Jared - Take a look at HP's Business/Performance monitors for four new IPS models and two PVAs.
While I've never seen a PVA monitor, one thing I've read in serious user discussions is how they are made for photo professionals and not for use with typical web/office/standard applications. For the latter, these monitors' colors are oversaturated and the text mediocre or worse. Users who have bought them for the latter frequently complain and are advised to return them for something more for the consumer market. The common theme is that these monitors are made for use with Adobe Photoshop and to some degree with other color-managed applications (of which Firefox is the only browser).
I did try a Dell 2209WA E-IPS recently, actually two samples, and found them to be very good monitors for everyday use, with the big exception for my purposes that the model's minimum brightness setting (0%) is equivalent to a bright office. That didn't work well with my moderate day lighting and evening darkness (and aging hazel eyes).
I got my FP241VW a couple of months ago after I was lucky enough to find it for sale online, and brand new to boot!
While I did get a dead pixel (fortunately it was low enough that it didn't hinder my viewing much), the display is the closest thing to perfection in terms of an all-purpose LCD, especially for gaming. With my Pantone Huey, I have it calibrated and, boy, do the colors come out!
I bought a Samsung SM275T and although I am very happy with it, I find the readability of small anti-aliased text to be not as good as I expected. I find the reason to be that each pixel is in fact made of two pixels on that monitor. Both subpixels combine to double the number of different colors the monitor can display. I find that in some cases one subpixel is on while the one below is off.
This creates a dithering effect and somehow interacts with antia-liased text. The net effect is that I find small text to be harder to read )or I should say recognize). I compared with an analog monitor and with a 720P LCD tv and I am quite sure that using two subpixels the way Samsung does it is not the way to go for a monitor that is intended for general use.
The other point is that vertical viewing angles are very important to me on a portable computer screen. Since my vision is not that good I sometimes need to move my head closer to the screen and this movement changes the angle of view. This is why I find laptops (TN) very difficult to use. People with normal vision can do everything from a single position and the vertical angle of view might not be as important for them.
I meant twice the number of gray levels of course (re. twice the number of colors) but why Samsung has done all that work of doubling the number of pixels just to gain one bit in the number of gray levels.
If both sub-pixels have a slightly different number of levels, say sub-pixel No.1 has four levels of gray 0,1,2,3 and sub-pixel No.2 has 6 0,1,...,5 then the number of achiveable gray levels is 24 out of 31. They are 0, 3/15, 5/15, 6/15, ... up to 2.
The light coming through sub-pixel No.1 is l1/3 and the light through No.2 is l2/5. The total light through both is (l1*5 + l2*3)/15.
The 24 achivable levels out of the possible 31 are, (going from 0 to 30): 1001011011111111111111101101001.
If one scales those numbers up then one sees why Samsung can do much better than double the number of gray levels by using two sub-pixels instead of a single pixel.
I just wish to clarify my statement about the readability of small size anti-aliased text on the SM275T. I double checked with my older analog SM950P that I run at 1600x1200. From a distance, the small text is definitely much easier to read on the SM275T.
I am a bit annoyed by the dithering effect when I take my glasses off so I can get close to the screen. From that short range, small size text looks smooth on the analog screen while artifacts appear on the SM275T.
However even at this small range the text on the SM275T is still readable while it is not really so on the analog screen.
Just wanted to say great review, it mirrored my sentiments exactly.
P-MVAs (A-MVAs perhaps not as much) were incredible displays. Found in $300 24" soyos I was amazed how much better they were than pre-highgamut S-PVAs in every regard(color response and even slightly in gamma shift). When AUO stopped their entire MVA line it was party over for cheap high quality displays, as Samsung thinks alittle too highly of it PVA technology.
Although I still have an LG 24" with a P-MVA, my other two recent additions were H-IPS HP2475w. Great deals at $600 and worth every penny and then some, but still not bending the price curve down enough. TN has its place, but not in anything over $150 imho.
Beats the heck out of any LCD made to date. Yeah they were $2500 when they were made, but that would likely be much less now, especially if it were made for gamers not professionals and priced to sell properly to that market.
Sorry, I just had to say it; maybe there's a Sony exec that reads Anandtech and will get sparked, lol!
Thanks, Jarred, for the efforts that you've put into writing this article. Here is a bit of idea sharing :)
1. You might be interested to check out NEC's MultiSync P221W (S-PVA, 1000:1 contrast, black level control, GammaComp, sRGB preset, 4-way adjustable stand, 16ms response time; $500) and the newly announced E222W (looks like a PVA given its 178º viewing angle; 1000:1 contrast, sRGB preset, 4-way adjustable stand, 5ms response time; $270). I spent two weeks of time on research when I was in the market for a new TFT-LCD monitor last November. I ended up purchasing a NEC MultiSync LCD1990SX (LTM190E4 PVA, 1500:1 contrast, ColorComp, OmniColor, black level control, sRGB preset, 4-way adjustable stand, 20ms response time; $480) and couldn't have been happier.
2. As we know, scaling is one of the main contributors to processing delay. While I don't currently own a Radeon and therefore don't know if this can be done in Catalyst, it's possible to relieve monitor from scaling tasks in ForceWare. There are four options available at nVidia Control Panel -> Display -> Change Display (Flat Panel) Scaling: Use nVidia Scaling, Use nVidia Scaling with Fixed Aspect Ratio, Use My Display's Built-in Scaling, and Do Not Scale. I don't have measuring equipment so I can't perform any meaningful investigation, but perhaps it's something that AnandTech may find worthwhile looking into.
A list of the best LCDs would include all of the old generation 30", the Soyo 24" and the Acer 2616w, there isnt a single LCD launched on the last 12 months that can offer more bang for the buck than these good old pals.
Putting a lot of features and technology on a 24"TN panel is like spending money customizing and upgrading an entry level car: it doenst matter that it has 0,0001ms response time: it is still a TN panel!! A Fiesta is a Fiesta, no matter how powerful the supercharged engine. NO TN panel has been able to truly defeat even the lame $250 Soyo 24".
Ya what are you a TN-Film lover or something? This article is great and reminds me of all those LCD articles that we used to get from behardware/hardware.fr. I miss those greatly.
I just cant bother myself to point them out mostly. Its not my job to do it, so why dont you find it out yourself. That being said, i guess i could copy paste some false info from the article without validating them though
"Response Time 6ms GTG 6ms GTG 6ms GTG Typically 2ms GTG"
marketing figures, none come close to actual values
"Also note that TN panels do not natively reproduce 8-bit color spectrums, relying instead on dithering and interpolation (switching rapidly between the two closest gray levels) to expand their 6-bit panels into pseudo-8-bit displays."
not the fact. there is only a few monitors which work the mentioned way. Most dont. Instead they have 8 bit processing and the panel is cabable of 16,3 million colors instead of 24 bits (8 bit colors) which would be 16,7m. And why just gray levels?
"Pixel response times are another bloated statistic, with claimed response times of as low as 1ms for some TN panels and most now stating 2ms GTG (gray to gray) In theory, that would mean refresh rates of up to 500 Hz would be possible with no image persistence between frames."
No. Theres pretty much more what matters, so it just doesnt work that way. Also it was greay to gray time. (either article writer doesnt really know what he was writing about or he just forgot what he wrote in around 5 seconds.
"That's not to say TN isn't a bit faster, but the difference is small enough that most users won't notice; either the response time will be "slow" on any LCD (relative to a CRT), or else it will be fast enough that you won't care."
Looks like the person who wrote the article doesnt know whats thing called overdrive in lcds. (actually doesnt seem to know very much about lcds in general)
"Processing lag is potentially related to pixel response time."
Not really, overdrive usually adds processing and removes response though.
"We don't know for sure if the lag comes after the crystal matrix receives a new voltage or if it comes before the voltage change, but we do know that of the tested panel technologies currently available"
Processing time as a name doesnt ring any bells? Its not like the display connector is connected straight to the panel.. The panel doesnt really have (about) any input lag. So this shoots this theory he just obviously made up out of the window.
"Processing lag can also come from hardware scalers used to support other resolutions, the prime example being Dell's 3008WFP. Even at native resolution, that display reportedly has anywhere from 10ms to 50ms of processing lag (depending on the revision that was tested). We have not seen any similar issues with other panels, most likely because scalers for lower resolutions have been around for quite a while and have been tweaked for optimal performance."
So all delays have to be in some magical scaler. Not exactly, theres actually more than just this magical scaler there.
"We also haven't tested any IPS panels outside of 30" LCDs, so we don't know for sure how IPS fares at other resolutions. Given 30" panels command a price premium, they may perform better overall than the smaller IPS displays; however, we believe IPS panels inherently process images as fast as any other LCD technology. "
Processing is not inside the panel. Processing is another part of the monitor than the panel. Therefore paneltype does not equal fast or slow processing. Ips is commonly used in large lcds and used for jobs where input lag doesnt really matter. Like image editing.
"Finally, it's worth noting that we have not been able to compare any LCD panel to a CRT for processing lag - we don't have access to any good CRTs anymore for comparison. Anecdotal evidence suggests that the best LCDs may still introduce a 15-30ms lag relative to a CRT. For better or worse, LCDs are here to stay and CRTs are a dying breed, so we'll constrain processing lag comparisons to LCDs and other newer panel technologies (i.e. OLED, SED, plasma, etc.)"
Well you could have read this from somewhere else as well. And theres not really this 15-30 ms for all lcd monitors.
"One of the areas where the A-MVA panel does extremely well is in the areas of display lag and pixel response time. Just to recap, you may have heard complaints about "input lag" on various LCDs, so that's one area we look at in our LCD reviews. We put input lag in quotation marks because while many people call it "input lag", the reality is that this lag occurs somewhere within the LCD panel circuitry, or perhaps even at the level of the liquid crystals. Where this lag occurs isn't the concern; instead, we just want to measure the duration of the lag. That's why we prefer to call it "processing lag" or "display lag"."
Yeah, so they didnt know that the input cable doesnt control the panel.
This is where i stopped reading this article. btw I just wasted half an hour for this comment. I could spend 3 hours to type about panels, techniques, processing chips, .... but i just decided not to.
Most of your comment was nitpicking and name calling. The so-called factual errors consist of you complaining when I quote manufacturer numbers and then point out how they're inflated and meaningless... but then they're not when YOU decide they're not. For example, overdrive is not a panacea (you chastise for quoting response times and then promote overdrive which supposedly improves response times - but only in certain transitions).
As for TN panels, they are indeed 6-bit with dithering, which is why they get 16.3 million colors - the dithering can't do anything at the extremes of the spectrum, hence the loss of .4 million colors. More to the point, they are 6-bit grays, or didn't you know that LCDs don't actually have "colors"? They have a crystal matrix that lets a certain amount of light through, and there are 64 (6-bit) or 256 (8-bit) levels of opacity. The RGB coloring comes from the use of color filters over the individual cells. That's why we call them 6-bit and 8-bit panels rather than 18-bit and 24-bit panels. But then, that's nitpicking as well, isn't it?
Half of your comments make no sense: "No. Theres pretty much more what matters, so it just doesnt work that way. Also it was greay to gray time. (either article writer doesnt really know what he was writing about or he just forgot what he wrote in around 5 seconds." Ignoring your horrible grammar and spelling, the only intent in that sentence appears to be insulting me. The whole point was to show that 2ms as a claimed response time is BS - look at the images, and explain how I can get image persistence of at least 17ms on a 2ms panel.
Your biggest complaint seems to be the portion on processing lag, which can come from processing, or from delays in the crystal matrix. I can't tell you that it's 100% processing, or 80% processing and 20% in the crystal matrix, or where the split is. Even if it is all processing, how much of it is for overdrive, how much is for image quality concerns, and what about scalers? Well, it can be all of those items, which is what I was saying. You on the other hand want to pretend just because I don't give specifics on what the processing is doing, I don't know anything.
I suppose somehow you're better and more knowledgeable because you've read reviews at Prad.de? I've read their site as well, and it's fine for what it does. Are they perfect? Nope. Are we perfect? Nope. For example, I read their HP w2408h review and they rate it "Very Good". I thought the display was overpriced and generally mediocre, in a large part because of the TN panel and glossy coating. I've tested and used panels that cost less money and perform just as well, or they cost the same and perform better. But I suppose somehow their review is better because ... well, because you like them more.
This was a great article. In my opinion there's no more important component in a system than a high quality monitor. It just kills me that people are flocking to TN monitors that are just such pieces of crap. I'm still waiting for my "perfect" monitor so I can upgrade my old Dell 2405. What I want doesn't exist and I have my doubts if it ever will. Here's my perfect specs... if anyone knows of a monitor that comes close to this let me know.
* 24 or 30" (I'd consider a 22 or 23 if it had very high resolution so the pixel pitch was super small)
* 1920 x 1200 minimum resolution (2560 x 1600 with a 30")
* IPS Panel (i'd consider a superlative PVA, TN is the spawn of satan)
* Glossy surface (Yeah, I know... I love glossy because glare doesn't bother me)
* 120Hz refresh support so I have the 3D option should I so desire
* 2 DVI inputs or 1 DVI and at least one other digital input (HDMI)
* LED Backlighting
I had high hopes for Apple's new LED monitor, but then they jacked me with the stupid mini display port connection and laptop only branding. I also looked at a Hanzro but they seem kinda sketchy.
