• Some users have recently had their accounts hijacked. It seems that the now defunct EVGA forums might have compromised your password there and seems many are using the same PW here. We would suggest you UPDATE YOUR PASSWORD and TURN ON 2FA for your account here to further secure it. None of the compromised accounts had 2FA turned on.
    Once you have enabled 2FA, your account will be updated soon to show a badge, letting other members know that you use 2FA to protect your account. This should be beneficial for everyone that uses FSFT.

Is panel quality dropping overal ?

panels are just not improving

and if there are improvements like contrast ratio on new IPS it is done by sacrificing viewing angles

I saw lately Dell 2001FP which is quite old monitor and it holded its ground. New IPSes aren't much better. To my eyes good CCFL lamp is better than even good W-LED.

TN monitor are pretty much the same. Shitty panels coupled with shitty backlights (cheaper than on IPSes). I must say that older CCFL panels had better colors, at least accurate. On laptops however there is improvement because CCFL on laptops had narrow gamut than desktop versions to save power so new laptops have nicer colors than older ones.

And on the high-end end of the scale I do not think best EIZOs sold today with their inferior panels can beat my RGB-LED from 2009

and because of this lack of improvement my CRT still kick ass :cool:
 
EnhancedInterrogator said:
You first.
Click to expand...

ok. I have an old monitor ( HP 2501i ) its colors are really nice for a TN, yes they dont pop and there is a greyness but they are acurate and dont 'neon glow' i can increase the saturation a bit on the nvidia control panel too, there is no bleed or glow to speak of. The motion clarity isnt great but being a TN its certainley not bad. It isnt as vibrant as my Panasonic 8 bit IPS screen but in truth its not that far behind.

I have seen some new LED panels and although they are ( insanely) bright, they seem to have a weird lighting in patches ? im not sure if anyone else has noticed, my old screen is CCFL and the lighting seems pretty much uniform.

i would like is a screen with PWM control, im subconciously/semi-conciously aware of a 60hz flicker its not visible to the naked eye but over 1000's of hours i think it does contribute to eye strain..

from some of the recent screens i have seen the lighting and glow seems to getting worse.. is it down to just LED or is it a combination of rushed build quality and LED + cheaper designs
 
- IPS/PLS didn't change much in years, though A-TW polarizers indeed disappeared
- VA actually got the AMVA+ upgrade (trading some contrast for better viewing angles)
- Both received better implemented pixel overdrive/RTC
- CCFL disappeared, replaced by LED
- Then flicker-free LED

On the TN side, I owned a cheap one by 2004 that had slightly but obviously better viewing angles and contrast than any of the ones I've seen in the recent years.
Not just mine I'd say, I have a memory of many old TN's being slower but overall more pleasing.

What about S-PVA ? I never owned one personally not really paid much attention to those....
 
Replacement of CCFL by LED has not been an unalloyed good. It depends.

W-LED: Is its color accuracy greater than CCFL? What are the color tradeoffs? Is it kinder on the eyes? (i.e., concerns that too much exposure to blue light accelerates macular degeneration)

If the RGB version of LED is too high-priced to be affordable, it does not count as an answer.

For now, I'm sticking with CCFL. I bought an NEC P241W and could see the blue light bias right away. It's been sold.
 
Depends on what you are looking for really, for TN panels there have been improvements to the response time and reduction in flickering. I never thought they could market TN panels as "gaming monitors", that was genius. Progress have being made there.

I believe IPS panels have been somewhat stagnant outside of NEC/Eizo. The viewing angle and color improvement of lower end IPS panels over TN panels are just not appealing to consumers/manufacturer due the higher costs than TN.

Before 120hz really got popular there were models like the U2711 and ZR24w (i used a 2490wuxi at the time), they cost too much to be mainstream, I'd still take the u2711 over everything Dell's pumping out today but that's just me.

Right now I'm sitting on a PA271w (P-IPS CCFL), i saw the PA272w (AH-IPS LED) and thought it looked worse. I think CCFL or LED is just a personal preference.
 
Last edited:
TN panels seem to be better than they've ever been, and pretty much everything else blows.

