bit-tech.net

Samsung SyncMaster 215TW

Comments 1 to 25 of 40

Reply
Spacecowboy92 7th July 2006, 15:18 Quote
I like the way you can just plug in difrent devices so easily.
DXR_13KE 7th July 2006, 15:48 Quote
the only thing i would take out of this screen would be the speakers, it would cost a little less i think and be a little more thin.
teamtd11 7th July 2006, 15:58 Quote
yea. i have no idea why they put speakers in pc monitors. especially ones like this. if people are going to spend this much on a monitor. then they are going to have some good quality surround sound speakers
Tim S 7th July 2006, 16:03 Quote
personally, I don't think it is a big issue - the speakers are very small and don't interfere with the overall looks too much, IMHO. :)
orb 7th July 2006, 16:21 Quote
Still a little bit short of 1080i resolution? :(
Veles 7th July 2006, 16:28 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tim S
personally, I don't think it is a big issue - the speakers are very small and don't interfere with the overall looks too much, IMHO. :)

Thats very true they are well sized and placed for monitor speakers, my old monitor added about 4" to each side to accomodate speakers I never used. Also, when you put a 21" screen on your desk, you loose quite a bit of room to put the speakers, so it can be a problem on a large desk.

That being said I do agree that this screen would've been better off without them, someone who pays this much for a monitor would have at least a half decent set of 2.1 speakers, which would be far superior to the puny things you get on monitors.

Have to say I really like Samsung screens, from the specs they always seem to be a bit better than the competitors in thier price range, especially with the contrast ratio. My SM913N has the best contrast ratio and brightness of all the screens I found in it's price bracket.

The fact it supports multiple connections AND HDCP is fantastic, add to that it being a very adjustable screen it's a big winner for me. Also great that it comes in black too :)

But...if I'm gonna spend £450 on a monitor, I may as well add on £200ish and buy one of those lurvley 24" Dells (although you do need a bit more umph to play games at that resolution :()
Da Dego 7th July 2006, 16:51 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Veles

But...if I'm gonna spend £450 on a monitor, I may as well add on £200ish and buy one of those lurvley 24" Dells (although you do need a bit more umph to play games at that resolution :()
That's the problem...You can't just spend another 200 quid to go up a monitor without going up a graphics card, too. One of the difficulties I found in my last upgrade...I still use a good old philips 15" LCD from back in 2000. Works great, nice color...but only 1024x768 resolution. Spend too much on the card, no purpose because the monitor can't display it. But buy a new monitor, need a bigger/better card. Ugh.
choupolo 7th July 2006, 22:15 Quote
I was looking for just a monitor like this. 1680x1050 is ideal for my needs (ie not having to go overboard on graphics cards) and the component should be good to hook up a 360 (although I'm still not sure how it will look).

My other option is to go for a Viewsonic 2025wm without the component and extra inch, and just use the 360 via VGA. It is a hundred odd pounds less after all. :) HDCP might be a problem in the long run however...
Firehed 8th July 2006, 11:07 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by orb
Still a little bit short of 1080i resolution? :(
It's 1080p on desktop LCDs, but that's true of anything in it's size range. Notebooks are just unfair that way.

I've found that a 6800GT copes moderately well with this resolution, while I really needed my 7900GT to move to the 1920x1200 of the 24" screens comfortably. As the card is reasonably priced and fairly popular, it'll be an excellent counterpart for the 20/21" screens and should have no problems coping with the 1680x1050. Depends on the game of course, though I find myself working in 2d mode mostly nowadays so it hardly matters.

Good news in that sense is that you only need to change monitors... like... never, whereas you need a new GPU for the latest games every six months now.
Oclocker 8th July 2006, 21:45 Quote
This is a monitor that seems way overpriced for something that is hardly any better than a 17" 93 quid tft in that its only got a few pixels more height - and when large web pages are wearing out the scroll wheel an extra 200 approx pixels comes in handy - I think PCs and widescreens are mismatched for general pc use. Films may benefit but most PC work don't get a benefit ..
Tim S 8th July 2006, 23:36 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Oclocker
This is a monitor that seems way overpriced for something that is hardly any better than a 17" 93 quid tft in that its only got a few pixels more height - and when large web pages are wearing out the scroll wheel an extra 200 approx pixels comes in handy - I think PCs and widescreens are mismatched for general pc use. Films may benefit but most PC work don't get a benefit ..
Have you used a widescreen monitor in Photoshop? I've personally found massive gains in that area, along with the benefits in gaming, too.
Oclocker 9th July 2006, 01:55 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tim S
Have you used a widescreen monitor in Photoshop? I've personally found massive gains in that area, along with the benefits in gaming, too.

