• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Difference between Sony E400 and G400?

S

Skot

Member
Doesn't look like there's much difference at all. Both use the FD-Trinitron tube, but one's $100 dollars cheaper. Is one bloated with features that I'll never use?
 
Not exactly $100, but about $50-70. The G400 should have a higher video frequency(Sony's site never mentioned it) with higher resolutions and refresh rates. There are no difference in design of the tubes they use, just the specs are higher with G400.
 
The real only difference is that the G400 can go up to 85hz at 1600x1200 while the E400 can only go up to 75hz. The g400 also has some high contrast black coating while the E400 doesn't, but i think it's BS.
 
I'm never going to run it above 1280x1024 @ 85Hz anyway. Not many people do. So the E400 is probalby the best buy.
 
Why waste your money on the E400? Get something like Mitsubishi or Samsung with higher spec and lower price.
 
I recommend the Samsung SyncMaster 900NF, higher res/refresh rate than even G400, can be had for less than $400.
 
The G400 also has the "image restoration" feature that the E400 lacks.

Sure, there are cheaper models, some of which use the same CRT. But Sony keeps the best of the CRT's for themselves, plus $467 for a G400 is not a bad price! 😎
 
LOL Sony DOES NOT keep the best tubes for themselves. You cant test a tube without building the complete monitor. Also it would be WAY to costly to evaluate them all.
 
Hmmm ... can they not tweak the CRT manufacturing process to produce better units for themselves. Can they not alter the phosphor coating as well (ie. use thinner coat)?
 
LOL Sony DOES NOT keep the best tubes for themselves. You cant test a tube without building the complete monitor. Also it would be WAY to costly to evaluate them all.

Unless that's from somebody who works for Sony. I wont believe that statement. They would be totally stupid if they're giving away all the best tubes.

 
Plus the sony's look 10X better in my opinion. Not the screen but the plastic casings. All the others are so "fancy" my G500 is just square and simple.

Also, the Sony cases are easy access. 4 screws and its off. Try that with another company, no they have tabs that break if you open them, and it voids your warranty. They take a special tool when removing them so they don't break.

Also, to extend the life of your monitor, open the casing and blow it out once every 6 months. This keeps dust from shorting it out inside.

The G400/500 does have BNC inputs, in addition to standard HD15. This means you can hook two computers to the one monitor. Or use BNC for better image quality.

Also the E400 can only do 1600X1200@60Hz while the G400 can do 1880X?@75Hz
 
LXi: If sony tests their tubes for quality then how come sony monitors still sometimes come with dead pixels? Also please explain how you can test a tube without a built monitor. Sony has always been overpriced. People pay for the name. ALso sony's cases arent THAT great. They dont look any better than kds's casing(Seen both).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top