LCD Buyer's Guide

[Ike0069]

I realize that the it's only 18" viewable, but that's still bigger than 17".

The one reason why I think a 17" LCD might be better is that it has a smaller dot pitch at 12x10 than a 19" at 12x10. Not really sure how much of a real world difference this actually is though.

 

[Compellor]

Originally posted by: Ike0069
Excellent write-up xt. I myself am looking at getting an LCD and found this review very helpful.

It would be nice to see a 17" vs. 19" section. This is one dilema I have right now. The 17" LCD's have some serious pro's, but I'm just stuck on the bigger is better idea.

I have 19" CRT now and don't really want to drop in screen size at all, but maybe I should just go with 17". What to do?

Get a 19" LCD. It's a nice step up from a 19" CRT. Granted the extra inch isn't major, but you'll get more viewing impact over a 17" LCD.

 

[Demoth]

The holy grail is almost here. A 20.1" screen, 1600X1200 native resolution, 1000:1 contrast ratio, and 8 ms response time, all for sub $400. Probably see these by the end of Q1.

The Samsung 204T and the Sceptre Naga III are already pretty close and more R&D is going into 20.1 now with a lot of collateral tech and production going in due to LCD TV design.

19" LCDs are nice now, but 1280X1024 on this size screen is more grainy then people realize. You have to look at a good native 1600X1200 screen to see just how much sharper the extra res makes, even on an LCD screen. The big wide screens are nice like the Dell 2005FPW, but the format needs to be tweaked in many games and some games won't support it at all, leaving big black bars on each side of the screen, which stinks.

As even low mid end vid cards can now run almost every game at max settings and 1600X1200 with high DPS, there will be more demand for 20.1s and mass production and standardization of the size, just like the transition for 17" to 19" recently and the huge drop in 19" prices.

The only downside is many of the 20.1s released soon will have TN panels as well.

 

[xtknight]

Originally posted by: Ike0069
Excellent write-up xt. I myself am looking at getting an LCD and found this review very helpful.

It would be nice to see a 17" vs. 19" section. This is one dilema I have right now. The 17" LCD's have some serious pro's, but I'm just stuck on the bigger is better idea.

I have 19" CRT now and don't really want to drop in screen size at all, but maybe I should just go with 17". What to do?

Yup, I will definitely add that. I am heavily in to the 17" and 19" market myself, just been really busy the past couple days but I should be able to update it a ton tonight and tomorrow. You should either wait for the Samsung 770P (or any 17" 8-bit S-PVA/Overdrive for that matter), or grab a 19" S-OVA/Overdrive. Depends on what you use it for, but S-PVA/Overdrive seems to be the best combo at this point overall. Most 17" TNs lack any innovation today but if possible you should get a 17" S-PVA/Overdrive because you'll probably like the finer dot pitch.

I can't read Danish but on the site www.flatpanels.dk there's a news item on AU Optronics releasing new "A-MVA" panels. What I could extract out of it with the tranexp online translator was they will supposedly have a godlike overdrive and very high contrast at 4 ms. g2g and 1200:1 (marketed) contrast ratio (though the Samsung 770P has 6ms. g2g and 1150:1 (RATED!)). They will be based off the popular P-MVA panels. There's also something about a "real time processor", I don't know what that's referring to (scaler chip? overdrive?) If anyone can read Danish it would be helpful if you could translate this please. http://www.flatpanels.dk/nyhed.php?suba...1133325654&archive=&start_from=&ucat=&

To give you an idea of this AUO TN 4ms. bad boy, take a look at this review and the images for the 4ms and compare them to the CRT. The text is faster but the color is still a tad slow.
http://www.behardware.com/articles/594-...ng-syncmaster-770p-pva-6ms-1500-1.html

I do find it a bit puzzling though because the P22 medium-short persistent phosphors of the CRT are rated at about 800 microseconds Tr+Tf and it's clearly leaving a ghost behind whereas the LCD (which probably would never go below 4 milliseconds. or realistically 8 ms. Tr+Tf to be perfectly honest (though not 100% sure)) leaves no trail at all. BenSkywalker mentioned that the way they measure it wasn't consistent (they describe it earlier in the article), but I'm not really sure. Regardless, it's still fast as hell.

For those interested, there was also an article on CNT-FEDs (carbon nanotube field emission displays, aka. CNT-SEDs) stating they were to be used for computer monitors. Before what I was worried about was if they could get the dot pitch of each mini-CRT small enough (they previously just mentioned "TVs") and apparently they can so that's also something to look forward to.

