POST A COMMENT

38 Comments

Back to Article

  • CharonPDX - Friday, December 24, 2010 - link

    Is this what you are looking for?

    http://www.amazon.com/Male-3-5mm-Stereo-Female-Y-C...
    Reply
  • Brian Klug - Saturday, December 25, 2010 - link

    Wow, this is actually exactly what I've always wanted. I've got a million RCA->female 3.5mm stereo jacks with female-female connectors on them for when I use my consoles with my FP241W displays. This is awesome! Our commenters rock! Thanks!

    -Brian
    Reply
  • jmunjr - Friday, December 24, 2010 - link

    16:9 is absolutely absurd for a computer monitor... I don't know where this trend came from but my guess is the LCD makers realized they could make more profits this way and did some nifty marketing to dupe the morons in the world into thinking it was actually a better format for computing...

    In protest I have modified a dozen or so of my popular websites by reducing their widths to require even more vertical space.
    Reply
  • bhopfner - Friday, December 24, 2010 - link

    It's totally true! A widescreen monitor is 20% smaller than the same monitor at 4:3. So of course the LCD industry went with that format. They must save millions. Sure a movie looks great and some games take advantage of the format but for general computing it doesn't help. I want my 20% extra screen real estate! Reply
  • sprockkets - Friday, December 24, 2010 - link

    This is dumb. My web browser fits just fine here, and compared to my old 1280x1024 monitor resolution on a 17" monitor, it isn't losing any pixels.

    This is just another stupid made up issue.

    How about I can't use my cable box with a 1920x1200 box without some distortion happening without correction? Ever thought about why they went to 1920x1080? Really missed those 80 pixels on a 1280x800 vs. 1280x720 either?
    Reply
  • dertechie - Friday, December 24, 2010 - link

    If a 23" monitor barely gains vertically on a 17" monitor, that's not a good thing.

    You can't use your cable box with a 1920x1200. That's an indictment of the cable box or a monitor designer that neglected to include a 1:1 or preserve aspect ratio mode, not an indictment of the aspect ratio.

    We have thought about why they went to 16:9. They can get 11% more panels from a sheet of mother glass (and that's not even counting being able to find more efficient ways to cut it, it may be more). HDTV popularized it, they sell better, and economy of scale compounds that. I actually like seeing 1080p on screens below 24", it's a step forward there.

    For media, 1080p is great. Where I don't like 1080p is when I see it in the areas I used to see 1920x1200. 24"-28" monitors used to be mainly 1920x1200. Now, they're mainly 1080p and you have to actually look to find a 16:10 one. It feels like we've regressed instead of going forward. For those of us doing vertically oriented work (like programming), those 120 pixels actually do matter. Nice monitors let you turn the screen, but cheap monitors (and especially cheap TN monitors) don't allow that.
    Reply
  • Fritzr - Monday, December 27, 2010 - link

    Your cable box should work just fine with a 1920x1200 display. You should see a black band above and below the TV picture though. What you cannot do on a 1920x1080 display is use 1920x1200 wallpaper (a standard size) without distorting it with the 'stretch to fit' display setting.

    Those blsck bands are NOT a failure of your cable box. It is called letterboxing. The black bands represent the unused portion of the display. If you watch SD broadcasts without reformatting, you will see the same banding on the sides as the picture is not wide enough to fill the screen.

    Many HD TVs have an automatic adjustment that stretches the picture to fit the screen. This results in distorted video when viewing 16:9 content on a 4:3 screen and vice versa.

    Personally I will accept the penalty imposed by a 16:10 aspect ratio where I am forced to see more of the web page than an HDTV can display.

    I would like to get one of the higher resolution screens also. You should avoid those like the plague though...A 3840x2400 cinema class monitor would display your TV screen as a tiny box in the center of the display ... at least until you enable 'stretch to fit display' anywho.

