FAO comp geeks which monitor is the best ?

VidaRed

Unimaginative FC
Joined
Aug 23, 2007
Messages
29,599
Asus MK241H 24"

028317.jpg


wi7mzp.jpg


ASUS VW246H 24"

10fc56c.jpg


1znwn5v.jpg
 
So the Asus is the only option? I have a Samsung screen and i have to say i've been impressed with it thus far
 
i want a 24" or 22" hdmi monitor...i dont care which manufacturer it is.

OneUnited24 said:
So the Asus is the only option? I have a Samsung screen and i have to say i've been impressed with it thus far
Click to expand...

whats the model and is it high definition ?
 
Samsung SyncMaster 226BW - was brought around 2 years ago but decent spec for todays standards i believe
 
OneUnited24 said:
Samsung SyncMaster 226BW - was brought around 2 years ago but decent spec for todays standards i believe
Click to expand...

it doesn't have a hdmi port.

looks like i'll stick with asus since the samsung ones with hdmi cost $100 more :rolleyes:
 
Just because its HD doesn't make it particularly good. It's all about its ability to display the picture. I'd rather have a high quality non HD screen than only a decentish HD one.
 
Would help if we knew what your budget is. Aren't you based in India as well? I don't know which monitors are available there either so if you got any sites which show what is available there that would help.
 
JazzG said:
Would help if we knew what your budget is. Aren't you based in India as well? I don't know which monitors are available there either so if you got any sites which show what is available there that would help.
Click to expand...

$300 and we get everything here thought it slightly more expensive.
 
sonymobby said:
Well, consumer computer LCDs are like that and it's more than enough.
Click to expand...

I don't see why (but I don't know). There are plenty of TVs that will handle Deep Colour or x.v.Colour. What's the point of having a graphics card that can render in FP16 or FP32 just as easily as R8G8B8 to give HDR and then down sample that image back into 24bit for display?
 
WeasteDevil said:
I don't see why (but I don't know). There are plenty of TVs that will handle Deep Colour or x.v.Colour. What's the point of having a graphics card that can render in FP16 or FP32 just as easily as R8G8B8 to give HDR and then down sample that image back into 24bit for display?
Click to expand...

I can't say I have much knowledge of FP16 or FP32, but it was my understanding that DVI (and so by extension HDMI) ran at a 24bit maximum. So I would have assumed that any internal calculations using FP16 or FP32 would have to be re-quantised back to a max 24bit before outputting via DVI/HDMI regardless. Interested to hear if my assumptions are wrong though, my knowledge of graphics cards and their workings is pretty poor.
 
OneUnited24 said:
Samsung SyncMaster 226BW - was brought around 2 years ago but decent spec for todays standards i believe
Click to expand...

This.

Samsung Syncmasters are amazing monitors at any size.

I personally have 2 19" and one 22" on my desktop currently.
 
I suppose that in the end it all comes down to cost and need. 24bit colour is fine for most people, however, these things will change, as the next Windows will support higher definition colour displays.

Windows 7 plays nice with rendering content beyond the 8 bit limit, taking users into the visual territory of High Color, namely display capabilities involving high precision, High Dynamic Range, and support for gamuts superior to sRGB. Users of Window 7 will be able to take advantage of the new High Color capabilities when it will come down to handling HD photos, digital photographs in RAW formats, HD photo and Blu-ray videos.

"Support for improved color is a visible difference in the viewing experience and makes applications look better and leverages the PC owner's hardware investment. Supporting these scenarios reaches out to all segments of users and improves the overall satisfaction with their Microsoft Windows PC. Modern GPUs and displays already support these pixel formats, and new brands are shipping with support for 10-bit and beyond." Microsoft revealed.

The Redmond company has taken Windows 7 beyond 8-bit per channel sRGB and to 10-bit per channel sRGB (high precision); 10-bit per channel xRGB (extended range) and 16-bit per channel scRGB (high precision and wide gamut). In Windows 7 this is valid for the Windows Imaging Component (WIC) and the Windows color system (WCS). Of course, Direct 3D also supports rendering values of 10 bit, 10 bit XR and 16 bit per channel.

On top of the evolution of Direct3D, WIC and WCS, Windows 7 also supports High Color when it comes down to XPS printing, namely for print and image acquisition tasks, but even for Display Drivers (for 10-bit XR and Float16 scan outs).

"Windows 7 provides a complete set of technology to load, display and print High Color content. Using High Color-supported technologies in your applications will provide a premium experience for the users and enable them to fully unleash the potential of their display and print hardware," Microsoft concluded.
Click to expand...

http://news.softpedia.com/news/Windows-7-High-Color-Support-98741.shtml
 
If money isn't an issue the last time I checked in 24" the following were the best going. NEC in particular make fantastic monitors, you pay extra but they are top notch.

NEC 2490WUXI
HP L2475w

Have a look at the BenQ range as well. I can't be more specific than that I haven't really look at monitors in a while. www.hardforum.com check out the display forum there, quite a bit of info around there.
 
i would have preferred the samsung ones but they're $100 more expensive.

and im somewhat of a fanboy of asus...im tilting towards the Asus VW246H at the moment.

p.s weaste which tv would you suggest...should be more than 40" lcd and around $2000. (my parents are buying one so they've asked me which one as they dont have a clue)
 
Those two monitors I've listed are better than any Asus or Samsung monitor, FACHT! ;)

For $2000 and above 40" I'd look at getting a Plasma, like a Panasonic one or if you can stretch out the Pioneers which are just brilliant. First 200 hours you need to be careful and make you don't have too many still pictures which might leave images behind but after that they are brilliant. Give you much deeper blacks and much more vivid colours.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.