Multipurpose Displays: What too look for and to avoid

[Acert93]

I am eyeing displays for a purchase down the road (probably beginning of next year unless a killer deal pops up) and would like some general guidance.

What should a newb be looking for?

What should a newb avoid?

Latency is a big issue, especially with some of the displays that do post processing, so how do you know "what you are getting" before you open the box? What sites pay particular attention to latency? I find it a little disconcerting to hear of gamers (even here) who pop for a nice display only to find it has a lot of latency for games.

For me I would use a display as a 2nd display for my PC and also for the 360. VGA and HDMI connections would be necessary while component would be nice. 720p and 1080p are manditory with 1:1 pixel mapping a plus. Low latency and low pixel response time (8ms or below). I have seen a number of nice 23" and 24" displays which appear to have better images than cheap (but more expensive than the 24") 32". If I could get a really nice 32" for a song that would be quite nice.

Interestingly I have found that a lot of displays, besides lacking any information about the type of latency you can expect, also don't tell you what sort of features you get in regards to display features (pixel maps, fill, stretch, PnP, multi-input display and swapping, etc). Likewise seeing all the "16.7M color" displays with visible banding across gradients (i.e. 6bit displays with hardware dithering) pretty much sums up the dilema I see: the numbers are worthless a lot of times, and even more seeing them at a display case at Costco or whatever can be deceptive due to them being uncalibrated and in non-housing like lighting conditions.

Alas I saw a decent Samsung today and as I was checking it out I realized even if I liked it enough to purchase there are the above unknowns I would need to check out first.

I guess the good news is with the 360 having a scaler you set your display to 1080p and the console does the scaling which is probably faster and better quality than most TVs (at least older ones). But after hearing some horror stories about the popular Dell widescreens I thought solicity some feedback here would be great place to start.

Not to mention I am sure those here can note what products they like, which to avoid, and recommend some often overlooked features.

 

[RudeCurve]

Personally I wouldn't want to run X360 at 1080 since there are a few games that have tearing when set to that output resolution. I'd rather get an LCD that has 1680x1050 resolution. I'm using a 22" LCD for my X360 and also for watching HD cable which is set to 720P and it looks great. For X360 output is 1680x1050. I also use it for my PC which is more than enough, in fact I have to make the fonts bigger to be able to see them. I sit about 4' from the display.

 

[Xenus]

Well I have a T240HD I bought from Costco as the display model a few months back. It seems to be the previous gen of that tv. The HD supposedly has a lot worse latency then that none hd version in the previous gen. I'm not sure if this was fixed but I haven't noticed it though I don't play many fps's. I like it though it's looks great as a monitor and nice as a tv. The PS2 tends to look bleh on it and I haven't made enough money to afford a PS3 to check there. However HD channels look nice. I've seen compression artifacting on it on some HD feeds and the upscaler as expected since it's a monitor/tv. I get a little ghosting/double image on some SD shows which I meant to talk to Samsung about but I'm starting to think it's just a quality feed issue as it differs from show to show even on the same channel.

Here is the official samsung page of that model.

I have seen Tigerdirect offering the T260HD for $300-350 if you trust online sites with monitors/tvs but I personally like that to be the one part I can see and get a feel for before I buy thus I buy it local. It also makes returning it less of a hassle if something is wrong.

 

[liolio]

Personally I wouldn't want to run X360 at 1080 since there are a few games that have tearing when set to that output resolution. I'd rather get an LCD that has 1680x1050 resolution. I'm using a 22" LCD for my X360 and also for watching HD cable which is set to 720P and it looks great. For X360 output is 1680x1050. I also use it for my PC which is more than enough, in fact I have to make the fonts bigger to be able to see them. I sit about 4' from the display.

I'm in the same situation and it bother me too. It looks like some Capcom titles face that issue.
It still must be possible to use the display scaler... but basically with that kind of cheap device you trade tearing for bad IQ. I want to use my display as a TV and the bigger the better thus I think I'll deal with it.
I was personnaly looking forward la LG flatron 23" that was really cheap and not that bad this one the LG Flatron W2361V(~180euros) but I changed my mind when I learnt that LG was about to release a 24" using LED ~(220euros) the W2486. The display should be available this summer.
I'll wait for proper reviews but I'm almost already sold.

 

[V3]

Next year ? There should be more OLED available next year. I think there will be at least 15" OLED, bigger size will follow. Though might be pricey. I am keeping a look out for 30+" OLED for PC monitor.

 

[Xenus]

Well both LED and OLED are probably going to be ridiculously expensive for the next few years plus you want to give them a year or two to work out any unforeseen bugs.

