SPCR

After having purchased a brand-spanking new computer, I'm now looking to get a new monitor as well. Unfortunately, it seems most hardware review sites don't place a high priority on reviewing monitors (and even less emphasis on noise levels). So I turn once again to the collective wisdom of the SPCR forums.

Can anyone recommend a good LCD monitor for gaming with the following features? Or even just some reputable brands to help narrow down the search?

- 16:10 aspect ratio
- I don't have a specific size in mind, but probably between 22-24"
- low response time and low input lag
- no audible buzzing noise (or at least very faint)
- the Power button LED should be small/unobtrusive and not blind me
- bonus points for tilt- and height-adjustable

Thanks!

About the buzzing noise...they all have it at lower brightness, some more,some less. But at 100% brightness there is no noise. Or find one with an external PSU. There seem to be none at 16:10, currently.

Im also still currently looking for an 24" monitor (pref IPS) or TN led with good colours with an external PSU. Or either one that doesnt make the buzzing noise (so far tested U2410/U27 both made the buzzing noise)

The buzzing noise that monitors make is caused by the inverter, which is used to control the brightness of the backlight. On my monitor, I can only hear the buzzing if my ear is actually pressed up against the exhaust slits on the top or sides of my monitor. Otherwise I cannot hear them at all, even at 3:00am with my computer idle.

The extend of the buzzing noise may be due to quality differences, and I'm not certain if the noise can be eliminated entirely.

For what it's worth, my monitor is an NEC PA271W (16:9 ratio @ 2560x1440). NEC has a smaller version of this with the PA241W, which is 1920x1200, and a larger version with the PA301W, which is 2560x1600. Personally, I think response time is so overplayed with gamers when trying to buy monitors. The IQ of professional grade graphics monitors far outweights response time and 120Hz.

Nobilis wrote:After having purchased a brand-spanking new computer, I'm now looking to get a new monitor as well. Unfortunately, it seems most hardware review sites don't place a high priority on reviewing monitors (and even less emphasis on noise levels). So I turn once again to the collective wisdom of the SPCR forums.

Can anyone recommend a good LCD monitor for gaming with the following features? Or even just some reputable brands to help narrow down the search?

- 16:10 aspect ratio
- I don't have a specific size in mind, but probably between 22-24"
- low response time and low input lag
- no audible buzzing noise (or at least very faint)
- the Power button LED should be small/unobtrusive and not blind me
- bonus points for tilt- and height-adjustable

Thanks!

I've been eyeing the ASUS VE258Q Black 25" LED lately. It doesn't meet your specs but it has some advantages

- 16:9 aspect ratio (I'm assuming you want to avoid the 120 pixel height loss but I'm OK with it as it's still more pixels than I have with my 19" and 22" monitors)
- 25" screen (within reason I'm of the bigger is better crowd when it comes to monitors/TVs)
- 2ms (GTG) should be sufficiently quick on response time.
- I think the key to this is sample variance and your desired brightness level. Get one in hand and return/exchange if it doesn't work out. Keep in mind buzzing is less of an issue with models that meet your brightness desires at 0% and 100% brightness but every model varies spend a few minutes when you first start using it to experiment with various brightness levels)
- Power Button / LED look reasonable from pics but I haven't seen any low light pics to be sure about brightness of the LED.
- Tilt only, no height adjustment

If that doesn't turn you off the advantages/items not covered there are

# Cost (about $250 US)
# LED backlight
# Displayport added with no other ports missing (it has HDMI, DVI, VGA. Displayport is not likely to be found on 16x10 designs, seems to be the future port of choice on graphics cards)
# Very Low idle power draw (there are plenty of monitors that use less max power though)

Power on mode <55W
Power saving mode <0.5W
Power off mode <0.3W

How about the recently released 24" Dell U2412M or the smaller U2311H.

Dirge wrote:How about the recently released 24" Dell U2412M or the smaller U2311H.

The u2311 is 16:9.

Opps you are right, I obviously wasn't thinking straight when I posted that as an alternative.

no worries -- I have a u2311 myself and eventually got used to the 16:9 ratio, although it's annoying to use side-by-side with my HP L2335 (16:10)...

Highly recommend the HP ZR24w. IPS, 16:10, beautiful monitor.

i picked up a dell 2007wfp for $90 off ebay, the ips panel is a spectacular upgrade for me from an older hanns g. great adjustable stand, usb hub built-in, no buzz, unobtrusive power led, small bezel.. i'm very happy with the deal.

i'm sure nowadays there are much better/larger options, but if i saw another of these selling for that cheap i'd buy it in a heartbeat.

