surf dtoid with 
Rising (10+)
People you follow
Not to rain on the parade or anything, but honestly, just about any computer monitor will do the trick. I mean, for example, response time. Any monitor built after 1940 has a working response time.
Then resolutions....well...you can set those yourself.
Built in speakers are garbage.
Size doesn't mean good.
Nothing personal or anything, just this is probably not the best topic you could have chosen.
Then resolutions....well...you can set those yourself.
Built in speakers are garbage.
Size doesn't mean good.
Nothing personal or anything, just this is probably not the best topic you could have chosen.
@MathewRD: Native resolutions would like to have a word with you.
And built in speaker are not garbage, especially in this day an age. They're not as good as the individual speaker setup, but it's less hassle and space saved.
And built in speaker are not garbage, especially in this day an age. They're not as good as the individual speaker setup, but it's less hassle and space saved.
How are these better than just buying a small tv? They sound like they're about the same price. Pretty helpful guide though. Thanks.
yeah i never saw the difference between 23" monitor vs a 23" tv. if both are lcd or led, whats the difference?
I got my Asus 22" LED back-lit monitor with 2ms response time from newegg for $144 shipped! Seriously, why do people buy inferior monitors at Best Buy for like $250+tax when there is newegg?
Nice list, here's what i've got: http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16824005150 (it's oos now... think i got lucky)
LG, 23" LED, 5ms, 5,000,000:1, D-sub, DVI, HDMI with an audio jack output, super slim and i only paid $159.
Although, if i had seen this list 6 months ago, I woulda got the 2nd Asus you listed, and it woulda been 1st on my list :). that thing is sweet!
LG, 23" LED, 5ms, 5,000,000:1, D-sub, DVI, HDMI with an audio jack output, super slim and i only paid $159.
Although, if i had seen this list 6 months ago, I woulda got the 2nd Asus you listed, and it woulda been 1st on my list :). that thing is sweet!
I hope my recommendation helped.
@kakashi TV's tend to have a slower response time and are usually more expensive, but these can be used as TV's if you choose(if you have a cable/satellite box that supports HDMI.
@kakashi TV's tend to have a slower response time and are usually more expensive, but these can be used as TV's if you choose(if you have a cable/satellite box that supports HDMI.
@ Daxelman
I'd disagree there. Built in speakers are almost universally awful. Even cheapo crappy £10 pair of cheaper PC speakers will give you better sound.
Built-in speakers almost certainly save space and are less of a hassle (although just barely in the latter case), but you're much better off buying speakers if you've the space for them.
Totally agree with your native resolution comment, though.
I'd disagree there. Built in speakers are almost universally awful. Even cheapo crappy £10 pair of cheaper PC speakers will give you better sound.
Built-in speakers almost certainly save space and are less of a hassle (although just barely in the latter case), but you're much better off buying speakers if you've the space for them.
Totally agree with your native resolution comment, though.
alex, nice follow-up article. PC hardware is making a comeback, nice to see someone take charge at Destructoid.
Resolution and Response Times above all else in making choices, the other options are personal preference.
Resolution and Response Times above all else in making choices, the other options are personal preference.
@Kakashi
Biggest difference between TVs and monitors is that ALL TVs have speakers, the number of inputs is greater (2 - 3x hdmi, plus color-stream or whatever, coaxial and cable), and they come with a remote :) oh, and what Harbinger said.
Biggest difference between TVs and monitors is that ALL TVs have speakers, the number of inputs is greater (2 - 3x hdmi, plus color-stream or whatever, coaxial and cable), and they come with a remote :) oh, and what Harbinger said.
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16824009179 - I got this a couple years back in late November. It's been doing fine by me ever since. I also just realized that this came with speakers.. that should give you some sort of indication on exactly how I feel about on-monitor speakers.
I do want another monitor, but, if I get one, I really want something with a DisplayPort in case I ever get cocky enough to hook up a third monitor (yeah, I have a newish AMD video card).
