NEW MONITORS 2011

SXTC

Limp Gawd
Joined
Mar 27, 2011
Messages
244
BEFORE YOU MENTION ANY MONITORS, PLEASE KEEP IN MIND TO SPECIFY DETAILS FIRST !
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I-Inc iH-282HPB -- 27.5 inch // TN panel // 1920x1200 // 16:10 // 75Hz // power 80w // 0.309 pixel pitch // 3-5 ms
http://www.tigerdirect.com/applications/searchtools/item-details.asp?EdpNo=4938558

ASUS VW266H -- 25.5 inch // TN panel // 1920x1200 // 16:9 // 83-85Hz // power 60w // 0.287 pixel pitch // 2 ms
http://www.zdnet.com/reviews/product/lcd-monitors/asus-vw266h-lcd-display-tft-255/33411625

DELL U2711 -- 25.5 inch // IPS panel // 2560x1440 // 16:10 // 60Hz // power 94w // 0.233 pixel pitch // 6 ms
http://reviews.cnet.com/lcd-monitor...1/4507-3174_7-33913833.html?tag=mncolBtm;rnav

Acer B273HU -- 25.4 inch // TN panel // 2048 x 1152 // 16:9 // power 42w // 0.292 pixel pitch // 5 ms
http://alatest.com/reviews/monitor-reviews/acer-b273hu/po3-70007581,29/#details
 
Last edited:

Neb

2[H]4U
Joined
Mar 13, 2000
Messages
3,320
BEFORE YOU MENTION ANY MONITORS, PLEASE KEEP IN MIND TO SPECIFY DETAILS FIRST !

I-Inc iH-282HPB -- 27.5 inch // 1920x1200 // 16:10 // 75Hz // power 80w // 0.309 pixel pitch // 3-5 ms
http://www.tigerdirect.com/applications/searchtools/item-details.asp?EdpNo=4938558

ASUS VW266H -- 25.5 inch // 1920x1200 // 16:9 // 83-85Hz // power 60w // 0.287 pixel pitch // 2 ms
http://www.zdnet.com/reviews/product/lcd-monitors/asus-vw266h-lcd-display-tft-255/33411625

DELL U2711 -- 25.5 inch // 2560x1440 // 16:10 // 60Hz // power 94w // 0.233 pixel pitch // 6 ms
http://reviews.cnet.com/lcd-monitor...1/4507-3174_7-33913833.html?tag=mncolBtm;rnav

Diagonal size of the U2711 is 27" and it's not new for 2011...it was released in 2010.

Even though it should be obvious, you should note that Both the I-Inc and ASUS are TN's while the U2711 is IPS. You should also add the price, that's a detail that many people are interested in. ;)
 

Walker

Limp Gawd
Joined
Oct 24, 2004
Messages
355
Diagonal size of the U2711 is 27" and it's not new for 2011...it was released in 2010.
It's also 16:9, not 16:10. The ASUS is the other way around and I believe it isn't new either.
 

SXTC

Limp Gawd
Joined
Mar 27, 2011
Messages
244
It's also 16:9, not 16:10. The ASUS is the other way around and I believe it isn't new either.

Thats what I read online, if it was incorrect then I apoligize for their mistake ^^
(I usualy google for information and then post a link to the site wich I think holds the most information, I did not assume this information would be diffirent from the site I looked at first)
As for the U2711, it came up in mind to mention it since it's currently one of the most wanted monitors out there, I should have realised it was older but I didn't think to double check :p
I will make sure I do not post wrong information eventhough sometimes the release date isn't always mentioned on the site. What I basicly do is try to find the best PC monitors and post them here because if they are worth it, it doesn't realy matter if they are slightly older.. or at least that's my opinion.
 

wagoo

Limp Gawd
Joined
Jan 9, 2008
Messages
425
SXTC, you might want to include panel type in your list too.

Nevermind, you already added it! :)
 

Walker

Limp Gawd
Joined
Oct 24, 2004
Messages
355
Thats what I read online, if it was incorrect then I apoligize for their mistake ^^
(I usualy google for information and then post a link to the site wich I think holds the most information, I did not assume this information would be diffirent from the site I looked at first)
As for the U2711, it came up in mind to mention it since it's currently one of the most wanted monitors out there, I should have realised it was older but I didn't think to double check :p
I will make sure I do not post wrong information eventhough sometimes the release date isn't always mentioned on the site. What I basicly do is try to find the best PC monitors and post them here because if they are worth it, it doesn't realy matter if they are slightly older.. or at least that's my opinion.