 

[imported_ST]

"16:9 (1280x720, 1920x1080): True widescreen. No LCD monitors that I know of incorporate this HDTV resolution. 16:10 is the commonly used one for monitors because it's a good compromise between productivity (Word documents anyone?) and movie watching"

False statement:

Westinghouse 37" 1920x1080p LCD Monitor

Sceptre 37" 1920x1080p LCD/TV

Main considerations for PC use:

1. Resolution and size
2. Response Time
3. Color reproduction and configurability (Gamma/Color/Tint/Temp/etc.)
4. Black levels (Lamp/Brightness/Contrast/CR)
5. Deinterlacing and scaling
6. Ports (HDCP/HDMI/DVI/VGA/etc)
7. Viewing Angle

 

[imported_ST]

Originally posted by: ST
"16:9 (1280x720, 1920x1080): True widescreen. No LCD monitors that I know of incorporate this HDTV resolution. 16:10 is the commonly used one for monitors because it's a good compromise between productivity (Word documents anyone?) and movie watching"

False statement:

Westinghouse 37" 1920x1080p LCD Monitor

Sceptre 37" 1920x1080p LCD/TV

Main considerations for PC use:

1. Resolution and size
2. Response Time
3. Color reproduction and configurability (Gamma/Color/Tint/Temp/etc.)
4. Black levels (Lamp/Brightness/Contrast/CR)
5. Deinterlacing and scaling
6. Ports (HDCP/HDMI/DVI/VGA/etc)
7. Viewing Angle

P.S.

- Westinghouse 37" : AUO T370HW01

- Scepter 37" : CMO V370H1

And yes they are viable for gaming...

 

[fierydemise]

xtknight, from personal experience I disagree with you on the issue of "ghosting." I have seen ghosting on a fast panel (Dell 2005) and it bothers me, I know many have no problem on 12 or 16ms monitors, but I do. Your paragraph is mostly correct but I would add that the most important thing is to test a monitor and see what you can tolerate, some people are more sensitive to the issue. Either great guide

 

[xtknight]

Originally posted by: ST
P.S.

- Westinghouse 37" : AUO T370HW01

- Scepter 37" : CMO V370H1

And yes they are viable for gaming...

Thanks I'll add that in.

 

[jiffylube1024]

Originally posted by: ST
"16:9 (1280x720, 1920x1080): True widescreen. No LCD monitors that I know of incorporate this HDTV resolution. 16:10 is the commonly used one for monitors because it's a good compromise between productivity (Word documents anyone?) and movie watching"

False statement:

Westinghouse 37" 1920x1080p LCD Monitor

Sceptre 37" 1920x1080p LCD/TV

Main considerations for PC use:

Truth be told those are really LCD-TV's first and computer monitors second. The word 'monitor' is often used to describe a television without a built in tuner and/or speakers, and that is the context which describes those screens as 'monitors.'

But since those have VGA/DVI ports it is of course fair game to call them PC monitors as wel. Unlike previous LCD/CRT/etc. 'monitors', those support resolutions large enough to make them bearable as full-time PC monitors.

Although You'd have to sit pretty far back from them, so you better either have a large desk or use them for presentations, etc.. Looking at a 37" display from 2 feet away will be pretty engrossing, but it will give you massive eye strain and be all but impossible to focus on the whole screen at the same time.

 

[imported_ST]

Originally posted by: jiffylube1024

Originally posted by: ST
"16:9 (1280x720, 1920x1080): True widescreen. No LCD monitors that I know of incorporate this HDTV resolution. 16:10 is the commonly used one for monitors because it's a good compromise between productivity (Word documents anyone?) and movie watching"

False statement:

Westinghouse 37" 1920x1080p LCD Monitor

Sceptre 37" 1920x1080p LCD/TV

Main considerations for PC use:

Truth be told those are really LCD-TV's first and computer monitors second. The word 'monitor' is often used to describe a television without a built in tuner and/or speakers, and that is the context which describes those screens as 'monitors.'

But since those have VGA/DVI ports it is of course fair game to call them PC monitors as wel. Unlike previous LCD/CRT/etc. 'monitors', those support resolutions large enough to make them bearable as full-time PC monitors.

Although You'd have to sit pretty far back from them, so you better either have a large desk or use them for presentations, etc.. Looking at a 37" display from 2 feet away will be pretty engrossing, but it will give you massive eye strain and be all but impossible to focus on the whole screen at the same time.

4 letters for you:

H T P C

Of course, instead of speculating on performance, you might want to actually ask an owner of these models. Some have already had such venerable "Gaming" LCDs such as the 2405FPW for comparison sake and have said these monitors are more than "bearable", they are the future...

