Which LCD to buy?

[Goragoth]

I'm looking to replace my 19" CRT with a 17" LCD. This should get me more space on my desk plus I like the sharper image the LCDs give (especially for coding). So here are the candidates:

Name (contrast, refresh)
-------------------------------------------------
Sony SDMHS73B (400:1, 20ms)
Samsung Syncmaster 710N (600:1, 12ms)
Philips 170B5CB (450:1, 25ms)
Philips 170S5FB (450:1, 16ms)

The Sony and Samsung are ~NZ$750 and both the Philipses are ~NZ$550. I'm not too worried about the difference in price, I'm more concerened about getting the best monitor. It will also be used quite heavily for gaming so pixel refresh is important. The Samsung has the best specs of the lot and is looking nice but I have heard that specs aren't everything with LCDs so I'm hoping to hear from people that have experience with any of these monitors. I'm going to be ordering over the net so I can't get a feel for them first-hand though I might so if any of the stores in town have the same monitors on display.

Any help will be greatly appreciated.

 

[thegrommit]

The only one I'd consider is the Philips 170B5CB as it has a DVI connector. The problem of course is that it has the poorest response time.

 

[Himself]

Only experience with lcds is mine, a 19" jtx v9s. I like it, I use both the dvi and analog input, with 2 computers, swap between them using the monitor controls. Kinda brighter than crts, less dynamic range though, and you want to use the native resolution for everything. One good thing is that the colour is always the same, you don't have to fiddle with it. Also it's perfectly square, no wierd rounded edges or trapazoid shapes displays. You get used to the ghosting effect from the response time, but crts definitely have the edge there.

 

[Nite_Hawk]

If you look at some of the older threads on here you can see some explanations of pixel response time. Basically manufacturers list the response going from white to black to white or black to white to black which is the best case scenario for most LCDs. This means that the 25ms or 16ms figure you see is actually the best case scenario, and you aren't told what the average case or worst case scenarios are. Thus, if a LCD has a published 16ms response time, it doesn't necessarily mean that it will be 16ms in all cases. a display with a best case response of 25ms and a worst case response of 40ms would likely look much better than a display with a best case of 16ms and a worst case of 60ms.

Nite_Hawk

 

[Tim]

Name (contrast, refresh)
-------------------------------------------------
Sony SDMHS73B (400:1, 20ms)
Samsung Syncmaster 710N (600:1, 12ms)
Philips 170B5CB (450:1, 25ms)
Philips 170S5FB (450:1, 16ms)

All these monitors uses TN-panels, S-IPS panels are superior - but more expensive. My sugestions:

LG Flatron L1710B

There are other monitors using S-IPS, but it is really a jungel out there.

 

[_xxx_]

From those you listed, Samsung is the best one. I'd also go with LG, though.

 

[Goragoth]

Ok, I had another look and the LG Flatron 1710B is actually cheaper than the Samsung. I think that's what I'll get then. Thanks for the advice.

I do have another question now though - can anyone tell me what the differences are between:
Flatron L1710B
Flatron L1710S
Flatron L1720B
Flatron L1730P
Flatron L1730S


This is really confusing. Is the 1710B the best of that lot? The 1730P is the most expensive one of these and does have the best paper specs (12ms, 550:1) but the site I'm looking at says nothing about if its TN or S-IPS. I guess I'm going to have to do some more googling on this but any advice/opinions are welcome.

 

[Tahir2]

What is the difference between the two types (TN and S-IPS) of LCD screens?

 

[Tim]

I do have another question now though - can anyone tell me what the

Like I said, it is a Jungle but I will try to help. The German LG (LGE.de) site actually has panels types in the specs, the best site for LCD info is prad.de but that does not help you if you don't read german.

differences are between:
Flatron L1710B

S-IPS, Contrast 550:1, 250cd/cm2, DVI

Flatron L1710S

Just like L1710B, but no DVI.

Flatron L1720B

Also S-IPS, looks cooler (in my opinion) than the L1710B but has worse contrast (450:1)

Flatron L1730P
Flatron L1730S

TN-panels and no DVI for the S-version.

What is the difference between the two types (TN and S-IPS) of LCD screens?

xbit labs has a very good article on LCDs including the different types of panels.

http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/other/display/lcd-guide_22.html

The biggest problem with TN is poor color reproduction, the TN panels are really only 18bit + plus some tricks to get near the 24bit - still they do not match real 24bit panels like the S-IPS based. The advantage of TN-panels is cost and they used to have a responce time advantage.

IPS used to have very high response time 40-60 ms, but that has been fixed with the S-IPS panels.


Edit:
Another thing LCD monitors can have pixel-errors so buy the monitor somewhere where you can see the monitor in action before you buy or somewhere where you can return the monitor if it has errors.

 

[Goragoth]

Thanks heaps Tim, that's a lot of good info and I'll check out prad.de (I happen to be fluent in German). The 1710B sure has some good reviews so I think I will go with that.

Another thing LCD monitors can have pixel-errors so buy the monitor somewhere where you can see the monitor in action before you buy or somewhere where you can return the monitor if it has errors.

Yeah, the infamous stuck pixel - I know. I will order it over the Internet but I've talked to someone else who bought a LCD from that place and he had a bad pixel and got a forward-replacement right away when he complained.

 

[Tim]

Thanks heaps Tim, that's a lot of good info and I'll check out prad.de (I happen to be fluent in German). The 1710B sure has some good reviews so I think I will go with that.

