Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Best 24" Monitor Ever: Beautiful Samsung T240

Last response: in Computer Peripherals
Share
February 11, 2009 2:18:19 PM

Is there a better monitor than Samsung T240? The answer is no.
-It can run the max resolution in native mode for all of the games, 1920x1200. (Forget monitors bigger then 24" - they all have to stretch the images as most games don't go over 1920x1200 yet)
-It has a beautiful picture (Compared to others you see in computer stores, it looks the best).
-It looks good (I have a 24" Mac at work - and my T240 is looks equally great at home!)

I already bought one for me, one for my parents, and my friend (well, recommended it - and he bought it).

So, my challenge to you is - find a better monitor for PC that is better then Samsung T240!
I dare you!
a c 193 C Monitor
a b Ô Samsung
February 12, 2009 2:29:44 AM

24" NEC LCD2490WUXi and 26" NEC LCD2690WUXi both use H-IPS panels.

Image quality of those two monitors knocks the panties off of a silly Samsung T240 which uses a TN panel.
a b C Monitor
February 12, 2009 5:42:56 AM

Dell Ultrasharp 2408WFP (S-PVA panel)
24" NEC listed above
Apple Cinema display (IPS)
IIRC, LG has an IPS model
HP has an S-PVA


All will absolutely flatten the Samsung's TN panel. Also, most games now do support 2560x1600, if you're lucky enough to have the cash for a 30" panel. TN is nice for the price, but will not come close to matching PVA or IPS type panels for color accuracy or viewing angle.

(I personally am a happy user of a Dell Ultrasharp 2408WFP)
Related resources
February 12, 2009 12:42:48 PM

Ultrasharp - Well, I can see that it's 1ms slower, and also 3x more expensive. Common, lets play fair.
24" NEC
LCD2490WUXi - Also 1ms slower. Also 3-4 times more expansive. Btw did you know T240 requires only 60W to operate?
IIRC, LG - Please provide a link.
HP has an S-PVA - Link?


cjl said:
Dell Ultrasharp 2408WFP (S-PVA panel)
24" NEC listed above
Apple Cinema display (IPS)
IIRC, LG has an IPS model
HP has an S-PVA


All will absolutely flatten the Samsung's TN panel. Also, most games now do support 2560x1600, if you're lucky enough to have the cash for a 30" panel. TN is nice for the price, but will not come close to matching PVA or IPS type panels for color accuracy or viewing angle.

(I personally am a happy user of a Dell Ultrasharp 2408WFP)

a b C Monitor
February 12, 2009 4:32:34 PM

1 ms slower?

Wow - that's grasping at straws. How about listing a fact that actually matters? 1ms response time difference is negligible, especially when all manufacturers report response time differently. Even within one manufacturer, the reported response time vs actual can vary quite a bit. My Dell 22" monitor (TN, 2ms response time) actually has a slower response time than the Ultrasharp 2408 in some situations (such as black to white).

As for the higher price, fair has nothing to do with it. You stated the Samsung is the best 24" ever. That includes all 24" monitors, at any price. Besides, I didn't know that $680 was three times as much as $400. That's some interesting math right there...

LG: http://displayblog.wordpress.com/2007/12/22/lg-l246wp-b...
HP: I was wrong here. It's actually an S-IPS. It's the LP-2475W.
February 12, 2009 4:41:25 PM

Ok, no need to scream.
I am not grasping at any straws just trying to see the differences. I don't know if it will make a difference or not, but I did have an 8ms monitor, and any kind of motion on it was blurry.
As for the price, true, you can include any price. But is price also not something comparable about a monitor? The 'best ever' is more geared towards a regular computer user who simply wants a good quality monitor to replace his CRT or older LCD.

The LG you provided has an 8ms response time (not saying it's bad, Again I am just comparing), but overall looks like a viable competitor, even though it doesn't "look" as pleasing as Samsung.

