TR Forums

Well so I've been looking for 19", 5:4, 1280x1024 monitor, and found some interesting choices:

Acer V196L bmd
Contrast Ratio: 100,000,000:1
Brightness: 250cd/m²
Viewing Angles: 170°/160°
Response Time: 5ms
Refresh Rate: 75Hz
DVI: Yes
Speakers: Yes
Price: US $143

Dell E1913s
Contrast Ratio: 1,000:1
Brightness: 250cd/m²
Viewing Angles: 170°/160°
Response Time: 5ms
Refresh Rate: 60Hz
DVI: No
Speakers: No
Price: US $189.99

Dell P1914s
Contrast Ratio: 1,000:1
Brightness: 250cd/m²
Viewing Angles: 178°/178°
Response Time: 8ms
Refresh Rate: 60Hz
DVI: Yes
Speakers: No
Price: US $249.99

Well now, the summary.

(1) this is a general-purpose monitor for my desk; from working to browsing to watching movie to gaming. However, gaming is the main factor, so image quality is the most important consideration. I don't think I'll really need high image quality for MS Word anyway.

(2) my video card has DVI-only output, so I guess I have to stick with monitors with DVI input, otherwise the IQ will degrade. But still, how much does DVI to VGA conversion degrade IQ, compared to other factors?

(3) built-in speakers is actually a minus; it only adds unnecessary weight.

(4) the Acer model boasts outrageous contrast ratio (100,000,000:1), while both Dell models rate themselves much more modestly (1,000:1). Still, how much can we trust such published contrast ratio? See, I've been impressed by the clarity of Dell monitors even before the era of LED backlight, while I haven't seen any Acer that impresses me. Does the Acer's contrast ratio really mean something, or does it mean crap?

(5) how come the Dell P1914s - which is newer and more expensive than the E1913s - have slower response time? Or maybe the difference between 8 ms and 5 ms doesn't really matter?

(6) any other suggestions? Probably something from Samsung or LG?

Many thanks,

Kreshna Aryaguna Nurzaman wrote:

(1) this is a general-purpose monitor for my desk; from working to browsing to watching movie to gaming. However, gaming is the main factor, so image quality is the most important consideration. I don't think I'll really need high image quality for MS Word anyway.

The "image quality" that you speak of for gaming is fundamentally contradictory to the regular image quality that people associate with for photo/video editing, publication, etc. Are your criteria to be minimal ghosting and input lag, or do you really need true 8-bit colours with smooth gradients instead of dithered banding? You are stepping into the classic TN vs IPS debate.

Kreshna Aryaguna Nurzaman wrote:

(2) my video card has DVI-only output, so I guess I have to stick with monitors with DVI input, otherwise the IQ will degrade. But still, how much does DVI to VGA conversion degrade IQ, compared to other factors?

I have been buying Dell exclusively for the past 10 years (except one Asus) and they always have both VGA and DVI. Any modern video card should have DVI. It is time to not think about VGA anymore.

Kreshna Aryaguna Nurzaman wrote:

(4) the Acer model boasts outrageous contrast ratio (100,000,000:1), while both Dell models rate themselves much more modestly (1,000:1). Still, how much can we trust such published contrast ratio? See, I've been impressed by the clarity of Dell monitors even before the era of LED backlight, while I haven't seen any Acer that impresses me. Does the Acer's contrast ratio really mean something, or does it mean crap?

Consider the numbers useless. Go by your own eyes, and I think you have your answer already.

Kreshna Aryaguna Nurzaman wrote:

(5) how come the Dell P1914s - which is newer and more expensive than the E1913s - have slower response time? Or maybe the difference between 8 ms and 5 ms doesn't really matter?

TN panels are usually cheaper, with poor viewing angles (that gave it away). I also would not trust the response time numbers as truth too. But TN is a bit faster, whether that bothers you or not, unfortunately no one can 100% tell you but yourself, while trying a few of your favourite games. Some claim they can live with 8-12ms of typical IPS panels, some claim they can see ghosting no matter what. It seems to be highly dependent on the individual.

Kreshna Aryaguna Nurzaman wrote:

(6) any other suggestions? Probably something from Samsung or LG?

They are actual panel makers themselves so the quality should not be too bad. I stick with Dell Ultrasharps for so many years because of the ok image quality (I value colour accuracy over response time myself), regular deals and the long warranty. Besides, the Dell's usually ship with all the cables. A lot of those other brands (I think LG is an example) have DVI ports but they only include the VGA cable.

