Monitor 22" to 27"

Toggle sidebar Toggle sidebar
L

littleleo

Splendid
May 8, 2009
4,097
17
23,465
I'm going to have to replace my monitor soon my old one is doing the flickering of death. I looking for 22" to 27" model with 2MS response time. One of the models I was looking at was the Asus VS238H-P 23 inch WideScreen. I worry about the color on the Asus models they seem a little off. Anyone got some recommendations on a good monitor. I do some gaming like MWO, SCII, DIII, and WOW, and enjoy watching video on my system.

Hoping to get something under $200, but will do more if it's worth it.

Main system specs

i5-3570K
MSI Z77A-GD65
Kingston HyperX KHX1600C9D3K2/8GX DDR3-1600 8GB Kit
SanDisk Extreme 120GB SSD
Western Digital Caviar Black WD5002AALX 500GB
EVGA 012-P3-2066-KR GeForce GTX 560 Ti (Fermi) 448 Cores FTW

 
Sort by date Sort by votes
S

sam_p_lay

Splendid
Mar 26, 2010
4,627
0
23,460
You're right that colour will be inferior on any display rated faster than 5ms. Honestly the only use of manufacturer-quoted response times is ratings like this 2ms instantly telling you that you're dealing with a poor quality TN film panel. Quality panels (IPS, PLS etc) will never be rated faster than 5ms. But these ratings are a load of crap anyway. There's huge variation between 1ms panels, huge variation between different 5ms panels, huge variation between 8ms panels... I can show you an 8ms monitor that's actually massively faster than a 6ms (this is an exceptionally slow 6ms).

What you need is professional monitor review sites (www.tftcentral.co.uk is the best of these) that actually use high-speed photography to really show you how much trails there is and accurately measure input lag (something totally separate but still speed-related).

You need to understand though that every monitor will be a compromise - there is no perfect panel type. So it's either TN for fastest response (but remember not ALL TNs are really fast, only some) or IPS/PLS for superior image quality. With an effective RTC overdrive like ASUS's Trace Free feature it is possible to have a best-of-both-worlds solution where you get excellent pixel response without sacrificing colour quality. For that I'd strongly recommend the ASUS PA238Q/PB238Q or MX239H (or VS239H-P). Set Trace Free to 40 for best results (turn it too high and you get 'overshoot' - RTC impulse applies excessive voltage and you get inverse trails instead which doesn't help). One of the reasons ASUS Trace Free is so effective is the control it gives you to avoid overshoot, where with most other manufacturers you can't avoid it.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
bryonhowley

bryonhowley

Splendid
Oct 24, 2011
3,742
0
23,960
Well I have 3 Asus VK278Q Black 27" on each of my 3 rigs and I really like them. I have all three of my rigs setup in a Eyefinity/Surround and can say for sure I would never go down to a lower size after using these for 2+years. There are how ever over the $200 price as they run about $294.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
S

sam_p_lay

Splendid
Mar 26, 2010
4,627
0
23,460
Ahhh gotcha. I guess I lump 23" and 24" together in my head since they're so similar. It's never really seemed worth the considerable price increase for that extra inch. If that's your preference though, check out the ASUS PA248Q. They're top quality monitors geared towards graphics designers but a popular 24" choice for gamers. It has Trace Free so you'll get excellent pixel response with it. TFT Central will be reviewing it very soon so if you can hold on a week or so you can see their review.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
S

sam_p_lay

Splendid
Mar 26, 2010
4,627
0
23,460
Haha good man :-D Always best to avoid rushing into a purchase if you can help it. Course hardware death will always rush you into a decision unless you have an emergency backup lying around... but anyway, take a look at that review when it's up. You'll get the facts then about true contrast ratio, black levels, response time etc and all the things you can't put a number on.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
L

littleleo

Splendid
May 8, 2009
4,097
17
23,465
I like the USB 3.0 Hub, but what worries me is the 6ms response time. I'm not used to gaming monitors with higher then 5ms response times. I got to admit I need to more research in to what your saying. The nice thing is I can buy most computer items at a nice discount for my self. I usually take my time before I buy anything and it drives my family nuts, lol.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
S

sam_p_lay

Splendid
Mar 26, 2010
4,627
0
23,460
TFT Central use high-speed photography with an application called PixPerAn to actually show you still frame closeups of trails. Left side image is the best-case-scenario and right side is the worst you'll see from the display. You could open these each in its own tab and flip between them but the difference is so clear, you won't even need to.

