Trending

Acer, Dell, LG, And Samsung: Four 23" LCD Monitors, Rounded-Up

By

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.

Power Consumption

There's hardly any difference in power consumption between our four 23" LCDs, though, it’s worth mentioning that LG’s IPS236V consumes about 5 W more than the S231HL Bid, S2330MX, and S23A550H. This is consistent with what we've seen from past round-ups, where IPS-based monitors tend to be less energy efficient.

42 Comments Comment from the forums
  • compton 22 February 2012 11:24
    I thought the LG used not S-IPS but e-IPS, 6 bit + AFC. I actually thought it was almost identical to the CCFL backlit Dell U2311H (except the module is for LED backlight in the LG's case, not CCFL).

    I guess I was wrong.
    Reply
  • compton 22 February 2012 11:24
    ^ I mean the panels, not the two monitors themselves.
    Reply
  • klyzet 22 February 2012 12:14
    Im not sure if that input lag test is accurate.
    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?
    Reply
  • illusiongamer12 22 February 2012 12:26
    why no review a viewsonic monitor they have a 150$-180$ monitor with these same specs
    Reply
  • tlmck 22 February 2012 13:34
    Also noticeably absent is the ever popular ASUS brand. I don't have one myself, but it seems a lot of people do. Would have been an interesting comparison.
    Reply
  • Eman25th 22 February 2012 13:42
    Can anyone tell me why the prices haven't dropped? i bought my asus 24" screen 2 years ago for 178$
    Reply
  • acku 22 February 2012 14:12
    9527531 said:
    I thought the LG used not S-IPS but e-IPS, 6 bit + AFC. I actually thought it was almost identical to the CCFL backlit Dell U2311H (except the module is for LED backlight in the LG's case, not CCFL).

    I guess I was wrong.


    LG's QA website.
    Reply
  • kyuuketsuki 22 February 2012 14:12
    I own the LG IPS236V, and I find your numbers completely non-believable. The contrast ratio is not that abysmal, and it can reproduce decent (though not the best, I admit) blacks. Also, on a review of the IPS226V, while being the 22" model, it is otherwise identical, and DigitalVersus found it to have a contrast ratio of over 1000:1. I'm wondering where the huge disparity in numbers is coming from, and I don't think it's DigitalVersus mussing things up.

    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.
    Reply
  • kyuuketsuki 22 February 2012 14:18
    Also, what was the Gamma setting on the IPS236V?
    Reply
  • acku 22 February 2012 14:29
    9527539 said:
    I own the LG IPS236V, and I find your numbers completely non-believable. The contrast ratio is not that abysmal, and it can reproduce decent (though not the best, I admit) blacks. Also, on a review of the IPS226V, while being the 22" model, it is otherwise identical, and DigitalVersus found it to have a contrast ratio of over 1000:1. I'm wondering where the huge disparity in numbers is coming from, and I don't think it's DigitalVersus mussing things up.

    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.
    Reply