Thanks for writing this article. It's good to see someone in an official capacity bemoan the move (backwards) to TN panels in the LCD market. IPS is indeed better (most of the time) than PVA/MVA, and it really comes down to many display makers being cheap and lazy instead of innovative enough to bring a better panel (like IPS-based panels) out at a better price.
As long as my 2007WFP lasts I'll stick with it until a 24" IPS model is available with proven low latency/input lag for a decent price (not a rip-off).
I am useing a samsung 2493HM and have no problems at all with the monitor plays games fantastic although I have the speakers disconected Too small for what I am useing
BUT it is hard to find one anymore so I checked out the Samsung site and found a range of monitors T220R,T240R,T260R with out speakers but it does not say what pannels they use
The http://www.anandtech.com/displays/showdoc.aspx?i=3...">2493HM is a TN panel, so you really can't get any "worse" in terms of panel type. There are better and worse TN panels, of course, and the 2493HM was actually good as far as TN goes. Like other TN, it also doesn't have any perceptible lag, which is another plus. If you're happy with the 2493HM, you should be okay with most other displays, provided they do well in other areas.
I am someone who lives "off the grid". I get my power from solar and while I now have quite a number of panels and batteries I still want low power consumption. I wish more manufacturers would be more truthful about how much power their monitors use. I would like to see the websites who test monitors test the power consumption in variety of ways and consistently.
I read a lot of gripes about monitors. It is surprising to me that there are not websites devoted exclusively to monitors.
Yes, I have followed that site, darklight. I think it is very good. It is the only one I know of.
Jarred, thanks for that info. All I have to go on are things like the specifications at the 'Egg. Good to know.
I realize power consumption can only be so low and most are interested in other aspects. I am interested in those things, too, Just weigh things differently.
I usually test power draw, Geraldo, but neglected to do that with this LCD. Usually, the max power draw they list (<95W) is at least 50% higher than it what I've measured. I'd expect this LCD to consume more like ~60W at full brightness, or 50-55W with the brightness calibrated to around 200 nits.
"The reference Monitor is an HP LP3065, which we have found to be one of the best LCDs we currently possess in terms of not having display lag. (The lack of a built-in scaler probably has something to do with this.) While we know some of you would like us to compare performance to a CRT, that's not something we have around our offices anymore."
Sorry, but no. It serves no point other than to add a large, heavy item to my already crowded office. I'm not comparing with CRTs because 99% of people aren't using or buying CRTs. Either a display has less lag than the LP3065 or it has more lag; it is merely a reference point. If you want to read about how LCDs compare to CRTs, plenty of sites have attempted to cover that topic.
At least one high profile site that can actually make a difference is paying this issue some attention, and i have to thank you for that!
I particularly like the last part of the article which looks to the future, as in my opinion we still haven't hit a quality stage that truly knocks on CRT's door. Sure, in term of viewing angles, colour, brightness, etc, it's all there, and you can't deny the benefits of LCD's (foot print, etc). But 60hz is just plain poor and i honestly cannot wait for it to fade off the planet. 120hz is vastly superior.
One last thing. It's possible most of these TN film users who just "don't care" about the sacrificial quality never came from a background of using high quality CRT's. It's very difficult, even today, to move from a 21" professional CRT to ANY LCD and not feel you've compromised in some areas, namely the smooth and snappy response these things have. I have a feeling 120hz will bridge the gap far enough that it'll be very hard to notice any downsides to LCD technology over CRT's. But for a 24" LCD to have 120hz, its going to need display port (or at least, not DVI), and with hardly any graphics cards supporting this yet, what TFT maker would introduce one? They are certainly coming, but right now, as you rightly say, the tech is there, ready and waiting, but the market isn't.
PS, also want to say that trying to get S-IPS/PVA in notebooks is also a great service to us out there who dream of this day, again, thanks for trying to highlight this issue :)
Dual-link DVI can do 120Hz at 1920x1200 - it's twice the bandwidth of single-link DVI. Most modern GPUs also support dual-link, but right now to my knowledge only 30" LCDs require it.
I have the Benq FP241w, the older version of this model (without the lag-reduction technology). It is still widely available for around £350. Well worth it.
It has 1:1 pixel-mapping, brilliant viewing angles, colour, adjustable / rotating stand etc.
Another example of older monitor better than the majority of newer more expensive ones.
The HP LP2475w is meant to be brilliant also - although probably more like £450......
THANKS A LOT
for reviewing the real lag, instead of the "pixel response time".
Is the reason for I keep my CRT monitor instead of upgrading to a LCD. I really would like to update to a LCD, but never found a LCD without "phantoms". Vendors lie, lie, and lie about 5 ms response time, but when you see the images, they are really crappy.
This is somewhat hidden by the blur effect on some games, but I hate the blur effect, and ever disable it.
Most LCD monitors on exhibition shows only static or slow motion images, and I know why: they can't show fast framerates without ghosts.
I cannot buy a monitor until I see it working, but most retail vendors do not show the monitor working with fast moving images, so I absolutely crave for benchmark articles reviewing it.
I even written to nvidia.com forum asking for driver support. Drivers should include a calibration tool for remediation of this lagging ghosts. A possible enhancement would be to display the new framerate substracting a dimmed quantity of the former frame, so ghosts gets somewhat hidden, but got no answer from nvidia. Maybe they have really high quality monitors, and don't understand the need for it, so please, if you are reading this article, go to nvidia/ATI, forums/support, and ask for it.
Thanks a lot. I hope this kind of reviews generalize on internet, so LCD really improve.
My biggest concerns with monitors are Viewing angles first, then response times, (I don't care if it's processing or pixel lag or input lag I shouldn't EVER see ANY ghosting or be seeing 1 or 2 frames behind what my computer is processing and outputting), then contrast ratios and brightness and last is color accuracy. I'm completely satisfied with my current 20" Sceptre's color accuracy. It's a HELL of a lot better than my Dell Studio Laptop, that thing is so far off it's "almost" funny; but not really cause it's also kinda pissing me off. I AM NOT satisfied with the viewing angles, I use cardboard to prop up the back of it to angle down so the image isn't mucked up when I watch tv on it; it has tilt, it just doesn't tilt far enough.
AUO seems to have focused on using AMVA and AMVA3 (their latest tech) only on LCD TVs. The only way to get their good stuff is to buy a 32" 1080p LCD TV using their panel. If you look at their current monitor production, it's literally ALL tn-film. Depressing to the extreme.
Going by B5 analogies. Looks like E-IPS is now our last best hope for good LCD panels. S-PVA would interest me more if there was less input lag, but E-IPS seems to have a good chance of giving us good viewing angles + decent panel speed. Now if we could only get LED backlights + 120hz + ergonomic stands in a 16:10 format over a wide variety of sizes, then we'd be in business. I can't imagine that some company out there wouldn't see an opportunity for premium lcd monitors that hardcore gamers/photography/graphics lovers would love to have at moderate prices. I think this area is a completely unrealized market opportunity.
I also really dislike the 16:9 format for LCD monitors. It's takes away the balance between fullscreen and widescreen that we have with 16:10. Another cost cutting move that annoys me greatly.
LED backlights on computer LCDs seem to be a very low priority for manufacturers right now. The focus for that tech seems to be LCD TVs, which is disappointing. I'm beginning to think we'll see OLED computer displays before LED backlight LCDs at the rate they're going! The other problem with the LED backlighting is many manufacturers have been pairing it with TN panels. Its like putting a V8 into an econobox.
E-IPS looks to be very good, but one of the reasons I went with S-PVA despite the display lag possibility is contrast is a weak point for IPS technology, and that was an important feature to me. Plus, it wasn't widely available in the screen size I was looking for.
If they make 120hz PC LCDs available, I want it to be TRUE 120hz, not the crap they've been selling with LCD TVs. I've seen "120hz" TVs and its obvious that it is an image processing technology that emulates 120hz, and it looks like crap. My friend has it on his TV, and I had to make him turn it off because it was so distracting.
To be fair, the bulk of the 120Hz technologies in TV's (particularly flat panel sets) exists solely for de-judder purposes. It conveniently lets you display 24 fps, 30 fps, and 60 fps content at an even multiple.
My Sony TV is a 120 Hz TV - I think that there are 2 things that it's used for:
1. "Motion Smoothing" - very cool but super-annoying technology that smooths out and essentially interpolates intermediate frames in slower than 120Hz content. It's somewhat distracting with film - you can think of it as watching a movie, but filmed with a modern high end digital video camera. The "action" is interpolated to appear more than 24 Frames per second. I don't like it.
2. Solid de-juddering. Since most TV's are 60 Hz, when showing content that isn't an exact multiple of 60, the TV has to do some pulldown to get the image to appear right on the TV (the so-called 3:2 pulldown). The 120 Hz "fixes" that, since you don't need to do any complicated pulldown algorithms to get the proper effect.
Since there is no 120 Hz content available that you'd normally watch on a TV (games displayed from a very high-performance computer being the only exception I can think of), I think that it's mostly a marketing talking point.
So, no, generally, the 120 Hz TV's are actually 120 Hz TV's - they do update the display ever 1/120th of a second. However, given LCD's inability to fully RENDER a new pixel that fast is a whole 'nuther issue. 120 Hz translates to 8.333 ms response time necessary to actually change the image on screen.
On top of all that there has been a disturbing move to 16:9 displays. I know they are trying to standardize things, but I really like the extra real estate offered by 16:10. I guess I'm going to have to keep my DELL 2709W until something amazing comes along or it explodes.
Second that. I want a 42" 1920x1200 monitor to replace my living room TV, but no such beast exists, they're all 1920x1080. Talk about frustrating.
The interesting thing about "voting with your wallet" is you can only vote from a selection of what the manufacturers offer you, there's no way to vote for a new product that none of them currently offer. These days, my wallet has been staying closed...
The market for LCDS has been terrible for over a year now. Basically all the high quality non-tn films have been discontinued with a few rare exceptions. Also all the high quality height adjustable stands are mostly gone, which makes it almost impossible to put lcds in a position that doesn't cause back/neck/carpel tunnel/etc issues. It's idiotic what we have these days.
I'm lucky I have two older dell models that are non-tn film at work and a similar one at home, all with adjustable stands. 1905FP and 2001FP to the rescue. Sadly I can't even imagine changing these out for any new model, because in general the new models are WORSE. I consider myself stuck with these models until a miracle happens.
Now for a secondary screen, generally the best solution I've found for a good panel is to get a 32" LCD TV 1080P. That's one of the only ways to get a moderately usable screen at a low price, which also has FAR more inputs than any Lcd monitor. You can't get $600 Lcd Monitors that are 32" with 3-4 hdmi inputs and massive amounts of composite/component/s-video. The only huge negative is the low resolution, but 1080P is certainly liveable and great as a secondary video watching device.
I've got a Dell 2407WFP but that's being reallocated so I'm planning to get the Dell 2407WFP. H-IPS screen, portrait rotation, fantastic quality, low latency etc
After using this particular monitor as my primary display at home for well over a year I have fairly decent experience with it. Nearly all of my concerns are reflected in this review. Having said that there are a few aspects I would like to point out:
The input lag varies significantly from inputs and resolution. Using DVI at 1920x1200 yields the lowest while analogue at any other resolution is significantly higher. Using any of the different lighting modes adds lag as well. For my purposes I have them turned off.
VGA also seems to be quite washed out. It has troubles with certain timings as well including XBOX360 where it cannot compensate for the overscan. The composite inputs are reasonable although when scaled any signal distortion is amplified significantly.
Of course, the fluorescent backlight is annoying. As a previous commenter has implied that using LCDs do not result in headaches, that is far from the truth. Once manufacturers move towards LED backlighting hopefully some of that will be alleviated. To date I have been unsuccessful at tracking down a suitable LED panel to swap into this monitor. The non-adjustable backlighting is also significantly annoying in low light conditions with some bleeding, although fairly consistent throughout the panel appearing gray.
The headphone connection only working for audio over HDMI just seems silly. They should have included an analogue pass-through.
Prior to purchasing this monitor I was aware of most of these issues and they are consistent between screens. Some people have buyer's pride and dismiss it or do not see them to begin with. Despite this, I am quite happy with this monitor and have not found a better replacement for my uses where viewing angles, input lag (over DVI), and composite inputs are paramount.
I think the reason that the trend with LCDs is simply to make them cheaper and not better has a lot to do with there being no meaningful specifications that the consumer can use to compare one monitor to another. In many cases, you can't even tell what kind of panel is being used. (Imagine buying a CRT monitor and not being able to easily tell whether it was a shadow-mask or an aperture grill tube.)
With no meaningful information about the monitor in its technical specifications, the only thing the consumer can easily determine is relative price differences.
At this point, it is pretty clear that the industry manufacturing LCDs has no motivation to redress this on their own. I don't know who might be in the best position try to change this, but outside pressure (if not outright regulation) needs to be applied, if there is any hope of making manufacturers compete on a level playing field, when it comes to what a particular monitor really is capable of.
