Recomend 22" monitor

xev · Post by **xev** » Sat Dec 27, 2008 9:15 pm

What 22" do you guys recomend? I intend to use it primarily for documents, some movies, and some games.

edh · Post by **edh** » Sun Dec 28, 2008 3:14 am

A 24" one.

22" will give you 1680x1050 which you could also get on a 20" display. I'd go for the 20" given the choice of those two. The trouble then is that 1680x1050 is a strange resolution and is poorly supported in a lot of games, this is why I'd go for a 24" at 1920x1200. I have a Samsung SM245B which is quite nice.

sNNooPY · Post by **sNNooPY** » Sun Dec 28, 2008 7:22 am

edh wrote:A 24" one.

22" will give you 1680x1050 which you could also get on a 20" display. I'd go for the 20" given the choice of those two. The trouble then is that 1680x1050 is a strange resolution and is poorly supported in a lot of games, this is why I'd go for a 24" at 1920x1200. I have a Samsung SM245B which is quite nice.

wrong, wrong, wrong.
I own Samsung SM2232BW. It's not the best 22" out there, but it was the best buy when I got it (in May 2008).
The resolution is not "strange" (whatever you mean by that...), I played lots of games on that resolution (The Witcher, Mass Effect, Crysis...) and everything works like a charm.
A good 24" (like Dell 2408wfp) is much more expensive than 22".
Not to mention that playing on 1920 resolution is more demading on the hardware.

Post by **CA_Steve** » Sun Dec 28, 2008 7:56 am

Seconding Snnoopy.

I've been happy with a Samsung 22" as well. I don't have a specific model recommendation for you, but:

X-bit Labs does a lot of monitor reviews. Also, take a look at the customer reviews at newegg. The sheer number of reviews tends to build a picture of customer satisfaction. Finally, after finding a couple of likely suspects, do a search on this site. See if anyone is complaining about backlight circuitry buzz.

If you game, avoid displays with >5ns grey-to-grey response rates. If you watch movies, and expect to use Blu-ray or other copy protected HD material, get a display that supports the HDCP chain.

edh · Post by **edh** » Sun Dec 28, 2008 8:24 am

sNNooPY wrote:wrong, wrong, wrong.

I can see we're just going to get on great here.

sNNooPY wrote:The resolution is not "strange" (whatever you mean by that...), I played lots of games on that resolution (The Witcher, Mass Effect, Crysis...) and everything works like a charm.

The resolution is unusual and therefore strange. It has only been prevalent very recently and as a result is poorly supported in older games (the three you quoted are very modern and hence don't represent universal compatibility) and drivers. There are also no low resolutions that are a factor of it, unlike 1920x1200 which has 320x200, 320x240 and 640x400.

sNNooPY wrote:A good 24" (like Dell 2408wfp) is much more expensive than 22".

1920x1200 displays tend to be better quality. The 1680x1050 panels aren't aimed at professional displays and generally aren't built as seriously or have the same kind of features. I work with medical systems with 3 or 4 monitors traditionally having been 1600x1200 and there's no way we'd drop down to using 1680x1050. 1920x1200 displays are so much better.

What I really don't like about 22" monitors is that a 20" monitor with the same 1680x1050 resolution has the tighter dot pitch. I have a good eye for detail and I just couldn't work with pixels as massive as you get on a 22" 1680x1050 display. MS Windows is no good as a window manager and instantly assumes a .25mm dot pitch meaning that any Windows program that relies on screen metrics will look wrong on a 22" monitor unless you set up the screen scaling correctly. Of course this is irrelevant to me under Linux.

So what I'm saying is either save your money and buy a smaller monitor with the same resolution or fork out for a 24" 1920x1200 or even a 30" 2560x1200 monitor.

Samsung is good though. I have a 24" one and have previously had another four of these at work on one system, which was nice. Only issue I've seen is that one of those four wouldn't go on standby.

MoJo · Post by **MoJo** » Sun Dec 28, 2008 9:47 am

If you are doing document work than a 22" might be better than a 24", depending on how you use it.

A 22" is easier to rotate than a 24" if you plan to use vertical mode much. That extra 2 inches is the difference between having just enough clearance and just not enough at a reasonable stand height setting.