PS: Samsung is actually $300 (350 with taxes), and that's in CAD dollars, so in US it must be even cheaper.

cjl said:
1 ms slower?

Wow - that's grasping at straws. How about listing a fact that actually matters? 1ms response time difference is negligible, especially when all manufacturers report response time differently. Even within one manufacturer, the reported response time vs actual can vary quite a bit. My Dell 22" monitor (TN, 2ms response time) actually has a slower response time than the Ultrasharp 2408 in some situations (such as black to white).

As for the higher price, fair has nothing to do with it. You stated the Samsung is the best 24" ever. That includes all 24" monitors, at any price.

LG: http://displayblog.wordpress.com/2007/12/22/lg-l246wp-b...
HP: I was wrong here. It's actually an S-IPS. It's the LP-2475W.
February 12, 2009 5:54:27 PM

You should really rename this post to: "Best 24" Monitor for the mainstream consumer who doesn't care about input lag, viewing angle, color accuracy, or any number of other things the Samsung T240 does poorly."

The fact that you came to a conclusion that the "Best" monitor contains a TN panel actually made me laugh out loud at work.
February 12, 2009 6:14:09 PM

Which monitor do you use at home?
battlemarz said:
You should really rename this post to: "Best 24" Monitor for the mainstream consumer who doesn't care about input lag, viewing angle, color accuracy, or any number of other things the Samsung T240 does poorly."

The fact that you came to a conclusion that the "Best" monitor contains a TN panel actually made me laugh out loud at work.

February 12, 2009 6:27:03 PM

drozzy said:
Which monitor do you use at home?


I don't use a good monitor at home, mostly because I don't have the money to spend on one. I'm not implying that your Samsung T240 isn't decent, but rather that is far from the "Best". Making outrageous claims helps no one. Had you rather posted on how well it performs for daily use at home for you and those you recommended it to, myself and others would not have given you any flack.
February 12, 2009 6:41:42 PM

I guess you are right. I didn't mean to stir up the pot.

I am just confident that this monitor is great, and will server anyone looking for a good gaming and work monitor. I just hate how the market is saturated with confusing brand names and numbers (LWXERW etc..) which makes it really hard for a person to find, well, a monitor!
Also I feel that samsung is greatly underrated, and brain-wash companies like dell (which merely resells monitors - some of which are actually samsung) gets all the fame.
Take this as you will but you won't regret buying this monitor.


battlemarz said:
I don't use a good monitor at home, mostly because I don't have the money to spend on one. I'm not implying that your Samsung T240 isn't decent, but rather that is far from the "Best". Making outrageous claims helps no one. Had you rather posted on how well it performs for daily use at home for you and those you recommended it to, myself and others would not have given you any flack.

a b C Monitor
February 13, 2009 5:08:34 AM

drozzy said:
Ok, no need to scream.
I am not grasping at any straws just trying to see the differences. I don't know if it will make a difference or not, but I did have an 8ms monitor, and any kind of motion on it was blurry.
As for the price, true, you can include any price. But is price also not something comparable about a monitor? The 'best ever' is more geared towards a regular computer user who simply wants a good quality monitor to replace his CRT or older LCD.

The LG you provided has an 8ms response time (not saying it's bad, Again I am just comparing), but overall looks like a viable competitor, even though it doesn't "look" as pleasing as Samsung.

PS: Samsung is actually $300 (350 with taxes), and that's in CAD dollars, so in US it must be even cheaper.

Where did you get it for $300? On Newegg, it's $400 US.

As for the other points, realistically (though many gamers will try to claim otherwise), any response time under about 12ms or so is fast enough. I've used many LCDs, and the response time is among the more useless of the statistics given for any monitor. As for the other part, I don't think a $500-$600 display is out of line for a regular computer user who wants a fairly nice computer. The monitor is one of the parts of the computer that lasts a fairly long time, so it makes sense to get a fairly good one. It will likely persist long past the time when you upgrade the rest of the computer.

