is 1920x1200 (of course).
Monitors don’t age very well; growing, as they do, dimmer and yellower as time passes. Premium panel technologies are now also considerably cheaper than they once were, so if you haven’t updated your display in a while, the chances are it’s now more than a little bit rubbish. I’ve taken a look at ten of the best affordable …
is 1920x1200 (of course).
Yeah, really disappointed with this article - I'd love to replace my aging monitor (used mainly for gaming, so the Asus is out) with a modern equivalent, but there's no way I'm giving up my 1920x1200 resolution - and none of these panels seem to offer it.
Same here, I want to upgrade my monitor, not a downgrade to 1080p.
1080p is even less vertical pixels than one of my previous, now ancient, 17" CRTs!
1080p is fine for me. Glad my eyes are rubbish.
Being the proud owner of an old Iiyama 24" from back in the day when 1920x1200 was more common I totally agree. However both Dell & Iiyama do a couple of reasonably priced 24" 1920x1200 IPS displays like this one at Scan: http://www.scan.co.uk/products/24-dell-u2412m-led-ips-monitor-full-hd-displayport-dvi-vga-1920x1200-8ms-300cd-m-10001-silver
However what puzzles me about this review of "affordable" monitors is including those expensive panels from Asus & Benq. When you're in the £300-350 range it's hard to imagine why someone looking for the improved colour performance that these offer would not spend a little extra for a 27" 2560x1600 IPS model seeing as there are several good options around the £450 mark.
And was it not possible to put in at least one monitor that the review felt able to recommend?? Poor show.
1920 by 1080 is a telly, not a monitor.
...27" 2560x1600 IPS model... ...good options around the £450 mark.
Namely? Not being smart - I would dearly love something like this but all I can find at that sort of price are on eBay and in Korea, so even assuming no other problems you can almost guarantee VAT and handling to be added on top. I am however shit at finding good deals online, hence my asking!
I never trust reviews of people who say nice things about 16:9 monitors because they're all junk, every last one.
In the same position replacing my old BenQ display, so I've been shopping around for a decent priced 24" 16:10 and considering the Dell U2412M mostly if anybody is looking for recommendations of an actually decent monitor at a reasonable price.
As a proud owner of the PA248Q, I've not had issues playing Crysis nor CSGO on it.
"When you're in the £300-350 range it's hard to imagine why someone looking for the improved colour performance that these offer would not spend a little extra for a 27" 2560x1600 IPS model seeing as there are several good options around the £450 mark."
Well, because that immediately negates the chances for wide color gamut ie cheaper white-LED- based regular color performance eg Dell U2713HM: http://www.tftcentral.co.uk/reviews/dell_u2713hm.htm43
If you want the same 27" but with wide gamut then you will have to cough up ~50% more eg Dell U2713H or the older Dell U2711:
Be warned, many newer monitors come with extremely aggressive colour profiles on them designed to fool the user into thinking they look better. In reality often the colour is turned up to 11, etc. Once you calibrate them properly, it will look more like you would expect.
They also come with glossy screens, which causes eyestrain. I knew why I was getting headaches after using my late and unmissed glossy monitor (the thing was so glossy it could accurately be described as reflective) but a lot of people haven't even heard of eyestrain and will suffer in silence and assume that headaches just happen randomly.
I like the fact that el reg noted which screens had anti glare matte finishes. I had to go to a lot of trouble finding that out, sadly neither sales or support for a lot of companies actually know such basic things about their own products. I ended up buying the first one where the support people could actually tell me that the monitor had a matte finish.
Where did you get the £130 figure for the AOC? The absolute best Google gives is £135, with even ebay more typically offering £145.
Clicking on the Amazon button under the review takes you to Amazon's web site where you can order one for £118.03 plus £11 delivery, totalling £129.03. There, that wasn't hard, was it.
Really? Comes up as £147.72 for me.
The £118 one is a different model. Doesn't look to be IPS, although looks fairly similar otherwise. (Slightly different connectivity though).