The ROG Swift actually has pretty decent colors for an TN. It's just too bad that it'll invariably suicide within 3 months. ;)

Even though it's not "panel quality," G-Sync is a game changer and HUGE improvement for monitors. It really is the biggest thing to happen to displays in a decade.
 
There were great 120hz TN monitors in 2012, namely 3d glossy samsungs: 750d and 950d.

These actually looked better than any entry level matte IPS, while having accurate enough colors.

Unfortunately no one cares about picture quality in gaming monitors anymore, see: 1k$ asus swift with a horrible 3h matte coating.

Well, at least TV's are progressing today, you would be hard pressed to find a non glossy, non VA TV in stores.
 
Pechendko said:
There were great 120hz TN monitors in 2012, namely 3d glossy samsungs: 750d and 950d.

These actually looked better than any entry level matte IPS, while having accurate enough colors.

Unfortunately no one cares about picture quality in gaming monitors anymore, see: 1k$ asus swift with a horrible 3h matte coating.

Well, at least TV's are progressing today, you would be hard pressed to find a non glossy, non VA TV in stores.
Click to expand...

I have the 750D, still don't know anything else worth replacing it with besides the ROG swift (its QA problems notwithstanding). Such a good monitor, glossy, good colors, TN pros for gaming purposes.
Im forcing myself to get a Gsync monitor next, more models just need to happen.
 
IPS/PLS panels are significantly better, especially compared to the very grainy, wide gamut CCFL back-lit IPS with low contrast. Plus IPS panels are more consistent in terms of measured preset colour accuracy compared to the popular CCFL back lit panels and first 2 years of LED back-lit e-IPS panels.

VA panels are significantly better and cheaper.

It took 2 years for the 144hz matte TN's (AOC G2460PG, Asus PG278Q, BenQ XL2420G after adjustment and LG 24GM77) to catch up to the 120hz Asus VG236H and Samsung Series 7 & 9 monitors preset colour accuracy wise, but they still don't look as vibrant since they are matte.
 
I liked older TN panels better somehow. Didn't notice the 6 bit or the gamma shift/viewing angles as much as I do with modern panels. Contrast was pretty poor though.
Oh yeah and CCFL was noticeably better uniformity wise.

I don't have experience with old IPS/VA panels though, but all I can say is that despite the glow I like IPS more than VA or TN right now. If only we could have G-Sync with that, even with just 60hz like that Acer monitor I'd be all over it...
 
Skakruk said:
Those had some serious backlight bleed/uniformity issues
Click to expand...

Mine didn't have any significant backlit bleeding, not that it matters, cause I didn't use it in a pitch black room.
What it did have is a really bad factory gamma calibration, but after some adjustments in CLtest it turned out perfect.
Now I actually regret that I had to sell it.

anything else worth replacing it with besides the ROG swift
Click to expand...

I'm 100% it's not even close to the samsungs in terms of picture quality. I've seen a close up pixel comparison photo somewhere and it appeared to have matte coating as bad as the one used in u2711. It's even stated in the reviews that it's a 3h anti glare. No idea why would they do this to a high end monitor meant for entertainment.


I'm so disappointed with the monitors right now. I just went to a store with my laptop and tried out s2415h and it was completely underwhelming, really bad contrast coupled with gray blacks along with a slightly washed out gamma, tried VGA cable in case it was displaying mismatched rgb range through hdmi - same result.
I guess that's what you get with an IPS panel.

Well, I've actually decided that I'm not getting a monitor, I'm getting a Sony VA HDTV. :D
Have seen kdl-42w8xx today and it looked great, deep blacks, vibrant colors and really really accurate factory calibration with 2.3 non linear gamma. It's also got very low input lag in the game mode, and the game mode doesn't seem to mess with the colors.
 
Skakruk said:
Those had some serious backlight bleed/uniformity issues, and some other bugs. I can't recall exactly what the problems were, but there's probably a good reason why I don't have one of those monitors right now. I really, really wanted one of them at the time (primarily for the glossy screen), but in the end I decided it wasn't worth the risk for whatever reason.
Click to expand...

I remember I found a good reason or two not to get one of those as well. I'm not a fan of glossy but I know that wasn't it since I almost got one of those 120hz IPS (glossy) Korean monitors.
 
