19" pro monitor options

[yakkowarner]

I am considering ordering one of the following flat-screen 19" monitors (w/ refresh rate in Hz @1920x1440):

[*]Compaq p920 (70)
[*]Iiyama Vision Master Pro 454 (85)
[*]NEC MultiSync FP955 (73)
[*]NEC MultiSync FP912sb (73)
[*]Mitsubishi DP930sb (apparently exactly the same as the NEC FP912sb) (73)
[*]Philips 109P20 (60 - ugh)
[*]Samsung SyncMaster 900NF (73)
[*]Sony MultiScan CPD-G420S (na)
[*]ViewSonic P90F (73)
[*]ViewSonic P95F+ (73)

The best deal (i.e., cheapest, in the absence of quality comparisons) currently available is the ViewSonic P95F+ for $290 + shipping.
Any experience with these?

 

[yakkowarner]

No opinions?

Suggestions on other models comparable in price & quality?

 

[sean2002]

I have the 900NF and I have no complaints, sorry I could not have been more help.

 

[Antoneo]

I have done research and asking around on forums and came down to the following models (in no particular order): Samsung 900NF, NEC FP955, ViewSonic P95F+, and Sony G420. To me, the Samsung 900NF's case seemed a bit on the large side as from pictures (and seeing its cousin, the 955DF in the store) the plastic bezel was overly large. However, many users have recommended the 900NF and praised the picture it produces. The ViewSonic might have been a good contender but didn't hear much praise or much else about it so was dropped. The Sony G420 was another monitor many seemed to like.

I bought the NEC FP955 and am absolutely pleased with it. It was a bit smaller than the 900NF (compared spec sheets) and slightly cheaper than the Sony G420. Perhaps I chose it because of the good experience with NEC monitors in the past but that's besides the point. Build quality is top notch with this monitor, no creaks or mushy buttons. Packaged thoroughly and with thought. The screen itself is flat outside and in. Nice sharp images (although text is a bit on the thin side... common from what I hear from other AG users) with excellent colors. There is, however, a slight fuzziness in the corners thought but nothing to distract regular usage. I have tried 1600x1200 and it was clear but small... you might want to get a 21 for that instead of a 19.

 

[Imported]

I run 1600x1200 on my 700NF..

Anyways, I just ordered the Dell P992 for $284.25 shipped. Just awaiting for it come now..

Dell's website says it supports up to 1600x1200, but there was a PC World review that said it supported 1920x1440 at 70Hz..

 

[yakkowarner]

One thing I wonder about with the NEC FP955 is that it's a shadow mask tube rather than aperture grille. A lot of people around here seem to like AG better, though I know shadow mask also has its adherents. Why, for each case?

At this point I'm still leaning towards the ViewSonic P95F+, since its specs seem relatively good: max 2048x1536 for when I really need a lot of code on the screen at once, acceptable rate at 1920x1440 (only beaten by the Iiyama 454, which would cost me ~$120 more), good at 1600x1200, well-respected manufacturer. I agree that it's odd not to hear much about this monitor, for good or for bad.

 

[sean2002]

Originally posted by: Imported
I run 1600x1200 on my 700NF..

Anyways, I just ordered the Dell P992 for $284.25 shipped. Just awaiting for it come now..

Dell's website says it supports up to 1600x1200, but there was a PC World review that said it supported 1920x1440 at 70Hz..

Holy crap, I can't even use 1600X1200@85hrz on my 900NF with out squinting

 

[mooojojojo]

quite right - at 1920x1440 everything on a 19" screen would look really small.

at work I'm using a 19" ctx pr960f or something like that - it uses a sony tube and looks quite good. 85hz@1600x1200. definitely go for apreture grille..

 

[onelin]

I'm very satisfied with my Viewsonic P95f. Note there is no +, I opted for this model due to it's higher refreshes but no 2048x1536. (I won't use it) I run my desktop at 1280x960 @ 100hz, keeping the option for 1600x1200@85hz but the text is too small even with large fonts. I run dual monitors so coding space on the other benefits me far more than more on one screen (how many programming apps AREN'T best done in fullscreen or thereabouts anyway? ...aside from maybe 5 small copies of notepad heh)

btw: AFAIK 73Hz won't run in windows, meaning you'll have to do 1920 at 60hz on all but the Iiyama...unless there's some tweak tool or custom driver, in which case I'd be delighted to know this.
The P95f does 77Hz at that res, which can be used in windows (higher than 75, so it can use 75) and is why I chose it over the P95f+ ...I am not going to run in 60Hz ever, so I don't care if the + does 2048 Odd note, however: I cannot get windows to let me set it to 75Hz (WinXP Pro) using the Viewsonic drivers...even with hide modes my monitor cannot display _unchecked_ it does not list 75. Something to look into, if you care about this res. However, the P95f beats all of those monitors at this res in -spec- and looks beautiful...except that Iiyama at 85...damn! (if there is a solution... I am sure all the other drivers are the same, even if they weren't... all but the Iiyama can't even do 75 anyway)

A bit long, but hopefully informative. That sounds like a great price for the P95F+ ... however, shipping+insurance do cost a lot. I got mine at Staples (order, only took 2 days) w/ a good plan, no chances taken on this gem...I want it for a good long time

 

[IgoByte]

(w/ refresh rate in Hz @1920x1440)

It's not like any of these monitors in combination with any current video card will actually run 1920x1440 nicely. I'd focus on 1600x1200 @ 85Hz or higher.

