Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

The best 22" TFT LCD is...LG's 226WTY(Q)?

Last response: in Components
Share
August 4, 2007 5:41:22 PM

I've tried out more LCD 20"-22" (mostly 22") than I can even count on two hands in the last week or two. Looking for the best.
In that mix were the latest 21.6" and 22" Samsungs, the new 22" LG that I talk about here, and various other brands, all pretty good brands as well. Everything I tried at least cost $250 minimum, $349 maximum.

The one brand I didn't get to try out was a Dell. But I've read a lot about dell's. They may be the best TFT if you are only going for the best picture, but even then I hear they aren't always necessarily superior in that regard compared to other higher end TFT's.
Whether they provide the best picture or not, they are not the best all around monitor due to high price and bad response times. There are the non-ultrasharp LCD's that even have as low as a 5ms response time, but from what I hear the picture is definitely not like the ultrasharp. Anyhow, they are still asking $400 for their ultrasharp 20" with a 16ms response time. If you want that sort of thing and aren't a big gamer, then maybe it is for you if you can afford it, but for everyone else, there is something better.

Now at newegg, for $349 (and $15 shipping) is the LG-226WTY (same thing as the WTQ model, I think, if not then it is a newer and better model). Anyhow, you really can't beat the price. I saw it elsewhere for $349 and supposedly free shipping, but when I checked out this place taxed me which made it a worse deal than newegg, who doesn't charge tax (unless you live in the 3 states they reside in). So newegg was the best deal, and they seem to be the only place with the "WTY" model.

Anyhow, this LCD is simply the best 22" TFT I've seen, no question. And if they make their 20" and above 22" models anything like this, then those may be tops in the TFT genre as well.
Sure, this 22" is more expensive than the Samsung 21.6" and 22" models, which everybody seems to think are great. But I saw them myself and don't think they are so great. However, as I said it is still cheaper than even the 20" ultrasharp from dell.

I'm writing this because I think I fall into the same category as many people. I want a good all purpose monitor, I want it all. I work with photoshop, text, and video. So picture is very important to me. But my rig is also built for gaming with my 8800GTS and 3.2ghz e6600, so I want to play blazing fast games without any problems as well as have the great picture. I was starting to think something like that in the $350 or less price range was too good to be true, but I'm not thinking that anymore.

So I just got the LG yesterday, I checked the box. It looked really sweet. Sleek design, nice swivel base, very sturdy and it just had the feel that it was a solid product. It didn't come with the DVI cable, but I don't care much about extra's like that, built in speakers or webcams. That stuff is often a sign that the monitor is actually made even cheaper than what you originally thought. It looks like LG put all their efforts into the monitor itself, not extras.

Besides, I had a DVI-D dual link cable already and I'm sure its better quality than the single links that come packaged with some LCD's. I'm sure a lot of people either have or can easily get a DVI cable, if not you can get a good gold plated DVI-D dual link at newegg for $15, which will work great now, and you can use it if/when you get a larger higher resolution monitor that can utilize dual link.
Of course, the LG did come with the power cord, VGA cable, and 2 cd's. One with the user manual and drivers, another that has the Forte calibration software, which I found to be even more effective than Samsungs Magicolor software. This Forte software really worked some wonders, then to touch things up I went into the nvidia control panel, upped the digital vibrance and slightly adjusted gamma. Perfect!

Was easy to set up and get going. The main reason I orderd this LG was because I wanted better picture and screen uniformity than the other LCD's I saw. All of which, including the samsungs, had some degree of backlight bleed, some had dead pixels, and more than anything I still had yet to see a screen that didn't have such an obvious uneven picture. Even on the samsungs I saw annoying color fade toward the bottom of the screens. Some say this doesn't bother them, but a lot of people are used to LCD's, which is probably why.
But for myself, just coming off using CRT's my whole life, this was one flaw that just drove me nuts with the LCD's. While the samsungs did have good color and picture, it just wasn't even throughout the whole screen and I had some pretty major issues using photoshop, aside from it just being an annoying thing.

Anyhow, after the adjustments with Forte and the nvidia driver, I went back to my desktop and was so happy to see that the screen uniformity was very good throughout the whole screen, better than any other LCD I saw, by far. While it still wasn't perfect, you simply aren't going to get perfection with any monitor in this price range or lower. But the LG is definitely perfect enough that it doesn't have any flaws that stick out like a sore thumb. The picture, colors, and uniformity are looking very close to that of a CRT, the other features and pro's of this LG definitely puts it over the top of my CRT monitor.
The vibrant yet soft colors/picture, screen is easy on the eyes, no flicker, fast refresh, amazing contrast, then of course the light weight, gaming is amazing. And on top of all that, and this may be the reason why the screen uniformity looks so good, this LG comes with 170h/170v viewing angles! You literally can NOT get better viewing angles than that on a TFT, and none of the other TFT's even claimed to have 170/170 viewing angles. The others, at best, were 170h/160v, or 160/160.

