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
Subjective Analysis (continued)
Generally, we follow up our application analysis with a table pitting two LCDs against each other using benchmarks that we derived from VESA's handbook and test patterns from DisplayMate/CheckScreen. All of our monitors are running on an X800 Pro AGP over a DVI connector unless denoted otherwise. Monitors that don't have DVI connectors are compared using a D-sub connector instead. We have simplified our table a little bit so that we can fit all of our data on the same page, but our Notes From the Lab section flags any behavior that we would typically note on the table. The table ranks each benchmark on a scale of 1 to 5, 5 being the best rating and 1, the least desirable.Here is generally how we rate a category:
5 - Outstanding; we have not seen anything to date that could rival our impression of this monitor's performance.
4 - Good, but room for improvement. There are units on the market that perform better.
3: Average; this monitor performs well enough to maintain the status quo, but does not excel.
2: Improvement needed; this monitor performs poorly in performance of this category.
1: Unacceptable; this product does not pass even basic performance requirements.
| DisplayMate / CheckScreen / VESA FPDM 2.0 | ||||||||
| BenQ FP931 | NuTech L921G | Planar PE191M | Samsung 193P | Samsung 910V | Sony SDM-S94 | ViewSonic Q190MB | Dell 2001FP | |
| Intensity Range Check | 4.5 | 4 | 4 | 5 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 5 |
| Black Level Adjustment | 4.5 | 5 | 4.5 | 5 | 4.5 | 5 | 5 | 4.5 |
| Defocusing, Blooming, Halos | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 4 | 5 | 5 | 5 |
| Screen Uniformity and Color Purity | 4.5 | 5 | - | 5 | 4 | 4 | 5 | 4.5 |
| Dark Screen Glare Test | 3 | 4 | 4 | 4.5 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 4.5 |
| Primary Colors | 3 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 3 | 3.5 | 4 | 4 |
| Color Scales | 3 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 4 |
| 16 Color Intensity Levels | 3 | 4.5 | 4.5 | 4.5 | 3.5 | 4.5 | 4.5 | 4.5 |
| Screen Regulation | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 |
| Streaking, Ghosting | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 2 | 4 | 5 | 5 |
Notes From the Lab
Above, you can see the Planar PE191M only scored N/A on its screen uniformity test. While the monitor is quite good, the cluster of defective pixels really strained our eyes and we found it fairly difficult to get an accurate reading of the screen uniformity. When we look for screen uniformity errors, we usually look on the corners and sides where light may be seeping through from the backlight around a poorly insulated edge. Since the dead pixels were in the corner, we had trouble when attempting to inspect the corner accurately.You'll notice that our LCDs grab 4.5s pretty much across the board with the exception of the BenQ. Spotting 6-bit LCDs are fairly easy for people who do a lot of graphics work. The image below displays 256 different shades of blue across the top; it represents the 256 hues of blue that are found in an 8-bit sub pixel. No amount of dithering can render this square correctly on a 6-bit LCD.
As expected, the lack of a digital cable on the Samsung 910V hurt it in more ways than one. For most of our other LCDs, we knew that we were getting the correct signal with the test pattern rendered the way in which the LCD manufacturer had intended it to render. After testing a few monitors on a digital connection, we almost immediately recognized small amounts of interference on the 910V, and we did the best that we could to record our observations on the other tests.
We were not real surprised to see the Samsung 193P pull ahead in a lot of the subjective testing. It's a $700 monitor, and it should perform better in many situations. Samsung seems to have a knack for making good panels. However, if we had to pick a second best performer (other than the Dell 2001FP), we were a little surprised to see that the ViewSonic Q190MB and the NuTech L921G had posted generally sound performance numbers. Color was on balance, screen uniformity was there, and glare was fine.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
97 Comments
View All Comments
rodf - Tuesday, November 30, 2004 - link
Actually that url is the shops not viewsonics but what the hey.rodf - Tuesday, November 30, 2004 - link
I've just ordered a Viewsonic VX912 and the idea of oval circles for graphic work hadn't occured to me.I checked the viewsonic website - http://www.lowestonweb.com/pdfs/products/Viewsonic...