 

[Keeir]

Originally posted by: ST

Originally posted by: jiffylube1024

Originally posted by: ST
"16:9 (1280x720, 1920x1080): True widescreen. No LCD monitors that I know of incorporate this HDTV resolution. 16:10 is the commonly used one for monitors because it's a good compromise between productivity (Word documents anyone?) and movie watching"

False statement:

Westinghouse 37" 1920x1080p LCD Monitor

Sceptre 37" 1920x1080p LCD/TV

Main considerations for PC use:

Truth be told those are really LCD-TV's first and computer monitors second. The word 'monitor' is often used to describe a television without a built in tuner and/or speakers, and that is the context which describes those screens as 'monitors.'

But since those have VGA/DVI ports it is of course fair game to call them PC monitors as wel. Unlike previous LCD/CRT/etc. 'monitors', those support resolutions large enough to make them bearable as full-time PC monitors.

Although You'd have to sit pretty far back from them, so you better either have a large desk or use them for presentations, etc.. Looking at a 37" display from 2 feet away will be pretty engrossing, but it will give you massive eye strain and be all but impossible to focus on the whole screen at the same time.

4 letters for you:

H T P C

Of course, instead of speculating on performance, you might want to actually ask an owner of these models. Some have already had such venerable "Gaming" LCDs such as the 2405FPW for comparison sake and have said these monitors are more than "bearable", they are the future...

I don't think people are arguing thier feasibility as a Display or a Gaming Display

but rather as a Display that fit the category of "LCD Monitor". The Majority of people who want an "LCD Monitor" want to place it on a desk in a school dorm or confined area, thus a 37" TV brightness LCD screen is not even on the radar. They are "HTPC Displays" or "TVs that can be used as a Monitor"

After all, where do we draw the line if we include those models? Models that can display a standard high resolution image (1024 by 768)? Any model that can takes a VGA/DVI input?

My criteria for LCD Monitor:
#1. High Res LCD (capable of at least 720 vertical lines)
#2. PC cable Inputs
#3. Ability to Place on a Desk (IE, 2-3 feet from face)
#4. Ability to Adjust Screen (Tilt, etc... rather than a permanent stand)

Xknight could you clarify what your criteria is?

 

[dingetje]

i can get the new benq 2 ms 19 inch lcd screen for about 440 bucks (fp93gx)...i havent seen any reviews about it so do u guys think i should go for it and hope for the best (i need a fast gaming screen)...(i know viewsonic has its fast vx922 2 ms screen out too)

 

[Ike0069]

Originally posted by: Keeir
I don't think people are arguing thier feasibility as a Display or a Gaming Display

but rather as a Display that fit the category of "LCD Monitor". The Majority of people who want an "LCD Monitor" want to place it on a desk in a school dorm or confined area, thus a 37" TV brightness LCD screen is not even on the radar. They are "HTPC Displays" or "TVs that can be used as a Monitor"

After all, where do we draw the line if we include those models? Models that can display a standard high resolution image (1024 by 768)? Any model that can takes a VGA/DVI input?

My criteria for LCD Monitor:
#1. High Res LCD (capable of at least 720 vertical lines)
#2. PC cable Inputs
#3. Ability to Place on a Desk (IE, 2-3 feet from face)
#4. Ability to Adjust Screen (Tilt, etc... rather than a permanent stand)

Xknight could you clarify what your criteria is?

I agree with this completely. Sure you can call those 37" LCD's "Monitors", but only a very small % of people would even consider that for a PC monitor.
If it won't fit on my computer desk, it's useless to me. Not to mention that I already have an HDTV and buying another 37" TV, no matter what it's use is going to be, is not reasonable. Heck, $400 is alot of money to spend on a monitor for me. And I don't think I'm in the minority here.

 

[Ike0069]

Originally posted by: dingetje
i can get the new benq 2 ms 19 inch lcd screen for about 440 bucks (fp93gx)...i havent seen any reviews about it so do u guys think i should go for it and hope for the best (i need a fast gaming screen)...(i know viewsonic has its fast vx922 2 ms screen out too)

If you look at the reviews at THG, you'll see that a 2ms monitor may or may not be any faster than a 12ms monitor. The way manufacturers mesure response time is a joke since there is no set standard.
If all you want is a fast monitor for gaming, then most any 8ms or below monitor will probably suit your needs. THG has reviewed many LCD's, so that is a good place to start checking when considering a specific one.

 

[dingetje]

yeah ike i know the speed specs are mostly bogus....but i have read reviews of the 4 ms benq fp91v screen (and most other 4 ms screen reviews) which has proven to be one of the fastest screens out there. (together with samsung 930bf and viewsonic vx924)

http://www.behardware.com/articles/588-...9-belinea-10-19-20-and-benq-fp91v.html

so i was hoping their next screen with faster specs of the same brand would be faster irl too.


here is another very fast screen review:
http://www.behardware.com/articles/572-...d-monitor-survey-4-8-ms-tn-ips-va.html

the bogus speed specs are mostly for older 8 and 12 ms screens imho
all 4 ms screens are blazing fast from the reviews i've seen

the samsung 770p 970p 173p+ and 193p+ are all very fast too but those overdriven va panel screens are much more expensive (allthough i can get the vp930 from viewsonic for 415$ but the viewsonics have issues as mentioned earlier)

 

[Keeir]

#1. Resposne times are all half-truths!