And don't think I will end this review without mentioning the response rate! Personally, I would be just as happy with this LG if it had an 8ms response rate, but it doesn't. On top of all that I mentioned, you get a blazing fast 2ms response time!
The only other LCD I tried with a 2ms response was the samsung 226bw, which is nice, but too bad it doesn't have the same great screen uniformity and picture quality that the LG has.

In summary. If you only care about fast gaming and not so much about overall picture quality, and want to save $40, then get the Samsung 226bw. If you only want the best picture and gaming is not a priority, and you have the $400+, then get a smaller 20" ultrasharp from Dell with only a 16ms response rate.
Beyond that quality are LCD's that can cost $1000 or more, but that is definitely out of my league and you are definitely beyond TFT territory at that point.
I should note that there are other LCD's in the TFT price range that have certain features and capabilities you might want over things like gaming or even picture, in that case you need to do some searching to find what you want.

But if you are like me and want the best LCD for under $400, and need great picture as well as blazing fast 2ms response times, then look no further than the LG-226WTY (or WTQ). Sure, while I tried a lot of higher end TFT's lately, there definitely was a couple brands I didn't get to try that might rival the LG, but I'm only one man! All I can say is that I don't think you'll be disappointed with the LG, that is for sure. And given that you don't want to keep taking chances, possibly ordering and constantly returning LCD's you end up not liking (which is costly in itself), you want something you know is worth its weight.
I think the LG is just the monitor, it won't dissapoint.
Btw, no dead pixels either! Less backlight bleed than any of the LCD's I've seen as well.

More about : tft lcd 226wty

August 12, 2007 6:15:38 PM

Thanks for writing this, I was looking at the 206wty myself as it is only $240 at newegg. I'll be ordering in a couple weeks so I still plan on looking around but this lg is on top right now.
August 14, 2007 1:21:35 AM

Thx for the post. I am in the market for a new monitor. I have been putting it off for a few months now because im not sure what to get. I have been on a 19" CRT.

I have been checking out the Samsung and the LG 22"

I pretty much only do gaming.

Whats the difference between the LG L226WTQ and the "WTY" and compared to the Samsung 226bw? I keep reading post about a "S" model too? What is that about?


Being that computers come and go, but the monitor usually stays what would be good choices for 24"?


Thanks!!!
Related resources
August 14, 2007 11:06:41 PM

jminer99er said:

Being that computers come and go, but the monitor usually stays what would be good choices for 24"?


I would consider the DELL 2407WPF-HC which is currently on sale for $569 before shipping & taxes.

http://accessories.us.dell.com/sna/productdetail.aspx?c=us&l=en&s=dhs&cs=19&sku=320-5647

The BenQ FP241WZ for around $750 - $800 was at the top of my list, before I decided to look into 26" LCD monitors.

http://www.behardware.com/articles/646-1/benq-fp241wz-1er-lcd-avec-balayage.html
August 16, 2007 8:37:38 PM

calltoarms said:
Thanks for writing this, I was looking at the 206wty myself as it is only $240 at newegg. I'll be ordering in a couple weeks so I still plan on looking around but this lg is on top right now.


Yeah, that sounds like the 20" version of the 22" I have from LG, which I obviously love. Given the model number is WTY (same as the 22"), it seems to be a clone of the 22", and you still get that 2ms respons time which is great if you are a gamer, plus I'm sure you'll love the picture.

If you are sure you want the 20", then this is the way to go. And at 20", it is still a very acceptable size. In fact, at 20" you would have even less issues with screen uniformity and viewing angles, on top of saving $100 or more compared to the 22".

If/when you get this, I can help you get it calibrated. My calibration right now is so absolutely perfect to where it's the best looking LCD picture I've ever seen period, used the included Forte Software. It did take some playing around. Depending on your liking, it might be fine as it is out of the box. But if you don't like that, I'll have to tell you how my picture is set up. I was already happy with the picture, so for me to say I was very surprised with how much better yet it got, it would take a lot.

One more thing about LG's, at least from the one I just got, the screen does have a hard coating. It is still semi-soft but not as much as other LCD's, plus it is no glare, and there really is no glare. Really the best viewing angles and all the other specs are as good as you'll see anywhere near this price range. And they are legit specs. After seeing the 21.6 and 22" samsungs, I'm wondering if their specs are legit. Not saying they looked bad, there just wasn't the "pop" I had anticipated when I first booted up with them.

