LCD monitors - prices coming down?

Archived from groups: misc.consumers,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.video (More info?)

LCD monitor prices have been holding pretty steady for a while, but
I've seen a few news articles indicating that they may start coming
down sometime around mid-summer. Any indications on whether it's
worth waiting a couple months or so?
29 answers Last reply
More about monitors prices coming down
  1. Archived from groups: misc.consumers,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.video (More info?)

    "Steve" <ati@bgt.inv> wrote in message
    news:ika7b09e75a1683rb8j9ir8ge7p7nh1t7s@4ax.com...
    > LCD monitor prices have been holding pretty steady for a while, but
    > I've seen a few news articles indicating that they may start coming
    > down sometime around mid-summer. Any indications on whether it's
    > worth waiting a couple months or so?
    >
    >
    Murphy's Law: No matter how long you wait for the price to come down, it
    will still be cheaper the day after you buy it.
  2. Archived from groups: misc.consumers,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.video (More info?)

    "JerryL" <jlevine@adelphia.net> wrote:
    >> LCD monitor prices have been holding pretty steady for a while, but
    >> I've seen a few news articles indicating that they may start coming
    >> down sometime around mid-summer. Any indications on whether it's
    >> worth waiting a couple months or so?
    >>
    >Murphy's Law: No matter how long you wait for the price to come down, it
    >will still be cheaper the day after you buy it.

    Yeah, I know. But the day after would be ok, it's generally 31 days
    after that gets annoying. :)

    The 17" LCD monitors have been around $400-500 for quite a while now,
    I'm sure the law will require them to drop to $200 the day after....
  3. Archived from groups: misc.consumers,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.video (More info?)

    In article <ika7b09e75a1683rb8j9ir8ge7p7nh1t7s@4ax.com>,
    Steve <ati@bgt.inv> wrote:

    > LCD monitor prices have been holding pretty steady for a while, but
    > I've seen a few news articles indicating that they may start coming
    > down sometime around mid-summer. Any indications on whether it's
    > worth waiting a couple months or so?

    Electronic equipment usually comes down in price for relatively new
    technology. As with any piece of computer equipment, if you need the
    monitor now, buy it now. If you can wait, then wait.
  4. Archived from groups: misc.consumers,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.video (More info?)

    "JerryL" <jlevine@adelphia.net> wrote in news:cI6dnelJGesLMi7dRVn-
    jw@adelphia.com:

    > Murphy's Law: No matter how long you wait for the price to come down, it
    > will still be cheaper the day after you buy it.

    Except gas.

    --
    Minister of All Things Digital & Electronic, and Holder of Past Knowledge
    stile99@email.com. Cabal# 24601-fnord | Sleep is irrelevant.
    I speak for no one but myself, and |Caffeine will be assimilated.
    no one else speaks for me. O- | Decaf is futile.
  5. Archived from groups: misc.consumers,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.video (More info?)

    On Tue, 25 May 2004 13:23:50 -0700, Steve <ati@bgt.inv> wrote:

    >LCD monitor prices have been holding pretty steady for a while, but
    >I've seen a few news articles indicating that they may start coming
    >down sometime around mid-summer. Any indications on whether it's
    >worth waiting a couple months or so?
    >

    Someone posted in another group that 12ms response time LCD's are
    about to hit the market so when those are introduced I would expect
    the current crop with slower response times to drop in price.
  6. Archived from groups: misc.consumers,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.video (More info?)

    Steve <ati@bgt.inv> wrote:
    >LCD monitor prices have been holding pretty steady for a while, but
    >I've seen a few news articles indicating that they may start coming
    >down sometime around mid-summer. Any indications on whether it's
    >worth waiting a couple months or so?
    >
    With IT spending up in general, and LCD TVs ramping up quickly, I doubt you'll
    see any big reductions in the near term. Manufacturers didn't make much money
    in the 15" space, so I'm sure nobody's in a hurry to get into a price war in the
    17" and up space.
  7. Archived from groups: misc.consumers,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.video (More info?)