Flying Fox wrote:

Kreshna Aryaguna Nurzaman wrote:

(1) this is a general-purpose monitor for my desk; from working to browsing to watching movie to gaming. However, gaming is the main factor, so image quality is the most important consideration. I don't think I'll really need high image quality for MS Word anyway.

The "image quality" that you speak of for gaming is fundamentally contradictory to the regular image quality that people associate with for photo/video editing, publication, etc. Are your criteria to be minimal ghosting and input lag, or do you really need true 8-bit colours with smooth gradients instead of dithered banding? You are stepping into the classic TN vs IPS debate.

Sorry, I have to make myself clearer: what I mean by "image quality for gaming" is crispier color possible for games. The games I'm going to play with this monitor are old games anyway. The video card I'll be using is GeForce GTX 285, which is plenty fast for old games, so I don't think lagging will be quite a problem. Besides, first-person shooter is the last thing I'm going to play with this monitor. The games will be mostly flight sims, RPG, and strategy.

Flying Fox wrote:

Kreshna Aryaguna Nurzaman wrote:

(2) my video card has DVI-only output, so I guess I have to stick with monitors with DVI input, otherwise the IQ will degrade. But still, how much does DVI to VGA conversion degrade IQ, compared to other factors?

I have been buying Dell exclusively for the past 10 years (except one Asus) and they always have both VGA and DVI. Any modern video card should have DVI. It is time to not think about VGA anymore.

Unfortunately, the E1913s doesn't have VGA connector, so I think I'll go for the P1914s instead.

Although the GTX 285 has DVI-I connectors instead of DVI-D.

Flying Fox wrote:

Kreshna Aryaguna Nurzaman wrote:

(4) the Acer model boasts outrageous contrast ratio (100,000,000:1), while both Dell models rate themselves much more modestly (1,000:1). Still, how much can we trust such published contrast ratio? See, I've been impressed by the clarity of Dell monitors even before the era of LED backlight, while I haven't seen any Acer that impresses me. Does the Acer's contrast ratio really mean something, or does it mean crap?

Consider the numbers useless. Go by your own eyes, and I think you have your answer already.

Got it, thanks for the hint.

Flying Fox wrote:

Kreshna Aryaguna Nurzaman wrote:

(5) how come the Dell P1914s - which is newer and more expensive than the E1913s - have slower response time? Or maybe the difference between 8 ms and 5 ms doesn't really matter?

TN panels are usually cheaper, with poor viewing angles (that gave it away). I also would not trust the response time numbers as truth too. But TN is a bit faster, whether that bothers you or not, unfortunately no one can 100% tell you but yourself, while trying a few of your favourite games. Some claim they can live with 8-12ms of typical IPS panels, some claim they can see ghosting no matter what. It seems to be highly dependent on the individual.

Fortunately I can live with ghosting. Drab colors is not something I can live with, however.

Flying Fox wrote:

Kreshna Aryaguna Nurzaman wrote:

(6) any other suggestions? Probably something from Samsung or LG?

They are actual panel makers themselves so the quality should not be too bad. I stick with Dell Ultrasharps for so many years because of the ok image quality (I value colour accuracy over response time myself), regular deals and the long warranty. Besides, the Dell's usually ship with all the cables. A lot of those other brands (I think LG is an example) have DVI ports but they only include the VGA cable.

I see, thanks.

Well I do not know why you are wanting to get or use a 19" monitor for your primary gaming monitor ?? But if that is what you want to use then out of the 3 you put up there I would go for the ACER monitor all the way just because it has a 75hrtz refresh rate. That 75 FPS will look a good bit smoother then the 60FPS the 60hrtz monitors do.

I used to think running vsync was for dummies but it turned out I was the dummy not using it. With my Nvidia card when using Vsync my power consumption and heat output drops by 50-60% with my SLI 4GB GTX 770 classified cards in BF3 at 1080p and 60hrtz since they are not running BTTW or as fast as they can producing 150+ fps on ultra with maximum AA and AF forced in the Nvidia CTRL panel when the monitor can only show 60FPS. Anyway I wish i could overclock my monitor to 75hrtz but the 55" 1080p plasma TV will not allow that I think I got the TV to run over 60hrtz at 720p but that res for a computer is yukkie.

