I just got 213T and I am semi-impressed with the display. After reading anandtech's review I was conviced that ghosting would be very minimal if not absent, but after playing COD, UT2004 and FarCry I have realized that is not so. I do not consider myself an avid gamer. I game a few times a month mainly at LAN parties butI found the ghosting to be very annoying especially in dark low contrast levels. COD is probably the worst due to the intense amount of dark grey, but UT2004 can also be bad too. In very dark areas you tend to lose a lot of information. For example dtails in dark corners in may UT2004 levels are completely lost on the Samsung compared to any standard CRT display. I tested the 213T and a high-end 21" CRT side by side using dual ouput and could really see the differences in dark or grey levels. I would suggest not purchasing this LCD is you plan to game more than a few hours per week. It's just not worth it. One saving point for games though is the intensity of the color and brightness. Explosions and light tend to be very intense and dramatic giving games an interesting edge that I have not seen on any CRT before. Basically from what I can tell, CRT produce much better black levels but LCD like the 213T win for producing brighter colors.
However, for those who don't game I am pleased to report the LCD is excellent for other tasks such as text and graphics. The LCD is very sharp and bright making most standard windows tasks easy on the eyes. I was quickly annoyed when returing to a CRT for text just after a few hours on the 213T.
Lastly, DVD playback was pretty good, but I still had issues with DVDs that are very dark. After watching resident evil, I realized that LCDs just don't cut it where dark colors and lots of black is required. The black levels although good were still a little to bright to really make DVDs easy to watch (some reviewers claimed the black levels are equal to monitor when it is off, however that is entirely false). However, Shrek, a much brighter film, looked excellent and gave the 213T a chance to show off its vivid picture.
Bottom line: Not the best for gaming or DVDs, but everything else is the best I have seen on an LCD. I ended up keeping my CRT and running it in dual mode (extended desktop) on my 5950FX, using the 213T for everyday applications and my CRT for games and DVDs. Its a pretty good solution but I really wanted the LCD for LAN parties for easy transport but I guess I'll have to wait for something better for that.
BTW, I got my on ebay.com. You can easily pick one up for $800.00 + 35.00 shipping. The cheapest I found them retail were 980 before shipping, so ebay is by far the best bet.
An excellent, detailed review of the Samsung 213T LCD monitor, but I spotted one oversight:
Your comment: "...the monitor must be tilted before rotated since there is not enough clearance between the panel and the stand...." indicates you're not aware that the stand has a vertical adjustment. Raise it a couple inches, and there's no need to tilt the panel back when rotating it 90 degrees and back.
How does the color reproduction of a high-end monitor like this one compare to that of LCD's pitched at the graphic arts market -- like the Apple Cinema Display or the Formac monitors?
[q]The pixel [0.27mm dot] pitch is a little too large for some tastes[/q]
I don't know of a better way of putting this, but you DORKS!
Do the math.
sqrt(1600^2 + 1200^2) = sqrt(4000000) = 2000 So the monitor has two thousand pixels across the diagonal.
The monitor is 21.3" measured diagonally, which is 21.3*25.4 (mm/inches) = 541.02mm diagonally. Over half a meter! :)
541.02 mm / 2000 pixels =0.27051mm per pixel, or 0.27mm dot pitch.
Which means that EVERY 21" monitor capable of a maximum resolution of 1600x1200 will have .27mm diagonal pixels!
The only way to achieve a finer dot pitch is to a) increase the resolution w/o increasing size as much, which shrinks the image, or b) decrease image size.
That's why a Dell 2001FP will have a smaller dot pitch (.255mm, if I recall)- it has to pack the same 2.1 million pixels into an 11% smaller area!
A .27mm dot pitch on a 14" clunker means the resolution is severely limited. But there's no practical way to decrease the dot pitch on a behemoth such as this one. Nor is there a reason to.
23: they represent which generation the monitor is. The letter denotes teh feature. T: means the high end LCDs (dual input) X: means low response time N: means thin bezel for multimonitor S: means system builder LCDs usually with just one vga input.
The 213T breaks teh batter for some reason but oh well.
Can anyone tell me what the model numbers on Samsung screens mean?
ie, Theres 191T, 192T, 193T, 172x etc
obviously the first two digits are the screen size. What do the third digit and the letter denote? The letter (I think) tells you if it has speakers built in or other features etc.
