LCD Showdown! - Please share your opinions :)

[KristopherKubicki]

the 1800FP is a nice monitor, but i think not as good as the 1702FP, even though its a litle larger. colors are alright, and the response rate is about right too. its really an entry model so i would suggest buying a nicer 17" instead.

 

[GaryShandling]

Originally posted by: KristopherKubicki
the 1800FP is a nice monitor, but i think not as good as the 1702FP, even though its a litle larger. colors are alright, and the response rate is about right too. its really an entry model so i would suggest buying a nicer 17" instead.

Such as the 172t? i would if it had 16ms...so can you suggest the next best thing but without the colour problems of the hitachi and nec, or even suggest a realy good 18"?

 

[ViRGE]

Originally posted by: KristopherKubicki
no, NEC versus Viewsonic. Unfortunately somehow I am involved

Really? If it's legal to say so, could you give us a bit more background information? I'm assuming you're some sort of whitness/technical expert for the trial?

 

[KristopherKubicki]

If you have your heart set on 16ms then undoubtly you want the CML174. Its really a tough tradeoff, you can get the size of an 18" without sacraficing the 16ms response time of the AUO substrate.

Virge, unfortunately I cant comment much more on it. Once this thing passes over I will better explain it.

Cheers,

Kristopher

 

[GaryShandling]

What does the hitachi have that the nec doesnt?

 

[KristopherKubicki]

its cheaper. other than that, nothing

 

[JZilla]

KristopherKubicki, first I'd like to say thanks for all the excellent monitor reviews you have been writing, but do write some more reviews.

Seeing as all the 16ms monitors uses the same AUOptronics panel (except maybe the LG, which rumour says it uses LG/Phillips own), the image quality on these 16ms should be the same, yes? And the difference in the spec sheets, such as brightness, contrast and viewing angles, should be the outcome of the different way the manufacturers measures these things (as you have so elegantly stated in your previous reviews), yes?

So as far as I see it, shopping for a 16ms monitor really boils down to the various features the different monitors have. By features I mean tilt, height adjustable, pivot and antiglare coating (which the Viewsonic VP171 should have, not to sure about this).

If I am mistaken, please correct me about this. Carry on.

 

[GaryShandling]

Originally posted by: JZilla
KristopherKubicki, first I'd like to say thanks for all the excellent monitor reviews you have been writing, but do write some more reviews.

Seeing as all the 16ms monitors uses the same AUOptronics panel (except maybe the LG, which rumour says it uses LG/Phillips own), the image quality on these 16ms should be the same, yes? And the difference in the spec sheets, such as brightness, contrast and viewing angles, should be the outcome of the different way the manufacturers measures these things (as you have so elegantly stated in your previous reviews), yes?

So as far as I see it, shopping for a 16ms monitor really boils down to the various features the different monitors have. By features I mean tilt, height adjustable, pivot and antiglare coating (which the Viewsonic VP171 should have, not to sure about this).

If I am mistaken, please correct me about this. Carry on.

That means the quality of the viewsonic has to be the same of the hitachi and nec as it uses the same monitor? so the only thing dragging the viewsonic down is the price and false contrast ratio.

 

[JZilla]

Yes Gary, that's how I see it. I would like Kubicki to either confirm or deny this.

And the features I talked about, includes design.

 

[KristopherKubicki]

JZilla: Thanks for the support. I will be doing a bit more reviews as I will be passing on some of the other behind the scenes work at AnandTech.

Gary: correct. however, since NEC and hitachi both have established quality, features and are priced agressively, why chance it with the viewsonic?

Hope that helps,

Kristopher

 

[eastvillager]

Regarding pixel response times, you should really try out the LCD in question yourself, especially if you're using pixel response times to significantly influence your purchasing decision.

The difference between most of them is slight, and ALL of them have ghosting. That is right, ALL of them. There is no valid test for this other than your own eyes.

95% of the time, I use two samsung 191T LCD's, but when it comes to competitive FPS gaming, only a CRT will do.

 

[KristopherKubicki]

I agree

Edit: Im using 4 dell 2000FPs and an NEC MultiSync E1100+ though

 

[Hagen]

I would go for the NEC 1760NX. I have a 1550M, which is just analog, but the quality is incredible. It has a 25ms response time, it's excellent for DVD and gaming.
I might upgrade to a 17" and also digital, and my choice will be NEC again. I will admit there are a couple of dead pixels on my screen, but you really have to look for them, and I never notice them unless I look particularly for them. Also, the NEC 1850E or 1850X has really good write-ups.
Good Luck!

 

[JZilla]

Originally posted by: eastvillager
Regarding pixel response times, you should really try out the LCD in question yourself, especially if you're using pixel response times to significantly influence your purchasing decision.

The difference between most of them is slight, and ALL of them have ghosting. That is right, ALL of them. There is no valid test for this other than your own eyes.

95% of the time, I use two samsung 191T LCD's, but when it comes to competitive FPS gaming, only a CRT will do.

Agreed, which is why I have been a regular this week in various shops.

