This review wasn't very useful to me, frankly. It contains too much subjective talk, and barely any data. I miss the following:
.) For each panel, clearly state the technology used (TN, M/PVA, IPS), as well as if it's 8 or 6 bit. This gives more meaningful information than all the manufacturer specs.
.) Screen photographs of select, demanding images taken under the same conditions. Here, I want to see how each image looks like on EACH screen, not just 3 samples total.
Printer reviews do this well. You can dedicate one HTML page for each test image (eg 1 for the Max Payne scene, 1 for the Morrowind pic), and put the results from different monitors right below each other. This would allow me to directly compare how still images look like. At the end of the image block, you can put your comments.
With well-chosen test images, this might give a pretty complete idea of how good a monitor's still image/color quality/contrast is.
.) A meaningful measurement of response time.
When you claim to "not notice any difference" between a PVA and a TN panel, I have to conclude that the Anandtech crew is much less sensitive to response time than most people. That's great for you, but bad for me - I'm not getting any response time information.
Build a device to measure all gray-black or grey-grey response times. Tom's Hardware and X-Bit have some you can use for inspiration.
Just including this measurement does not mean that you have to emphasize its importance. You can put it in a section together with your subjective response time interpretation.
Is the NuTech L921G currently available in the US?
The article says that the review unit was not store-bought, but doesn't specify how it was obtained. I've found only one site anywhere that claims to sell it, and it's not listed in any of the usual price-comparison sites (like PriceScan, for example).
I've noticed in researching 19" LCDs that there are a number of models from various manufacturers (eg Princeton LCD19D, CTX S962A/G, Advueu ADV190DT) that all share what appear to be identical specs to the Nu and Viewsonic models reviewed here. Is it a safe assumption that these monitors all share the same panel and have essentially the same performance?
That sample blue image on the penultimate page really made me worry about the LCD I'm using to view it here because it looked terribly dithered! Fortunately I realised the image you showed there was actually a 256-colour GIF (?!) of the image you should have used.
@ #69 -
agreed, i would like to see what the Dell 1905FP is like too.........
@ #87 -
yes, the Dell 1905FP is rated at 20ms, and while it may not be best for games like UT2k4, but what about games like Mafia and Rome: TW where twitch gaming is irrelevant?
Additionally, what are your thoughts on response time? I see that many of the monitors reviewed here are 20-25 ms monitors, however so many people claim that anything over 16 is simply unacceptable for gaming. Is this true or would 25 be plenty fine?
So SOME out there are actually 4:3 physicall. How do you know which ones? They do list l x w x h, but I'm assuming that includes base. So you must read a review or physically measure it yourself to know this?
Kristopher: What is your opinion on the quality of the image when it is upscaled in such a way, say trying to run a game at 10x7 on a 19" 1280x1024 monitor.
KristopherKubicki, that may be the case with some models - BUT you imply that ALL 17-19" LCDs that are 5:4 in resolution are in reality 4:3 physically, which is incorrect and confusing for people reading your review.
"Most 19" and 17" LCDs have an aspect ratio of 5:4 (1280x1024). This is OK, but you're looking at a 5:4 signal crammed in a 4:3 box."
archcommus87: LCDs will naturally interpolate pixels if you choose a non-native resolution. Only a few monitors will scale the image down to the correct pixel size (ie the Samsung 192T). Of course, if you do that you just turned your 19" LCD into a 17" one.
GOSHARKS: As i stated above in the comment addressed to #14, there are LCDs that are not the correct aspect ratio. A few viewsonic models come to mind. That was the only thing I was addressing in the aspect ratio portion of the guide.
Peter: For these LCDs you are correct, they are all the correct aspect ratio. However, we have looked at 17" and 19" pannels in the past that are 4:3 (and not surprisingly they did not get good reviews).
Are the options presented thus far really the only options for running games at resolutions other than native? If so how could anyone want an LCD for gaming? Unless you're positive you'll always have a beefy enough computer to run games at 1280x1024 or higher. Or unless you don't mind playing the game with black around all sides.
Mfg Part #: GEU104
Product Information
(Based on manufacturer's information)
Produce Stunning Photos Using the Tools Pros Rely on for Color Accuracy
ColorPlus corrects your CRT, LCD, or notebook monitors for accurate and consistent color - day-to-day and image-to image. Spend more time behind the lens or printing your photos instead of wasting time, paper, and ink. Pros correct their monitors at least once a month - now you can too in your home.
Experts agree - the #1 tip for positively great prints - Calibrate Your Monitor. Monitors are like snowflakes, everyone is different and they change over time as they age.
Now with ColorPlus, your colors can finally look their best and brightest. ColorPlus corrects your CRT, LCD or notebook monitor for accurate, reliable, and consistent color - day-to-day and image-to-image. It also gives you a wider range of colors, better flesh tones, and more open shadows. Now you can use the same tools the pros do and make your images studio grade.
ColorPlus includes an award-winning, patent-protected color hardware sensor and wizard-based monitor calibration software. The color hardware sensor connects to your computer using USB and easily attaches to your CRT, LCD, or notebook monitor. In a few easy steps, the software guides through the entire process to deliver precise color in the widest range your monitor can produce. ColorPlus automatically calibrates your monitor to industry standards for color, gamma, white point, and luminance
Recommended for all digital camera enthusiasts
Corrects your monitor for accurate and reliable color
Lets you trust what you see on your screen
Produces a wider range of color, better flesh tones, & more open shadows
Simple to use and AFFORDABLE
High-tech and cool-looking color hardware sensor
Save time, paper, and ink
Includes Adobe® Photoshop® Album Starter Edition for FREE
Free technical supportso your results are accurate and consistent from day-to-day.
Platform: PC
Media Format: CD-ROM
System Requirements: Display: CRT, LCD, or notebook monitor
Operating System: Microsoft Windows 98, ME, 2000, XP
Free USB port
As I had previously stated (#61,62) - ALL computer LCD's with a resolution of 1280x1024 are PHYSCIALLY 5:4. You will not find a 1280x1024 LCD on the market that is physically 4:3. Kristopher Kubicki really needs to address this in an amendment to his article.
Keep in mind now that most cards are dual-capable, you could keep your CRT for games and get the LCD for word processing - to decrease eye strain. Not only that, but you could watch TV on the CRT while you're working, or keep two documents visible at the same time, etc.
That's a major turn off for any LCD for me, then. I wouldn't mind running my desktop in 1280x1024 if the monitor itself had a 5:4 ratio, but having to scale my games or run them in a smaller screen would annoy me. Right now I run HL2 in 1280x960 plenty smoothly, but I won't necessarily ALWAYS be able to run the newest games in that high of a resolution.
Oh, I might also have mentioned why LCD's are different than CRTs.
A LCD produces its image via millions of fixed-size, fixed-position cells that are manipulated with some kind of electrical charge to produce colors which collectively form an image. When the image size isn't exactly the same size as the number of cells, some algorithm has to be applied to scale the image up/down before it can be displayed. There's no physical distortion, but you may get stuck pixels, gamma problems, and streaking.
A CRT produces its image via an electron gun which continually blasts the screen with lines of colors (basically) y*r times per second, where y is the vertical resolution and r is the vertical refresh rate. The size, shape, etc. of these lines are configurable so they can be very easily stretched and manipulated without by changing the focus and interval of the beams. So there's no scaling algorithm per se, but then again you get convergence problems (i.e. where the RGB beams go out of sync with one another), physical distortions (i.e. rounded/skewed/pincushioned image).
That's why LCDs have a "native" resolution while CRTs just have a kind of a maximum firing rate which is usually referred to in terms of a "pixel clock." So in a sense you could say that all of a CRT's supported resolutions are "native."
1. It depends on the LCD in question, methinks. Some searching for specifications by the model number of the LCD that you are searching for will usually turn up its aspect ratio. Try to corroborate information from several sources (especially the manufacturer's website if possible) since the stores can get the specs wrong.
2. LCDs run in their native resolution. If that's 1280x1024, it will always "run in" 1280x1024 no matter what resolution your video card is feeding it the video data. There are several ways that lower-than-native resolutions can be handled, depending on your video card's drivers.
