The only 24" LCD's under $500 all seem to be TN. If I could choose, I would want a dell 2408WFP but that is $700. Does anyone know where I could get a Non-TN 24" or 22" display (anything bigger than my current 19" ) under $500.

The Samsung 245BW... as far as I know is not a TN panel, there is a review on anandtech I think...  Price looks to be about $479
http://computers.pricegrabber.com/ [...] bottomline

Ok I found the review, it's an S-PVA panel.
http://www.anandtech.com/displays/showdoc.aspx?i=3221

This isn't the 245bw, its the 245t. The 245t is a non-tn but it is more than $500. The 245BW is under $500 but it IS a TN panel. So, none of these will work.

The Lenovo L220x is a 1920 x 1200 S-PVA screen currently selling for about $450 $499..... problem is everyone that gets a hold of  few sells em out like in a day.  has great specs, color gamut > 92% / 178 degree view angle / real 24 bit color (TN is only 18 bit)
 
http://www.buy.com/prod/lenovo-thi [...] 25060.html
http://www.thenerds.net/LENOVO.Len [...] 33HB2.html
http://www.pcconnection.com/IPA/Sh [...] ku=8130037
http://www.alwayslowest.com/al/ind [...] rt=2380653
 
Reviews:
 
http://forums.lenovo.com/lnv/board [...] hread.id=2
http://www.computerworld.com/actio [...] geNumber=2

I've seen this screen and I was dissapointed. The color and everything looks excellent but the screen is too small for its resolution.

Err... thanks.  I knew that sub $500 sounded too good.  I wasn't paying enough attention I guess.  Good luck though.
 
-mcg

Thanks. I was really looking for a 22" but I thought the only way I could get a non-tn would be a 24" but 24s are too much money so I am really considering pulling the trigger on the dell ultrasharp 2208wfp

I looked up some 24" monitors for a friend. Settled on this one. Under $500.
Reviews for it are pretty good. Weather you believe in the newegg reviews or not is up to you.
 
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Prod [...] 6824255001
 
Edit
Manufacturer product link.
http://www.westinghousedigital.com [...] temnum=105

I was considering this one too but the stand lacks adjustability

 
from another Tom's Hardware thread.
http://www.tomshardware.com/forum/ [...] or-quality
 
Westinghouse L2410NM Black 24" 8ms HDMI Widescreen LCD Monitor 500 cd/m2 1000:1 Built in Speakers - Retail
Original Price: $429.99  
You Save: $20.00  
$409.99
($359.99 after $50.00 Mail-In Rebate)
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Prod [...] 6824255001
 
Hopes this helps you out.
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

Well, you seem to want the perfect monitor for under $500.
You're way too picky.
NEC might have a monitor that can live up to your standards, but it'll cost a small fortune.

go with the westinghouse, I have the 22" version, and I gotta be honest it is an amazing monitor, and considering I got it for $200 out the door a couple years ago and still works perfectly, I don't see how you could go wrong, If you have more money, than go with the samsung, but if you don't have more money then you have to compromise somwhere...

That's not possible. I am only 14 years old and I cant afford anything over $500. And if I'm going to spend $500, I want to get the best I can get.

 
 
You are spending $500 and you don't even know the value of a dollar...wth is this country coming too?
 
14 and has $500 to spend on a monitor...sheesh....      

This is an amazing looking 24" monitor for under $500, but it is TFT. http://www.gateway.com/accessories [...] php?seg=hm

 
I can't make sense of that comment.  How can a screen be too small for its resolution ?  What is the better printer.....600 x 600 or 300 by 300 ?  Don't they both print out on the same size paper ?  has anyone ever said that  8.5 x 11 inch paper is too small for  600 x 600 printer resolution ?
 
The smaller the screen, the less grainy the image.    The higher the resolution / smaller the screen the greater the pixels per inch.  The more pixels per inch the better the clarity of the picture.
 
I am typing from a 1920 x 1200 17" screen.  I can put my eyeball an inch from the screen and can't pick out a pixel.
 
TN screens have too many compromises.....too small a viewing angle.....to little color gamut......6 bit color.

but how does that compare when your primary use is for gaming? anywhere form fast moving FPS to slower but better graphically speaking RTS's?

If you are asking what is the difference gaming wise between a 22"  1920 x 1200 S-PVA screen versus a 24" 1920x 1200 TN screen, I'd say:
 
-The 22" will have a sharper image
-Your video cards will have equal loads* (see below)
-You may be able to see the individual pixels on the 24"
-The 24", despite what it says on the box or on the spec page, is not "true 24 bit color".  It's 18 bit color "dithered" to try and look like 24 bit color.
-Screen fonts on the 22" will only be 7/8ths as big as on the 24.  That is a size 12 font on a 24 will look like size 10.5 font on a 22....or a 1/4" high font (8/32" ) on the 24" will be only 7/32" high on the 22.
-Screen fonts on the 22" will have less "jaggies"
-Curved lines on the 22" will have less "jaggies"  
-The 22" will have a much wider viewing angle, move around to the side of the screen and the bezel of the screen will block your view before the screen washes out.
-The 22" will have better color depth, contrast and color gamut
-The 22" will have a slightly slower response time.....typically 4-6 ms but a real 4-6 ms.**
 
 
* I don't know what picks up the processing load for dithering...in many LCD's for example it simulates a missing color by flashing an adjacent pixel on and off....now what "chip" is processing this action, I have no idea.  If it's internal to the monitor, then I guess there's no impact.  If not .... then something is going to have to shed load to handle this.
 
** The problem with advertised response times is leaves people with the same "what the ?" response that they  get when they but a 500 GB hard drive and find they can only have 450 GB of space on it.  That's because the marketing departments have decided that there's only 1,000 bytes in a MB instead of 1,024 and 1,000 MB in a GB instead of 1,024 .... same thing with advertised response times..... In all but the highest end monitors, the advertisers compete on the shelves by making their own standard for measuring this.  About the only brand I have not seen play this game is Eizo, even Tomshardware tests have shown that Eizo monitors actually have better response times than they advertise.  See:
 
http://www.lcdtvbuyingguide.com/lc [...] time.shtml
 
Resolution issues aside, I'd take a 6 ms S-PVA screen over a 2 ms TN screen in half a heartbeat.

a 24" montior for under $500? if no one has been able to help you with finding one yet you never will. Point is you will neve