A Guide to Choosing the Right 19" LCD Monitor - 7 Models Reviewed
by Kristopher Kubicki on November 30, 2004 12:04 AM EST- Posted in
- Displays
Final Thoughts
When we first started this analysis, we felt a little confident that the budget monitors in this comparison did not stand much chance against some of the other units among the group. On the contrary, we were very impressed to see the ~$400 units performing better than the more expensive units in our roundup. The low response time of the BenQ P931 played less of a role in our comparisons than we had anticipated, and sacrificing an 8-bit LCD panel for a 6-bit one probably hurt the monitor more than it should have in our comparative report card.Our Samsung 193P won our hearts in almost every benchmark - colors were great, the design is awesome and we noticed no motion blur. Unfortunately, that amazing performance comes with a $700 price tag - you could almost get two NuTech L921Gs for that price! In fact, the ViewSonic Q190MB and identical twin NuTech L921G performed splendid in today's roundup. The price point is certainly there, and our analysis on the last few pages proved performance just at or slightly below that of the Samsung 193P in applications. For a low cost, no frills 19" solution, NuTech and ViewSonic monitors are hard to beat.
However, don't go away from this article with just the knowledge that the ViewSonic Q190MB and the NuTech L921G are good buys. Recall the steps that we laid out at the beginning of this article on how to buy a good LCD. To sum things up, remember the basics about monitor shopping - don't blindly trust all the specifications on the box and see the unit before you buy it.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
97 Comments
View All Comments
soki - Tuesday, November 30, 2004 - link
We want to see some reviews of the new wave of 19'' LCDs. Like the sony HS-94P/B with x-black technology, viewsonic VP912b or some 10 bit eizo monitors.. When?UlricT - Tuesday, November 30, 2004 - link
umm... page #4"The time that it takes the LCD to go from black to white may be 15ms while the time that it takes the LCD to go from black back to white may be 10ms"
could be kinda confusing for the noob there. You guys really need an editorial staff :D
screech - Tuesday, November 30, 2004 - link
#4 true.....i have also heard that working at a CRT monitor for 8 or more hours a day doubles the chances of glaucoma.....so it might be safer going LCD (for the eyes)........anyway.....Jeff7181 - Tuesday, November 30, 2004 - link
Man... I guess ignorance is bliss... I'm perfectly happy with the image quality of my $80 17 inch CRT... I can't imagine paying over $500 for a monitor unless you're doing graphics work as a profession.D0rkIRL - Tuesday, November 30, 2004 - link
Why does the Dell 2001FP have a 25ms typical response time while on your older review you state it as having a 16ms typical response time?The pixel pitch changed from .255mm to .55mm.
Any reason behind these?
skunkbuster - Tuesday, November 30, 2004 - link
just out of curiosity, what happens to all these lcds after they are reviewed?KingofFah - Tuesday, November 30, 2004 - link
I think there have to be gamers here, and I do not think LCDs are there yet when it comes to refresh rates; it would have been nice to see the refresh rates on the monitors at 1024, 1280, and 1600.I still haven't found a monitor better than a high quality, high res trinitron.