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16824236154 - This really seems like the best option for that, all else equal.
I do want another monitor, but, if I get one, I really want something with a DisplayPort in case I ever get cocky enough to hook up a third monitor (yeah, I have a newish AMD video card).
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16824236154 - This really seems like the best option for that, all else equal.
"Resolution and Response Times above all else in making choices, the other options are personal preference."
Contrast takes third place. Connections matter, but pretty much all decent monitors have DVI and HDMI anymore (the main two). DisplayPorts are nice, but, damn, they can get pricey....
Contrast takes third place. Connections matter, but pretty much all decent monitors have DVI and HDMI anymore (the main two). DisplayPorts are nice, but, damn, they can get pricey....
@the spec list
a led screen is still lcd its just the back light that is led instead of ccfl.
contrast ratio is insignificant as the static contrast is always about 1000:1 in this price range. dynamic contrast (the high number) doesn't matter much.
also 5ms response time is more than enough and most likely wont give any ghosting.
maybe add the screen type thouhg as it is very important though all those screens will most likely have a tn pannel as they are budget screens and that is the cheapest lcd type.
but mainly the fact that you call something else than lcd while its just what lights the screen is plain wrong.
a led screen is still lcd its just the back light that is led instead of ccfl.
contrast ratio is insignificant as the static contrast is always about 1000:1 in this price range. dynamic contrast (the high number) doesn't matter much.
also 5ms response time is more than enough and most likely wont give any ghosting.
maybe add the screen type thouhg as it is very important though all those screens will most likely have a tn pannel as they are budget screens and that is the cheapest lcd type.
but mainly the fact that you call something else than lcd while its just what lights the screen is plain wrong.
God I hate the term "LED Monitor/LED-HDTV", it's so darn misleading.
True LED-screens are an entirely different tech as the actual screen pixels are built out of small LED's. The average "LED-screen" you find in a store is just an LCD screen lit by LED's.
"LED. on the other hand, has different colored lights with no filters. This allows the LED screen to actually dim parts of the screen and create a pure black instead of that really dark gray we're all used to"
Actually, most monitors/HDTV's are lit by white LED's and not multiple-colored LED's. That tech is usually reserved for the most expensive models, and certainly not available in sub-$200 computer monitors. Local LED-dimming is also a tech that's applied to HDTV's, not cheap PC monitors.
I do like these PC-gaming on the cheap articles, but I can't really recommend sub-$200 gaming monitors. Yes they look nice and the picture they provide is adequate. But for about 100 bucks more you can have a bigger monitor with an IPS panel that looks much, much better. Or just buy sub-$500 HDTV which can double as a TV, and probably provides a better picture as well.
I see monitors as an investment which will likely outlive the PC you are currently using, so I don't really see the need to go cheap when it comes to that.
True LED-screens are an entirely different tech as the actual screen pixels are built out of small LED's. The average "LED-screen" you find in a store is just an LCD screen lit by LED's.
"LED. on the other hand, has different colored lights with no filters. This allows the LED screen to actually dim parts of the screen and create a pure black instead of that really dark gray we're all used to"
Actually, most monitors/HDTV's are lit by white LED's and not multiple-colored LED's. That tech is usually reserved for the most expensive models, and certainly not available in sub-$200 computer monitors. Local LED-dimming is also a tech that's applied to HDTV's, not cheap PC monitors.
I do like these PC-gaming on the cheap articles, but I can't really recommend sub-$200 gaming monitors. Yes they look nice and the picture they provide is adequate. But for about 100 bucks more you can have a bigger monitor with an IPS panel that looks much, much better. Or just buy sub-$500 HDTV which can double as a TV, and probably provides a better picture as well.
I see monitors as an investment which will likely outlive the PC you are currently using, so I don't really see the need to go cheap when it comes to that.
There is our mathewRD again, spoutin' bullshit about 'dem puter things.
I have a asus VH series monitor. The speakers work great for consoles, and if you are lugging your console to a lan party with you, this makes a great combination. Nice picture quality on them too.
