Home LCD monitor round-up
Reviews

LCD monitor round-up

Geoff Gasior
Disclosure
Disclosure
In our content, we occasionally include affiliate links. Should you click on these links, we may earn a commission, though this incurs no additional cost to you. Your use of this website signifies your acceptance of our terms and conditions as well as our privacy policy.
DESPITE HAVING MANY advantages over CRTs, LCD monitors have yet to really make a dent in the North American desktop market. High prices and lackluster performance in some areas have dogged the screens, but that’s all starting to change. We’re not yet at the point where you can buy an LCD that will trounce the best CRT offerings, but LCD technology has improved by leaps and bounds over early incarnations. Now, the benefits of an LCD display can sometimes outweigh its detriments, including even its price tag.

Today we’ve rounded up a total of seven different LCD screens from the likes of Hercules, KDS, Philips, Samsung, and Solarism. Each display has its own unique feature set, aesthetic, and performance quirks that vary more than you might expect. As we weave our way through all seven screens, we’ll also serve up some general observations on common LCD performance characteristics, and the pros and cons of the genre as a whole.

LCDs have come a long way since their appearance in early laptops, where even rendering a moving cursor was a problem. We’ve run these screens through basic desktop tests, DVD playback, slow- and fast-paced gaming, and even a suite of synthetic monitor test programs. Which LCD comes out on top? Let’s have a look.

A few notes on LCDs
Before we dive into the performance and features of the individual screens, it’s a good idea to take a quick look at LCD monitors in general to find out what makes them tick. Overall, LCDs tend to perform exceptionally well in some areas, and rather poorly in others. The benefits and detriments are a result of the way LCD technology itself works, so there are some traits that all LCD monitors will exhibit to varying degrees.

Most current LCD-based monitors are active matrix displays, often referred to as TFT (thin film transistor) LCD screens. LCD, of course, stands for Liquid Crystal Display. Liquid crystals are stimulated to change their molecular structure, and in doing so, are able to manipulate how much light passes through the display screen. A backlight provides the initial illumination, which the LCD screen then manipulates, passing light out through the red, green, and blue components of its individual pixels.

Unlike CRTs, LCDs actually have individual circuitry corresponding to each pixel of the display. The pixels themselves contain red, green, and blue components just like you’d find on a CRT, but each color component is bound to a transistor.

To the human eye, LCDs are capable of producing roughly the same image as a traditional CRT monitor. In certain situations, LCDs can look a lot better than CRTs, but in others, then can look a lot worse. Here, I’ve broken things down Eastwood style.

The good
In some ways, LCD monitors are vastly superior to even the best available CRTs. How?

  • Brightness – LCDs are bright. Really bright. Depending on the brightness of the backlight and how well the display’s liquid crystals can align to pass all available light through the screen, many LCDs are capable of being just short of blinding if you crank the brightness. (Finally, a less embarrassing excuse for your computer-induced blindness!) But seriously, LCD screens are typically at least twice as bright as CRT monitors, something that’s especially noticeable in darkness, when a light background can really brighten up a room.

  • Image clarity – “Crisp” is probably the best way to describe the images typically produced by LCDs. Text looks simply gorgeous, especially with Microsoft’s ClearType turned on. Part of the reason why images look so good on LCDs is the individual pixel circuitry, but some credit also has to be given to displays with digital interfaces that do away with messy analog-to-digital conversions, provided your graphics card is capable of putting out a digital signal.

  • Footprint – Take a look at how much of your desk is currently taken up by your monitor. Seems like a lot, doesn’t it? CRT monitors are notoriously big, bulky, and deep. LCDs are the exact opposite; many are just inches thick, if that, and some even come with wall-mounting hardware. Because of their size, LCDs are also much lighter than CRTs, which makes lugging them around a lot easier.

  • Power consumption – CRT monitors can easily consume well in excess of 100W of power, and in doing so, produce a lot of heat. LCDs, however, typically consume less than 50W, and can be much cooler as well. The drop in power consumption is certainly attractive, especially for businesses with cubicles full of workstations. Though it might seem like an afterthought, heat output can also be a big deal; just ask anyone who’s been to a cramped LAN party filled with CRT monitors.

The bad
It’s not all good. Here are a few of LCD technology’s shortcomings.

  • Pixel response time – The liquid crystals in an LCD have to change their molecular structure to manipulate light, and that’s not a speedy process. As a result, LCD pixels respond much slower than what you may be used to on a CRT monitor, and that can cause ghosting and streaking, especially at high frame rates.

    The pixel response time of LCDs has improved dramatically over the years, but CRTs still have the edge. What’s most worrying about pixel response times, however, is that LCDs with similar pixel response time specs don’t always show the same performance in the real world. It’s really something you have to check for yourself.

  • Viewing angle – When viewed from the side, above, or below, images on LCD monitors become noticeably darker, and colors start to get washed out. CRTs, on the other hand, can be viewed from extreme angles with little loss in actual picture quality. Admittedly, there are few areas where viewing angle makes a big difference for end users, but the limitation is worth noting. If, for example, you want to watch a DVD on your LCD with a group of friends, everyone is going to have to get real cozy with each other on the couch to see things properly. Limited viewing angles might not be a bad excuse to get a little closer to your date, but your buddy that’s just over to watch Office Space may object to you rubbing up against his leg like that.

  • Color reproduction – Although LCD screens claim support for 32-bit color, the displays themselves often aren’t capable of accurately reproducing all 16.7 million colors common 32-bit graphics modes. With a properly calibrated LCD, a casual user probably won’t notice the difference, but the limitation will probably give graphics designers fits.

  • Contrast ratio – LCDs are back-lit whenever they’re on, which means that TFT panels have to orient the liquid crystals to block light if they want to display black. Some light inevitably manages to seep through the cracks, which limits a screen’s ability to display a true black.

The ugly
Along with the bad come a few show-stopping limitations for LCDs.

  • Resolution scaling – A TFT LCD monitor’s maximum resolution refers to the actual number of pixels present on the display. An LCD is really only designed to be run at one particular resolution. If you try to display something at a resolution of 1024×768 on a screen with a maximum resolution of 1280×1024, the display will actually stretch your 1024×768 image over the full 1280×1024 pixels. Stretching requires interpolation, which inevitably degrades image quality, especially noticeable when displaying text. (CRTs, by contrast, are capable of syncing to multiple scan modes and showing multiple resolutions natively.)

    One minor area where resolution scaling doesn’t exhibit problems is perfect geometric scaling. If, for example, you had an LCD screen whose maximum resolution was 1600×1200, you could display images at 800×600 without experiencing the detrimental effects of image stretching. Because 1600×1200 is exactly four times the resolution of 800×600 in terms of the actual pixels required, a 1600×1200 display simply uses four pixels to represent a single 800×600 pixel.

  • Dead pixels – The bane of every LCD’s existence: the dead pixel. Remember how each pixel on an LCD has its own transistors? Defects and/or premature failure of those transistors results in dead pixels, which can appear as solid white or solid black. There’s no way to resurrect a dead pixel. It’s gone, and there’s no sense mourning. Depending on the manufacturer, a certain number of dead pixels will qualify you for warranty service, but you’ll have to suffer with the random dots until you hit that magic number.