The pixels are square and the screen measures 5:4 not 4:3 so the problem doesn't always arise.
AtaStrumf - Tuesday, November 30, 2004 - link
I have come up with the perfect price/performance CRT/LCD solution, I just don't know why it took me so long to realize it.Keep in mind that I'm talking EU prices here! You US residents live in PRICE PARADISE, you just don't know it!
Since I bought my 19" Samsung 959NF 2,5 years ago for $450 and I could MAYBE get $200 for it now, I'm not too keen on selling it for what is less than half of what I paid for it. Additionally a new HIGH quality 17" LCD would cost me upwards of $550 so I'd be looking at AT LEAST $350 new cash for ONE display that may not be AS GOOD as the old one at the most demanding tasks - games, movies. Not too appealing at all.
On the other hand I could get a standard 17" LCD for that same $350, but now I have 2 DISPLAYS, and I get the best of both worlds. They can both run at 1280x1024 so I won't have any problem switching between them, or even running them in clone or spanned desktop mode.
Two times desktop area, best of both worlds, same price! Additional display. since it's LCD, would be no problem as far as desk space/ cable clutter/ power consumption is concerned.
HOW ABOUT THAT :-)
robg1701 - Tuesday, November 30, 2004 - link
" Although the viewing area on a 19" LCD is roughly equivalent to the viewing area on a 21" CRT "And yet in terms of pixel real estate is woefully outclassed. In reality it is not a 19" LCD but a 20" LCD display that offers the same viewing and pixel real estate as a 21" - whilst costing approx 75% more.
" The issue of cost that used to deter people away from LCDs has also disappeared. A reasonably cheap, new 21" CRT runs for about $350 "
Again based on the poor size comparison used above I feel this is isnt the case. The price divide is definataly diminishing but is still quite present in the 17-19" range, and remains quite huge in the 20" area. Still some way to go on price.
mldeveloper - Tuesday, November 30, 2004 - link
so how do lcds look when you run a game at a non-native resolution? I'm assuming there's alot of blur do to the pixel interpolation, but is it bad. If I buy a 16x12 native lcd, will i always need to buy new graphics cards to keep up with a 16x12 resolution.bigpow - Tuesday, November 30, 2004 - link
From the subjective test result (sorted):Samsung 193P
Dell 2001FP
ViewSonic Q190MB
NuTech L921G
Planar PE191M
BenQ FP931
Sony SDM-S94
Samsung 910V
MadAd - Tuesday, November 30, 2004 - link
error: P14. "The blue bar represents the advertised luminance and the red bar indicates the measured"Your chart only shows blue bars.
What about reviewing some of the 23" 16-25ms range sometime? The L2335 has been out for a while and looks fantastic all around, the apple case looks garish but is supposed to be a good panel, theres the benq 23" with the same panel as the 2335 (i think), a new samsung 23" has just been released plus more.
I take it if you cant get smaples that they are too expensive to just buy and review? Im trying to hold out with this iiyama tft till i can afford a 2335 myself (hence why I would like to see a comparitive review of all the 23's now theres a few more to choose from price and panel wise)
bldckstark - Tuesday, November 30, 2004 - link
Give me CRT or give me fraggin' death! A new desk with more space costs less than 2 LCD monitors that takes up less space. With greater quality at that.Energy consumption? I put pedals and a dynamo under my desk. Now I really run when I play FPS!
Cat - Tuesday, November 30, 2004 - link
It's in the millisecond range, but it's very tangible. I notice it the most playing RTS games, and normal Windows point and clicking. It's really not noticeable bad in FPS games. Basically interface stuff. It feels like the mouse is slow, so it drives me nuts. I get used it after maybe 10 minutes.The easiest way for me to notice it is to clone my display to my CRT, and just move a window around. It doesn't ghost, but there's a large delay between when I move the mouse, and when the pixels actually change. On other LCDs, there's ghosting, but at least the transition starts very quickly.
sharkAttakk - Tuesday, November 30, 2004 - link
By the same token, why no info in the AG neovo F-419?