I have a asus VH series monitor. The speakers work great for consoles, and if you are lugging your console to a lan party with you, this makes a great combination. Nice picture quality on them too.
I have a 22" Samsung screen that I HATEm just for the fact that I find it too large (that;s what she said) and I want to get a 20" screen.
What would you suggest in the "not so frigging huge" cetegory?
What would you suggest in the "not so frigging huge" cetegory?
I'm in the market for a new monitor, and was leaning toward this Asus, personally: http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16824236049
Though your top two recommendations will have be reconsidering.
Though your top two recommendations will have be reconsidering.
One problem with a good deal of LED lit screens though is blacks end up showing with a colored tint. For example, my Asus VH238H's blacks come out as a very dark blue instead of solid black.
Better color accuracy on LED? That depends, a CCFL backlit LCD screen and an EDGE lit LED LCD are about the some, color and contrast wise (Though it can be even worse because of edge bleeding and other uniformity issues). If it's Full Array LED (Lit from behind across the entire screen, instead of from the edges with a focuser/diffuser/light guide to spread and direct the light around, that's an entirely different story thanks to local dimming. Both LED LCD'S listed here are EDGE lit. Yes I realize there are edge lit screens with local dimming, but it isn't the same, and the quality of the hybrid systems vary from complete trash to "good".
I see IPS panels were not touched on, nor were TF vs PV(A). Understandable considering IPS are meant more for artists and are typically more expensive, though they do have the best color reproduction available.
Also weighing in on color accuracy is pixel pitch (The lower the pitch, the better), which was not taken into account in this article.
24" vs 23" doesn't really matter when they both run at 1080p. A 24" is only "better" when it runs at a 16:10 resolution (1920*1200). Most people don't care about built-in speakers or webcam (Headsets are used more often than speakers simply for echo reduction while gaming, the cameras in these are low quality), and a response time of less than 8 is generally unnoticeable. Response times are also measured differently depending on the company, some measure black to white and some measure grey to grey.
Yay for no standards.
Also, you stated the LG W2486L (~$330), but linked to the LG E2350V-SN.
Remember to shop around, amazon rarely has the best prices. http://newegg.com is a great place to shop, and http://tftcentral.co.uk is an excellent place to read up on how screens work, what you want to look for, etc.
Better color accuracy on LED? That depends, a CCFL backlit LCD screen and an EDGE lit LED LCD are about the some, color and contrast wise (Though it can be even worse because of edge bleeding and other uniformity issues). If it's Full Array LED (Lit from behind across the entire screen, instead of from the edges with a focuser/diffuser/light guide to spread and direct the light around, that's an entirely different story thanks to local dimming. Both LED LCD'S listed here are EDGE lit. Yes I realize there are edge lit screens with local dimming, but it isn't the same, and the quality of the hybrid systems vary from complete trash to "good".
I see IPS panels were not touched on, nor were TF vs PV(A). Understandable considering IPS are meant more for artists and are typically more expensive, though they do have the best color reproduction available.
Also weighing in on color accuracy is pixel pitch (The lower the pitch, the better), which was not taken into account in this article.
24" vs 23" doesn't really matter when they both run at 1080p. A 24" is only "better" when it runs at a 16:10 resolution (1920*1200). Most people don't care about built-in speakers or webcam (Headsets are used more often than speakers simply for echo reduction while gaming, the cameras in these are low quality), and a response time of less than 8 is generally unnoticeable. Response times are also measured differently depending on the company, some measure black to white and some measure grey to grey.
Yay for no standards.
Also, you stated the LG W2486L (~$330), but linked to the LG E2350V-SN.
Remember to shop around, amazon rarely has the best prices. http://newegg.com is a great place to shop, and http://tftcentral.co.uk is an excellent place to read up on how screens work, what you want to look for, etc.
I bought a 22" LED Viewsonic with an HDMI port at Staples a few weeks ago for $170. You obviously picked the wrong Viewsonic model for your article.