2ms is be "best" the monitor will produce. A 2ms monitor might actually have a higher average response time than a a 8ms monitor.

But here's another juncture to point out. TVs display a complete frame with a lag of 32ms, and a half frame ever 16ms.

#2. You might want to start a seperate thread if your looking for specific opinions comparing the two monitors (Benq vs Viewsonic)

 

[xtknight]

The Westinghouse does not have a tuner and it's a tad big to be a monitor, but I guess it technically is. I'll probably make it its own little section...

Originally posted by: Keeir
But here's another juncture to point out. TVs display a complete frame with a lag of 32ms, and a half frame ever 16ms.

Yes, it's also interesting to point out due to the bigger crystals on the LCD TVs they can achieve a lower response time than a monitor with the same type of panel.

Xknight could you clarify what your criteria is?

In my eyes a monitor is something 24" (pretty much biggest consumer CRT monitor) or less and has at least a VGA, DVI input, or both. Components inputs or built-in tuners wouldn't change my opinion of a monitor if it's less than 24" and still has VGA or DVI ports. I'd draw the line right after the Dell 2405FPW which is quite a giant in and of itself.

Originally posted by: fierydemise
xtknight, from personal experience I disagree with you on the issue of "ghosting." I have seen ghosting on a fast panel (Dell 2005) and it bothers me, I know many have no problem on 12 or 16ms monitors, but I do. Your paragraph is mostly correct but I would add that the most important thing is to test a monitor and see what you can tolerate, some people are more sensitive to the issue. Either great guide

It's hard to describe this issue, because if you say you can see it a little, people will think you're understating it and make a big deal of it. Then if you say there's none, people won't believe you either. It's like when your girlfriend comes over to your house and you cook a meal, and she says it's "OK". Obviously it tasted like crap, lol.

But I did add people may be especially sensitive to it. I have obsessive-compulsive and it doesn't bother me, so it's probably a visual thing. Kind of like CRTs and refresh rates. 60 Hz looks like a strobe light to some people and to others like me, while it is slowish and flickery, I wouldn't call it a strobe light. Though I do have to set CRTs to upwards of 100Hz until they stop giving me eye strain so it's odd. Out of curiousity what do you see on a CRT at which refresh rate and what about eye strain? I'm nearsighted (can see 12pt text perfect for about a foot from my 17"@1280x1024).

Also, about the screen door issue...it seems to only be noticeable to me when I'm scanning my eyes across on a reasonably uniform gray picture. When I'm playing Battlefield 2 I'd never see it to save my life.

 

[Markbnj]

Excellent work. Thanks. Sticky this baby.

 

[rise]

Originally posted by: Markbnj
Excellent work. Thanks. Sticky this baby.

i concur and pm'd a mod :thumbsup:

thanks xt!!

 

[xtknight]

Thanks for the support all. I'll desparetely try to update this tonight but like I said my luck has it it's been the busiest at school since I can remember.

 

[Hadsus]

Originally posted by: ST
4 letters for you:

H T P C

Stitches! Stitchessssss!!!!!!!!!

/runs in fear.

 

[imported_ST]

Originally posted by: Keeir
I don't think people are arguing thier feasibility as a Display or a Gaming Display

but rather as a Display that fit the category of "LCD Monitor". The Majority of people who want an "LCD Monitor" want to place it on a desk in a school dorm or confined area, thus a 37" TV brightness LCD screen is not even on the radar. They are "HTPC Displays" or "TVs that can be used as a Monitor"

After all, where do we draw the line if we include those models? Models that can display a standard high resolution image (1024 by 768)? Any model that can takes a VGA/DVI input?

I find it kind of silly to not segment the LCDs. My suggestion would be under the following heading:

1. Budget LCD's (15"-17" 1024x768+)
2. Mainstream LCD's (19"-20" 1280x1024+)
3. Professional LCD's (21"-30" 1600x1200+)
4. HTPCs LCD's (37"-45" 1920x1080p)

Each category has it's own requirements for price, performance, and features.

 

[xtknight]

What else would you guys want to see in the OP? I'll add the rest of the recommendations, then...hmm..

Edit: woohoo! sticky. thanks.

 

[xtknight]

HTPC section added. I'll focus on 17" and 19" very soon.

 

[imported_ST]

Originally posted by: xtknight
HTPC section added. I'll focus on 17" and 19" very soon.

I would also recommend you focus a little blurb on HDCP support, as the upcoming MS Vista will have some DRM that will require it for hi-def playback.