 

[RobertR1]

Josh,

http://forums.anandtech.com/messageview.aspx?catid=31&threadid=2049206&enterthread=y

read the first couple of posts on this thread. It's got all the info you need.

personally, I went from a Dell 2405fpw to a Dell 3008fpw. It was a noticeable jump in performance. Everything is subjectively better. The 3008 handles games and fast motion a lot better than the 2405. However, as you read the link above, you'll notice that for gaming, there are much better solutions.

 

[NRP]

Besides, your (illegal) use of mouse/keyboard should offset any disadvantages in response time.

 

[Acert93]

read the first couple of posts on this thread. It's got all the info you need.

Whoa.

You.Da.Man. And it appears that a quality 24" is a tad out of my reach right now--but amazing link and info. Definately a bookmark!

 

[Sc4freak]

Latency is really quite a subjective thing. I have 2 Dell 2408WFP's sitting on my desk. I use them for development and for occasional gaming - and although the response time on these monitors are supposed to be horrendous (according to tests I've seen online), I've never noticed a problem. Then again, I'm not one to play fast-paced action games.

These monitors are absolutely fantastic, though. 1920x1200, brilliant display, and a massive number of connectors at the back. Comes with a card reader and a few USB ports built-in, too. Not sure how much it costs in the US.

 

[Acert93]

Latency is really quite a subjective thing. I have 2 Dell 2408WFP's sitting on my desk. I use them for development and for occasional gaming - and although the response time on these monitors are supposed to be horrendous (according to tests I've seen online), I've never noticed a problem. Then again, I'm not one to play fast-paced action games.

That would be the thing right there: If you are not playing fast paced games, especially competitive ones online, it may make no difference to you. But I have heard a lot of horror stories about gamers on certain displays having significant lag. As Robert's link shows it isn't uncommon to have video-lag on decent displays in the 40ms+ range, so pitting that against a display at <2ms you are looking at 1fps difference. Some displays, especially with post processing, are even greater than that. That sort of lag is the difference between getting the first shot off and dieing before you see the enemy. Not to mention it is going to throw off your aim. 1-2fps additional lag ontop of all the other lag is a big deal. I doubt I would be able to pull off the move I did last night (Assembly, I jumped off a ledge and while descending down I saw 3 enemies spread out and head shot all 3 before I touched the ground for a super sweet triple kill).

 

[Fafalada]

Well both LED and OLED are probably going to be ridiculously expensive for the next few years plus you want to give them a year or two to work out any unforeseen bugs.

LEDs? If you're referring to the things Samsung makes(LCD + array of LEDs to get local-dimming) those aren't terribly expensive anymore, certainly nothing compared to OLED.
As for the latter, while overly expensive, they may be worth it just to finally get rid of ghosting. If they can get the size to 24" or above, I'd be tempted.

 

[RudeCurve]

Josh,

http://forums.anandtech.com/messageview.aspx?catid=31&threadid=2049206&enterthread=y

read the first couple of posts on this thread. It's got all the info you need.

personally, I went from a Dell 2405fpw to a Dell 3008fpw. It was a noticeable jump in performance. Everything is subjectively better. The 3008 handles games and fast motion a lot better than the 2405. However, as you read the link above, you'll notice that for gaming, there are much better solutions.

Interesting that the top 3 gaming displays are 1680x1050.

 

[Entropy]

LEDs? If you're referring to the things Samsung makes(LCD + array of LEDs to get local-dimming) those aren't terribly expensive anymore, certainly nothing compared to OLED.
As for the latter, while overly expensive, they may be worth it just to finally get rid of ghosting. If they can get the size to 24" or above, I'd be tempted.

With response times on the order of microseconds, I should bloody well hope that they get rid of ghosting. The sad thing is that display lag could still be an issue. That said, I'd hope that OLED manufacturers actually push the potential response time advantage of the technology, and offer their panels with at least 120 Hz image refresh for stereo. Current digital interconnect technology is woefully slow though - the bandwidth offered still hasn't progressed from where we were with analog (not to mention that we still use a CRT paradigm in the communication). We need some improvements in the underlying standards.