The 18" ViewSonic VP181b should also be great (better than the 1710B), it is more expensive (and not a 17" like you asked for).

Edit: I have been reading a bit on the prad.de forum, it seems that there are some TN-based 1710B out there (not good).

 

[Goragoth]

Its not so much that I want a 17" more that 18" and 19" LCDs have the same resolution as the 17" ones (which means bigger pixels).

I just checked on the listed specs again and it depressingly looks like the site I'm looking to buy my monitor from has the TN version (16.2m colours). The site doesn't have the 18" ViewSonic you mentioned either.

I may be stuck going with a 19" display (which tend to be S-IPS based). Would getting a 19" LCD be a good idea or are their relatively larger pixels very apparent? I guess I might have to go into town and actually look at some different models.

 

[Nite_Hawk]

Its not so much that I want a 17" more that 18" and 19" LCDs have the same resolution as the 17" ones (which means bigger pixels).

I just checked on the listed specs again and it depressingly looks like the site I'm looking to buy my monitor from has the TN version (16.2m colours). The site doesn't have the 18" ViewSonic you mentioned either.

I may be stuck going with a 19" display (which tend to be S-IPS based). Would getting a 19" LCD be a good idea or are their relatively larger pixels very apparent? I guess I might have to go into town and actually look at some different models.

I have a 19" LCD and you can see the pixels some, but it's not too bad. I'd rather have a 20" at 1600x1200, but I got my display back when the 20" ones were way too expensive. Still, I'd rather have the 19" rather than a 17" at the same resolution. You can push the screen back farther and still read stuff fine, yet you get more desk space.

Nite_Hawk

 

[swaaye]

What are your opinions about LCDs and games in general?

I'm currently very much against them for games. I use my laptop almost exclusively for gaming, and have for the last 9 months or so. IMO, LCDs are just not ideal at all for the movement, colors, contrast, or resolution adaptability. If I can't get 1280x800 out of a game, the non-native resolution means a blurry image. No LCDs can get around this unless you want to go letter-boxed.

Doom3 is just FAR FAR better looking on a CRT because LCDs can't remotely get the shadows right, partly because of their inability to make black but also due to their limited color range.

And then there's the price. I can go out and buy a $900 32" HDTV or a monstrous CRT monitor for the same price as a 19" LCD at Best Buy (meaning it's probably mid-low end).

However, LCDs are wonderful for web browsing and other desktop work. Basically anything other than games. They are easier on the eyes, create an arguably sharper image, etc.

I just don't think the tech is remotely there yet for gaming. Especially with the price delta.

 

[Nite_Hawk]

What are your opinions about LCDs and games in general?

I'm currently very much against them for games. I use my laptop almost exclusively for gaming, and have for the last 9 months or so. IMO, LCDs are just not ideal at all for the movement, colors, contrast, or resolution adaptability. If I can't get 1280x800 out of a game, the non-native resolution means a blurry image. No LCDs can get around this unless you want to go letter-boxed.

Doom3 is just FAR FAR better looking on a CRT because LCDs can't remotely get the shadows right, partly because of their inability to make black but also due to their limited color range.

And then there's the price. I can go out and buy a $900 32" HDTV or a monstrous CRT monitor for the same price as a 19" LCD at Best Buy (meaning it's probably mid-low end).

However, LCDs are wonderful for web browsing and other desktop work. Basically anything other than games. They are easier on the eyes, create an arguably sharper image, etc.

I just don't think the tech is remotely there yet for gaming. Especially with the price delta.

Quite honestly, the only thing that I dislike about my LCD with respect to gaming is the pixel response time. The contrast, the resolution (I've been able to run anything reasonably recent at 1280x1024 without any problems), and the colors are all top notch. Infact, I'd go so far as to say that both the colors and contrast on my LCD are better than on the CRT it replaced (While it wasn't a particularly great CRT, it was better than many).

There are two annoyances I have with my LCD. One is that it takes it far too long (nearly 4-5 seconds) to lock onto a DVI signal. This is probably a quirk of my specific display. It's annoying, but I can live with it. The other is the pixel response time. My display is rated at 25ms, but for certain color transitions it is significantly slower. I don't mind it most of the time, but for certain games it's very noticable. Newer displays are getting better in this respect, but until the minimum transition time is closer to 16ms (though this is only the rise OR fall, not the combination of the two), LCDs are going to be (to varying degrees) trailing CRTs in this regard.

Overall, I'm pretty happy with my LCD for gaming though. Happy enough that I haven't bothered to go pick up a cheap 19" CRT for gaming purposes.

Nite_Hawk

 

[ANova]

I suggest the Viewsonic VP171s/b (500:1, 16ms), Samsung 172X (450:1, ~12ms) or Samsung 173P (700:1, 25ms).

 

[Goragoth]

Gawd, this is turning out to be complex. I've been spending some time reading up and looking around and still haven't come to make a decision other than that I'm going to go with 19" after all. One model that I've been looking at that sounds good is the HP L1955 (19" S-PVA based panel, 16ms pixel response). Not the greatest panel on the market for gaming but frankly I'm more worried about colour reproduction and I hear that it is excelent (according to Prad.de). I'm also pretty certain that this is the same model that I saw in the shop today, which blew me away in terms of colour reproduction.

One thing that bothers me is that the specs listed on the website of the retailer where I intend to buy my monitor doesn't always match the specs listed on Prad.de. Specifically it looks like some models may have both TN and S-IPS versions and those on the retailers website look to be the TN panel kind (12ms pixel response, 16.2 mill colours). Just to make things more confusing.