I own 2 Asus 120hz 23" monitors and I love them, a little bright when not running 3d, but great picture with the 3d on, or off. They cost around 300 dollars though:S
Wish I had some money for a new monitor...the one I'm using now is analog only (yuck!) and has a 4:3 aspect ratio...in other words, it's old as hell!
MathewRD
While any computer monitor will do the trick of showing the screen, performance does matter. A monitor has a maximum resolution it supports, so you can't take a crappy monitor and set it to 1920x1080. Size doesn't mean good, but who likes having to look at a tiny screen? Nothing personal, but some people like performance things instead of paper clips and cardboard for monitors.
Kakashi
It's different because these have computer inputs. A TV has a cable input, and might lack a DVI or HDMI depending. However, because everything is digital nowadays, they are more or less interchangable.
Evil Champ
Because people see Best Buy marketing and go ooooh that must be awesome. They don't research the best deal.
Qlum
No, you're wrong. The entire technology is different from each other. Please do your research before trying to call me out. I included a link in my article to learn more about how it actually is.
mix
I suggest the Acer S201Hlbd Black for $99. It was originally in my top five before I found ones that beat it.
Dracolncendia
My bad, I should have clarified more. I agree EDGE LED does have the same contrast as LCD (though EDGE is much much thinner). However, full array beats LCD hands down. Oops! I'm so sorry about the mix up in links, I'll fix that right away.
Thank you all for your comments, and if you have anything you would like to discuss with me, feel free to PM me or email me directly at alex@destructoid.com. I'll do my best to make the best articles I can.
While any computer monitor will do the trick of showing the screen, performance does matter. A monitor has a maximum resolution it supports, so you can't take a crappy monitor and set it to 1920x1080. Size doesn't mean good, but who likes having to look at a tiny screen? Nothing personal, but some people like performance things instead of paper clips and cardboard for monitors.
Kakashi
It's different because these have computer inputs. A TV has a cable input, and might lack a DVI or HDMI depending. However, because everything is digital nowadays, they are more or less interchangable.
Evil Champ
Because people see Best Buy marketing and go ooooh that must be awesome. They don't research the best deal.
Qlum
No, you're wrong. The entire technology is different from each other. Please do your research before trying to call me out. I included a link in my article to learn more about how it actually is.
mix
I suggest the Acer S201Hlbd Black for $99. It was originally in my top five before I found ones that beat it.
Dracolncendia
My bad, I should have clarified more. I agree EDGE LED does have the same contrast as LCD (though EDGE is much much thinner). However, full array beats LCD hands down. Oops! I'm so sorry about the mix up in links, I'll fix that right away.
Thank you all for your comments, and if you have anything you would like to discuss with me, feel free to PM me or email me directly at alex@destructoid.com. I'll do my best to make the best articles I can.
Keep your eye out for some decent deals though, I got a 22" Samsung 3D Ready back in April (16:10 1050p) for about $230. Even if you don't ever use 3D vision (which I would recommend using, even older games like Oblivion with the HD texture pack look amazing with it), running at 120Hz is a noticable difference. Some games force 60Hz and you can tell right away if you're now used to playing in 120Hz mode.
It is in the best interests of anyone looking for a gaming monitor to read up on Samsung SyncMaster 2233RZ. Perhaps take a look at what competitive Quake players have to say about it. You're welcome.
Read the list and realized that I was currently staring at #2 (Asus VH238H LED).
It's a great monitor, and through a combination of sales and newegg credit I was able to get it for $140. It came with 1 dead pixel, but they replaced it for free.
I recommend it for anyone looking for a great monitor.
It's a great monitor, and through a combination of sales and newegg credit I was able to get it for $140. It came with 1 dead pixel, but they replaced it for free.
I recommend it for anyone looking for a great monitor.
@Torzelan
I had some trouble finding this monitor, and it's not available to buy on Tigerdirect, Newegg, or Amazon. However when I saw a price quote for this monitor was around $300, which is above the $200 limit I set for a budget monitor that still performs great.