Great review, but my question is how the hell did you get the picture on the first page (with the display that has anandtech.com on it) to show the review already online? :-D
I bought a Dell 2001FP. It was nice and crisp, but the textured appearance of solid color areas was quite distracting. It would not reliably sync to the various text modes passed through during boot. Worst, it FLICKERED in a kind of checkerboard pixel pattern when things moved, as if it was really an 18-bit panel and was using a 2x2 pixel dither pattern.
Either I got a dud, or AT's model had a different panel to mine. Not sure which. I sent mine back and got a CRT. (Not fond of Dell tech support either.)
I've been using a 213T for about 2 months now and it is a fantastic display, absolutely worth every penny of its price!
I run mine on the DVI output of a Radeon 9600, and the picture is simply stunning. Also, my panel has zero pixel defects, which is amazing considering there are almost 6 million subpixel elements.
wizardsinc: Sapphire makes a bunch of dual DVI AGP cards - you might have to special order them but they are totally worth it. As of November I heard that dual DVI accounted for less than 1% of graphics card sales.
I just thought I'd post an update: A friend of mine just bought a Dell 2001FP, so I was finally able to compare the Dell & Samsung 213T side-by-side. I'd have to say that I agree 100% with Kristopher: The Dell is absolutely beautiful, but the Samsung sitting next to it looks even better. The main differences I could see (besides the obvious physical size differences) were: (a) The Samsung was softer on the eyes and appeared brighter and "whiter". (b) The lines between pixels on the Dell were much more obvious than on the Samsung - when sitting side-by-side, the Dell looked like I was seeing the image through a small screen mesh (very crisp). The Samsung has nicely defined pixel bounderies, but the line between pixels is not as apparent. (c) In Dell's favor - the 16ms vs 25ms refresh rate difference was noticable. Small fast-moving images would fade slightly on the Samsung, where they would remain intact on the Dell. All-in-all though, I decided that for my purposes, the Samsung was the winner. There is currently a $100 mail-in rebate on the Samsung, bringing the price down to $1100 at Best-Buy, so I picked up a couple of them. I've already set them up and I must say they're awesome running side-by-side! :-) Now I have to upgrade to a video card that supplies two DVI outputs (I'm currently running 1 DVI & 1 VGA). Any suggestions? I'm under the impression that Nvidia might be a better choice over ATI, but I could be wrong. Again, any suggestions are welcome!
Thanks to all of you for aiding me in my display purchase decision. It's great when discussion groups work. ;-)
TauRusIL: Interestingly enough, samsung makes a majority of the components including panels. One of the reasons we look at so many Samsung LCDs is just because they typically sell the panels to several other mainstream OEMs.
You don't need a hack to make XP run at 640x480 (or to use a 256-colour mode at any resolution either). Just press the 'Advanced' button and select the Adapter tab, then press 'List All Modes...' button and you'll find the hidden modes listed and selectable.
Vey useful for some older games which won't run full-screen unless started from 640x480, and a few which won't run at all if not in a 256-colour mode.
I noticed most of the LCD panels reviewed here are made by Samsung. I wonder if there were any plans to include LCDs from other manufacturers. I am a long time and very happy user of Princeton SenErgy line of LCDs. To my eyes, the picrure quality of Princeton Senergy line is way above most of other LCD panels. Of course this is a subjective view. I would love to see a comparative review of the Princeton Senergy and lets say Samsung or Dell panels. On the side note: does anyone know who is the OEM for Princeton line of LCD panels, or do they make their own panels?
Great review. I'd like to see more of the "subjective analysis" in the hardware reviews at AT (as long as it's labeled as such, of course). Hard numbers can omit many truths about a product's actual performance.
I believe Windows XP does not support 640x480 on any monitor without a hack of some sort. 800x600 is the new minimum resolution in Microsoft's mind. At least if you're talking about desktop resolution. Obviously games will work and are still supported at 640x480.
The Dell 2001FP is 1600x1200 native, but the tech. sheet offers many different resolution modes - including 640x480 @ 59.9Hz, 640x480 @ 75Hz, 800x600 @75Hz, 1280x1024 @75Hz, plus many others. I'm assuming that when running in these modes, the pixels become somewhat choppy - but atleast a game that requires a monitor that supports 640x480 will still run. Have you had any trouble with the Samsung in this regard?
I dont know if either monitor will really support 640x480 (least not on my windows xp). Which Dell LCD are you talking about? The US2000FP is also 1600x1200.
