It's also manufactured in September, only 2 weeks newer than my old one. So far it's working great, no dixels, no color flicker, and it even has less backlight bleed than the old one, so I'm happy now . Just hope it stays this way

@xtknight, just curious, you mentioned that you do saw some sort of flicker in your theoretical tests. Can you explain the way that you test it? thx

Well, that's good to hear. I have some test pictures earlier in this thread where I put colors 1 pixel color component off. With four or so of those solid colors, it seems you can be pretty safe that if across all brightness and contrast levels possible on your monitor that you never see those flicker.