    "Slug" <no@email.here> wrote in message
    news:2u89b0hv5mceq7v4v1jembao123ii2bdu0@4ax.com...
    > On Tue, 25 May 2004 13:23:50 -0700, Steve <ati@bgt.inv> wrote:
    >
    > >LCD monitor prices have been holding pretty steady for a while, but
    > >I've seen a few news articles indicating that they may start coming
    > >down sometime around mid-summer. Any indications on whether it's
    > >worth waiting a couple months or so?
    > >
    >
    > Someone posted in another group that 12ms response time LCD's are
    > about to hit the market so when those are introduced I would expect
    > the current crop with slower response times to drop in price.

    History says that isn't very likely. What you MAY find is closeout
    specials on "older technology"
    units, but the production lines will generally shift wholesale to the faster
    material (unless it's done
    by "overdrive" technology, which will result in higher prices due to added
    parts).

    Can't beat 'em, and can't join 'em - just have to live with what's
    available, IMHO.

    NGA
  8. Archived from groups: misc.consumers,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.video (More info?)

    very likely. the best indicator is that i just bought one!:-(
    --
    getting out of bed in the morning is an act of false confidence
    - jules feifer
    to email me, delete blackhole. from my return address
  9. Archived from groups: misc.consumers,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.video (More info?)

    You can get some already - look out for reviews on the Samsung Syncmaster
    172 X - response times of 12ms and very highly rated - though for a price -
    £400 in www.komplett.co.uk and I am sure similar prices in the states...


    "Slug" <no@email.here> wrote in message
    news:2u89b0hv5mceq7v4v1jembao123ii2bdu0@4ax.com...
    > On Tue, 25 May 2004 13:23:50 -0700, Steve <ati@bgt.inv> wrote:
    >
    > >LCD monitor prices have been holding pretty steady for a while, but
    > >I've seen a few news articles indicating that they may start coming
    > >down sometime around mid-summer. Any indications on whether it's
    > >worth waiting a couple months or so?
    > >
    >
    > Someone posted in another group that 12ms response time LCD's are
    > about to hit the market so when those are introduced I would expect
    > the current crop with slower response times to drop in price.
  10. Archived from groups: misc.consumers,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.video (More info?)

    > > Someone posted in another group that 12ms response time LCD's are
    > > about to hit the market so when those are introduced I would expect
    > > the current crop with slower response times to drop in price.

    I was just reading a thread in another group about this, too. fyi, many
    were claiming that the 12ms time comes at the expense of color palette;
    i.e., they're only going to have 16bit color at best.
  11. Archived from groups: misc.consumers,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.video (More info?)

    I don't mind that - I also remember reading that it was 16.2 million colours
    as opposed to true 16 bit which is 16.7 million colours.

    Can many people distinguish between 16, 24 or 32 bit colour ranges??


    "Nonymous" <nospam@nospam.net> wrote in message
    news:go6dnfTzUYg_YCjdRVn-jg@giganews.com...
    >
    > > > Someone posted in another group that 12ms response time LCD's are
    > > > about to hit the market so when those are introduced I would expect
    > > > the current crop with slower response times to drop in price.
    >
    > I was just reading a thread in another group about this, too. fyi, many
    > were claiming that the 12ms time comes at the expense of color palette;
    > i.e., they're only going to have 16bit color at best.
    >
    >
  12. Archived from groups: misc.consumers,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.video (More info?)

    I've been watching the prices for about 2 years and it seems like prices
    are fropping about 10% a quarter. The well known brands aren't deopping as
    fast as the unkowns. I'm waiting till the nmae brand 19" is well under
    $500.00 with at least a 3 yr renewable warranty before I buy .