Thanks for all the feedback! I made a typo in my original post concerning the 213T price - I realize it was $1200, not $2200 - thanks for catching it.
It sounds like those people who have purchased a 213T are quite happy with it. There were not as many Dell responses - though the display hasn't been out for very long. It sounds like I won't be sorry with the Samsung. However, I'd like to see one of the Dell displays in person before I make a final decision.
A new concern I have is whether or not the Samsung can auto-sync to the different resolutions required by some games - I played with one today at Fry's, and Windows XP wouldn't allow me to set the Samsung to 640 x 480, which might be a problem. I know the Dell supports a number of resolutions, including 640 x 480. Has this been an issue for anyone? Also - can anyone comment on the comparison between the Dell 2001FP and it's older 1280 x 1024 Dell counterpart? I've seen the 1280x1024 displays and they look very nice. If the 2001FP is similar, I don't think I'd be disappointed. Thanks again for the feeback!
I bought a 213T over a month ago after several months of checking all the available monitors. I'm an IT Manager, and use it for a little bit of everything and it's great. It's running on a Radeon 9800XT 256MB card, and the display is crisp and near perfect in my opinion. I definitely would buy it again.
Regarding the price: You can find deals on this monitor that make it more competitive. I bought mine from CompUSA when they were running their 10% off special on almost everything. There was already a $100 rebate on the monitor, bringing it down to $1100. Another 10% off on the $1200 price brought it down to $980 after rebate plus tax.
I used the extra $ break to buy CompUSA's 2 year guarantee that lets me walk in and swap this monitor for another one at any time during the next two years if I'm dissatisfied for any reason. Definitely worthwhile for me.
Your mileage may differ, but for me, this monitor rocks.
wizardsinc: it comes down to cost; if you have the extra money to spend on the 213T you wont regret it. I did a bit of gaming on both LCDs; the 2001FP was a little easier to play on (motion blur, colors).
You raise an interesting point though; 16ms does not directly correlate to fps. first of all the 16/25ms timings are average* - furthermore, asynchronos.
To answer your second point; the 213T is easier on my* eyes for programming (which i do a lot of) and writing (which i also a lot of). However, i didnt think there was anything better than the 2001FP until i got the 213T. you are going to be happy with either one.
I've been holding off buying an LCD panel until the 1600 x 1200's looked reasonable. I'm torn between the DELL UltraSharp 2001FP and the Samsung SyncMaster 213T. I've seen the 213T in person and was able to test it out somewhat. I love the large screen area, and the pixels seemed "softer" to the eyes than any of the other's that I compared against (the ViewSonic VP201s inparticular). After reading this review, my main problem now is this: I've decided that the Samsung has a nicer image (black levels and brightness mean a lot to me), but lacks many of the cool features of the Dell (16ms response vs 25ms response, picture-in-picture, multiple-inputs, etc.). It seems that since the Samsung has been available for over a year, and the Dell just came out a month ago, the Dell should be the more expensive of the two - but it's not. Samsung is still selling for about $2200, whereas the Dell can be had for around $850. I like the Samsung - but I don't want to pay a premium for an older model with fewer features; and I'm worried that now that the Dell is available, the Samsung will quickly drop in price - so I might benifit by waiting a month or so. Any thoughts? Secondly: I'm a video game programmer - which means that I'll be using this display to program most of the time (which is why softer-on-the-eyes is important), but I will also be running and testing fast-action 3D games. The review mentions that the Dell is a better "gaming" display - but I didn't see whether the Samsung sucked in this area or not. 16ms = 60fps, but the gray-to-gray timings were not apparent. Between the two, it looks like a marginal call at best, and like I said before - 90% programming with a nice black level and brightness is important. Again, any thoughts?
Great review. I've had this monitor for the past week in my workstation setup. It replaced my secondary display, a Sony 21 inch CRT that wore out. I have been very impressed so far with it's clarity, brightness and design. It is wonderful for watching DVDs while I work, viewing web pages, Photoshop palettes and spreadsheets. I agree with the reviewer about a slight "blue push" in the color but it is a small price to pay for just an eye popper of a display. Subjectivly, I think it's better than any of the Apple cinema displays.
I have been running two 213T monitors continuously for 7 years. Both displays, including the CCFL's are working perfectly. Zero dead or stuck pixels. If there is a diminished brightness, which there has to be, it is not causally visible.