At $240 for this 20", that sounds like a steal to me. As long as you have somewhat good vision with or without contacts/glasses, 20" can be fine because text on the internet or wherever else can be pretty small, but hey I just noticed something, these LG's have a "ZOOM" button, you can zoom in on something if it looks too small with the press of a button, another cool feature not found on other LCD's. And with the same resolution as the 22" but smaller, the graphics quality will be outstanding.

If your budget is in the $240 range, and your eyesight isn't the best, that would be the only reason why I might suggest getting the samsung 216bw for roughly the same price, maybe a little more. It's good enough that you get what you pay for (but no more than that) given it is a 22", and is still has some pretty nice qualities about it when compared to lesser brands.
Otherwise, unless you only browse the internet and have no interest in gaming or photo/video editing (in that case get the cheapest LCD you can find), you need to get this LG. Great for games and great picture. Being a gamer and photoshop user, I value that a lot. If you get anything else in that price range or lower for a 20", I'm pretty sure you'll either have a slower response time or worse picture.

Oh, and my 22" did NOT come with a DVI cable, which I'm sure you'll want unless you have a dinosaur of a video card that doesn't have that input. Didn't bother me since I already bought a good gold plated DVI-D dual link from Newegg for only $15 and it works great (you might pay $40 or more for one at best buy or places like that).
Plus, even with the 22" you don't need DVI-D dual link, single link is fine. I only bought dual link in case I upgrade to something bigger in the future that may require it. Anyhow, since I got a dual link for $15, I'm sure you can get a good single link that you need for $10 or less.
Maybe the 20" does come with a DVI cable, not sure. Just saying, if it doesn't, don't worry about it, you don't want to buy something lesser just because of that. I thought the Forte calibration software alone was worth not getting a DVI cable. And maybe you already have a DVI-D cable already.
August 16, 2007 10:07:32 PM

jminer99er said:
Thx for the post. I am in the market for a new monitor. I have been putting it off for a few months now because im not sure what to get. I have been on a 19" CRT.

I have been checking out the Samsung and the LG 22"

I pretty much only do gaming.

Whats the difference between the LG L226WTQ and the "WTY" and compared to the Samsung 226bw? I keep reading post about a "S" model too? What is that about?


Being that computers come and go, but the monitor usually stays what would be good choices for 24"?


Thanks!!!


I was just in your shoes. I was using a Dell 19" CRT the last couple years, and of course CRT's forever before that. CRT was all I know. And I'm still far from owning any kind of HDTV, yup, still have the big clunky ones, can't justify spending so much for a TV, but that is another topic.

You pretty much only do gaming. Then, I assume, you don't really do any photo/video editing where the kind of perfect colors you get from a CRT would be important to you? This was a big reason why I liked this LG, out of all I saw this had the best picture/color cababilities compared to my CRT. Add that 2ms response time that all gamers crave on top of that and I was sold right away. Because I am a gamer too. In fact, the reason I use a lot of photoshop and the reason that is important to me is because I actually work on and build textures and graphics for games. Use Illustrator too. And I surely love a great picture when looking at some nice vector graphics.

I'll be honest, I didn't sell my 19" flat screen CRT. Mainly because I saw that my dell was selling for only like $40 used. Even new, CRT's are cheap.
So not only did I keep my CRT, but it is sitting right next to my LG. Have a pretty normal size desk to work on, it barely fits next to the LCD. But when I want to use the CRT for either photo editing or playing games made for 4:3 resolutions at 1600x1200 (or other resolutions since I don't like the scaling effects of playing any game at other than the native resolution on the LCD), all I do is use the swivel action of the LG to swivel it away so it only takes up a few inches of desk space across. Then I just scoot my CRT over a bit, slides easily, and I'm all setup for CRT action!

I have a nvidia card, and it is easy to switch monitors in a second. And I'm not talking about cloning or dualview, although it is under those settings that I switch. What I do is just switch the primary monitor, so if I choose the CRT, the LCD shuts down and the CRT turns on. This is very important for gaming as you don't have your card running two monitors, which will suck video memory dry when doing heavy gaming. Then I just open the panel and choose LCD as primary, then the CRT shuts down, the LCD turns on, and I just swivel back in front of me.
Pretty nice luxory having both. Of course I use the LCD for most tasks, including internet browsing, only use the CRT when it is practical.
As far as I'm concerned, it might be 5 years from now and I'm sure there will be certain features of an LCD that you still can't really duplicate on CRT, at least not with pinpoint accuracy.

