Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Viewsonic VX900 or VG191b ?

Last response: in Computer Peripherals
Share
May 6, 2002 8:13:05 PM

Hey all, I was trying to choose between the Viewsonic VX900 or VG191b 19" lcd monitors. I do some gaming and quite a bit of multimedia work. What are the differences, pros and cons?? Any other comperable brands you would recommend instead of Viewsonic, and why? Thanks!!
-Page

The problem is always with the last thing you check ... so start there first.

More about : viewsonic vx900 vg191b

May 8, 2002 3:15:33 PM

WHOA!!! Don't everybody talk at once :) 

The problem is always with the last thing you check ... so start there first.
May 9, 2002 6:00:02 PM

Well, the last time I check, VX900 is about 300 buck cheaper and have speaker! as for spec, it look the same so I really couldn't tell!

as for styling, the vx900 is not to my taste!
write to customer support at viewsonic and ask what is the difference!
Related resources
Can't find your answer ? Ask !
May 26, 2002 7:45:43 PM

Neither is good for gaming from what I've been reading elsehwere. Viewsonics MVA has ghosting issues it seems, even though it specs very well white to black so text and surfiing are very good. If you still are deciding between the two despite this, then VX900 is the way I would go. Newer probably gives it some slight improvements in the electronics, since the panel for the two is probably the same.

:) 
June 12, 2002 5:36:14 PM

In February I've got VG191 and returned it since it had many dead pixels / bad response time, etc.
Now I'm again going to buy new monitor this time VX900 (already ordered one - so if anyone interested I can write my comments on it - I play the following games: Quake 3 Arena, RTCW and also have HalfLife, use Radeon 8500 128Mb (retail))
To get some information on this monitor I called Viewsonic Canada and also from their "compare" document:
1. Power consumption is less: VX900 is 46W against 60 in VG191
2. No Pivot feature in VX900
3. Only silver color in VX900
4. Included speakers in VX900 (who cares anyway?)

Now interesting stuff:
5. Panel itself is bought from different place by Viewsonic, hence they can
offer it cheaper (product info service person told me)
6. Reponse time is better on VX900 even though it is listed as the same 25ms
(tech support person told me).
7.VX900 has different Vertical Scanning Frequency: 50-85 against 50-75 (haven't seen any before with 85hz).

I was not able to get any info on dead pixels, though from what I found all around the net it is better than in VG191.

More comments are very very welcome!!!
June 12, 2002 6:15:49 PM

Please do give description and review!

My frog asked me for a straw...dunno what happened he's all over the place :eek: 
June 17, 2002 6:26:15 AM

All I know is VG191 costs more coz it's like their graphics series. It should have better specs or Viewsonic is screwing with us! SO I believe VG191 is better than VX900. VX900 is like their entry level for consumers who will use the LCD monitor for common purposes. The VG series or VG191 should be best for gaming. Also Digital connection IS A MUST for gaming!
June 17, 2002 6:46:24 PM

Lol, dude don't fall into companies' marketing traps! Which series its in has no real effect- for example the VG150m which I used to own (like 2 years ago or something- when it came out) was horrible, w/ banding etc. VX is newer, and one user has reviewed it. Viewsonic claims VX900 is slightly faster than 25ms, and I'm sure it must have an improved grey response time. FYI, VX900 is DVI, but how would that affect response time? It's mainly for image quality, and then on many monitors its not noticeable.

My frog asked me for a straw...dunno what happened his ass all over the place :eek: 
June 17, 2002 9:15:18 PM

I'm just making sure he gets a monitor with DVI/Digital connection coz I myself tried playing on an Analog connection and not only was the image quality poor but also the Analog cannot handle moving images properly and optimally. I put faith in companies when they say the other product is better and I believe the VG series of TODAY is better than the VX. Usually if not always the price will tell you which one is better and according to Viewsonic's website VG is better than the VX series. Just to consider that the VG series are like 200+ bucks more even without the speaker says it all. Anyway I own a VG191B and so far it performs well on games such as Counter-Strike and Warcraft III Beta. One note on Counter-Strike/Half-Life, If you set the screen resolution of CS to 1024x768 the image will become blurry(anti-aliased) but if you set it to 1280x980 the monitor(VG191) will use up the whole 1280 rows of pixels but only use 980(or whatever it is in HL) vertical pixels. I mentioned this because the con in buying an LCD monitor for gaming purposes is having to use ONLY it's native resolution and if not suffer the blurriness!

btw this is the description of the VG series:

For corporate and advanced graphics/gaming users. Designed with high resolution for sharp text, spreadsheets, and crystal clear images. Also adheres to high safety standards to provide the most comfortable and productive working environment. Graphics series LCD displays provide excellent price/performance combination.