    --
    73
    Hank WD5JFR
    "Steve" <ati@bgt.inv> wrote in message
    news:ika7b09e75a1683rb8j9ir8ge7p7nh1t7s@4ax.com...
    > LCD monitor prices have been holding pretty steady for a while, but
    > I've seen a few news articles indicating that they may start coming
    > down sometime around mid-summer. Any indications on whether it's
    > worth waiting a couple months or so?
    >
    >
  13. Archived from groups: misc.consumers,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.video (More info?)

    b0yce wrote:

    > Can many people distinguish between 16, 24 or 32 bit colour ranges??

    Yes!!!

    I probably couldn't tell 24- from 32-bit, but AFAIK no LCD is remotely
    capable of 32-bit colour.

    16-bit is easily spotted though, when doing photo work.

    --
    "Cues 16 thru 82... GO."
    ---------------------------------------------------------------
    Simon Waldman, UK email: swaldman@firecloud.org.uk
    ---------------------------------------------------------------
  14. Archived from groups: misc.consumers,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.video (More info?)

    "Nonymous" <nospam@nospam.net> wrote in message
    news:go6dnfTzUYg_YCjdRVn-jg@giganews.com...
    > I was just reading a thread in another group about this, too. fyi, many
    > were claiming that the 12ms time comes at the expense of color palette;
    > i.e., they're only going to have 16bit color at best.

    I can't speak for all monitors that migh be claiming such a response
    time, but there are several techniques available which will permit
    12 ms or even faster while still maintaining 8 bits per color or
    better.

    Bob M.
  15. Archived from groups: misc.consumers,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.video (More info?)

    "Simon Waldman" <swaldman@firecloud.org.uk> wrote in message
    news:ljqjo1-ol7.ln1@blue.firecloud.org.uk...
    > I probably couldn't tell 24- from 32-bit, but AFAIK no LCD is remotely
    > capable of 32-bit colour.

    Well, technically, there's not going to be anything capable of
    "32-bit" color; assuming you want equal dynamic range on
    all three channels, your choices would be either 30 bit
    (10 bits/primary) or 33 (11 bits/primary). 10-bit drivers
    are starting to become available now, although certainly
    this level of performance is not yet common in mainstream
    products. Even 24 bits (8 per primary) would be more than
    adequate, though, IF something more sensible than simple
    linear encoding is used.

    Bob M.
  16. Archived from groups: misc.consumers,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.video (More info?)

    Bob Myers wrote:

    > Well, technically, there's not going to be anything capable of
    > "32-bit" color; assuming you want equal dynamic range on
    > all three channels, your choices would be either 30 bit
    > (10 bits/primary) or 33 (11 bits/primary).

    A good point and one which, to my shame, I'd never noticed. So any idea
    what Windows display drivers mean when they refer to 32-bit colour?

    --
    Sometimes a majority only means that all the fools are on the
    same side.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------
    Simon Waldman, UK email: swaldman@firecloud.org.uk
    ---------------------------------------------------------------
  17. Archived from groups: misc.consumers,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.video (More info?)

    Simon Waldman <swaldman@firecloud.org.uk> wrote in message news:<8tmko1-ks8.ln1@blue.firecloud.org.uk>...
    > Bob Myers wrote:
    >
    > > Well, technically, there's not going to be anything capable of
    > > "32-bit" color; assuming you want equal dynamic range on
    > > all three channels, your choices would be either 30 bit
    > > (10 bits/primary) or 33 (11 bits/primary).
    >
    > A good point and one which, to my shame, I'd never noticed. So any idea
    > what Windows display drivers mean when they refer to 32-bit colour?

    I believe it's usually 3 8-bit channels stored in 4 bytes; the fourth
    byte is sacrificed to maintain 32-bit alignment. Some graphics engines
    and drivers may be more efficient in this mode, because it causes all
    data accesses to be 32-bit aligned. Some software won't work properly
    in 24-bit mode and requires 32-bit mode.

    (Because you can sacrifice a bit or so of resolution in the blue
    channel, you could conceivably have an 11/11/10-bit RGB in 32 bits,
    but I don't know of anybody who does this.)