A 24" does in theory allow you to have two actual size A4 documents on the screen at once. In practice though it doesn't quite work due to needing toolbars etc on screen. You can get pretty close though, either by viewing at 95% actual size or removing/floating some of the toolbars, so that might be a big bonus if you do a lot of document work.

For document editing you have plenty of choice. Make sure you get one with a DVI connector for maximum sharpness on text, and then set up Cleartype (assuming you use Windows).

Practically any monitor should be okay if you don't care about gaming or accurate colours for photography. Just avoid the really cheap ones and get, say, a Samsung or HP. Viewsonic, Benq, LG, Philips and most other big brands are okay too.

If you do happen to care about gaming, all I can say is that my Benq 241W is fine in every game I have tried. There is a tiny bit of blur in some arcade games via MAME, but not enough to bother me.

If you care about photography, try reading Trusted Reviews and Be Hardware as they both do good monitor reviews with an eye for that sort of thing.

xev · Post by **xev** » Sun Dec 28, 2008 12:16 pm

Thanks everyone, I'll do some more research on xbit, trustedreviews, and newegg. I was really just considering a 22" because a 24 would take up too much desk space. As for the resolution while gaming issue, i can just scale down, and probably will have to because I only have a 8600gt oc'd.

I previously saw the xbit review roundup, but I was confused by the results. They didn't provide a clear leader in what I was looking for.

---

After a quick look, it seems that samsung 2232BW is pretty good.

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.a ... 6824001310

any comments on this one

MoJo · Post by **MoJo** » Sun Dec 28, 2008 1:55 pm

The Samsung looks okay, just be aware that it does not rotate and does not come with a DVI cable in the box. A DVI cable is well worth it if you don't already have one.

Post by **CA_Steve** » Sun Dec 28, 2008 4:13 pm

MoJo wrote:The Samsung looks okay, just be aware that it does not rotate and does not come with a DVI cable in the box. A DVI cable is well worth it if you don't already have one.

What's this?

MoJo · Post by **MoJo** » Mon Dec 29, 2008 11:24 am

CA_Steve wrote:What's this?

Oh, okay, well the spec page only mentions that it comes with a VGA cable, so I guess the spec page is incomplete.

For mainly document work the only other one I would suggest is the NEC. It rotates and NECs generally have a very good picture for serious work as that is primarily what they are intended for. It's been discounted to about $270 IIRC.

QuietOC · Post by **QuietOC** » Mon Dec 29, 2008 11:47 am

edh wrote:What I really don't like about 22" monitors is that a 20" monitor with the same 1680x1050 resolution has the tighter dot pitch. I have a good eye for detail and I just couldn't work with pixels as massive as you get on a 22" 1680x1050 display.

There are 19" 1680x1050 displays.
And 21.5" 1920x1080 displays.
There used to be 23" 1920x1200 LCDs.

These all have smaller pixels than the 24" and 30" LCDs you mention. The H-IPS pixels in the 24" panel on my new iMac are much too large.

bolek · Post by **bolek** » Mon Dec 29, 2008 2:03 pm

QuietOC wrote:
edh wrote:What I really don't like about 22" monitors is that a 20" monitor with the same 1680x1050 resolution has the tighter dot pitch. I have a good eye for detail and I just couldn't work with pixels as massive as you get on a 22" 1680x1050 display.
There are 19" 1680x1050 displays.
And 21.5" 1920x1080 displays.
There used to be 23" 1920x1200 LCDs.

There is also a 22" 1920x1200 display

Rebellious · Post by **Rebellious** » Fri Jan 02, 2009 7:53 pm

I have a ViewSonic NX2232w, 22" 1680 x 1050, it's both monitor and TV. It's supposed to be the fastest display out there, though not as refined as my VP181 monitor. The base is wobbly and has no tilt adjustment, but I replaced it with the stand from a broken ViewSonic VP2030b, so now it rocks. I think anything larger than 20" you start panning your head, or just move back further to view the whole thing at once. So I find there's diminishing utility in larger sizes.

...

~El~Jefe~ · Post by **~El~Jefe~** » Sun Jan 04, 2009 9:41 pm

I would look for an 8 Bit panel.

if it wasnt 8 bit, i wouldnt bother.

also, all 22" monitors made currently are TN film so it doesnt matter too much what you get in that respect.