Well it's obviously a mistake because you can easily calculate aspect ratio from the resolution ;)

It doesn't really matter at all whether a display is a new model or not. I wouldn't swap my 5 years old PVA with any new TN on the market. It's just that the thread is titled New Monitors 2011 so perhaps it would be a better idea to make a list of real new 2011 models because if we were to make a list that would include every decent LCD released in the last couple of years the thread could turn into a bit of a mess as most of those specs are not very meaningful and the linked reviews don't seem in depth and professional at all. JMO ;)
 

SXTC

Limp Gawd
Joined
Mar 27, 2011
Messages
244
Well it's obviously a mistake because you can easily calculate aspect ratio from the resolution ;)

It doesn't really matter at all whether a display is a new model or not. I wouldn't swap my 5 years old PVA with any new TN on the market. It's just that the thread is titled New Monitors 2011 so perhaps it would be a better idea to make a list of real new 2011 models because if we were to make a list that would include every decent LCD released in the last couple of years the thread could turn into a bit of a mess as most of those specs are not very meaningful and the linked reviews don't seem in depth and professional at all. JMO ;)

you are obviously more experienced so please tell me how I can easily calculate the aspect ratio from the resolutions. I would love to learn ^^
Anyhow I will not mention the panel type anymore as you please.
Btw here's another one:

Auria EQ266A -- 26.5 inch // 1920x1200 // 5 ms // power 25w // 60Hz // With speakers
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16824611005
 

dudewth

[H]|G Minecraft Division Leader
Joined
Jul 13, 2002
Messages
1,976
you are obviously more experienced so please tell me how I can easily calculate the aspect ratio from the resolutions.
You just divide the horizontal resolution by the vertical.

16/9 = 1.77777777777777
16/10 = 1.6

2560/1440 = 1.7777777777777
1920/1200 = 1.6
1920/1080 = 1.7777777777777777
2560/1600 = 1.6

etc.
 

SXTC

Limp Gawd
Joined
Mar 27, 2011
Messages
244
You just divide the horizontal resolution by the vertical.

16/9 = 1.77777777777777
16/10 = 1.6

2560/1440 = 1.7777777777777
1920/1200 = 1.6
1920/1080 = 1.7777777777777777
2560/1600 = 1.6

etc.

That's indeed easy enough XD I'm ashamed I didn't know yet but thanks to you now I do.
I'll keep looking for more monitors, if I find any you'll be the first to know (although I won't mention announced monitors of wich no information is given).
If anyone sees one not mentioned here yet please share it with the rest of us.

EDIT:

found another one:

DS-277W -- 27 inch // 2560 x 1440 // 16:9 // 0.2331 mm pixel pitch // 6 ms // Integrated speakers
http://www.zdnet.com/reviews/product/lcd-monitors/doublesight-ds-277w-lcd-display-tft-27/34504487
 
Last edited:

cvgd

Limp Gawd
Joined
Mar 20, 2011
Messages
421
These resolutions have a 16:9 aspect ratio:

1280x720
1366x768
1600x900
1920x1080
2560x1440

These resolutions have a 16x10 aspect ratio:

1280x800
1440x900
1680x1050
1920x1200
2560x1600

An aspect ratio is the relationship between the horizontal dimension and the vertical dimension of a landscape oriented monitor. For every 16 pixels across, a monitor is either 9 or 10 pixels tall.

There are too many monitor models released every year for this to be a fruitful project, imho. You should narrow it down some, by price segment, panel type, resolution, or similar. At the same time, I'm not sure that the monitor market is dynamic enough to differentiate between 2011 and 2010 (and even 2009) models.

Here are the current 27" 2560x1440 monitors:

Dell u2711
Apple 27" Cinema Display
Nec PA271
Hazro HZ27WC
Hazro HZ27WA
Doublesight DS-275W
 

SXTC

Limp Gawd
Joined
Mar 27, 2011
Messages
244
These resolutions have a 16:9 aspect ratio:

1280x720
1366x768
1600x900
1920x1080
2560x1440

These resolutions have a 16x10 aspect ratio:

1280x800
1440x900
1680x1050
1920x1200
2560x1600

An aspect ratio is the relationship between the horizontal dimension and the vertical dimension of a landscape oriented monitor. For every 16 pixels across, a monitor is either 9 or 10 pixels tall.

There are too many monitor models released every year for this to be a fruitful project, imho. You should narrow it down some, by price segment, panel type, resolution, or similar. At the same time, I'm not sure that the monitor market is dynamic enough to differentiate between 2011 and 2010 (and even 2009) models.

Here are the current 27" 2560x1440 monitors:

Dell u2711
Apple 27" Cinema Display
Nec PA271
Hazro HZ27WC
Hazro HZ27WA
Doublesight DS-275W

you are right, I should ask a moderator/admin to change the topic title to NEWEST MONITORS
 

dpoverlord

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Nov 18, 2004
Messages
1,824
 

SXTC

Limp Gawd
Joined
Mar 27, 2011
Messages
244
Does anybody know when the Asus PA238Q is coming out?