6ms:

http://www.tftcentral.co.uk/images/pixperan/philips_273e3qhsb.jpg

8ms:

http://www.tftcentral.co.uk/images/pixperan/nec_p232w.jpg

Obviously I've picked the absolute worst 6ms in existence there and a very fast 8ms, but just useful to illustrate how little value manufacturer-quoted response times have. There's absolutely collosal variation between different 5ms panels, or different 1ms panels etc. You can absolutely get superior pixel response from a 5ms-rated panel even than a 1ms panel (though the fastest I've ever seen I think was 2ms).

I won't get into the technical side of it (unless you really want me to, then I'll talk you through it tomorrow) but believe me when I say it's not even possible to boil response down to a single number - it's just too complex. Even if manufacturers were 100% honest (and they're far from it), they still couldn't give a single number to quantify performance. You need professional reviews, like the reviews these images came from.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
S

swifty_morgan

Illustrious
Feb 10, 2006
13,566
1
42,960


try playing a game side by side. going from a crt to a 16:9 ( 1680X1050 ) i WAS WONDERING WHY THE PICTURE DIDN'T FIT THE SCREEN RIGHT AND WHY THINGS LOOKED SHORTER THAN THEY SHOULD. The replacing that with a 28" 16:10 I got that "full" feeling again.

try a few different monitors. ( aspect ratios ) if you can't tell the difference i'll buy you a house!
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
L

littleleo

Splendid
May 8, 2009
4,097
17
23,465


According to the link it is a 16:10-1200

"The ASUS VS24AH-P was designed with attention to even the finest details. Boasting a 1920 x 1200 resolution, 80,000,000:1 ASUS Smart Contrast Ratio, and a 16:10 aspect ratio"

Who is giving away houses? I'll take a Jacuzzi with mine ;^D
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
S

swifty_morgan

Illustrious
Feb 10, 2006
13,566
1
42,960


the 1680x1050 I purchased was 16:9. said so in the description/said it in the paperwork/said it on the box................. but you don't want to agree that the pictures are stretched out and bobbed to fit the screen whereas in a 16:10 they are not ( 1080p-to the aspect ration the OP just posted. ).......... that extra 120 lines makes one heck of a difference in the way stuff is displayed on the screen.

houses.................. give you name and street addresses. I'll have the porta potties dropped off in a day or two.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
S

sam_p_lay

Splendid
Mar 26, 2010
4,627
0
23,460


Haha somebody needs to learn about aspect ratios! It's very simple - width:height. 1600x1000 would obviously be 16:10. 80x50 is obviously 16:10. If you don't understand mathematical ratios then I can't help you (I'm not a maths teacher). Fire up your calculator and divide 1680 by 1050. You'll get 1.6. Or look it up on Wikipedia, open a forum thread etc... I guarantee it's a 16:10 resolution.

If the physical dimensions of your monitor are 16:10 (for some bizarre reason) then of course things will either be stretched/squished or letterboxed. I don't think any company would do that though. Native res will always be a suitable aspect ratio.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
S

sam_p_lay

Splendid
Mar 26, 2010
4,627
0
23,460
1600x1200 is 4:3. I strongly suggest you learn about ratios. Speaking of 4:3, I've played modern games (Bioshock for example) at 4:3 and it was absolutely fine (to those who don't understand aspect ratios, 4:3 is old "square" monitors). Playing at 16:9 it's also absolutely fine. Obviously if you played at 1600x900 for example on an old "square" monitor then it would be massively stretched. Same if you played at 1600x1200 (4:3) on a modern 16:9 monitor, but obviously stretched the other way instead. Just play at the correct aspect ratio for your monitor - very simple.

As for the added 120 lines, as I say I have 1920x1200 at work. It's really not that different. OP - to clarify, I'm absolutely not saying 1920x1200 is to be avoided. I'm simply saying it doesn't matter. Many 24" panels are 1920x1200 so it's probably what you'll end up with regardless. Here's what that means:

- some slight letterboxing of 16:9 content like HDTV (not anything major though)
- slightly reduced framerate due to increased pixel count (again, nothing noticeable - fps drop will be minimal)
- slightly increased screen space for fitting more of a document/webpage/etc on the screen at once without scrolling (again, nothing major)

So a couple of tiny drawbacks and one tiny advantage. Forget the talk about stretching / cropping (or "bobbing" - still not sure what was meant there). Run your monitor at native res (1920x1200) and aspect ratio will be correct.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Moderators online

Share this page

COMPANY
RESOURCES
FOLLOW
Top Bottom