I think I am tempting fate by posting this ;-)
The only negative items are these:
1) I bought them when very first available - $1600.00 each. 2) After about 5 years one monitor became unable to hold it's weight. It would slump. Even after disassembly and reassembly it would not hold it's position. This "can" be corrected, but frankly at this point I can live with it.
In 2004 I blew away my colleagues with two amazing 21.3" PVA monitors (powered by a 9800XT). Here we are in 2011 and they are still running perfectly. I know I am "lucky", but it is worthwhile to post that they are still in use and still excellent monitors. I would like to thank Anand and Samsung for this outstanding purchase. Even at that very high cost, they have amortized themselves into nearly free service. The points made by Anand are true - slow response and the black level is not optimum. That has not affected my pleasure/perforamnce with using them.
We’ve updated our terms. By continuing to use the site and/or by logging into your account, you agree to the Site’s updated Terms of Use and Privacy Policy.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
33 Comments
Back to Article
techna1 - Tuesday, September 14, 2004 - link
I just got 213T and I am semi-impressed with the display. After reading anandtech's review I was conviced that ghosting would be very minimal if not absent, but after playing COD, UT2004 and FarCry I have realized that is not so. I do not consider myself an avid gamer. I game a few times a month mainly at LAN parties butI found the ghosting to be very annoying especially in dark low contrast levels. COD is probably the worst due to the intense amount of dark grey, but UT2004 can also be bad too. In very dark areas you tend to lose a lot of information. For example dtails in dark corners in may UT2004 levels are completely lost on the Samsung compared to any standard CRT display. I tested the 213T and a high-end 21" CRT side by side using dual ouput and could really see the differences in dark or grey levels. I would suggest not purchasing this LCD is you plan to game more than a few hours per week. It's just not worth it. One saving point for games though is the intensity of the color and brightness. Explosions and light tend to be very intense and dramatic giving games an interesting edge that I have not seen on any CRT before. Basically from what I can tell, CRT produce much better black levels but LCD like the 213T win for producing brighter colors.However, for those who don't game I am pleased to report the LCD is excellent for other tasks such as text and graphics. The LCD is very sharp and bright making most standard windows tasks easy on the eyes. I was quickly annoyed when returing to a CRT for text just after a few hours on the 213T.
Lastly, DVD playback was pretty good, but I still had issues with DVDs that are very dark. After watching resident evil, I realized that LCDs just don't cut it where dark colors and lots of black is required. The black levels although good were still a little to bright to really make DVDs easy to watch (some reviewers claimed the black levels are equal to monitor when it is off, however that is entirely false). However, Shrek, a much brighter film, looked excellent and gave the 213T a chance to show off its vivid picture.
Bottom line: Not the best for gaming or DVDs, but everything else is the best I have seen on an LCD. I ended up keeping my CRT and running it in dual mode (extended desktop) on my 5950FX, using the 213T for everyday applications and my CRT for games and DVDs. Its a pretty good solution but I really wanted the LCD for LAN parties for easy transport but I guess I'll have to wait for something better for that.
BTW, I got my on ebay.com. You can easily pick one up for $800.00 + 35.00 shipping. The cheapest I found them retail were 980 before shipping, so ebay is by far the best bet.
Good luck!
davidjay - Tuesday, March 9, 2004 - link
An excellent, detailed review of the Samsung 213T LCD monitor, but I spotted one oversight:Your comment: "...the monitor must be tilted before rotated since there is not enough clearance between the panel and the stand...." indicates you're not aware that the stand has a vertical adjustment. Raise it a couple inches, and there's no need to tilt the panel back when rotating it 90 degrees and back.
KristopherKubicki - Wednesday, February 25, 2004 - link
dalhtech: Waiting for our sample.Kristopher
dalhtech - Wednesday, February 25, 2004 - link
Will Anand review the Sharp LL-T2015? From the specs it seems like a good balance between the Samsung and Dell's respective strengths.http://www.sharpsystems.com/products/lcd_monitors/...
DrumBum - Monday, February 23, 2004 - link
"We have some more monitors coming up later this month so stay tuned!"Which monitors are you reviewing?
Lorrin - Monday, February 23, 2004 - link
How does the color reproduction of a high-end monitor like this one compare to that of LCD's pitched at the graphic arts market -- like the Apple Cinema Display or the Formac monitors?Odeen - Monday, February 23, 2004 - link
[q]The pixel [0.27mm dot] pitch is a little too large for some tastes[/q]I don't know of a better way of putting this, but you DORKS!