TIP: Buy your monitors at EBay. I scored my VG191B, brand new, 3 yrs full manufacturer's warranty for only 980 bucks instead of 1200+
June 17, 2002 9:23:28 PM

_______________________________________________________

Lol, dude don't fall into companies' marketing traps! Which series its in has no real effect- for example the VG150m which I used to own (like 2 years ago or something- when it came out) was horrible, w/ banding etc.
_______________________________________________________

No wonder, coz the VG150M is ANALOG and it makes a world of difference in performance and image quality. :^]
June 17, 2002 11:59:48 PM

So I'm wondering then, a 1.4Ghz T-Bird is cheaper than a 1.4Ghz P4, so it's worse? Dude, that has nothing to do w/ it, and FYI, the VG191 is a lot older than the VX. Analog can do all of those things, granted for some monitors it is different, but for most, there really isn't much of a difference (did u try the autoadjust?) Dude, the response time is the same for analog and digital, and moving images will be handled the same. I think what u r seeing is ur personal bias, and all the things that say digital is sooo much better. For some LCD's it is, and I would prefer it b/c not having to deal w/ setting a bunch of things, but there really isn't a difference in most LCD's. Furthermore, I've used many LCD's (at shops, I owned 2 as well- the other was a TFT7020, and at friend's houses), and when playing a game, aside from text, lowerin res will not make it fuzzy or anything- what u describe is a need for antialiasing.

My frog asked me for a straw...dunno what happened his ass all over the place :eek: 
June 18, 2002 6:04:40 AM

VX900 and VG191, both from Viewsonic. T-Bird 1.4 and P4 1.4, different manufacturers. My comparison is strictly on LCD monitors from one company which is Viewsonic. I am not biased. I have an HP L1520 and for 2 months I played on it in Analog mode and noticed a big difference in BOTH performance and image quality when I switched to Digital mode. Before I bought an LCD monitor for gaming instead of a CRT monitor I researched a lot and found from reliable sources that Digital mode is a must. YES, digital is better because it is an improvement over analog. That's why there is a different cable used for digital mode because it is faster thus improved performance. Digital mode in LCDs are not mainly about not setting a lot of stuff, it's basically about performance. I only described using lower resolutions than the native as fuzzy because in layman's terms it would be more easily understood than telling a beginner it's "anti-aliased." I did use anti-alias on one of my posts, I think.
June 18, 2002 10:18:19 AM

Viewsonic doesn't build monitors. They just buy 'em.
AFAIK the VG191 is made by AMTRAN. The VX900 I don't know. The technical data - given by viewsonic- are the same when it comes to the panel properties (leaving aside the controller/OSD/loudspeaker whatever stuff). Both monitors are featured with MVA. The term 'SuperClearMVA' Viewsonic uses is marketing crap...Viewsonic doesn't have a single patent..so where is the added value here?

Now everything breaks down to the question who is making 19in panels in MVA technology?
Well, I know only of one company who does: Fujitsu. If you check out Fujitsu sites there's only **one** 19in panel called FLC48SXC8V:

http://www.fme.fujitsu.com/products/displays/lcdprods_1...

The VG191 was introduced by Viewsonic in Nov 2001. The Data sheet for the FLC48SXC8V I got is dated Aug. 2001.

My conclusion: in both monitors VX900 and VG191 is the same Fujitsu panel thus having the same optical performance.

Problem however is, the property variation of the MVA-panel is relatively high (compared to competitive technology PVA,IPS,TN). Example: according to the FLC48SXC8V data sheet the
total response time (typical) is: 25ms
total response time (max) is : 55ms

In other words if you have bad luck you'll get a nice Viewsonic with 55ms response time.

This is why I'd never buy a MVA based monitor.
June 18, 2002 3:03:14 PM

Well u don't need to use layman's term's, b/c they can mean multiple things. I'm sorry, but ur perception of digital is incorrect.

My frog asked me for a straw...dunno what happened his ass all over the place :eek: 
June 18, 2002 5:02:28 PM

All I know is based on stuff that I've read it is BEST to use digital mode on LCD monitors especially when it comes to gaming. I have owned 2 LCD monitors in less than 5 months and based on my experience digital mode is far superior both in performance and image quality over analog mode. I have an HP L1520 15" and a Viewsonic VG191B 19". This month I am upgrading to an LG Flatron 22".

Here's what I noticed in analog mode(gaming) on both my 15" and 19".
Image quality is obviously not superior. Performance in terms of having smooth motion is bad also. You would notice slight skips like the monitor cannot keep up with the moving objects.

The advice that I told the guy was be sure to get digital. Tell me if I'm wrong that digital is better than analog. It's a fact that digital is an IMPROVEMENT OVER analog.