    Monitors with dead pixels can sometimes slip through QA and make it to store shelves. The issue of dead pixels makes buying a monitor online, unseen, a little more risky than usual.

  • Cost – When you consider their shortcomings, the fact LCDs cost so much is rather shocking. Generally, you can get a good 21″ CRT monitor for the same price as a decent 17″ LCD screen, which makes LCDs a tough sell, period. Start getting into multi-monitor configurations, and the total cost only spirals higher.

    In time, LCD prices will drop, but CRTs have a huge head start. The good will have to really outweigh the bad and the ugly if you want to justify an opulent LCD purchase to your boss, to yourself, or worse, to your significant other.

The specs
Now that we’ve covered the basics of LCDs and what to look for, we can big a little deeper and check out the specs of each of the monitors we’re looking at today. Yes, I know it’s a big chart, but I’m going to highlight all the exceptional and not-so-exceptional bits for you.

Hercules Prophetview 720 Hercules Prophetview 920 KDS RAD7C Philips 170B2 Samsung SyncMaster 152T Samsung SyncMaster 151MP Solarism LM17II
Screen area 15″ 17″ 17″ 17″ 15″ 15″ 17″
Optimal resolution 1024×768 1280×1024 1280×1024 1280×1024 1024×768 1024×768 1280×1024
Aspect ratio 4:3 5:4 5:4 5:4 4:3 4:3 5:4
Contrast ratio 300:1 350:1 400:1 400:1 450:1 330:1 400:1
Brightness (cd/m2) 230 250 250 250 350 250 600
Viewing angle (â—¦) 140 horizontal
110 vertical
150 horizontal
130 vertical
140 horizontal
125 vertical
160 160 horizontal
150 vertical
140 horizontal
120 vertical
170
Pixel response time (ms) ≤ 30 ≤ 25 ≤ 35 ≤ 40 ≤ 25 ≤ 25 ≤ 40 (tr: 20, tf:20)
Interface VGA VGA VGA DVI-I, VGA DVI-D, VGA VGA, S-Video, TV (optional) DVI-D, VGA, S-Video
Left/Right border thickness (mm) 35 45 60 38 25 25 47
Warranty 3 years, 6 pixels 3 years, 6 pixels 3 years 3 years, 5 pixels* 3 years, 7 pixels 3 years, 7 pixels 3 years, 3 pixels
Weight (kg) 3.5 5.6 7.5 7.0 2.9 3.5 8.2
Color depth (million colors) 16.7 16.7 16.7 16.7 16.7 16.7 16.7
Power consumption (W) 24 (typical) ≤ 35 ≤ 60 40 (typical) ≤ 31 ≤ 40 ≤ 63
Price $450 $750 $507 $612 $393 $684 (with tuner) $826

Oh, where to begin? Let’s take it from the top and work our way down.

There are no significant differences between the LCDs in terms of screen areas, optimal resolutions, or aspect ratios, but things get dicey when we get into the all-important contrast ratio category. Remember how much trouble LCDs have with contrast? Well, we have a decent range of contrast ratios, from a low of 300:1 on Hercules’ Prophetview 720 to a high of 450:1 on Samsung’s SyncMaster 152T. Everyone else falls somewhere in between. A higher contrast ratio should produce a truer black and deal better with darker colors. We’ll find out in just a minute how well the screens actually perform.

Right under contrast is brightness, an area where LCDs typically excel over their CRT-based competition. In general, there’s not a lot of variation in screen brightness between the monitors we’re comparing today, but Samsung’s 152T and Solarism’s LM17II are notable exceptions, especially the LM17II with its astounding 600cd/m2 brightness rating. That’s almost double the nearest competitor, and enough for Solarism to write “Ultra Brightness” all over the box. Whites on the LM17II should be just short of blinding, and apparently that’s a good thing.

There’s not a whole lot of meaningful variation in viewing angles between the LCDs we’re testing, but pixel response time is another story altogether. Response time values range from 25 up to 40ms, and only Solarism provides the time it takes for pixels to come up (become lit) and come down (become dark). Even with a pixel response time of 25ms, an LCD screen is only capable of refreshing pixels 40 times per second, which is why gamers generally shy away from the displays. An LCD won’t be able to kill your actual in-game frame rate, but high pixel response times can produce ghosting and streaking if there’s a lot of fast movement going on.

Warranties can be very important for LCD screens because of the potential for dead pixels. In fact, the chart shows some specific dead pixel tolerances for the screens. Though all the screens have three year warranties, coverage depends on how many pixels die on you. Solarism has the warranty edge here, though I was unable to obtain dead pixel acceptance levels for the KDS screen. Philips’ pixel policy also stands out because it specifically outlines varying levels of pixel defects depending on how close they are together. For example, though a total of five pixel defects is considered acceptable overall, within a 20mm radius only three defects are acceptable.

Screen weights might be important to some, especially for lugging to LAN parties or hanging in more precarious positions. Samsung grabs the lowest overall screen weight for 15″ models, and Hercules diets its way to the lowest weight among the 17″ models. Solarism’s LM7II tips the scales at 8.2kg, making it the heaviest, but still a relatively light package when compared with CRT monitors.

Moving down the list, all the screens in this comparison claim they display 16.7 million colors, but LCDs are notorious for producing a less than a complete color spectrum, so I wouldn’t take the claims at face value. We’ll see why in just a minute.

If you’re looking to move to an LCD to save power, Hercules’ Prophetview 720 is the most conservative power consumer of the bunch. KDS’ RAD7C and Solarism’s LM17II are the worst, with max power consumptions of over 60W. I can see how Solarism’s monitor would have a much higher max power consumption because of the need to feed its “Ultra Brightness” system with juice, but how the RAD7C can use so much is a little puzzling. In testing, none of the screens seemed to generate more or less heat than the others.

Finally, we come to price, the biggest factor for many purchasers. As you can see, there’s quite a bit of variance. KDS’ RAD7C looks like a potential bargain right off the bat. Solarism’s LM17II is easily the most expensive monitor in the bunch, and Samsung’s SyncMaster 152T hits a pretty low price point for a monitor with DVI support. Hercules’ Prophetviews used to have more limited availability, but they can now be found at Fry’s Amazon, Outpost.com, and Hercules’ own online store.

Our testing methods
To test the LCDs, I broke out Matrox’s Parhelia-512 graphics card and a decent test system to ensure the monitors themselves would have every chance to produce the best image quality. The Parhelia’s digital and analog outputs are rated for far higher resolutions and refresh rates than these LCDs can display, so the graphic card shouldn’t be a limiting factor in testing. I ran screens side by side using Parhelia’s Clone mode to make comparisons a little easier, and I switched monitor inputs between Parhelia’s output ports, just to make sure I was observing a true picture.