Do the math.
sqrt(1600^2 + 1200^2) = sqrt(4000000) = 2000
So the monitor has two thousand pixels across the diagonal.
The monitor is 21.3" measured diagonally, which is 21.3*25.4 (mm/inches) = 541.02mm diagonally. Over half a meter! :)
541.02 mm / 2000 pixels =0.27051mm per pixel, or 0.27mm dot pitch.
Which means that EVERY 21" monitor capable of a maximum resolution of 1600x1200 will have .27mm diagonal pixels!
The only way to achieve a finer dot pitch is to a) increase the resolution w/o increasing size as much, which shrinks the image, or b) decrease image size.
That's why a Dell 2001FP will have a smaller dot pitch (.255mm, if I recall)- it has to pack the same 2.1 million pixels into an 11% smaller area!
A .27mm dot pitch on a 14" clunker means the resolution is severely limited. But there's no practical way to decrease the dot pitch on a behemoth such as this one. Nor is there a reason to.
KristopherKubicki - Monday, February 23, 2004 - link
23: they represent which generation the monitor is. The letter denotes teh feature.T: means the high end LCDs (dual input)
X: means low response time
N: means thin bezel for multimonitor
S: means system builder LCDs usually with just one vga input.
The 213T breaks teh batter for some reason but oh well.
Kristopher
wizardsinc - Monday, February 23, 2004 - link
I believe the 213T has a 21.3 inch diagonal, so it's possible that the last digit represents 10ths of an inch diagonal.airchie - Monday, February 23, 2004 - link
Can anyone tell me what the model numbers on Samsung screens mean?ie,
Theres 191T, 192T, 193T, 172x etc
obviously the first two digits are the screen size.
What do the third digit and the letter denote?
The letter (I think) tells you if it has speakers built in or other features etc.
Anyone know for sure what they all mean?
SLCentral - Sunday, February 22, 2004 - link
Great review, but my question is how the hell did you get the picture on the first page (with the display that has anandtech.com on it) to show the review already online? :-Dwrong - Sunday, February 22, 2004 - link
I bought a Dell 2001FP. It was nice and crisp, but the textured appearance of solid color areas was quite distracting. It would not reliably sync to the various text modes passed through during boot. Worst, it FLICKERED in a kind of checkerboard pixel pattern when things moved, as if it was really an 18-bit panel and was using a 2x2 pixel dither pattern.Either I got a dud, or AT's model had a different panel to mine. Not sure which. I sent mine back and got a CRT. (Not fond of Dell tech support either.)
Workin' - Sunday, February 22, 2004 - link
I've been using a 213T for about 2 months now and it is a fantastic display, absolutely worth every penny of its price!I run mine on the DVI output of a Radeon 9600, and the picture is simply stunning. Also, my panel has zero pixel defects, which is amazing considering there are almost 6 million subpixel elements.
KristopherKubicki - Sunday, February 22, 2004 - link
wizardsinc: Sapphire makes a bunch of dual DVI AGP cards - you might have to special order them but they are totally worth it. As of November I heard that dual DVI accounted for less than 1% of graphics card sales.Kristopher
wizardsinc - Saturday, February 21, 2004 - link
I just thought I'd post an update: A friend of mine just bought a Dell 2001FP, so I was finally able to compare the Dell & Samsung 213T side-by-side. I'd have to say that I agree 100% with Kristopher: The Dell is absolutely beautiful, but the Samsung sitting next to it looks even better. The main differences I could see (besides the obvious physical size differences) were: (a) The Samsung was softer on the eyes and appeared brighter and "whiter". (b) The lines between pixels on the Dell were much more obvious than on the Samsung - when sitting side-by-side, the Dell looked like I was seeing the image through a small screen mesh (very crisp). The Samsung has nicely defined pixel bounderies, but the line between pixels is not as apparent. (c) In Dell's favor - the 16ms vs 25ms refresh rate difference was noticable. Small fast-moving images would fade slightly on the Samsung, where they would remain intact on the Dell. All-in-all though, I decided that for my purposes, the Samsung was the winner. There is currently a $100 mail-in rebate on the Samsung, bringing the price down to $1100 at Best-Buy, so I picked up a couple of them. I've already set them up and I must say they're awesome running side-by-side! :-) Now I have to upgrade to a video card that supplies two DVI outputs (I'm currently running 1 DVI & 1 VGA). Any suggestions? I'm under the impression that Nvidia might be a better choice over ATI, but I could be wrong. Again, any suggestions are welcome!Thanks to all of you for aiding me in my display purchase decision. It's great when discussion groups work. ;-)
KristopherKubicki - Saturday, February 21, 2004 - link
TauRusIL: Interestingly enough, samsung makes a majority of the components including panels. One of the reasons we look at so many Samsung LCDs is just because they typically sell the panels to several other mainstream OEMs.Kristopher
gizzard - Saturday, February 21, 2004 - link
PrinceGaz - Saturday, February 21, 2004 - link
You don't need a hack to make XP run at 640x480 (or to use a 256-colour mode at any resolution either). Just press the 'Advanced' button and select the Adapter tab, then press 'List All Modes...' button and you'll find the hidden modes listed and selectable.Vey useful for some older games which won't run full-screen unless started from 640x480, and a few which won't run at all if not in a 256-colour mode.