I suspect that respected professional computer hardware review publications, such as Anandtech, could wield some clout in pursuit of this end, and I hope that they pick up the banner.
I agree. The panel type should be disclosed in the specifications for all LCDs so the consumer knows what they are getting. Right now you have trudge through the bowels of the Internet just to find what panel is being used for a particular display, since most of the time it isn't disclosed.
The technical specifications are also suspect because the "tests" used aren't standardized or controlled in any meaningful fashion. That's how you can have 2ms LCDs that really are 10ms or higher. Same thing with contrast ratios, especially dynamic ones. I'm just waiting for the LCD that has Infinity:1 contrast ratio. That's the one for me!
Companies will never do this for one big reason. Profit. They profit from the lack of real specifications on lcds that allows them to make even low end lcds seem to be good. And most people don't care at all. We're the few that actually try to give good advice on avoiding crap lcds, but we can't fight against the huge tide of mindless consumers.
Don't forget the other reason a lot of companies don't like to disclose the type of LCD panel they use: they don't want to be "locked in" to a specific LCD panel. If they were to advertise that the display uses, for example, an S-PVA panel, they wouldn't be able to switch to less expensive TN down the road -- or perhaps IPS or MVA. High quality displays generally don't change panels midway through the production run, but the same can't be said of less expensive models.
No kidding. I remember all that panel lottery madness with those Samsung TN-films such as the 226BW. It was ridiculous when there were 4 possible panels you could receive from one monitor model. Same thing with the Dell IPS/S-PVA lottery from long ago. It's dishonest how little they care about the quality of the product that we get.
I'm glad my friend got a Benq FP241W with a similar MVA panel to the one you just reviewed a couple years ago for around $600. Probably the best pickup for a 24" at the time. (and he was lucky not to experience problems like some have).
The lag numbers for the Dell 2408WFP are incorrect as of revision A01, which replaced A00 four months ago. A01 lag is significantly reduced and identical to the 2407WFP A04. I have had all three screens at once to verify this.
If you would like to be able to buy a ThinkPad or other business-class notebook with a premium screen, please take the survey at the above url when you can spare a couple of minutes.
I spent a few months doing research, trying to find a 24" replacement for my really old DELL 2001FP.
It more or less came down to the DELL 2408WFP and the HP LP2475w. But I just read too many negative reviews, calibration issues, etc. to feel that either was a safe bet of my $550.00 USD.
What am I looking for? 24". 1920x1200. 1080P. 16:9. Something "approved" by photographers for photo editing / color accuracy. But something that can also be a decent gaming monitor when needed. Something that will allow me to be on the net for hours without causing too much eye fatigue. And finally costs around $500 or less.
In the end, I quit my search for now, unsatisfied with current market offerings. If the "Stickied LCD" thread in the Video Cards & Graphics forum is any indication, I am not the only frustrated person out there.
I bought the hp 2475w to replace my old Dell 2001FP model. I don't have any complaints about it. The color is better than the Dell was. I wound up using both monitors, however, as I have the space on my desktop for both of those monitors. It's nice to have the side monitor (relegating the 2001FP to side monitor ... heh heh) for "other tasks" while focusing on the main monitor. Plus, they're about the same vertical size.
Again, I haven't noticed any real complaints with the 2475w beyond what I'd also complain about the 2001FP. In fact, the brightness appears better and more uniform.
I (and I hope smarter people allow me to say "we") do NOT want high color gamut, because there is simply no support for it...
until it is supported on OS level, 99% of the applications that 99% of the people use simply look like crap :(
stop supporting this wide gamut bullshit please!!
I want to see what I'm supposed to see and not some over saturated crap
and even if you are a graphics artist using correct wide gamut hardware / software: what is the point in it? 99% of the people will see the image wrong anyway...
Hence that's why I think most of the users commenting here aren't really in the business to even use, appreciate or know what they're getting. It's all about having the best but now knowing what to do with it. That's just my opinion of course.
Now before anyone starts getting upset, I am still in the printing business dealing with credit cards and checks. I can tell you from numerous research and seminars that most people really don't care, don't know or don't appreciate what some of these technologies provide. And rightly so because it's a niche market.
You said "In the case of the FP241VW, color accuracy and color gamut are lower than average, but that a better backlight could address that shortcoming."
I'd agree the factory accuracy of the FP241VW is not good, but the fact that it was always a standard gamut display is/was an advantage. We get caught up in numbers and forget that in regards to gamut, for 99% of the users out there sRGB gamut is more than good enough, and is preferable to the over saturated reds and greens of wide gamut panels, which is something that so far even Windows 7 has not been able to properly address.
In my experience the Samsung S-PVA panels used in these monitors lag: Dell 2408WFP, 2709W, Samsung 245T, 275T Plus. There is noticeable input lag where the mouse cursor plays "catch up" with what the mouse hand is doing. I had an FP241VW and it never displayed this characteristic in DVI or VGA. It goes to show that some people will notice it, and others won't.
I understand, but it is getting tiring to constantly get beaten over the head with that info, as is done in this article.
I think PVA gets a bad rap, and I think the lag has more to do with the image scalers than it does with the panel technology itself. Just look at the reviews for the S-IPS 3008WFP. There are the same complaints from a few users about input lag on that display, and one of the main changes from the 3007WFP was the addition of an image scaler. All of the PVA displays you mention have scalers as well.
That said, despite all of the hype you read on the Internet over lag, there are probably tons of very happy PVA users (including myself) playing games on their PVA displays, oblivious to any lag.
Indeed I have two Samsung 214T 21" 4:3 PVA panels and they are super sharp and I see no ghosting or 'catch up' whatsoever.
Running through COD4/BF2/EVE etc. etc.
As stated above I dont think its the panels. I reckon its the case of more expensive panel so often the manufacturer will cut corners on the other electronics inside to make it hit a price point.
PVA's are fine. However, as with any monitor purchase, if you are serious about screen quality...do your homework!
Been using PVA screens pretty exclusively for gaming for around 3 years now. Havent noticed or seen any performance/screen lag issues in all that time.
Maybe you are thinking back to the turn of the century screens?
Agreed. I've owned the DELL 2707WFP and recently upgraded to the 2709W and never experienced any lag with either one. I guess it just depends on the user.
Well that's just goofy that Americans can't buy it, lol!
I don't want a larger dot pitch anyway for a monitor, which is why I use 1920x1200 @ 24" (.27 dot pitch). The 26" 2600 models are 1920x 1200 too, and have a .287 dot pitch; too big imo. Got more 'screen door' effect already than I like.
well AU optronics made P-MVA and then it was replaced by the newer and much improved A-MVA,the sony Z4xxx series of lcd uses the AMVA which are as good as the S-PVA in viewing angles and contrast.
AU optronics never made S-MVA which is made by CMO or chi me optronics.
Sorry for the error - I get stuck thinking of everything "Super" whatever and forget that MVA used P and now A. Anyway, this is an AUO LCD panel and the S-MVA references have been fixed. :-)
there were quite a few 16:10 panels that had 170 degree viewing angles or better, which is enough for my monitor uses, which include using it as a tv. And LCD televisions generally have 178 degree viewing angles.
So WHY are ALL the 16:9 widescreen displays 160 degree viewing angles??? Were the 16:10 monitors not TN panels??? I thought they were. So yeah, I understand getting cost down, and I'm not willing to pay much more than 200 for a monitor; so I don't want cost going up. But why are viewing angles so terrible on these new 16:9 monitors than use TN panels when the slightly older 16:10 monitors had better viewing angles??
That needs to change NOW!!!!!!!!!! Also EVERY monitor should be LED backlit; and I'd pay a little more for RGB LED backlit.
All the older 24" LCDs were S-PVA initially, and TN is only recently coming into favor there. I think the first TN 24" LCDs showed up maybe 18 months back. The problem is, the advertised viewing angles are bunk. Maintaining a 10:1 contrast ratio is NOT "viewable" by any stretch of the imagination, and that doesn't take into account color shifting seen on TN displays. Anyway, if it says more than 170 degrees on the vertical viewing angle, it's *probably* not a TN panel.
if those monitors that said 170+ vertical viewing angles weren't TN panels AND the price got down UNDER 200 dollars for a 22" then apparently whatever panel they were wasn't very expensive. So there's no reason to not use them. Also, I agree, how they test viewing angles needs to change. I shouldn't see ANY darkening of the image or shadowing when I'm looking down on or looking up at my monitor.
Also, anandtech needs a way to email us when someone replies to out comments on here; and preferably have us be able to read the comment and respond if we want ALL in the email.
"For better or worse, LCDs are here to stay and CRTs are a dying breed"
A bit off topic to the review itself, but since you mentioned it: At the time LCDs were taking over the market, they were 2-3 times more expensive than CRTs. They absolutely could not compete in speed (input lag was unknown before LCDs came around), they absolutely could not compete in viewing angles (idem), They could not compete in color and contrast, they absolutely could not compete in "natural look" (things look perfectly natural in a CRT monitor and very unnatural in a LCD one). And obviously, they could not compete in price. Yet, 90%+ of the people buying a new monitor were choosing an LCD. Why?
The obvious advantage of LCDs was exterior design. They're very good looking monitors when compared with the ugly and bulky CRTs. But then again, is exterior design so important for something like a monitor as to pay 3 times more for something 10 times worse??? Oh, LCDs were a new technology, I guess some people also like anything new (even if worse). But...
Still a mystery to me... (writing this using my -very- old CRT).
"The obvious advantage of LCDs was exterior design. They're very good looking monitors when compared with the ugly and bulky CRTs."
No, the obvious advantage is weight and volume. It is much easier to find a place to park a screen (especially a larger one), when you don't have have as much room in back of it as to the sides.
Now I'll admit that I never used a top-quality CRT (best I have ever used were some large ViewSonics) but IMO the only advantage they hold over even 5-year old LCDs is the viewing angles (vs TN). LCDs don't vibrate all over the place, they don't need fooling around with the video card to keep refresh rates up, text is actually sharp, and, of course, you can get a decent sized one without worries about lifting it.
CRTs are much better than LCDs at certain things. The reverse is also true.
If you have very good eyes, looking at an LCD is like looking through a screen door. You can see the small divisions between pixels easily.
By contrast, CRTs have much richer pictures, without these barriers.
I hated LCDs, but bought one anyway just to give them a try. When I am using it, I get used to all the flaws of it, and don't mind it at all. Then when I look at a CRT, I'm annoyed by the moire issues, and other irregularities. This is at higher resolutions though, at lower resolutions, the CRT is just better except for logistics. So, I really prefer the LCD when that's what I've been using. But, if I am using a CRT, and then go to an LCD, it looks lifeless and dull, and the screen door issue irritates the Hell out of me.
Anything at or less than 800x600 is clearly the advantage of the CRT. It's got few if no issues, and has much better color saturation. Above that though, where it really matters, it's really personal preference. No one can say that one is clearly better than the other, they are better at different things and we all have to make a choice (well, it's almost been made for us now). Heck, I can't even say which I prefer. I do like the low glare of LCDs a lot though, but now I see some with mirror like finishes. That's really strange. I don't know why people would want these, especially on a laptop with a lot of ambient light.
It depends on what you're comparing: a top quality CRT to a typical LCD at launch, yes, the CRT would win in most areas. But...
LCDs have perfect geometry when using a digital signal, they weigh less, brightness levels look better on most models, and did I mention size? LOL... Actually, the geometry adjustment stuff on CRTs is one thing I'm happy to NEVER have to do again. Trapezoidal, rotational, pincushion, etc. distortion sucked, and you had to adjust for each resolution and refresh rate.
What I miss - and the only thing I really miss! - is the 100+ Hz refresh rates. Even the current 120Hz LCDs don't generally do a 120Hz signal (that would require dual-link DVI at 1920x1200); they just refresh the content more frequently. (I might be wrong on this - some displays may actually support a 120Hz signal?) Oh, and I suppose I also miss true blacks on occasion, but with most games being developed on LCDs there were times when having "true black" was a problem (i.e. Doom 3 - I thought the game was unplayable until I tried it on my then-new 2405FPW LCD).
If you want to find a quality monitor, review an Eizo. They've been the best monitors for 20 years, and you can't compare junk from BenQ, ViewSonic, et al with them. The only problem is cost, but, if you're just focused on quality, nothing comes close.
Prove me wrong. Review one of their high end monitors and then see if you hit the UPS man over the head when he comes to take it back.
Once you get used to them, it's a hard habit to break, and an expensive habit to keep.
That was true 20 years ago when we all had CRT's - it was very hard to beat an Eizo / Nanao in picture quality.
However, the LCD era kind of changed all of that. Eizo makes some nice panels, sure, but they're really not the best. There's a couple of superb NEC monitor out there at the 1200-2200 price range (the 2490 and 3090 models), plus at least 2 HP 24" monitors (the 2475w and 2480zs) that are as good or better than anything Eizo puts out.
I think the "problem" now is that there are only a few manufacturers of the panels, so there's only so much any reseller can do.
Even back 20 years ago, only a certain amount of companies made shadow masks too. Nanao did not make their own, but, yet, their screens were the best. It's not as simple as you make it sound.