AFAIK, the default way is to simply use monitor scaling. For example, if you run a game at 800x600, your flat panel will extrapolate this up into an 1280x1024 image, which makes it look rather blurry. Scaled graphics will probably just look "different," but scaled text will appear fuzzy.
There's also cropping, which will just use the center 800x600 pixels for example and set the others to black. So you get a smaller picture than if you had let the monitor scale it up, but on the other hand it will also be clearer. This might also be called "centering."
IIRC, nVidia has more options in this respect than ATI, but that might depend on the model of your card as well. Maybe look in your video driver help files or ask around to see what your video card supports.
No one has provided a clear answer on this, can someone please do so?
We know 1280x1024 is 5:4. So are the LCDs actually 5:4 in physical size or are they 4:3 like a CRT? I keep hear differeing opinions. Or is each brand different?
Second, how do LCDs respond when you change the resolution to something other than native? Does everything look garbled and crappy or is it okay as long as you keep your ratio? The reason I ask is because if I had a 19" LCD running at 1280x1024 resolution, I don't think I'd *always* want to run my games at that high of a res.
Hey, Anandtech, I usually trust your reviews, but should I read further when you state that 17 and 19 inches monitors put 5:4 aspect ratios into 4:3 boxes? Or when you compare CRTs capable of much higher resolution than that of the 17 and 19 inches LCDs. An apples to apples comparison would show you LCDs are still much more expensive than comparable CRTs.
The Dell 2001FP is only $799 for those that don't shop smart..I bought mine several weeks ago and only paid $639 for it. I love it and have no regrets even after this article. Im runnin a 1600x1200 desktop..something none of these other monitors can do.
speedi,
I think people make a big deal out of "ooh, you lose information." How many people are actually cramming all 1,920,000 pixels with useful information? I'm not. If you are, ignore the rest of this post. Seriously, I don't see the big deal...on a 17" CRT, I think 1600 x 1200 makes fonts too small unless you bump up the font size/dpi etc...I ran my trinitron at 1024x768 and I still used large fonts. The thing that clinched the wide-screen purchase for me was that I've been thinking about buying an LCD for a while now, and, while playing CS:S I realized "Hey, I don't look at the top or bottom inch of screen because they're out of my field of view, however I look all the way across the screen." I think people's eyes are simply set up to process further across than they are up and down. Whether that difference is 16:9, 16x10, whatever, I don't think is relevant. Additionally, the 2005 has slightly better specs wrt response time, contrast, and I think brightness, for the exact same price as the 2001. I think the additional width is slightly more useful for me than the decreased pixel count, especially as it allows me to put two web pages up next to each other at a readable size, without any overlap or scrolling. I guess the 2001 would let you do about the same, but I like that extra inch. I would guess anyone who would be happy with the 2001 will be happy with the 2005, and vice versa. I don't think either is a bad monitor, especially at the prices they are available at after rebates etc. Hope my overly verbose reply is helpful to some of you thinking about one or the other.
I want to clarify something. 24 million colours does not mean much. I read the article said it is enough to show 98% of the colours we can se. But we can not make that conclusion so easilly. We need other critical information such as dynamic range. It does not make a good monitor if it can display 24 million colours but not enough green, or deep enough blues for good sky/water and so on. Compare the monitors colour profile/characteristics against the CIE LAB model, which is a device independant model that encompasses all of the visual spectrum.
As #61 said. The aspect ratio is wrong. The 5:4 LCD's require a 5:4 signal, like 1280x1024. The pixel ratio remains 1:1.
It is rather for most CRTs that the aspect ratio is wrong if you run 1280x1024. I can't for in my life see why the recommended resolution for almost all 19" CRTs is 1280x1024, when it should be 1280x960.
Also, the bit depth guide has flaws. It does not take into account that a LCD is almost linear in its gamma curve, while a CRT not. A CRT has a gamma response of 2.5. This means that it has higher resolution for low/dark levels than for bright. It can be as high as 14bits in dark areas, but less than 7 in bright. The Gamma function "shifts" bits from bright to dark areas.
But because the LCD is more a linear device, it will have the same resolution over all levels. It will have to convert the gamma encoded video signal to a linear one. This will make you loose A LOT of resolution.
A LCD will have to have at least 14 bits to be able to show all of the colours of a 8 bit gamma 2.5 encoded signal. More modern video cards even have 10 bits of resolution for the video signal.
Also, something missing is colour gammut. It is how much or many colours from the real world it can display. sRGB has a very narrow gammut, whereas AdobeRGB is much larger (can show more of the colours we can see). If you want to perform any serious graphics work (photography, for example) you need a display that can do at least AdobeRGB or better.
Compare the various colour profiles at http://www.iccview.de . You can even upload the profile for your own device (camera, printer, monitor, scanner, etc) to see how large it is.
Another nitpick. I believe the VMW9 HD clip you played was 1080p not 1080i. Microsoft does not have any WMV9 HD clips that are interlaced ;).
"19" and higher LCDs are the current sweet spot for LCD substrates. Recall that 19" LCDs have roughly the same viewing area as 21" CRT monitors"
which is completely worthless because 21" CRTs easily do 1600x1200, while no 19" lcd does any better than 1280x1024. you get ~50% more desktop area from 1600x1200 than 1280x1024.
really, when 15" 1600x1200 and 17" 1900x1200 notebook screens are flying out the door, the lack of desktop lcds that do 1600x1200 and higher is disturbing. if there isn't any demand for it, what explains the notebook lcd sales? the claim just doesn't make any sense.
"That is, a 19" LCD should have an aspect ratio of 1600x1200, 1280x960, or some derivative thereof. Most 19" and 17" LCDs have an aspect ratio of 5:4 (1280x1024). This is OK, but you're looking at a 5:4 signal crammed in a 4:3 box."
uh no. 17, 18, and 19" lcds with 1280x1024 resolution are physically 5:4. my samsung 192n's display area measues 15" wide, 12" tall - making a perfect 5:4 ratio.
i am very suprised to see such an oversight coming from anandtech. in fact, the entire aspect ratio part of the article is pretty useless once this point is corrected.
I work on computers all day long... there is no logical reason why you would want a CRT instead of a nice LCD unless you can't afford it. Monitors like the 2001FP put CRTs to shame.
benk, how is the 2005FPW? I notice that you lose a lot of pixels in the aspect ratio, but other than that... do you have an opinion? I just ordered a Dell 2001FPS for $599 and want to make sure I didn't overlook the FPW when I "should" have gotten it instead. I love 1600x1200... but I am used to 1600x1200 on a Viewsonic P810, which is razor sharp. Does anyone happen to know how this will compare? I took the 2001FPS based on the former AnandTech review.
I just (like two hours ago) got my Dell 2005FPW...played an hour of CS:S. Didn't notice any ghosting, blacks were all black, etc. I have my desktop set up stretching across this LCD and my old Sony Trinitron 17" and the color and sharpness on the LCD is markedly better. It actually surprised me; I thought I was giving up color in trade for a wider monitor that's a little easier on the eyes. Nope. It looks great, plays great, and, according to my girlfriend, is lots more stylish.
Can anyone go back to the issue that someone asked prior about running non-native resolutions? My biggest deterrent about LCDs was always the fact that if I run my desktop at 1280x1024, I have to run all of my games at that, too. Sorry, but unless I'm buying two video cards a year, that's sometimes hard to do.
Can you use other resolutions without getting crappy images?
Yes, at times I have considered selling my 19" and 17" CRT dual monitor setup for one, single 19" LCD. But then I think, nah I love my Philips, and two monitors is cool. Plus I'd hate to have to run all my games at such a high res.
Cat: The lower the refresh rate on the video card, the more sluggish the mouse feels to me. Anything below 75 Hz feels terrible. Setting it up to 100 Hz (assuming your card and display support it) feels extremely fluid. I'm just suggesting possibilities, so YMMV.
TCfromNL: From what I can tell, the article doesn't make any such claims about whether you have problems if the GIF appears dithered on your display; it's just presenting a visual aid.
It depends on each peoples eyes, I guess it's not quite as noticable to some. Also not all the 25ms screens are created equal.
I have a 25ms LCD, and I don't really notice ghosting, I got it over 2 years ago, though when it cost alot. Though 25ms for an LCD to do continous motion as that enough to generate 40FPS, I also don't really play that many FPS. The new LCD's that are capable of 12ms are amazing that like double the FPS at maximum.