It is amazing though how much difference there is in image quality. I have a Dell 22" TN panel (that I thought looked quite nice) as my secondary monitor (it's the SP2208 WFP), and my Dell Ultrasharp 2408 as my primary. The difference is not subtle. The Ultrasharp has noticeably more vivid and realistic colors, better contrast, and simply looks better. It also has an amazingly wide viewing angle, while the TN panel shifts colors and gamma noticeably even just slightly off center. You really don't know what you're missing until you are able to compare them side by side.
Anonymous
a b C Monitor
a b Ô Samsung
February 19, 2009 8:14:42 AM

The best monitor ever must take into account price. I can build the best quality ever with $10000 to work with. But that's just stupid.
February 19, 2009 2:21:26 PM

I think you were too proud about your new purchased monitor and without thinking through, you posted "Best 24" Monitor Ever: Beautiful Samsung T240". Then you come to saying "So, my challenge to you is - find a better monitor for PC that is better then Samsung T240!
I dare you!" without reservation.

Add the SAMSUNG XL24 along with the other posters listing. If this monitor is better than your monitor even by one spec then your T240 is not the best anymore is it?

Why won't you just admit that you made an error instead of looking to find a way out.
a c 193 C Monitor
a b Ô Samsung
February 22, 2009 5:12:32 PM

Quote:
The best monitor ever must take into account price. I can build the best quality ever with $10000 to work with. But that's just stupid.


Okay, then build it.

Let's see how it stacks up to a NEC LCD2490WUXi.
March 4, 2009 10:32:25 AM

I have a T240HD, based on the same panel than T240. I got this monitor for a good prize, 325$ here in spain, and it does what is soposed to do. It has spectacular conectivity, but when it comes to performance has really lots of bad factors...

- **** viewing angle (I have it beside a dell 2407WFP, and it really Sucks)
- Poor TV quality (does not have any addon as MoviePicture Plus or DNI+)
- Color quality is very difficult to adjust when dynamic contrast enabled, panel changes color intensity due to contrast.
- Upper part of screen and edges come with poor ilumination.

On the other hand, for the prize and the great conectivity, i've decided to keep it... I rise my position when watching tv and correct the viewing angle a little bit above normal, this makes it more easy going. It feels cute beside my other monitor and logitech speakers...

It allways depend on what u are looking for, such as performance, simplicity, or design.
Anonymous
a b C Monitor
a b Ô Samsung
March 11, 2009 11:30:50 AM

How does it rate vs an Asus VK246H?

http://www.asus.com/products.aspx?modelmenu=2&model=262...

i've been looking at both ... well basicaly T240 as both (the asus and the samsung one) don't have TV capabilities (unless you have a hd tv box ... but that's another issue)

Both of them seem rather similar ... I've read the tom's hardware review for the Asus VK246H and the tn panel takes a beating for the whole thing ... but the Samsung one would take the same beating ... right?

in terms of price ... i've found them to be preety similar

so ... which should i buy ?? :D 
June 22, 2009 5:22:13 PM

I own a T240 and I really do appreciate its great quality - not only the image quality, but the design, quality of manufacture, etc - BUT . . . let's not go crazy here! Firstly, my opinion of the product I decided to purchase, is just that, an opinion. It's subjective, and relative. When we start to argue about what's better, this Samsung, or that NEC, or that Dell, I know that we're just being silly since we're all talking about great products that we got ripped off for by their respective manufacturers. Just enjoy what you have, and leave it at that. Cheers :) 
July 20, 2009 10:37:18 AM

It is my first LCD and it beats the pants off of my old Viewsonic 20" CRT. But I am not a color accuracy aficionado.
July 31, 2009 4:55:22 AM

Poor maximiza - stuck in his box running in squares.
July 31, 2009 11:15:07 AM

rockyjohn said:
Poor maximiza - stuck in his box running in squares.