It's actually possible that NEC might make a better monitor in some instance, although I've never seen it, but, by and large, Eizo is much better. You know when you're looking at an Eizo.
The picture quality is much better than NEC, or anyone else. I'll say this though, I have had uneven reliability with Eizo. Some monitors have been fine, and but more than there should be died quickly or had intermittent problems they should not have. This happens with all monitors, of course, but, in my small sample set, Eizo monitors have had more problems than others, but a small degree.
Clearly, all that money is put into picture quality, not reliability.
Our internal graphics department recently moved to 24" Eizo monitors at $1700 a pop and HATE them. They are inconsistent across the display, and are no better than the standard DELLs we use for the rest of the environment. They had high expectations for those displays and were really let down and the Eizo rep was no help at all. Its funny how communication diminished as soon as the sale was completed.
It's funny, because two people where I work got two Eizo's, and everyone wants them, and comments on them.
Even on independent reviews, when they actually do get reviewed, they always are rated extremely highly, except for price. I don't know why your experience would be so much different, but, it sounds like you guys are either stupid (for not looking at the monitors first before buying a bunch), or it's made up.
Probably the latter, since no one would buy a monitor that was really expensive without seeing it and judging it first.
Wow, a whole two people. What a great example you have there.
We have a whole department with them (almost 20 monitors) and while they work okay, most of them don't live up to the price tag. As I said, the colors aren't consistent across the display, even after calibration (yeah, us stupid people actually know how to do that). This happens with pretty much every one we have. We didn't buy them sight unseen either, which would have been pretty moronic. I think it is the backlight that causes many of the issues, which is unfortunate. I hope LED backlight displays help with this problem.
Who cares if they are reviewed well? I have them here in person and they don't live up to the price OR the reviews.
Calling me stupid, how mature. How about not judging me based on your own limited experience?
See, that's the problem: server CPUs start out as super fast but the tech makes its way to consumer products. The same thing has happened with GPUs, HDDs, RAM, etc. to varying degrees - it's all substantially cheaper now and performance has improved. But LCDs? Well, Eizo makes high quality LCDs, certainly, but they cost an arm and a leg. The cheapest 24" Eizo (taking a quick look) is over $800, with other models costing $1500 or more. They may be the best displays on the market, but what I want is to see that quality make its way into $500 LCDs.
Not going to happen. Well, maybe eventually the cheapos arrive at todays quality of Eizo, but then Eizo would have moved beyond that again. :P
Quality and spending a few hundred bucks just doesnt go together. Buy Eizo and be happy for many, many years - not only due to the 5 years on-site warranty (not that I've ever had to make use of it, though..)
I've been using of those old Soyo 24" with the MVA I got for $250 a few years back, its great, has all the advantages of MVA and color is very accurate with my spyder. At school we have 24" iMacs and the screen is just friggin amazing. It's just so much better than everything else out there. A lot of it has to do with the glossy screen. So here's to a 24" 16:10 screen with gloss for a reasonable price one day.
I got crazy trying to play Crisys 2 at the morning on a glossy monitor. There was no way to see clearly the image without reflections. There was no way to accommodate the monitor to reduce reflex.
glossy is an absolute crap. I hate it from gut.
The glossy vs. matte debate is one of those areas that comes down to personal preference. Me, I really dislike glossies - and I know plenty of others that feel the same. However, I also know people that prefer glossy displays. More power to 'em, but I'm not going to encourage the trend. :-)
- Vizio 32" LCD Full HDTV (VO32LFHDTV10A) - $527 at Sam's Club US
I've swapped out my 20" Apple Cinema Display for this 32" TV and I was completely shocked at the quality of the panel. If you run your image through one of the HDMI inputs text looks crisp and it even can run PIP for watching TV while working.
I am a creative director and so I spend a lot of time staring at screens working on print, web, and television programs... I would like to have an LED back lit screen but for the money this thing is ridiculous.
Are there any major different between panel type in terms of power consumption?
And i really do hope either TN solve their "in-viewable" vertical viewing angle. ( Sorry "poor" in your article simply would not justify it ) with special coating that has been developed for a long time but there are yet wide spread of use.
Or E-IPS will give the best performance per dollar. TN is possible the worst invention for Display Monitor history in All times.
I found an missing-box demo model at a local computer store for $250, but I passed on it seeing the noticable lag between moving the mouse and seeing the cursor respond. That, and the asinine stand, made me keep looking. I hate my 22" Gateway monitor (it does a terrible job dithering) but I'm not going to spend money on virtually the same thing as a replacement, either (i.e. any other new monitor).
I tried to buy an IPS 24" HP monitor a few months ago (lp2475w) but the distributor I attempted to order from jacked the price up $200 (from $700 Canadian to nearly $900 - ouch) in the time between me placing the order and it shipping, so I just cancelled.
Then... I just gave up entirely because I realize I spend 99% of my computer time on my MacBook Pro now and I have to live with its LCD. Ha.
Why not just buy directly from hp? They have it for 729 Canadian dollars. Was it really that much cheaper when you got it from the distributor than directly from hp?
Sorry for the error; I have clarified things now I hope. You're right that it first came out in 2007, but I believe it was announced early 2007 and actually available round about Sept/Oct. Anyway, it is discontinued, unfortunately just around the time the pricing was becoming desirable. You can find them online still at some places, but no major resellers carry them anymore so you'll have to take a bit of a chance if you buy one these days.
"The vast majority of LCDs these days are TN panels, and the trend appears to be moving even more in that direction. With a soft economy, many are looking for any way to save money, and even those who really like quality displays may be willing to settle for a less expensive TN panel"
It's a real shame the tendency towards TN these days. Most consumers are just not informed as to the much more satisfying experience given by PVA/IPS panels.
If you can get someone to sit in front of a TN and high quality monitor side by side that is usually enough to settle it, of course for some image quality is not a concern. For the enthusiast hardware user though, it usually is.
I have an older LG246WP-BN which is a fantastic screen with great quality as well as a Dell 2408. Reading this article has made me think my eyes are bad though, as I prefer the IQ on my LG to the Dell, which according to this review ought to be superior with it's more modern panel tech.
Consumers are mostly going to want something average with a good low price. This isn't going to go away. And on most of their part they don't really care whether it's a TN panel or better because as long as it's "clear" and they like it then they'll buy it.
I'll use myself as an example. I have 2 Dell 3007wfp-hc, 1 2407wfp, 2 22" viewsonics, 1 Acer 24" with TN, and 1 Acer 22" with TN. My main computer uses the 3007's of course but even when I switch to the other panels I rarely care. That's because the content I'm working with really doesn't require the extra 5-15% gamut, high contrast and so forth.
Now if I really really care about colors, brightness, details and what have you then sure I'll spend the extra money on better panels and features. But then again why wouldn't I spend it on the medical LCDs :)
I am pretty sure many of you commenting about wanting/needing a better than TN panel actually don't care whether you do or not on a daily basis. If you do you'll be a stickler like my co-worker who spends time paying attention to ghosting, blurs, etc EVERY time he uses his TV. I'm pretty sure many of you don't do this nor have the time to do this. If you do then....well, no comment. :)
I have been keenly looking out for e-IPS monitors because they're supposed to be the 'new wave' of high-quality affordable LCDs, and the Dell '2209WA' e-IPS lived up to expectations judging by the good reviews, but it's too small for me.
I was glad to see on Wikipedia's page of "Dell monitors" the 24" e-IPS '2410WA' listed with 1920×1200 and DisplayPort, OMFG sounds perfect!
It would be hard for it to be *worse* than TN, but there aren't a lot of E-IPS displays right now. Maybe you're right and that will change; that's my hope. There are other IPS displays available (HP's 24" IPS model for example), but the trend is definitely towards TN panels right now. Boo!
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
114 Comments
Back to Article
genegold - Saturday, August 15, 2009 - link
Jared - Take a look at HP's Business/Performance monitors for four new IPS models and two PVAs.While I've never seen a PVA monitor, one thing I've read in serious user discussions is how they are made for photo professionals and not for use with typical web/office/standard applications. For the latter, these monitors' colors are oversaturated and the text mediocre or worse. Users who have bought them for the latter frequently complain and are advised to return them for something more for the consumer market. The common theme is that these monitors are made for use with Adobe Photoshop and to some degree with other color-managed applications (of which Firefox is the only browser).
I did try a Dell 2209WA E-IPS recently, actually two samples, and found them to be very good monitors for everyday use, with the big exception for my purposes that the model's minimum brightness setting (0%) is equivalent to a bright office. That didn't work well with my moderate day lighting and evening darkness (and aging hazel eyes).
gking11 - Thursday, August 6, 2009 - link
I got my FP241VW a couple of months ago after I was lucky enough to find it for sale online, and brand new to boot!While I did get a dead pixel (fortunately it was low enough that it didn't hinder my viewing much), the display is the closest thing to perfection in terms of an all-purpose LCD, especially for gaming. With my Pantone Huey, I have it calibrated and, boy, do the colors come out!
Without further ado, here's the direct link to the site where I bought it from (it's $385 as of this post, I bought it for $400 then): http://www.entercomputers.com/benq-fp241vw-24-wide...">http://www.entercomputers.com/benq-fp24...l?SID=cf...
*Running away from stampede!*
rlx - Sunday, July 19, 2009 - link
Two points often disregarded in reviews.I bought a Samsung SM275T and although I am very happy with it, I find the readability of small anti-aliased text to be not as good as I expected. I find the reason to be that each pixel is in fact made of two pixels on that monitor. Both subpixels combine to double the number of different colors the monitor can display. I find that in some cases one subpixel is on while the one below is off.
This creates a dithering effect and somehow interacts with antia-liased text. The net effect is that I find small text to be harder to read )or I should say recognize). I compared with an analog monitor and with a 720P LCD tv and I am quite sure that using two subpixels the way Samsung does it is not the way to go for a monitor that is intended for general use.
The other point is that vertical viewing angles are very important to me on a portable computer screen. Since my vision is not that good I sometimes need to move my head closer to the screen and this movement changes the angle of view. This is why I find laptops (TN) very difficult to use. People with normal vision can do everything from a single position and the vertical angle of view might not be as important for them.
Richard
rlx - Wednesday, July 22, 2009 - link
I meant twice the number of gray levels of course (re. twice the number of colors) but why Samsung has done all that work of doubling the number of pixels just to gain one bit in the number of gray levels.If both sub-pixels have a slightly different number of levels, say sub-pixel No.1 has four levels of gray 0,1,2,3 and sub-pixel No.2 has 6 0,1,...,5 then the number of achiveable gray levels is 24 out of 31. They are 0, 3/15, 5/15, 6/15, ... up to 2.
The light coming through sub-pixel No.1 is l1/3 and the light through No.2 is l2/5. The total light through both is (l1*5 + l2*3)/15.
The 24 achivable levels out of the possible 31 are, (going from 0 to 30): 1001011011111111111111101101001.
If one scales those numbers up then one sees why Samsung can do much better than double the number of gray levels by using two sub-pixels instead of a single pixel.
Maybe I learned something from my typo.
rlx - Tuesday, July 21, 2009 - link
I just wish to clarify my statement about the readability of small size anti-aliased text on the SM275T. I double checked with my older analog SM950P that I run at 1600x1200. From a distance, the small text is definitely much easier to read on the SM275T.I am a bit annoyed by the dithering effect when I take my glasses off so I can get close to the screen. From that short range, small size text looks smooth on the analog screen while artifacts appear on the SM275T.
However even at this small range the text on the SM275T is still readable while it is not really so on the analog screen.
- Sunday, July 19, 2009 - link
Just wanted to say great review, it mirrored my sentiments exactly.P-MVAs (A-MVAs perhaps not as much) were incredible displays. Found in $300 24" soyos I was amazed how much better they were than pre-highgamut S-PVAs in every regard(color response and even slightly in gamma shift). When AUO stopped their entire MVA line it was party over for cheap high quality displays, as Samsung thinks alittle too highly of it PVA technology.
Although I still have an LG 24" with a P-MVA, my other two recent additions were H-IPS HP2475w. Great deals at $600 and worth every penny and then some, but still not bending the price curve down enough. TN has its place, but not in anything over $150 imho.
Sabresiberian - Thursday, July 9, 2009 - link
Beats the heck out of any LCD made to date. Yeah they were $2500 when they were made, but that would likely be much less now, especially if it were made for gamers not professionals and priced to sell properly to that market.Sorry, I just had to say it; maybe there's a Sony exec that reads Anandtech and will get sparked, lol!
Mr Bill - Friday, June 26, 2009 - link
I bought this monitor last fall from BenQ for $400 just before they went out of production. I wish I had bought two. Its a very nice monitor.ocyl - Thursday, June 25, 2009 - link
Thanks, Jarred, for the efforts that you've put into writing this article. Here is a bit of idea sharing :)1. You might be interested to check out NEC's MultiSync P221W (S-PVA, 1000:1 contrast, black level control, GammaComp, sRGB preset, 4-way adjustable stand, 16ms response time; $500) and the newly announced E222W (looks like a PVA given its 178º viewing angle; 1000:1 contrast, sRGB preset, 4-way adjustable stand, 5ms response time; $270). I spent two weeks of time on research when I was in the market for a new TFT-LCD monitor last November. I ended up purchasing a NEC MultiSync LCD1990SX (LTM190E4 PVA, 1500:1 contrast, ColorComp, OmniColor, black level control, sRGB preset, 4-way adjustable stand, 20ms response time; $480) and couldn't have been happier.