Well mrs uses Photoshop more than I and she has the widest of widescreens (30" dell)..

/pedantic on
But images like the one on the right are more height oriented..
/pedantic off

of course web browsers can do the 90 degree flip :)
zoot2boot 9th July 2006, 05:14 Quote
think half the reason samsung monitors often have ugly bases is because they do include the extra adjustability of the screen. it's all very well to make a slim little stand if all it's going to be doing is tilting but when it's rotating, tilting, moving up and down, pivoting etc. there's just no getting away from physics. people 'd get cranky if their swish new monitor was falling on its face the whole time.
Tim S 9th July 2006, 11:50 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by zoot2boot
think half the reason samsung monitors often have ugly bases is because they do include the extra adjustability of the screen. it's all very well to make a slim little stand if all it's going to be doing is tilting but when it's rotating, tilting, moving up and down, pivoting etc. there's just no getting away from physics. people 'd get cranky if their swish new monitor was falling on its face the whole time.
My point is that Dell manages to do it without any issues, so why can't Samsung? ;)
Oclocker 9th July 2006, 12:50 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tim S
My point is that Dell manages to do it without any issues, so why can't Samsung? ;)

Ahh Dell :) that minded me ..

Take the two 20" dells - one is 1680 by 1080 (IIRC)
other is 1600 by 1200 so extra 105600 pixels - admitedly not a lot, but having used both resolutions for intensive PC use (not gaming I admit) - I am convinced "widescreen" is popular because so many users have their first experience of hi-res displays using one and are comparing say 1280 by 1024 to 1680 by 1080, So therefore think 4:3 is Carp & WS is miles better - I wonder if someone was given both to try (after using a 17" display) which would be preferred, the one which does play films better or the one with extra desktop real estate?

Anyway drivers could easily be tweaked to display 1600 by 900 on a 4:3 display so say power DVD can auto switch a film into true widescreen rather than the 16:10.29/16/10 that WS tfts are in reality.
Tim S 9th July 2006, 13:45 Quote
As mentioned in the review, 1680x1050 isn't my personal preference and I prefer using a 1920x1200 screen. However, with the costs associated with a 1920x1200 screen (better graphics card(s) if you want to game at native, increased cost of the screen) are often not very attractive. If you want to game at widescreen without breaking the bank, 1680x1050 is a nice compromise to make, IMO. I see it as an upgrade from a 1280x1024 monitor, not a replacement for a 1600x1200 monitor - the replacement for 1600x1200 is 1920x1200. ;)

I find Photoshop much easier to use on a widescreen monitor because, even with all of the toolbars down the sides, there is still a decent area in the middle of the screen where you can work. With a 4:3 (or 5:4) monitor, I find myself not being able to work on the same image at the same zoom with the toolbars open and I end up with lots of dead space.
Noni 9th July 2006, 16:10 Quote
This is a great monitor and the extra inch apparently adds a nice size.
Drexial 10th July 2006, 07:14 Quote
i own this one, i chose it over the viewsonic 20.1 inch wide screen of the same resolution. one of the reason that the speakers are built in is ecause of the video inputs. if you hook up a DVD player or a camcorder or somthing, you wouldnt get any sound through the monitor. the fac that it has picture in picture is interesting. but a feature that will probly go unused. the rotation is amazing on this for PDF files, you can get a page and a half on there no problem.

the one defect in this, im hoping it has been resolved already, havent heard any complaints since it first came out. but there was a red line that would srout up about 2-5 weeks into using it. i bought one of the early models and it hapened tto me, so i brought it back for a new one, its alittle early to tell if its going to be an issue again.