Here's another recommendation for the HP ZR24W. I am very anal about the noise coming out of my monitors and of the quality of the panels themselves. Believe me when I say this: this is the quietest IPS monitor I've ever used. Not only is it quiet, but it meets all of your requirements.

The HP ZR24W draws quite a lot of power though, specs says < 85W typical. I'm more interested in the new Dell U2412M, its specs says 38W.

I have to recommend you the HP ZR24W, I just love this monitor... Its one of the best IPS monitor I have used, even better than a few NEC I have here at work...
about the consumption, its 50w more, that at the end its not that much for a great monitor...

rehack wrote:i picked up a dell 2007wfp for $90 off ebay, the ips panel is a spectacular upgrade for me from an older hanns g. great adjustable stand, usb hub built-in, no buzz, unobtrusive power led, small bezel.. i'm very happy with the deal.

i'm sure nowadays there are much better/larger options, but if i saw another of these selling for that cheap i'd buy it in a heartbeat.

The 2007wfp is 16:9 (the w stands for widescreen I guess, as opposed to the 2007fp which is 16:10).

The 2007FP is 4:3. 16:10 is a widescreen ratio.

ck8-04 wrote:Here's another recommendation for the HP ZR24W. I am very anal about the noise coming out of my monitors and of the quality of the panels themselves. Believe me when I say this: this is the quietest IPS monitor I've ever used. Not only is it quiet, but it meets all of your requirements.

Does it buzz when contrast is reduced?

ck8-04 wrote:The 2007FP is 4:3. 16:10 is a widescreen ratio.

Hmm, seems I was a bit confused.

I thought the reason why people wanted a 16:10 rather than 16:9 monitor was to get away from widescreen, which is why I was thinking 16:10 would be non-widescreen like a 4:3 monitor.

So what is the attraction of a 16:10 monitor?

doveman wrote:

ck8-04 wrote:The 2007FP is 4:3. 16:10 is a widescreen ratio.

So what is the attraction of a 16:10 monitor?

More working space. I never watch movies at my PC, thats why I have a 52 inch LCD for. But I do need every pixel available.

Redzo wrote:

doveman wrote:

ck8-04 wrote:The 2007FP is 4:3. 16:10 is a widescreen ratio.

So what is the attraction of a 16:10 monitor?

More working space. I never watch movies at my PC, thats why I have a 52 inch LCD for. But I do need every pixel available.

I would have thought there would be about the same working space on any 20" monitor, whether 16:9, 16:10 or 4:3, just in a different shape!

I don't watch movies at my PC either, but I still have some difficulty adapting to a widescreen monitor for PC use. I guess it's the extra horizontal distance between things, although the wider screen is definitely useful for reading forums, etc.

axsnetworks wrote:about the consumption, its 50w more, that at the end its not that much for a great monitor...

True. But if the Dell is as good or close enough.. The HP ZR24W is a great monitor I'm sure, but it is a 2010 unit. Power consumption has come down quite a lot in recent years.

doveman wrote:I would have thought there would be about the same working space on any 20" monitor, whether 16:9, 16:10 or 4:3, just in a different shape!

1920x1080 vs 1920x1200.. It's quite a big difference. I'm thinking about getting that new Dell if it's good enough.

Redzo wrote:

doveman wrote:

ck8-04 wrote:The 2007FP is 4:3. 16:10 is a widescreen ratio.

So what is the attraction of a 16:10 monitor?

More working space. I never watch movies at my PC, thats why I have a 52 inch LCD for. But I do need every pixel available.

The thing is the industry already shifted to 16:9, while i do prefer 16:10 to get a little more, there are games like SC2 that you see less with 1920x1200 than with 1920x1080 (some monitors/gpus allow scaling but not fond of that), because of how the game was design, the zoom in the camera to create the 1920x1200, BF2 is the same but the designer left alone the POV so you can still just zoom back out, the deal is the hole industry is accepting the standard, and future things will be design for it, as most of the monitors out today are 16:9, so my advise is just let 16:10 go and adapt.



What i dont understand is why the PC monitor industry has stalled with TVs, i mean its fine to adopt the 16:9 standard, but they should develop higher res screen with the same ratio, i know there are dell monitors with 2560x1440, but i mean way over that, i mean i would like to have a monitor with 3840x2160. They could even use the PC industry to introduce in advance the new formats they are planning for TVs, like 2k, 4k, etc.