 

[Acert93]

New Display Advice for 360 / PC Use

In a surprising turn of events my parents decided to splurge for my birthday and handed me 3 spec sheets for various displays. They are value brand models from Costco. First, this is what I currently use and my thoughts:

2x Hyundia L90D+ 19" 1280x1024 LCDs. 8ms response, 300cd/m2 brightness, 700:1 contrast, 170(H)/155(V) viewing angle, .294mm dot pitch, 1x VGA, 1x DVI, a headphone port and no USB. I am not a rabbid videophile like some but I do notice a lot of short comings in the diplays. I have one red stuck pixel, do notice the hardware gradient (advertised as 16.7M color, but really a 6bit panel that is "hardware dithering" for 16.2M), uniformity is pretty weak, the viewing angle makes portrait mode completely unusable, non-native resolutions look HORRIBLE by any measure (smeared macro blocking, laggy, washed out), etc. The buttons are pretty poor, has no scaler or pixel mapping, no HDMI, component, etc. Yet I like the displays. They are bright and colors are bright and adequate contrast with darks (I am sure they are not very accurate) and the viewing angle has not prevented us from enjoying movies on them. And while MS has a number of games that don't letterbox on 5:4 displays it has worked well enough with the 360. I had a 21" Trinitron Sun/Sony CRT before this and actually prefer the LCDs for many reasons. [Due to age and being out of calibration?] the LCDs seemed to have better darks, were easier on the eyes, lighter, less glare, less heat, crisper pixels, etc. Ghosting was never an issue I noticed with the 8ms panel. Colors and dithering could be an issue when working with Photoshop and 5:4 displays have some aspect issues (is that a circle or oval?!) but I was able to put issues aside and really enjoy my dual 19" displays a lot. Warts and all. Size: 16.3x17.1x7.9

All this to say is I am certain any display I find I will find issues, but as long as it works well enough for my main uses I will be happy. Main uses will be my 360 via VGA (or component; mine is not an HDMI unit) where games and Netflix will be the major use and possibly as a 2nd PC display. I could get away with using my 19" as a 2nd PC display but for space reasons using the new display as a multipurpose unit would be preferable. Input lag is a concern.

Needs:
(a) Works well with the 360 via VGA or Component; needs to minimally display a good 720p or 1080p image
(b) minimal input lag
(c) image quality comparable to my current LCDs

Wants:
(d) Range of features like pixel mapping
(e) multi-input switching
(f) I prefer matte over glossy screens

Could care less:
(g) USB ports, speakers
(h) A ton of extra input ports (a single VGA and HDMI is sufficient for my uses)
(i) Best in class image quality (just needs to be sufficient for my uses)
(j) TV tuner

My choices:

(1) 1x 28" HannsG. Model HG-281DPB/236036. 1920x1200, 3ms response, 500cd/m2 brightness, 800:1 contrast, 160(H)/160(V) viewing angle, .309mm dot pitch. HDMI with HDCP, VGA, DVI and component dongle, audio input and earphone jack and some really poor speakers I would never use. No pixel mapping, reviews indicate the 360 has no 1900x1200 mode so 1080p stretches but isn't destroyed (ala my 19"). 3 year warranty. Size: 26.4x19.2x8.4

What I have read: benchmarkreviews.com liked the display for gaming and indicated that they tested it in a similar fashion to my needs. Extremetech was much harder on the unit, but that was reviewed at a higher price. A number of Google hits indicate people are using it with their 360 via VGA or HDMI, although a couple people had issues with HDMI and one person with VGA (you never know what issues these people may be having). The fact the 360 doesn't support 1900x1200 and the display "stretches and fills" would have me concerned about image quality (my L90D+ destroy non-native resolutions) and possibly scaling lag, but no one has seemed to complain so maybe it handles it well? The viewing angle is a slight concern. The side is about perfect as it would be about the footprint of my 2x 19" displays. Overall "cheap gamers" not expecting a high quality MVA have had a solid experience with this model and brand. From what I can gather from the hardOCP review and subjective feedback from owners is this unit has a low input lag.


(2) 1x 32" Proscan. Model Proscan 32LB30Q LCD HDTV. 1366x768, 5ms response, 500cd/m2 brightness, 1200:1 contrast, 176(H)/176(V) viewing angle, tuner (NTSC/ATSC/QAM), HDTV compatible (480i, 480p, 720p, 1080i; doesn't mention if it will accept a 1080p60 signal) They advertise it as "great" for gaming and surfing the net. HDMI (HDCP) x2, Component x1, Svideo x1, Composit x1, VGA x1, PC Stereo x1, SPDIF x1. 2 year warranty. Size: 31.3x23.4x9

What I have read: It is difficult to find reviews on this unit, especially ones giving feedback on it being used for a monitor (I have never used an HDTV as a monitor, I remember they may be some drawbacks?), input lag (it has a game mode, but that can mean anything!), and a full detail of the features (1:1 pixel mapping?) One major complaint is speaker buzzing although I won't use the speakers and some indicate it can be fixed, I did not read if turning them off disables the buzz. Average consumers seemed to really like the image quality.