Layman's terms are used to explain technical stuff to people who don't or might not understand technical terms. I do not see the harm in using layman's terms, unless everybody here at THG forum are experts and professionals. Btw if you ask a non-computer non-gamer enthusiast what he thinks of the image quality of an LCD monitor (with a native resolution of 1280x1024) showing a game in 1024x768, he say it's blurry or fuzzy, might even say hurts his eyes.

for the last time I simply adviced the guy to go get a digital LCD monitor because he is into gaming and some multimedia. Why settle for less value if the price difference of an Analog and Digital LCD monitor is not big and most come with both.

Now tell me if I'm wrong that Digital in LCD monitors is better than Analog. If I am right then why make the guy buy Analog?

I came and posted here to give my contribution and there's no debate between digital or analog.
June 18, 2002 7:48:25 PM

No, u expressed Digital is a MUST. I'm simply proving its definetly not. FYI, digital on TFT7020 hurt the eyes b/c it made colors garish.

My frog asked me for a straw...dunno what happened his ass all over the place :eek: 
June 18, 2002 8:54:59 PM

There must be something wrong with your TFT7020. Tell me what digital aspect of the TFT7020 made the colors look garish? I believe any manufacturer that would make digital lcds have flaws especially image quality wise did something wrong. Ultimately digital mode should be better and have more features than analog mode, If not then we might as well keep our analog cables so we can switch from digital to analog to get optimal results in various applications. Digital is an improvement over Analog and therefore ifyour TFT7020 works bad in digital mode then it's crap.

Until I see a valid review that digital mode in gaming is not a must then I will not change my statement.
June 19, 2002 12:05:33 AM

Wow, the thing u read have really been imbedded into ur head. BTW, sorry if I seem harsh- a series of bad events have happened in the family. Anyway, do u understand exactly how an lcd works and everything? I'm sorry, but from ur perception, it seems that digital is the only thing, and that lcd's are magical little devices that otherwise don't work well. In digital (which btw laptops have been using for a looong time) the signal stays constant, whereas in analog it is converted to digital. That's great, but it'll only affect image quality, if that. In analog on the TFT7020, colors were less harsh- calmer if u will. In digital, they were harsher, and hurt the eye. Digital is actually what LCD's would've used, but b/c most vid cards didn't have digital ouput (that and the fact there were different standards) LCD's used an analog converter. Now most have digital b/c many vid cards have DVI. Thus, digital isn't an "improvement". Now, it varies for different LCD's- some will look better in analog beleive it or nit. How about u show me an article stating digital IS A MUST FOR ALL LCD'S FOR GAMES.

My frog asked me for a straw...dunno what happened his ass all over the place :eek: 
June 19, 2002 7:32:01 AM

The guy wanted to get some games going on so the best advice to give is go Digital. Advantages are: better image quality (games are all about visuals), no pixel jitters, faster performance. Nobody notices wether the colors are harsher in digital or not. LCDs are meant to be better on the eyes than CRT so if digital hurts the eyes or is harmful then why still continue to use and make it dominant nowadays, not to mention most videocards of all varieties have DVI in them. I do not repute the use of analog but it is mostly for office work or surfing and anything that doesn't require much moving objects to be displayed because digital performs faster and better on that aspect. And please don't tell me that digital isn't an improvement over analog. Is better not a description for improvement.

Digital = BETTER image quality, provides BETTER geometry, BETTER by not producing pixel jitters, BETTER performance in respect with signals. Analog is simply stuck on being GOOD and digital is BETTER and soon it will be the BEST and analog will be phased out. If I am wrong than why the whole industry of LCD monitors is switching to digital like it is really designed to be. Although I am not saying analog is useless.

Again we are helping the guy buy an LCD monitor that is best for gaming and digital is the way to go. Also we are reviewing the Viewsonic series and I happen to have one of them and I can attest that I've used both analog and digital with my Viewsonic VG191B and HP L1520 and frankly games in analog mode sucks! No bias here it simply sucks! Why? because image quality is poor and the analog signals cannot perform the task as well and as fast as digital would, hence pixel jitters.

The only reason why the first LCDs opted for analog is because it would cost too much to buy a videocard with digital interface especially for offices and companies wanting to avail of LCD monitors' small footprint. A few years (which is now) later DVI interface in videocards have been implemented and they are cheap and have become a standard. Digital became a standard so for the last time analyze it better that it is because it is an improvement. Again if I'm wrong then the whole LCD monitor industry and videocard industry that now embraces DVI is as wrong as me. Accept it or not, analog in lcd will be phased out coz digital has improved upon it. Just take a look around you! Digital TVs, DVDs, Digital music...it's no different from digital LCD monitors.

