Samsung vs NEC (16:10)

S

Silent Ricochet

n00b
Joined
Feb 15, 2008
Messages
60
Looking to grab a good 16:10 display for under $150. I'll be using this display primarily for schoolwork, writing code, and in my spare time playing some decently long sessions of BF4. Right now I'm running a horribly old DCLCD DCL20A+ 20.1" display that has served me very well over the years. I have a TV acting as a 2nd monitor and it's pretty inconvenient, although I really enjoy the multitasking ability of having two monitors.

I'm worried about the performance hit I'd take by moving from 1680 x 1050 to 1920 x 1080... I had a friend, with the same GPU, same settings stand in the same spot on the Test Range on BF4 and he got 30 FPS less than me at 1920 x 1080. That's unacceptable to me. That being said, I'm open to suggestions but I'm really focusing my research on these two monitors listed below. So if you had to choose, which monitor would you get? I know NEC and Samsung both make great displays, and I can't seem to find much on both monitors to warrant choosing one over the other.

NEC Display MultiSync E223W-BK
OR
Samsung S22B420BW

Good color representation and response time are important to me, but I understand If I have to make tweaks, it's part of being a PC owner. My only other concern is the display looking goofy at 22" at 1680 x 1050. Low pixel density? But the concerns aren't really founded in anything factual, I just imagine it looking like running a too small of a resolution on a large monitor.

I am open to suggestions. Please note, I'm really not a huge fan of 16:9 displays, too unnatural and wide looking. So to get a 16:9, you'd have to be pretty convincing.

Thanks in advance,
Silent Ricochet

UPDATE! 10/9/14

After reading the feedback from NCX (thanks!) and doing some research on my own in Battlefield 4 in regards to framerate loss, I decided to go with the 22" version of the 16:9 LG monitor NCX recommended to me.

LG 22MP55HQ-P

The difference between my old monitor and this one is night and day. I really could not be happier. Brighter whites, deeper blacks, and the colors are incredible. I cringe every time I look at my second (old) monitor now. HD movies look insane and BF4 looks amazing. Everything is much clearer, sharper and has more depth and contrast. I know I'm not a fan of 16:9 displays, but this one definitely works because it's the same height as my old 16:10 monitor, so the switch wasn't as shocking or dramatic. I'm extremely happy with this monitor and would highly recommend it to anyone looking for an affordable yet quality 1080p display.
 
Last edited:
As an Amazon Associate, HardForum may earn from qualifying purchases.
LG 23MP55HQ-P=<150$: LED PWM Dimming (read about the side effects before buying untested monitors) or Flicker Free IPS panel>TN's which likely use LED PWM Dimming and worse colors.

GPU's have scaling options which can 1:1 pixel map 1600x900 on a 1080p screen=small black bars on the top and bottom and no sharpness lost. BF4 beta test with 1680x1050 and 1920x1080 tests you should read.

I don't live in the US, but it is possible to get Dell P2314H's (LED PWM Dimming/Flicker Free matte IPS with height adjustable stand) and Acer S236HL's (LED PWM Dimming/Flicker Free glossy IPS) for around 150$ depending on sales.
 
NCX said:
LG 23MP55HQ-P=<150$: LED PWM Dimming (read about the side effects before buying untested monitors) or Flicker Free IPS panel>TN's which likely use LED PWM Dimming and worse colors.

GPU's have scaling options which can 1:1 pixel map 1600x900 on a 1080p screen=small black bars on the top and bottom and no sharpness lost. BF4 beta test with 1680x1050 and 1920x1080 tests you should read.

I don't live in the US, but it is possible to get Dell P2314H's (LED PWM Dimming/Flicker Free matte IPS with height adjustable stand) and Acer S236HL's (LED PWM Dimming/Flicker Free glossy IPS) for around 150$ depending on sales.
Click to expand...

The Dell and LG IPS displays are quite intriguing, but aren't IPS displays worse for gaming? I understand the LG display you referenced has a 5ms response time, but does that differ any from a TN panel's 5ms response time? It is equally important that there is no input lag and ghosting as well as nice colors. I may be asking for too much here, but a happy medium is really what I'm shooting for when buying a monitor that runs a relatively small resolution by today's standards.

Also, an 8-10 fps drop in performance is devastating with a setup like mine. I already hit 40FPS in some intense spots on Battlefield 4 during a full 64-player game as it is. I'm not so sure the jump in resolution is worth the performance hit. Besides the fact that the 1920 x 1080 displays are hardly taller than any 16:10 display I could get, which would really help when writing code or reports in MS Word.
 
1920x1080>1680x1050 (the 16:10 monitors you picked) in terms of screen real-estate. Most 5-8ms non-TN panels are faster than 5ms TN's, and buying a TN for the extra speed is pointless if it uses LED PWM Dimming, and most non high end and non-BenQ TN's use PWM. Monitors measured pixel response times are usually 2-4x higher than the advertised rating.
 
NCX said:
1920x1080>1680x1050 (the 16:10 monitors you picked) in terms of screen real-estate. Most 5-8ms non-TN panels are faster than 5ms TN's, and buying a TN for the extra speed is pointless if it uses LED PWM Dimming, and most non high end and non-BenQ TN's use PWM. Monitors measured pixel response times are usually 2-4x higher than the advertised rating.
Click to expand...

Ahhh gotcha, so an IPS is the correct choice.. Now if there were only a way to find a damn 1680x1050 IPS display I'd be sold. I'm really not willing to take the performance hit by upping the resolution.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top