bit-tech.net

Asus VG236H Review

Comments 26 to 38 of 38

Reply
kenco_uk 30th September 2010, 12:18 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ending Credits
I'll stick with my Yuraku thank you very much.

+1.

Except I'll stick with mine, not yours - that'd be daft and illegal.
CowBlazed 30th September 2010, 20:35 Quote
3D is a gimmick because it has way too many downsides. One pair of glasses? Have fun watching movies by yourself. How about wearing dark glasses indoors at night, people experiencing headaches etc. Could go on forever about 3D in games.

120hz however is MUCH needed for LCD monitors, 60hz refresh and bad input lag is fixed and you can actually see and feel the difference with everything you do.
frenchscottie 30th September 2010, 23:03 Quote
For any given size, an LCD monitor will usually have higher resolution than the same size LCD TV. As soon as you get into the 22 to 24 inch size, monitors will usually have 1920 x 1200 wide screen resolution, which is higher than 1080p. The same size TV will probably be 720p. This is partly because computer monitors are designed to be used much closer to you than a TV would be. Monitors have no tuners, but the newer, larger ones usually have HDMI connectors and can often be used with a cable box, DVD player, etc. If you're looking to use a TV as a monitor, not the other way around. The next question would be why? Monitors are usually half the price of a TV, sometimes a lot less than half, for a higher resolution image, better optimized for desktop use.
If you're looking for a fairly large display, then an LCD TV might be cheaper, but the resolution will be much lower. A 30 inch LCD monitor with dual link DVI at 2560 1600 resolution might cost the same as a 42 inch LCD TV with 1080p, but the monitor has twice the number of pixels. You can even get monitors with 3840 2400 resolution.
So there.
eddtox 1st October 2010, 00:37 Quote
So, £1100 for a 30" Dell monitor will get me double (not really - about 30% higher) the resolution of my £300 32" Samsung TV - and I will probably have to spend £300 on a graphics card that can push that many pixels around.

At 30"-32" is the difference in resolution noticeable (between 2560*1600 and 1920*1080)? Is it noticeable enough to justify the cost?
frenchscottie 1st October 2010, 01:26 Quote
Exactly.
The cheaper 32" are only 1366 x 768 for around £500
eddtox 1st October 2010, 09:52 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by frenchscottie
Exactly.
The cheaper 32" are only 1366 x 768 for around £500

My Samsung LE32C530 1920*1080 and it only cost £310 - without any sort of special offer - from Amazon. linky

Therefore, for £1100 I would get a smaller monitor with 30% more pixels than my £300 TV. Again, is the difference even noticeable?
Xir 1st October 2010, 10:06 Quote
Welll, the trend for TV's from 20" till 50" is Full-HD 1920x1080.
The trend for Monitors from 19"-26" is 1920x1080 as well.
...especially in the "affordable" range, you'll be hard pressed to find a decent 1920x1200.

Of course within the "professional" price range you get higher resolutions and 16:10

Funny enough, for TV's, you still get matte panels while (too many) Monitors are glossy.
zef 1st October 2010, 10:36 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by eddtox
Quote:
Originally Posted by frenchscottie
Exactly.
The cheaper 32" are only 1366 x 768 for around £500

My Samsung LE32C530 1920*1080 and it only cost £310 - without any sort of special offer - from Amazon. linky

Therefore, for £1100 I would get a smaller monitor with 30% more pixels than my £300 TV. Again, is the difference even noticeable?

And what's the response times on it? :)

The difference in resolution is definitely 'noticeable'. You'd be hard pressed not to notice. 30% more screen real estate is a big deal.

Just because you can buy a low end TV for 300 quid at 32 inches doesn't mean it is comparable to a monitor in features. Just like you can buy a Hanns G 27" monitor for 240quid [1]. Sure you can buy it, and it is a 27" monitor but it's not the same as another 27" monitor necessarily. Picture quality, response times etc etc.

Generally monitors are more expensive because the panels have to be better and are more expensive to make. Better as in better response times for one which TVs don't care about all that much.


[1] http://www.ebuyer.com/product/221618
eddtox 1st October 2010, 11:06 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by zef
And what's the response times on it? :)

The difference in resolution is definitely 'noticeable'. You'd be hard pressed not to notice. 30% more screen real estate is a big deal.