Motherboard

Albatron KX400+ Pro

Processor

AMD Athlon XP 2100+

Front-side bus

2x133MHz

Chipset

VIA KT333

North bridge

VIA VT8367

South bridge

VIA VT8235

Memory size

512MB (2 DIMMs)

Memory type

CAS 2.5 PC2700 DDR SDRAM

Graphics

Matrox Parhelia 512

Networking

D-Link 10/100MBit NIC (two cards)

Storage

IBM 60GXP 40GB 7200RPM ATA/100 hard drive

Operating System

Windows XP Professional SP1

Since we love to mix synthetic and real-world tests here at TR, I rounded up a couple of monitor testing applications and a few more challenging games for the LCDs to tackle. I also, grudgingly, forced myself to watch DVDs on the monitors. Oh, the things we put ourselves through for reviews like these!

As far as the game tests go, I chose Unreal Tournament 2003 for its frantic pace; it should stress pixel response times. Battlefield 1942 is in as a slower-paced game example, and quite a popular one, at that. Jedi Knight II makes the cut because it actually supports 1280×1024 screen resolutions, which means we don’t have to deal with scaling while looking for other visual effects. Finally, we have Soldier of Fortune II, whose night missions should give the LCDs plenty of opportunity to try and reproduce a true black and other dark shades. On top of all that, each monitor went through all sorts of everyday use including the usual web browsing and playing around in office applications. We used the following applications to test monitor performance:

I would have loved to include gorgeous digital pictures of the picture quality of each monitor, but taking good pictures of images displayed on LCD screens is difficult, especially if you’re trying to show subtle details like color grain, banding, and levels of black. Unfortunately, I don’t have a really high-end digital camera, and try as I might, I was unable to coax a set of useful picture quality shots out of what I do have. More advanced color spectrum testing equipment also exists, and would have been nice to include, but that kind of equipment is generally restricted to optics labs, which my basement suite isn’t. In the end, I’m left with making subjective comments on the picture quality of each monitor. It’s not an altogether bad place to be, since I wouldn’t recommend anyone buy an LCD without spending some time sitting in front of a few screens to get a good feel for what the options are.

The test systems’ Windows desktop was set at each LCD’s optimal resolution. Vertical refresh sync (vsync) was disabled for all tests. Most of the 3D gaming tests used the high detail image quality settings in 32-bit color.

All the tests and methods we employed are publicly available and reproducible. If you have questions about our methods, hit our forums to talk with us about them.

General performance notes
After spending countless hours staring at all seven LCDs, eyes held open Clockwork Orange-style, I’ve come away with not only a number of observations on each individual monitor, but also on all seven as a whole. Before, when we went over The Good, The Bad, and The Ugly, we saw numerous areas where LCD technology excels and others where it falls short. With that discussion as a backdrop, here are a few general observations from my testing before we get into the performance of the individual monitors.

  • Color reproduction – Despite claims that they all display 16.7 million colors, the color reproduction on all the LCDs in this comparison was lacking. Some were marginally better than others, but in general, it’s easy to spot color inaccuracies if you know what to look for. For example, the explosions in Soldier of Fortune 2, especially on night levels, look noticeably off. There’s a graininess as colors in the explosion mix shades of white, red, yellow, and orange, and there isn’t enough color go to around. Actually, it sort of reminds me of how some explosions look on older 16-bit graphics cards.

    You won’t necessarily notice inaccurate color reproduction the first time you use a display, or even the second, but you’ll see it eventually. After that day, you’re forever doomed to notice it.

  • Ghosting and streaking – It happens. You’ll notice. And for some, it can get annoying. In my testing, DVDs were fine, and so were slower-paced games like BF1942. However, throw a little UT2003 into the mix, and you’ll notice ghosting no matter which LCD you use. I actually had a couple of non-geek friends of mine over to play games a few times on the LCDs, and they never mentioned ghosting, even when specifically asked if they noticed ghost-like effects. That suggests that ghosting is, at least on these screens, something you have to be looking for or primed to notice.

    Streaking was also a problem on all the screens tested, and it’s apparent even when surfing TR. When you have light text on a dark background on, let’s say, TR’s front page, rapid scrolling will streak the text just enough to make it appear off-color and hard to read. I don’t expect many people actually try to read text while violently flicking the mouse’s scroll wheel, but the effect and the perceived text color change can be annoying. Oddly, streaking didn’t occur in any of the screens with dark text on a light background.

  • Easy on the eyes – I’m a Matrox fanboy because of how well their graphics cards render clean, crisp text that’s easy to stare at for hours on end. Now, I’m going to have to tag myself an LCD fanboy for the same reason. With ClearType enabled, and even without, it’s easy, and dare I say enjoyable, to stare at an LCD screen filled with text for hours on end. Let’s face it, eyes get tired, but all the LCDs in this comparison will buy you at least a few more hours in front of the screen before your retinas scream for a rest.

  • Paint it black – I have mixed feelings about mentioning this, if only because I’m not sure what is considered an “acceptable” facsimile of the color black. In truth, none of the LCDs in this comparison are capable of displaying what I’d call a true black—that is, unless you turn them off completely and stare at the blank screen. Beyond that, there’s plenty of variation in just how close the monitors nail down dark color. None of them get it perfectly right.

  • DVI looks better – Theoretically, it’s clear why a monitor using its DVI input should look better than running off an analog input. In practice, you’ll notice the difference, especially when it comes to text clarity. I was lucky that a number of the monitors in this comparison had both DVI and VGA inputs, so I could switch back and forth quickly and compare the picture quality of each. Honestly, analog didn’t look all that bad, but the picture quality running off the DVI inputs still looked noticeably better.

    Remember now, I’m using Matrox’s Parhelia for testing, and its RAMDACs and signal quality are widely regarded as second to none. If your graphics card’s video signal quality is poor, there’s little an analog LCD can do to clean it up. A DVI-equipped LCD, however, can let you bypass the whole analog mess altogether.

  • Optimal resolution or bust – Simply put, resolution scaling is ugly. It doesn’t matter which LCD you use, or whether you use digital or analog inputs; picture quality is unacceptable, especially when text is involved. If you’re just running a Windows desktop, this isn’t a big deal, since your graphics card should have no problem with desktop resolutions that equal the monitor’s native resolution. However, gaming is a different story.

    If, for example, you’re running a game like BF1942 or UT2003, and your native resolution of 1280×1024 is unsupported, you don’t have any choice but to let the screen scale to an suboptimal resolution. Also, if you have an older graphics card running on the latest and greatest power-hungry games, you may not have the horsepower to run at your LCD’s optimal resolution with an acceptable frame rate. In both of these situations, you’re going to end up with sub-par picture quality, and there’s nothing much you can do about it.

Alright, now that we’ve covered some of the more general performance characteristics of the LCDs we’re comparing, let’s break things down one monitor at a time.

Manufacturer Hercules
Model Prophetview 920
Prophetview 720
Price (street) EUR€734 (920)
US $500 (720)
Availability Now

Hercules Prophetview 720 & 920
A daring aesthetic
Hercules isn’t exactly a household name when it comes to monitors; they’re far better known for audio and graphics products, but Hercules has been quietly building LCD monitors for a while now. Hercules does have a strong European presence, which may be one of the reasons they got into LCDs in the first place. We’re actually looking at two monitors from Hercules in this comparison, the Prophetview 720 and 920, which are 15″ and 17″ screens respectively. The two displays differ in more than just their screen area, but they also share a lot of similarities, so I’ll cover some of their more basic features together.