Again digital LCD monitor is a must for games because of the reasons I stated earlier, image quality alone says it all. Do the guy a favor and tell him at least that digital is better than analog if he will be using the lcd monitor for playing games, not chessmaster or PC scrabble but RtCW, CS, HL, Morrowind, Unreal II even maybe Harry Potter or Survival: Marquesas.

I'm tried of this. Good luck with your analog. it had its days, say goodbye now
June 19, 2002 3:24:34 PM

I use digital too, but if there was a kickass monitor out there that was analog, I'd get it. You don't seem to understand my posts. I said on the TFT7020 colors were harsher in digital, and thus in that case digital asn'tnecessarily the best option, so it is not the only way to go. I don't know how many times I've said this to you- RESPONSE TIME IS NOT AFFECTED BY USING ANANLOG OR DIGITAL!!! In teh second part of your posy, describing history, there is no need to repeat what I said btw. Some monitors analog will suck, and others it won't. You still haven't shown me that article that digital is a must. Using digital may or may not affect image quality, so one should not be afraid to use it in the case if their current vid card is analog only (yes, those do still exist!). In teh future I agree digital will be the standard, but analog isn't really that bad. I'm simply trying to correct your perception of what analog affects. Also, there haven't been conclusive studies that lcd's are better. Most people agree with that, but that's after careful callibration- I couldn't stand for example 250 cd/m^2 brightness on my lcd. After these things are toned correctly, it still depends, cause one can get very dizzy from a higher response time, and finally some people find crt is less stressful. Just a little note.

My frog asked me for a straw...dunno what happened his ass all over the place :eek: 
June 19, 2002 10:21:48 PM

I am not talking about response time. All I know is from experience that motion or moving images in digital mode looks better as if it flows better but in analog you'd see slight skips so to conclude digital doesn't only make the image look better, crisper and clearer it also has improvements performance wise. I am not sure if it is the response time but there is something else that makes digital mode "display" the images faster and smoother.

Let's just put it this way. Analog is mainly for the purpose of common office tasks and surfing the web which doesn't entail a lot of motion, this we both know is a fact. Digital on the other hand gives better image quality, displays images faster (based on my experience and DVI cables have more 'bandwidth' than analog) and doesn't have pixel jitters (ever heard of this?). Also the article I read was from CNET.com about a year ago. With regards to your TFTxxxx I believe even if in digital the colors are harsh it's not that too noticeable. With regards to the VX900 and VG191B which I own I can testify that in simplest explanation, analog sucks in gaming for that monitor.

What everybody is waiting for now is the day when CRTs are gonna be as skinny as LCDs or LCDs going toe to toe with CRT. Yes, CRT still owns the arena because most visual aspects of LCDs are half or even worse compared to CRT. You have the contrast ratio, brightness, color accuracy etc.

I know in general and on most LCD monitors analog still has some advantages but wouldn't you agree that digital mode is best for gaming, at least in general. But if we are to look at the Viewsonic VG191 in my experience digital mode is better in gaming. I'm buying a Flatron 22" from LG this week so I have a new test product to compare analog and digital.

Peace out!
June 20, 2002 12:33:31 AM

Well it was noticeable to the point where I returned it.

My frog asked me for a straw...dunno what happened his ass all over the place :eek: 
June 20, 2002 8:47:41 PM

I don't agree. I used a Planar 17.4" LCD on an ATI Radeon 8500 and noticed absolutely no difference in gaming between DVI and Analog. Same amount of afterglow/blurring. In fact, image quality there was hardly a difference either but that also depends on the quality of the analog signal in the video card, which is pretty good for my card.
June 20, 2002 9:33:33 PM

exactly

My frog asked me for a straw...dunno what happened his ass all over the place :eek: 
June 25, 2002 7:46:49 PM

My gosh, do you believe every commercial you see on TV? From your posts, the amount of marketing BS that you've been repeating is astounding. You assert that Digital is better because of superior response time "Because it has more 'bandwidth'...you obviously have no idea what you are talking about. The connection has no effect on the response time of the panel. I think I'm going to leave your argument about how 'more expensive = better' alone...I don't want to touch that.

Please read the following link:
http://forumz.tomshardware.com/ce/modules.php?name=Foru...

To paraphrase, your RAMDAC is analog. Is that ringing any bells yet? Which means that with your 'digital' connection, you are coming from an ANALOG source!!! Thus any advantages of digital would come from signal clarity...which once again will not affect the response-time/performance of a panel. GoSharks manages to cover the bases exceedingly well, so I'm not going to spend my time going point by point thru your statements. My thanks to GoSharks for the eye-opening post. As for your subjective reviews of which output was more clear, it'd be more helpful if you told us your system specs, with regards to which video card you used.

<P ID="edit"><FONT SIZE=-1><EM>Edited by UoMDeacon on 06/25/02 04:11 PM.</EM></FONT></P>
!