    --
    Chris Green
  18. Archived from groups: misc.consumers,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.video (More info?)

    joe smith wrote:
    >>A good point and one which, to my shame, I'd never noticed. So any idea
    >>what Windows display drivers mean when they refer to 32-bit colour?
    >
    >
    > 24 bit color and 8 bit used for either padding or alpha, there are various
    > hardware related reasons why it is faster to read and write to/from memory
    > with chunks which have size multiples of the memory bus width.

    Ah, of course. Probably alpha in my case.
    Thanks.


    --
    "People don't ask for facts in making up their minds. They would rather
    have one good, soul-satisfying emotion than a dozen facts."
    - Robert Keith Leavitt
    ---------------------------------------------------------------
    Simon Waldman, UK email: swaldman@firecloud.org.uk
    ---------------------------------------------------------------
  19. Archived from groups: misc.consumers,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.video (More info?)

    On Thu, 27 May 2004 13:11:40 +0000 (UTC), "b0yce"
    <b0yce@.NOSPAM.btinternet.com> wrote:

    >You can get some already - look out for reviews on the Samsung Syncmaster
    >172 X - response times of 12ms and very highly rated - though for a price -
    >£400 in www.komplett.co.uk and I am sure similar prices in the states...

    Are these 12ms LCD's 24bit or just 16bit.
  20. Archived from groups: misc.consumers,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.video (More info?)

    Simon Waldman wrote:
    > b0yce wrote:
    >
    >> Can many people distinguish between 16, 24 or 32 bit colour ranges??
    >
    >
    > Yes!!!
    >
    > I probably couldn't tell 24- from 32-bit, but AFAIK no LCD is remotely
    > capable of 32-bit colour.

    ??? Explain please. My notebook is running at 1024 x 768 @ 32 bits
    My main desktop runs at 1280 x 1024 @ 32
    My office desktop runs at 32 bit also (I think 1280 but I'm not sure)

    dick
  21. Archived from groups: misc.consumers,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.video (More info?)

    > ??? Explain please. My notebook is running at 1024 x 768 @ 32 bits
    > My main desktop runs at 1280 x 1024 @ 32
    > My office desktop runs at 32 bit also (I think 1280 but I'm not sure)

    The question wasn't can it display the signal but can it display it with all
    significant color bits. How many gray levels does your notebook running 1024
    x 768 @ 32 bits can display? How many gray levels your desktop running at
    1280 x 1024 @ 32 can display? How many gray levels does your office desktop
    running at 32 bit also can display?

    1024? 256? If less, how many?
  22. Archived from groups: misc.consumers,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.video (More info?)

    I wonder too . I excpected lower laptops/notebooks to be much less
    than they are now . I think the cost to make them has been drastically
    reduced but the demand is high .

    On Tue, 25 May 2004 13:23:50 -0700, Steve <ati@bgt.inv> wrote:

    >LCD monitor prices have been holding pretty steady for a while, but
    >I've seen a few news articles indicating that they may start coming
    >down sometime around mid-summer. Any indications on whether it's
    >worth waiting a couple months or so?
    >
    >
  23. Archived from groups: misc.consumers,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.video (More info?)

    "joe smith" <rapu@ra73727uashduashfh.org> wrote in message
    news:c98m1i$i8r$1@phys-news1.kolumbus.fi...
    > Alright. 24 bit color has 8 bits per component which means 256 different
    > levels of intensity. This is adequate (not enough, IMHO; but adequate.. in
    > near future we'll be using floating-point color everywhere but not just
    > yet..).

    Ummmm...you know of a display technology that
    inherently speaks floating-point notation? :-)

    Bob M.
  24. Archived from groups: misc.consumers,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.video (More info?)