Everyone is doing funky PCB colors for graphics cards and motherboards, but those are components that end up buried in your case where you can’t see them without a window anyway. A monitor you see all the time, so it pays to be a little stylish. Unlike other manufactures, Hercules doesn’t shy away from color on its Prophetview displays, which come decked out in an attractive blue and silver aesthetic—finally, something to go with that blue LED you put in your optical mouse.


Sleek, stylish, and dare I say sexy?

The Prophetviews certainly do look good, but we’re not that shallow, are we? At least there’s more to the design than good looks. The monitor’s minimalist base is great, because it takes up very little desk space. It’s possible, even with the 15″ Prophetview 720, to stash remotes, pens, and other desktop clutter under the screen and out of the way.

Looking at the screen, you’ll notice that the left and right edges appear thicker than the ones on the top and bottom of the screen; this should be ringing alarm bells for all you multimonitor fans. The Prophetview 920’s left and right edges are 45mm wide, which isn’t ideal for having two monitors side by side. The smaller Prophetview 720 fares a little better here; its left and right edges are only 35mm wide. The edges on both monitors are nicely rounded and tapered, but I’d settle for an abrupt edge if it bought a more narrow screen border.


That’s supermodel skinny

Though the left and right borders of Hercules’ Prophetview 720 and 920 are a little thick, the screens themselves are quite thin. The 15″ Prophetview measures only 22mm thick, while the larger Prophetview 920 is 30mm thick. Both screens have some additional hardware on the back, and will take up a little more desk space with the stands included, but both can also be wall-mounted to eliminate the monitor’s desktop footprint altogether.

Despite their slender profiles, the Prophetviews’ bases are quite sturdy, and come decked out with rubber feet, so there’s little chance the lightweight screens will go sliding off your desk. Since the base is metal, the feet also prevent its edges from scratching up your desk’s surface.


Stylized buttons

Buttons controlling the Prophetview’s OSD are located on the front right-hand side of the monitor, and styled to fit right in. Only brightness levels and the screen’s auto-adjust are accessible directly with buttons. Otherwise, you have to engage the OSD menu system, which gives you control over screen position, contrast, color temperatures that allow independent RGB level adjustments, and phase and frequency controls for fine tuning.

The Prophetview 720’s auto-adjust settings were bang on in testing, though by default the colors are a little cooler (more blue) than I prefer. The monitor also seems to prefer running at 75Hz, otherwise small adjustments need to me made to the phase and frequency settings to get perfectly clean text.

Though it shares the same look as the 720, the Prophetview 920’s auto-adjust don’t work quite as well. When working with the display’s optimal 1280×1024 resolution, you have to hit the auto-adjust button a few times before the horizontal position lines up correctly. After a couple of tries, the monitor does consistently produce a clear, correctly centered image, but for some reason it never seems to get it right the first time.

The fact the Prophetview 920 wouldn’t correctly auto-adjust itself on the first try isn’t a big deal, but because I was constantly switching back and forth between LCDs while testing, it’s something that definitely stood out.


Only a power plug

Unlike others in this comparison, neither Hercules monitor uses a detachable VGA cable. Honestly, this is one of those things that doesn’t matter either way, since having your monitor cable permanently attached to your monitor isn’t likely to cause any problems. However, since it’s different than the norm, it gets a mention.

Both of the Hercules monitors we tested were analog-only, and neither supports auxiliary video inputs, so the only plug you’ll find on the rear is one for the monitor’s power supply, which is of the external box variety. Hercules does make a DVI version of the Prophetview 920, but our 920 sample was analog-only.

Prophetview 720 performance
Hercules’ Prophetview 720 ran into some problems in our testing. However, considering the screen has some of the least impressive paper specs in this comparison, that’s to be expected. The screen itself has a bit of a blue tint, which you can fix with a quick color adjustment, but getting a really pure white takes a little work. As far as black goes, well, there are problems. Soldier of Fortune II’s night missions are all but unplayable as the game’s dark shades bully the screen’s low contrast ratio. No amount of tinkering with the contrast slider, even while in the game, could remedy the problem.

As far as desktop stuff goes, the limited contrast ratio isn’t a big problem, and the screen produces clean, crisp text with just a little tinkering with phase and frequency settings. Ghosting and streaking were, of course, present with the screen just like all the others. Though it’s rated with a pixel refresh time of 30ms, it felt a little slower than that in our synthetic ghosting test. In Unreal Tournament 2003, it’s a lot tougher to pin down the response rate.

Though the Prophetview 720 is brighter than both of my CRTs, it’s noticeably less bright than the other LCDs in this comparison. It wasn’t a problem for me, since I don’t need my whites to be blinding, buy keep this display’s brightness in mind if you’re looking at LCDs specifically for their brightness qualities.

Prophetview 920 performance
Hercules’ Prophetviews share many of the same features, and the same overall aesthetic, but the screens themselves are quite different when it comes to performance. Colors on the Prophetview 920 look a little washed out when compared with other LCDs in this comparison, and no amount of fiddling could produce what I’d call a rich color palette. Oddly, the difference between the minimum and maximum contrast settings didn’t appear that significant.

Though the apparent contrast range was quite narrow, the screen was actually among the best performers in our dark Soldier of Fortune II testing. The screen itself doesn’t display a true black, but that doesn’t stop it from displaying quite an impressive range of dark colors that make even the darkest night levels in Soldier of Fortune II playable.

As far as pixel response times go, the Prophetview 920 performs well, and it’s at least on par with the other 25ms screens. Again, it’s really hard to quantify ghosting differences between different screens in real-world gaming, but our synthetic ghosting tests, which consist of white boxes moving across a black screen, make things a little easier to call.

Like the Prophetview 720, the 920 isn’t among the brightest screens in the comparison. It’s certainly not a problem, but the brightness and white intensity is only average for an LCD.

Manufacturer KDS
Model RAD 7C
Price (street) US$507
Availability Now

KDS RAD7C
It’s not a RAD5
It seems like KDS’ RAD5 15″ LCD monitors are everywhere these days, even Costco. The RAD7C is, however, another beast altogether. In fact, “beast” is probably the best way to describe KDS’ speaker-equipped 17″ LCD, especially since we’re talking about it right after Hercules’ goregeous Prophetview displays.

Looks aren’t supposed to matter, but honestly, the RAD7C looks a little homely. Next to other LCDs, which tend to look sleek and stylish, the RAD7C looks downright clunky. It’s sure to be hit on less than other, more attractive screens.


Enter the doublewide

To accommodate its speakers, the RAD7C’s left and right borders are quite large¡60mm on each side, to be exact. That’s really going to kill a multimonitor setup with two of these screens side by side, though KDS does make other 17″ LCDs with smaller borders at the expense of embedded speakers.

