What to look for in a new monitor?

[bdmason]

It's been awhile since I was deep in the computer tech (about 6 years ago) and I have no idea where monitor technology is at, but it seems like it's stagnated as far as resolution goes. The last nice monitor I had was a Dell 2004 20" monitor that was 1920xsomething or possibly higher resolution. Nowdays it seems if you want that resolution you have to get a 24 - 30" monitor.

Anyhoo... my current (and only) monitor is a 15" 1024x768 Phillips Magnavox CRT. :eek: It's currently hooked up to an 8800GTX which has DVI outs (I'm using DVI -> VGA adapters). I'd like to get something that has a really nice resolution, widescreen, with as much vertical space as possible. For example, I much prefer 1920x1200 over 1920x1080 (I would like higher than 1920, though).

The monitor would be used for... pretty much everything. Movies/Games/Programming/etc. It would be nice if it had a USB port or two to plug in things like flash drives or webcams, but not necessary. I'm not a fan of integrated components like speakers or webcams. I prefer to have that stuff separate. I would like a full array of input ports, though (Component/HDMI/S-Video/etc) I am really looking at < $300 range if possible.

The monitor would be used in both a Linux and Windows 7 environment. What should I look for? Any suggestions?

[DI- Pernicious]

http://cgi.ebay.com/Sony-GDM-FW900-HP-GDM-FW9012-24-inch-CRT-Monitor-/180703950533?pt=Computer_Monitors&hash=item2a12cb76c5

http://cgi.ebay.com/Sony-GDM-FW900-24-16-9-CRT-Monitor-Silver-/170676036121?pt=Computer_Monitors&hash=item27bd15a219

Wish i lived in America, so i could get these things :P
Oh and 1920x1200@100hz )=^B

[bdmason]

http://cgi.ebay.com/Sony-GDM-FW900-HP-GDM-FW9012-24-inch-CRT-Monitor-/180703950533?pt=Computer_Monitors&hash=item2a12cb76c5

http://cgi.ebay.com/Sony-GDM-FW900-24-16-9-CRT-Monitor-Silver-/170676036121?pt=Computer_Monitors&hash=item27bd15a219

Wish i lived in America, so i could get these things :P
Oh and 1920x1200@100hz )=^B

I guess I should have mentioned I'm looking to move into the present and get an LCD. :D I'm not sure what to look for though, aparantly there are now "LED LCDs" and I'm not sure what to look for in terms of refresh rate, color gamut, etc.

[Versteken]

I guess I should have mentioned I'm looking to move into the present and get an LCD. :D I'm not sure what to look for though, aparantly there are now "LED LCDs" and I'm not sure what to look for in terms of refresh rate, color gamut, etc.

LED refers to the backlight. those models use (wait for it), an LED backlight.

LCD's do not "refresh" in the classic sense that older CRT style does. What they call a "refresh rate" in the specs, is really the "input rate", and they're all the same - 60hz. But again, this is arbitrary, as LCD's do not "refresh". So don't worry about this.

Honestly it won't really matter too much to you which panel type you get, just don't go for the cheapest pos available and you'll probably end up with something that is at least decent.

Don't worry too much about resolution either. LCD's, unlike the older CRT's are "fixed frequency". Yes, they can display other resolutions, either by using centered timing (smaller picture with black borders), or scaled to panel size (blow it up or shrink it down to fit, which looks blurry and/or blocky).

1920X1200 is the common resolution for most 24". Bigger screens will usually be higher resolution, while smaller will be lower.

[MaintenanceMan]

I figured you wanted to move into the present and go for LED/LCD.

This unit has been popular and is now priced well to make it good value for money.

http://www.pccasegear.com/index.php?main_page=product_info&products_id=16664

MM..

Edit. Or! if money is no issue this could take your PC work to a new level.
http://www.pccasegear.com/index.php?main_page=product_info&cPath=558_1213&products_id=14945

[wuliheron]

For about $350.oo you can get a 24" Dell Ultrasharp which is still 1920x1080, but has the best picture quality available by far at anywhere near your price range. You won't find a higher resolution anywhere near your price range.

The alternative is go for speed and LED backlighting. LED backlighting can save 1/3 the electricity and last almost twice as long. Lower response times of 1-2ms and low latency internal circuitry increase speed and reduce ghosting.

[ittybittygirls]

120hz if you want to win.

1080p for cheap if you don't.

[MeStinkBAD]

For about $350.oo you can get a 24" Dell Ultrasharp which is still 1920x1080, but has the best picture quality available by far at anywhere near your price range. You won't find a higher resolution anywhere near your price range.

The alternative is go for speed and LED backlighting. LED backlighting can save 1/3 the electricity and last almost twice as long. Lower response times of 1-2ms and low latency internal circuitry increase speed and reduce ghosting.

