In our first LCD round-up of the year, we put four monitors thorough our benchmark suite and find some surprising results. Even if you're an enthusiast with cash to spare, paying more doesn't guarantee a better display. Our tests explain why.
Despite all of the exciting display technology we saw at CES, it's going to be a while before OLED and autostereoscopic displays make their way to your desktop in any meaningful way.
As a result, we're in a bit of a lull when it comes to combining "new and exciting" with practicality in our monitor round-ups. But that doesn't mean there is any shortage of screens we still haven't reviewed. And that's why we have four more screens to add to our display analysis.

Until new technologies become more affordable, we're living in a display world where nearly everything employs LED backlighting. Even if you prefer CCFL-based monitors for their color accuracy, it's hard to ignore the power consumption- and form factor-oriented benefits of LED technology. Those positive attributes are reflected in today’s 23” LCD round-up.
Although all four of the screens we're reviewing sport the same dimensions and backlighting technology, there's a relatively large $100 spread between the most- and least-expensive models, and the benchmarks truly demonstrate some divergence between what these monitors can do. In the end, paying more for a display doesn't mean you're necessarily getting a better product.
| Brand | Acer | Dell | LG | Samsung |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Price | $150 | $180 | $250 | $200 |
| Model | S231HL Bid | S2330MX | IPS236V | S23A550H |
| Panel Type | TN | TN | S-IPS | TN |
| Screen Size | 23" | 23" | 23" | 23" |
| Max Resolution | 1980x1080 | 1980x1080 | 1980x1080 | 1980x1080 |
| Aspect Ratio | 16:9 | 16:9 | 16:9 | 16:9 |
| Response Time (GTG) | 5 ms | 2 ms | 5 ms | 2 ms |
| Brightness cd/m^2 | 250 | 250 | 250 | 250 |
| Speakers | No | No | No | No |
| VGA | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 |
| DVI | 1 | 1 | 1 | - |
| DisplayPort | - | - | - | - |
| HDMI | 1 | - | 1 | 1 |
| Energy Star Qualified | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes |
| Refresh Rate | 60 Hz | 60 Hz | 60 Hz | 60 Hz |
| Warranty | Three-year | One-Year | One-Year | Three-Year |
- Four-Way 23" LCD Round-Up
- Acer S231HL Bid, Dell S2330MX, LG IPS236V, And Samsung S23A550H
- Benchmark Methodology And Test Setup
- Out Of Box Performance: Maximum And Minimum Brightness
- Calibrated Performance: Brightness And Contrast Ratio
- Calibrated Performance: Color Accuracy And Gamut
- Black/White Uniformity And Viewing Angles
- Power Consumption
- Response Time, Input Lag, And Final Words
- 23” LCD Round-Up: Mixed Results
I have a friend with a 26" 16:9 monitor and he always wishes he had followed my choice for the vertical real estate gain. Going from 1080 pixels to 1200 pixels is just over 11% more space. That means MS Office can display two A4 pages side by side at life size even with the 'ribbon' showing.
When gaming, the 1920x1200 resolution gives a greater feeling of being there due to the extra vertical space whilst maintaining the 'widescreen' ability to keep eye-attention.
It seems that the computing world is beginning to be dictated to by the panel manufacturers who are geared for widescreen TVs in the same way that 4:3 computer moniters were originally just converted TV tubes. I have spent a lot of time in front of computer monitors over a great many years and I have found the 16:10 format to be the most satisfying to the eyes and the best for productivity.
With these points in mind it seems that the computing industry is on the verge of losing a significant asset in the 16:10 format.
Therefore,
Toms Hardware will you please investigate the availability and future of this format.
Q
I guess I was wrong.
Why dont you guys test it the usual way? with a CRT monitor side by side running a timer (with ms ofc) and take some photos?
I guess I was wrong.
LG's QA website.
Question: did you go into the Menu > Picture and change the Black Level setting to Low? It defaults to High for some unknown reason, and at that setting the blacks are indeed terrible. At Low, the blacks are much, much better, and the slight decrease in white levels isn't much of an issue given that this is an extremely bright monitor.
Question: did you go into the Menu > Picture and change the Black Level setting to Low? It defaults to High for some unknown reason, and at that setting the blacks are indeed terrible. At Low, the blacks are much, much better, and the slight decrease in white levels isn't much of an issue given that this is an extremely bright monitor.
Gamma set to 2.2. We did set to low. And as you know we measure luminance (nits) not illuminance (lux). Maybe this unit sat in the review pool too long... Not sure, but those were the readings that we achieved.
I have a friend with a 26" 16:9 monitor and he always wishes he had followed my choice for the vertical real estate gain. Going from 1080 pixels to 1200 pixels is just over 11% more space. That means MS Office can display two A4 pages side by side at life size even with the 'ribbon' showing.
When gaming, the 1920x1200 resolution gives a greater feeling of being there due to the extra vertical space whilst maintaining the 'widescreen' ability to keep eye-attention.
It seems that the computing world is beginning to be dictated to by the panel manufacturers who are geared for widescreen TVs in the same way that 4:3 computer moniters were originally just converted TV tubes. I have spent a lot of time in front of computer monitors over a great many years and I have found the 16:10 format to be the most satisfying to the eyes and the best for productivity.
With these points in mind it seems that the computing industry is on the verge of losing a significant asset in the 16:10 format.
Therefore,
Toms Hardware will you please investigate the availability and future of this format.
Q
I love my 1920x1200 Samsung 2443BW but worry that when it needs replacing there won't be any affordable replacements. Tom's can't tell manufacturers what to do but perhaps more reviews would result in more sales and hence more interest in making 16:10 displays.
it reached the lowest price point. you can't expect to buy an LCD for 1$.
remember CRT TV's. they were produced for over 50 years, yet the price remained the same for several years after reaching a certain minimum.
It will be the same with OLED and AMOLED. currently you can buy a 17" OLED for 4k$. in some years in the future you can buy a 24" OLED for 178$. Just like you did for your LCD.
around - they are probably all more than good enough. I'd rather someone warned me that my
black samsung bled light round the edges - had a dark "reflected shaddow" along the top edge of the image about 4mm down if it was slightly higher than my eyeline (caused by the shiny black plastic case - not as I originally thought - by dead LCD electronics - its a weird effect)
I'd like reviewers to get out of the tech details and into the real world.
Another example of this is video cards. I neither know nor card how they work. For all intents
and purposes the only reason to have a better graphics card is to play games. Very little else
has any reason these days.
And I dont want to know how many pixels a second in mode 2 with X operaing system and Z memory
it can do.
I want to know where the new card sits IN RELATION to my existing card for ease of play.
Nothing else anyone says helps me choose. And no one seems to do that.
I read the review here this week to see if upgrading my GT320 card would play Far Cry better.
I still havn't the faintest idea. Not a clue. I'm getting the sense that others are reluctant to upgrade
just to get the newest thing on the block these days too. Just because its newer and even performs better doesnt mean its worth having.
And guess what. I design electronics for a living so I'm not dumb to tech talk. So whats the point?
Lets have reviews targeted at users not specification matching.
Why not buy ASUS 24" LED monitor over these? The picture quality is better and you can get it less then $200 sometimes on New Egg.