Anyhow, I only mention that because it may be something you want to do. Even if you are just a gamer, trust me, you will want to keep that 19" CRT nearby if at all possible. In fact, the only games LCD does best are those that have true support for the 1680x1050 resolution, or have a fix to get that support. Otherwise, you'll find 4:3 screen ratio games (especially games a few years old or older) or games you want to play at other resolutions much better on the CRT because the LCD at any other res other than its native will use scaling, which obviously won't look nearly as good as no scaling on a CRT. Or, even certain newer games I find I just like better on the CRT.
It is nice to have a CRT nearby for any gamer, even though I only use the CRT for those specific things, that big clunky thing is still worth having. I still use the LCD for web surfing and everything else except for what I just mentioned and important photo editing.

Damn, I wrote too much again!
I'll get to your questions...
From what I know, there isn't any difference between the WTY and WTQ. Same thing. I checked. Same specs, same price generally. I did see one place selling the WTQ that had 160 for the vertical viewing angle. I have the WTY, and it has 170 vertical and horizontal. But then again I read some other place the specs for the WTQ again, and this one did say 170/170, so maybe the other one was a typo. So I will say all the specs are the same, and if there is a chance one isn't, it would just be the vertical viewing angle, but I would still say they are most likely the same. I can't imagine they would make an idental looking version with the same specs, but only have the vertical viewing angle be different, yet sell both models for the same retail price. Doesn't make sense.

I did touch on this above, but compared to the samsung (and I was able to see both the 216bw and 226bw), the LG is simply better.
Response time is the same on both, so both are great for gaming speed. But the LG just hands down has a picture that has more "pop", brilliance, and flexibility. And of course the LG has better screen uniformity, at least those are my findings. After using the LG software, my picture and uniformity are just amazing and I couldn't get this good of a picture on the Samsungs no matter how much playing around I did. The picture on the samsungs were decent as far as brightness/color/contrast, to some extent. But the 226bw and 216bw just didn't have that same solid looking picture from corner to corner, had real problems with fading toward the bottom of the screen, which couldn't be fixed, it is just the way they are made.

About the Samsung panels, what a mess! Well, with the 216bw, I know that was what they call the S panel. It is the 226bw that has the panel controversy.
Basically, the S (samsung) panel is supposedly gives the best quality or is the best panel for whatever reasons. When the 226bw first shipped out they all came with S panels, then at some point samsung outsourced these panels to other companies, I think. Well, for whatever reasons, there are a couple other panels they have been using that aren't Samsung and allegedly aren't the same quality. Some claim a big difference, some claim there isn't much. Not many people have had the luxury of comparing though. I have, to some extent in that the 216bw is an S panel. Then my friends Samsung, which he got shortly after it came out, he thinks its an S panel, and I tried that one. I really didn't see any difference in picture, both had the same pro's and con's, so maybe he did have he S panel. And if that was the S panel, which as I said I didn't find to even be as good as my LG panel, then I would hate to see the other panels!

In any case, even the S panel is far from perfection. Samsung's are still OK for the price, but they have been selling pretty cheap lately, and it might be because of the same reasons/problems I had with the picture. Again, I thought it was OK, no worse than cheaper brands, but not much better. Even with the 2ms response time, I can see why the 226bw is going for cheap these days, and the outsourced panel thing hasn't helped sales I'm sure. The 216bw, only .4" smaller, you are guaranteed an S panel and therefore you will get as good or better picture than the 226bw, only real difference being the 5ms response time on the 216bw.
And 5ms is fine even for many gamers. 2ms is better, but I wouldn't pay $50+ more just for the difference between 5ms and 2ms response times. I might pay $30-$40 more for that feature, maybe more if I were an extreme gamer.
I got my LG for the picture, the 2ms is just a really nice bonus feature to me!
And I'm far from the only one who thinks that this LG panel is the nicest TN panel you can get, it actually can rival higher end panels, especially when you consider in how much cheaper they are.

Anyhow, you mentioned 24". Personally, that would be too big for me. Not to mention that 24" are just so much more expensive than 22" screens, especially if you want a quality one, which you should. 22" is even bigger than I thought it would be compared to my 19" CRT. Even the vertical screen size is notably larger, and of course the wideness is much larger.

And if you sit 2-3 feet away from the screen like many people do, and myself, even with a 22" you might sometimes have problems really focusing in on the entire screen while gaming, you might have to rely on peripheral vision sometimes. But I just move my chair back an inch or two if this is happening, or push the monitor back a couple inches, an easy fix.
But I'm thinking if I had a 24", that would be too much. All that using my peripheral vision would strain my eyes. However, if you have a real reason to get 24" other than thinking "bigger is better", then go for it. Just know how much more expensive they are. You do get a higher resolution, but the could actually be a burden for gaming unless you have a 640mb graphics card, which many people don't.
This is why many people get 24" for reasons other than gaming. The people who do get 24" for gaming probably also realize that you generally get lesser response times.