Long Name: PA238Q
Display-type: Flat screen resolution: 1920 x 1200
Display / Diagonal size: 23
Display / Technology: P-IPS
Display / Screen clarity: 250
Brand: Asus

No mention about a release date... double checked so you'll have to wait a little longer (or so I hope it will only be a little)
 
Joined
Nov 5, 2008
Messages
767
Long Name: PA238Q
Display-type: Flat screen resolution: 1920 x 1200
Display / Diagonal size: 23
Display / Technology: P-IPS
Display / Screen clarity: 250
Brand: Asus

No mention about a release date... double checked so you'll have to wait a little longer (or so I hope it will only be a little)
Is it really 1920x1200? If so, hopefully it'll follow in the 246q's footsteps and not screw up on the AG coating. Definitely worth waiting a little longer for more information.
 

SXTC

Limp Gawd
Joined
Mar 27, 2011
Messages
244
Is it really 1920x1200? If so, hopefully it'll follow in the 246q's footsteps and not screw up on the AG coating. Definitely worth waiting a little longer for more information.

Thats what I read online, double checked the screen type so it will most likely be accurate.

Anyhow found another screen, not new but as I said I don't know how to change the topic title or I would have made it "BEST PERFORMING MONITORS" or something like that.
Nonetheless I thought it was worth mentioning.

ASUS VW266H -- 25.5 inch // 1920 x 1200 // 2ms // 85Hz // Integrated speakers //
http://www.nextag.com/Asus-25-5-Widescreen-640875692/specs-html
 
Last edited:

PeaKr

Gawd
Joined
Sep 6, 2004
Messages
890
Hopefully these will be glossy. I prefer the dark. I'm also after the 24". Waiting for the reviews.
 

Walker

Limp Gawd
Joined
Oct 24, 2004
Messages
355
bleh 12ms.... too friggin slow for gaming

12ms ISO, 5ms G2G. Sounds pretty standard and I'm guessing on par with current IPS panels which is fine as long as the input lag isn't too high.
 

tangoseal

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Dec 18, 2010
Messages
9,330
We need A LOT more 16:10 LCDs to come out Period!!!

This 1080p television crap sucks for true computing usage. Games are not as good in it as well now that Im using 16:10 after all these last few years of 1080p junk.

No offense to those whom like it. It works for a lot of people. Just give us 16:10'ers more to choose from. You 16:9'ers have tons already.
 

SXTC

Limp Gawd
Joined
Mar 27, 2011
Messages
244
12ms ISO, 5ms G2G. Sounds pretty standard and I'm guessing on par with current IPS panels which is fine as long as the input lag isn't too high.

Pretty standard yes, and that is why most people here will agree that most LCD's out today are total crap.

As for the input lag (ms) I see a lot of true gamers stating that it is visible during hardcore gaming (screen quality decreases on 2 sides if you move around to fast with high settings when above 6ms).
I've seen 2 testing labs even mentioning that they advice 5ms and lower for best performance gaming, they even showed a testscreen to prove it. So sorry that I will not just take anyone on their words even if they might be true.. I just want to make sure I end up with the best screen available on the market, if it is ever released ... sigh.. And I can't just take the word of another person since I know most people don't have the eyes or the reaction speed to notice.
 

SXTC

Limp Gawd
Joined
Mar 27, 2011
Messages
244
We need A LOT more 16:10 LCDs to come out Period!!!

This 1080p television crap sucks for true computing usage. Games are not as good in it as well now that Im using 16:10 after all these last few years of 1080p junk.

No offense to those whom like it. It works for a lot of people. Just give us 16:10'ers more to choose from. You 16:9'ers have tons already.

True, I bought my screen depending on the performance I read online and I've been very satisfied with it (also 16:10). Only problem is that I think 22" is too small XD (screen scored around 88% and is an LG - WTQ at the end)
 
Last edited:

JaguarSKX

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Aug 19, 2008
Messages
1,449
BEFORE YOU MENTION ANY MONITORS, PLEASE KEEP IN MIND TO SPECIFY DETAILS FIRST !
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I-Inc iH-282HPB -- 27.5 inch // TN panel // 1920x1200 // 16:10 // 75Hz // power 80w // 0.309 pixel pitch // 3-5 ms
http://www.tigerdirect.com/applications/searchtools/item-details.asp?EdpNo=4938558

ASUS VW266H -- 25.5 inch // TN panel // 1920x1200 // 16:9 // 83-85Hz // power 60w // 0.287 pixel pitch // 2 ms
http://www.zdnet.com/reviews/product/lcd-monitors/asus-vw266h-lcd-display-tft-255/33411625

DELL U2711 -- 25.5 inch // IPS panel // 2560x1440 // 16:10 // 60Hz // power 94w // 0.233 pixel pitch // 6 ms
http://reviews.cnet.com/lcd-monitor...1/4507-3174_7-33913833.html?tag=mncolBtm;rnav

Acer B273HU -- 25.4 inch // TN panel // 2048 x 1152 // 16:9 // power 42w // 0.292 pixel pitch // 5 ms
http://alatest.com/reviews/monitor-reviews/acer-b273hu/po3-70007581,29/#details


Dude....