As you might expect, the speakers themselves aren’t anything to write home about. Speakers included with monitors seldom are. The speakers should be sufficient for the odd Windows sound here and there, but I wouldn’t use them otherwise. Then again, I won’t use anything less than a powered set of 2.1 speakers for gaming, listening to music, or watching video on my PC; integrated speakers don’t really stand a chance.


Looking, er, sturdy

The screen on the RAD7C is thick at 65mm, but there’s ample tilt range if you want to look down on the screen. If wall-mounting is more your style, there are threaded holes around the back, just be aware of the screen’s weight when looking for a suitable hanging surface.

Being clunky does have its perks, and stability is one of them. It’ll take a good, hard push to get the RAD7C to budge from wherever you put it, and a set of rubber feet will leave your desktop unscuffed.


Reach-around buttons

You have to reach around the side and rear of the RAD7C to get at its buttons, which is a little more awkward than having the buttons mounted facing the user. Once in the OSD menu, you have plenty of options. You’ll probably want to tone down the screen’s cool color temperature a little. You can also control the screen’s power-saving delay, which is a nice touch, since power saving is so essential to preserving the life of an LCD’s backlight. The auto-adjust feature gets its own button, which is good, because I ended up having to use it over and over again during testing.

Like the Prophetview 920, the auto-adjust feature had trouble getting the horizontal positioning right, but only in certain cases. When the screen resolution changes from 1280×1024 to 1280×960 (necessary in games like UT2003 and BF1942, which don’t support 1280×1024) the screen image slides a few inches to the right, and it takes several taps of the auto-adjust button to straighten things out.

1280×960 is, of course, not the screen’s native resolution or aspect ratio, but none of the other 17″ screens experienced problems automatically adjusting like this. Oddly enough, it’s only 1280×960 that creates the problem. The screen just doesn’t like that 4:3 resolution, which is really going to irk gamers trying to use that resolution with an optimal desktop resolution of 1280×1024.


Only a single VGA connector

The RAD7C only supports a single analog VGA input, so you won’t find an exciting array of ports; even the line-in/out ports for the screen’s microphone and speakers are hidden away elsewhere. The screen does, however, ship with its own VGA cable, and as you might expect, the power cord’s electrical bits are housed in an external box instead of in the screen itself, which I would have though would facilitate a thinner, lighter screen.

RAD7C performance
The first thing I noticed with the RAD7C was a dead pixel. There was only one, but given that this was right out of the box, my first impression of the screen, or at least KDS’ QA department, wasn’t positive. Thankfully, the screen’s performance is quite solid. The RAD7C does a pretty good rendition of the color black, but you have to crank the contrast settings to get Soldier of Fortune II’s night levels to look right. Of course, when you drop back down to the desktop, you have to scale back the contrast or everything looks horrible, but the screen is at least capable of getting you through SOF2.

In terms of brightness, the RAD7C displays a nice, even white that puts it right about the middle of the pack of LCDs we’re comparing today. Color reproduction is a little more off than the other LCDs, with the RAD7C showing more frequent and noticeable banding in red, green, and blue color gradients.

The RAD7C also feels a little slower than some of the monitors we’re comparing, which falls in line with its rated 35ms pixel response time.

Manufacturer Philips
Model 120B2
Price (street) US$612
Availability Now

Philips 170B2
One from the establishment
Unlike Hercules and KDS, Philips is a huge name in consumer and professional electronics, and their line of LCD products is deep and varied. Although throwing one of Philips’ 50″ plasma displays into this comparison was tempting, we’ve settled on the 170B2, a decidedly more conservative 17″ LCD.


Beige, my favorite!

If you’re one of the millions of PC users with a bland, plain, beige case, the 170B2 will fit right in. I’m no slave to fashion, especially when it comes to computer parts, but the beige/grey color scheme here looks like it belongs in a hospital somewhere. Then again, a hospital might be a good place for an LCD, so who am I to talk? Luckily, the 170B2 also comes in black, which should blend nicely with Stealth-inspired PCs.

The 170B2 is one of the better screens in this comparison for dual- or triple-monitor setups because of its relatively narrow screen border. Measuring only 38mm, the left and right borders are the smallest of any of the 17″ LCDs we’re comparing, but there’s still a good chunk of plastic there to obscure stretched desktops.


Lots of tilt, for really tall people

The rear of the 170B2 is riddled with holes for venting, and without the stand, you’re looking at a screen depth of 70mm. If you opt for wall hanging, expect this monitor to stick out a little.

Wall mounting the 170B2 is pretty standard, but the base stand has a few interesting quirks. First, there’s a little plastic bit at the top of the stand that you have to remove to get any kind of meaningful tilt going. The extra plastic lets one essentially lock the monitor down with no tilt, but unless you’re viewing things dead on, you’ll probably want to take it off.

Unlike the other monitors in this comparison, and in fact any other LCD that I’ve ever seen, the 170B2’s base swivels. This might seem like a minor thing, and in some ways it is, but the limited viewing angle of LCDs makes the ability to rotate the monitor’s horizontal orientation quite useful. With the other LCDs, you can always lift the monitor and point it in different directions, but it’s nice simply to be able to give the 170B2 a spin.


Philips’ clearly labeled control panel

A full set of monitor controls graces the bottom edge of the 170B2, and they’re all well-labeled and easy to operate. You can switch between the screen’s DVI and VGA inputs with the touch of a button, and buttons control the screen’s brightness without forcing the user to navigate the OSD menu system.

The OSD menus yield a number of different picture tweaking options, though the screen’s automatic adjustment nails the settings on the first try. In general, the picture itself is a little blue, which makes the reds look a little pink. Tweaking the color temperatures can tone this effect down a bit, but curiously, that option disappears when you’re running the monitor via its DVI interface.

If you don’t mind things being a little blue, the loss of color temperature isn’t a big deal. However, I would have preferred the color temperature adjustments to be present for both input types, if only for consistency. Since most graphics cards today come with DVI outputs, I’m not sure how many of us would run this monitor with only an analog VGA input.


DVI and VGA support

Though the 170B2 supports DVI and VGA inputs, the monitor itself doesn’t ship with a cable that will let you use the DVI output on your graphics card. I don’t know about you, but if I’m dropping coin on an LCD monitor that supports DVI, I want a DVI cable included. Of course, DVI cables are cheap, so it’s not like buying one is going to break the bank, but why Philips doesn’t throw one in the box I can’t understand.

Beside the monitor inputs you’ll notice a standard power plug, which means that the 170B2’s power supply internals are integrated right into the monitor rather than in an external box attached to the power cord. I suppose there’s some attraction to an external power supply because, if you fry it, there’s a chance you may only have to replace the power adapter and not the entire monitor itself. Still, there’s nothing wrong with an internal power supply, especially when it can cut down on the cable clutter a little. Most of us have been running internal power supplies in our CRT monitors for years anyway, so we’re used to it.