Just because you can buy a low end TV for 300 quid at 32 inches doesn't mean it is comparable to a monitor in features. Just like you can buy a Hanns G 27" monitor for 240quid [1]. Sure you can buy it, and it is a 27" monitor but it's not the same as another 27" monitor necessarily. Picture quality, response times etc etc.

Generally monitors are more expensive because the panels have to be better and are more expensive to make. Better as in better response times for one which TVs don't care about all that much.


[1] http://www.ebuyer.com/product/221618

Does 30% higher resolution on a smaller screen really translate to 30% more screen real estate? In my experience I find I need to increase the size of visual elements on smaller high-res screens, as they tend to be too small (granted, my eyes aren't all that good).

And anyway, if screen real estate was such a big consideration, I would certainly be better of buying 3 (!) 32 inch TV's for the price of one 30" monitor - how's that for screen real estate.

As for response times and "higher quality panels":
The Dell Ultrasharp 3007 has a response time of 8ms (12 typical) [source], my TV has a response time of 5 ms [source].
zef 1st October 2010, 15:56 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by eddtox
Does 30% higher resolution on a smaller screen really translate to 30% more screen real estate? In my experience I find I need to increase the size of visual elements on smaller high-res screens, as they tend to be too small (granted, my eyes aren't all that good).

And anyway, if screen real estate was such a big consideration, I would certainly be better of buying 3 (!) 32 inch TV's for the price of one 30" monitor - how's that for screen real estate.

As for response times and "higher quality panels":
The Dell Ultrasharp 3007 has a response time of 8ms (12 typical) [source], my TV has a response time of 5 ms [source].

What smaller screen. You only get 2560x1600 or similar on larger panels, 30+" usually. These are also the largest monitors you can get so they carry a price premium. A 32" TV is a pretty reasonable size for a TV so much more competitive prices, like you have with 22" monitors.

So you think having a 32" screen with a 1920x1080 resolution is better than having a 30" 2560x1600? Sure if you're just watching movies.. In PC land higher resolutions mean more pixels on screen. More pixels on screen means more content on screen. There is no substitute to a larger panel _and_ a higher resolution.

Having a larger panel with the same resolution as a 22" monitor is pretty pointless as far as PCs go. (you wouldn't have that 32" TV on your desk at a distance of a few inches would you?)

The simple answer to your question then becomes, "you wouldn't use a 32" TV as a monitor because you can't increase the resolution and hence you can't use it as a desktop display as you would be too close to a 1920x1080 screen spread all over those 32" "
eddtox 1st October 2010, 17:27 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by zef
What smaller screen. You only get 2560x1600 or similar on larger panels, 30+" usually. These are also the largest monitors you can get so they carry a price premium. A 32" TV is a pretty reasonable size for a TV so much more competitive prices, like you have with 22" monitors.

So you think having a 32" screen with a 1920x1080 resolution is better than having a 30" 2560x1600? Sure if you're just watching movies.. In PC land higher resolutions mean more pixels on screen. More pixels on screen means more content on screen. There is no substitute to a larger panel _and_ a higher resolution.

Having a larger panel with the same resolution as a 22" monitor is pretty pointless as far as PCs go. (you wouldn't have that 32" TV on your desk at a distance of a few inches would you?)

The simple answer to your question then becomes, "you wouldn't use a 32" TV as a monitor because you can't increase the resolution and hence you can't use it as a desktop display as you would be too close to a 1920x1080 screen spread all over those 32" "

That's my point. I am using it as a monitor on my desk and I find the 1920x1080 screen more than adequate. This thing is beautiful, whether I'm watching films, playing games or browsing the web.
memeroot 2nd October 2010, 08:38 Quote
I have 3x24 at 1920x1080/1200 which is lots - I would prefer having a 30 inch in the middle with the others in portrait.... perhaps next year
frenchscottie 2nd October 2010, 14:04 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by memeroot
I have 3x24 at 1920x1080/1200 which is lots - I would prefer having a 30 inch in the middle with the others in portrait.... perhaps next year

So why do you have the 3 monitors?
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