as far as price goes, the samsung monitors usualy go for $300 for a 17" monitor, this one is sider and a smig taller and $500, but with alot better spcs and more options. if you really feel you need the extra desk top space (virtualy) then its amazing. i got it for video/audio work, and it doesnt do so bad for immersive gaming either. its not so much a better monitor stratigicly for gaming, but it will get you into the game more. i didnt have an NEC to compare it to, but i definetly liked it better than the viewsonic.
timmehtimmeh 10th July 2006, 08:12 Quote
I don't see the point in "upgrading" to a 1650x1050 from a 19" 1280x1024 display - it's not a big enough jump in screen estate and doesn't warrant the extra cash for the display. For the same money you could just buy a second 19" for sub £200 and run 2 displays at 2560x1024.

Fair enough if your running a CRT or 17" and below tft's at 1024*768 and you fancy an upgrade. Else just wait for a 1920x1200 display to become cheaper or buy a Dell 2407.

On the topic of speakers on a display - keep them seperate please.
Bladestorm 11th July 2006, 23:39 Quote
At the moment I'm using a 17" samsung 172x, which is still excellent for what it is, however I frequently find myself running out of screen real estate.

So, the thought came to me : why not get a second screen to plug into the second DVI out to aleviate that ?

Now if I'm gonna buy another screen it has to be a bit bigger and these days prefferably widescreen of course, but theres no way I'm gonna splash out for a 24" anytime soon, so I've had my eye on 20" and 21", this one looks perfect, with seemingly the best image quality in the bracket, good design, HDCP, nice size, lots of extra inputs .. Its still a little bit pricey though so I think I'l still have to keep my eyes on it for a while and see how it goes :)

Side note : I spent the afternoon/evening reading up on various 20" displays and was almost despairing of finding one that didn't have some sort of big snag when I spotted another glowing review for this 21" on another site, googled for more then noticed Bit-tech's review near the top (not sure how I missed it being posted here in the first place mind) looks like samsung for the win, again :)
ArtificialHero 12th July 2006, 00:14 Quote
I just picked up a 2007WFP as they're 25% off at the moment, making them a shade over £320. For £100 less than the sammy I'd take the dell all day long - if they send me an A00, any banding or dead pixels I'll be taking advantage of the 20-day no quibble return policy, no worries :)

AH
Bladestorm 13th July 2006, 07:22 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by ArtificialHero
I just picked up a 2007WFP as they're 25% off at the moment, making them a shade over £320. For £100 less than the sammy I'd take the dell all day long - if they send me an A00, any banding or dead pixels I'll be taking advantage of the 20-day no quibble return policy, no worries :)

AH

From reading up on that one in particular, it seems the banding is caused by the oh .. faroudjh ? processor they used in those monitors, they implemented a firmware upgrade that turned it off in "desktop" mode where people were noticing it the most in desktop backgrounds and gradient tests, however it remains on in gaming and movie modes, So far as can be told thats all that Dell intends to do to fix the issue.

Also the above mentioned firmware upgrade is independant of the monitor revision, so a flashed A00 is unlikely to have any more/less banding than a flashed A02, I believe there rep stated that they will only be accepting back monitors that are not flashed for banding problems, if it has been flashed already they wont replace it.

Edit add : its a shame really, because outside of the banding problems it looks like an excellent monitor.
Silver_Dragon 26th July 2006, 21:27 Quote
Q. does this monitor handle 50hz 576P and 720P on the component, and indeed dvi hdcp? ie, is it fully pal compatible.

I've not been able to find information anywhere, including the manual, on what video modes it'll handle! other than for VGA anyway, which seems to be quoted as usual vga ranges, ie, no 50hz.
Bladestorm 27th July 2006, 00:35 Quote
50hz is less than 60hz, so i seriously doubt it would be a problem (and looking at the frequency ranges its probably overkill for 60, so capable of 75 at most resolutions I should think)
Silver_Dragon 27th July 2006, 01:49 Quote
from what I gather, most vga monitors wont synch to less than 56hz though?

so I'm wondering whether the dvi will or will not, for full pal HD Ready tv compatibiliy.
Log in

You are not logged in, please login with your forum account below. If you don't already have an account please register to start contributing.



Discuss in the forums