    <nospam4me@nospam.com> wrote in message
    news:40bb04e7.52396627@news.myjoi.net...
    > I wonder too . I excpected lower laptops/notebooks to be much less
    > than they are now . I think the cost to make them has been drastically
    > reduced but the demand is high .
    >

    It's a question of supply and demand, with the "supply" side of
    the equation controlled by the rate at which new, larger LCD
    fabs can come on line. A good number of Gen. 5-7 plants are
    in the planning, construction, or start-up phases at present, and
    will be brought to full capacity over the next couple of years.
    At the moment, though, the industry is still coming out of an
    undersupply situation.

    Bob M.
  25. Archived from groups: misc.consumers,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.video (More info?)

    > Ummmm...you know of a display technology that
    > inherently speaks floating-point notation? :-)

    Since you fail to quote the specific part of my post I must extrapolate that
    you mean this snip:

    "24 bit color has 8 bits per component which means 256 different
    levels of intensity. This is adequate (not enough, IMHO; but adequate.. in
    near future we'll be using floating-point color everywhere but not just
    yet..)."

    When you put it into context of memory organization you realize I was
    talking about framebuffer, not display technology. Do you want another
    lengthy lecture why floating-point framebuffer is advantageous in image
    generation? I really don't have as much time currently as I had when made
    the previous post.

    I will be brief:

    - floating-point framebuffer has more stops for intensity ramps in
    low-intensity range which is crucial for good looking gamma correction: when
    you "zoom" (luminance wise) into limited numeric range with fixed integer
    steps from one intensity to another banding will appear, especially on
    really dark areas of generated image.

    - we can store intensity values over 1.0 maximum, even though the DAC will
    clamp each component to 1.0 when we do post-processing and multipass
    rendering we will find out that more vibrant and bright images are possible
    to generate compared to color blending system where everything is saturated
    to range from 0.0 to 1.0

    - more precision will mean less loss of precision, example:

    If we have 4 layers we are blending together we lose lowest bit to round-off
    error every time, in this case it means maximum error will be 4. this means
    two bits. Out of 8 bits of precision means we have only 6 significant bits
    left so we only have 64 distinct luminance values we have control on how
    they are computed.

    - 8 bits per primary component is too little for any serious work, the next
    logical step is 16 bits per component because it adds up to a nice
    power-of-two sum (64 bits). Silicon Graphics used 12 bits (integer) per
    primary on their workstation chipsets for years. This was a compromise we
    don't have to do anymore because we are beyond the point where it is too
    cost inefficient to implement floating-point arithmetic at affordable price.
    The reason for this is that the we can now pack more transistors into
    smaller area which means we can make chips smaller which means higher yields
    which means products are cheaper to manufacture so we can finally get this
    incredible performance and feature-rich hardware for peanuts.

    It really doesn't take a rocket-scientist to figure this out. The Display
    Technology doesn't have to keep up even, 8 bpp or even 10 bpp per component
    displays are alright. More would be better obviously but the more serious
    quality bottleneck of the framebuffer has atleast been overcome in
    higher-end hardware. Now there is loss only at end of the pipeline: not in
    every single step, add increased range for color components for the image
    generation and it's a no-brainer. So the increased precision helps in more
    ways than one.

    Did you know that is is very difficult to get "perfect gray" on RGB565?
    Interested in why? Even if not, the point is that 888 is just split of hair
    away from 565, barely above the treshold of adequate. I would expect
    intelligent beings to aim higher. And we are.
  26. Archived from groups: misc.consumers,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.video (More info?)

    "joe smith" <rapu@ra73727uashduashfh.org> wrote in message
    news:c9iqfv$cn3$1@phys-news1.kolumbus.fi...
    > > Ummmm...you know of a display technology that
    > > inherently speaks floating-point notation? :-)
    >
    > Since you fail to quote the specific part of my post I must extrapolate
    that
    > you mean this snip:

    Joe, this: :-) is a smiley. It is used to indicate a response that
    is to be taken less-than-completely-seriously. In this case, about
    half seriously, if that.