TauRusIL - Saturday, February 21, 2004 - link
I noticed most of the LCD panels reviewed here are made by Samsung. I wonder if there were any plans to include LCDs from other manufacturers.I am a long time and very happy user of Princeton SenErgy line of LCDs. To my eyes, the picrure quality of Princeton Senergy line is way above most of other LCD panels. Of course this is a subjective view.
I would love to see a comparative review of the Princeton Senergy and lets say Samsung or Dell panels.
On the side note: does anyone know who is the OEM for Princeton line of LCD panels, or do they make their own panels?
dgrady76 - Saturday, February 21, 2004 - link
Great review. I'd like to see more of the "subjective analysis" in the hardware reviews at AT (as long as it's labeled as such, of course). Hard numbers can omit many truths about a product's actual performance.CaptainSpectacular - Friday, February 20, 2004 - link
Kris,I believe Windows XP does not support 640x480 on any monitor without a hack of some sort. 800x600 is the new minimum resolution in Microsoft's mind. At least if you're talking about desktop resolution. Obviously games will work and are still supported at 640x480.
wizardsinc - Friday, February 20, 2004 - link
KristopherKubicki:The Dell 2001FP is 1600x1200 native, but the tech. sheet offers many different resolution modes - including 640x480 @ 59.9Hz, 640x480 @ 75Hz, 800x600 @75Hz, 1280x1024 @75Hz, plus many others. I'm assuming that when running in these modes, the pixels become somewhat choppy - but atleast a game that requires a monitor that supports 640x480 will still run. Have you had any trouble with the Samsung in this regard?
KristopherKubicki - Friday, February 20, 2004 - link
wizardsinc:I dont know if either monitor will really support 640x480 (least not on my windows xp). Which Dell LCD are you talking about? The US2000FP is also 1600x1200.
Kristopher
wizardsinc - Friday, February 20, 2004 - link
Thanks for all the feedback! I made a typo in my original post concerning the 213T price - I realize it was $1200, not $2200 - thanks for catching it.It sounds like those people who have purchased a 213T are quite happy with it. There were not as many Dell responses - though the display hasn't been out for very long. It sounds like I won't be sorry with the Samsung. However, I'd like to see one of the Dell displays in person before I make a final decision.
A new concern I have is whether or not the Samsung can auto-sync to the different resolutions required by some games - I played with one today at Fry's, and Windows XP wouldn't allow me to set the Samsung to 640 x 480, which might be a problem. I know the Dell supports a number of resolutions, including 640 x 480. Has this been an issue for anyone? Also - can anyone comment on the comparison between the Dell 2001FP and it's older 1280 x 1024 Dell counterpart? I've seen the 1280x1024 displays and they look very nice. If the 2001FP is similar, I don't think I'd be disappointed. Thanks again for the feeback!
jacksandgo - Friday, February 20, 2004 - link
I bought a 213T over a month ago after several months of checking all the available monitors. I'm an IT Manager, and use it for a little bit of everything and it's great. It's running on a Radeon 9800XT 256MB card, and the display is crisp and near perfect in my opinion. I definitely would buy it again.Regarding the price: You can find deals on this monitor that make it more competitive. I bought mine from CompUSA when they were running their 10% off special on almost everything. There was already a $100 rebate on the monitor, bringing it down to $1100. Another 10% off on the $1200 price brought it down to $980 after rebate plus tax.
I used the extra $ break to buy CompUSA's 2 year guarantee that lets me walk in and swap this monitor for another one at any time during the next two years if I'm dissatisfied for any reason. Definitely worthwhile for me.