170B2 performance
Philips’ 170B2 puts in one of the best all-around performers in the group, with few shortcomings. The screen’s blue tinge is impossible to get rid of when running with a DVI input, which is annoying, because the reds also tend to look a little too pink. Still, the screen’s brightness is good, and it’s the best screen for Soldier of Fortune II’s dark environments. Although the screen’s rendition of black feels a little blue, the night levels in Soldier of Fortune II look great, even without adjusting the contrast levels.

For some reason, the 170B2’s text quality just felt better than the other monitors, but looking at it side by side with the competition, it’s hard to discern exactly why.

Though picture quality is great on the 170B2, the pixel response time is a little slow at 40ms. You’ll notice the difference, if you know what to look for and if you’re really paying attention, but even after weeks of testing, my eyes didn’t immediately focus on ghosting in all but the fastest-paced games.

Manufacturer Samsung
Model SyncMaster 152T
Price (street) US$393
Availability Now

Samsung SyncMaster 152T
Enter the contortionist
I actually have two Samsung LCDs to talk about today, but they’re so radically different that I’m going to give them each some individual attention. Like Philips, Samsung is huge, and they have a diverse line of flat screen products for both PC and home entertainment applications. We just saw Philips take a more understated stance with its 170B2, but has Samsung been conservative as well?

Definitely not.

First, let’s take a look at the SyncMaster 152T, a 15″ LCD with an aesthetic that’s best described as tastefully cool. Hercules’ wild color scheme might have a little too much flare for some, but those appreciating a more reserved aesthetic should find the SyncMaster 152T quite attractive.


Looks like a picture frame

A bold silver finish and sharp edges make the SyncMaster 152T look more like a picture frame than an LCD monitor. Since you can hang it on the wall, I suppose that’s appropriate. The silver-and-black look works well for the SyncMaster 152T, and I definitely prefer it to beige. This is the kind of monitor with enough class to look good in even the most professional of settings but also tempt a few straying eyes at the next LAN party.

A 15″ monitor doesn’t yield a whole lot of screen area to play with, so it’s a good thing that the SyncMaster 152T has the smallest left/right borders of any LCD in this comparison. Measuring only 25mm each, the borders are quite small, relatively speaking, but you’re still a ways off from having something close to a seamless multimonitor setup.


Transform and roll out

As you can see from the picture above, the SyncMaster 152T has the flexibility of a contortionist. You won’t believe the positions you can get this thing into. Stand it up straight, lie it flat—there’s pretty much no limit to the tilting and bending you can do with the SyncMaster 152T, just as long as you don’t try to swivel it horizontally like the Philips 170B2. The fact the ultra-flexible SyncMaster 152T can’t swivel horizontally is a little disappointing, but the Philips screen’s rotational abilities seem to be unique.

When folded flat, the SyncMaster 152T is ready for wall mounting; there’s no need to remove the base. In fact, you can’t remove the base, because unlike other screens in this comparison, the base is an integral part of the monitor itself.

Since the SyncMaster 152T spreads its internal hardware between the screen and base, the screen itself gets away with being only 25mm thick. Of course, when you fold it all up to mount on a wall, you have to take into account the thickness of the base, but this is still one slender monitor.


An array of tiny little buttons

Samsung offers six control buttons on the SyncMaster 152T. They’re all lined up along the bottom of the monitor’s face. There are dedicated auto-adjust buttons, plus buttons to get you into the OSD menu system. Once in the menu system, you can manipulate everything you might expect, at least when running the display on an analog input. However, like the Philips 170B2, options drop out of the menu when you run off the DVI port. Casualties this time around include the screen’s fine/coarse adjustments, color temperatures, and even contrast.

Fortunately, the screen auto-adjusts well, but the lack of even simple contrast controls when running through the DVI port left me wanting. LCDs have typically low contrast ratios, and not being able to manipulate a screen’s contrast really hurts, especially if the screen doesn’t do a great black on its own.

I’m hesitant to mention this next point, because it’s a minor thing, but for some reason it really stood out for me. The buttons on the SyncMaster 152T are, well, a little off. They seem to require far more pressure than you’d expect from such small buttons, and the tactile feedback is inconsistent. Poor button mechanics makes navigating through the OSD menus unnecessarily awkward, and I expected better from a screen that’s obviously had a lot of design work put into it.


DVI, VGA, and power ports

As I mentioned earlier, the SyncMaster 152T’s flexible stand is an integral part of the screen itself. Why? Because the stand houses the screen’s VGA, DVI, and power ports. It’s different, it’s unique, and Samsung includes both analog and digital video cables to save you a trip to the local computer shop.

One look at the SyncMaster 152T’s slender form factor pretty much dashes any hope that the screen has an internal power supply, so there’s a boxy external adapter to deal with. At least none of the monitors in this comparison have power bar-monopolizing transformer boxes around their power plugs. With the exception of Philips, everyone is sporting two-part power solutions that string a normal PC power cable between the power adapter and outlet.

SyncMaster 152T performance
Samsung’s SyncMaster 152T has some of the most impressive specs in this comparison, and it shows in the screen’s real-world performance. Picture quality is great, though blacks are a little too grey for my liking. There is, however, a great range of dark colors, and Soldier of Fortune II looks pretty good.

The screen doesn’t have quite the same range with lighter colors, which can tend to blend together more. Banding, however, is less pronounced in color gradients than with other screens, to my eye.

Colors aside, the pixel response time of the SyncMaster 152T is quite good. Ghosting is definitely less noticeable on this screen than others in the comparison.

Manufacturer Samsung
Model SyncMaster 151MP
Price (street) US$592 (screen)
US$92 (TV tuner)
Availability Now

Samsung SyncMaster 151MP
Everything but the kitchen sink
Samsung’s SyncMaster 152T is quite a unique offering, and the screen’s flexibility is pretty neat, but if you’re really in the mood for something different, the SyncMaster 151MP is the way to go. Features-wise, the SyncMaster 151MP is far more than just an LCD PC monitor, so in some respects it’s unfair that we even pit it against decidedly plainer competition.

Since the screen has few real competitors anyway, what the heck.

Convergence is the name of the game for the SyncMaster 151MP, which integrates video, PC, HDTV, and even optional CATV inputs into a single monitor capable of displaying just about anything. It’s a jack of all trades, a screen for all seasons, and it’s stylish, too. I’ve always been wary of convergence, because often multi-function devices end up integrating a lot of different abilities without being particularly good at any one of them. Hopefully that’s not the case here.


Too bad ATI beat them to the All-In-Wonder name

A quick glance may not reveal the SyncMaster 151MP’s extra features, but there are a few hints here and there on the attractive silver display. First, there’s that curious black nub up top. Could that possibly be for an IR remote? And what about all those buttons? Surely that’s more than you’d need for just a plain old LCD screen. And those speakers, yes, those would fit ever-so-nicely if you actually wanted to hear audio track while you’re watching TV on the screen. Like the KDS’ RAD7C, the built-in speakers on the SyncMaster 151MP aren’t great, but they might just rival what your TV has built-in.

The SyncMaster 151MP does share some similarities with the 152T, among them a narrow 25mm left/right border. There’s a very slight slope along the outside of the 151MP’s left and right edges, which gives the screen a bit of an odd look straight on. I didn’t have two of these monitors to line up side by side, but my guess would be that the sloping edge will leave a little extra gap in any multimonitor setup.