Yeh it would have been nice to test some of the newer LCD panels as well, but to me I don't know why people want it so bright, my LC is around 350:1 range and I already fine that awfully bright, 800:1 just seems so much :S
I'm confused, how can all those 25ms monitors have no noticeable ghosting. I've always known that a black-white measurement does not truly show how much ghosting there will be, but a 5?
Okay. Small problem with the 256-shades-of-blue thing, referred to as "the image below".
Since it's a GIF, it only contains 256 shades of color, tops. Including all the greys.
I imagine you have a losslessy (or un-)compressed 24-bit copy somewhere. Still, it's not nice to scare your readers by displaying some 20-shades-of-blue thing while saying that if it doesn't display smooth as a baby's skin, which it doesn't, the viewer's monitor is at fault.
Further, nice article. But since these monitors are all 1280x1024 (except for the 20" Dell), I can't help but leave disappointed. I don't like squarish monitors. There's a reason why TV evolved from 4:3 to 16:9. I agree with the cry above: IT DOES NOT MAKE ANY SENSE.
"klah: I was only aware of Xbitlabs doing so. We feel that the methods for measuring reponse time thus far are OK, but not represent gray to gray response time measurements well. Its something we are working on and we will probably have a better methodology before the next roundup.
I've just ordered a Viewsonic VX912 and the idea of oval circles for graphic work hadn't occured to me.
I checked the viewsonic website - http://www.lowestonweb.com/pdfs/products/Viewsonic... The pixels are square and the screen measures 5:4 not 4:3 so the problem doesn't always arise.
I have come up with the perfect price/performance CRT/LCD solution, I just don't know why it took me so long to realize it.
Keep in mind that I'm talking EU prices here! You US residents live in PRICE PARADISE, you just don't know it!
Since I bought my 19" Samsung 959NF 2,5 years ago for $450 and I could MAYBE get $200 for it now, I'm not too keen on selling it for what is less than half of what I paid for it. Additionally a new HIGH quality 17" LCD would cost me upwards of $550 so I'd be looking at AT LEAST $350 new cash for ONE display that may not be AS GOOD as the old one at the most demanding tasks - games, movies. Not too appealing at all.
On the other hand I could get a standard 17" LCD for that same $350, but now I have 2 DISPLAYS, and I get the best of both worlds. They can both run at 1280x1024 so I won't have any problem switching between them, or even running them in clone or spanned desktop mode.
Two times desktop area, best of both worlds, same price! Additional display. since it's LCD, would be no problem as far as desk space/ cable clutter/ power consumption is concerned.
" Although the viewing area on a 19" LCD is roughly equivalent to the viewing area on a 21" CRT "
And yet in terms of pixel real estate is woefully outclassed. In reality it is not a 19" LCD but a 20" LCD display that offers the same viewing and pixel real estate as a 21" - whilst costing approx 75% more.
" The issue of cost that used to deter people away from LCDs has also disappeared. A reasonably cheap, new 21" CRT runs for about $350 "
Again based on the poor size comparison used above I feel this is isnt the case. The price divide is definataly diminishing but is still quite present in the 17-19" range, and remains quite huge in the 20" area. Still some way to go on price.
so how do lcds look when you run a game at a non-native resolution? I'm assuming there's alot of blur do to the pixel interpolation, but is it bad. If I buy a 16x12 native lcd, will i always need to buy new graphics cards to keep up with a 16x12 resolution.
error: P14. "The blue bar represents the advertised luminance and the red bar indicates the measured"
Your chart only shows blue bars.
What about reviewing some of the 23" 16-25ms range sometime? The L2335 has been out for a while and looks fantastic all around, the apple case looks garish but is supposed to be a good panel, theres the benq 23" with the same panel as the 2335 (i think), a new samsung 23" has just been released plus more.
I take it if you cant get smaples that they are too expensive to just buy and review? Im trying to hold out with this iiyama tft till i can afford a 2335 myself (hence why I would like to see a comparitive review of all the 23's now theres a few more to choose from price and panel wise)
Give me CRT or give me fraggin' death! A new desk with more space costs less than 2 LCD monitors that takes up less space. With greater quality at that.
Energy consumption? I put pedals and a dynamo under my desk. Now I really run when I play FPS!
It's in the millisecond range, but it's very tangible. I notice it the most playing RTS games, and normal Windows point and clicking. It's really not noticeable bad in FPS games. Basically interface stuff. It feels like the mouse is slow, so it drives me nuts. I get used it after maybe 10 minutes.
The easiest way for me to notice it is to clone my display to my CRT, and just move a window around. It doesn't ghost, but there's a large delay between when I move the mouse, and when the pixels actually change. On other LCDs, there's ghosting, but at least the transition starts very quickly.
Angry Kid: We couldnt get a VP912B in time for the roundup. I am working on doing an individual review on that one though.
Cat: On the back of your monitor near the serial it should say the REV number, like A01 or A00. Can you tell me which number it says on all those monitors?
And what's the color depth for the VP912b? It's not mentioned anywhere on Viewsonic's website and google didn't turn up anything. I'm torn between VP912b(supposed 8-bit panel) and FP937S(6-bit)...
#19, I have no clue when it comes to LCDs, so thanks for giving me that information. How many images are drawn on an LCD in a second (if they even do that at a fixed rate, i dont know)?
If there is no refresh rate given, I assume that the response time could be equated to the gaming performance of the monitor. In that case I'd want the fastest possible response times, and I do not think that the price would justify it. I think image quality, speed, and clarity go to a CRT. Size, power usage, and eye care seem to be the concern for LCDs. I've got plenty of space, don't use the computer that often, and don't care about power usage.
Is the NuTech L921G an 8 bit or 6 bit panel? it doesn't say in the specs.
How about the Planar PE191M? or the Samsung SyncMaster 193P?
I'm not trying to nitpick guys, but I've been burnt by missing specs before ("Well, the review didn't mention it, so it must not be a problem..."), so I don't want to simply assume they're 8-bit when you didn't mention them(Since that wasn't stated in the intro)
I have been working with order people, and I can say many of them prefer their resolution around 1024x768. I may be wrong, but as for LCD monitors, if they are not running at their optimal resolution, the screen tends to look a bit blur. This is not a problem with CRT monitor, things are sharp as long as the resolution is within the limit.
"It's the same friggin reason why people buy a 50" TV instead of a small 20""
I doubt it, since most people I know buy a 50" so they can sit 20 feet away and still pick out the super-model's pimples. But not many computer users sit 20 feet back from their monitors(Or even signifigantly further back with bigger screens)
Kristopher, could you comment on the perceived lag that I've felt on three different 2001FPs? There's no ghosting, but the delay between moving the mouse and having an update on the screen is horrible. DVI-I and D-SUB, different video cards, systems, the works, they all have it.
I don't see this on the other LCDs here at work. I know there was a Slashdot post about this a while back, and some have said it's caused by bad batches, but three of them having the same problem? I don't know if I should send my personal 2001FP back ...
>Umm, yeah what up with that? Why can't someone >explain the reason to get a 19" versus a 17" if >the resolution is the same (ignoring that the >dot pitch is bigger thus easier to see).
It's the same friggin reason why people buy a 50" TV instead of a small 20"
>"Recall that 19" LCDs have roughly the same >viewing area as 21" CRT monitors, and that 17" >LCDs have about the same viewing ANGLE as 19" >CRTs."
>angle = area in this case?
>Some stories get edited well on anandtech, and >some not so well...
a 19" LCD is measured EXACTLY 19"image display size, but a 19" CRT is usually like 18" or 17.x", the 19" is usally the glass size, not the actual image size for CRTs
Umm, yeah what up with that? Why can't someone explain the reason to get a 19" versus a 17" if the resolution is the same (ignoring that the dot pitch is bigger thus easier to see).
Also why not list the settings you used for each monitor to attain the results you got (during subjective tests). This way we could set the LCD to your spec and go from there. Where is the Samsung 912N in review, its a common LCD out there?
>HelToupee
>viewing ANGLE as 19" CRTs."
>
>angle = area in this case?