Prick
July 31, 2009 11:16:28 AM

jaguarskx said:
24" NEC LCD2490WUXi and 26" NEC LCD2690WUXi both use H-IPS panels.

Image quality of those two monitors knocks the panties off of a silly Samsung T240 which uses a TN panel.


TN panels have the lowest response times.
That's pretty important to a gamer.
You should think about the facts before posting your own ignorant opinion.
July 31, 2009 11:17:45 AM

cjl said:
TN is nice for the price, but will not come close to matching PVA or IPS type panels for color accuracy or viewing angle.


But TN will beat them on response time.

cjl said:
(I personally am a happy user of a Dell Ultrasharp 2408WFP)

Enjoy your ghosting when gaming then.
a b C Monitor
August 1, 2009 8:47:34 AM

EeezyRider said:
But TN will beat them on response time.


Enjoy your ghosting when gaming then.

Actually, the 2408 (unlike the 2407) doesn't have any ghosting problems whatsoever, and in many cases, my Ultrasharp can beat my other monitor (an S2209 WFP 2ms TN panel) in response time as well. The TNs are often vastly overrated, and without an independent comparison, it's hard to tell which is really the best. Believe me though, the 2408 does not ghost while gaming (A00 revisions had trouble with input lag though, which was mostly fixed on A01 [what I have], and from what I hear, completely fixed on A02).
August 1, 2009 4:31:44 PM

It doesn't matter what LCD you use, you can see ghosting if you look for it, personally it would have to be really bad to see it while doing anything other than staring at the screen looking at a white pointer on a black background.

August 10, 2009 4:34:19 PM

EeezyRider said:
TN panels have the lowest response times.
That's pretty important to a gamer.
You should think about the facts before posting your own ignorant opinion.


Ignorant is going with a monitor just because it has a lower response time instead of thinking it through, gamer or not.

Let's look at the facts:

1ms = 1/1000 of a second

2ms response time = 500fps

4ms response time = 250fps

8ms response time = 125fps

I don't know ANYONE who uses a monitor in ANY display mode with a refresh rate higher than 120Hz. So, an 8ms response time would be adequate handle 120Hz. As someone who has been a gamer since video games have existed, I can say that 8ms is *more* than adequate, even for hardcore gamers. Anything beyond that is market hype meant to sell cheap 6-bit monitors.

And, as a gamer who also does OTHER things with my monitors, I would choose a monitor with 8ms response time that has TRUE 8-bit color for things like image/video editing over a 2ms TN panel that can't display any sort of color gradient to save it's life.....

Now, if you're a gamer, and all you do is gaming and you have some non-existent computer and video cards capable of playing games at 1920x1200 (or 1080) at 500fps (which would be the framerate required to demand 2ms response time), then by all means, pickup a TN panel........ But I doubt you do, so at this point, you're simply showing that you got caught by the marketing hype and bought into the whole 2ms response time as actually having value, which it doesn't.

Same thing with these 120Hz and now 240Hz HDTVs. People swear that it makes fast-motion video look crisper. I'd like to see that considering the video source itself is limited to 30/60fps (30fps in 1080, 60fps in 720). More marketing hype. Another way to charge more for the same old displays...... Fools......
August 10, 2009 5:40:21 PM

Very nice first post, welcome.
October 23, 2009 7:01:27 PM

goldchain said:


Same thing with these 120Hz and now 240Hz HDTVs. People swear that it makes fast-motion video look crisper. I'd like to see that considering the video source itself is limited to 30/60fps (30fps in 1080, 60fps in 720). More marketing hype. Another way to charge more for the same old displays...... Fools......