CCL - £130.57 inc vat and delivery. I used google shopping with the model number (took about 15 seconds)
There are cheaper people but I have no idea who the cheaper people are. Having bought from CCL before I know they exist! (You can go there if you like)
I just bought a similar monitor this weekend after much reading. I got hte LG IPS234V in the end and was surprised not to see it here.
My other choices appear in your ten here so I'm surprised the LG wasn't in it. I really like mine! Having said that, I'm in Asia and not in the UK so the prices might be different.
I have to agree .. picked up an LG IPS 235v at Best Buy for $190 on Christmas Eve .. checked Amazon and it was not available there, but it said Best Buy was the best price .. only one that looked as good was a Dell .. put them side by side at Best Buy .. and the LG won out on price by a few $$ .. looked slightly better and the Dell had a 8ms response time .. not that I have a problem with Dell .. but we all know they are not a manufacturer .. while LG is
That being said, there are some very nice Samsung monitors out there as well for good prices, and chances are Samsung made some of the monitors in this review .. so surprised a Samsung wasn't included
1920 x 1080 is just fine IMO , can put 2 windows side by side, plenty of productive real estate .. 5 ms response time is just fine for gaming .. I'd suggest this monitor to anyone
Mayby not available on Amazon so no Amazon kickback button to post with the "review".
Maybe it should be called " Ten affordable mid-sized Full HD monitors your can buy at Amazon".
Anybody had experience of USB-driven monitors? Do they cope with video okay, are they better used for just increasing your productivity real-estate?
I was tempted by a 7" USB monitor for toolbars, but at around £70 I started to thing 'sod it' because 20" wasn't much more.
...thinking I was alone wanting a small monitor, but you can get a 15" for the same price, if not less. Madness.
What I'd like to see for a small second monitor is not a dedicated device. Just put a hdmi or dvi input on a tablet so it can be used as a second monitor for a desktop/laptop (or connected to other devices such as cameras). Of course consumers will like only buying one 7" screen more than manufacturers will like only selling one 7" screen.
....put one of them in for someone just the other week. Warned them I thought performance would be awful. I'd rate them at only just acceptable for spreadsheets. Video? Forget it.
Got lots of 7" MIMO USB Monitors at work. Good for slowly updating 2D, no 3D. Screen is only 800x480, but they stream 1280x720 video in VLC OK most of the time (connected to i5 machines running Windows 7)
(We use them for touch screen comms panels for some of our simulators)
Hope this helps?
It'd be nice if the inputs each supported were listed to save checking each individually...
Yes, a summary table of size, cost, resolution, inputs, extras etc would be good.
Enough of this widescreen POS we want lots of pixels in every direction 4:3 rules ok.
I use two Dell 24in 1920x1200 screens for my main dev work. slightly different model numbers, Totally different colour profiles. WTF! Thankfully I have a Spider and can calibrate them but the earlier post about colour profiles is very true. The makers all seem to think that the only thing we are going to show in these screens is the latest hollywood crap sequel/prequel.
Pah. Nuke them all I say!
1920x1200 is just so 2003, or even so 1990ish.
Please Please Please El'Reg can we have an editorial policy of referring to desktop display with less than 1200 lines as
Super low res.
or Maybe an El'Reg competition to find the best acronym for FullHD
Flaming Useless Low ??? Half Display
1080p is just junk, the whole pc monitor industry has been sucked into TV manufactures wet dreams for cheap panels.
We had affordable high resolution CRT's a decade ago and now years on unless you take out a bank loan were stuck with this low resolution crap. Whats even worse is that 4K is here apparently but only in 55" screens or above, unless of course you take out the afformentioned bank loan.
If tech sites like the Reg and many other really really wanted to address their audiences views and requirements they should mark down any 1080p panel with a vocal explanation in each review. My ipad now has a higher resolution that the monitor I use for content creation which is rediculous.
As I'm reading down these comments I'm feeling much happier that we planet hasn't gone down the shitter. I seriously was starting to think that I was the only sane person left alive with regards to 16:9.
How many of these monitors can be rotated to operate in portrait-mode?