I haven't found a single video card, which runs my Sony FW900 perfectly at 1920x1200 @ 85Hz, and it's a $2K monitor...

Just a thought...

I have no specific recommendation on a monitor though.

 

[onelin]

What IgoByte said is also true. The weird thing is my GF4 Ti440 *supports* that res/refresh but just barely...may also be a reason it doesn't want to do more than 60hz at the res.

 

[yakkowarner]

Originally posted by onelin0
btw: AFAIK 73Hz won't run in windows, meaning you'll have to do 1920 at 60hz on all but the Iiyama...unless there's some tweak tool or custom driver, in which case I'd be delighted to know this.
The P95f does 77Hz at that res, which can be used in windows (higher than 75, so it can use 75) and is why I chose it over the P95f+ ...I am not going to run in 60Hz ever, so I don't care if the + does 2048 Odd note, however: I cannot get windows to let me set it to 75Hz (WinXP Pro) using the Viewsonic drivers...even with hide modes my monitor cannot display _unchecked_ it does not list 75. Something to look into, if you care about this res.

I'm actually planning just to run Linux. That means no Windows Control Panel issues. Of course, I suppose it's possible I may have issues in Linux, too, though I doubt it. Anybody know about that?

Originally posted by IgoByte
It's not like any of these monitors in combination with any current video card will actually run 1920x1440 nicely. I'd focus on 1600x1200 @ 85Hz or higher.

I haven't found a single video card, which runs my Sony FW900 perfectly at 1920x1200 @ 85Hz, and it's a $2K monitor...

The ATI Radeon 8500LE claims to do 1920x1440 @90Hz (and apparently has a Linux driver available as of 2002/08/19).
The GeForce 4 Ti4200 (at least as described at one board-maker site, since the Nvidia site seems not to include this info), claims to do 1920x1440 @75Hz. (It seems odd to me that it's slower than the 8500LE, but it's still fast enough for the monitor.)
Anyway, if it turns out I'm using 1600x1200 more often, that shouldn't be an issue. Still, if a card supports the res/rate, what does it mean to say it supports it "barely" or "nicely"?

 

[IgoByte]

Originally posted by: yakkowarner

Originally posted by onelin0
btw: AFAIK 73Hz won't run in windows, meaning you'll have to do 1920 at 60hz on all but the Iiyama...unless there's some tweak tool or custom driver, in which case I'd be delighted to know this.
The P95f does 77Hz at that res, which can be used in windows (higher than 75, so it can use 75) and is why I chose it over the P95f+ ...I am not going to run in 60Hz ever, so I don't care if the + does 2048 Odd note, however: I cannot get windows to let me set it to 75Hz (WinXP Pro) using the Viewsonic drivers...even with hide modes my monitor cannot display _unchecked_ it does not list 75. Something to look into, if you care about this res.

I'm actually planning just to run Linux. That means no Windows Control Panel issues. Of course, I suppose it's possible I may have issues in Linux, too, though I doubt it. Anybody know about that?

Originally posted by IgoByte
It's not like any of these monitors in combination with any current video card will actually run 1920x1440 nicely. I'd focus on 1600x1200 @ 85Hz or higher.

I haven't found a single video card, which runs my Sony FW900 perfectly at 1920x1200 @ 85Hz, and it's a $2K monitor...

The ATI Radeon 8500LE claims to do 1920x1440 @90Hz (and apparently has a Linux driver available as of 2002/08/19).
The GeForce 4 Ti4200 (at least as described at one board-maker site, since the Nvidia site seems not to include this info), claims to do 1920x1440 @75Hz. (It seems odd to me that it's slower than the 8500LE, but it's still fast enough for the monitor.)
Anyway, if it turns out I'm using 1600x1200 more often, that shouldn't be an issue. Still, if a card supports the res/rate, what does it mean to say it supports it "barely" or "nicely"?

Their claims greatly differ from reality, IMO. It's not that the cards can't do it...it's that it looks awful...I have a 128MB RAdeon 8500 and it does 1920x1200 @ 85/75Hz fine (I use 75Hz), but far from perfect. Best I've had though. . .