>I think there have to be gamers here, and I do not think LCDs are there yet when it comes to refresh rates; it would have been nice to see the refresh rates on the monitors at 1024, 1280, and 1600.
LCD displays don't have a refresh rate at any resolution. There is no flicker to be worried about.
In the Intro, it says, "A reasonably cheap, new 21" CRT runs for about $350; a reasonably cheap, new 21" LCD runs for about $330." I'm guessing that was supposed to say 17" or 19" LCD?
thank god the dell 2001fp is the (2nd) best one here. I got it for $650 a few days ago on a whim. The reviews are kinda mixed but there's a 21 day return policy. Problem is, it's 21 days from the invoice and the expected shipping date would put the LCD in my hands AFTER that time. Thus, I couldn't return it even .1 seconds after receiving it :-/
Alas, it seems the monitor is a good choice nonetheless and I should have decent product on my hands soon. My eyes can't wait!
Regarding the aspect ratio: If someone had taken the time to actually MEASURE, they would have found that all those LCD panels that sport a 1280x1024 resolution actually do measure 5:4, thus having correct aspect ratio at that resolution. Moot point, actually.
(Running a CRT at 1280x1024 is wrongwrongwrong, though.)
#4 Jeff7181: LCD's use less power, take up less space (especially from 19" on) and produce less interference and heat. That times 2 if you are working with 2 screens. If a CRT works for you, then fine. It's not so much ignorance as it is choice.
bookem dano: We know of the problem and we should have it fixed soon.
klah: I was only aware of Xbitlabs doing so. We feel that the methods for measuring reponse time thus far are OK, but not represent gray to gray response time measurements well. Its something we are working on and we will probably have a better methodology before the next roundup.
OK so the tips at the beginning say to get a monitor with the correct aspect ratio such as 1280x960 resolution. I agree. Then all of the monitors reviewed (other than the Dell) have 1280x1024, which they specifically warn against.
I know that most 19" LCDs are 1280x1024 but couldn't they at least have explained why this is?
And actually, why is this?! I don't understand the popularity of 1280x1024 instead of 1280x960! IT DOES NOT MAKE ANY SENSE.
We want to see some reviews of the new wave of 19'' LCDs. Like the sony HS-94P/B with x-black technology, viewsonic VP912b or some 10 bit eizo monitors.. When?
umm... page #4
"The time that it takes the LCD to go from black to white may be 15ms while the time that it takes the LCD to go from black back to white may be 10ms"
could be kinda confusing for the noob there. You guys really need an editorial staff :D
#4 true.....i have also heard that working at a CRT monitor for 8 or more hours a day doubles the chances of glaucoma.....so it might be safer going LCD (for the eyes)........anyway.....
Man... I guess ignorance is bliss... I'm perfectly happy with the image quality of my $80 17 inch CRT... I can't imagine paying over $500 for a monitor unless you're doing graphics work as a profession.
Why does the Dell 2001FP have a 25ms typical response time while on your older review you state it as having a 16ms typical response time?
The pixel pitch changed from .255mm to .55mm.
I think there have to be gamers here, and I do not think LCDs are there yet when it comes to refresh rates; it would have been nice to see the refresh rates on the monitors at 1024, 1280, and 1600.
I still haven't found a monitor better than a high quality, high res trinitron.
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
97 Comments
Back to Article
xann - Monday, January 14, 2008 - link
it is like:640*480 1 :1
800*600 1,25 :1,25
1024*768 1,6 :1,6
1152*864 1,8 :1,8
1280*1024 2 :2,13
1600*1200 2,5 :2,5
1440*900 2,25 :1,87
1680*1050 2,625 :2,1875
1920*1200 3 :2,5
2560*1600 4 :3,33333
wide screen resolutions are not one on one.
i look for 19" LCD with res 1600*1200
xann - Monday, January 14, 2008 - link
it is like:640*480 1 :1
800*600 1,25 :1,25
1024*768 1,6 :1,6
1152*864 1,8 :1,8
1280*1024 2 :2,13
1600*1200 2,5 :2,5
1440*900 2,25 :1,87
1680*1050 2,625 :2,1875
1920*1200 3 :2,5
2560*1600 4 :3,33333
Cay - Friday, December 17, 2004 - link
One of the main reasons I think PVA is in a completely different league regarding response time compared to TN/IPS, is this guide by X-Bit Labs.http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/other/display/lcd...
Cay - Friday, December 17, 2004 - link
The tips at the start were great though, and pointed out several important things I'd have overlooked otherwise.Cay - Friday, December 17, 2004 - link
This review wasn't very useful to me, frankly. It contains too much subjective talk, and barely any data. I miss the following:.) For each panel, clearly state the technology used (TN, M/PVA, IPS), as well as if it's 8 or 6 bit. This gives more meaningful information than all the manufacturer specs.
.) Screen photographs of select, demanding images taken under the same conditions. Here, I want to see how each image looks like on EACH screen, not just 3 samples total.
Printer reviews do this well. You can dedicate one HTML page for each test image (eg 1 for the Max Payne scene, 1 for the Morrowind pic), and put the results from different monitors right below each other. This would allow me to directly compare how still images look like. At the end of the image block, you can put your comments.
With well-chosen test images, this might give a pretty complete idea of how good a monitor's still image/color quality/contrast is.
.) A meaningful measurement of response time.
When you claim to "not notice any difference" between a PVA and a TN panel, I have to conclude that the Anandtech crew is much less sensitive to response time than most people. That's great for you, but bad for me - I'm not getting any response time information.
Build a device to measure all gray-black or grey-grey response times. Tom's Hardware and X-Bit have some you can use for inspiration.
Just including this measurement does not mean that you have to emphasize its importance. You can put it in a section together with your subjective response time interpretation.
610 - Tuesday, December 14, 2004 - link
Is the NuTech L921G currently available in the US?The article says that the review unit was not store-bought, but doesn't specify how it was obtained. I've found only one site anywhere that claims to sell it, and it's not listed in any of the usual price-comparison sites (like PriceScan, for example).
KristopherKubicki - Monday, December 13, 2004 - link
ecove:I believe all of the monitors you mentioned use the same AUO panel. Performance will be very similar.
Hope that helps,
Kristopher
ecove - Thursday, December 9, 2004 - link
I've noticed in researching 19" LCDs that there are a number of models from various manufacturers (eg Princeton LCD19D, CTX S962A/G, Advueu ADV190DT) that all share what appear to be identical specs to the Nu and Viewsonic models reviewed here. Is it a safe assumption that these monitors all share the same panel and have essentially the same performance?stephenbrooks - Tuesday, December 7, 2004 - link
That sample blue image on the penultimate page really made me worry about the LCD I'm using to view it here because it looked terribly dithered! Fortunately I realised the image you showed there was actually a 256-colour GIF (?!) of the image you should have used.R3MF - Tuesday, December 7, 2004 - link
@ #69 -agreed, i would like to see what the Dell 1905FP is like too.........
@ #87 -
yes, the Dell 1905FP is rated at 20ms, and while it may not be best for games like UT2k4, but what about games like Mafia and Rome: TW where twitch gaming is irrelevant?
REMF
archcommus87 - Saturday, December 4, 2004 - link
Additionally, what are your thoughts on response time? I see that many of the monitors reviewed here are 20-25 ms monitors, however so many people claim that anything over 16 is simply unacceptable for gaming. Is this true or would 25 be plenty fine?archcommus87 - Friday, December 3, 2004 - link
So SOME out there are actually 4:3 physicall. How do you know which ones? They do list l x w x h, but I'm assuming that includes base. So you must read a review or physically measure it yourself to know this?Kristopher: What is your opinion on the quality of the image when it is upscaled in such a way, say trying to run a game at 10x7 on a 19" 1280x1024 monitor.
GOSHARKS - Friday, December 3, 2004 - link
KristopherKubicki, that may be the case with some models - BUT you imply that ALL 17-19" LCDs that are 5:4 in resolution are in reality 4:3 physically, which is incorrect and confusing for people reading your review."Most 19" and 17" LCDs have an aspect ratio of 5:4 (1280x1024). This is OK, but you're looking at a 5:4 signal crammed in a 4:3 box."