I have IPS, thats the most accurate and clearest

some 24" ones are PVA/MVA. those are quite good, just below IPS.

people think monitors just differ slightly then they see an IPS and never look at a tn film again. Fast monitors dont necessary have no input lag, they also normally are 6 bit panels meaning you cant see all the colours of your video card... by a large amount.

WR304 · Post by **WR304** » Mon Jan 05, 2009 3:02 am

You could find that there are an increasing number of 22" 1920x1080 "1080p" monitors to choose from too.

eg:
http://www.bit-tech.net/hardware/2009/0 ... -monitor/1

The problem with cheaper monitors is that they seem more likely to end up with buzzing issues. considering you sit so close to a computer monitor that can be really annoying.

QuietOC · Post by **QuietOC** » Mon Jan 05, 2009 8:35 am

~El~Jefe~ wrote:I would look for an 8 Bit panel.

if it wasnt 8 bit, i wouldnt bother.

...Fast monitors dont necessary have no input lag, they also normally are 6 bit panels meaning you cant see all the colours of your video card... by a large amount.

Why settle for 8-bit? Consumer video cards have actually had 10-bit DACs for quite some time (since the Radeon 9700.) Even 8-bit LCDs are a step backwards.

~El~Jefe~ · Post by **~El~Jefe~** » Tue Jan 06, 2009 12:12 am

anything beyond 8 bit goes beyond what magazines use for photo's and the rest of the artworld and the rest of what is made in computing, because most artists suck nowadays and only use computers...

10 bit = gimick as far I have ever seen

8 bits in = 8 bits out.

they might use a "look up table" for color correction. but the image is almost always the same.

small 10 bit panels that have real 10 bit output are for medical imaging. they are INCREDIBLY slow for gaming. if your panel is fast for gaming or movies, it is a 10-12 bit gimmick and no more than 8 bits you are seeing.

antivenom · Post by **antivenom** » Tue Jan 06, 2009 2:22 am

I have an LG W2252TQ 22" TFT Monitor and I couldn't be happier with it! It was cheap at just Â£154 inc. VAT and it has everything I want from a monitor. It has both a VGA and DVI connector which is real useful and it has some really neat features like the 4:3 in wide function which allows you to have non-widescreen resolutions without stretching the picture, even down to the option to turn off the power light if it bothers you.

http://www.lge.com/products/model/detail/w2252tq.jhtml

Just have a look for yourself, its a nifty little monitor.

MoJo · Post by **MoJo** » Tue Jan 06, 2009 11:04 am

~El~Jefe~ wrote:10 bit = gimick as far I have ever seen

I have to agree as far as monitors go. If you are into photography you should check Be Hardware because they use high end colourometers in their reviews, and look at monitors designed to have a wide and accurate colour gamut.

For image editing work, 10 bit or more is definitely worth while. It's the same with high end audio - the recording and mixing it done at 96 bit, but then that is cut down to 16 bit for output to a CD. It still sounds better because the source material has more detail and the editing work causes less loss of accuracy than if it were done at 16 bit.

xev · Post by **xev** » Tue Jan 06, 2009 9:48 pm

antivenom wrote:I have an LG W2252TQ 22" TFT Monitor and I couldn't be happier with it! It was cheap at just Â£154 inc. VAT and it has everything I want from a monitor. It has both a VGA and DVI connector which is real useful and it has some really neat features like the 4:3 in wide function which allows you to have non-widescreen resolutions without stretching the picture, even down to the option to turn off the power light if it bothers you.

http://www.lge.com/products/model/detail/w2252tq.jhtml

Just have a look for yourself, its a nifty little monitor.

It would be very good, but I have seen many mentions of color inacuracy. h[url]ttp://www.digitalversus.com/article-358-3450-35.html[/url]
How are the colors for you?

xev · Post by **xev** » Sat Jan 24, 2009 9:06 pm

Still haven't purchased anything. I just saw the Viewsonic VA2226w for $130 after rebate, and that seems like a pretty good price. http://www.tigerdirect.com/applications ... dy=REBATES

I saw that in the monitor noise sticky only 1 user commented about this model and said that it

marka wrote:Viewsonic VA2226W 22": Generates a medium-pitched whine at any brightness below about 95%. Easily audible whilst sitting infront of it in a quiet room with a quiet PC. Not as loud as the LG, but the higher pitched whine makes it as noticeable.