I had some trouble finding this monitor, and it's not available to buy on Tigerdirect, Newegg, or Amazon. However when I saw a price quote for this monitor was around $300, which is above the $200 limit I set for a budget monitor that still performs great.
Yes I absolutely did not mean to argue with the article (Destructoid desperately needs this sort of thing, kudos), merely inform relatively serious gamers that it is very worth looking into before deciding on anything cheaper just for the sake of cheap and perhaps spend an extra $100 (still a really good deal).
Couple things here
You should mention that all of these monitors are wLED monitors. That means instead of being lit by a light bar they are lit either by a matrix of individual while LEDs that are dispersed across the backpanel or "edge" LEDs. -NOT- by individual colored LEDs, otherwise known as RGB LEDs. Thing is, there's actually no such thing as a white LED, so they are really just blue LEDs with a yellow phospher introduced to make them look white... in theory. All whites in a wLED monitor will appear blue or yellow, even to the naked eye. And because of this, -all- colors are poorly reproduced.
Add to the fact that these particular budget monitors are likely lit by "edge" LEDs. That means the LEDs are basically arranged in a ring around the edge of the screen instead of being a matrix across the entire panel. So just like a regular light bar, these LEDs are shooting light across the screen, providing uneven blacks and poor contrast. These cheap LED monitors are the equivalent of buying HD wrap-around sun glasses.
All of these monitors are based on TN technology. The price, size and resolution are great, but in relative terms they pretty much all suck. Compared to a decent IPS panel such as my Dell U2311h which I picked up for about $300 they are horrid. I'm not trying to sound like a monitor snob, but after putting my old Samsung 226BW (considered one of the best TN panels you could get at the time) side by side with my Dell U2311h with the desktop extended across both I was literally blown away not only by how great the IPS panel looked but how completely wrong every single color was reproduced on the Samsung.
TN panels produce horrible colors, contrast and viewing angles. Yes. Horrible. Like me, you've probably been looking at a TN panel for years. Like me you probably feel like your colors are perfect, your contrast and great, and everything is hunky dory and, even if IPS panels are better, they can't be -that- much better. Like me, you'd be wrong :P
I am never buying a TN panel again. Ever. Any claims of IPS panels having shitty response time are bogus. Yes, they are slower than a TN panel. But I can't notice any ghosting or input lag whatsoever on my monitor. Granted, the Dell U2311h is noted for having good response time, but if you shop around you can find a decent IPS panel with a good response time for a pretty decent price.
My thinking was if I'm gonna be staring at this thing for hours upon hours every day, I should get one worth staring at. Plenty of people spend extra money on more RAM or a better video card. Do yourself a favor and buy a decent IPS panel and enjoy the most tangible computer upgrade you'll ever make.
You should mention that all of these monitors are wLED monitors. That means instead of being lit by a light bar they are lit either by a matrix of individual while LEDs that are dispersed across the backpanel or "edge" LEDs. -NOT- by individual colored LEDs, otherwise known as RGB LEDs. Thing is, there's actually no such thing as a white LED, so they are really just blue LEDs with a yellow phospher introduced to make them look white... in theory. All whites in a wLED monitor will appear blue or yellow, even to the naked eye. And because of this, -all- colors are poorly reproduced.
Add to the fact that these particular budget monitors are likely lit by "edge" LEDs. That means the LEDs are basically arranged in a ring around the edge of the screen instead of being a matrix across the entire panel. So just like a regular light bar, these LEDs are shooting light across the screen, providing uneven blacks and poor contrast. These cheap LED monitors are the equivalent of buying HD wrap-around sun glasses.
All of these monitors are based on TN technology. The price, size and resolution are great, but in relative terms they pretty much all suck. Compared to a decent IPS panel such as my Dell U2311h which I picked up for about $300 they are horrid. I'm not trying to sound like a monitor snob, but after putting my old Samsung 226BW (considered one of the best TN panels you could get at the time) side by side with my Dell U2311h with the desktop extended across both I was literally blown away not only by how great the IPS panel looked but how completely wrong every single color was reproduced on the Samsung.