Resolution does not influence image quality nearly as much as color vibrancy and the contrast ratio. Response time does not increase "speed". It does decrease ghosting but anything with a response time in the single digits won't produce any visible ghosting since the eye can't detect it. Same goes for refresh rate. Anything above 60HZ is a waist as a monitor.

You need to go out and look at monitors and compare. Ignore the specs and focus on the PICTURE.

[Bad_Motha]

1920x1080 (1080p) is the standard so if you are a general home/office user or gamer, this is most likely what you will want.

If you are a gamer I would go with a 1080p screen that supports 120hz/3D.
Regardless of weather or not you want to use "3D", the 120hz is a huge benefit.

Response timing on any 120hz screen is going to be low (lower is better) so I wouldn't worry about that. What you want to look at in screen specs is the Dot Pitch (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dot_pitch) size (lower is better). You can actually see a noticeable real world difference between 0.28mm and 0.26mm (or even a 0.275). Your overall image clarity is determined by the Dot Pitch. A higher contrast ratio also helps to give a good overall balance between brightness/contrast.

Whatever screens you're looking at, look online for specs, but overall it's best to go to a store and actually see the screen in person. Some websites don't always list the dot pitch for each monitor on their site. If you find this is the case when looking online, simply google the exact model number with the word specs after it. This should make it easy to find the official specs sheet on a screen, which will tell you the dot pitch.

Now, if you are a professional. Like a graphics artist for example, you will want an IPS type of monitor. These are much more expensive then lower priced consumer LCD/LED monitors. IPS will offer much greater screen/image clarity as well as much greater resolution options, well above the 1920x1080 or 1920x1200 standards of traditional screens.

[P.M.]

Before you waste a lot of money on a supermonitor you don't really need consider the fact that 1920x1200 has almost three times as many pixels as 1024x768, and that sudden increase will quite literally make your venerable 8800GTX explode. With the little mushroom cloud and everything.

[wuliheron]

Resolution does not influence image quality nearly as much as color vibrancy and the contrast ratio. Response time does not increase "speed". It does decrease ghosting but anything with a response time in the single digits won't produce any visible ghosting since the eye can't detect it. Same goes for refresh rate. Anything above 60HZ is a waist as a monitor.

You need to go out and look at monitors and compare. Ignore the specs and focus on the PICTURE.

Whether you consider color and contrast more important then the detail allowed by higher resolutions is a personal preference. Some people want higher resolutions because it allows them to put more things on the desktop for work, while others just can't stand the jaggies.

As for speed, a lower response time per pixel is the very definition of speed. The pixels simply work faster and when they don't ghosting is the result. In general the faster all the various parameters are the smoother the motion. Again, if you don't care for the smoother motion offered by 120hz monitors that's one thing, but to summarily dismiss them as a waste of money when others obviously do care about such things is nothing more then an expression of personal bias.

[Hartisen]

120hz if you want to win.This.

[Versteken]

120hz if you want to win.

120hz is pointless. it does not work the way people want to think that it does.

[iltsoc]

120hz is pointless. it does not work the way people want to think that it does.

it makes things smoother and does 3d, what am I missing?

[dosbox]

Before you waste a lot of money on a supermonitor you don't really need consider the fact that 1920x1200 has almost three times as many pixels as 1024x768, and that sudden increase will quite literally make your venerable 8800GTX explode. With the little mushroom cloud and everything.

There is a lot of truth in this post. Flat panel monitors look best when run at their native resolution. That means you'll need more horsepower to maintain smooth framerates with good levels of detail.

Although the specific monitor recommendations are out of date, the first few posts in this thread have a lot of good information on how to select a monitor:

http://forums.anandtech.com/showthread.php?t=39226

[bdmason]

There is a lot of truth in this post. Flat panel monitors look best when run at their native resolution. That means you'll need more horsepower to maintain smooth framerates with good levels of detail.

Although the specific monitor recommendations are out of date, the first few posts in this thread have a lot of good information on how to select a monitor:

http://forums.anandtech.com/showthread.php?t=39226

I'm planning on eventually upgrading my entire computer. But right now upgrading the monitor seems best as it's the cheapest way for me to see real performance improvements (and by performance I mainly mean being able to put more things on the screen and not have to constantly scroll stuff all the time). I'm looking for something that will last me a long time (5 - 10 years) because I don't buy components that often. The other components will come over the next 1 - 2 years. The monitor makes the most sense because it's the most antiquated piece of equipment on my system.

Yeah, I'll have to dial down the effects on my games, but I generally play older games anyways, so it shouldn't be a problem. Right now my bigger issues are with non-gaming things like writing documents and code and not having much screen space sucks. I use linux workspaces to the max (I got 6 dedicated workspaces for different tasks) and could really use the extra screen real estate.

EDIT: Thanks for the linky. Damn, that Dell Ultrasharp U2410 looks sweeeeet. Might be worth saving up a few extra $$$.