2. As we know, scaling is one of the main contributors to processing delay. While I don't currently own a Radeon and therefore don't know if this can be done in Catalyst, it's possible to relieve monitor from scaling tasks in ForceWare. There are four options available at nVidia Control Panel -> Display -> Change Display (Flat Panel) Scaling: Use nVidia Scaling, Use nVidia Scaling with Fixed Aspect Ratio, Use My Display's Built-in Scaling, and Do Not Scale. I don't have measuring equipment so I can't perform any meaningful investigation, but perhaps it's something that AnandTech may find worthwhile looking into.
ocyl - Friday, July 17, 2009 - link
NEC announces MultiSync EA231WMi, a 23" IPS monitorhttp://www.techpowerup.com/99491/NEC_Unveils_Multi...">http://www.techpowerup.com/99491/NEC_Un...t_23_inc...
geok1ng - Monday, June 22, 2009 - link
A list of the best LCDs would include all of the old generation 30", the Soyo 24" and the Acer 2616w, there isnt a single LCD launched on the last 12 months that can offer more bang for the buck than these good old pals.Putting a lot of features and technology on a 24"TN panel is like spending money customizing and upgrading an entry level car: it doenst matter that it has 0,0001ms response time: it is still a TN panel!! A Fiesta is a Fiesta, no matter how powerful the supercharged engine. NO TN panel has been able to truly defeat even the lame $250 Soyo 24".
Balleroes - Sunday, June 21, 2009 - link
This article has very much of factual errors. You should almost discard everything you read.: /
tomoyo - Tuesday, June 23, 2009 - link
Ya what are you a TN-Film lover or something? This article is great and reminds me of all those LCD articles that we used to get from behardware/hardware.fr. I miss those greatly.Balleroes - Wednesday, June 24, 2009 - link
Your comment expresses your own idiotism "tn lover"?, you may want to keep your mouth shut since you sound wiser then.Dainas - Sunday, July 19, 2009 - link
as would you.JarredWalton - Monday, June 22, 2009 - link
It helps if you point out the "factual errors". Otherwise you're just blowing smoke in the wind.Balleroes - Wednesday, June 24, 2009 - link
I just cant bother myself to point them out mostly. Its not my job to do it, so why dont you find it out yourself. That being said, i guess i could copy paste some false info from the article without validating them though"Response Time 6ms GTG 6ms GTG 6ms GTG Typically 2ms GTG"
marketing figures, none come close to actual values
"Also note that TN panels do not natively reproduce 8-bit color spectrums, relying instead on dithering and interpolation (switching rapidly between the two closest gray levels) to expand their 6-bit panels into pseudo-8-bit displays."
not the fact. there is only a few monitors which work the mentioned way. Most dont. Instead they have 8 bit processing and the panel is cabable of 16,3 million colors instead of 24 bits (8 bit colors) which would be 16,7m. And why just gray levels?
"Pixel response times are another bloated statistic, with claimed response times of as low as 1ms for some TN panels and most now stating 2ms GTG (gray to gray) In theory, that would mean refresh rates of up to 500 Hz would be possible with no image persistence between frames."
No. Theres pretty much more what matters, so it just doesnt work that way. Also it was greay to gray time. (either article writer doesnt really know what he was writing about or he just forgot what he wrote in around 5 seconds.
"That's not to say TN isn't a bit faster, but the difference is small enough that most users won't notice; either the response time will be "slow" on any LCD (relative to a CRT), or else it will be fast enough that you won't care."
Looks like the person who wrote the article doesnt know whats thing called overdrive in lcds. (actually doesnt seem to know very much about lcds in general)
"Processing lag is potentially related to pixel response time."
Not really, overdrive usually adds processing and removes response though.
"We don't know for sure if the lag comes after the crystal matrix receives a new voltage or if it comes before the voltage change, but we do know that of the tested panel technologies currently available"
Processing time as a name doesnt ring any bells? Its not like the display connector is connected straight to the panel.. The panel doesnt really have (about) any input lag. So this shoots this theory he just obviously made up out of the window.
"Processing lag can also come from hardware scalers used to support other resolutions, the prime example being Dell's 3008WFP. Even at native resolution, that display reportedly has anywhere from 10ms to 50ms of processing lag (depending on the revision that was tested). We have not seen any similar issues with other panels, most likely because scalers for lower resolutions have been around for quite a while and have been tweaked for optimal performance."
So all delays have to be in some magical scaler. Not exactly, theres actually more than just this magical scaler there.
"We also haven't tested any IPS panels outside of 30" LCDs, so we don't know for sure how IPS fares at other resolutions. Given 30" panels command a price premium, they may perform better overall than the smaller IPS displays; however, we believe IPS panels inherently process images as fast as any other LCD technology. "
Processing is not inside the panel. Processing is another part of the monitor than the panel. Therefore paneltype does not equal fast or slow processing. Ips is commonly used in large lcds and used for jobs where input lag doesnt really matter. Like image editing.
"Finally, it's worth noting that we have not been able to compare any LCD panel to a CRT for processing lag - we don't have access to any good CRTs anymore for comparison. Anecdotal evidence suggests that the best LCDs may still introduce a 15-30ms lag relative to a CRT. For better or worse, LCDs are here to stay and CRTs are a dying breed, so we'll constrain processing lag comparisons to LCDs and other newer panel technologies (i.e. OLED, SED, plasma, etc.)"
Well you could have read this from somewhere else as well. And theres not really this 15-30 ms for all lcd monitors.
"One of the areas where the A-MVA panel does extremely well is in the areas of display lag and pixel response time. Just to recap, you may have heard complaints about "input lag" on various LCDs, so that's one area we look at in our LCD reviews. We put input lag in quotation marks because while many people call it "input lag", the reality is that this lag occurs somewhere within the LCD panel circuitry, or perhaps even at the level of the liquid crystals. Where this lag occurs isn't the concern; instead, we just want to measure the duration of the lag. That's why we prefer to call it "processing lag" or "display lag"."
Yeah, so they didnt know that the input cable doesnt control the panel.
This is where i stopped reading this article. btw I just wasted half an hour for this comment. I could spend 3 hours to type about panels, techniques, processing chips, .... but i just decided not to.
If you want to read something about these things http://www.prad.de">http://www.prad.de is pretty good place to start.
JarredWalton - Thursday, June 25, 2009 - link
Most of your comment was nitpicking and name calling. The so-called factual errors consist of you complaining when I quote manufacturer numbers and then point out how they're inflated and meaningless... but then they're not when YOU decide they're not. For example, overdrive is not a panacea (you chastise for quoting response times and then promote overdrive which supposedly improves response times - but only in certain transitions).As for TN panels, they are indeed 6-bit with dithering, which is why they get 16.3 million colors - the dithering can't do anything at the extremes of the spectrum, hence the loss of .4 million colors. More to the point, they are 6-bit grays, or didn't you know that LCDs don't actually have "colors"? They have a crystal matrix that lets a certain amount of light through, and there are 64 (6-bit) or 256 (8-bit) levels of opacity. The RGB coloring comes from the use of color filters over the individual cells. That's why we call them 6-bit and 8-bit panels rather than 18-bit and 24-bit panels. But then, that's nitpicking as well, isn't it?
Half of your comments make no sense: "No. Theres pretty much more what matters, so it just doesnt work that way. Also it was greay to gray time. (either article writer doesnt really know what he was writing about or he just forgot what he wrote in around 5 seconds." Ignoring your horrible grammar and spelling, the only intent in that sentence appears to be insulting me. The whole point was to show that 2ms as a claimed response time is BS - look at the images, and explain how I can get image persistence of at least 17ms on a 2ms panel.
Your biggest complaint seems to be the portion on processing lag, which can come from processing, or from delays in the crystal matrix. I can't tell you that it's 100% processing, or 80% processing and 20% in the crystal matrix, or where the split is. Even if it is all processing, how much of it is for overdrive, how much is for image quality concerns, and what about scalers? Well, it can be all of those items, which is what I was saying. You on the other hand want to pretend just because I don't give specifics on what the processing is doing, I don't know anything.
I suppose somehow you're better and more knowledgeable because you've read reviews at Prad.de? I've read their site as well, and it's fine for what it does. Are they perfect? Nope. Are we perfect? Nope. For example, I read their HP w2408h review and they rate it "Very Good". I thought the display was overpriced and generally mediocre, in a large part because of the TN panel and glossy coating. I've tested and used panels that cost less money and perform just as well, or they cost the same and perform better. But I suppose somehow their review is better because ... well, because you like them more.
dver - Saturday, June 20, 2009 - link
This was a great article. In my opinion there's no more important component in a system than a high quality monitor. It just kills me that people are flocking to TN monitors that are just such pieces of crap. I'm still waiting for my "perfect" monitor so I can upgrade my old Dell 2405. What I want doesn't exist and I have my doubts if it ever will. Here's my perfect specs... if anyone knows of a monitor that comes close to this let me know.* 24 or 30" (I'd consider a 22 or 23 if it had very high resolution so the pixel pitch was super small)
* 1920 x 1200 minimum resolution (2560 x 1600 with a 30")
* IPS Panel (i'd consider a superlative PVA, TN is the spawn of satan)
* Glossy surface (Yeah, I know... I love glossy because glare doesn't bother me)
* 120Hz refresh support so I have the 3D option should I so desire
* 2 DVI inputs or 1 DVI and at least one other digital input (HDMI)
* LED Backlighting
I had high hopes for Apple's new LED monitor, but then they jacked me with the stupid mini display port connection and laptop only branding. I also looked at a Hanzro but they seem kinda sketchy.
yacoub - Saturday, June 20, 2009 - link
Thanks for writing this article. It's good to see someone in an official capacity bemoan the move (backwards) to TN panels in the LCD market. IPS is indeed better (most of the time) than PVA/MVA, and it really comes down to many display makers being cheap and lazy instead of innovative enough to bring a better panel (like IPS-based panels) out at a better price.As long as my 2007WFP lasts I'll stick with it until a 24" IPS model is available with proven low latency/input lag for a decent price (not a rip-off).
Gazz - Friday, June 19, 2009 - link
I am useing a samsung 2493HM and have no problems at all with the monitor plays games fantastic although I have the speakers disconected Too small for what I am useingBUT it is hard to find one anymore so I checked out the Samsung site and found a range of monitors T220R,T240R,T260R with out speakers but it does not say what pannels they use
JarredWalton - Saturday, June 20, 2009 - link
The http://www.anandtech.com/displays/showdoc.aspx?i=3...">2493HM is a TN panel, so you really can't get any "worse" in terms of panel type. There are better and worse TN panels, of course, and the 2493HM was actually good as far as TN goes. Like other TN, it also doesn't have any perceptible lag, which is another plus. If you're happy with the 2493HM, you should be okay with most other displays, provided they do well in other areas.fredsnotdead - Friday, June 19, 2009 - link
"... an apparently single-minded focus on reducing costs and pricing ..."Unfortunately, that seems to be all we Americans are interested in.
Geraldo8022 - Friday, June 19, 2009 - link
I am someone who lives "off the grid". I get my power from solar and while I now have quite a number of panels and batteries I still want low power consumption. I wish more manufacturers would be more truthful about how much power their monitors use. I would like to see the websites who test monitors test the power consumption in variety of ways and consistently.I read a lot of gripes about monitors. It is surprising to me that there are not websites devoted exclusively to monitors.
darklight0tr - Friday, June 19, 2009 - link
You mean like this one?http://tftcentral.co.uk/">http://tftcentral.co.uk/
Its a pretty good site.
Geraldo8022 - Friday, June 19, 2009 - link
Yes, I have followed that site, darklight. I think it is very good. It is the only one I know of.Jarred, thanks for that info. All I have to go on are things like the specifications at the 'Egg. Good to know.
I realize power consumption can only be so low and most are interested in other aspects. I am interested in those things, too, Just weigh things differently.
JarredWalton - Friday, June 19, 2009 - link
I usually test power draw, Geraldo, but neglected to do that with this LCD. Usually, the max power draw they list (<95W) is at least 50% higher than it what I've measured. I'd expect this LCD to consume more like ~60W at full brightness, or 50-55W with the brightness calibrated to around 200 nits.Mumrik - Friday, June 19, 2009 - link
"The reference Monitor is an HP LP3065, which we have found to be one of the best LCDs we currently possess in terms of not having display lag. (The lack of a built-in scaler probably has something to do with this.) While we know some of you would like us to compare performance to a CRT, that's not something we have around our offices anymore."Buy one then!