This seems bearable especially since my system isn't silent.

vick1000 · Post by **vick1000** » Mon Feb 02, 2009 11:40 pm

New 22" eIPS from Dell (new LG panel), there should be 23" 1920*1080 models with these panel types soon though...

http://accessories.us.dell.com/sna/prod ... u=320-7825

oldabelincoln · Post by **oldabelincoln** » Tue Feb 03, 2009 3:49 am

vick1000 wrote:New 22" eIPS from Dell (new LG panel), there should be 23" 1920*1080 models with these panel types soon though...

http://accessories.us.dell.com/sna/prod ... u=320-7825

I could find nothing on the Dell page that indicated that it was eIPS. I understand IPS (I think), but what is eIPS, and how did you find out that this model is eIPS?

antivenom · Post by **antivenom** » Tue Feb 03, 2009 5:39 am

xev wrote:
antivenom wrote:I have an LG W2252TQ 22" TFT Monitor and I couldn't be happier with it! It was cheap at just Â£154 inc. VAT and it has everything I want from a monitor. It has both a VGA and DVI connector which is real useful and it has some really neat features like the 4:3 in wide function which allows you to have non-widescreen resolutions without stretching the picture, even down to the option to turn off the power light if it bothers you.

http://www.lge.com/products/model/detail/w2252tq.jhtml

Just have a look for yourself, its a nifty little monitor.
It would be very good, but I have seen many mentions of color inacuracy. h[url]ttp://www.digitalversus.com/article-358-3450-35.html[/url]
How are the colors for you?

As I said, this monitor is perfect as far as I'm concerned. My computer is pretty quiet and I don't notice any whine from my monitor unless I stick my ear up to the back of it. I mainly use my computer for gaming, watching movies and web browsing so similar usage as you.

vick1000 · Post by **vick1000** » Tue Feb 03, 2009 10:02 am

oldabelincoln wrote:
vick1000 wrote:New 22" eIPS from Dell (new LG panel), there should be 23" 1920*1080 models with these panel types soon though...

http://accessories.us.dell.com/sna/prod ... u=320-7825
I could find nothing on the Dell page that indicated that it was eIPS. I understand IPS (I think), but what is eIPS, and how did you find out that this model is eIPS?

It was on a blog somewhere, but basically the specs show it's the new LG panel, 1680*1050, 178/178, 5ms. There's a large thread over at [H]ard OCP forums about it, lots of pics.

eIPS is the new "e"conomy class from LG, supposedly they found a way to manufacture IPS panels at around the cost of TN films.

People are getting this monitor for $199 with some sort of $100 off thing at Dell.

Aris · Post by **Aris** » Tue Feb 03, 2009 11:00 am

I've got the Viewsonic VG2230wm 22" widescreen LCD monitor. Really like it. Picture quality is amazing and no ghosting in COD4 or WoW. You can pick one up at newegg for $250 now a days. I think when i got mine it was closer to 500.

1680x1050 works in every game i've ever tried. Idunno what EDH is talking about. Its a standard 16:10 aspect ratio just like the 1920x1200 of 24" monitors. Smaller native resolutions will mean higher framerate in games. I'm actually going to give this monitor to my wife and get a 19" wide aspect monitor in about a month so i can get a native resolution of 1440x900.

Scaling down resolutions in game and not using the native resolution makes the picture quality suck.

QuietOC · Post by **QuietOC** » Tue Feb 03, 2009 1:09 pm

Aris wrote:I'm actually going to give this monitor to my wife and get a 19" wide aspect monitor in about a month so i can get a native resolution of 1440x900.

Scaling down resolutions in game and not using the native resolution makes the picture quality suck.

That is a dilemma--what is good for games is not good for other things. I've been using a 1360x768 32" LCD TV and I don't mind the low resolution at all in games (I do mind the purple ghosting and latency of what I think is PVA matrix.)