    Really scary though is the next generation UltraHiDef TV standard that has been demonstrated in Japan 7680x4320 (16:9) and tbe WHUXGA monitor standard at 7680x4800 (16:10) Those would be nice for big screen displays :)
    Reply
  • MobiusStrip - Saturday, January 01, 2011 - link

    You won't see this in the U.S. Our asinine "advanced" TV "standard" still allows interlacing and a non-integer frame rate, caps the bitrate at 19 megabits per second, and did not require sets to have updatable firmware. Nor does it define what "HD" means. How many ways can you fail?

    Then again, we're talking about the successor to the governing body that came up with 29.97 FPS in the first place.
    Reply
  • mike8675309 - Thursday, December 30, 2010 - link

    People just don't get it, and it is a flaw due to the shift in technology from analog monitors to digital monitors. Their expectations are just so much lower because the common use case simply doesn't demand the vertical resolution.

    Back in the day where dot pitch and image masks everyone understood what was better, and what was worse. These days they see 24" vs 17" and assume it's better, when in fact it can often be worse and at best, only minimally better.

    Sure, movies work at these low vertical resolutions. So do web pages, for the most part. But for software developers and many other technology professionals these low vertical resolutions completely bite and are a tremendous step backward from the reasonably priced performance levels achievable with CRT's in the early 90's.
    Reply
  • Sepidoel - Friday, December 24, 2010 - link

    Very unfortunate, in my country it's sold way pricier than Amazon (about 340 USD). In regards of 23" LCD, perhaps you may compare it with AOC iF23 - an IPS LED LCD with very affordable price (about 270 USD in my place). I bought one for my sister and I say this is great monitor for the price. I'd like to write an article for Anandtech, but I just simply don't know how to bring up the benchmark numbers.

    Amazon URL for the 22" one: http://www.amazon.com/22IN-LCD-1920X1080-30000-Pia...
    Reply
  • StrangerGuy - Friday, December 24, 2010 - link

    Would I even bother with any TN when I can get $190 IPS Dell U2211H? Reply
  • sprockkets - Saturday, December 25, 2010 - link

    Because it costs $240 and isn't LED backlit??? Reply
  • Solidstate89 - Sunday, December 26, 2010 - link

    Why would you want an LED backlit IPS monitor?

    You can go look at Anand's review of the Apple monitor. It's one of, if not the only IPS monitor that uses LED for backlighting and it sucks compared to something like a Dell Ultrasharp or HP's IPS monitors.
    Reply
  • MrCoyote - Sunday, December 26, 2010 - link

    What is needed is local-dimming LED with IPS panel. Where there independent groups of LED's that can be turned on and off. That is the only way to get consistent black level and higher contrast ratio.

    There is also the NEC 23" IPS EA231WMi which is a CCFL IPS panel that has got just as good of reviews as the other brands. NEC is about to release an LED backlit version "EA232WMi".
    Reply
  • Stimpy88 - Friday, December 24, 2010 - link

    I just dont get why this TN pannel crap is all there is these days. I have a lovely HP 24" monitor, but I am DESPERATE to upgrade to either another 24" or even better, a 26" one.

    I want it to be IPS, 120Hz, wide colour gamut, a good responce time, Displayport and HDMI/DVI inputs, and dont care if its 1mm thick or 100mm, or how pretty the case that it comes in looks.

    But this simply does not exist! I have money, don't any manufactures want it?
    Reply
  • FATCamaro - Friday, December 24, 2010 - link

    This. Want a 120 Hz IPS or high end TN similar screen. Reply
  • solgae1784 - Friday, December 24, 2010 - link

    Not sure if it's still true to this day, but I thought the input lag for IPS panels was worse compared to TN panels, which makes the IPS panels not very well suited for FPS and fighting games where gamers demand near-precise response time since even a 1-2 frame lag (~16.67ms on 60 frames) can make a difference between successful attacks and failed attacks (e.g. Tekken), or viewing high-motion contents. Today's panels might have improved on this. Reply
  • Sabresiberian - Friday, December 24, 2010 - link

    IPS panels have come a long way and can be quite playable even by picky gamer standards, in terms of response time. It used to be a serious consideration, and one must still pay attention - I doubt any budget level IPS screen is going to have a decently low response time.

