Snarkpit Forum Index » General Banter » Best LCD with 1600 x 1200 resolution or higher...
Best LCD with 1600 x 1200 resolution or higher...
1
2 next page »
Post Reply
Quote
 Re: Best LCD with 1600 x 1200 resolution or higher...
Posted by OtZman on Mon Jan 29th at 12:42am 2007

I now have a Samsung SyncMaster 957MB CRT which I like. However, I'd like to have a second monitor, preferably an LCD. I want it to have 1600 x 1200 resolution or higher.

I will use it for a little of each, gaming, movies, text, web browsing, ect.

Any recommendations?




What the Snarkpitters listen to!



Quote
 Re: Best LCD with 1600 x 1200 resolution or higher...
Posted by Orpheus on Mon Jan 29th at 2:00am 2007

I have been eyeballing this monitor.
I am poor and its just barely in my budget at 299.00 bucks.
To be quite fair, I haven't looked into flatscreens much yet since I am still recovering from my house fire. Buying a whole new system, even a fairly low grade one, wasn't in my budget. I went back with an old 19in. CTR because it was cheap.
I really cannot afford one at this time and if I start looking hard at one, I'll buy it, before I am ready.
But anyway, that monitor seems very cool and a 5ms delay is very nice.



The best things in life, aren't things.



Quote
 Re: Best LCD with 1600 x 1200 resolution or higher...
Posted by Crono on Mon Jan 29th at 6:11am 2007

So you want a 4:3 ratio monitor?

Are you sure you don't want widescreen? While support does tend to take awhile for games, for the most part it's supported.

I just got a new one not too long ago, it was pretty cheap, about $156 USD. It was on sale, normally $200 USD or so. It's a decent monitor, especially for the price. There's one stuck pixel, and that may or may not solve it self over time (I know it's stuck because it's light blue) It's getting harder to see actually.

Anyway, it's a Sceptre X20WG Nagga, what this tells you is that it's 20". Some things I don't like about it, which is a trait of most Widescreen monitors, is that it's 16:10 ratio (the box said 16:9!) and it's native (and only) resolution is 1680x1050.

It claimed to be 1080i compliant, but that's just bulls**t, because the maximum resolution is 1680x1050 (1080 is 1920 x 1080, which isn't even the same ratio!)

Anyway, after I stopped being annoyed, I thought the monitor was pretty decent. It has built in speakers, which reproduce sound as well as any stereo desktop speakers I've heard. It's nice to hear some audio without turning on my receiver.

I bought it from Costo. You can try looking at their site for deals in your area (if you even have them). Other than that, you know, it's really up to you to find a monitor. Unlike other computer parts, monitors are really a per-user per-basis thing.

Search for one that reproduces what you want and has a size you like at the price you want.

Edit

Two of the things that are nice about it are the contrast and response time (1000:1 and 5 ms, respectively)


Blame it on Microsoft, God does.



Quote
 Re: Best LCD with 1600 x 1200 resolution or higher...
Posted by Nickelplate on Mon Jan 29th at 3:06pm 2007

I just bought this one: hope it's good!

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.asp?Item=N82E16824009102

so excited.. it's arriving at my house today i think!




I tried sniffing coke, but the ice cubes kept getting stuck in my nose.
http://www.dimebowl.com



Quote
 Re: Best LCD with 1600 x 1200 resolution or higher...
Posted by OtZman on Mon Jan 29th at 8:17pm 2007

Thanks for you replies guys.

Orph: That monitor looks really nice. However, the height is only 1050, and I really need at least 1200. Also, it seems like the monitor is only sold in the US.

Crono: It doesn't necessarily have to be 4:3. For example, a resolution of 2000 x 1200 (does that even exist?) would be OK, just as long as the width is no less than 1600, and the height is no less than 1200. This is so I can view four tables at the same time when playing poker.
$156 for a 20" LCD certainly is a cheap price. Too bad the height is only 1050.

Nickelman: That one also looks very fine. But, again, 1050 pixels maximum height. smiley Another thing, I noticed in the specifications of the screen that the monitor "only" has 16.2 million colors. If I remember correctly, for a monitor to be 24-bit, is must have 16.7 million colors? I guess the difference could be very marginal.

I've been looking around a bit for different monitors, but as soon as I find one that looks decent, there's always something that's less good about it. One that looks decent is the LG L2000C 20". However, some have reported problems with "banding", others say that have no problems with it. Here's one review from a user having no issues with banding. Here's a pic of what banding looks like in WoW on a Dell screen. A discussion about banding on the LG L2000C.

Also, it's height doesn't seem to be adjustable. =/ (EDIT: Apparently the hight is adjustable.)

Anyone have any experience with this screen or banding in general?