Ignorant is not knowing that the 120/240Hz is aquired through software interpretation of intermediate frames between the 30/60fps given from the original video feed. It IS crisper because ther ARE more frames after the TV inserts them. Do your homework. The same applies to some monitors using 8ms and below timings.
a c 193 C Monitor
a b Ô Samsung
October 24, 2009 9:18:13 PM

EeezyRider said:
TN panels have the lowest response times.
That's pretty important to a gamer.
You should think about the facts before posting your own ignorant opinion.



HA, HA, HA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

It seems you there the ignorant person here. The title of this post clearly states "Best 24" Monitor Ever". It does not specifically state gaming only.

February 17, 2010 7:46:43 PM

goldchain said:
Ignorant is going with a monitor just because it has a lower response time instead of thinking it through, gamer or not.

Let's look at the facts:

1ms = 1/1000 of a second

2ms response time = 500fps

4ms response time = 250fps

8ms response time = 125fps

I don't know ANYONE who uses a monitor in ANY display mode with a refresh rate higher than 120Hz. So, an 8ms response time would be adequate handle 120Hz. As someone who has been a gamer since video games have existed, I can say that 8ms is *more* than adequate, even for hardcore gamers. Anything beyond that is market hype meant to sell cheap 6-bit monitors.

And, as a gamer who also does OTHER things with my monitors, I would choose a monitor with 8ms response time that has TRUE 8-bit color for things like image/video editing over a 2ms TN panel that can't display any sort of color gradient to save it's life.....

Now, if you're a gamer, and all you do is gaming and you have some non-existent computer and video cards capable of playing games at 1920x1200 (or 1080) at 500fps (which would be the framerate required to demand 2ms response time), then by all means, pickup a TN panel........ But I doubt you do, so at this point, you're simply showing that you got caught by the marketing hype and bought into the whole 2ms response time as actually having value, which it doesn't.

Same thing with these 120Hz and now 240Hz HDTVs. People swear that it makes fast-motion video look crisper. I'd like to see that considering the video source itself is limited to 30/60fps (30fps in 1080, 60fps in 720). More marketing hype. Another way to charge more for the same old displays...... Fools......



@ goldchain-> You r the MAN

April 12, 2010 12:04:43 AM

For all you idiots out there talking about input lag, and crazy refresh rate... face the facts.. you can't TELL idiot... stop it with your stupidity. You will need a measuring device to tell the difference your poor eye sights will not pick it up.
April 12, 2010 8:17:35 PM

I like my crappy Westinghouse, that right, Westinghouse, L2410M. Yea, I ghetto rigged a fan so it doesn't burn up (it was actually cutting in and out picture, and it got hot to the point where it didn't quite hurt, but was uncomfortable). Every so often it does act up, but overall, I have yet to see another monitor in person that has really nice vivid color's. I heard the panel itself is nice in this monitor, but everything else in the monitor is garbage, which I can agree with.
June 28, 2010 5:32:11 AM

goldchain said:
Ignorant is going with a monitor just because it has a lower response time instead of thinking it through, gamer or not.

Let's look at the facts:

1ms = 1/1000 of a second

2ms response time = 500fps

4ms response time = 250fps

8ms response time = 125fps

I don't know ANYONE who uses a monitor in ANY display mode with a refresh rate higher than 120Hz. So, an 8ms response time would be adequate handle 120Hz. As someone who has been a gamer since video games have existed, I can say that 8ms is *more* than adequate, even for hardcore gamers. Anything beyond that is market hype meant to sell cheap 6-bit monitors.

And, as a gamer who also does OTHER things with my monitors, I would choose a monitor with 8ms response time that has TRUE 8-bit color for things like image/video editing over a 2ms TN panel that can't display any sort of color gradient to save it's life.....

Now, if you're a gamer, and all you do is gaming and you have some non-existent computer and video cards capable of playing games at 1920x1200 (or 1080) at 500fps (which would be the framerate required to demand 2ms response time), then by all means, pickup a TN panel........ But I doubt you do, so at this point, you're simply showing that you got caught by the marketing hype and bought into the whole 2ms response time as actually having value, which it doesn't.