JarredWalton - Friday, June 19, 2009 - link
Sorry, but no. It serves no point other than to add a large, heavy item to my already crowded office. I'm not comparing with CRTs because 99% of people aren't using or buying CRTs. Either a display has less lag than the LP3065 or it has more lag; it is merely a reference point. If you want to read about how LCDs compare to CRTs, plenty of sites have attempted to cover that topic.james jwb - Thursday, June 18, 2009 - link
At least one high profile site that can actually make a difference is paying this issue some attention, and i have to thank you for that!I particularly like the last part of the article which looks to the future, as in my opinion we still haven't hit a quality stage that truly knocks on CRT's door. Sure, in term of viewing angles, colour, brightness, etc, it's all there, and you can't deny the benefits of LCD's (foot print, etc). But 60hz is just plain poor and i honestly cannot wait for it to fade off the planet. 120hz is vastly superior.
One last thing. It's possible most of these TN film users who just "don't care" about the sacrificial quality never came from a background of using high quality CRT's. It's very difficult, even today, to move from a 21" professional CRT to ANY LCD and not feel you've compromised in some areas, namely the smooth and snappy response these things have. I have a feeling 120hz will bridge the gap far enough that it'll be very hard to notice any downsides to LCD technology over CRT's. But for a 24" LCD to have 120hz, its going to need display port (or at least, not DVI), and with hardly any graphics cards supporting this yet, what TFT maker would introduce one? They are certainly coming, but right now, as you rightly say, the tech is there, ready and waiting, but the market isn't.
james jwb - Thursday, June 18, 2009 - link
PS, also want to say that trying to get S-IPS/PVA in notebooks is also a great service to us out there who dream of this day, again, thanks for trying to highlight this issue :)JarredWalton - Thursday, June 18, 2009 - link
Dual-link DVI can do 120Hz at 1920x1200 - it's twice the bandwidth of single-link DVI. Most modern GPUs also support dual-link, but right now to my knowledge only 30" LCDs require it.james jwb - Friday, June 19, 2009 - link
ah that's good to know, and now you've said it, pretty obvious!stubey - Thursday, June 18, 2009 - link
I have the Benq FP241w, the older version of this model (without the lag-reduction technology). It is still widely available for around £350. Well worth it.It has 1:1 pixel-mapping, brilliant viewing angles, colour, adjustable / rotating stand etc.
Another example of older monitor better than the majority of newer more expensive ones.
The HP LP2475w is meant to be brilliant also - although probably more like £450......
marraco - Wednesday, June 17, 2009 - link
THANKS A LOTfor reviewing the real lag, instead of the "pixel response time".
Is the reason for I keep my CRT monitor instead of upgrading to a LCD. I really would like to update to a LCD, but never found a LCD without "phantoms". Vendors lie, lie, and lie about 5 ms response time, but when you see the images, they are really crappy.
This is somewhat hidden by the blur effect on some games, but I hate the blur effect, and ever disable it.
Most LCD monitors on exhibition shows only static or slow motion images, and I know why: they can't show fast framerates without ghosts.
I cannot buy a monitor until I see it working, but most retail vendors do not show the monitor working with fast moving images, so I absolutely crave for benchmark articles reviewing it.
I even written to nvidia.com forum asking for driver support. Drivers should include a calibration tool for remediation of this lagging ghosts. A possible enhancement would be to display the new framerate substracting a dimmed quantity of the former frame, so ghosts gets somewhat hidden, but got no answer from nvidia. Maybe they have really high quality monitors, and don't understand the need for it, so please, if you are reading this article, go to nvidia/ATI, forums/support, and ask for it.
Thanks a lot. I hope this kind of reviews generalize on internet, so LCD really improve.
marraco - Wednesday, June 17, 2009 - link
http://forums.nvidia.com/index.php?showtopic=99591">http://forums.nvidia.com/index.php?showtopic=99591marraco - Wednesday, June 17, 2009 - link
here is a link to the nvidia forum where you can ask for this driver feature:marraco - Thursday, June 18, 2009 - link
This is the link for ATI/AMD:http://forums.amd.com/forum/messageview.cfm?catid=...">http://forums.amd.com/forum/messageview...=347&...
marraco - Tuesday, June 23, 2009 - link
I got an answer from ATI:http://forums.amd.com/game/messageview.cfm?catid=2...">http://forums.amd.com/game/messageview....279&...
It looks like such feature is implemented at least for video.
Hrel - Wednesday, June 17, 2009 - link
My biggest concerns with monitors are Viewing angles first, then response times, (I don't care if it's processing or pixel lag or input lag I shouldn't EVER see ANY ghosting or be seeing 1 or 2 frames behind what my computer is processing and outputting), then contrast ratios and brightness and last is color accuracy. I'm completely satisfied with my current 20" Sceptre's color accuracy. It's a HELL of a lot better than my Dell Studio Laptop, that thing is so far off it's "almost" funny; but not really cause it's also kinda pissing me off. I AM NOT satisfied with the viewing angles, I use cardboard to prop up the back of it to angle down so the image isn't mucked up when I watch tv on it; it has tilt, it just doesn't tilt far enough.tomoyo - Wednesday, June 17, 2009 - link
AUO seems to have focused on using AMVA and AMVA3 (their latest tech) only on LCD TVs. The only way to get their good stuff is to buy a 32" 1080p LCD TV using their panel. If you look at their current monitor production, it's literally ALL tn-film. Depressing to the extreme.http://auo.com/auoDEV/products.php?sec=monitor&...">http://auo.com/auoDEV/products.php?sec=...mp;func=...
JarredWalton - Wednesday, June 17, 2009 - link
And the worst part is that the page starts out by talking about how great AMVA is... and then they only have TN panels listed. Ugh....tomoyo - Wednesday, June 17, 2009 - link
Going by B5 analogies. Looks like E-IPS is now our last best hope for good LCD panels. S-PVA would interest me more if there was less input lag, but E-IPS seems to have a good chance of giving us good viewing angles + decent panel speed. Now if we could only get LED backlights + 120hz + ergonomic stands in a 16:10 format over a wide variety of sizes, then we'd be in business. I can't imagine that some company out there wouldn't see an opportunity for premium lcd monitors that hardcore gamers/photography/graphics lovers would love to have at moderate prices. I think this area is a completely unrealized market opportunity.I also really dislike the 16:9 format for LCD monitors. It's takes away the balance between fullscreen and widescreen that we have with 16:10. Another cost cutting move that annoys me greatly.
darklight0tr - Wednesday, June 17, 2009 - link
LED backlights on computer LCDs seem to be a very low priority for manufacturers right now. The focus for that tech seems to be LCD TVs, which is disappointing. I'm beginning to think we'll see OLED computer displays before LED backlight LCDs at the rate they're going! The other problem with the LED backlighting is many manufacturers have been pairing it with TN panels. Its like putting a V8 into an econobox.E-IPS looks to be very good, but one of the reasons I went with S-PVA despite the display lag possibility is contrast is a weak point for IPS technology, and that was an important feature to me. Plus, it wasn't widely available in the screen size I was looking for.
If they make 120hz PC LCDs available, I want it to be TRUE 120hz, not the crap they've been selling with LCD TVs. I've seen "120hz" TVs and its obvious that it is an image processing technology that emulates 120hz, and it looks like crap. My friend has it on his TV, and I had to make him turn it off because it was so distracting.
erple2 - Monday, June 22, 2009 - link
To be fair, the bulk of the 120Hz technologies in TV's (particularly flat panel sets) exists solely for de-judder purposes. It conveniently lets you display 24 fps, 30 fps, and 60 fps content at an even multiple.My Sony TV is a 120 Hz TV - I think that there are 2 things that it's used for:
1. "Motion Smoothing" - very cool but super-annoying technology that smooths out and essentially interpolates intermediate frames in slower than 120Hz content. It's somewhat distracting with film - you can think of it as watching a movie, but filmed with a modern high end digital video camera. The "action" is interpolated to appear more than 24 Frames per second. I don't like it.
2. Solid de-juddering. Since most TV's are 60 Hz, when showing content that isn't an exact multiple of 60, the TV has to do some pulldown to get the image to appear right on the TV (the so-called 3:2 pulldown). The 120 Hz "fixes" that, since you don't need to do any complicated pulldown algorithms to get the proper effect.
Since there is no 120 Hz content available that you'd normally watch on a TV (games displayed from a very high-performance computer being the only exception I can think of), I think that it's mostly a marketing talking point.
So, no, generally, the 120 Hz TV's are actually 120 Hz TV's - they do update the display ever 1/120th of a second. However, given LCD's inability to fully RENDER a new pixel that fast is a whole 'nuther issue. 120 Hz translates to 8.333 ms response time necessary to actually change the image on screen.
darklight0tr - Wednesday, June 17, 2009 - link
On top of all that there has been a disturbing move to 16:9 displays. I know they are trying to standardize things, but I really like the extra real estate offered by 16:10. I guess I'm going to have to keep my DELL 2709W until something amazing comes along or it explodes.hyc - Thursday, June 18, 2009 - link
Second that. I want a 42" 1920x1200 monitor to replace my living room TV, but no such beast exists, they're all 1920x1080. Talk about frustrating.The interesting thing about "voting with your wallet" is you can only vote from a selection of what the manufacturers offer you, there's no way to vote for a new product that none of them currently offer. These days, my wallet has been staying closed...
tomoyo - Wednesday, June 17, 2009 - link
The market for LCDS has been terrible for over a year now. Basically all the high quality non-tn films have been discontinued with a few rare exceptions. Also all the high quality height adjustable stands are mostly gone, which makes it almost impossible to put lcds in a position that doesn't cause back/neck/carpel tunnel/etc issues. It's idiotic what we have these days.I'm lucky I have two older dell models that are non-tn film at work and a similar one at home, all with adjustable stands. 1905FP and 2001FP to the rescue. Sadly I can't even imagine changing these out for any new model, because in general the new models are WORSE. I consider myself stuck with these models until a miracle happens.
Now for a secondary screen, generally the best solution I've found for a good panel is to get a 32" LCD TV 1080P. That's one of the only ways to get a moderately usable screen at a low price, which also has FAR more inputs than any Lcd monitor. You can't get $600 Lcd Monitors that are 32" with 3-4 hdmi inputs and massive amounts of composite/component/s-video. The only huge negative is the low resolution, but 1080P is certainly liveable and great as a secondary video watching device.
BugblatterIII - Wednesday, June 17, 2009 - link
I've got a Dell 2407WFP but that's being reallocated so I'm planning to get the Dell 2407WFP. H-IPS screen, portrait rotation, fantastic quality, low latency etcBugblatterIII - Wednesday, June 17, 2009 - link
Of course I meant planning to get the HP LP2475w.praeses - Wednesday, June 17, 2009 - link
After using this particular monitor as my primary display at home for well over a year I have fairly decent experience with it. Nearly all of my concerns are reflected in this review. Having said that there are a few aspects I would like to point out:The input lag varies significantly from inputs and resolution. Using DVI at 1920x1200 yields the lowest while analogue at any other resolution is significantly higher. Using any of the different lighting modes adds lag as well. For my purposes I have them turned off.
VGA also seems to be quite washed out. It has troubles with certain timings as well including XBOX360 where it cannot compensate for the overscan. The composite inputs are reasonable although when scaled any signal distortion is amplified significantly.
Of course, the fluorescent backlight is annoying. As a previous commenter has implied that using LCDs do not result in headaches, that is far from the truth. Once manufacturers move towards LED backlighting hopefully some of that will be alleviated. To date I have been unsuccessful at tracking down a suitable LED panel to swap into this monitor. The non-adjustable backlighting is also significantly annoying in low light conditions with some bleeding, although fairly consistent throughout the panel appearing gray.
The headphone connection only working for audio over HDMI just seems silly. They should have included an analogue pass-through.
Prior to purchasing this monitor I was aware of most of these issues and they are consistent between screens. Some people have buyer's pride and dismiss it or do not see them to begin with. Despite this, I am quite happy with this monitor and have not found a better replacement for my uses where viewing angles, input lag (over DVI), and composite inputs are paramount.
Spacecomber - Wednesday, June 17, 2009 - link
I think the reason that the trend with LCDs is simply to make them cheaper and not better has a lot to do with there being no meaningful specifications that the consumer can use to compare one monitor to another. In many cases, you can't even tell what kind of panel is being used. (Imagine buying a CRT monitor and not being able to easily tell whether it was a shadow-mask or an aperture grill tube.)With no meaningful information about the monitor in its technical specifications, the only thing the consumer can easily determine is relative price differences.
At this point, it is pretty clear that the industry manufacturing LCDs has no motivation to redress this on their own. I don't know who might be in the best position try to change this, but outside pressure (if not outright regulation) needs to be applied, if there is any hope of making manufacturers compete on a level playing field, when it comes to what a particular monitor really is capable of.