KristopherKubicki - Friday, December 3, 2004 - link
archcommus87: LCDs will naturally interpolate pixels if you choose a non-native resolution. Only a few monitors will scale the image down to the correct pixel size (ie the Samsung 192T). Of course, if you do that you just turned your 19" LCD into a 17" one.Kristopher
KristopherKubicki - Friday, December 3, 2004 - link
GOSHARKS: As i stated above in the comment addressed to #14, there are LCDs that are not the correct aspect ratio. A few viewsonic models come to mind. That was the only thing I was addressing in the aspect ratio portion of the guide.Kristopher
KristopherKubicki - Friday, December 3, 2004 - link
Peter: For these LCDs you are correct, they are all the correct aspect ratio. However, we have looked at 17" and 19" pannels in the past that are 4:3 (and not surprisingly they did not get good reviews).Kristopher
archcommus87 - Friday, December 3, 2004 - link
Are the options presented thus far really the only options for running games at resolutions other than native? If so how could anyone want an LCD for gaming? Unless you're positive you'll always have a beefy enough computer to run games at 1280x1024 or higher. Or unless you don't mind playing the game with black around all sides.vailr - Friday, December 3, 2004 - link
No information as to "color accuracy". Maybe this device would be useful?****************************
Color Plus
Manufacturer: ColorVision
http://www.compusa.com/products/product_info.asp?p...
Mfg Part #: GEU104
Product Information
(Based on manufacturer's information)
Produce Stunning Photos Using the Tools Pros Rely on for Color Accuracy
ColorPlus corrects your CRT, LCD, or notebook monitors for accurate and consistent color - day-to-day and image-to image. Spend more time behind the lens or printing your photos instead of wasting time, paper, and ink. Pros correct their monitors at least once a month - now you can too in your home.
Experts agree - the #1 tip for positively great prints - Calibrate Your Monitor. Monitors are like snowflakes, everyone is different and they change over time as they age.
Now with ColorPlus, your colors can finally look their best and brightest. ColorPlus corrects your CRT, LCD or notebook monitor for accurate, reliable, and consistent color - day-to-day and image-to-image. It also gives you a wider range of colors, better flesh tones, and more open shadows. Now you can use the same tools the pros do and make your images studio grade.
ColorPlus includes an award-winning, patent-protected color hardware sensor and wizard-based monitor calibration software. The color hardware sensor connects to your computer using USB and easily attaches to your CRT, LCD, or notebook monitor. In a few easy steps, the software guides through the entire process to deliver precise color in the widest range your monitor can produce. ColorPlus automatically calibrates your monitor to industry standards for color, gamma, white point, and luminance
Recommended for all digital camera enthusiasts
Corrects your monitor for accurate and reliable color
Lets you trust what you see on your screen
Produces a wider range of color, better flesh tones, & more open shadows
Simple to use and AFFORDABLE
High-tech and cool-looking color hardware sensor
Save time, paper, and ink
Includes Adobe® Photoshop® Album Starter Edition for FREE
Free technical supportso your results are accurate and consistent from day-to-day.
Platform: PC
Media Format: CD-ROM
System Requirements: Display: CRT, LCD, or notebook monitor
Operating System: Microsoft Windows 98, ME, 2000, XP
Free USB port
Peter - Friday, December 3, 2004 - link
Or does the Anandtech high-tech lab not feature such an old fashioned tool like a wooden stick with a scale on it?http://emoties.murphology.com/strips/displayimage....
Peter - Friday, December 3, 2004 - link
... and I had said exactly that in #14 already. No correction so far? Boo...nullpointerus - Friday, December 3, 2004 - link
So you mean that only _some_ LCD's with that resolution are physically 5:4? LOL, I just couldn't resist it. Sorry I missed your previous post!GOSHARKS - Thursday, December 2, 2004 - link
As I had previously stated (#61,62) - ALL computer LCD's with a resolution of 1280x1024 are PHYSCIALLY 5:4. You will not find a 1280x1024 LCD on the market that is physically 4:3. Kristopher Kubicki really needs to address this in an amendment to his article.nullpointerus - Thursday, December 2, 2004 - link
Keep in mind now that most cards are dual-capable, you could keep your CRT for games and get the LCD for word processing - to decrease eye strain. Not only that, but you could watch TV on the CRT while you're working, or keep two documents visible at the same time, etc.archcommus87 - Thursday, December 2, 2004 - link
Thanks for the info.That's a major turn off for any LCD for me, then. I wouldn't mind running my desktop in 1280x1024 if the monitor itself had a 5:4 ratio, but having to scale my games or run them in a smaller screen would annoy me. Right now I run HL2 in 1280x960 plenty smoothly, but I won't necessarily ALWAYS be able to run the newest games in that high of a resolution.
nullpointerus - Thursday, December 2, 2004 - link
Oh, I might also have mentioned why LCD's are different than CRTs.A LCD produces its image via millions of fixed-size, fixed-position cells that are manipulated with some kind of electrical charge to produce colors which collectively form an image. When the image size isn't exactly the same size as the number of cells, some algorithm has to be applied to scale the image up/down before it can be displayed. There's no physical distortion, but you may get stuck pixels, gamma problems, and streaking.
A CRT produces its image via an electron gun which continually blasts the screen with lines of colors (basically) y*r times per second, where y is the vertical resolution and r is the vertical refresh rate. The size, shape, etc. of these lines are configurable so they can be very easily stretched and manipulated without by changing the focus and interval of the beams. So there's no scaling algorithm per se, but then again you get convergence problems (i.e. where the RGB beams go out of sync with one another), physical distortions (i.e. rounded/skewed/pincushioned image).
That's why LCDs have a "native" resolution while CRTs just have a kind of a maximum firing rate which is usually referred to in terms of a "pixel clock." So in a sense you could say that all of a CRT's supported resolutions are "native."
nullpointerus - Thursday, December 2, 2004 - link
archcommus87:1. It depends on the LCD in question, methinks. Some searching for specifications by the model number of the LCD that you are searching for will usually turn up its aspect ratio. Try to corroborate information from several sources (especially the manufacturer's website if possible) since the stores can get the specs wrong.
2. LCDs run in their native resolution. If that's 1280x1024, it will always "run in" 1280x1024 no matter what resolution your video card is feeding it the video data. There are several ways that lower-than-native resolutions can be handled, depending on your video card's drivers.
AFAIK, the default way is to simply use monitor scaling. For example, if you run a game at 800x600, your flat panel will extrapolate this up into an 1280x1024 image, which makes it look rather blurry. Scaled graphics will probably just look "different," but scaled text will appear fuzzy.
There's also cropping, which will just use the center 800x600 pixels for example and set the others to black. So you get a smaller picture than if you had let the monitor scale it up, but on the other hand it will also be clearer. This might also be called "centering."
IIRC, nVidia has more options in this respect than ATI, but that might depend on the model of your card as well. Maybe look in your video driver help files or ask around to see what your video card supports.
archcommus87 - Thursday, December 2, 2004 - link
No one has provided a clear answer on this, can someone please do so?We know 1280x1024 is 5:4. So are the LCDs actually 5:4 in physical size or are they 4:3 like a CRT? I keep hear differeing opinions. Or is each brand different?