What the Snarkpitters listen to!



Quote
 Re: Best LCD with 1600 x 1200 resolution or higher...
Posted by Crono on Mon Jan 29th at 10:09pm 2007

My reasoning is that, not only did you give a resolution that was 4:3, I figured you don't want to spend a heap of money for the thing. But maybe that doesn't matter?

If you want a widescreen that's the most common ratio (16:10), that goes above the mentioned 1680x1050 resolution, you need to aim higher than 20". More like 24", that'd be the only way they could physically fit all the pixels to produce that resolution.

This is the cheapest one I can find that is 1920x1200. But it's over $600 USD!

I would aim at a 4:3 ratio monitor, in this case. They're all in the mid $300 USD range.

As for other ratio resolutions, they're not very common so if you do find them, I'd imagine they'd be more expensive.


Blame it on Microsoft, God does.



Quote
 Re: Best LCD with 1600 x 1200 resolution or higher...
Posted by OtZman on Mon Jan 29th at 11:53pm 2007

Unfortunately, money does matter. :P And I agree, a 4:3 probably is the best bet. I was actually looking at the Samsung 204B a while back, but according to some sites, it only had 16.2 million colors. Sure, it might not make such a big difference, but I feel that I'd rather pay a little more, or choose another monitor, and get full 24-bit.

Hmm... an interesting side note. It seems like monitors are much more expensive here in Sweden than in the US. The Samsung 204B costs ~$355 on newegg.com, while the cheapes price in Sweden is around $540. Just to compare another one, the Samsung 225BW costs ~$370 on newegg.com, while the cheapest price in Sweden is ~$525. Crazy differences =/.




What the Snarkpitters listen to!



Quote
 Re: Best LCD with 1600 x 1200 resolution or higher...
Posted by Gorbachev on Tue Jan 30th at 1:39am 2007

Contrast is going to make more of a difference than the extra colours will.



Quote
 Re: Best LCD with 1600 x 1200 resolution or higher...
Posted by Crono on Tue Jan 30th at 4:16am 2007

Is that in USD, SEK, or EUR?

USD: That is expensive!
SEK: Shut up, that's less than $100 USD
EUR: That's even more than expensive!

If the prices are really bad, you could see if importing one is an option and cost effective.


Blame it on Microsoft, God does.



Quote
 Re: Best LCD with 1600 x 1200 resolution or higher...
Posted by ReNo on Tue Jan 30th at 8:08am 2007

I've been looking at getting the Samsung SM-225BW, but in the UK they only do it in silver rather than the US black version, and I'd far prefer a black one. Thankfully they are releasing the SM-226BW in February it seems, which is a rather sexy cross of black and silver, so I'm holding out for that <img src=" SRC="images/smiles/icon_smile.gif"> Hopefully it will also address the backlight bleed issue that most reviews cite as it's only real negative.



Designer @ Haiku Interactive | ReNo-vation.net



Quote
 Re: Best LCD with 1600 x 1200 resolution or higher...
Posted by Naklajat on Tue Jan 30th at 8:34am 2007

Samsung LCDs are generally very good, in my experience, and IIRC they'll repair or replace a monitor with any dead or stuck pixels.


=o



Quote
 Re: Best LCD with 1600 x 1200 resolution or higher...
Posted by OtZman on Tue Jan 30th at 10:10am 2007

Gorbachev: Mkay. How high should the contrast be? Does 800:1 sound good?

Crono: Prices are in USD, so yes, that's a bit expensive compared to the prices on newegg.com. Actually, I think most computer components are more expensive here. Dunno why, could be because of the high VAT.




What the Snarkpitters listen to!



Quote
 Re: Best LCD with 1600 x 1200 resolution or higher...
Posted by OtZman on Tue Jan 30th at 11:11pm 2007

I've now ordered a LG L2000C.

Some pics

The one I ordered was in silver though.

Will be interesting to see if I notice any banding problems (hopefully not). Anyway, thanks a lot for you input guys. <img src=" SRC="images/smiles/icon_smile.gif"> I might write a little mini review when I receive it.




What the Snarkpitters listen to!



Quote
 Re: Best LCD with 1600 x 1200 resolution or higher...
Posted by Orpheus on Wed Jan 31st at 12:31am 2007

This is a serious question. Other than price, whats the difference between the monitor Duncan posted, and the one I posted. Brand name aside I mean.

I've always had great luck with KDS crt monitors. I have zero experience with flatpanels though.

Is it really important to spend that extra 200 bucks?

I will, if its required, it will mean an extra few months though. <img src=" SRC="images/smiles/sad.gif">

Try to not give one of those "excruciatingly thought intensive replies where I need to study for a test" type answers please.





The best things in life, aren't things.