    Other facts are also worth considering - not all IPS screens are better than all TNs, and TNs are far better than they used to be in terms of color reproduction (their main weak point). Just jumping on to a cheap IPS because it is an IPS just doesn't make sense, especially if cost is a major factor.

    1920x1080 is below my standards, as is .265 mm pixel pitch. That pixel pitch gives me the visual sense that I'm looking through a very fine mesh screen door.

    ;)
    Reply
  • nwrigley - Friday, December 24, 2010 - link

    "I want it to be IPS, 120Hz, wide colour gamut, a good responce time, Displayport and HDMI/DVI inputs, and dont care if its 1mm thick or 100mm, or how pretty the case that it comes in looks."

    I couldn't agree more.

    I've had the same 21" Samsung 215TW for 5+ years now simply because nothing significantly better has come out. If anything, with more and more TN panels, 16:9 ratio, and shiny coatings things have gotten worse.

    Back when I bought my current monitor I thought I'd be replacing it with an SED or OLED panel by now, but obviously that hasn't happened. I guess companies realized that they can roll out cheap monitors with shiny paint and a "1080p!" sticker and people will buy it, so why bother making better products?
    Reply
  • Blipton - Friday, December 24, 2010 - link

    LCD power draw figures for Dell U2711 don't make any sense at all. Reply
  • Brian Klug - Friday, December 24, 2010 - link

    Oops, fixed! We switched graphing engines and two entries always had their series reversed, didn't catch that one.

    -Brian
    Reply
  • Spacecomber - Friday, December 24, 2010 - link

    Numbers are reversed. Reply
  • dingetje - Friday, December 24, 2010 - link

    asus can shove their 16:9 displays where the sun don't shine :)
    bring back 16:10
    Reply
  • chrnochime - Friday, December 24, 2010 - link

    And you can do the same with your oh- so-very-useful comment :D Reply
  • jah1subs - Friday, December 24, 2010 - link

    ONE or TWO YEARS AGO, I remember reading in Digitimes that panel makers were going to be transitioning from 16:10 to 16:9 because they could cut out more panels per "substrate" or "wafer" or whatever it is called.

    So yes, it is about manufacturing cost. I just saw an article on Digitimes yesterday that some manufacturers will be starting to manufacture, or plan to manufacture, even more extreme aspect ratios, e.g. 21:9.

    Conclusion, IMHO, if you see a 16:10 that you like today, buy it. There might not be a next generation version of it.

    Personally, I am starting to be interested in 16:9 27" LED backlit monitors. The first ones have recently come on the market. I make this statement based on using Newegg's PowerSearch function. Until recently, 24" were listed but not 27". These monitors are the smallest size that will allow me to display images of 2 views of 8.5x11 paper at 100% scale in portrait mode side by side. Of course, I want LED for reduced power requirements and improved contrast.
    Reply
  • Sundae - Friday, December 24, 2010 - link

    Hey any chance of you guys doing a review on the Samsung P2370? I ask because I was strongly considering this monitor but heard the P2370 was a better choice. It even came with a microfiber cloth! Reply
  • poohbear - Saturday, December 25, 2010 - link

    erm how many of the andandtech reviews start with "so i have a confession to make." lol scrolling down the nvidia tegra 2 article starts the same. just a get a priest on the andandtech staff already to absolve u of your hardware lusting sins. Reply
  • Hrel - Saturday, December 25, 2010 - link

    I really hate how it seems like everyone at anadtech is against 1080p. That's the industry standard, that's where things are going, quite fighting it and get with the times. 16:9 is a great divide between height and width. Also, all modern content is made for 16:9, NOT 16:10. Black bars are FUCKING ANNOYING!