Vicotnik wrote: 1920x1080 vs 1920x1200.. It's quite a big difference. I'm thinking about getting that new Dell if it's good enough.

Fair enough, you get a bit extra desktop space by increasing the resolution and making everything a bit smaller

I always wonder if a monitor's going to be able to display old games in a 4:3 window, or maybe that's down to the graphics card. Still using a 19" 4:3 CRT here until someone produces a reasonably priced S-IPS that doesn't have defects!

4:3 games are great on a 1920x1200 monitor. 1600x1200 with no scaling, just black borders on the sides. With 1920x1080 it's tricky.. I have to use a custom res (1440x1080) in Urban Terror for example. And in many games custom resolutions aren't available.

doveman wrote:Fair enough, you get a bit extra desktop space by increasing the resolution and making everything a bit smaller

If I go from 23" 1920x1080 to 24" 1920x1200 the dot pitch should be about the same.

Vicotnik wrote:4:3 games are great on a 1920x1200 monitor. 1600x1200 with no scaling, just black borders on the sides. With 1920x1080 it's tricky.. I have to use a custom res (1440x1080) in Urban Terror for example. And in many games custom resolutions aren't available.

Thanks for the info. How about on a 1920x1080 monitor, do 4:3 games generally work OK on those. If so, then I can play both them and 1920x1080 games without any problems. From the reviews I've read, it seems that it's not guaranteed that scaling will work on any monitor, and you have to check it has the function built-in, or sometimes it works with VGA but not DVI (or vice-versa).

Vicotnik wrote:

doveman wrote:Fair enough, you get a bit extra desktop space by increasing the resolution and making everything a bit smaller

If I go from 23" 1920x1080 to 24" 1920x1200 the dot pitch should be about the same.

I was thinking more of the actual icons and text though. Like with say 640x480 everything's big and as you increase the resolution everything gets smaller. I don't suppose going from 1920x1080 to 1920x1200 makes that much difference in that respect though.

tanassi wrote:Does it buzz when contrast is reduced?

No. I am very annoyed by the buzzing from inverters in other monitors, but I can't hear a thing out of this one. I have brightness set to 7/100 and contrast at 100/100.

Damn it, you've convinced me I want a 16:10 monitor now, so I'm looking at spending £300 instead of £150!

Are there any 16:10 IPS monitors that support 120hz in the pipeline? It's not like I'm going to be able to get 120fps in most of my games, but it might be nice for the desktop/browsing and if I've got to spend £300 it would be nice to get this feature.

doveman wrote:Damn it, you've convinced me I want a 16:10 monitor now, so I'm looking at spending £300 instead of £150!

It could be worse. :p I went from a 27" 16:9 that cost a lot, sold it to get a cheaper 23" (the one I have now) but lost of course money in the switch and now I'm looking at this new Dell.. All the while thinking that I want a good monitor that will last me for years and years.
120Hz is in the pipeline I'm sure, but it will come after I've bought the new Dell..

Vicotnik wrote:All the while thinking that I want a good monitor that will last me for years and years.
120Hz is in the pipeline I'm sure, but it will come after I've bought the new Dell..

Yeah, considering the price of these monitors, I want something that will last as well

Still not sure about the HP ZR24W or Dell U2412M though. I hear that Dell have appalling customer service if you have a fault and the ZR24W doesn't do scaling properly. As I'm only going to be using it with my PCs, I can use the scaling options in Catalyst, but I'm not sure how well they work. They were greyed out for me, until I changed resolution to 800x600 and then they became enabled and stayed that way even after I switched back to 1280x720, but until I've actually tested with the monitor in question it's hard to say for sure that it'll work.

Do either of these have that horrible anti-glare coating, as I don't think I could deal with that?

rehack wrote:i picked up a dell 2007wfp for $90 off ebay, the ips panel is a spectacular upgrade for me from an older hanns g. great adjustable stand, usb hub built-in, no buzz, unobtrusive power led, small bezel.. i'm very happy with the deal.

i'm sure nowadays there are much better/larger options, but if i saw another of these selling for that cheap i'd buy it in a heartbeat.

I saw one of these for £90 and was tempted but then thought I might as well put that towards a £300 new IPS with a better response time (for games) and higher resolution and screen size, rather than spend it on something with no warranty, that could pack in at any moment. It was an ex-corporate item, so had probably been used quite heavily on a daily basis, at high-ish brightness/contrast (offices don't tend to have subdued lighting after all).

If I want a second monitor after buying an expensive IPS, I'll probably just buy a new TN for £100 or less, as I wouldn't be looking at it much anyway.