Same thing with these 120Hz and now 240Hz HDTVs. People swear that it makes fast-motion video look crisper. I'd like to see that considering the video source itself is limited to 30/60fps (30fps in 1080, 60fps in 720). More marketing hype. Another way to charge more for the same old displays...... Fools......


so what do you recommend, for anyone who intend to buy pc monitor this current time,not back to 2009 oldies..??
July 31, 2010 6:26:40 PM

I think everything regarding the stupidity of the original post and its relevance to cost and purpose have all been covered.

But to extend upon the whole ms response time and LCD refresh rates: at no point in this discussion did anyone point out the fact that humans are incapable of seeing anything faster than 60 frames a second. You can pretend to yourself via placebo effect that you are actually seeing more frames but it just isn't true. Any game that operates with a higher minimum frame rate than 60fps is more than your own eyes/mind is capable of handling.

It is for this biologically-limited reason that movie studios film at either PAL or NTSC frame rates which are 24 and 29.97 (I think without looking it up) frames per second. You could definitely notice motion blur if you were playing a game in a movie, but anything faster is unnecessary. The only thing I am aware of commercially that is faster is the new standard for 3D movies on blu-ray will comprise of 120 HZ movies. The way it works is it alternates the left eye frame with the right eye frame - effectively making each eye seeing a picture at 60Hz - IE the biologically tested limit that people are capable of.

So all you gamers that want to brag about how many ridiculous fps your rig is capable of, it makes no difference once its above 60 fps. Got it?
July 31, 2010 7:18:44 PM

guffwd said:
I think everything regarding the stupidity of the original post and its relevance to cost and purpose have all been covered.

But to extend upon the whole ms response time and LCD refresh rates: at no point in this discussion did anyone point out the fact that humans are incapable of seeing anything faster than 60 frames a second. You can pretend to yourself via placebo effect that you are actually seeing more frames but it just isn't true. Any game that operates with a higher minimum frame rate than 60fps is more than your own eyes/mind is capable of handling.

It is for this biologically-limited reason that movie studios film at either PAL or NTSC frame rates which are 24 and 29.97 (I think without looking it up) frames per second. You could definitely notice motion blur if you were playing a game in a movie, but anything faster is unnecessary. The only thing I am aware of commercially that is faster is the new standard for 3D movies on blu-ray will comprise of 120 HZ movies. The way it works is it alternates the left eye frame with the right eye frame - effectively making each eye seeing a picture at 60Hz - IE the biologically tested limit that people are capable of.

So all you gamers that want to brag about how many ridiculous fps your rig is capable of, it makes no difference once its above 60 fps. Got it?


Take a look at a game playing at 60fps, and then take a look at a game running 120... you will see a difference.
August 1, 2010 10:48:38 PM

...and response time is not equivalent to lag. Manufacturer's report response time as a gimmick (for the most part; it is related to ghosting), much like these new 2mil/1 (dynamic) contrast ratios (gimmick). If you want truly lag free gaming you'll need a CRT, all LCDs have some post processing taking place (which is where lag comes from); even an INSTANT response time will do absolutely nothing for this. As for color, unless you’re looking to do photo editing (or something similar) a TN panel will more than suffice (but many require some calibration). What does this all equate to? “Best” is subjective. The original statement was misleading, but so are the majority of the responses.
April 9, 2011 8:16:32 AM

You guys do know that the MS listed on the specs of any monitor is Grey to Grey (GTG)
it means nothing, and is not its true response time.

IPS monitors generally have a high response time (5~8ms), doesnt mean its not good for gaming,
and a TN panel with 2ms is not any better, fact its worse.

With an IPS monitor the image quality is superb, your game will look so much better on an IPS monitor
then your 2ms TN panel.

I dont know why people look at the response time, and if it isnt 2ms, they go "Oh shitty monitor"
why dont you read up on what actually makes a monitor good or bad.