Even the ultrasharp dell has a 5ms response time, obviously not as good as the 2ms response times of the LG, Samsung 226bw, or other 20"-22" LCD's.
People like to get 24", maybe use them as TV's as well, watch movies on them, or do lots of multitasking. I'm sure the picture is good on something like the dell ultrasharp. I just can't justify paying that much though when I have a good picture here for much less and better response times. But if I had reasons to get a larger screen, plus just wanted the best picture, and had the $$ to get it, then I might go for it.
If you are a hardcore gamer and still want a 24", just beware of high response times and make sure you have lots of $$!

Anyhow, if you are in a position to afford a good 24" and have reasons why you want it, then I'm really not the person to ask. What I said above are things I heard, except I know response times are generally higher on them. They may not have better picture than some 22", I don't know.
It would be best to get another topic going and talk to some people that are hardcore gamers that also use 24" LCD's. I'm sure there are a few guys around that might be able to help, but I think you'll find many hardcore gamers going with 20" or 22" and getting the 2ms response times.

Hope at least some of this helps!
August 16, 2007 10:09:32 PM

Arrg i really cant be bothered to read all that, the key to a good post is short and precise.

however i understand your post clearly you used alot 20-22 moniters, i reccomend LG my LG flatron 19" was a mere £110 (half a year ago) its at 1440*900, and the 20.1" has a much higher res. but the buty of LG Monitors is they have DVI-D and VGA, and my 19" has a contrast of 2000:1 thats mt opinion
August 19, 2007 7:02:15 PM

Sorry for the long post. I actually feel that a good post can't be vague or have holes all over just in an effort to make it short, which happens A LOT! Long is no good either if the content sucks.
Sometimes I think people just don't feel like reading! Anyhow, the post is long because its really meant for somebody interested in buying a WS of around 20"-22", which that decision can be a huge deal. I learned so much about it, and things that you can't know by reading reviews as I've actually got to try them out, which many people don't get to.
So I felt not sharing all that would be selfish. It is my opinion, however, when I was looking and reading about LCD's, I valued opinions very much because the one piece of hardware that may not be to your liking, despite 5 star ratings and such, is the monitor.

And given many people order online, and its such a pain in the *** to return large hardware online, many places you can't refund LCD's at all.
Thus, I think even more people should share as much as they can about what they do know first hand about particular LCD's. Sure would of helped me at first.
It is sort of unfortunate, but just seeing something that has good specs doesn't mean you are going to like it. I didn't think two different brands of monitors with VERY similar specs could be so different and/or cater only to a particular type of user.

Anyhow, I would be willing to read 15 pages of a review from somebody who got to try the LCD's I did.
I don't know about anybody else, but I'd much rather read some in depth reviews from people about this corner of the market than to just pay $300+ going by nothing more than how many stars something gets or going by very brief reviews, many of which are by people who think that product X is the best simply because they have had nothing to compare it to.

Anyhow, while this was basically about WS panels, I would agree with you. If somebody wants a 4:3 LCD, a 19" or 20" LG sounds good to me. Sounds like all LG have some amazing contrast. LCD's having both DVI-D and VGA ports is no big deal (maybe it used to be or maybe it is different with 4:3 LCD's). Every LCD that I even looked at and read specs on, which is probably a hundred, had at least 1 DVI and 1 VGA.

If for some reason you see an LCD without DVI, don't buy it! Took me a while to notice all the details, but DVI did make quite a difference. It seemed to make the contrast/colors pop even more. Seems to allow more flexibility with picture adjustment. Moving objects seem to move more crisp, not as jumbled as with the VGA hooked up. And possibly, but not sure, it seemed to improve the pseudo refresh rate. In general, whether it is because of the DVI or not, my LG screen is so easy to look at.
With my CRT, even at higher refresh rates, my eyes would go wonky after a couple hours.

But with this LCD, colors pop better than my CRT, and I only noticed this when I turned my CRT back on after using the LCD a couple weeks. Anyhow, for whatever reasons, it is amazing how this LCD's colors are brighter and contrast is better, yet somehow the screen is easier on my eyes. Hard to explain, just a softer, more gentle brightness, but don't get me wrong it is plenty bright. Plus no refresh rate headaches.
August 23, 2007 7:37:27 PM

wish i read this after i bought myh viewsonic 22
!