NCX said:
VA panels are significantly better and cheaper.
Click to expand...

I take this to mean "better than other VA panels in the past." If so, which ones?

The question concerned "overall" panel quality.

A-MVA vs S-PVA was probably an improvement in text sharpness.

16:9 vs 16:10 was a step backwards.

W-LED is biased toward blue light and raises concerns about macular degeneration. See http://ehp.niehs.nih.gov/1307294/ or https://www.macular.org/ultra-violet-and-blue-light. RGB-LED is still priced out of reach for most buyers. Sure, LED lasts longer and saves energy compared to CCFL. What will that matter compared to the health of your eyes?

High resolutions have obvious benefits for games but the notion that they are useful for text and spreadsheet work is one massive con. Windows scaling is a mess. Win8 has made some incremental improvements, but the problems are far from solved. http://www.anandtech.com/show/7939/scaling-windows-the-dpi-arms-race. Meanwhile, much of the business world is avoiding Win8 for good reason.

Wide gamut has obvious benefits for those who actually need it, but unless you're drawing a paycheck to manage color spaces, the circus of incompatibilities is more hassle than it's worth.

Overall, we have not progressed.
 
Last edited:
Technology in general has been stagnant for some time, unless you include the expansion of wireless devices and networks.
 
Producers are servants for consumers which decided monitors must be cheap and good enough, and so they are. Good enough for Joe Sixpack is barely acceptable or below standard for Jim Sophisticated.
 
Do they even make RGB-LED monitor anymore? Quato is gone. So the only thing RGB left is zbook?

Sitting on a U2711 now, wanted to upgrade to 32"VA but just not enough initiative.

Color accuracy CCFL v LED? Not really a problem imo, if color matters, just calibrate it periodically and let the CCFL warm up. CCFL's 700:1 vs 1000:1 does make some difference, not game breaking though. And it's not like every new IPS monitor out there is hitting 1000:1.
 
wirk said:
Producers are servants for consumers which decided monitors must be cheap and good enough, and so they are. Good enough for Joe Sixpack is barely acceptable or below standard for Jim Sophisticated.
Click to expand...

good point.

Im a bit concerned at the macular degeneration comment, both my monitor and my TV are CCFL and yet my friends new LCD is LED and its like staring into a solar flare.

I run a program called redshift and it massively reduces my eye strain even on ccfl at night.
 
Pechendko said:
There were great 120hz TN monitors in 2012, namely 3d glossy samsungs: 750d and 950d.

These actually looked better than any entry level matte IPS, while having accurate enough colors.

Unfortunately no one cares about picture quality in gaming monitors anymore, see: 1k$ asus swift with a horrible 3h matte coating.

Well, at least TV's are progressing today, you would be hard pressed to find a non glossy, non VA TV in stores.
Click to expand...

Ya, I think the picture quality really has gone to shit, all about 4k/120hz.
 
SD45 said:
I take this to mean "better than other VA panels in the past." If so, which ones?
Click to expand...

There are plenty of good 1080p VA panels available for less than 300$ which are not wide gamut unlike the majority of S-PVA panels, have higher contrast, far less ghosting, lower input lag, lighter coatings, and better colour presets.


Aside from a few special cases (Eizo FG2421 and a few Dells) I doubt the quality of panels has decreased, instead there are more people with access to in depth information which helps them critique the products they buy.
 
NCX said:
There are plenty of good 1080p VA panels available for less than 300$ which are not wide gamut unlike the majority of S-PVA panels, have higher contrast, far less ghosting, lower input lag, lighter coatings, and better colour presets.
Click to expand...

Appreciate your reply but it's unspecific. Name three examples of what you claim and I'll research it and tell you whether I think they live up to, say, the Samsung 244t.
 
seanclayton said:
Upgrade to highend tvs. Day and night when compared to the same ol monitors.
Click to expand...

The problem is that no TVs have G-Sync or adaptive sync. I'm simply not going back. I am never going to suffer with v-sync input lag or tearing again. I'd rather have gray blacks than deal with that laggy shit or hideous tearing again.

