A Guide to Choosing the Right 19" LCD Monitor - 7 Models Reviewed
by Kristopher Kubicki on November 30, 2004 12:04 AM EST- Posted in
- Displays
Subjective Analysis (continued)
Generally, we follow up our application analysis with a table pitting two LCDs against each other using benchmarks that we derived from VESA's handbook and test patterns from DisplayMate/CheckScreen. All of our monitors are running on an X800 Pro AGP over a DVI connector unless denoted otherwise. Monitors that don't have DVI connectors are compared using a D-sub connector instead. We have simplified our table a little bit so that we can fit all of our data on the same page, but our Notes From the Lab section flags any behavior that we would typically note on the table. The table ranks each benchmark on a scale of 1 to 5, 5 being the best rating and 1, the least desirable.Here is generally how we rate a category:
5 - Outstanding; we have not seen anything to date that could rival our impression of this monitor's performance.
4 - Good, but room for improvement. There are units on the market that perform better.
3: Average; this monitor performs well enough to maintain the status quo, but does not excel.
2: Improvement needed; this monitor performs poorly in performance of this category.
1: Unacceptable; this product does not pass even basic performance requirements.
| DisplayMate / CheckScreen / VESA FPDM 2.0 | ||||||||
| BenQ FP931 | NuTech L921G | Planar PE191M | Samsung 193P | Samsung 910V | Sony SDM-S94 | ViewSonic Q190MB | Dell 2001FP | |
| Intensity Range Check | 4.5 | 4 | 4 | 5 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 5 |
| Black Level Adjustment | 4.5 | 5 | 4.5 | 5 | 4.5 | 5 | 5 | 4.5 |
| Defocusing, Blooming, Halos | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 4 | 5 | 5 | 5 |
| Screen Uniformity and Color Purity | 4.5 | 5 | - | 5 | 4 | 4 | 5 | 4.5 |
| Dark Screen Glare Test | 3 | 4 | 4 | 4.5 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 4.5 |
| Primary Colors | 3 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 3 | 3.5 | 4 | 4 |
| Color Scales | 3 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 4 |
| 16 Color Intensity Levels | 3 | 4.5 | 4.5 | 4.5 | 3.5 | 4.5 | 4.5 | 4.5 |
| Screen Regulation | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 |
| Streaking, Ghosting | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 2 | 4 | 5 | 5 |
Notes From the Lab
Above, you can see the Planar PE191M only scored N/A on its screen uniformity test. While the monitor is quite good, the cluster of defective pixels really strained our eyes and we found it fairly difficult to get an accurate reading of the screen uniformity. When we look for screen uniformity errors, we usually look on the corners and sides where light may be seeping through from the backlight around a poorly insulated edge. Since the dead pixels were in the corner, we had trouble when attempting to inspect the corner accurately.You'll notice that our LCDs grab 4.5s pretty much across the board with the exception of the BenQ. Spotting 6-bit LCDs are fairly easy for people who do a lot of graphics work. The image below displays 256 different shades of blue across the top; it represents the 256 hues of blue that are found in an 8-bit sub pixel. No amount of dithering can render this square correctly on a 6-bit LCD.
As expected, the lack of a digital cable on the Samsung 910V hurt it in more ways than one. For most of our other LCDs, we knew that we were getting the correct signal with the test pattern rendered the way in which the LCD manufacturer had intended it to render. After testing a few monitors on a digital connection, we almost immediately recognized small amounts of interference on the 910V, and we did the best that we could to record our observations on the other tests.
We were not real surprised to see the Samsung 193P pull ahead in a lot of the subjective testing. It's a $700 monitor, and it should perform better in many situations. Samsung seems to have a knack for making good panels. However, if we had to pick a second best performer (other than the Dell 2001FP), we were a little surprised to see that the ViewSonic Q190MB and the NuTech L921G had posted generally sound performance numbers. Color was on balance, screen uniformity was there, and glare was fine.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
97 Comments
View All Comments
Cat - Tuesday, November 30, 2004 - link
Kristopher, could you comment on the perceived lag that I've felt on three different 2001FPs? There's no ghosting, but the delay between moving the mouse and having an update on the screen is horrible. DVI-I and D-SUB, different video cards, systems, the works, they all have it.I don't see this on the other LCDs here at work. I know there was a Slashdot post about this a while back, and some have said it's caused by bad batches, but three of them having the same problem? I don't know if I should send my personal 2001FP back ...
InuYasha - Tuesday, November 30, 2004 - link
>Umm, yeah what up with that? Why can't someone >explain the reason to get a 19" versus a 17" if >the resolution is the same (ignoring that the >dot pitch is bigger thus easier to see).It's the same friggin reason why people buy a 50" TV instead of a small 20"
InuYasha - Tuesday, November 30, 2004 - link
>"Recall that 19" LCDs have roughly the same >viewing area as 21" CRT monitors, and that 17" >LCDs have about the same viewing ANGLE as 19" >CRTs.">angle = area in this case?
>Some stories get edited well on anandtech, and >some not so well...
a 19" LCD is measured EXACTLY 19"image display size, but a 19" CRT is usually like 18" or 17.x", the 19" is usally the glass size, not the actual image size for CRTs
sonicDivx - Tuesday, November 30, 2004 - link
Umm, yeah what up with that? Why can't someone explain the reason to get a 19" versus a 17" if the resolution is the same (ignoring that the dot pitch is bigger thus easier to see).Also why not list the settings you used for each monitor to attain the results you got (during subjective tests). This way we could set the LCD to your spec and go from there. Where is the Samsung 912N in review, its a common LCD out there?
>HelToupee
>viewing ANGLE as 19" CRTs."
>
>angle = area in this case?
HelToupee - Tuesday, November 30, 2004 - link
In the second paragraph on the first page:"Recall that 19" LCDs have roughly the same viewing area as 21" CRT monitors, and that 17" LCDs have about the same viewing ANGLE as 19" CRTs."
angle = area in this case?
Some stories get edited well on anandtech, and some not so well...
IHYLN - Tuesday, November 30, 2004 - link
I'm no english major but "more are better" "less are better" in some of the graphs made me wonder.nastyemu25 - Tuesday, November 30, 2004 - link
I agree, let's see a Sony HS-94P/B with x-black technology review!ocyl - Tuesday, November 30, 2004 - link
Should have dropped Benq's colour scores to 2 (or 1, even) for its decision to use a 6-bit panel instead of a True Colour (8-bit) one :PFilibuster - Tuesday, November 30, 2004 - link
>I think there have to be gamers here, and I do not think LCDs are there yet when it comes to refresh rates; it would have been nice to see the refresh rates on the monitors at 1024, 1280, and 1600.LCD displays don't have a refresh rate at any resolution. There is no flicker to be worried about.
Ensign - Tuesday, November 30, 2004 - link
In the Intro, it says, "A reasonably cheap, new 21" CRT runs for about $350; a reasonably cheap, new 21" LCD runs for about $330." I'm guessing that was supposed to say 17" or 19" LCD?