Second, how do LCDs respond when you change the resolution to something other than native? Does everything look garbled and crappy or is it okay as long as you keep your ratio? The reason I ask is because if I had a 19" LCD running at 1280x1024 resolution, I don't think I'd *always* want to run my games at that high of a res.
comomolo - Thursday, December 2, 2004 - link
Hey, Anandtech, I usually trust your reviews, but should I read further when you state that 17 and 19 inches monitors put 5:4 aspect ratios into 4:3 boxes? Or when you compare CRTs capable of much higher resolution than that of the 17 and 19 inches LCDs. An apples to apples comparison would show you LCDs are still much more expensive than comparable CRTs.Toadster - Wednesday, December 1, 2004 - link
why no review of the DELL 1905? i mean, DELL reigned in the 20+ review why not the 19?deathwalker - Wednesday, December 1, 2004 - link
The Dell 2001FP is only $799 for those that don't shop smart..I bought mine several weeks ago and only paid $639 for it. I love it and have no regrets even after this article. Im runnin a 1600x1200 desktop..something none of these other monitors can do.psoucaco13 - Wednesday, December 1, 2004 - link
I do not understand why the Samsung 910V was tested and not the 910T which costs $10-$30 more but has DVI.benk - Wednesday, December 1, 2004 - link
speedi,I think people make a big deal out of "ooh, you lose information." How many people are actually cramming all 1,920,000 pixels with useful information? I'm not. If you are, ignore the rest of this post. Seriously, I don't see the big deal...on a 17" CRT, I think 1600 x 1200 makes fonts too small unless you bump up the font size/dpi etc...I ran my trinitron at 1024x768 and I still used large fonts. The thing that clinched the wide-screen purchase for me was that I've been thinking about buying an LCD for a while now, and, while playing CS:S I realized "Hey, I don't look at the top or bottom inch of screen because they're out of my field of view, however I look all the way across the screen." I think people's eyes are simply set up to process further across than they are up and down. Whether that difference is 16:9, 16x10, whatever, I don't think is relevant. Additionally, the 2005 has slightly better specs wrt response time, contrast, and I think brightness, for the exact same price as the 2001. I think the additional width is slightly more useful for me than the decreased pixel count, especially as it allows me to put two web pages up next to each other at a readable size, without any overlap or scrolling. I guess the 2001 would let you do about the same, but I like that extra inch. I would guess anyone who would be happy with the 2001 will be happy with the 2005, and vice versa. I don't think either is a bad monitor, especially at the prices they are available at after rebates etc. Hope my overly verbose reply is helpful to some of you thinking about one or the other.
Gatak - Wednesday, December 1, 2004 - link
I want to clarify something. 24 million colours does not mean much. I read the article said it is enough to show 98% of the colours we can se. But we can not make that conclusion so easilly. We need other critical information such as dynamic range. It does not make a good monitor if it can display 24 million colours but not enough green, or deep enough blues for good sky/water and so on. Compare the monitors colour profile/characteristics against the CIE LAB model, which is a device independant model that encompasses all of the visual spectrum.Gatak - Wednesday, December 1, 2004 - link
As #61 said. The aspect ratio is wrong. The 5:4 LCD's require a 5:4 signal, like 1280x1024. The pixel ratio remains 1:1.It is rather for most CRTs that the aspect ratio is wrong if you run 1280x1024. I can't for in my life see why the recommended resolution for almost all 19" CRTs is 1280x1024, when it should be 1280x960.
Also, the bit depth guide has flaws. It does not take into account that a LCD is almost linear in its gamma curve, while a CRT not. A CRT has a gamma response of 2.5. This means that it has higher resolution for low/dark levels than for bright. It can be as high as 14bits in dark areas, but less than 7 in bright. The Gamma function "shifts" bits from bright to dark areas.
But because the LCD is more a linear device, it will have the same resolution over all levels. It will have to convert the gamma encoded video signal to a linear one. This will make you loose A LOT of resolution.
A LCD will have to have at least 14 bits to be able to show all of the colours of a 8 bit gamma 2.5 encoded signal. More modern video cards even have 10 bits of resolution for the video signal.
Also, something missing is colour gammut. It is how much or many colours from the real world it can display. sRGB has a very narrow gammut, whereas AdobeRGB is much larger (can show more of the colours we can see). If you want to perform any serious graphics work (photography, for example) you need a display that can do at least AdobeRGB or better.
Compare the various colour profiles at http://www.iccview.de . You can even upload the profile for your own device (camera, printer, monitor, scanner, etc) to see how large it is.
Another nitpick. I believe the VMW9 HD clip you played was 1080p not 1080i. Microsoft does not have any WMV9 HD clips that are interlaced ;).
ElFenix - Wednesday, December 1, 2004 - link
"19" and higher LCDs are the current sweet spot for LCD substrates. Recall that 19" LCDs have roughly the same viewing area as 21" CRT monitors"which is completely worthless because 21" CRTs easily do 1600x1200, while no 19" lcd does any better than 1280x1024. you get ~50% more desktop area from 1600x1200 than 1280x1024.
really, when 15" 1600x1200 and 17" 1900x1200 notebook screens are flying out the door, the lack of desktop lcds that do 1600x1200 and higher is disturbing. if there isn't any demand for it, what explains the notebook lcd sales? the claim just doesn't make any sense.
GOSHARKS - Wednesday, December 1, 2004 - link
well actually it isnt exactly 15"x12", but you get the idea.GOSHARKS - Wednesday, December 1, 2004 - link
"That is, a 19" LCD should have an aspect ratio of 1600x1200, 1280x960, or some derivative thereof. Most 19" and 17" LCDs have an aspect ratio of 5:4 (1280x1024). This is OK, but you're looking at a 5:4 signal crammed in a 4:3 box."uh no. 17, 18, and 19" lcds with 1280x1024 resolution are physically 5:4. my samsung 192n's display area measues 15" wide, 12" tall - making a perfect 5:4 ratio.
i am very suprised to see such an oversight coming from anandtech. in fact, the entire aspect ratio part of the article is pretty useless once this point is corrected.
KristopherKubicki - Wednesday, December 1, 2004 - link
drinkmorejava: Ghosting has to do with visual interference on the signal. Motion blur is what you refer to, and that was not rated quanitively.Kristopher
WileCoyote - Tuesday, November 30, 2004 - link
I work on computers all day long... there is no logical reason why you would want a CRT instead of a nice LCD unless you can't afford it. Monitors like the 2001FP put CRTs to shame.speedi - Tuesday, November 30, 2004 - link
benk, how is the 2005FPW? I notice that you lose a lot of pixels in the aspect ratio, but other than that... do you have an opinion? I just ordered a Dell 2001FPS for $599 and want to make sure I didn't overlook the FPW when I "should" have gotten it instead. I love 1600x1200... but I am used to 1600x1200 on a Viewsonic P810, which is razor sharp. Does anyone happen to know how this will compare? I took the 2001FPS based on the former AnandTech review.- Speedi
benk - Tuesday, November 30, 2004 - link
I just (like two hours ago) got my Dell 2005FPW...played an hour of CS:S. Didn't notice any ghosting, blacks were all black, etc. I have my desktop set up stretching across this LCD and my old Sony Trinitron 17" and the color and sharpness on the LCD is markedly better. It actually surprised me; I thought I was giving up color in trade for a wider monitor that's a little easier on the eyes. Nope. It looks great, plays great, and, according to my girlfriend, is lots more stylish.IceWindius - Tuesday, November 30, 2004 - link
Screw LCD, SED is the wave of the future.Until then, i'll stick with my Viewsonic CRT monitor, thank you.
archcommus87 - Tuesday, November 30, 2004 - link
Can anyone go back to the issue that someone asked prior about running non-native resolutions? My biggest deterrent about LCDs was always the fact that if I run my desktop at 1280x1024, I have to run all of my games at that, too. Sorry, but unless I'm buying two video cards a year, that's sometimes hard to do.Can you use other resolutions without getting crappy images?
Yes, at times I have considered selling my 19" and 17" CRT dual monitor setup for one, single 19" LCD. But then I think, nah I love my Philips, and two monitors is cool. Plus I'd hate to have to run all my games at such a high res.
nullpointerus - Tuesday, November 30, 2004 - link
Cat: The lower the refresh rate on the video card, the more sluggish the mouse feels to me. Anything below 75 Hz feels terrible. Setting it up to 100 Hz (assuming your card and display support it) feels extremely fluid. I'm just suggesting possibilities, so YMMV.TCfromNL: From what I can tell, the article doesn't make any such claims about whether you have problems if the GIF appears dithered on your display; it's just presenting a visual aid.
coldpower27 - Tuesday, November 30, 2004 - link
It depends on each peoples eyes, I guess it's not quite as noticable to some. Also not all the 25ms screens are created equal.I have a 25ms LCD, and I don't really notice ghosting, I got it over 2 years ago, though when it cost alot. Though 25ms for an LCD to do continous motion as that enough to generate 40FPS, I also don't really play that many FPS. The new LCD's that are capable of 12ms are amazing that like double the FPS at maximum.
