LCD Monitors: Size vs Specs?

V

vonfeldt7

New Member
I'm looking at two different LCD monitors, one which is bigger but has worse specs, and one that is smaller, but with better specs.

I made a similar thread about this a few days ago, but it was a little different. Anyways, what would you recommend? I like the fact that the smaller (LG) has a 3000:1 Contrast Ratio, and (more importantly) a 2ms response time. The larger one has a Contrast Ratio of 1000:1 (Which I think would still be fine) and then the 5ms response time...which I'm not too terribly fond of. It's obviously larger though, and we all know size matters. (But how much?)

*Edit* The other difference is that the bigger one has a higher native resolution.

What would you do?
 
vonfeldt7 said:
I like the fact that the smaller (LG) has a 3000:1 Contrast Ratio, and (more importantly) a 2ms response time. The larger one has a Contrast Ratio of 1000:1 (Which I think would still be fine) and then the 5ms response time
Click to expand...

I'm currently investigating LCD monitors too, and one thing I've learned to be aware of is that sometimes when a response time is listed, it's being listed for grey-to-grey pixels, and not color-to-color, so naturally grey-to-grey is faster. You'll notice that the one that lists 5ms response time also states it has 2ms GTG response time. It could be that the LG is actually the same way.

I also think contrast ratio is listed in two different ways as well. This makes it a pain to compare things sometimes. I couldn't find the LG on their website, though, so I couldn't check to see what it said about the response times.

P.S. I'm pretty sure that even a 5ms response time is excellent, isn't it?
 
Last edited:
vonfeldt7 said:
I'm looking at two different LCD monitors, one which is bigger but has worse specs, and one that is smaller, but with better specs.

I made a similar thread about this a few days ago, but it was a little different. Anyways, what would you recommend? I like the fact that the smaller (LG) has a 3000:1 Contrast Ratio, and (more importantly) a 2ms response time. The larger one has a Contrast Ratio of 1000:1 (Which I think would still be fine) and then the 5ms response time...which I'm not too terribly fond of. It's obviously larger though, and we all know size matters. (But how much?)

*Edit* The other difference is that the bigger one has a higher native resolution.

What would you do?
Click to expand...

The larger one would definately be the one to go with in that case. The difference between 2ms and 5ms is going to be that noticeable (if at all). The higher native resolution is a plus for that monitor as well. As for the contrast ratio, the LG probably has its dynamic contrast posted.

JohnJSal said:
I'm currently investigating LCD monitors too, and one thing I've learned to be aware of is that sometimes when a response time is listed, it's being listed for grey-to-grey pixels, and not color-to-color, so naturally grey-to-grey is faster. You'll notice that the one that lists 5ms response time also states it has 2ms GTG response time. It could be that the LG is actually the same way.

I also think contrast ratio is listed in two different ways as well. This makes it a pain to compare things sometimes. I couldn't find the LG on their website, though, so I couldn't check to see what it said about the response times.

P.S. I'm pretty sure that even a 5ms response time is excellent, isn't it?
Click to expand...

Yea, 5ms is great.
 
oregon said:
What about this one? Slightly better price and brand.


http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16824009094
Click to expand...

That monitor is HORRIBLE!! I have it sitting right here beside me.

I sell LG, and I have two that I'm using on this computer. They are 10 times the monitor the Acer is, several times the monitor that Samsung is. I would go the 20" LG. If you can find it, the L226WTQ is what I use as my main monitor and it's awesome.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top