TN panels produce horrible colors, contrast and viewing angles. Yes. Horrible. Like me, you've probably been looking at a TN panel for years. Like me you probably feel like your colors are perfect, your contrast and great, and everything is hunky dory and, even if IPS panels are better, they can't be -that- much better. Like me, you'd be wrong :P
I am never buying a TN panel again. Ever. Any claims of IPS panels having shitty response time are bogus. Yes, they are slower than a TN panel. But I can't notice any ghosting or input lag whatsoever on my monitor. Granted, the Dell U2311h is noted for having good response time, but if you shop around you can find a decent IPS panel with a good response time for a pretty decent price.
My thinking was if I'm gonna be staring at this thing for hours upon hours every day, I should get one worth staring at. Plenty of people spend extra money on more RAM or a better video card. Do yourself a favor and buy a decent IPS panel and enjoy the most tangible computer upgrade you'll ever make.
But I don't want to sound like too much of a party pooper. I think this is a pretty good article and does a decent job of comparing the monitors on display here. No pun intended.
Viewsonic has been my monitor of choice for the past decade. I may have to get the one you mentioned. I've been looking for a 1080p monitor for a few years, now.
Zohar127
Thanks for the feedback, I appreciate it! And you should have intended the pun, it's an awesome one, very clever :P
Thanks for the feedback, I appreciate it! And you should have intended the pun, it's an awesome one, very clever :P
@Alex
It's odd that you outright tell Qlum that he's wrong and that he ought to do 'research' ... when in fact he's blatantly right; LED _BACKLIT_ TVs/monitors are still just using the LEDs as the backlight to the LCD panel. That's what does the actual filtering.
Real LED screens are things like AMOLED, for instance; those don't have backlights.
It's odd that you outright tell Qlum that he's wrong and that he ought to do 'research' ... when in fact he's blatantly right; LED _BACKLIT_ TVs/monitors are still just using the LEDs as the backlight to the LCD panel. That's what does the actual filtering.
Real LED screens are things like AMOLED, for instance; those don't have backlights.
What Qlum and Darketernal said. You won't find an Amoled screen for $200. All you will find are LCD screens that are LED backlit. All it does is reduce power comsumption and they are not really worth it for most people. They don't really give you a better image. AMOLED cost more than IPS (Which are already expensive for most people but computer enthousiast).
Like most people said already, the 'Best monitor under $200' is kinda useless since pretty much any monitor with 1920x1080 native will do the job. Should have done a 'Best IPS monitor under $400' imo.
Like most people said already, the 'Best monitor under $200' is kinda useless since pretty much any monitor with 1920x1080 native will do the job. Should have done a 'Best IPS monitor under $400' imo.
Viewsonic may have the cheap brand moniker behind them, but don't be fooled, they make great displays with fantastic response times. I believe they are the only manufacturer with a 1ms 27" display. great stuff and they are usually in a great place price wise. Definitely check them out.
I clicked the link for the #1 monitor, and it's $260 now and sold out on Newegg. Damn, you guys work quickly.
U DONE GOOFED
but good an informative article. I have been using a Samsung TV as my PC monitor for 3 years now though and it would be hard to downgrade from 32".
but good an informative article. I have been using a Samsung TV as my PC monitor for 3 years now though and it would be hard to downgrade from 32".
If you want an inexpensive IPS panel, look into HDTVs in an appropriate size and resolution. Only difference is they don't support ACPI suspend, meaning your display will just say "no input" or some such, instead of gracefully powering down to sleep mode.
It may not be as good as some of the high end monitors, but it also doesn't cost $1000+. Just don't get sucked in by all the marketing. 240Hz, 3D, LED, blah blah blah. 60Hz with a plain CCFL works just fine.