It’s meaty, but it’s got the features to back it up

The SyncMaster 151MP’s side profile reveals a little beef. This monitor is a full 52mm thick, but the weight isn’t too bad, so we’ll just call it big-boned. The base looks fragile by comparison, but it’s actually pretty sturdy. The rubber feet seemed to lack the necessary stickiness to anchor the monitor well, though.

Of course, with a flat back end like that, wall-mounting is tempting, and the necessary holes are all there if you prefer your monitor hanging like a work of art. Really, considering what you’ll pay for some of these LCD screens, you might as well try to pass it off as art to help justify the cost.


The best buttons, ever!

Counted individually, there’s a total of 12 different buttons on the SyncMaster 151MP’s front panel, which really puts you at the controls. With a robust lineup of video and audio inputs, the buttons are necessary. There’s also a need for buttons to control the screen’s optional TV component. Considering how much hardware the SyncMaster 151MP is packing, you really can’t get away with any less on a control panel.

Before I get into just what you can control, the buttons deserve a little special attention. Yes, I’m about to rave about the physical buttons themselves. Samsung’s soft-touch buttons on the SyncMaster 151MP are just about perfect. You don’t need to push the buttons at all; just making physical contact with your finger is enough to engage them. The initial button contact is all the tactile feedback you’re going to get, but it’s more than enough with buttons this responsive. If you want, you can always turn on audible feedback, and the monitor will beep every time a button is activated.


Not quite a Remote Wonder

The SyncMaster 151MP’s buttons are actually split between the screen itself, and a nice little remote control unit that’s perfect for channel surfing. As cool as the screen’s buttons are, sometimes you just don’t want to have to get up off the couch to use them. Unfortunately, the remote is limited to controlling the monitor, so don’t expect Remote Wonder functionality.

So what do all these buttons control? Well, besides basic TV channel surfing and volume controls, there’s also picture-in-picture to play with. You can switch between monitor inputs using the screen’s buttons or with the remote. If you want to venture into the OSD menu system, you’ll find a robust suite of monitor manipulation tools, and since the SyncMaster 151MP doesn’t support DVI, you never lose essential color temperature and contrast controls.


Ports here, there


… and everywhere

Because the SyncMaster 151MP supports so many input formats, there are ports everywhere. Samsung includes all the necessary cables, too. And no, don’t get your hopes up, that black VGA-like connector is actually for a DTV signal; you can’t cable in multiple PCs unless you use a KVM switch.


The optional TV tuner

Complementing the screen’s DTV support is an optional cable TV tuner, something I’d imagine a lot of buyers will spring for given the screen’s multimedia bend. There are plenty of vanilla LCDs out there, and chances are, if you’re looking at the SyncMaster 151MP, you have convergence in mind.

SyncMaster 151MP performance
The SyncMaster’s main attraction is its multimedia capabilities, but it’s still an LCD, and we subjected it to all the same tests. Just because this screen is a Samsung, don’t assume its performance is the same as the 152T. In fact, even the specs of each monitor are different, and their respective performances reflect that. Whites on the SyncMaster 151MP aren’t as bright as some of the other screens, but they are a pretty, pure shade of white. Unfortunately, the screen doesn’t have quite as much range at the lighter end of the color spectrum.

The SyncMaster 151MP has some problems dealing with Soldier of Fortune II’s dark night levels, but you can tweak the contrast and brightness to get things looking all right. However, you’ll have to adjust the brightness and contrast settings when you go back to the desktop.

There was also a little more banding in the color gradients for the SyncMaster 151MP when compared with the 152T, but the pixel response times between the two were too close to call. The two screens are both rated with a response time of 25ms, so that’s to be expected. Even in our synthetic ghosting test, I wasn’t able to consistently discern any real difference between the two.

Manufacturer Solarism
Model LM 171II
Price (street) US$826
Availability Now

Solarism LM17II
New kid on the block
Of all the companies in this comparison, Solarism is perhaps the least well known overall. Hercules doesn’t have a lot of monitors out there, but the name itself carries a lot of weight because of the company’s graphics and audio products. The Solarism name itself is new. Before this comparison, I’d only seen a few reviews and heard a few testimonials from users. Of course, those testimonials and reviews were glowing, so I had to see what all the fuss was about.

Today we’re looking at Solarism’s 17″ LM17II, which comes decked out in a shiny silver paint job that should draw a few stares. There are a few subtle curves here and there, unlike the more angular monitors in this comparison.


That’s as close as an LCD is going to get to perfect black

Like the KDS RAD7C and Samsung’s SyncMaster 151MP, the LM17II features a pair of speakers whose performance isn’t anything to write home about. Still, they’re there, and they’re mounted on the bottom of the screen, so they don’t add anything to the left/right border size that’s so critical to multimonitor setups.

Even without speakers along the border, the LM17II still has rather thick 47mm left/right border widths, the second widest of our comparison. However, if multimonitor is really your thing, Solarism does make a special dual display screen with virtually no border at all. (It’s worth noting that there are a number of LCD monitors from other manufacturers with very narrow borders, we just didn’t have the opportunity to track down any specific models for this comparison.)


Checking out the side angle

At 67mm thick, this LM17II isn’t skinny, but the back of the screen is curved, so it gets thinner around the edges. The curvature means the screen won’t sit completely flush when hanging from a wall, but the necessary mounting holes are there anyway. There’s no real danger of the screen falling off the wall if it’s properly mounted, but it still leaves me a little leery.

The LM17II’s tilt range isn’t as extreme as some of the other monitors in this comparison, but it’s more than enough for normal applications. The screen itself is also quite sturdy, though the base’s plastic feet don’t do an exceptionally great job hugging a desk surface. Since the monitor itself is relatively heavy, there’s little danger of it moving around much on the desk, anyway.


The cryptic control panel

There are five buttons along the bottom of the LM17II. Although the labeling isn’t quite clear, you can control all elements of the screen from the simple button panel and OSD menu. Direct, single-button essentials like input switching and control over the LM17II’s four preset brightness levels are there, and the OSD menu includes the ability to manipulate every screen variable imaginable.

Other LCDs in this comparison have a habit of dropping OSD menu options when running on a digital input, which can be a bit of a problem. When running with a digital input, you shouldn’t need to manually adjust horizontal and vertical positioning or the phase and frequency of the screen, but important controls like color temperatures and contrast should remain intact. Fortunately, all the essential monitor controls are intact with the LM17II, which really makes it stand out against the other DVI-equipped screens.

If you are running with an analog input, the screen also has a flawless auto-adjust feature that never failed to set things up correctly. The monitor includes some more unique gamma and sharpness controls, though in testing I found these weren’t able to improve upon the auto-adjusted picture quality. If you have odd visual tastes, the gamma and sharpness controls may do something for you. Otherwise, you may never need to touch them.