Going to IPS from TN, is like going from ur strandard 7200 RPM disk drive, to a SATA III SSD.
Everyone hated on SSD's till they tried one out.

GO test out a IPS monitor, game with it, then go back to ur TN panel, guarantee you'll throw urs out and buy an IPS
April 9, 2011 9:53:01 AM

djiggs said:
You guys do know that the MS listed on the specs of any monitor is Grey to Grey (GTG)
it means nothing, and is not its true response time.

IPS monitors generally have a high response time (5~8ms), doesnt mean its not good for gaming,
and a TN panel with 2ms is not any better, fact its worse.

With an IPS monitor the image quality is superb, your game will look so much better on an IPS monitor
then your 2ms TN panel.

I dont know why people look at the response time, and if it isnt 2ms, they go "Oh shitty monitor"
why dont you read up on what actually makes a monitor good or bad.


Going to IPS from TN, is like going from ur strandard 7200 RPM disk drive, to a SATA III SSD.
Everyone hated on SSD's till they tried one out.

GO test out a IPS monitor, game with it, then go back to ur TN panel, guarantee you'll throw urs out and buy an IPS



You shouldn't revive a thread that is more then a year old, especially one that is irrelevant today.
Anonymous
a b C Monitor
a b Ô Samsung
June 28, 2011 3:45:11 PM

Why not? This question is still relevant. I wondering about a Samsung http://www.samsung.com/no/consumer/computer-peripherals... , or trying an IPS panel. The Tn panels are supposed to have improved the last years. I am really confused of what to buy. Its important that there is NO lag or ghosting and still can be able to deliver great colours and deep black contrast. Dont care if its a tricky menu or bullshit like that. Not often u calibrate the screen anyway.. Is it possible for like 250 - 300 $ ? ( I`m Norwegian , 2000 kr)
September 28, 2011 8:04:53 PM

djiggs said:
You guys do know that the MS listed on the specs of any monitor is Grey to Grey (GTG)
it means nothing, and is not its true response time.

IPS monitors generally have a high response time (5~8ms), doesnt mean its not good for gaming,
and a TN panel with 2ms is not any better, fact its worse.

With an IPS monitor the image quality is superb, your game will look so much better on an IPS monitor
then your 2ms TN panel.

I dont know why people look at the response time, and if it isnt 2ms, they go "Oh shitty monitor"
why dont you read up on what actually makes a monitor good or bad.


Going to IPS from TN, is like going from ur strandard 7200 RPM disk drive, to a SATA III SSD.
Everyone hated on SSD's till they tried one out.

GO test out a IPS monitor, game with it, then go back to ur TN panel, guarantee you'll throw urs out and buy an IPS

I just wanted to offer clarification as this response isn't factually accurate.

The response time of a monitor differs depending on the transition. It isn't uniform throughout the entire transition spectrum. There are generally two ways to measure response time, the ISO Standard which is a black > white > black transition, and Grey-to-Grey which is transitions from shades of grey.

Once upon a time, manufacturer's would only quote the ISO transition because it was the fastest transition possible at the time. GTG transition times were considerably slower. That is until the advent of Response Time Compensation/Overdrive.

ISO response times have hit a wall in recent years, with TN panels peaking at around 5 ms, IPS at around 15 ms and MVA around 12 ms. With Response Time Compensation, the GTG transition times are now FASTER than the ISO standard, with response times as low as 2 ms.

Keep in mind, a pure black to pure white transition is fairly uncommon in everyday use. GTG transitions are used most of the time, so a quicker GTG response time is much more applicable overall.

For the record, TN panels these days have great color accuracy, even on par with IPS monitors, when PROPERLY calibrated. Certainly not out of the box however. The default settings are usually quite poor.

Viewing angles are also much worse than IPS. Probably the only advantage that IPS monitors have over TN panels these days.

Andy H.
!