    Second point, all movies that are filmed in anything wider than 16:9 are stupid and I end up cropping them in Power Director. I long for the day when ALL media content is just standardized at 16:9 with no variation at all. That way everything would fit the screen and nothing would need to be formatted there by wasting valuable screen real estate.
    Reply
  • Hrel - Saturday, December 25, 2010 - link

    I should add that every monitor should have a base that allows for it to be spun so it's wider than it is tall. I do understand there are times when massive vertical real estate is nice. I use a 37" TV as my monitor so I have no issues. But on a smaller screen it'd be nice to be able to spin it and have the screen know that like smart phones do. Reply
  • wagoo - Sunday, December 26, 2010 - link

    You have no issues with vertical real estate because you use a 37" TV as your monitor? Um.. it'll still have the same 1080 pixels available as a 22" 1080p monitor.. or hey, slightly more than my ancient 17" 1280x1024 LCD.

    A lot of the TN panels if you look at them from a vertical orientation you'll get a headache unfortunately, as each eye will be seeing different colours.

    I prefer 16:10 personally, however I think that's mainly due to 1080p just being too small height-wise. Maybe I'd like the 2560x1440 Dell U2711.
    Reply
  • Solidstate89 - Sunday, December 26, 2010 - link

    I categorically disagree. I feel 16:10 is a great compromise between the vertical resolution of a 4:3 monitor and the widescreen of a 16:9.

    16:9 aspect ratios should be reserved for TV's. For computers, 16:10 should be standard.
    Reply
  • MrCoyote - Monday, December 27, 2010 - link

    All content is not 16:9. Movies are mostly not 16:9, and you will definitely see black bars on a 16:9 display. Movies come in all different aspect ratios.

    Read this and learn...
    http://www.thedigitalbits.com/articles/anamorphic/...
    Reply
  • Hrel - Saturday, December 25, 2010 - link

    I'd like to see this display paired with some cheap smartphone innards and an "n" wifi card for use in the kitchen or garage or other places like that. I've always wanted something roughly this size, 23-25" with just enough power to surf the web and play back online video smoothly; and music obviously. Oh, it'd have to be touch screen. The only problem is every device like that that exists today costs about a thousand dollars. Such a limited use device isn't worth as much as my high end gaming/video editing machine; included touch screen and wifi or not. Reply
  • Hrel - Saturday, December 25, 2010 - link

    About input lag. Me and some friends recently tried to play guitar hero for wii on my 37" Vizio 1080p set. Now the controller was wireless which even on CRT creates too much lag for that game in my opinion. But there was still lag that running the games calibration tool did nothing to help. Then when playing brawl one friend said he noticed input lag on the TV; using wired controllers.

    It made me wonder when lag on HDTV's is going to be at the level of CRT or better? I'd really like an answer to this.
    Reply
  • sprockkets - Saturday, December 25, 2010 - link

    Well, if history is any indicator, analog will always have just about "zero" lag compared with any digital system. Reply
  • ProDigit - Sunday, December 26, 2010 - link

    ANAND, is there a way to test the input/output lag between dvi, vga and hdmi?
    like your computer sends a screen image, which is displayed on the screen, and captured by a camera. then a latency is calculated, and the test is continued with all input ports.

    I'd be interested to know if there is any latency issues when connecting through a different interface...?
    Reply
  • moin - Monday, December 27, 2010 - link

    I had been using Samsung for a long time with pleasure until I bought Asus MS238H. Thought that Led backlit would be crispier and soothing for eyes. Unfortunately I cry after one hour of constant use, color bursts out. Also pixel around font, explorer window and menu icon I see pink/purple fringe and broken. I tried different color tone, resolution, changed alignment manually and tried auto alignment, works a bit better with dark background. It seems a cheap but big display. Color is not accurate especially when I look at the old LCD Samsung monitor or color print it's just far far away. The bottom line is monitor looks good, configuration looks good except COLOR!!! Reply
  • analogworm - Monday, December 27, 2010 - link

    Dear editors of anandtech. for the sake of comparison to high end monitors, i would very much like to see you guys test an Eizo monitor.. preferably a coloredge series one.
    how about it?
    Kind regards,
    analogworm
    Reply

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now