(3) 2x 24" Sceptre. My dad's current displays (he would like to move up to 2x 28" lol). 1920x1200, 2ms, 4000:1 contrast, 300cd/m2 brightness, 160(V)/160(H) viewing angle. 1x VGA, 1x DVI, no HDMI. Size: 22.3x15.1x7.9. No warranty (1yr expired)

Not as big of a jump over my current LCDs. I would love 2x displays but I already have the 19"s and my laptop only supports 1 display out so 2x. I would be more excited about this prospect if I had my desktop still, but alas I do not. The smaller size, lack of ports. Mixed reports on input lag, but some customer reviews say it has a lot.


I am going to try and check these out in person but I have very limited time, showrooms are deceptive, and they would like an answer asap. I wish I could read more reviews but I don't have the time or access the next couple days Some tips and no strings attached advice would be appreciated. I am definiately leaning away from option #3 and #1 seems better than #2 for my uses if my 360 will be able to drive the display without issue. I did a size contrast and the 28" display is +9.5" horizontally and +3" vertically compared to my current display, so that is a lot of realestate gain. The 32" is bigger, but I have noticed a lot of LCD HDTVs don't have a really sharp image (source issues?) and while the resolution is higher horizontally than my 19" it may not be high enough to look decent on a 32" display. I personally don't get too caught up in the whole "TrueHD" madness as a solid image all around is more important than a couple numbers, but the two displays appear comparable in a number of areas. I don't own any 1080p media, don't plan on a BR player, and most games target 720p. Someone mentioned screen tearing in some 1080p scaled games and PC games (which I don't have a rig for at all right now and few to no games of interest) would do better on the HDTV. The viewing angle is also a lot better on the HDTV. But I am leaning toward the HannsG as a number of PC/360 gamers are using it and are fairly satisified and the Proscan seems to be a big question mark in input lag.

Thoughts?

Links:
HannsG 28"
http://www.costco.com/Browse/Produc...=0&Ntx=mode+matchallpartial&Nty=1&topnav=&s=1
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=hannsg+28+review&aq=0&oq=HannsG+28"&aqi=g10
http://www.newegg.com/Product/ProductReview.aspx?Item=N82E16824254026
http://www.newegg.com/Product/ProductReview.aspx?Item=N82E16824254026
http://www.edn.com/blog/400000040/post/780023078.html
http://benchmarkreviews.com/index.p...ask=view&id=125&Itemid=1&limit=1&limitstart=4
http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=977922
http://www.extremetech.com/article2/0,2845,2205462,00.asp
http://www.overclockers.co.uk/showproduct.php?prodid=MO-025-OK&tool=3
http://www.hardforum.com/showthread.php?t=1231705
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B000TJV9KW?tag=at055-20&ref=dynamitedata.com

32" Proscan 32LB30Q LCD HDTV
http://www.amazon.com/Proscan-32LB30Q-32-LCD-Hdtv/dp/B001V1LKJM
http://reviews.costco.com/2070/11382407/reviews.htm?sortOrder=submissionTime&ascending=true

Sceptre 24" http://www.costco.com/Browse/Produc...&lang=en-US&Sp=C&ec=BC-EC12116-Cat1680&topnav=

 

[Silent_Buddha]

I really wouldn't recommend the number 2 option if you plan to use it as the main display for your computer as you'll be limited to 1366x768 res when using the computer.

Regards,
SB

 

[Xenus]

Yeah plus the general consensus is Proscan is bad news not so great products crap customer service...

HannsG is a nice brand my brother and dad have one and they both look good.

You also might want to go to costco yourself as they tend to have models that don't appear on their site. IE their site is kinda crappy. I got my tv from there and two of the three models I was looking at weren't even listed on the site.

 

[rekator]

Well, if you made a intense usage of Photoshop, or other program with many "palettes" choice 3) is the good.
But check if you can have black border in 1080p for the 360.

 

[Scott_Arm]

I'd got VGA over component, for sure. I wouldn't even consider component. Maybe it's just my monitor, but component seemed to bleed colours, where the VGA is very sharp.

Make sure you get a monitor that will maintain aspect ratio when scaling so you don't get that weird 16:9 -> 16:10 stretch.

I have a Dell 2408wfp, one of the earlier ones with supposedly terrible lag. To be honest, I don't really notice it much. The one game where I really think it makes a difference to me, of all games, is NHL 09. If you have a split second to deke around an opponent, the lag hurts you. Maybe I'd really notice it with other games if I had a faster monitor to compare, but in fast shooter games the lag isn't really apparent to me.

 

[NRP]

Happy Birthday, Josh!