I suspect that respected professional computer hardware review publications, such as Anandtech, could wield some clout in pursuit of this end, and I hope that they pick up the banner.
darklight0tr - Wednesday, June 17, 2009 - link
I agree. The panel type should be disclosed in the specifications for all LCDs so the consumer knows what they are getting. Right now you have trudge through the bowels of the Internet just to find what panel is being used for a particular display, since most of the time it isn't disclosed.The technical specifications are also suspect because the "tests" used aren't standardized or controlled in any meaningful fashion. That's how you can have 2ms LCDs that really are 10ms or higher. Same thing with contrast ratios, especially dynamic ones. I'm just waiting for the LCD that has Infinity:1 contrast ratio. That's the one for me!
tomoyo - Wednesday, June 17, 2009 - link
Companies will never do this for one big reason. Profit. They profit from the lack of real specifications on lcds that allows them to make even low end lcds seem to be good. And most people don't care at all. We're the few that actually try to give good advice on avoiding crap lcds, but we can't fight against the huge tide of mindless consumers.JarredWalton - Wednesday, June 17, 2009 - link
Don't forget the other reason a lot of companies don't like to disclose the type of LCD panel they use: they don't want to be "locked in" to a specific LCD panel. If they were to advertise that the display uses, for example, an S-PVA panel, they wouldn't be able to switch to less expensive TN down the road -- or perhaps IPS or MVA. High quality displays generally don't change panels midway through the production run, but the same can't be said of less expensive models.tomoyo - Wednesday, June 17, 2009 - link
No kidding. I remember all that panel lottery madness with those Samsung TN-films such as the 226BW. It was ridiculous when there were 4 possible panels you could receive from one monitor model. Same thing with the Dell IPS/S-PVA lottery from long ago. It's dishonest how little they care about the quality of the product that we get.I'm glad my friend got a Benq FP241W with a similar MVA panel to the one you just reviewed a couple years ago for around $600. Probably the best pickup for a 24" at the time. (and he was lucky not to experience problems like some have).
alexdi - Wednesday, June 17, 2009 - link
The lag numbers for the Dell 2408WFP are incorrect as of revision A01, which replaced A00 four months ago. A01 lag is significantly reduced and identical to the 2407WFP A04. I have had all three screens at once to verify this.fmyhr - Wednesday, June 17, 2009 - link
http://www.kwiksurveys.com/online-survey.php?surve...">http://www.kwiksurveys.com/online-survey.php?surve...If you would like to be able to buy a ThinkPad or other business-class notebook with a premium screen, please take the survey at the above url when you can spare a couple of minutes.
Survey results are here:
http://forums.lenovo.com/lnv/board/message?board.i...">http://forums.lenovo.com/lnv/board/mess...al_Inter...
Thanks for your help!
GTaudiophile - Wednesday, June 17, 2009 - link
I spent a few months doing research, trying to find a 24" replacement for my really old DELL 2001FP.It more or less came down to the DELL 2408WFP and the HP LP2475w. But I just read too many negative reviews, calibration issues, etc. to feel that either was a safe bet of my $550.00 USD.
What am I looking for? 24". 1920x1200. 1080P. 16:9. Something "approved" by photographers for photo editing / color accuracy. But something that can also be a decent gaming monitor when needed. Something that will allow me to be on the net for hours without causing too much eye fatigue. And finally costs around $500 or less.
In the end, I quit my search for now, unsatisfied with current market offerings. If the "Stickied LCD" thread in the Video Cards & Graphics forum is any indication, I am not the only frustrated person out there.
haplo602 - Wednesday, June 17, 2009 - link
I want to buy the HP screen you mentioned. What negatives did you find about it ? I did only find favorable reviews.erple2 - Wednesday, June 17, 2009 - link
I bought the hp 2475w to replace my old Dell 2001FP model. I don't have any complaints about it. The color is better than the Dell was. I wound up using both monitors, however, as I have the space on my desktop for both of those monitors. It's nice to have the side monitor (relegating the 2001FP to side monitor ... heh heh) for "other tasks" while focusing on the main monitor. Plus, they're about the same vertical size.Again, I haven't noticed any real complaints with the 2475w beyond what I'd also complain about the 2001FP. In fact, the brightness appears better and more uniform.
Mastakilla - Wednesday, June 17, 2009 - link
Are you crazy?I (and I hope smarter people allow me to say "we") do NOT want high color gamut, because there is simply no support for it...
until it is supported on OS level, 99% of the applications that 99% of the people use simply look like crap :(
stop supporting this wide gamut bullshit please!!
I want to see what I'm supposed to see and not some over saturated crap
and even if you are a graphics artist using correct wide gamut hardware / software: what is the point in it? 99% of the people will see the image wrong anyway...
haplo602 - Wednesday, June 17, 2009 - link
graphic artists prepare photos for PRINT not web viewing :-)also a proper wide gamut monitor has an sRGB mode where the colors match (or should match) sRGB, no oversaturated colors.
bigboxes - Wednesday, June 17, 2009 - link
The OP is misinformed. A wide color gamut is very important for color accuracy. Maybe not for the casual user, but definitely to the content creator.The0ne - Thursday, June 18, 2009 - link
Hence that's why I think most of the users commenting here aren't really in the business to even use, appreciate or know what they're getting. It's all about having the best but now knowing what to do with it. That's just my opinion of course.Now before anyone starts getting upset, I am still in the printing business dealing with credit cards and checks. I can tell you from numerous research and seminars that most people really don't care, don't know or don't appreciate what some of these technologies provide. And rightly so because it's a niche market.
10e - Wednesday, June 17, 2009 - link
You said "In the case of the FP241VW, color accuracy and color gamut are lower than average, but that a better backlight could address that shortcoming."I'd agree the factory accuracy of the FP241VW is not good, but the fact that it was always a standard gamut display is/was an advantage. We get caught up in numbers and forget that in regards to gamut, for 99% of the users out there sRGB gamut is more than good enough, and is preferable to the over saturated reds and greens of wide gamut panels, which is something that so far even Windows 7 has not been able to properly address.
10e - Wednesday, June 17, 2009 - link
In my experience the Samsung S-PVA panels used in these monitors lag: Dell 2408WFP, 2709W, Samsung 245T, 275T Plus. There is noticeable input lag where the mouse cursor plays "catch up" with what the mouse hand is doing. I had an FP241VW and it never displayed this characteristic in DVI or VGA. It goes to show that some people will notice it, and others won't.darklight0tr - Wednesday, June 17, 2009 - link
I understand, but it is getting tiring to constantly get beaten over the head with that info, as is done in this article.I think PVA gets a bad rap, and I think the lag has more to do with the image scalers than it does with the panel technology itself. Just look at the reviews for the S-IPS 3008WFP. There are the same complaints from a few users about input lag on that display, and one of the main changes from the 3007WFP was the addition of an image scaler. All of the PVA displays you mention have scalers as well.
That said, despite all of the hype you read on the Internet over lag, there are probably tons of very happy PVA users (including myself) playing games on their PVA displays, oblivious to any lag.
jabber - Thursday, June 18, 2009 - link
Indeed I have two Samsung 214T 21" 4:3 PVA panels and they are super sharp and I see no ghosting or 'catch up' whatsoever.Running through COD4/BF2/EVE etc. etc.
As stated above I dont think its the panels. I reckon its the case of more expensive panel so often the manufacturer will cut corners on the other electronics inside to make it hit a price point.
PVA's are fine. However, as with any monitor purchase, if you are serious about screen quality...do your homework!
jabber - Wednesday, June 17, 2009 - link
Been using PVA screens pretty exclusively for gaming for around 3 years now. Havent noticed or seen any performance/screen lag issues in all that time.Maybe you are thinking back to the turn of the century screens?
Certainly isnt an issue in my opinion.
darklight0tr - Wednesday, June 17, 2009 - link
Agreed. I've owned the DELL 2707WFP and recently upgraded to the 2709W and never experienced any lag with either one. I guess it just depends on the user.Lucfx - Wednesday, June 17, 2009 - link
FYIOne of the best displays I have ever seen (and cheap, too):
http://www.lge.com/products/model/detail/w2600hp.j...">http://www.lge.com/products/model/detail/w2600hp.j...
Stop buying garbage, buy this one. I have it, I love it.
darklight0tr - Wednesday, June 17, 2009 - link
Unfortunately that particular display isn't in the US. We get the crappy W2600H-PF, which uses a TN panel instead.darklight0tr - Wednesday, June 17, 2009 - link
isn't available in the US is what I meant to say.Sabresiberian - Saturday, June 27, 2009 - link
Well that's just goofy that Americans can't buy it, lol!I don't want a larger dot pitch anyway for a monitor, which is why I use 1920x1200 @ 24" (.27 dot pitch). The 26" 2600 models are 1920x 1200 too, and have a .287 dot pitch; too big imo. Got more 'screen door' effect already than I like.
;)
adder - Wednesday, June 17, 2009 - link
well AU optronics made P-MVA and then it was replaced by the newer and much improved A-MVA,the sony Z4xxx series of lcd uses the AMVA which are as good as the S-PVA in viewing angles and contrast.AU optronics never made S-MVA which is made by CMO or chi me optronics.
JarredWalton - Wednesday, June 17, 2009 - link
Oops!s/S-MVA/A-MVA/g
Sorry for the error - I get stuck thinking of everything "Super" whatever and forget that MVA used P and now A. Anyway, this is an AUO LCD panel and the S-MVA references have been fixed. :-)
Hrel - Wednesday, June 17, 2009 - link
there were quite a few 16:10 panels that had 170 degree viewing angles or better, which is enough for my monitor uses, which include using it as a tv. And LCD televisions generally have 178 degree viewing angles.So WHY are ALL the 16:9 widescreen displays 160 degree viewing angles??? Were the 16:10 monitors not TN panels??? I thought they were. So yeah, I understand getting cost down, and I'm not willing to pay much more than 200 for a monitor; so I don't want cost going up. But why are viewing angles so terrible on these new 16:9 monitors than use TN panels when the slightly older 16:10 monitors had better viewing angles??
That needs to change NOW!!!!!!!!!! Also EVERY monitor should be LED backlit; and I'd pay a little more for RGB LED backlit.
JarredWalton - Wednesday, June 17, 2009 - link
All the older 24" LCDs were S-PVA initially, and TN is only recently coming into favor there. I think the first TN 24" LCDs showed up maybe 18 months back. The problem is, the advertised viewing angles are bunk. Maintaining a 10:1 contrast ratio is NOT "viewable" by any stretch of the imagination, and that doesn't take into account color shifting seen on TN displays. Anyway, if it says more than 170 degrees on the vertical viewing angle, it's *probably* not a TN panel.Hrel - Wednesday, June 17, 2009 - link
if those monitors that said 170+ vertical viewing angles weren't TN panels AND the price got down UNDER 200 dollars for a 22" then apparently whatever panel they were wasn't very expensive. So there's no reason to not use them. Also, I agree, how they test viewing angles needs to change. I shouldn't see ANY darkening of the image or shadowing when I'm looking down on or looking up at my monitor.Also, anandtech needs a way to email us when someone replies to out comments on here; and preferably have us be able to read the comment and respond if we want ALL in the email.
alantay - Wednesday, June 17, 2009 - link
"For better or worse, LCDs are here to stay and CRTs are a dying breed"A bit off topic to the review itself, but since you mentioned it: At the time LCDs were taking over the market, they were 2-3 times more expensive than CRTs. They absolutely could not compete in speed (input lag was unknown before LCDs came around), they absolutely could not compete in viewing angles (idem), They could not compete in color and contrast, they absolutely could not compete in "natural look" (things look perfectly natural in a CRT monitor and very unnatural in a LCD one). And obviously, they could not compete in price. Yet, 90%+ of the people buying a new monitor were choosing an LCD. Why?
The obvious advantage of LCDs was exterior design. They're very good looking monitors when compared with the ugly and bulky CRTs. But then again, is exterior design so important for something like a monitor as to pay 3 times more for something 10 times worse??? Oh, LCDs were a new technology, I guess some people also like anything new (even if worse). But...
Still a mystery to me... (writing this using my -very- old CRT).
Rindis - Thursday, June 18, 2009 - link
"The obvious advantage of LCDs was exterior design. They're very good looking monitors when compared with the ugly and bulky CRTs."No, the obvious advantage is weight and volume. It is much easier to find a place to park a screen (especially a larger one), when you don't have have as much room in back of it as to the sides.
strikeback03 - Thursday, June 18, 2009 - link
Now I'll admit that I never used a top-quality CRT (best I have ever used were some large ViewSonics) but IMO the only advantage they hold over even 5-year old LCDs is the viewing angles (vs TN). LCDs don't vibrate all over the place, they don't need fooling around with the video card to keep refresh rates up, text is actually sharp, and, of course, you can get a decent sized one without worries about lifting it.TA152H - Saturday, June 20, 2009 - link
CRTs are much better than LCDs at certain things. The reverse is also true.If you have very good eyes, looking at an LCD is like looking through a screen door. You can see the small divisions between pixels easily.
By contrast, CRTs have much richer pictures, without these barriers.
I hated LCDs, but bought one anyway just to give them a try. When I am using it, I get used to all the flaws of it, and don't mind it at all. Then when I look at a CRT, I'm annoyed by the moire issues, and other irregularities. This is at higher resolutions though, at lower resolutions, the CRT is just better except for logistics. So, I really prefer the LCD when that's what I've been using. But, if I am using a CRT, and then go to an LCD, it looks lifeless and dull, and the screen door issue irritates the Hell out of me.