So far I have seen a Sony which didn't impress me, the Samsung 171S which seemed pretty good and the Viewsonic VP171 which seemed like a good monitor with a very nice design imo. Then there is all the others, which I won't bother with naming. But it's hard to make a decision on this. Gary Shandling and I are both in Europe and it's damn hard to find shops that have a wide selection on monitors. It gets even harder if you'd want to see the Samsung 172T besides one of the 16ms monitors.

Edit: Why we focus so much on the response time, is the fact that one hears so much about ghosting. The Samsung I saw didn't exhibit any ghosting. But then again, it was showing a HL2 video.

 

[KristopherKubicki]

I do not particularly buy Sonys simply because they use OEM manufacturers that sell the same display anyway (just as a different name). The S series for Samsung are their 'OEM' line and I also shy away from those displays. (They use lower quality substrates than their retail lines).

A lot of people have made a big deal (tm) of 16ms response time. I have had trouble noticing the difference between a 25ms and a 16ms monitor even when they are right next to each other. Check the monitors out for yourself side by side and then make a decision.

Kristopher

 

[GaryShandling]

Originally posted by: KristopherKubicki
I do not particularly buy Sonys simply because they use OEM manufacturers that sell the same display anyway (just as a different name). The S series for Samsung are their 'OEM' line and I also shy away from those displays. (They use lower quality substrates than their retail lines).

A lot of people have made a big deal (tm) of 16ms response time. I have had trouble noticing the difference between a 25ms and a 16ms monitor even when they are right next to each other. Check the monitors out for yourself side by side and then make a decision.

Kristopher

Cant, because theres not 1 place here that has a lcd showroom. Thats why i have to rely on your reviews and opinions. Its narrowed down to the nec and viewsonic, one has anti glare and looks better so ill probably go viewsonic, and wait 6-12 months untill someone brings out a 19" 16-11ms.

 

[JZilla]

Gary, remember I was saying that the Viewsonic VP171 looked like a 4:3 monitor in the lcd thread in the video forum. I just looked at some Newegg (wish we had a Newegg in Europe) pictures, judge for yourself. LOL, almost forgot the link.

It IS probably just imagination, but...

 

[GaryShandling]

Originally posted by: JZilla
Gary, remember I was saying that the Viewsonic VP171 looked like a 4:3 monitor in the lcd thread in the video forum. I just looked at some Newegg (wish we had a Newegg in Europe) pictures, judge for yourself. LOL, almost forgot the link.

It IS probably just imagination, but...

Yeah, it does look a little too widescreen but in reality it isnt. So what have you decided on Jzilla? the Nec?

 

[JZilla]

I have decided that I will wait for the 192T review (and my paycheck), before doing anything. Hopefully Kubicki will have some new news about the Samsung line of low response time lcds.

But as it looks right now, it's either the Viewsonic or the NEC, with the LG 1710B or Hitachi 174 as the outsiders. But it is really hard to judge, when you can't see them live.

 

[GaryShandling]

Originally posted by: JZilla
I have decided that I will wait for the 192T review (and my paycheck), before doing anything. Hopefully Kubicki will have some new news about the Samsung line of low response time lcds.

But as it looks right now, it's either the Viewsonic or the NEC, with the LG 1710B or Hitachi 174 as the outsiders. But it is really hard to judge, when you can't see them live.

man o man...looks like a stale mate. i think the samsung 192t will have a 25ms response, there just improving the clarity and general quality of the 191t (which had problems) so youll be waiting a long time for a decent 16ms. take a risk and go with 1, by the time the next generation models arrive youll have enough money again to buy 5. hhehe

 

[JZilla]

Not with my salary, lol.

I don't want a 19", 17" is plenty for me. But Kubicki said he should get the 192T + any news about Samsungs low response time series next week. I got a few weeks to decide anyway, but I'll try and find a Samsung 172T in a shop, as I am a little interested by the fact that Kubicki couldn't see the difference between 16ms and 25ms. But I'll definately be getting a lcd this summer, my 17" crt is awful. All these rumours about 19" sub-25ms has been spreading during the last few months, yet we have to see one. So I have decided that it's not worth it, I'll be waiting forever for these monitos.

I wonder what the technical explanation is, as to why there is 17" 16ms panels, but no 19" sub-25ms panels.

 

[KristopherKubicki]

All these rumours about 19" sub-25ms has been spreading during the last few months, yet we have to see one.

Unfortunately, I can only speculate on what I've been told. Its been very quite in the display community for the last few months.

as to why there are no 16ms monitors that are not 17" is because there is only one manufacturer of that 16ms substrate. I do not think they are capable of producing 19" glass yet, so until they outsource their technology (or someone else produces it themselves like LG/Phillips or Samsung), we wont be seeing any 19" 16ms monitors yet.

Kristopher

 

[JZilla]

Hmm.

LG has announced that by Summer it will have released a monitor with a response time of just 12 ms.

This is Toms line. Do you know anything about this? AFAIK it is summer already. So I take it that this is just another rumour, like the sub-25ms 19". Or perhaps LG was just too optimistic. How about you get that LG 1710B (with their own panel) in the lab. I haven't seen any reviews of it yet, except 2 guys at the gigantic ars thread. One was happy, the other one felt seasick when he played games.

 

[KristopherKubicki]

I think all of the manufacturers have been a little too optimistic. I shot an email over to my Philips contact to see if they had anything to say