Tearing is worse than ANY LCD panel artifact. It's image-destroying.
 
TV panels are getting all the upgrades (minus G-sync) and in general are of better quality. Like it or not enthusiasts like us are a very small minority for PC monitor manufacturers. Making a monitor with our demands in mind just isn't profitable enough for them. We've had maybe two truly gaming centered monitors that were a step forward in recent memory? (Foris and the ROG) Both plagued by defects and panel lottery bullshit.

As of right now PC monitors seem to have almost stalled. Better in some respects , yes , but worse in many others.
 
NCX said:
http://hardforum.com/showthread.php?t=1803228&highlight=

Asus VN279Q, BenQ EW2740L, BenQ VW2430WH, Iiyama X2483HSU, iiyama XB2783HSU, Samsung S2xC750P (review links are available in the thread above).
Click to expand...

Thanks, NCX.

When I pointed out that the original question refers to "overall" quality, I listed concerns about W-LED, the step down from 16:10 to 16:9, and continuing problems with scaling that make it difficult to use high resolution displays for text and spreadsheet work. You point to improvements in ghosting and input lag--not my issues, but I'm obviously in the minority on that.

Color, contrast ratio and coatings: Samsung claimed 1000:1 contrast for the 244t and that certainly seems conservative based on the one I have. I don't recall anyone complaining about poor contrast with a Samsung S-PVA display--nothing like the complaints about IPS displays that were sold at the same time. Nor does the coating used on the 244t present any problem. Color presets have undoubtedly improved in more recent models.

Of the three issues I brought up, the displays you list deal with one. They are all 1920x1080, thus if anything, with dot pitch of about 0.31 text will appear fairly large on screen. There won't be a need to scale up text.

But they are all 16:9 displays, and not surprisingly they all use LED backlighting. This is W-LED backlighting, is it not?
 
The biggest problem with screen quality is LED backlights, I have a CCFL IPS screen here and it has 0 backlight bleed, 0 uniformity problems and 0 IPS glow. Unfortunately its 20".
 
Nicholars said:
The biggest problem with screen quality is LED backlights, I have a CCFL IPS screen here and it has 0 backlight bleed, 0 uniformity problems and 0 IPS glow. Unfortunately its 20".
Click to expand...

I owned plenty of CCFL LCD screens and many of them had uniformity issues so I don't believe you are correct. Its all a lottery. Most panels are just put together on a fast moving line and there is no time to check each one for such things otherwise the cost would be higher.

The truth is the desire of manufacturers to make the cheapest panels is often the reason why we are dealing STILL with uniformity issues years on from CRT's.

You can pay for a cherry picked panel without such issues but you'll pay quite a premium.
 
Godmachine said:
I owned plenty of CCFL LCD screens and many of them had uniformity issues so I don't believe you are correct. Its all a lottery. Most panels are just put together on a fast moving line and there is no time to check each one for such things otherwise the cost would be higher.

The truth is the desire of manufacturers to make the cheapest panels is often the reason why we are dealing STILL with uniformity issues years on from CRT's.

You can pay for a cherry picked panel without such issues but you'll pay quite a premium.
Click to expand...

Totally agreed, backlight bleed had always been an issue long before LED has taken off. And my new BL3200PT has some of the lowest backlight bleed issue I've seen in sub 3K LCD monitors.
 
Godmachine said:
TV panels are getting all the upgrades (minus G-sync) and in general are of better quality. Like it or not enthusiasts like us are a very small minority for PC monitor manufacturers. Making a monitor with our demands in mind just isn't profitable enough for them. We've had maybe two truly gaming centered monitors that were a step forward in recent memory? (Foris and the ROG) Both plagued by defects and panel lottery bullshit.

As of right now PC monitors seem to have almost stalled. Better in some respects , yes , but worse in many others.
Click to expand...

I really don't understand how we're a small minority and it's not profitable yet they can't even keep the ROG Swift in stock. There is a HUGE market for a quality gaming monitor. It's simply that nobody's delivering. It's pure idiocy on their end.
 
bigbluefe said:
I really don't understand how we're a small minority and it's not profitable yet they can't even keep the ROG Swift in stock. There is a HUGE market for a quality gaming monitor. It's simply that nobody's delivering. It's pure idiocy on their end.
Click to expand...