Everything you need, port wise

The LM17II doesn’t go quite as far as Samsung’s SyncMaster 151MP when it comes to auxiliary ports, but independent S-video and composite video inputs are in the monitor’s rear port cluster. There’s also an audio input for the speakers and a plug for the external power supply. Solarism doesn’t include S-video or composite video cables in the box, but they do supply the essential VGA, DVI, and audio cables.

LM17II performance
Solarism’s claim to fame is its Ultra Brightness technology, and I’ll tell you right now: the screen really is that bright. It’s so bright, in fact, you can use it in outdoor natural light, if for some reason you’re into surfing on the patio. Honestly, even with four levels of pre-configured brightness for desktop, video, gaming, and TV applications, I found the gaming setting felt the best for everything.

Ultra Brightness technology helps the LM17II nail whites, but dark colors leave much to be desired. Playing a night level in Soldier of Fortune II is trying at best. Color reproduction itself appears solid, except for a curious, thin vertical line that appears in only a left-to-right red color gradient. The screen also has a bit of a reddish tint, which you can all but eliminate with color temperature controls.

One of my minor gripes about the LM17II concerns how fast the screen is able to switch resolutions and video modes. When playing games and switching between a menu and the actual game, or any other time a resolution changes, the screen goes flat blue for a moment. It’s enough to be annoying.

Perhaps my biggest problem with the LM17II is its tendency to make everything look slightly more grainy than the other LCDs. It almost looks like the screen surface itself has some sort of uniform coating that’s adding a grain to any picture displayed on the screen, regardless of whether VGA or DVI inputs are used or what kind of image is on the screen. The grain itself may be a product of the limited color reproduction range of LCDs in general, since it’s faintly visible on the other screens, but for some reason, my eyes seemed to notice it more on the LM17II. Then again, maybe all the hours of staring at screens is getting to me.

Conclusions
Before I get into my conclusions on the individual monitors, and before I pick the best of this comparison, it’s probably a good idea to make some general conclusions about LCDs. For everyday desktop use, LCDs are great as long as you run at the screen’s native resolution, and as long as you’re not getting into detailed graphics manipulation that requires perfect color reproduction. Somewhat limited contrast ratios generally don’t hinder desktop performance, and the text quality and brightness of an LCD is hard to beat, especially if you spend hours and hours in front of the screen every day.

While desktop performance is generally excellent, it’s harder to recommend LCDs for gaming without some further qualification. For darker games, LCDs are hit and miss, but generally don’t look as good as a CRT overall. With a dark, moody, DOOM 3 on the horizon, this is definitely something to think about. DOOM 3 also brings up the issue of being able to run a game at the LCD’s native resolution. Games do look better running at a screen’s native resolution, especially for in-game text and detailed textures, but for some games your graphics card may not be up to the task.

Contrast ratios and resolution scaling are also important issues for playing games on LCDs, but pixel response times seem to be everyone’s focus. In fast-paced games, even with the fastest 25ms screens, you will see ghosting here and there if you’re looking for it. But, a little ghosting here and there didn’t make games less fun for me, and neither did slightly off color reproduction. LCDs aren’t perfect for gaming, especially not if you’re picky, but I think I’d still use one over a CRT if given a choice and the appropriate hardware. Then again, I’m not a picky gamer, and I prefer slower-paced games.

As great as LCDs are, prices make buying one difficult. Generally, a good 17″ LCD is about as expensive as a good 19″ or decent 21″ CRT. If, after all that, you’re still in the market, here are some final thoughts on the LCDs we tested.

Although their performance isn’t identical, both of Hercules’ LCD displays manage to be light and sexy, but their prices are a little high; style like that doesn’t come cheap. These are the first LCD monitors from Hercules, and the freshman offerings definitely have me looking forward to what Hercules will deck out in blue and silver next.

Unlike Hercules, KDS has a deeper history in LCD monitors. The experience shows. The RAD7C is a solid 17″ monitor for the money. However, the integrated speakers certainly won’t be for everyone, and the screen’s auto-adjust problems can be quite annoying. You get what you pay for, I guess.

The somewhat sloppy feel of the RAD7C is a stark contrast for Philips’ 170B2, which really has its act together, so long as you can ignore the loss of a few monitor controls when using the screen’s digital input. Despite its great performance in Soldier of Fortune II’s night levels, the 170B2’s pixel response time is noticeably slower than some of the other screens, so it’s not as well suited for gaming. The screen is quite good for desktop applications, where the digital input can help produce some gorgeous text.

Unlike the other monitors in this comparison, Samsung’s 151MP is more a home entertainment product than simply a PC monitor. Although the picture quality is great and the screen packed with video and TV inputs, its price is a little too high unless you intend to use all of those video inputs. Thus, the 151MP is more of a niche offering that’s not suitable for everyone.


Samsung SyncMaster 152T
October 2002

Like the SyncMaster 151MP, Solarism’s LM17II has auxiliary video inputs, but it also packs DVI support and incredible brightness. However, all that comes with a hefty price tag that easily tops every other monitor in this comparison. Solarism does have the tightest pixel defect tolerances in its warranty, which is certainly valuable, but the screen’s contrast needs to balance the brightness before I can really get behind this $800 screen.

It’s appearing out of order, but I’ve saved the best for last: Samsung’s 152T. About the only thing I can really fault the screen for is its lack of some useful monitor controls when running on a digital input. Despite that, the screen looks great in Soldier of Fortune II’s night levels, and a fast 25ms pixel response time ensures that ghosting is kept to a minimum. The 152T is also the lightest monitor in this comparison, and perhaps more importantly, the cheapest at under $400. At that price, and with that kind of performance, you might be able to justify picking up two.

Latest News

Apple Might Join Hands with Google or OpenAI for Their AI Tech
News

Apple Is Reportedly Planning to Join Hands with Google or OpenAI to License Their AI Tools

YouTube Launches New Tool To Help Label AI-generated Content
News

YouTube Launches a New Tool to Help Creators Label AI-Generated Content

YouTube released a tool that will help creators easily label the parts of their content that are generated by AI. The initiative was first launched in November 2023 in an attempt...

Ripple Dumps 240 Million XRP Tokens Amid 17% Price Decline
Crypto News

Ripple Dumps 240 Million XRP Tokens Amid 17% Price Decline

Popular crypto payment platform Ripple has released 240 million XRP tokens in its latest escrow unlock for March. This comes at a time when XRP’s price has declined significantly. Data from...

Crypto Expert Draws A Links Between Shiba Inu And Ethereum
Crypto News

Crypto Expert Draws Link Between Shiba Inu And Ethereum

The Lucrative FTX Bankruptcy Trade and Ongoing Legal Battle
Crypto News

The Lucrative FTX Bankruptcy Trade and Ongoing Legal Battle

Bitcoin (BTC) Price Set to Enter “Danger Zone” – Time to Back-Off or Bag More Coins?
Crypto News

Bitcoin (BTC) Price Set to Enter “Danger Zone” – Time to Back-Off or Bag More Coins?

SNB to Kick Off Rate Cut Cycle Sooner Than Expected
News

SNB to Kick-Start Rate Cut Cycle Sooner Than Expected