Ad
News

IDF goes on

Published on August 24, 2000

Tom's Hardware's indepth coverage of breaking news from the Intel Developer Forum in San Jose, California, continues at tomshardware.com. Read more

Intel Forum coverage continues

Published on August 25, 2000

To read Tom's Hardware's coverage of the second day of the Intel Developer Forum, click tomshardware.com. Read more

Oi, Nvidia! Merge With AMD!

Published on June 08, 2005

Intel convinced Apple to go with Pentium processors instead of PowerPC chips in its next product generation. Read more

Send us your news!

Published on July 02, 2003

While we're constantly trawling the web for new and interesting stories to pass on to our loyal readers, it's obviously impossible for us to find them all. Read more

Last Reviews & Articles

Atom, Athlon, or Nano? Energy-Savers Compared

Published on October 03, 2008

We compared Intel’s Atom 230 and VIA’s Nano L2100 processors hoping to find the best product for low-power applications. VIA is in the vanguard of performance. Is this enough to beat Atom? Read more

Interview: Bigfoot's Killer NIC, Exposed

Published on October 02, 2008

Since its release, the Killer NIC has garnered a reputation for being an extravagant and largely unnecessary add-on for the do-it-yourselfer. Seeking additional insight, we approached the card's designer. Read more

Seagate's 1.5TB Barracuda: Bigger And Better?

Published on October 02, 2008

Seagate is the first hard drive vendor to offer a 1.5 TB drive in the 3.5” form factor. Meanwhile, WD sent us its RAID Edition 3 (RE3) drive. We tell you which is the best HDD choice today. Read more

Updated CPU Charts 2008: AMD Versus Intel

Published on October 01, 2008

The processor is the heart of your PC, and our updated charts for Q3 2008 show 54 of them competing in terms of performance. Using our updated suite of benchmarks, compare your favorite AMD and Intel CPUs after reading this introduction. Read more

 

LCD for $200?

Advanced Search

There are 30 identified and unidentified users. To see the list of identified users, Click here



Word :   Username :  
 
Bottom
Author
 Thread : LCD for $200?
 
Profile: stranger
More Information

I need a LCD for my mom and I want to spend 200ish. I'll do a little gaming on it, but it will mostly be used for surfing/email/movies. Would this monitor be okay in games, BenQ G2000WD (http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16824014176)? Isn't the response time the only thing that matters in games?

Related Product

Register or log in to remove.

Profile: Forum Veteran
More Information

Not bad. Also look into Acer & Hanns-G.

Profile: nimble knuckle
More Information

Saw this at Tigerdirect. not sure about quality, just noticed price
http://www.tigerdirect.com/applica [...] u=V18-2112

Profile: old hand
More Information

---------------
What doesn't kill me only pisses me off!
Profile: member
More Information

Basically, price depends on size. What size are you looking to get? A decent 1680x display (and definitely 1600x non-WS) will definitely be more expensive than a 1280x display of the same monitor quality.

For what you are doing, I might suggest a 1280x or 1440x display, which would likely mean that you would be looking at less than 20" size for both WS and non-WS because they are cheaper due to lower resolutions. For widescreen, some 20" displays and anything smaller you'll see as 1440x. Some WS 20" are 1680x, other are not, this is often reflected in price. As for non-WS LCD's, anything smaller than 20" will likely be 1280x.

Acer has been mentioned. For a bargain LCD, that is a good option. I know my brother got a 20" WS Acer for like $160 even. And that was like 10 months ago or longer. And I'm almost positive it is 1680x. The colors weren't a true 16.7 million though, which you'll often see on cheaper LCD's. It might say 16 million, or 16.4, but 16.7 is the number you want to see if looking for quality.

These cheaper LCD's can look just fine though, especially if mostly surfing the internet, email. Basically anything but hardcore gaming. If really into gaming then you definitely want a fast response time, like 2ms or no more than 5ms. Otherwise, 6ms to 8ms on the cheaper ones are fine. You also want something with good viewing angle specs (the higher the better), if possible. But again all these things, including size, are what separate cheaper LCD's from the more expensive.

However, still check out the specs as you don't want to be totally ripped off. Make sure they are within reason and similar to other LCD's in the lower end price range. Every now and then I still see an LCD try to be sold somewhere for super cheap, which is tempting to buy, but then you check the specs and it has a 30ms response time or something crazy like that, just awful!
My brothers acer had average to decent viewing angles (generally you want to see no lower than 160 degrees and higher if possible), 16 billion colors (which is fine by him), and a 6ms to 8ms response time, which again for what he does is fine. And the $160 price tag almost a year ago was a deal breaker.

For a non-WS budget LCD, I'm staring at a good one right now. A 17" (I think) Dell @ 1280x (although its set to 1024x). Dell makes good monitors all around. The Ultrasharps are super expensive, but they make good budget monitors as well like this one I have here which was in the $150 price range like 7 months ago. Size is still decent for sure, although not huge. Good if you sit just a foot or two away from the screen.

One thing about LCD's is that the higher the native rez, the more trouble it could be for people who can't see well because higher rez means smaller text (although sharper).
However, you can still switch to a smaller non-native resolution and it should look OK. In fact this dell does a great job at scaling.

Good luck!

Reformulated with 20 percent less ahole !
Profile: nimble knuckle
More Information

you can also adjust font size in windows and leave the res alone, in the desktop settings.


---------------
X2 5400+, Biostar TA780G M2+ MATX, 2 gig mushkin, 8800gts 512 , CM 532, Kingwin 450w ATX 2.2

"Now if the 4870x2 was actually notably faster than the 280 for about the same price, then I might even take a chance on it. However, that won't be the case."
Profile: addict
More Information

robx46 wrote :

The colors weren't a true 16.7 million though, which you'll often see on cheaper LCD's. It might say 16 million, or 16.4, but 16.7 is the number you want to see if looking for quality.



Is it really that noticeable? I bought my 22" monitor about 18 months ago, and just went with the cheapest one (the only one I could afford) at the time. It's actually pretty good, it isn't bad, but looking at the stats, it does only have 16.2 million. I've been thinking about getting a 24" to go along with my 22", and the one I'm looking at has 16.7 million.

So pretty much, I'm just wondering if you have two monitors side by side, identical except for the amount of display colors, would you be able to tell the difference? I'm just wondering if I should be excited about this aspect of the new monitor.


Go to:
 

Google ads