17 or 19?

[Blackstar]

Right,

I've decided that now I've got a job, and the size of my room at my new house, I need a TFT, but which one to get.

I have two decisions to make:

1. To get 17" or 19"
2. Which monitor to get:

17" - Viewsonic VX724 (http://www.lowestonweb.com/Products/DisplayInfoMain.asp?e=C4DBBAD9-6669-41FA-A14D-D4154B834155) ?224.99 inc VAT + free P&P
19" - Viewsonic VX912 (http://www.lowestonweb.com/Products/DisplayInfoMain.asp?e=16D9305B-1376-4142-BE3F-50A610E9DC02) ?257.98 inc VAT + free P&P
19" - Viewsonic VX924 (http://www.lowestonweb.com/Products/DisplayInfoMain.asp?e=50F509FB-2FDD-4687-A9D2-62811F7B5D4A) ?299.99 inc VAT + free P&P

Currently I'm thinking either the 7 or 924 as these have 3/4(depending on what you read) ms response time (G2G) but I've heard that the difference between 4 and 8ms (on the 912) is pretty much un noticable.

Any advice would be greatly appreciated.

Also if you can find it cheaper anywhere else than www.lowestonweb.com (http://www.lowestonweb.com/) I'd like to know too :)

[SlyDave]

Just so you know those reponse times are inaccreate (sp!), they are are only stating the vertical refresh, the horizontal refresh is 3x that, so 24ms and 12ms - that of normal monitors (so they are nothing speical), its the horizontal refresh that is more important.

With that said, they are still good rates.

[tuBBymAN]

have u looked at a dell one?

[vale]

i have just bought a 17" view sonic i bought the vx 715 as im on a budget but it is a very nice monitor and its digital as well. im impressed i reccomend viewsonics as they are worth the cash!

plus they look spinky!

[Blackstar]

edit: really should have added a poll but do people think that 19" is worth the extra money now that 17" natural res is 1280 x 1024 same as 19"?

A decent 19" will have 1600x1200 like 21", and that 2 inch will make a diffirence, ask your girlfriend :P

[eaterofpies]

Overclockers had a 20 inch dell for 350 the other day . . . for 50 quid extra a screen thats known to be pretty damn good it might be worth it.

[Blackstar]

http://www.overclockers.co.uk/acatalog/lcd20.html#aMO_2d002_2dDE

Unfortunetly no longer...?440 inc VAT :(
That's a little out of my price range...splashing out to about ?300 is my limit

[tuBBymAN]

you can get a nice dell 17" from there own website for about ?200 and its like 16ms response time, my mum has dell at home on her mini mac and its a great monitor and thats the base 17"

[vale]

yeah they advertise it as a 16ms response time and i know the whole verticle repsonse time is the one tht matters but tbh it doesnt look bad at all and im getting no ghosting as far as i can see :)

but tbh if i had the cash i would have gone up a model or two!
my dad has the ?400 + model the one tht can spin on its axis to change to portrait or landscape and adjust the rez automatically its indeed a sexy screen!

[SGT_Snacks]

Well ARIA (http://www.aria.co.uk) have a 19" Dell going for ?200 (http://www.aria.co.uk/specials.asp) which seems a bargain!

At time of writing, there's 4 left.

[eaterofpies]

Unfortunately the dell 19s suck for gaming.
(though i am admittedly 9 months out of date)

[spazmochad]

If you don't manage to grab one of those dell's have a look round for BenQ 19"s as they normally go for around ?200-220 with a DVI connection.

[BirdofPrey]

Once again were in a quandry about futureproofing. Vista wiill need a monitor equipped with an HDIM connector, for things like high def video, and HD/Blueray DVD's. So spending 200quid plus may well be a bad idea, as you will probably need another expensive new monitor in another couple of years.

[putty_thing]

Once again were in a quandry about futureproofing. Vista wiill need a monitor equipped with an HDIM connector, for things like high def video, and HD/Blueray DVD's. So spending 200quid plus may well be a bad idea, as you will probably need another expensive new monitor in another couple of years.

I'm sorry but I think this is pish :)

For a start, we don't even have to run Vista (when it's eventually released [how many years?]) and by then the feature will undoubtably have been dropped anyway :p - how many people are realistically going to jump to Vista as soon as it comes out?


edit: I also think people are worrying entirely too much about pixel response times. I bought a monitor rated @ 25ms(?) turned out to have a 18ms panel in it - haven't had a problem and I'm sure noone else will with anything around 16ms.

[Blackstar]

I'm leaning towards saving myself some money and going for the cheaper option in the 19". But do people rate 19" over 17" or isn't there really any difference?

[SGT_Snacks]

edit: I also think people are worrying entirely too much about pixel response times. I bought a monitor rated @ 25ms(?) turned out to have a 18ms panel in it - haven't had a problem and I'm sure noone else will with anything around 16ms.

I got a 17" with a 16ms response time, turned out to have 12 :D

[putty_thing]

I'm leaning towards saving myself some money and going for the cheaper option in the 19". But do people rate 19" over 17" or isn't there really any difference?

Ask your girlfriend if she'd appreciate an extra 2"

[Blackstar]

very nice putty_thing, thanks for that :P

[vale]

lolol :P

[tuBBymAN]

hehehe good work jim, to be honest G if i were u i would go with 17" its plenty big enough for games and u only need 19" or bigger if u do lots of graphics work or coding or something that needs lots of desktop space

[Blackstar]

I think I'm gonna go for the VX724, its the cheapest option and it's got the quicker response time, and as tubby says 17" monitor is probably all I'll need.

Thanks for all the input guys.

[putty_thing]

Not to throw a spanner in the works, but 19" is alot more area, and more is generally better.