Glad to see some other folks knowledgeable about monitors chime in mentioning IPS vs. TN, and LED backlighting. Only thing I would add is that "dynamic contrast" is a completely useless spec. Every manufacturer has a different way of implementing and measuring it, and it's always something ridiculous like 10,000,000:1.
It may not be as good as some of the high end monitors, but it also doesn't cost $1000+. Just don't get sucked in by all the marketing. 240Hz, 3D, LED, blah blah blah. 60Hz with a plain CCFL works just fine.
Glad to see some other folks knowledgeable about monitors chime in mentioning IPS vs. TN, and LED backlighting. Only thing I would add is that "dynamic contrast" is a completely useless spec. Every manufacturer has a different way of implementing and measuring it, and it's always something ridiculous like 10,000,000:1.
Alex Bout: Qlum is totally right though. It's an LCD screen backlit by LED's.
You calling him out on how wrong he is just shows how fucking confusing this is to the average consumer.
You calling him out on how wrong he is just shows how fucking confusing this is to the average consumer.
Not trying to bash your or anything, but even the article you are referring him too blatantly states that "Both LCD and LED monitors are actually both still LCD, but LED is the newer technology between the two."
Also, it hurts your credibility by obviously getting all of your info from this single article, probably not having experienced the differences in real life yourself.
I appreciate the effort in putting more PC-relates stories on Dtoid, but please, do your research and so it well. Especially before you, as a Dtoid writer, start calling other people out.
Also, it hurts your credibility by obviously getting all of your info from this single article, probably not having experienced the differences in real life yourself.
I appreciate the effort in putting more PC-relates stories on Dtoid, but please, do your research and so it well. Especially before you, as a Dtoid writer, start calling other people out.
No... qlum was saying that the only difference between LED and LCD is that the backlight is LED, meaning that all LED screens have one giant LED light powering it which is wrong. There are actually two kinds of LED technology, and neither uses one LED light in the back to power it. The first being EDGE, which has many LED lights on the edge of the screen instead of the back, and the second is RGB LED, which has many different colored LED lights throughout the screen powering it that way. Neither has just one light. I may be misreading his comment, but the way I'm reading it is just wrong. From my point of view, it looks like he's just saying the difference is the type of light in the back.
Did you actually test these monitors, or just going on other articles and box specs?
I really hope you tested them all, and wish you had tested the actual INPUT LAG. Response time means pretty much nothing, and will not be a real indicator of input lag, what gamers actually should worry about. Google "Input Lag" or "Display Lag" and you'll figure it out.
Input lag is the delay between you pressing a button and it happening on screen. Most monitors these days are fine about it, but response time doesn't mean anything, and you could have a 2ms monitor with horrid input lag or a 18ms monitor with very little to no noticeable input lag. This of course isn't likely, since most all monitors are under 5ms "response time" nowadays, but response time isn't going to tell you anything real about the monitor.
Same goes for pretty much all the box-specs listed. You need to do real world testing with a few different people to find out what is actually the best. This article reads like it was just some guy in best buy reading the back of boxes.
I like the idea of getting into hardware reviews and suggestions, but this doesn't seem to have anything someone couldnt figure out with a quick google.
I really hope you tested them all, and wish you had tested the actual INPUT LAG. Response time means pretty much nothing, and will not be a real indicator of input lag, what gamers actually should worry about. Google "Input Lag" or "Display Lag" and you'll figure it out.
Input lag is the delay between you pressing a button and it happening on screen. Most monitors these days are fine about it, but response time doesn't mean anything, and you could have a 2ms monitor with horrid input lag or a 18ms monitor with very little to no noticeable input lag. This of course isn't likely, since most all monitors are under 5ms "response time" nowadays, but response time isn't going to tell you anything real about the monitor.
Same goes for pretty much all the box-specs listed. You need to do real world testing with a few different people to find out what is actually the best. This article reads like it was just some guy in best buy reading the back of boxes.
I like the idea of getting into hardware reviews and suggestions, but this doesn't seem to have anything someone couldnt figure out with a quick google.
follow