Quote
 Re: Best LCD with 1600 x 1200 resolution or higher...
Posted by Crono on Wed Jan 31st at 2:10am 2007

I'll just talk in manners of the Samsung.

It can show more colors (16.7 Million opposed to 16.2 Million) While retaining the same response time (5ms) and contrast ratio (700:1).

It uses less power (55W opposed to 60W)

It's made by Samsung ... you're paying more for the name.

So, really ... the only advantage it seems the Samsung has is the number of colors, which would be rather unnoticeable. The difference in power consumption can only be asserted to the fact that the KDS Monitor can go brighter. (300 cd/m2 opposed to Samsung's 280) The KDS also has a 10? wider viewing angle on the horizontal plane.

I would imagine, though, Samsung might have a better track record when it comes to costumer support and repairing monitors. Most people don't replace a monitor if there's less than x% dead pixels (if at all)

The KDS Warranty can be seen here Samsung's here

Neither says anything about "dead pixels" specifically, but I get the impression that, at the least, KDS will not fix them. Samsung's is really a "call us when you have a problem and we'll tell you if it's covered", in any case, both offer a 3-Year warranty, but KDS won't replace the back light after year 1 (which is bad if it goes out!)

Make your own decision. If you plan to be devoid of the manufacturer, go by price and features. But to some degree, you do get what you pay for (unless it's Sony, no really.)

Now, you see, there's this great new invention called a search engine. It allows you to look up all this neat information for yourself. What a great idea!


Blame it on Microsoft, God does.



Quote
 Re: Best LCD with 1600 x 1200 resolution or higher...
Posted by Orpheus on Wed Jan 31st at 2:31am 2007

No, I looked. I was just wondering if I was being a skin flint or not.

Considering the life expectancy of monitors. By the time mine wears out/breaks, I am buying a bigger one anyway.

I buy everything new about once every 2 to 3 years. If a flatpanel doesn't last that long, then I'll measure the price of a new one, versus the price of the old one and compare that to the pleasure I gleaned from it.

In most cases I'll just write it off and buy another. Its like a set of tires. They are so pretty till that first pile of dog poop you run over. Its all downhill from there. <img src=" SRC="images/smiles/icon_biggrin.gif">

But seriously, I was only interested to know if I was being a cheapskate. Nothing you said spoke such.





The best things in life, aren't things.



Quote
 Re: Best LCD with 1600 x 1200 resolution or higher...
Posted by Crono on Wed Jan 31st at 2:52am 2007

You're not being cheap.

I think $300 is expensive for a monitor. I mean, s**t, mine was sub $200.

Before that I got an IBM monitor for FREE and it lasted for about 10 years (It was an LCD) It still works, it's just that last year it got a stripe of stuck pixels image

But 10 years of service from an LCD is damn nice. I think, I expect a little more "bang for my buck" in that respect.

I'm not keen on buying a new monitor every 3 years ... I don't have money to throw away like that. I mean ... do you know how many comic books I can buy for $300!? Or like how much electricity ... no, comic books are more important.


Blame it on Microsoft, God does.



Quote
 Re: Best LCD with 1600 x 1200 resolution or higher...
Posted by OtZman on Wed Jan 31st at 9:26am 2007

I read on another board that all monitors with 16.2 million colors and all 22" widescreen monitors, among others, used TN panels. According to the same poster, TN panels weren't very good. Bad viewing angles, light bleeding and generally bad when it comes to showing colors were the main issues he mentioned.

He made them sound really bad, but as I have no real knowledge about it myself, I have no idea if there's any truth in it. Might be worth looking into more before buying one though.




What the Snarkpitters listen to!



Quote
 Re: Best LCD with 1600 x 1200 resolution or higher...
Posted by Orpheus on Wed Jan 31st at 10:13am 2007

Hmm, Thanx Otzman. I'll definitely check into that.

And I agree Adam. Comix is much better than electricity.





The best things in life, aren't things.



Quote
 Re: Best LCD with 1600 x 1200 resolution or higher...
Posted by ReNo on Wed Jan 31st at 10:39am 2007

Yeah, I've also heard all 22" monitors are TN panels, regardless of the color depth they claim. So even those that say 16.7m colors make up that number through dithering, not through accurate reproduction.

I'm becoming increasingly tempted to go with the Samsung SM-215TW, which uses a better panel. Its a 21" widescreen, so you're sacrificing a bit of the size (though retaining the same resolution), but it has scored great reviews across the board. Sadly, its another monitor that only comes in full Silver in the UK, which is a bit of a disappointment. Will probably still end up going for it though - it's top of my list for now.



Designer @ Haiku Interactive | ReNo-vation.net




1
2 next page »
Post Reply