Unless you are a professional graphic designer, a TN panel should well fit your needs.
So, you created a good shortlist, here are my comments:
- Resolution: LG and Asus are Full Hd, Acer is not
- Connectivity: Only Acer has an HDMI input, the other two not
- Response time: LG and Asus have 2ms response time, Acer 5ms (important for gaming)
If I were you, I'd add a Benq monitor to your shortlist. I have the E2200HD myself and works great so far without any problems. Got HDMI, Full HD 16:9, 2ms response time and cool design. Very much recommended on various tech blogs and portals.
And i couldn't really find any good specs on it or sellers.
I also researched the G2220HD and it looked ok but it is the most expensive monitor of the bunch and it has a response time of 5ms.
I think my two best bets right now are the LG and Asus. But i do have a question. What exactly is HDMI and what is the advantage of having it?
I see the LG and Asus are full hd so what is the advantage of having an hdmi port. Ultimately, is video quality going to be better on an LG/Asus (with DVI port) or on the non-hd Acer (hdmi port)?
1. There is no difference in video quality between HDMI and DVI. HDMI combines video and audio signals in one cable, that’s all. However, if you want to play consoles, both the Playstation 3 and the Xbox 360 use HDMI connections.
2. For blurring in general, I think this is kind of subjective and also depends on the testing methods used. In the review link which you posted in terms of blurring they say this for the E2200HD:
…but trails were visible in scrolling text and window moving tests. Movies were handled quite well, though, as motion was not a problem when viewing HD movies and even DVDs.
Which normal monitor user does that? Moving windows quickly? I think a monitor should be tested for what it is targeted at which is watching movies, DVDs and playing games. But not for irrelevant aspects of daily PC use like window moving tests.
Anyway, just my personal opinion.
I haven’t noticed anything so far and I frequently use the BenQ for gaming and watching movies and also normal desktop work and browsing. It works just fantastic.
But still, the Asus sound goods too, at least spec-wise. But don’t always trust the specs, it’s better to have a real experience with the product. And: I normally prefer to not buy the cheapest product. Price-wise I think all the monitors are acceptable, a few bucks more or less doesn’t really make the difference.
Has no relevance since different products from the same company can be crap or not. I have nothing against LG though, especially since I bought their 47LH90 HDTV recently.
If you are doing professional web-design, then I recommend you double your budget at minimum to buy to better quality LCD monitor that can produce more accurate colors than a TN panel can.
If you are just learning or playing around with web-design, then a cheap TN panel monitor will suffice.
I bought the Asus VK246H you linked to in December 2008. By far it is the least amount of money I ever spent on an LCD monitor (since 2002), and it also gets used the least as well. Currently 0 - 5 hours per week.
What exactly makes the LG better? just a better brand?
I see that the LG appears to have a higher contrast ratio, but i've read that contrast ratio does not mean much anymore. The asus on the other hand has a smaller pixel pitch, so wouldn't that mean the asus would have a better image?
And i'm not exactly sure what a TN panel is. I've looked at more expensive monitors but none seem to be that great. I also plan on using the monitor for gaming so I want a 2ms response time (most high end are 5 or 6ms respond times).