[BirdofPrey]

Id have to aggree with Jim, 17" is fine, 19" is excellent.

[Blackstar]

Hmm...decisions decisions...

OK if 19" is excellent compared to 17" being fine, is the extra ?40 worth going from fine to excellent...iyo?

[spazmochad]

http://www.dabs.com/productview.aspx?Quicklinx=3JBN&CategorySelectedId=11109&PageMode=1&NavigationKey=11109,40549

Excellent monitor, DVI, 12ms, 19" at ?194 reccomended to a mate before and is a great choice.

Or you could go on the dell site and pay ?260 for 17" dell one, cos his mum has one and they are good...

[squid]

"Not to throw a spanner in the works, but 19" is alot more area, and more is generally better."

or they both using 1280 x 1024 so it just bigger ?_?

[BirdofPrey]

Hmm, if you dont mind the low hz of a DVI go for it, personally i often get a headache of DVI monitors.

Also quite often (good) 19" are 1600x1200, so the area is alot bigger.

[squid]

at least you can read text on a dvi LOL

[BirdofPrey]

I can on my VGA, i am currently reading size 6 fonts on it. Cleartype makes it alot more bearable.

[squid]

200 quid 19"

- 1280x1024 Native Resolution
- 500:1 Contrast Ratio
- 8ms Response Time
- DVI-D input

or a 300 19"
- 1600x1200
- 300:1 Contrast Ratio
- 25ms Response Time
- DVI-D input

is it really worth it? 17" is better as it more ms and room for your buck, that all it comes down to.

it he wonted more space look at screen scampi has that dell Ultrasharp 2405FPW 24" Widescreen

[spazmochad]

Using a digital interface doesn't affect the refreash rate on TFTS. TFTs work differently to CRTs and always have a lower refreash rate because they don't need anything higher than around 60hz to eliminate the flicker in most cases.

DVI is always better for several reasons including, but not limitied to sharpness and colour reproduction.

The 19" Bq is VERY good. I don't want to have another agument on this thread cos of all you people with cheapo, old school TFTs that are now sub par image wise by todays standards just because they use a dsub connection.

[Blackstar]

My current 17" CRT monitor is running @ 1280x1024 @ 60Hz and its fine for me.

I'm just not sure on the size...and as far as which ones to look at, I'm gonna stick with the original 3 as I do really like the look and feel of the Viewsonic monitors.

Still do I go for 17" or 19", i'm being swayed both ways atm...

[DjArcas]

Using a digital interface doesn't affect the refreash rate on TFTS. TFTs work differently to CRTs and always have a lower refreash rate because they don't need anything higher than around 60hz to eliminate the flicker in most cases.



Eh? What flicker? there's no scanning beam in a TFT, and no ficker. TFTs 'refresh rate' - btw, this is a stupid term, try not to use it, it makes you look stupid too - is generally measured as latency in milliseconds - 16ms being about average these days. (if you must work in your completely irrelevant CRT hz, then do 1000 / latency). 16ms is fine for everything, unless you're a vert/horizontal shooter fan ;)

If you see a TFT with a crazy latency like 8ms or 4ms, that just means that the manufacturer has sidestepped the usual 'white black white black' test, and only done 1/2 or 1/4 of it.

[DjArcas]

Hmm, if you dont mind the low hz of a DVI go for it, personally i often get a headache of DVI monitors.


Ps you are an idiot, bop :)

[Blackstar]

Why do most things on tBG forums which just ask for advice end up as slagging matches?

[Jynx]

Because there are too many people with high opions of themselves.

When we are down the pub tonight we can have a proper discussion xD

I think its generally agreed tho that your 17" will give you far better pic quality but your 19" will be better for general working and is noticably bigger.

[spazmochad]

Thanks for correcting me aracs, I'd rather people did that than leave mistakes.

[squid]

If you see a TFT / LCD monitor with a crazy latency like 8ms or 4ms, that just means that the manufacturer has sidestepped the usual 'white black white black' test.

True or they just done it on gray to gray or put it on stupid colour settings such as 100% contrast to get it to the said ms at the ISO point. The only problem is that the image is not usable unless you like pink people ?_? the color dynamics are completely wiped out. So after contrast adjustment, one that's to the actual conditions you will be using it more like 14-15 and a general rule anything under 16ms is fine it just 16 ms are more like 20-25 when there set up.

don't trust manufacturers' claims about response characteristics

[vale]

Eh? What flicker? there's no scanning beam in a TFT, and no ficker. TFTs 'refresh rate' - btw, this is a stupid term, try not to use it, it makes you look stupid too

He speaks truth, i believe the correct term is response time is it not? :P

[spazmochad]

Yes we already established that I got the sentence round the wrong way which made it completely wrong.

I'd still like to see exactly what happens when you use power strip or something (if its possible) to make the graphics card refreash the image slower, say 30hz to a tft, I'm guessing it should just make it lag about badly like a crappy encoded divx movie instead of flickering like a crt would.

[Blackstar]

tubbyman just through a curve ball at me with this:
http://www.ebuyer.com/customer/products/index.html?rb=12677778708&action=c2hvd19wcm9kdWN0X292ZXJ2aWV3&product_uid=83914

Saving of ~?60 over the VX912, its 8ms, same panel as Dell 19" BUT no DVI

What do people think?

[tuBBymAN]

i have that exact monitor and i have read the endless pages of threads about TFT's and to be honest i didn't consider any of them when i was looking samsung are a good name in TFT's, most of the dell panels are samsung i believe, and its a great little monitor excellent for gaming and desktop use just seems silly to spend ?60 more just for a DVI connector when i'm sure someone said there isn't much difference, its not like it will give you HDTV or anything