For normal desktop work, however even 1920x1200 is rather limiting. Several years ago I had dual 1600x1200 85Hz Trinitron CRTs for work. I recently had dual 1680x1050 20" LCDs which is a bit too wide. Now I am on a single 24" 1920x1200 LCD, and I run out of work space a lot. A 20ish" 2560x1600 LCD would be nice.

A big (~40"), fast, low resolution LCD for games.
A small (~24"), high resolution LCD for work (or dual 1600x1200 LCDs).

I think that makes more sense than expecting a single LCD to work well for both tasks.

Alex · Post by **Alex** » Tue Feb 03, 2009 6:21 pm

I highly recommend the Benq E2400HD that I got.
http://www.benq.com/products/LCD/?product=1376
It is a marvellous and very good looking TN panel that is relatively cheep.

Of course colour and brightness vary slightly with viewing angle on a TN panel.

It is a perfect panel for internet surfing, writing documents, playing games (also fast as hell).

Screen resolution (1080p HDTV) is also very good for movies but TN is not the best for that.
Get a nice bigger TV or something for movies with another panel technology (=much more expensive because of other panel type AND size).

Still the picture is very good for a TN panel.
If you look at movies only occasionally, especially sitting alone right in front of it I bet you will be very happy.
At least I am.

HDMI cable is missing but the picture is superb even with the included VGA cable. I have no dead pixels.

This screen should be a very good candidate for a computer screen now.

If you do photoshop editing and need absolute colour correctness you can obviously not use a TN panel but I never do that.

I have my brightness set to 51% on the screen and -10 in Catalyst Control Center / Color / Brightness.
At this setting it is impossible to hear anything from it sitting >10 cm away from the center of the top back air grill, and power consumption should be relatively low.
At 51- 53 % you can not hear your monitor at 5 cm above the top grill center (on the backside).
At >90% it is even more silent but way to bright and it dissipates some heat.
At 8-50% and 55-90% brightness it is noisy (whines quite annoyingly).
You will certainly hear it after a while even if you do not pay immediate attention to it (with a relatively quiet computer).

It react slow to signal though. Takes like 2-3 seconds to lit up after shut down (= in energi saving sleep mode and startup).
The purple Benq startscreen is also not the most beautiful screen.

You can only tilt the screen so I put some phone catalogues under the plastic stand.

The speakers in it must be of the worst possible kind. Sounds like shit.
Do not use them!!!
I use my own earphones.

The screen is matte not blank as most others. I really like it.
If you do like blank screens or vivid (strong) colours look for something else.
The black frame is blank though (= inconsistent choice).
I would have preferred a matte one.

Picture downscaling is not so very good (I read in a test) but I always run mine at native resolution (1920x1080).
60 Hz framerate is then unfortunately max. but it doesn't bother me (I do not notice any flicker).
Still, higher frame rate might be better for your eyes?

I get a kind of picture edge/line (disrupt image) at 1/3 from the top when I look at high resolution movies on it.
It appears when the picture content moves/changes a lot, like when camera pans sideways for instance.
This is especially noted with highly compressed HD movies.
I think it is my HD 2600 XT that doesn't cope with it or is not working as it should?
Driver issue? I have updated to the latest Catalyst software but that didn't help either.

If you opt for the 22" version (E2200HD) be warned that it is actually a little smaller than 22" as I have heard.

xev · Post by **xev** » Tue Feb 03, 2009 8:31 pm

I will definitely consider that BEnq, but I was thinking more of a 16:10.

Also since I dont have the best video card, I will be forced to use lower resolutions in games. On my current 19" 4:3 , I go down to 1024x768 on some games. I know that I am missing some action, but I prefer better game experience over larger picture.

I am getting a Ati 4830 in a few days so hopefully I can decide about a monitor then. So far, some serious options appear to be:

-Viewsonic VG2230wm I'm not too sure about the built in speakers since I have my own and the built-ins just take up desk space. Aris noted that scaling down isn't done well by the monitor.

-LG W2252TQ Some color issues noted by prof reviewers, but not users.

-SyncMaster 226cw or SyncMaster 2243BW based on Xbit.

Matija · Post by **Matija** » Tue Feb 03, 2009 10:25 pm

Monitors with TN panels are *NOT* serious options.