Yeh it would have been nice to test some of the newer LCD panels as well, but to me I don't know why people want it so bright, my LC is around 350:1 range and I already fine that awfully bright, 800:1 just seems so much :S
drinkmorejava - Tuesday, November 30, 2004 - link
I'm confused, how can all those 25ms monitors have no noticeable ghosting. I've always known that a black-white measurement does not truly show how much ghosting there will be, but a 5?TCfromNL - Tuesday, November 30, 2004 - link
Okay. Small problem with the 256-shades-of-blue thing, referred to as "the image below".Since it's a GIF, it only contains 256 shades of color, tops. Including all the greys.
I imagine you have a losslessy (or un-)compressed 24-bit copy somewhere. Still, it's not nice to scare your readers by displaying some 20-shades-of-blue thing while saying that if it doesn't display smooth as a baby's skin, which it doesn't, the viewer's monitor is at fault.
Further, nice article. But since these monitors are all 1280x1024 (except for the 20" Dell), I can't help but leave disappointed. I don't like squarish monitors. There's a reason why TV evolved from 4:3 to 16:9. I agree with the cry above: IT DOES NOT MAKE ANY SENSE.
gwynethgh - Tuesday, November 30, 2004 - link
Now to find a good but reasonably priced DVI KVM switch.KristopherKubicki - Tuesday, November 30, 2004 - link
Klah: have they benchmarked any units using that methodology except the example? I checked around and couldnt find any.Kristopher
klah - Tuesday, November 30, 2004 - link
"klah: I was only aware of Xbitlabs doing so. We feel that the methods for measuring reponse time thus far are OK, but not represent gray to gray response time measurements well. Its something we are working on and we will probably have a better methodology before the next roundup.Kristopher"
Here is Tom's methodology:
http://graphics.tomshardware.com/display/20040923/...
rodf - Tuesday, November 30, 2004 - link
Actually that url is the shops not viewsonics but what the hey.rodf - Tuesday, November 30, 2004 - link
I've just ordered a Viewsonic VX912 and the idea of oval circles for graphic work hadn't occured to me.I checked the viewsonic website - http://www.lowestonweb.com/pdfs/products/Viewsonic...
The pixels are square and the screen measures 5:4 not 4:3 so the problem doesn't always arise.
AtaStrumf - Tuesday, November 30, 2004 - link
I have come up with the perfect price/performance CRT/LCD solution, I just don't know why it took me so long to realize it.Keep in mind that I'm talking EU prices here! You US residents live in PRICE PARADISE, you just don't know it!
Since I bought my 19" Samsung 959NF 2,5 years ago for $450 and I could MAYBE get $200 for it now, I'm not too keen on selling it for what is less than half of what I paid for it. Additionally a new HIGH quality 17" LCD would cost me upwards of $550 so I'd be looking at AT LEAST $350 new cash for ONE display that may not be AS GOOD as the old one at the most demanding tasks - games, movies. Not too appealing at all.
On the other hand I could get a standard 17" LCD for that same $350, but now I have 2 DISPLAYS, and I get the best of both worlds. They can both run at 1280x1024 so I won't have any problem switching between them, or even running them in clone or spanned desktop mode.
Two times desktop area, best of both worlds, same price! Additional display. since it's LCD, would be no problem as far as desk space/ cable clutter/ power consumption is concerned.
HOW ABOUT THAT :-)
robg1701 - Tuesday, November 30, 2004 - link
" Although the viewing area on a 19" LCD is roughly equivalent to the viewing area on a 21" CRT "And yet in terms of pixel real estate is woefully outclassed. In reality it is not a 19" LCD but a 20" LCD display that offers the same viewing and pixel real estate as a 21" - whilst costing approx 75% more.
" The issue of cost that used to deter people away from LCDs has also disappeared. A reasonably cheap, new 21" CRT runs for about $350 "
Again based on the poor size comparison used above I feel this is isnt the case. The price divide is definataly diminishing but is still quite present in the 17-19" range, and remains quite huge in the 20" area. Still some way to go on price.
mldeveloper - Tuesday, November 30, 2004 - link
so how do lcds look when you run a game at a non-native resolution? I'm assuming there's alot of blur do to the pixel interpolation, but is it bad. If I buy a 16x12 native lcd, will i always need to buy new graphics cards to keep up with a 16x12 resolution.bigpow - Tuesday, November 30, 2004 - link
From the subjective test result (sorted):Samsung 193P
Dell 2001FP
ViewSonic Q190MB
NuTech L921G
Planar PE191M
BenQ FP931
Sony SDM-S94
Samsung 910V
MadAd - Tuesday, November 30, 2004 - link
error: P14. "The blue bar represents the advertised luminance and the red bar indicates the measured"Your chart only shows blue bars.
What about reviewing some of the 23" 16-25ms range sometime? The L2335 has been out for a while and looks fantastic all around, the apple case looks garish but is supposed to be a good panel, theres the benq 23" with the same panel as the 2335 (i think), a new samsung 23" has just been released plus more.
I take it if you cant get smaples that they are too expensive to just buy and review? Im trying to hold out with this iiyama tft till i can afford a 2335 myself (hence why I would like to see a comparitive review of all the 23's now theres a few more to choose from price and panel wise)
bldckstark - Tuesday, November 30, 2004 - link
Give me CRT or give me fraggin' death! A new desk with more space costs less than 2 LCD monitors that takes up less space. With greater quality at that.Energy consumption? I put pedals and a dynamo under my desk. Now I really run when I play FPS!
Cat - Tuesday, November 30, 2004 - link
It's in the millisecond range, but it's very tangible. I notice it the most playing RTS games, and normal Windows point and clicking. It's really not noticeable bad in FPS games. Basically interface stuff. It feels like the mouse is slow, so it drives me nuts. I get used it after maybe 10 minutes.The easiest way for me to notice it is to clone my display to my CRT, and just move a window around. It doesn't ghost, but there's a large delay between when I move the mouse, and when the pixels actually change. On other LCDs, there's ghosting, but at least the transition starts very quickly.
sharkAttakk - Tuesday, November 30, 2004 - link
By the same token, why no info in the AG neovo F-419?KristopherKubicki - Tuesday, November 30, 2004 - link
Interesting, let me look into this. My 2001FP is A00 as well and i've had mine for over a year now. (No problems though).Do you know how much of a delay there is?
Kristopher
Cat - Tuesday, November 30, 2004 - link
My boss's is A00. I'm assuming mine is as well, since I bought it a few days after he did. This was about a month and a half ago.KristopherKubicki - Tuesday, November 30, 2004 - link
Angry Kid: We couldnt get a VP912B in time for the roundup. I am working on doing an individual review on that one though.Cat: On the back of your monitor near the serial it should say the REV number, like A01 or A00. Can you tell me which number it says on all those monitors?
Kristopher
blackmetalegg - Tuesday, November 30, 2004 - link
And what's the color depth for the VP912b? It's not mentioned anywhere on Viewsonic's website and google didn't turn up anything. I'm torn between VP912b(supposed 8-bit panel) and FP937S(6-bit)...KristopherKubicki - Tuesday, November 30, 2004 - link
Ensign: Fixed.Kristopher
KingofFah - Tuesday, November 30, 2004 - link
#19, I have no clue when it comes to LCDs, so thanks for giving me that information. How many images are drawn on an LCD in a second (if they even do that at a fixed rate, i dont know)?If there is no refresh rate given, I assume that the response time could be equated to the gaming performance of the monitor. In that case I'd want the fastest possible response times, and I do not think that the price would justify it. I think image quality, speed, and clarity go to a CRT. Size, power usage, and eye care seem to be the concern for LCDs. I've got plenty of space, don't use the computer that often, and don't care about power usage.
Araemo - Tuesday, November 30, 2004 - link
Is the NuTech L921G an 8 bit or 6 bit panel? it doesn't say in the specs.How about the Planar PE191M? or the Samsung SyncMaster 193P?
I'm not trying to nitpick guys, but I've been burnt by missing specs before ("Well, the review didn't mention it, so it must not be a problem..."), so I don't want to simply assume they're 8-bit when you didn't mention them(Since that wasn't stated in the intro)
Angry Kid - Tuesday, November 30, 2004 - link
Agree with many of the others - why were none of the more recent, more high-end 19" LCDs tested?It would've been nice to see the ViewSonic VP912B FEATURED IN THE NOVEMBER GAMER BUYER'S GUIDE included.