I'm eternally perplexed why, after a couple of millennia of developing the human-interface aspects of 2-dimensional information-presentation and almost universal adoption of portrait-mode, the computer-world fell for landscape-mode.
[Hint: how many magazines/newspapers/letters do you get in landscape-mode? How often do you have to scroll up/down when viewing websites? I'm always scrolling up/down!]
Support the campaign for portrait-mode !
Dell Ultrasharp U2412M. A proper 1920x1200 panel and you can use it in portrait mode. It also comes with lots of inputs and you can get it online for a little over £200.
Thats still a bit of a downgrade - give me 1536x2048 (like I get on my current Trinitron) or better.
I don't go with the "more screen-area-is-better" game - I want more pixels-per-square-inch not the same number of pixies spread over more square-inches.
Now, a 21-inch portrait-mode Apple Retina display would be worth auctioning a kidney for.
Well, our field of view is wider than it is tall, so portrait is a little odd in that respect. Cinema and TV were landscape long before computer monitors went in that direction.
The one downside to turning an LCD through 90degs is that things like cleartype no longer work properly. You'll generally get better font rendering in landscape.
It's obvious what we need. The bits on the wide ends of the panel need to slide round grooves in the side (bezel free obviously), until they're at the top. So you can be widescreen when you need it, and square when you don't.
I'm sure this wouldn't take more than 5 minutes of R&D from a competent engineer. I'll get Dilbert on it right away...
Hm. My 2008-vintage Sceptre does just fine with a little 'Option "Rotate" "Left"' sauce in the xorg.conf.d dir. Most modern video cards/drivers should handle it just fine.
I did have to put it on a different stand though.
The Asus can do portrait mode as far as I'm aware.
>our field of view is wider than it is tall,
Yeah, I was having this argument with a mate who wanted a circular display like he'd seen in some 1960s TV spy series. "But our eyeballs are circular!" he said.
I decided to look it up, and all I found was an old NASA document, with a diagram that looked like the mask film-makers use to denote "protagonist is looking through binoculars" showing sharp areas, with a different shade of grey around the edges to denote more peripheral vision.
They say that the sharpest area we can perceive is equivalent to a thumbnail at arms length, so the solution is clear, gentlemen: We need a small sharp monitor that moves around according to the position of our eyeballs! (Joke, obviously!)
Of course the Xerox Alto had a portrait display, trying as it was to replace the paper office.
I remember a Xerox about 1977 or so that was Portrait.
I'd love a 133 dpi 1600 x 3200 portrait screen, about 30cm x 60cm visible. Or a 150 dpi 1920 x 3840 would proof A3 nicely with some space left over (slightly more than 32.5 x 67cm visible)
But actually it would be grand on a swivel to do landscape too.
Cleartype etc is sub-pixel addressing. If it doesn't work in Portrait, that's a bug. It should have an option to input the pixel layout.
Why would you seriously want to portrait a 16:9 screen anyways? And probably not because they all have hella cheap (read: crap) stands on them.
Is that a true 1536x2048 or a heavily aliased 1536x2048? There aren't many CRTs out there with near enough dots for 1536x2048, regardless of whether it's supported by the drivers.
Well want the sub-pixels to work in portrait, get an Apple, also the font would keep it's correct form and WYSIWYG would work.
But then if you don't have a retina display, get ready to have "i" and "e" less sharp during certain circumstances. But at least the font is correctly rendered.
Trinitron ah a word from long ago that I miss.
You can thank cleartype that distorts fonts to look sharp for all the low res screens. It's the masses who don't have no understanding of the physics behind that buy these low res screens cause cleartype makes it sharp for them.
But they have no idea what WYSISWYG means either.
I want to go back to even more outdated forms - I want a monitor with the aspect of a stone tablet.
Quite a lot when you get past page one.
I have 2 of these bad boys
Massive, perform well, cheap. What more do you want?
What more do we want? Did you read the review at that link you posted? Better contrast, better blacks, higher DPI (I want 2560 x 1600 on a 28" screen) and better viewing angles (it's TN rather than IPS or MVA) to start with.
Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2017