The I-Inc iH-282HPB is from late 2009.

The Asus VW266H is from mid/late 2009.

The Dell U2711 was released back in February or March of 2010.

The Acer B273HU is from early/mid 2009.


I am not sure you understand the concept or the meaning of the word "new".
 
Last edited:

Walker

Limp Gawd
Joined
Oct 24, 2004
Messages
355
Pretty standard yes, and that is why most people here will agree that most LCD's out today are total crap.

As for the input lag (ms) I see a lot of true gamers stating that it is visible during hardcore gaming (screen quality decreases on 2 sides if you move around to fast with high settings when above 6ms).
I've seen 2 testing labs even mentioning that they advice 5ms and lower for best performance gaming, they even showed a testscreen to prove it. So sorry that I will not just take anyone on their words even if they might be true.. I just want to make sure I end up with the best screen available on the market, if it is ever released ... sigh.. And I can't just take the word of another person since I know most people don't have the eyes or the reaction speed to notice.
Well, for best gaming performance possible you might as well go ahead and use a CRT since no LCD is near as good when it comes to motion, not even 120Hz ones. Don't confuse input lag with response time. All I'm saying is 5ms G2G sounds fine on paper, due to different speeds across all color transitions it's not unusual to see a 5ms IPS perform better than a 2ms TN etc. What the input lag will be like on these screens we don't know yet.
 

SXTC

Limp Gawd
Joined
Mar 27, 2011
Messages
244
Well, for best gaming performance possible you might as well go ahead and use a CRT since no LCD is near as good when it comes to motion, not even 120Hz ones. Don't confuse input lag with response time. All I'm saying is 5ms G2G sounds fine on paper, due to different speeds across all color transitions it's not unusual to see a 5ms IPS perform better than a 2ms TN etc. What the input lag will be like on these screens we don't know yet.

so basicly there's no way of knowing wich screen will outperform another??
There has to be a way to tell wich is faster isn't there?...
 

Walker

Limp Gawd
Joined
Oct 24, 2004
Messages
355
so basicly there's no way of knowing wich screen will outperform another??
Based solely on the ms number, yeah, pretty much. You can kind of guess what the response time will be like based on panel type and whether or not it uses RTC but it always depends how it is setup. That's why some monitors that share the same panel don't have the same response time performance. As far as input lag goes, since there isn't a spec for that all we can do is to wait for reliable reviews such as those on prad.de.
 

GuyClinch

Gawd
Joined
Feb 4, 2006
Messages
544
If all the transistions were 12MS and under that would actually be pretty fast by IPS standard. Almost no monitor is really as fast as the misleading GtG time that is stated.
 

GuyClinch

Gawd
Joined
Feb 4, 2006
Messages
544
You can kind of guess what the response time will be like based on panel type and whether or not it uses RTC but it always depends how it is setup. That's why some monitors that share the same panel don't have the same response time performance. As far as input lag goes, since there isn't a spec for that all we can do is to wait for reliable reviews such as those on prad.de.

Walker is generally right here IMHO. But I would say that if you look at XBIT labs reviews and other reviews the best TN's are quite a bit faster then even the best IPS. Some of the newer IPS with RTC are certainly fast enough to game on thoug without any real noticeable artifacts. I will explain why..

What you want IMHO is that for every frame your monitor refreshes all your 'transitions' are less then that time. If its longer you will have a sparkle type of effect even if your monitor is rated as fast.

This would make alot more sense if you look at one of those xbit graphs.

http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/monitors/display/samsung-sm-f2080-f2380_5.html#sect0

Because some of those transitions are really slow that can cause some issues in gaming or even some movies. Even if the 'rated' average transition times are no where near 70ms. Because of Samsung's shoddy PVA history most people are a bit nervous with regards to the responsiveness of the new PLS monitor. I think it will be fine though. Those numbers are not worrisome. Samsung legacy of fudging a bit is.

The PVA gets to be 'fast enough' compared to a IPS in theory 16.7ms (I have seen IPS around 13ms for average time (not GtG) like the NEC one tested. But the awful transitions from in the dark grays can lead to some real issues..in real world performance. Whereas with the IPS models because all the transition times are similiar the effect is quite manageable.

The reviews at XBIT explain this stuff better then me - check it out.
 
Top