    Yes, I am well aware of the advantages of floating-point representation
    within a frame buffer - however, ultimately, all images wind up being
    presented to human users, with regular ol' human vision, on SOME
    sort of electronic display. So the serious point to be taken from my
    half-serious comment is that it makes little sense to build performance
    into the graphics hardware which could never have a visible impact on
    the displayed image.

    Does this mean that I think that 8 bit/primary linear encoding is
    adequate? Of course not; however, we don't quite have to go to a
    full floating-point representation, either, in order to provide a good
    deal more color information than any practical display device will
    every be capable of, or for that matter could possibly be handled
    by the human visual system. Somewhere in the neighborhood
    of 10-12 bits/primary, ESPECIALLY if we think beyond simply
    linear encoding, you're at the point where further improvements
    are likely going to be not worth the effort - from those perspectives.

    Re your latest, more specific points:

    > - floating-point framebuffer has more stops for intensity ramps in
    > low-intensity range which is crucial for good looking gamma correction:
    when
    > you "zoom" (luminance wise) into limited numeric range with fixed integer
    > steps from one intensity to another banding will appear, especially on
    > really dark areas of generated image.

    On the other hand, it IS reasonable to ask just how much you need
    in this respect, and what the best practical means is for delivering it.
    There's also a difference between how images are generated (and the
    accuracy you need to carry around in the numbers within that process)
    and the representation you finally want to come up with for delivery
    to the output hardware. And please note that your "snip"
    DID include the following:

    "This is adequate (not enough, IMHO; but adequate.. in
    near future we'll be using floating-point color everywhere but not just
    yet..)."

    I can't tell from this what you meant by "everywhere," but to ME,
    that would imply things like the DAC (if you've got one) or, more
    likely, whatever digital representation you're feeding to your
    display device.

    In short, let's try not to take any of this so seriously in the future, OK?
    It just ain't worth the stomach acid...

    Bob M.
  27. Archived from groups: misc.consumers,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.video (More info?)

    > I can't tell from this what you meant by "everywhere," but to ME,
    > that would imply things like the DAC (if you've got one) or, more
    > likely, whatever digital representation you're feeding to your
    > display device.

    For me it means in image generators (even mobile devices - eventually :)

    > In short, let's try not to take any of this so seriously in the future,
    OK?
    > It just ain't worth the stomach acid...

    I think it is a topic worth the trouble.
  28. Archived from groups: misc.consumers,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.video (More info?)

    In article <ika7b09e75a1683rb8j9ir8ge7p7nh1t7s@4ax.com>,
    Steve <ati@bgt.inv> wrote:

    > LCD monitor prices have been holding pretty steady for a while, but
    > I've seen a few news articles indicating that they may start coming
    > down sometime around mid-summer. Any indications on whether it's
    > worth waiting a couple months or so?

    As with any computer equipment, if you need it now, buy it
    now. If you can wait, then wait.
  29. Archived from groups: misc.consumers,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.video (More info?)

    "Shawn Hearn" <srhi@comcast.net> wrote in misc.consumers:
    >In article <ika7b09e75a1683rb8j9ir8ge7p7nh1t7s@4ax.com>,
    > Steve <ati@bgt.inv> wrote:
    >
    >> LCD monitor prices have been holding pretty steady for a while, but
    >> I've seen a few news articles indicating that they may start coming
    >> down sometime around mid-summer. Any indications on whether it's
    >> worth waiting a couple months or so?
    >
    >As with any computer equipment, if you need it now, buy it
    >now. If you can wait, then wait.

    s/computer equipment/purchase/ :-)

    --
    Stan Brown, Oak Road Systems, Tompkins County, New York, USA
    http://OakRoadSystems.com
    A: Maybe because some people are too annoyed by top-posting.
    Q: Why do I not get an answer to my question(s)?
    A: Because it messes up the order in which people normally read
    text.
    Q: Why is top-posting such a bad thing?
Ask a new question

Read More

Graphics Cards LCD Monitor Monitors Graphics