I wouldn't purchase a 1280*1024 monitor new nowadays - you can probably get one for $30/£20 like I did second hand from an office clear-our or similar. Heck the other day I got a really nice Dell 2007FPb (1600*1200 @ 20") for £40. It's flawless and a really nice panel.

How about NEC?

http://www.necdisplay.com/category/desktop-monitors

http://www.necdisplay.com/p/desktop-monitors/as193i-bk

I gotta ask, why that particular size and aspect ratio? That's an outdated and defunct panel size these days. You can get 23" widescreens with a standard 1080p resolution for $150-200 all day long. Just seems a bit bizarre that you would specifically want that.

I've used mostly ViewSonic and LG monitors for the last ten years, and haven't had issues with any of them. DVI connections are still pretty common, so you shouldn't have problems finding one with at least one DVI input.

The Egg wrote:

I gotta ask, why that particular size and aspect ratio? That's an outdated and defunct panel size these days. You can get 23" widescreens with a standard 1080p resolution for $150-200 all day long. Just seems a bit bizarre that you would specifically want that.

vargis14 wrote:

Well I do not know why you are wanting to get or use a 19" monitor for your primary gaming monitor ??

Desktop real estate. It's not my primary gaming system, by the way.

anotherengineer wrote:

How about NEC?

http://www.necdisplay.com/category/desktop-monitors

http://www.necdisplay.com/p/desktop-monitors/as193i-bk

Thank you. Does NEC make good monitors? I mean, Dell I already knew, but Acer seems doubtful.

Kreshna Aryaguna Nurzaman wrote:

anotherengineer wrote:

How about NEC?

http://www.necdisplay.com/category/desktop-monitors

http://www.necdisplay.com/p/desktop-monitors/as193i-bk

Thank you. Does NEC make good monitors? I mean, Dell I already knew, but Acer seems doubtful.

I haven't used an NEC since the CRT days, but they used to be phenomenal.

+1 for a second-hand, pivoting 1600x1200 monitor. You can use it in portrait mode if desktop space is really tight, and you still have 1200 horizontal pixels. Besides, they all have IPS or PVA panels so colour reproduction should be what you're looking for. NEC and Eizo still sell expensive pro monitors and they are likely based on same type 1600x1200 panels.

Dell 2007FP, HP LP2065, Samsung 204T and Samsung 214T (21,3") should all be cheap these days. HP has a DVI input, Samsungs have both DVI and VGA.

Love my 19" LG Flatron, it's old but the perfect operating monitor. 1280x1024 is just right for that. The 30" beastie I have just run games, vids and photo editing, the big 2560x1600 IPS panel kills there.

(5) how come the Dell P1914s - which is newer and more expensive than the E1913s - have slower response time? Or maybe the difference between 8 ms and 5 ms doesn't really matter?

As already stated, different panel technology-- that Dell is possibly a PVA or MVA panel. It could be IPS or PLS as well.

Panels without response time compensation (RTC) tend to end up spec'ing a 5ms response time for TN panels and somewhere between 8ms and 16ms for other panel types. And as others noted, rated response time is usually only for one transition type (usually white to black to white, or grey to grey; see TFTCentral), other transitions are often significantly slower-- while old, Xbitlabs reviews usually include a nice matrix of actual measured response times.

And yeah, why not 20" 4:3 1600x1200?

At first I thought this was the work of a thread necro - 19" 5:4 displays sounds like something from several years ago

I don't think there are any good-quality 5:4 screens still being made - all the technological progress has been put into 16:9 panels. A Dell ultrasharp is usually a safe bet if you can find a new one listed as old stock, but have you considered a modern 16:9 screen with a rotating stand that lets you work in portrait and game in landscape?

Personally I would go with a dell 19" I'm using two of em right now and they work just fine. They are my secondary screens next to my 24" asus widescreen. 1280x1024 looks just fine and works really well on a tilt stand so you can read website in landscape.

I'm actually looking for two more cheap ones for my kids computers.

continuum wrote:

Panels without response time compensation (RTC) tend to end up spec'ing a 5ms response time for TN panels and somewhere between 8ms and 16ms for other panel types.

Keep in mind that RTC (or variants) improve realized pixel response by adding input lag, whereby the input electronics analyze the input signal to smooth out pixel transitions. Input lag -> death.

My favorite monitor of all time is the Asus VB198t-p. I use it for gaming at 75hz and everything looks great with no tearing. The res is 1280x1024 so it's high enough to look good but low enough that I can run everything on max and still get great framerates.