mudi on 5/11/2009 at 00:39
This is the one I have: (
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16824176109&Tpk=w2338h)
I really like it, my only complaints have been
a) screen surface a little too glossy (no problem unless a light is shining directly on it)
b) no DVI port (don't understand this, but it looks great with a VGA port and also supports HDMI which I have hooked up to an upscaling DVD player, looks great)
It is a TN panel but I've never noticed any visible dithering and color range seems good.
heywood on 5/11/2009 at 01:30
Quote Posted by Aerothorn
Bummer. Hope you can get it replaced without too much hassle.
Ditto that. Sucks to do all this research, finally pull the trigger, and get a lemon.
Quote:
I, too, am in the market for a new LCD. I've been using a Samsung 206bw for the last few years and been fully satisfied with it - I realize it doesn't meet some of the standards you guys have set, but I'm on a budget and can't see myself spending more than $300 on a monitor (at most - would prefer cheaper). However, my father is tired of his small CRT and wants to take my LCD (which is in storage at my folk's house while I'm away), and so I'm looking to get a new one.
As awesome as 24 inches in, I might stick to less, as I'm going to need to ship this monitor across the country a few times as I like to have my desktop during the summer.
Will browse the PRAD site, but if anyone has any bright ideas in that price range, lemme know. Low ms is probably the most important factor for me.
Any TN panel will be plenty fast enough, and everything under $300 will be a TN panel, so don't get hung up on response time. 5ms = normal TN panel response time, 2ms = over-driven TN panel. A 3m difference in response time is indistinguishable, so there is no point in over-driving a TN panel other than specsmanship.
24" is a good size if you want a 16:10 full HD monitor (1920x1200). If 24" is too big, you can get 16:9 full HD monitors (1920x1080) in the 21.5-23" range. At this point in time, I wouldn't go lower than that. Just a year ago, 1680x1050 was the standard resolution in the 22" size. But that's already obsolete. Go for full HD resolution.
Spock on 5/11/2009 at 01:44
(http://www.sceptre.com/Products/LCD/Specifications/spec_X24wg-1080p.htm) Here's what I am using on my primary system. It has served adequately so far ...
... other than the single dead pixel in the middle of the screen somewhere that I keep forgetting about until that area is all black. Just can't be bothered to take it back for another as it's been good otherwise.
I got is at Sam's Club for a little over $100 USD less than retail.
PigLick on 5/11/2009 at 01:59
Quote Posted by Aerothorn
As awesome as 24 inches in
best typo ever
Sulphur on 5/11/2009 at 18:34
I vote everybody at the London meet physically checks if Aerothorn was speaking the truth
24 inches is gonna be kinda hard to hide inside your pants tho', but on the plus side you're gonna be real easy to recognise
heywood on 5/11/2009 at 23:17
Dude, I believe he was talking about getting 24 inches, not giving. And taking 2x12" simultaneously should be possible, though I'm not sure you guys want to physically check whether he's capable of that...
LarryG on 5/11/2009 at 23:35
Quote Posted by heywood
Ditto that. Sucks to do all this research, finally pull the trigger, and get a lemon.
Yeah. I'm bummed. I haven't decided whether to try again or just stick with what I've got for a bit longer now. Once I get my money back that is.
Sulphur on 6/11/2009 at 04:38
Quote Posted by heywood
Dude, I believe he was talking about getting 24 inches, not giving.
That's the sort of physical checking I was talking about. It does after all involve a lot more physics.
Aerothorn on 6/11/2009 at 13:21
um.
So yeah, thanks for the advice on TN. I realize it's not the best monitor type, but I found it perfectly satisfactory on my old Samsung and consider it to be "good enough for now," particularly since it seems like the cheaper incarnations of the better panel types tend to have faster response time (I'm one of the people who actually notices response time to a degree - it took me a long time to get over display lag after switching from CRT.)
Also, understand that 1920 x 1080/1200 is the "new standard," but how much harder is this for graphics cards to drive compared to 1680x1050? I use this computer some for work and net-browsing, occasionally for viewing films, but it's primarily for gaming.
Also, given that I have a separate audio card, is there any point in using HDMI over DVI?
heywood on 6/11/2009 at 15:53
What's your current card? I have a 2 year old GeForce 8800 GTS and it will run any current game comfortably at 1920x1200.
If you're like most of us, you upgrade graphics cards more frequently than monitors. So I wouldn't base a monitor buying decision on what your current card can handle. The main reason to get a 1920x1080 monitor is that it's going to become the "target" resolution for most future games. But you'll also be better equipped if you ever want to watch Blu-Ray movies or hook up your monitor to a game console.
You're right, there is no point in using HDMI if you're handling audio separately. There are some monitors out there now which don't have a DVI port, so you may need a DVI to HDMI cable if you go with one of those.