Your mileage may differ, but for me, this monitor rocks.
Souka - Friday, February 20, 2004 - link
Boorrring.....Get the Grand Canyon at:
http://www.go-l.com/monitors/grand_canyon/features...
KristopherKubicki - Friday, February 20, 2004 - link
wizardsinc: it comes down to cost; if you have the extra money to spend on the 213T you wont regret it. I did a bit of gaming on both LCDs; the 2001FP was a little easier to play on (motion blur, colors).You raise an interesting point though; 16ms does not directly correlate to fps. first of all the 16/25ms timings are average* - furthermore, asynchronos.
To answer your second point; the 213T is easier on my* eyes for programming (which i do a lot of) and writing (which i also a lot of). However, i didnt think there was anything better than the 2001FP until i got the 213T. you are going to be happy with either one.
Cheers,
Kristopher
Epyon - Friday, February 20, 2004 - link
I just wanted to point out to wizardsinc that the price at Newegg for the 213T is $1,199.http://www.newegg.com/app/viewProductDesc.asp?desc...
wizardsinc - Friday, February 20, 2004 - link
I've been holding off buying an LCD panel until the 1600 x 1200's looked reasonable. I'm torn between the DELL UltraSharp 2001FP and the Samsung SyncMaster 213T. I've seen the 213T in person and was able to test it out somewhat. I love the large screen area, and the pixels seemed "softer" to the eyes than any of the other's that I compared against (the ViewSonic VP201s inparticular). After reading this review, my main problem now is this: I've decided that the Samsung has a nicer image (black levels and brightness mean a lot to me), but lacks many of the cool features of the Dell (16ms response vs 25ms response, picture-in-picture, multiple-inputs, etc.). It seems that since the Samsung has been available for over a year, and the Dell just came out a month ago, the Dell should be the more expensive of the two - but it's not. Samsung is still selling for about $2200, whereas the Dell can be had for around $850. I like the Samsung - but I don't want to pay a premium for an older model with fewer features; and I'm worried that now that the Dell is available, the Samsung will quickly drop in price - so I might benifit by waiting a month or so. Any thoughts?Secondly: I'm a video game programmer - which means that I'll be using this display to program most of the time (which is why softer-on-the-eyes is important), but I will also be running and testing fast-action 3D games. The review mentions that the Dell is a better "gaming" display - but I didn't see whether the Samsung sucked in this area or not. 16ms = 60fps, but the gray-to-gray timings were not apparent. Between the two, it looks like a marginal call at best, and like I said before - 90% programming with a nice black level and brightness is important. Again, any thoughts?
Monkeyshine - Friday, February 20, 2004 - link
Great review.I've had this monitor for the past week in my workstation setup. It replaced my secondary display, a Sony 21 inch CRT that wore out.
I have been very impressed so far with it's clarity, brightness and design. It is wonderful for watching DVDs while I work, viewing web pages, Photoshop palettes and spreadsheets.
I agree with the reviewer about a slight "blue push" in the color but it is a small price to pay for just an eye popper of a display. Subjectivly, I think it's better than any of the Apple cinema displays.
araczynski - Friday, February 20, 2004 - link
so the bottom line is that for the serious gamer there's still no reason to get an LCD.PrinceGaz - Friday, February 20, 2004 - link
Do you have any CRT monitor reviews coming up or only LCD ones?damage75 - Friday, August 5, 2011 - link
I have been running two 213T monitors continuously for 7 years. Both displays, including the CCFL's are working perfectly. Zero dead or stuck pixels. If there is a diminished brightness, which there has to be, it is not causally visible.I think I am tempting fate by posting this ;-)
The only negative items are these:
1) I bought them when very first available - $1600.00 each.
2) After about 5 years one monitor became unable to hold it's weight. It would slump. Even after disassembly and reassembly it would not hold it's position. This "can" be corrected, but frankly at this point I can live with it.
In 2004 I blew away my colleagues with two amazing 21.3" PVA monitors (powered by a 9800XT). Here we are in 2011 and they are still running perfectly. I know I am "lucky", but it is worthwhile to post that they are still in use and still excellent monitors. I would like to thank Anand and Samsung for this outstanding purchase. Even at that very high cost, they have amortized themselves into nearly free service. The points made by Anand are true - slow response and the black level is not optimum. That has not affected my pleasure/perforamnce with using them.