Anything at or less than 800x600 is clearly the advantage of the CRT. It's got few if no issues, and has much better color saturation. Above that though, where it really matters, it's really personal preference. No one can say that one is clearly better than the other, they are better at different things and we all have to make a choice (well, it's almost been made for us now). Heck, I can't even say which I prefer. I do like the low glare of LCDs a lot though, but now I see some with mirror like finishes. That's really strange. I don't know why people would want these, especially on a laptop with a lot of ambient light.
Griswold - Wednesday, June 17, 2009 - link
No, you forgot the number one reason: no headaches and eyestrain compared to those god forsaken CRTs.The0ne - Thursday, June 18, 2009 - link
yep, good riddance to those CRT monitors. yay for my eyes! :)JarredWalton - Wednesday, June 17, 2009 - link
It depends on what you're comparing: a top quality CRT to a typical LCD at launch, yes, the CRT would win in most areas. But...LCDs have perfect geometry when using a digital signal, they weigh less, brightness levels look better on most models, and did I mention size? LOL... Actually, the geometry adjustment stuff on CRTs is one thing I'm happy to NEVER have to do again. Trapezoidal, rotational, pincushion, etc. distortion sucked, and you had to adjust for each resolution and refresh rate.
What I miss - and the only thing I really miss! - is the 100+ Hz refresh rates. Even the current 120Hz LCDs don't generally do a 120Hz signal (that would require dual-link DVI at 1920x1200); they just refresh the content more frequently. (I might be wrong on this - some displays may actually support a 120Hz signal?) Oh, and I suppose I also miss true blacks on occasion, but with most games being developed on LCDs there were times when having "true black" was a problem (i.e. Doom 3 - I thought the game was unplayable until I tried it on my then-new 2405FPW LCD).
Mastakilla - Wednesday, June 17, 2009 - link
you are right about most 120hz displays not being really 120hzyou are also right about real 120hz @ 1920x1200 requiring dual link DVI
there do exist some REAL 120hz 1650x1080 displays though (I think Viewsonic has one for example)
TA152H - Wednesday, June 17, 2009 - link
If you want to find a quality monitor, review an Eizo. They've been the best monitors for 20 years, and you can't compare junk from BenQ, ViewSonic, et al with them. The only problem is cost, but, if you're just focused on quality, nothing comes close.Prove me wrong. Review one of their high end monitors and then see if you hit the UPS man over the head when he comes to take it back.
Once you get used to them, it's a hard habit to break, and an expensive habit to keep.
erple2 - Wednesday, June 17, 2009 - link
That was true 20 years ago when we all had CRT's - it was very hard to beat an Eizo / Nanao in picture quality.However, the LCD era kind of changed all of that. Eizo makes some nice panels, sure, but they're really not the best. There's a couple of superb NEC monitor out there at the 1200-2200 price range (the 2490 and 3090 models), plus at least 2 HP 24" monitors (the 2475w and 2480zs) that are as good or better than anything Eizo puts out.
I think the "problem" now is that there are only a few manufacturers of the panels, so there's only so much any reseller can do.
TA152H - Saturday, June 20, 2009 - link
Even back 20 years ago, only a certain amount of companies made shadow masks too. Nanao did not make their own, but, yet, their screens were the best. It's not as simple as you make it sound.It's actually possible that NEC might make a better monitor in some instance, although I've never seen it, but, by and large, Eizo is much better. You know when you're looking at an Eizo.
The picture quality is much better than NEC, or anyone else. I'll say this though, I have had uneven reliability with Eizo. Some monitors have been fine, and but more than there should be died quickly or had intermittent problems they should not have. This happens with all monitors, of course, but, in my small sample set, Eizo monitors have had more problems than others, but a small degree.
Clearly, all that money is put into picture quality, not reliability.
darklight0tr - Wednesday, June 17, 2009 - link
Expensive != Quality and Eizo is proof of this.Our internal graphics department recently moved to 24" Eizo monitors at $1700 a pop and HATE them. They are inconsistent across the display, and are no better than the standard DELLs we use for the rest of the environment. They had high expectations for those displays and were really let down and the Eizo rep was no help at all. Its funny how communication diminished as soon as the sale was completed.
What a waste of money.
TA152H - Saturday, June 20, 2009 - link
It's funny, because two people where I work got two Eizo's, and everyone wants them, and comments on them.Even on independent reviews, when they actually do get reviewed, they always are rated extremely highly, except for price. I don't know why your experience would be so much different, but, it sounds like you guys are either stupid (for not looking at the monitors first before buying a bunch), or it's made up.
Probably the latter, since no one would buy a monitor that was really expensive without seeing it and judging it first.
darklight0tr - Monday, June 22, 2009 - link
Wow, a whole two people. What a great example you have there.We have a whole department with them (almost 20 monitors) and while they work okay, most of them don't live up to the price tag. As I said, the colors aren't consistent across the display, even after calibration (yeah, us stupid people actually know how to do that). This happens with pretty much every one we have. We didn't buy them sight unseen either, which would have been pretty moronic. I think it is the backlight that causes many of the issues, which is unfortunate. I hope LED backlight displays help with this problem.
Who cares if they are reviewed well? I have them here in person and they don't live up to the price OR the reviews.
Calling me stupid, how mature. How about not judging me based on your own limited experience?
JarredWalton - Wednesday, June 17, 2009 - link
See, that's the problem: server CPUs start out as super fast but the tech makes its way to consumer products. The same thing has happened with GPUs, HDDs, RAM, etc. to varying degrees - it's all substantially cheaper now and performance has improved. But LCDs? Well, Eizo makes high quality LCDs, certainly, but they cost an arm and a leg. The cheapest 24" Eizo (taking a quick look) is over $800, with other models costing $1500 or more. They may be the best displays on the market, but what I want is to see that quality make its way into $500 LCDs.Spoelie - Wednesday, June 17, 2009 - link
http://translate.google.com/translate?prev=hp&...">http://translate.google.com/translate?p...mp;sl=nl...Launched in japan just yesterday with a $500 pricetag...
Now if only they would sell it abroad as well with a similar pricetag. And we need a review, it's "VA" technology but which one?
Mastakilla - Wednesday, June 17, 2009 - link
Eizo is not at all that good for it's priceFor a similar price you get a muuuuuuch better NEC monitor (check out the xx90 series)
Griswold - Wednesday, June 17, 2009 - link
Not going to happen. Well, maybe eventually the cheapos arrive at todays quality of Eizo, but then Eizo would have moved beyond that again. :PQuality and spending a few hundred bucks just doesnt go together. Buy Eizo and be happy for many, many years - not only due to the 5 years on-site warranty (not that I've ever had to make use of it, though..)
HexiumVII - Wednesday, June 17, 2009 - link
I've been using of those old Soyo 24" with the MVA I got for $250 a few years back, its great, has all the advantages of MVA and color is very accurate with my spyder. At school we have 24" iMacs and the screen is just friggin amazing. It's just so much better than everything else out there. A lot of it has to do with the glossy screen. So here's to a 24" 16:10 screen with gloss for a reasonable price one day.marraco - Wednesday, June 17, 2009 - link
I got crazy trying to play Crisys 2 at the morning on a glossy monitor. There was no way to see clearly the image without reflections. There was no way to accommodate the monitor to reduce reflex.glossy is an absolute crap. I hate it from gut.
JarredWalton - Wednesday, June 17, 2009 - link
The glossy vs. matte debate is one of those areas that comes down to personal preference. Me, I really dislike glossies - and I know plenty of others that feel the same. However, I also know people that prefer glossy displays. More power to 'em, but I'm not going to encourage the trend. :-)photoguru - Wednesday, June 17, 2009 - link
- Vizio 32" LCD Full HDTV (VO32LFHDTV10A) - $527 at Sam's Club USI've swapped out my 20" Apple Cinema Display for this 32" TV and I was completely shocked at the quality of the panel. If you run your image through one of the HDMI inputs text looks crisp and it even can run PIP for watching TV while working.
I am a creative director and so I spend a lot of time staring at screens working on print, web, and television programs... I would like to have an LED back lit screen but for the money this thing is ridiculous.
iwodo - Wednesday, June 17, 2009 - link
Are there any major different between panel type in terms of power consumption?And i really do hope either TN solve their "in-viewable" vertical viewing angle. ( Sorry "poor" in your article simply would not justify it ) with special coating that has been developed for a long time but there are yet wide spread of use.
Or E-IPS will give the best performance per dollar. TN is possible the worst invention for Display Monitor history in All times.
aceh0 - Wednesday, June 17, 2009 - link
The FP241VW launched in early 2007 and had nearly a two year run. Street pricing was under 500$ near the end of the product life cycle.
evilspoons - Wednesday, June 17, 2009 - link
I found an missing-box demo model at a local computer store for $250, but I passed on it seeing the noticable lag between moving the mouse and seeing the cursor respond. That, and the asinine stand, made me keep looking. I hate my 22" Gateway monitor (it does a terrible job dithering) but I'm not going to spend money on virtually the same thing as a replacement, either (i.e. any other new monitor).I tried to buy an IPS 24" HP monitor a few months ago (lp2475w) but the distributor I attempted to order from jacked the price up $200 (from $700 Canadian to nearly $900 - ouch) in the time between me placing the order and it shipping, so I just cancelled.
Then... I just gave up entirely because I realize I spend 99% of my computer time on my MacBook Pro now and I have to live with its LCD. Ha.
erple2 - Wednesday, June 17, 2009 - link
Why not just buy directly from hp? They have it for 729 Canadian dollars. Was it really that much cheaper when you got it from the distributor than directly from hp?JarredWalton - Wednesday, June 17, 2009 - link
Sorry for the error; I have clarified things now I hope. You're right that it first came out in 2007, but I believe it was announced early 2007 and actually available round about Sept/Oct. Anyway, it is discontinued, unfortunately just around the time the pricing was becoming desirable. You can find them online still at some places, but no major resellers carry them anymore so you'll have to take a bit of a chance if you buy one these days.IlllI - Wednesday, June 17, 2009 - link
"The vast majority of LCDs these days are TN panels, and the trend appears to be moving even more in that direction. With a soft economy, many are looking for any way to save money, and even those who really like quality displays may be willing to settle for a less expensive TN panel"while TN is indeed cheapest, you can actually get a 22in e-ips lcd for around (or sometimes under) $200. while not as good as the more expensive ips panels, it is (in my opinion) better quality than TN. certainly, you guys know of it? http://forums.anandtech.com/messageview.aspx?catid...">http://forums.anandtech.com/messageview.aspx?catid...
Grooveriding - Wednesday, June 17, 2009 - link
It's a real shame the tendency towards TN these days. Most consumers are just not informed as to the much more satisfying experience given by PVA/IPS panels.If you can get someone to sit in front of a TN and high quality monitor side by side that is usually enough to settle it, of course for some image quality is not a concern. For the enthusiast hardware user though, it usually is.
I have an older LG246WP-BN which is a fantastic screen with great quality as well as a Dell 2408. Reading this article has made me think my eyes are bad though, as I prefer the IQ on my LG to the Dell, which according to this review ought to be superior with it's more modern panel tech.
The0ne - Thursday, June 18, 2009 - link
Consumers are mostly going to want something average with a good low price. This isn't going to go away. And on most of their part they don't really care whether it's a TN panel or better because as long as it's "clear" and they like it then they'll buy it.I'll use myself as an example. I have 2 Dell 3007wfp-hc, 1 2407wfp, 2 22" viewsonics, 1 Acer 24" with TN, and 1 Acer 22" with TN. My main computer uses the 3007's of course but even when I switch to the other panels I rarely care. That's because the content I'm working with really doesn't require the extra 5-15% gamut, high contrast and so forth.
Now if I really really care about colors, brightness, details and what have you then sure I'll spend the extra money on better panels and features. But then again why wouldn't I spend it on the medical LCDs :)
I am pretty sure many of you commenting about wanting/needing a better than TN panel actually don't care whether you do or not on a daily basis. If you do you'll be a stickler like my co-worker who spends time paying attention to ghosting, blurs, etc EVERY time he uses his TV. I'm pretty sure many of you don't do this nor have the time to do this. If you do then....well, no comment. :)
Guntherman - Wednesday, June 17, 2009 - link
I would love to see a review of this. I personally have one and I couldn't be happier with it. Plus with it being ~$200 it's a great deal.blyndy - Wednesday, June 17, 2009 - link
I have been keenly looking out for e-IPS monitors because they're supposed to be the 'new wave' of high-quality affordable LCDs, and the Dell '2209WA' e-IPS lived up to expectations judging by the good reviews, but it's too small for me.I was glad to see on Wikipedia's page of "Dell monitors" the 24" e-IPS '2410WA' listed with 1920×1200 and DisplayPort, OMFG sounds perfect!
SirKronan - Wednesday, June 17, 2009 - link
Wow, that's one I'm definitely going to have to look up! Thanks for the tip.JarredWalton - Wednesday, June 17, 2009 - link
It would be hard for it to be *worse* than TN, but there aren't a lot of E-IPS displays right now. Maybe you're right and that will change; that's my hope. There are other IPS displays available (HP's 24" IPS model for example), but the trend is definitely towards TN panels right now. Boo!