 

[yakkowarner]

Originally posted by: IgoByte
Their claims greatly differ from reality, IMO. It's not that the cards can't do it...it's that it looks awful...I have a 128MB RAdeon 8500 and it does 1920x1200 @ 85/75Hz fine (I use 75Hz), but far from perfect. Best I've had though. . .

Awful how? Noticeably frame lag? Reduced image quality? Please be as specific as you can so I can decide if I'm completely abandoning the hope of running at 1920x1440.
Also, on the subject of Radeon 8500's, what's the diff between the 8500 and the 8500LE?

 

[AMDfreak]

Also, on the subject of Radeon 8500's, what's the diff between the 8500 and the 8500LE?

The retail Radeon 8500 is clocked at 275/275, while the LE is usually 250/250. Some low end LE's have been found at 230.

 

[Operandi]

Stay away from the ViewSonic P95F+ I had 2 of them and they both had severe distortion problems on the bottom 1" of the screen after running for 30 mins to an hour. Aside from the distortion problem which I'll assume is a fluke, it was a decent but not great display at 1600x1200 @ 85HZ, not as good as my old ViewSonic PF775 17" which I had for about 3 years. Right now I'm using a Sony G410R on my main machine, it's the same as the G420S - the intergraded speakers and dual input's making about $20-$30 cheaper. It's an excellent display, the best I've seen yet.

 

[Antoneo]

Originally posted by: yakkowarner
One thing I wonder about with the NEC FP955 is that it's a shadow mask tube rather than aperture grille. A lot of people around here seem to like AG better, though I know shadow mask also has its adherents. Why, for each case?

At this point I'm still leaning towards the ViewSonic P95F+, since its specs seem relatively good: max 2048x1536 for when I really need a lot of code on the screen at once, acceptable rate at 1920x1440 (only beaten by the Iiyama 454, which would cost me ~$120 more), good at 1600x1200, well-respected manufacturer. I agree that it's odd not to hear much about this monitor, for good or for bad.

Yakkowarner, you are mistaken. The NEC FP955 is definitely an aperture grille monitor. It is one of the first joint company (mitsubitshi and NEC) produced monitors and uses a Diamondtron tube, comparable to sony's trinitron. I can see the faint two damper wires occasionally on a light blue screen like the winXP login.

The NEC fp955 does 1600x1200 at 86 Hz I believe... I have noticed no flickering.

EDIT: Shadow mask has its advantages in text due to the way the "holes" are arranged. However, it is easier to get a flat screen with aperture grille monitors. Aperture grille monitors are also known for their excellent color and brightness. NEC (and very few others... Hitachi I think?) came up with a hybrid aperture grille/dot pitch called slot mask or CromaClear. It sorta exhibited both qualties of AG and dot pitch (using one right now) but AG is also my preference as well as many others.

 

[yakkowarner]

Originally posted by: MistaEng
Yakkowarner, you are mistaken. The NEC FP955 is definitely an aperture grille monitor. It is one of the first joint company (mitsubitshi and NEC) produced monitors and uses a Diamondtron tube, comparable to sony's trinitron. I can see the faint two damper wires occasionally on a light blue screen like the winXP login.

NEC's FP955 page says that it's shadow mask.

In any case, thanks for the input on AG vs. SM.

 

[JoPalm]

I have the NEC FE950+ w/ a radeon 8500. I love it .

Just my $.02

 

[Antoneo]

Originally posted by: yakkowarner

Originally posted by: MistaEng
Yakkowarner, you are mistaken. The NEC FP955 is definitely an aperture grille monitor. It is one of the first joint company (mitsubitshi and NEC) produced monitors and uses a Diamondtron tube, comparable to sony's trinitron. I can see the faint two damper wires occasionally on a light blue screen like the winXP login.

NEC's FP955 page says that it's shadow mask.

In any case, thanks for the input on AG vs. SM.

No, the site does not list the NEC FP955 as shadow mask. It lists the monitor's "DOT PITCH" which is supposed to be reserved for shadow mask monitors. Aperture grille monitors use "slots" not dots and so because shadow mask monitors were so popular (a standard) its "dot pitch" specification got carried over to AG monitors as well. and btw, its a 0.24 unipitch monitor... not variable as your link says it is.

Go here to see what I am talking about:
detailed specifications and scroll down to Picture Tube/Display

 

[onelin]

If you're planning on running it on a GF4Ti I found an interesting tidbit when I ran 3dmark the other day... it supports 1920x1440 @ 75hz ** in 16-bit ** ....60hz in 32bit. Make sure your videocard can handle the refresh you want in 32-bit if it matters to you (and I imagine it does)
When I mean barely I meant in not very high refresh...and also you can add that it doesn't go above 60hz in 32-bit at that res... and like others said it could support it but just not look great.