=/
garfieldonline - Tuesday, November 30, 2004 - link
I have been working with order people, and I can say many of them prefer their resolution around 1024x768. I may be wrong, but as for LCD monitors, if they are not running at their optimal resolution, the screen tends to look a bit blur. This is not a problem with CRT monitor, things are sharp as long as the resolution is within the limit.Araemo - Tuesday, November 30, 2004 - link
"It's the same friggin reason why people buy a 50" TV instead of a small 20""I doubt it, since most people I know buy a 50" so they can sit 20 feet away and still pick out the super-model's pimples. But not many computer users sit 20 feet back from their monitors(Or even signifigantly further back with bigger screens)
Cat - Tuesday, November 30, 2004 - link
Kristopher, could you comment on the perceived lag that I've felt on three different 2001FPs? There's no ghosting, but the delay between moving the mouse and having an update on the screen is horrible. DVI-I and D-SUB, different video cards, systems, the works, they all have it.I don't see this on the other LCDs here at work. I know there was a Slashdot post about this a while back, and some have said it's caused by bad batches, but three of them having the same problem? I don't know if I should send my personal 2001FP back ...
InuYasha - Tuesday, November 30, 2004 - link
>Umm, yeah what up with that? Why can't someone >explain the reason to get a 19" versus a 17" if >the resolution is the same (ignoring that the >dot pitch is bigger thus easier to see).It's the same friggin reason why people buy a 50" TV instead of a small 20"
InuYasha - Tuesday, November 30, 2004 - link
>"Recall that 19" LCDs have roughly the same >viewing area as 21" CRT monitors, and that 17" >LCDs have about the same viewing ANGLE as 19" >CRTs.">angle = area in this case?
>Some stories get edited well on anandtech, and >some not so well...
a 19" LCD is measured EXACTLY 19"image display size, but a 19" CRT is usually like 18" or 17.x", the 19" is usally the glass size, not the actual image size for CRTs
sonicDivx - Tuesday, November 30, 2004 - link
Umm, yeah what up with that? Why can't someone explain the reason to get a 19" versus a 17" if the resolution is the same (ignoring that the dot pitch is bigger thus easier to see).Also why not list the settings you used for each monitor to attain the results you got (during subjective tests). This way we could set the LCD to your spec and go from there. Where is the Samsung 912N in review, its a common LCD out there?
>HelToupee
>viewing ANGLE as 19" CRTs."
>
>angle = area in this case?
HelToupee - Tuesday, November 30, 2004 - link
In the second paragraph on the first page:"Recall that 19" LCDs have roughly the same viewing area as 21" CRT monitors, and that 17" LCDs have about the same viewing ANGLE as 19" CRTs."
angle = area in this case?
Some stories get edited well on anandtech, and some not so well...
IHYLN - Tuesday, November 30, 2004 - link
I'm no english major but "more are better" "less are better" in some of the graphs made me wonder.nastyemu25 - Tuesday, November 30, 2004 - link
I agree, let's see a Sony HS-94P/B with x-black technology review!ocyl - Tuesday, November 30, 2004 - link
Should have dropped Benq's colour scores to 2 (or 1, even) for its decision to use a 6-bit panel instead of a True Colour (8-bit) one :PFilibuster - Tuesday, November 30, 2004 - link
>I think there have to be gamers here, and I do not think LCDs are there yet when it comes to refresh rates; it would have been nice to see the refresh rates on the monitors at 1024, 1280, and 1600.LCD displays don't have a refresh rate at any resolution. There is no flicker to be worried about.
Ensign - Tuesday, November 30, 2004 - link
In the Intro, it says, "A reasonably cheap, new 21" CRT runs for about $350; a reasonably cheap, new 21" LCD runs for about $330." I'm guessing that was supposed to say 17" or 19" LCD?MAME - Tuesday, November 30, 2004 - link
thank god the dell 2001fp is the (2nd) best one here. I got it for $650 a few days ago on a whim. The reviews are kinda mixed but there's a 21 day return policy. Problem is, it's 21 days from the invoice and the expected shipping date would put the LCD in my hands AFTER that time. Thus, I couldn't return it even .1 seconds after receiving it :-/Alas, it seems the monitor is a good choice nonetheless and I should have decent product on my hands soon. My eyes can't wait!
Peter - Tuesday, November 30, 2004 - link
Because that's a barenaked LCD Panel, not a finished product?Azsen - Tuesday, November 30, 2004 - link
Hi, why does no-one have any information on this monitor:http://www.samsung.com/Products/TFTLCD/Monitors_n_...
19" 8ms response, 600:1 ratio
Peter - Tuesday, November 30, 2004 - link
Regarding the aspect ratio: If someone had taken the time to actually MEASURE, they would have found that all those LCD panels that sport a 1280x1024 resolution actually do measure 5:4, thus having correct aspect ratio at that resolution. Moot point, actually.(Running a CRT at 1280x1024 is wrongwrongwrong, though.)
Peter
ceefka - Tuesday, November 30, 2004 - link
#4 Jeff7181: LCD's use less power, take up less space (especially from 19" on) and produce less interference and heat. That times 2 if you are working with 2 screens. If a CRT works for you, then fine. It's not so much ignorance as it is choice.KristopherKubicki - Tuesday, November 30, 2004 - link
D0rkIRL: Thanks for the catch. Fixed.bookem dano: We know of the problem and we should have it fixed soon.
klah: I was only aware of Xbitlabs doing so. We feel that the methods for measuring reponse time thus far are OK, but not represent gray to gray response time measurements well. Its something we are working on and we will probably have a better methodology before the next roundup.
Kristopher
bookem dano - Tuesday, November 30, 2004 - link
For some reason while looking at this article, my cpu was pegged at 100%.I tried IE, Net, FIre, all same thing. Quite annoying.
carlivar - Tuesday, November 30, 2004 - link
OK so the tips at the beginning say to get a monitor with the correct aspect ratio such as 1280x960 resolution. I agree. Then all of the monitors reviewed (other than the Dell) have 1280x1024, which they specifically warn against.I know that most 19" LCDs are 1280x1024 but couldn't they at least have explained why this is?
And actually, why is this?! I don't understand the popularity of 1280x1024 instead of 1280x960! IT DOES NOT MAKE ANY SENSE.
Googer - Tuesday, November 30, 2004 - link
You will have to pry MY CRT from my cold dead hands before I let an LCD connect to my Graphics Card.klah - Tuesday, November 30, 2004 - link
"The TrTf response time is normally a pretty useless measurement - but it makes for an easy specification in which to market LCDs. "Why not provide us with a graphs of response times across the entire spectrum? There are at least 2 sites that do so now: X-bit and Tom's.
soki - Tuesday, November 30, 2004 - link
We want to see some reviews of the new wave of 19'' LCDs. Like the sony HS-94P/B with x-black technology, viewsonic VP912b or some 10 bit eizo monitors.. When?UlricT - Tuesday, November 30, 2004 - link
umm... page #4"The time that it takes the LCD to go from black to white may be 15ms while the time that it takes the LCD to go from black back to white may be 10ms"
could be kinda confusing for the noob there. You guys really need an editorial staff :D
screech - Tuesday, November 30, 2004 - link
#4 true.....i have also heard that working at a CRT monitor for 8 or more hours a day doubles the chances of glaucoma.....so it might be safer going LCD (for the eyes)........anyway.....Jeff7181 - Tuesday, November 30, 2004 - link
Man... I guess ignorance is bliss... I'm perfectly happy with the image quality of my $80 17 inch CRT... I can't imagine paying over $500 for a monitor unless you're doing graphics work as a profession.D0rkIRL - Tuesday, November 30, 2004 - link
Why does the Dell 2001FP have a 25ms typical response time while on your older review you state it as having a 16ms typical response time?The pixel pitch changed from .255mm to .55mm.
Any reason behind these?
skunkbuster - Tuesday, November 30, 2004 - link
just out of curiosity, what happens to all these lcds after they are reviewed?KingofFah - Tuesday, November 30, 2004 - link
I think there have to be gamers here, and I do not think LCDs are there yet when it comes to refresh rates; it would have been nice to see the refresh rates on the monitors at 1024, 1280, and 1600.I still haven't found a monitor better than a high quality, high res trinitron.