How many PC gamers are ready to spend $800-$1000 on a 1440p panel for a faster refresh rate? I'm going to guess a minority at BEST. Most are content with 1080p and even fewer with 1080p 120hz panels. And even fewer with 1440p panels. You see where I'm going? Most PC gamers don't even know that there is a 1440p monitor capable of 144hz refresh rate.

Its a matter of numbers. If they mass produce thousands and thousands of panels and the sell through takes years because the demand isn't there they lose money in the long run.

Its lame that we don't have what we want but we have to realize that our needs are not the majority and until demand is much greater that's how its going to be and that's how its currently been.

Most gamers I know are still in awe of 1080p. You think a higher refresh rate or G-sync matters to them? Part of the problem is cost as well. It can't be cheap to develop and manufacture the ONLY 1440p 144hz G-sync panel.
 
The uniformity of screens and backlight bleed etc. has 100% definitely got worse since the change from CCFL to LED, also this is the same for LED TV's. Seems to be improving gradually tho compared to the first LED screens and is not as bad with smaller monitors compared to TV's.
 
Last edited:
Godmachine said:
I owned plenty of CCFL LCD screens and many of them had uniformity issues so I don't believe you are correct. Its all a lottery. Most panels are just put together on a fast moving line and there is no time to check each one for such things otherwise the cost would be higher.
Click to expand...

I agree, I think clouding and gray uniformity are both problems on CCFLs too. I'd say black uniformity is better in general though.

I think the biggest problem with CCFL screens is after you have it for a while and one of the bulbs settles to a slightly different temperature or brightness than the others.
 
it is definitely worse on LED that is all I can say about it, it did exist with CCFL as well, but it is certainly worse with LED, especially when they were just released, seems to be getting better at least, the first LED TV's were extremely bad. Something to do with the light diffusers and being closer to the screen or something.
 
It's interesting to see that BenQ has decided to turn lemons into lemonade by touting its eyesight-friendly designs, eliminating PWM dimming and providing user options to reduce blue light emitted by W-LED displays such as the EW2740L.

"Text" provides for a 60% reduction in blue light, and "Reading" 70%. On the one hand, BenQ deserves credit for offering these options; on the other, the fact that a leading manufacturer acknowledges that a 70% reduction is necessary demonstrates the fallacy of broad-brush claims that displays have improved.

And where does that leave color accuracy? One Amazon user says that he uses the standard blue-light setting only for photo editing and one of the low-blue-light options for everything else.
 
Last edited:
I'd say a real good argument exists for a lot of stagnation and on occasion some bizarre backwards steps here and there that happen for any number of reasons starting with costing corners to keep costs down.

^^ Just my observations anyways. I'm pretty dismayed with this scene right now.
 
I was curious about whether a 27-inch 1920-x1080 display would mean some additional vertical size vs. my current Samsung 244t. That might allow Microsoft Word and PDF pages to be displayed a bit larger.

I looked at the BenQ EW2740L but their specs show the overall height from the top of the display to the table, not the height of the panel itself.

The Iiyama X2783HSU-B1 helpfully provides a dimensional drawing. Comparing the interior dimensions of the display:

Samsung 244t: 20.375" wide x 12.75" high (1.60 ratio)
Iiyama X2783HSU-B1: 23.6" wide x 13.3" high (1.77 ratio)

My old Samsung has 1,920 pixels horizontally and 1,200 vertically. The newer display is more than three inches wider but is the same 1,920 pixels across. It is about a half inch taller but reduces the number of pixels to 1,080. Hence its coarser 0.311 pixel pitch, versus 0.27 on the 244t.

This of course is old news to some here. It confirms that if you want the same or (slightly) more vertical space as you have on a 24-inch 1920x1200, you can get it in 27-inch 1920x1080 display. Less obvious is how it will actually work out. What this would mean for me is that I would have a Word doc and, say, a PDF file more or less centered on the display, constrained by its height, with unused spaces on each side. With hardly any increase in the size of the docs on screen. And coarser dot pitch.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top